Sitting of 7 July 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William O'Brien, esquire, for the North East Division of the County of Cork.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions[July 4 & 6] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation * [313]; Poinding (Scotland) * [314].
Second Reading—Distressed Unions (Ireland) [307].
Committee—Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* [220]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Butterine (Fraudulent Sale) (re-comm.) [309] (changed to Margarine (Fraudulent Sale).
Third Reading—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [First Night] [305], debate adjourned.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Public Health (Scotland) (Duntocher and Dalmuir Water)* [288].
Considered as amended—Local Government (No. 7)* [282].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c.) [272], and. passed.

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

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th June], "That the Lords' Amendments be now taken into Consideration."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. DILLON: I regret very much that I am compelled by the circumstances of the case to ask the House to adjourn for another week the consideration of this Bill. ["Oh !"] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen, before they express their disapprobation, will listen to my explanations. It will be in the recollection of the House that this Bill has for a long period been postponed from time to time, for one object, and for one object only—namely, to secure the passing of another Bill which relates to the subject, in order to provide that something should be done to secure for the ratepayers of Belfast the full control over the expenditure of the money which is involved in the passing of this Bill. At this very moment, I understand that the House of Lords is engaged in con-
    32
    sidering the Report and Amendments of the Security Bill, and we are absolutely in the dark as to what shape that Bill will ultimately take. That has been the sole object with which these repeated adjournments have been assented to by the House, and that object has not yet been achieved. I cannot conceive anything more absurd than that this House, having consented to repeated postponements for a certain object, should now allow this Bill to be passed before that object has been attained. No doubt, it will be urged by the promoters of the Bill that they have been subjected to great inconvenience by those repeated adjournments; but, in reply to that argument, I say that they have to thank "another place," where the progress of Public Business is extremely slow. That is not our fault. If the Irish Members had any control over the matter, the Security Bill would have been passed long ago, in order that the questions it involved might receive full discussion here. I feel bound, under the circumstances of the case, to move that the further consideration of the Lords' Amendments be adjourned until this day week.
    MR. SPEAKER: May I suggest to the hon. Member that the proper course is to move the adjournment of the debate?
    MR. DILLON: Then I beg to do so.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    SIR JAMES CORRY: It is absolutely impossible that we can consent to this Motion. We have repeatedly consented to adjournments, and on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House the debate was adjourned, at the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, until to-day, on the distinct understanding that the Lords' Amendments should be then considered. I think it is very unfair to ask for a further postponement. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has referred to a Bill which is in "another place;" but my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) has given Notice of a clause which he proposes to add to the Main Drainage Bill which will give to the ratepayers of Belfast the most complete control over the drainage works and the expenditure which they will involve. This clause has

    33
    been very carefully drafted, and I know that it meets with the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I believe that it will give to the ratepayers of Belfast even more complete control over the expenditure of money than the clause which has been inserted in the Franchise Bill in "another place." It is not possible for me to discuss the Franchise Bill at the present moment; but I feel bound to resist the Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Baronet has informed the House that it is not possible for him to consent to the further adjournment asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo. I think I shall be able to show in a very few words that it is utterly impossible for the House to proceed with this measure at the present moment. The hon. Baronet referred to an understanding which was come to in my absence on Monday last. I very much regret that, in consequence of certain important business in Ireland, I was prevented from being present on that occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) said on that occasion that he believed there would he a prospect to the Lords' Amendments being considered to-day; but he was then under the impression that what my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo has rightly called the "Security Bill" would be in our hands to-day. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Security Bill is still in the House of Lords, and that House is engaged at the present moment considering the Report of the Amendments upon it. We have now a demand made upon us, which I can only characterize as unprecedented, to allow this Bill to go out of our hands without having the Franchise Bill before us, and without being able to arrive at any notion of the form which the security is to take. No doubt, there have been repeated postponements; but why has the Bill been postponed? It has been postponed in order to obtain an object which has not yet been achieved. This House has passed a Bill to extend the municipal franchise in Belfast, and this House has declared not only that the franchise shall be extended, but that the extended franchise shall be applied to the Register of the present year; in other words, that the present Town Council
    34
    are to go out of office this year, and, until the new Council are elected, no steps shall be taken to fix upon the borough of Belfast the liability involved in carrying out this scheme—a liability of the expenditure of £500,000, imposed upon a town which is already burdened with a debt of £750,000. Then, how can we proceed with the Lords' Amendments to this Bill to-day? The very first Amendment of importance is a new provision which has been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords. The Lords have struck out the clause inserted here which extends the municipal franchise in Belfast. It was in view of the Amendment that this House passed the Municipal Franchise Bill. The Lords have allowed an extension of the franchise; but they have struck out the provision which applied the new franchise to the Register of the present year, and they have struck out a further provision which forbade the Town Council of Belfast from proceeding with their scheme until the new Council shall have been elected. Noble Lords, acting on behalf of the Town Council of Belfast, have struck out every vestige of security without being in possession of any absolute knowledge of the merits of the question. I understand that it is intended to move the restoration of those clauses, and we may know the result in the course of an hour or two. At present, however, we do not know the result, and yet we are, nevertheless, asked to give up the last security we have in regard to the question. I will ask you, Sir, how, in such a case, I am to proceed? How am I to decide whether or not I ought to ask the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendments, which have so materially altered the character of the Franchise Clause? When the Bill comes down from the House of Lords we shall know the final shape the Amendments have assumed. If I knew now that the new Town Council will be elected upon the extended franchise this year I could make up my mind; but until we are able to make up our minds on that point it is impossible to say what course we ought to take. No doubt, before this day week, we shall know what has been done by the House of Lords, and whether we ought to accept these Amendments or not. If the House refuses the reasonable request of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo,

    35
    I shall have no alternative but to move that the House disagree with the Amendments of the Lords; and, to begin with, it will be necessary to discuss at length the most important one—namely, that which relates to the extension of the municipal franchise. I will only ask the House if it is necessary or desirable that a long debate should take place upon that point, which subsequent events may render altogether unnecessary? Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will ask you for a moment to give your kind attention to the question, especially in reference to the clause which the hon. Member for North Belfast proposes to introduce. As the House is aware, we are now in the stage of considering the Lords' Amendments, and I ask you, Sir, if it will be in Order to discuss any Amendment which does not deal strictly with the Amendments which have been introduced by the House of Lords? I take it that the only Constitutional right which this House now possesses is to consider the Amendments which the House of Lords have made in the Bill. The hon. Member for North Belfast proposes to introduce an Amendment which does not deal with any matter that has been touched upon by the Lords' Amendments. The Bill proposes that the franchise shall be exercised in a certain manner, but the hon. Member proposes that it shall be dealt with in another manner. There is nothing in this Bill which deals with Schedule 3 of the Public Health Act, and I would submit to you, Sir, that it is not competent for the House to consider, or for the hon. Member to move, any clause of this kind. The protection which the clause offers to the ratepayers of Belfast is altogether illusory. I regard it as a breach of faith, and as one of the Representatives of the people of Belfast, who are the persons most concerned in the Bill, I protest against it, and shall resist it to the utmost—in the first place, because it is out of Order; and, secondly, because it stultifies the action of the people of Belfast. The House has passed a clause declaring that the powers of the Bill shall be exercised after a public election of the Town Council under a certain franchise, and the hon. Member who proposes this clause is clearly asking the House to stultify itself in deciding the question before it can possibly know
    36
    what course has been taken in "another place" in reference to the Franchise Bill. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should have the audacity to come here, while the matter is in suspense, to ask us to traverse and overcome the settlement which has already been arrived at by admitting an absurd and fantastic clause which it is altogether out of Order to introduce into a Private Bill. Under these circumstances, I maintain that it is impossible to proceed with the Bill to-day; and I ask you, Sir, if it is in Order for the hon. Gentleman to propose the clause he has placed upon the Paper, and to represent it as a proper question to discuss on the consideration of Amendments of the House of Lords which have no reference whatever to the subject?
    MR. SPEAKER: In reference to the point of Order I will read Clause 33a, which has been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords in substitution of Clause 34—
    "The Corporation shall, within seven years from the passing of this Act, make and complete such low level sewers and works as may be necessary for intercepting and diverting into the outfall works by this Act authorized all the sewage flowing into the River Lagan and the Victoria Channel through the sewers of the Corporation which shall not be intercepted by the high level sewers by this Act authorized, and the Corporation shall commence such low level sewers and works as soon as the other works by this Act authorized shall he so far advanced that they can conveniently do so."
    The new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) proposes to restrict the action to be taken, or the expenditure to be incurred under the Act, until the execution of the works has received the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the borough. I cannot say that such a proposal is out of Order. It appears to be consequential upon the new clause introduced by the House of Lords to restrict the liability which may be incurred under the Act, and it is certainly not irrelevant to that clause.
    MR. SEXTON: May I, Sir, respectfully explain that as the Main Drainage Bill stood in the House of Commons it was optional with the Corporation of Belfast to proceed with the second part of the Bill? It was compulsory upon them to proceed with the first part; but the Committee of the House of Lords made a material change in the measure by inserting a clause which obliges the

    37
    Corporation of Belfast to proceed with certain works within a limited number of years after the passing of the Act. That is the point which I raised as a question of Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think I can rule in any other way than that in which I have already ruled. As I have said before, I do not think it is out of Order, or that it would be improper, to restrict the action of the Corporation in reference to the incurring of any liability in respect of the drainage works until the execution of the works itself has received the sanction of the owners and ratepayers of the borough.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): On the point of Order, Sir, I think your ruling is conclusive. With regard to the question of adjournment, I would remind the House that this Bill was exactly in the same position on Monday as it is now. The plea then raised for an adjournment was solely that it was undesirable to consider the Bill in the absence of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). ["No !"] There was no other ground assigned. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon who says "No!" I was present myself on the occasion, and I know that that was the only objection which was raised to proceeding with the Bill. Indeed, it was said that if the hon. Gentleman had been present no objection would have been raised to go on with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and it was solely in consequence of the absence of the hon. Member that the debate was adjourned until to-day upon the distinct understanding that however unavoidable his absence might be, whether he was here to-day or not, the Bill would go on. The matter having been decided in that way, I confess I think that the House would scarcely be acting consistently with what was done last Monday if it were to consent now to a further adjournment.
    MR. NORRIS: The Question before the House is whether the debate should be again adjourned, and I wish to say a few words in order to explain the reason which induces me to support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo. I entirely concur in every word that has been stated by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). I think we
    38
    are not only justified, but bound, to hang up a final decision upon the Drainage Bill until we are in a position to know whether, in the interests of local self-government, there is to be a satisfactory extension of the municipal franchise in the borough of Belfast or not. A great deal has been said about local self-government; and what does local self-government mean in this case but the extension of the municipal franchise? Therefore, I think it is perfectly consistent with the principles I hold and our advocacy of this Bill that in the absence of the measure now in the House of Lords for the extension of the municipal franchise further time should be given for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments in the Drainage Bill. The hon. Member for West Belfast has pointed out that the Lords' Bill is not now before us; and, therefore, we are unable to consider the principle upon which the extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland is to be carried out, and whether the local self-government which we are continually advocating for this country is to be extended to Ireland or not. I therefore hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will join with me in supporting the Motion for the adjournment of this debate. I would remind hon. Members that on a former occasion, when a local question connected with West London was before the House, many Members gave way in deference to the opinion and feeling of the people who were principally interested. I regard the present circumstances as of a similar character; and with these few words I beg to say that I, on my part, shall support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I hope, Sir, that the House will refuse to listen to any proposition for the further postponement of this important question. As one of those Members whose constituents are deeply interested in the passing of the Bill, I am almost ashamed of the number of times hon. Members have been required to come down to support the measure, with the only result of finding the Bill postponed, from time to time, in order to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If any pledge was ever given in this House that was of a positive character, it was the pledge given on Mon-

    39
    day last by the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny), on behalf of the hon. Member for West Belfast, that the Lords' Amendments should be taken into consideration to-day. The ratepayers of Belfast will be afforded a full opportunity of considering the measure and of controlling the execution of the works, as will be evident to every man who will read the new clause which is proposed to be inserted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart). I know that it would be out of Order to discuss that clause now, and, therefore, I will not attempt to do so; but hon. Gentlemen who have urged so strongly that the ratepayers should be given full control over the expenditure before the works are carried into execution must be aware that the delay in proceeding with the Municipal Franchise Bill in "another place" is not attributable to any action on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast, or of the promoters of the Drainage Bill, but, on the contrary, that the postponement of that measure until to-day was resolved upon at the instance of a noble Lord who supports the views of the hon. Member for West Belfast. I think that we, who are deeply interested in the matter, on behalf of the citizens of Belfast, should be no longer trifled with, but that the House should proceed at once to take the Lords' Amendments into consideration.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: As I moved the Amendment on Monday I desire to say one or two words. When the House adjourned the debate upon the Bill on Monday last, it was not solely on the ground of the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, but equally on the ground that we expected, on this day, that the House would be in possession of the Bill which is now under consideration in "another place," and which was down for consideration on Monday last, but which, instead of being considered and disposed of on Tuesday, as we had every reason then to believe and expect, has been adjourned for consideration until this day. The result is that both Bills have been set down for consideration on the same day—one in the other House and one in this House. Now, I think it is absolutely impossible for this House to proceed with the consideration of the present Bill, with any degree of satisfaction, until it is in possession of the
    40
    final shape which the Municipal Franchise Bill is to take in "another place." It was on these grounds that I moved the adjournment of the debate on Monday, and since then the second of those grounds has become of considerable importance.
    MR. DE COBAIN: As one of the Members for Belfast, I wish to state the feeling which I entertain upon this matter. I am perfectly ready to say that, as far as I can understand the conclusion which the House arrived at in regard to this question on a previous occasion, it was that, in the mind of the House, it was our duty to give the people of Belfast popular control over the public expenditure. It appears to me that the action taken by the House of Lords in reference to the Franchise Bill, which would enable the ratepaying class of Belfast to give full expression to their opinion in regard to the merits of this measure, has practically rescinded the decision arrived at in this House. If there was any undertaking in regard to the course to be taken in reference to the Main Drainage Bill, it was accompanied by an undertaking, on behalf of the promoters of the measure, that the Franchise Bill, which is now in the House of Lords, should be before this House before any final decision was arrived at. There was a clear understanding that if the Franchise Bill was passed in an unobjectionable form, we in this House were quite ready to allow the Main Drainage Bill to pass. But the promoters of the Main Drainage Bill in the House of Lords, who are the friends of the Corporation of Belfast, have endeavoured to defer the operation of the Franchise Bill until November, 1888; and our view is that if the Franchise Bill cannot be brought into immediate operation, and the whole of the ratepaying classes cannot have the power of dealing with the question on the 25th of next November, all the objections we have expressed to the passing of the Drainage Bill, in the absence of a complete control over the execution of the works by the inhabitants, will be defeated. If, on the contrary, it is provided that the opinions of the ratepayers shall be clearly expressed on the 25th of November next, all our objections to the immediate passing of the present measure will be removed, and I should then be disposed strongly to advise the House to pass the Bill. I

    41
    received a copy of a resolution passed I unanimously by the Corporation of Belfast, in which they asked the Members for the borough of Belfast to support the immediate passing of the "Franchise Act," which was to extend the municipal register of that borough. After passing this resolution to meet the eye of the people of Belfast, the representatives of the Corporation went to the House of Lords, to get that House to delay the operation of the Franchise Act, so that the Main Drainage Bill might have a start of it by nearly a year and a half. I consider that to be a most perfidious breach of faith with the working classes of Belfast, but perfectly in harmony with the course the promoters of both measures have pursued from the first. I think the House ought to he able to trust the people of Belfast; and I respectfully submit that the inhabitants of that borough have quite as strong a claim upon the consideration of both Houses of Parliament as the Corporation—a privileged class who are the promoters of this main drainage scheme. If a guarantee is given by the promoters of the Bill that the expenditure involved in carrying out the drainage scheme will be placed immediately under the control of the ratepayers, then I am prepared to consent to the passing of the present Bill; but if no such guarantee is given, I trust the House will agree to the Motion for adjourning the debate.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Having voted in favour of the previous adjournment of the consideration of this Bill, I desire now to express a hope that the House will not consent to a further adjournment, and I will state, in a few words, why I take that ground. A great many Members consented to the adjournment of the Bill on account of the state of the borough franchise in Belfast. A measure to remedy that state of the franchise has passed through this House, and is now before the other House of Parliament. It is quite true that in "another place" Amendments have been made of which I and others do not approve; but those Amendments will have to come back here for the sanction of this House before they can become law, and the promoters of the Bill have done everything in their power to meet the wishes and aims of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Indeed, they have consented to insert in the Bill a clause which will enable and entitle
    42
    every ratepayer in Belfast to vote "Aye" or "No" whether one farthing shall be expended in carrying out the provisions of the Franchise Bill or not. Under these circumstances, I earnestly hope that the House will not consent to postpone the Bill one day longer. The measure is earnestly needed in Belfast, and it ought to be allowed to pass at once.
    MR. EWART: I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I only wish to say that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has entirely failed to meet the arguments which have been brought forward in favour of going on with the Bill. On the last occasion when the Bill was under discussion, I pointed to the fact that it was impossible to get the new Burgess Roll ready in time for the next election in November, and that the risk would be run of bringing the town affairs of Belfast to a deadlock. I pass over the abusive observations of the hon. Member for West Belfast; but, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I wish to say that the promoters of the Bill are not responsible for the delay which has occurred in the House of Lords. Some allusion has been made to a noble Lord having been employed by the Town Council of Belfast to take charge of the matter in the House of Lords; but I think I might retort on hon. Members opposite and say that the noble Lord who has been employed by the opponents to take charge of their interests was the very person who moved the adjournment of the consideration of the Franchise Bill from Monday last until to-day. Consequently, the promoters of the Bill are in no way responsible for the delay which has occurred. If the House of Lords make any Amendments in the Franchise Bill which are not palatable to this House, the House will have an opportunity of dealing with them when the Bill comes down here. I believe that the clause which I propose will meet all the objections of the hon. Member behind me (Mr. De Cobain). It places the entire power in the hands of the constituency, who will be able to say when and how the Bill is to be brought into operation.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 178: Majority 14,—(Div. List, No. 288.)
    Original Question again proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Ewart.)
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): On the question of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, it may, perhaps, save a little time if I am allowed to make a short statement. The House will remember that when this Bill was originally before us clauses were inserted in it dealing with the municipal franchise of Belfast—a matter which, at the time, I thought was foreign to the subject-matter of the Bill, and I opposed their insertion. Nevertheless, the House agreed to those clauses, and the Bill went up to the House of Lords, where they were struck out. Substantially, therefore, a great change was made in the Bill, and the matter came back to this House for reconsideration. It was then argued with great force, and I thought with great substantiality, that it was improper that the important works which were to be undertaken under the provisions of the Bill should be conducted under the auspices of a Town Council elected by a very restricted franchise. It was suggested, in order to avoid what was conceived to be the impropriety of entrusting the execution of the works to a Corporate Body elected upon the basis of a narrow franchise, that another Bill should be brought in dealing with the municipal franchise in Ireland, and that the existing municipal franchise should be reduced throughout the whole of the boroughs of Ireland. On the understanding that a Bill of that character should be promoted as rapidly as possible the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the present Bill was suspended, and this House ultimately arrived at conditions under which the main drainage scheme might be set going, with a proper control of the expenditure on the part of the ratepayers of Belfast. The Franchise Bill, however, was cut down, in the first instance, from a measure which dealt with the boroughs of Ireland generally to one which dealt with the borough of Belfast alone. Such a measure, however, would secure that the popular control should still be exercised in regard to these works; and, therefore, it was considered that the Bill might be allowed to go on, and the Lords' Amendments be accepted. The Bill
    44
    which deals with the municipal franchise of Belfast was introduced into this House by the promoters of the Drainage Bill, and it passed this House with a clause in it making the first election of the full Town Council of Belfast come into operation during the present year. In that form the Franchise Bill went up to the other House of Parliament. What hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House objected to was that the Town Council of Belfast, in an unreformed and unregenerate condition, should be allowed to exercise control over these drainage works. But objection has now been taken that it is impossible to complete a new Burgess Roll this year, so as to secure the election of a Town Council in November next upon the proposed new and extended municipal franchise. Therefore, as I understand, an alteration has been made in the provisions of the Bill in "another place" delaying for one year the election of the Town Council upon the new and extended franchise. Of course, if that stood alone without any further change, and the Lords' Amendments to this Bill were accepted, we should again lose what has been substantially aimed at throughout the consideration of this measure; we should entrust the existing Town Council of Belfast with the power of carrying out this great scheme, although it may not possess the confidence of the ratepayers, and although it may not act for the public good of the city. There may be great force in the allegation which is made as to the difficulty of making up the Burgess Roll this year, and there may be good ground for an Amendment, in consequence, postponing the election of the new Town Council until next year. This question, however, arises—namely, what is to be done with this Bill? Can we assent to the Lords' Amendments in this Bill and give the existing Town Council unrestricted control over these drainage works? That is the substantial question we have to consider. A clause is now about to be submitted to the House for consideration which you, Sir, have admitted to be in Order, and I have no doubt that it is in Order, because it is consequential in substance, if not altogether in form, with, the provisions of the Bill so far as the Lords' Amendments are concerned. That clause is intended, and I conceive that it would secure, the complete control of the

    45
    ratepayers of Belfast over the execution of these works. The clause provides that—
    "No action shall be taken for liability incurred in respect of the works by this Act authorized unless or until the execution of such works has the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the borough to he expressed by resolution in the manner directed by Schedule 3 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which, for the purpose of such resolution, shall be read and have effect as applicable to the borough and as if the expression 'ratepayers' meant all persons liable to the payment of the general purposes rate or the borough rate."
    If this clause is adopted it will have the effect of bringing into operation what is commonly known as the Borough Funds Act, and nothing can be done under the Bill until there has been a poll, and the wishes of the ratepayers have been consulted—not a restricted body of ratepayers, but ratepayers under the largest and widest possible franchise getting rid altogether of questions which relate to compounding and quasi-compounding for the rates, which, I believe, is largely the custom in the borough of Belfast. Therefore, what is aimed at by those who are in favour of the decision, in regard to the execution of the drainage works, being given to the ratepayers at large will be secured by the adoption of this clause, although it may be found that the reconstitution of the Town Council of Belfast, according to the Franchise Bill as it may come back from the House of Lords, will be postponed for a year on the ground of the technical difficulty of getting a new Burgess Roll completed before November. If the Franchise Bill conies back to this House in that form, surely there will be secured to the ratepayers of Belfast complete control over the execution of these works, because it is provided by the clause which the hon. Member for North Belfast intends to propose that nothing shall be done and no liability incurred unless there shall have been a meeting of the ratepayers held previously under the Borough Funds Act. I am quite aware that hon. Members who think that the subject dealt with by the Drainage Bill ought not to be settled by an unreformed Town Council are, in consequence, disinclined to part with thy measure, believing that if they do so part with it the powers conferred under it may be exercised before the salutary changes to be effected by the Municipal Franchise Bill can be introduced. I quite understand the position of hon.
    46
    Gentlemen who hold those views; but I think that their objection is met by the amending clause which stands on the Paper.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees may be able to read these things better than I do; but I do not think he is quite as well acquainted with the character of the Corporation of Belfast and their furtive methods of proceeding as I am, or he would not consider that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for North Belfast is any security whatever. By the simple method of calling a meeting, which the Corporation of Belfast are quite capable of doing, to consider the proposed execution of these drainage works at an hour when it would be impossible for large numbers of the owners and ratepayers of the borough to be present, the object and intention of the clause might be altogether defeated.
    MR. COURTNEY: The hon. Member forgets that the meeting is to be followed by a poll.
    MR. SEXTON: But the poll, also, may be taken at a most inconvenient hour. Nothing would be easier than, by a device of that kind, to defeat the intentions of this Bill. I am most unwilling, therefore, to part with the security of an extended Burgess Roll for any other security whatever. Let me point out how this clause, which the Chairman of Ways and Means admires so much, is likely to be carried out. The Lagan Pollution Committee is composed of certain Orangemen who follow the lead of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they held a meeting on the 1st of July, at which they passed a Resolution requesting the Town Council not to study the convenience of the ratepayers, but to act, in regard to this measure, in. direct opposition to the declared wishes of the people of Belfast. The action of the Town Council is not only unfair, but inconsistent, seeing that they are creating a difficulty as to the point of time where none really exists. There is a fear on the part of the people of Belfast that in reference to the proposed adoption of Schedule 3 of the Public Health Act efforts are still being made to place in the hands of the existing Town Council the power of spending the money involved in the execution of the drainage works. That is the whole secret of the matter. The Town Council has endea-

    47
    voured throughout, in a stealthy manner, to obtain complete control over the spending of this money, and I protest against their being able to secure what they desire by having recourse to any mean and underhand device. There can be no two opinions that the interests of the Town Council are directly adverse to those of the ratepayers, and I shall certainly resist the Lords' Amendments in this Bill to the utmost. The real objection of the Town Council to the adoption of an extended and revised franchise is not an objection which applies to this year, but to every year. Let me call attention to the extraordinary conduct of the promoters of the Bill in this House last year, although they have always contended that the measure is urgently required in order to preserve the health of the borough. They declared last year that rather than allow the franchise to be reformed they were prepared to lose the Drainage Bill altogether. Bather than allow the people of Belfast to have the control of their own affairs they preferred to allow 200,000 people to be poisoned every year. By an Amendment inserted at their own instance in the Belfast Municipal Franchise Bill, the time of qualification for a vote is changed from the last day of August to the first day of January in each year. The notices in reference to a Parliamentary vote are similar to those for municipal purposes, and the Parliamentary list will afford a general basis for the municipal list, because the qualifications are almost identical. The number of inhabitants included in each is from 25,000 to 30,000, and one list is quite sufficient for the two qualifications. Lord Erne, in the House of Peers, inserted an Amendment which ought to put an end to any difficulty, seeing that it provides that the Mayor shall appoint revising barristers to carry out the work of preparing the Burgess Roll on the 20th of July. The Burgess Roll, consequently, ought to be completed in adequate time to allow the election of the Town Council, on the new list, to take place on the 25th of November, a period of four months. Why should there be more difficulty in revising the municipal list than in revising the Parliamentary list? The Mayor's assessors can appoint revising barristers at once; they will have ample time to do so. I would myself undertake to go to Belfast
    48
    and revise the Municipal Bill in three weeks, without assistance, and under the Franchise Bill four months are left in which the work can be done. It is an attempt to give new life to a condemned body of men—a moribund Town Council—so as to enable them, by an effete vote, to control the expenditure of £500,000. I leave it to the majority which has just opposed the Motion I made for the adjournment of the debate to consider whether it is worth while to force me to proceed to-day with the opposition I propose to offer to the Lords' Amendments, in regard to which opposition I am unable to say, at the present moment, whether I am right or not. The Franchise Bill may leave the Lords in such a shape as may render it unnecessary for me to move Amendments, or it may leave it in such a shape as to compel me to do so. At the present moment the Government are not in a position to apply the clôture to this discussion. I warn them that they had better make arrangements to increase their 174 supporters to 200, for they will certainly not succeed in carrying the Lords' Amendments to this Bill, unless they take some effectual steps to close the discussion upon them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would ask if it is possible to discuss this Main Drainage Bill in the absence of the Franchise Bill? As I understand the case, it is this. This Main Drainage Bill was made dependent, to a very great extent, upon the Franchise Bill. But we are now told that when the Franchise Bill comes down from the House of Lords it will contain a clause postponing its operation until next year. That, on the face of it, may not appear unreasonable; but I cannot say so until we have the Bill before us, together with the Amendments which have been made in it, and hear the grounds upon which those Amendments are supported. Hon. Members who are in favour of this Bill, and opposed to further adjournment, say that we can deal with the Lords' Amendments to the Franchise Bill when that Bill comes down. That is all very well; but who is to deal with the Lords' Amendments, supposing that we have given up our control over this Bill, and we send back the Franchise Bill with an intimation that we have disagreed with the Lords' Amendments? In that case, it would only be for the House of Lords

    49
    to insist on their Amendments to secure that the opponents of the Franchise Bill should obtain all they want. If we once pass this Drainage Bill before the Franchise Bill reaches the House of Commons, we can have no security that we should be able to secure local self-government for the town of Belfast in time to give the ratepayers control over the large expenditure of public money which is involved in the present Bill. I maintain that it is only a reasonable proposal to give to the ratepayers of Belfast, and to remove out of the hands of the present Local Authorities, the full control over the execution of the franchise works and the cost which will be incurred in connection with them. Surely it is not intended to treat a question of this kind as a Party question. We are dealing with what is purely a local demand, and what in any English borough is granted as a matter of course. You are going to give a now and extended franchise to the inhabitants of Belfast, and the existing Corporation of that town object to it, and, perhaps, not unnaturally. Therefore, it is desirable that this House should not part with the Drainage Bill altogether, leaving ourselves helpless in reference to the Franchise Bill. It has been pointed out that the argument adduced on the other side in favour of postponing the operation of the Franchise Bill—namely, the difficulty of preparing a now Burgess List, is altogether without foundation. I have shown that you cannot deal with the Lords' Amendments now. In the first place, you might find it necessary to disagree with them. If you do so, the Bill must go back to the House of Lords, and the Lords might insist upon their Amendments, in which case the Bill would be abandoned. I think we ought to have some absolute security that the Amendments postponing the operation of the Franchise Bill are unreasonable and ought not to appear in it. Until we have that security we ought not to part with the present Bill. I believe there are Gentlemen in this House who can answer for the Corporation of Belfast. Then let them get up and give an assurance that they will offer no objection to the Franchise Bill coming into operation at once, so that the next municipal election in November may be taken an the new franchise. If they can do that, we shall be able to get on with our
    50
    business. If they decline to do so, then we must form our own conclusions, and take our own securities. I have thought it necessary to make these remarks in connection with this matter. As the House is aware, I am not accustomed to take part in the discussion of Private Bills; but in this case the discussion is mixed up with the consideration of an important public question, and I think, in the interests of local self-government; in Ireland, we ought not to refuse the reasonable demand which is made by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Some time ago I myself brought in a Bill for the purpose of extending the franchise in order to include a larger number of the ratepayers of Belfast; and I, for one, am entirely opposed to parting with this Bill until we have an absolute certainty that the Franchise Bill will come down from the House of Lords in such a shape as to be entirely satisfactory to the ratepayers of Belfast, who, I believe, are naturally opposed to the expenditure of this large sum of money without having a distinct voice in the matter. For my own part, I cannot see that the delay of a few days I can have any serious effect upon the passing of the Bill. At the same time I am indisposed to get rid, out of our own hands, of that leverage which we at present possess, of forcing the Lords to send down to us the Franchise Bill in such a form as will render it acceptable to the people of Belfast. Therefore, I, for one, am ready to support the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) in opposing the Motion for the consideration of the Amendments in the Drainage Bill until we have the Municipal Franchise Bill fully before us.
    MR. CHANCE: The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has warned us that under the Belfast Franchise Bill, as reconstructed in the House of Lords, no election can take place on the extended franchise during the present year. He has further said that the ground on which that somewhat peculiar reconstruction of the franchise has taken place is that it is found impossible to prepare a new Burgess Boll this year. I was very much surprised to hear that statement, but I am not surprised to find that an attempt has been made to delay the operation of the Bill for

    51
    another year. Now, as a matter of fact, no step whatever, whether preliminary or otherwise, can be taken towards the formation of a new Burgess Roll until after the expiration of a particular date; and, therefore, the lateness of the time at which the Bill is passed is absolutely immaterial. I have had personal experience in this matter, and I say that the statement that there will exist any difficulty in preparing the Burgess Roll is utterly and completely unfounded. A more unfounded statement I never heard in my life, and I hope the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, who made it, will tell us upon what authority he made it, and give us at least one reason, however paltry, in support of it. The hon. Gentleman went on to make a still more extraordinary statement. He told us that we have repeatedly postponed the consideration of the Drainage Bill for one object, and one object alone—namely, that the ratepayers of Belfast should have effective control over the expenditure of this £500,000. He then went on to say that effective control would be given to the ratepayers for the expenditure by the new clause which the hon. Member for North Belfast proposes to insert in the Drainage Bill. Now, that is a clause which directs the Corporation of Belfast to take a sort of mock plébiscite under the Public Health Act of 1875, and there are two observations which I desire to make upon that clause. The first is, that under the clause the nonresident ratepayers, who do not earn their money in Belfast, will be able to swamp the votes of the resident ratepayers of the borough. Let me point out another objection. What will be the question put to the people when the plebiscite is taken? It will be simply a question of "Yes" or "No," and having voted ''Yes" or "No" the ratepayers will lose every particle of control over the expenditure of the money. That is very different from the control which the people of Belfast will obtain if they get an extended franchise, and are able to send their own representatives to the Town Council, retaining in their own hands that control over their representatives which the knowledge that further elections will be brought about usually secures. Secondly, the ratepayers of Belfast would, under the extended franchise, have by right a substantial con-
    52
    trol which would enable them to govern the expenditure of this £500,000 at every stage. The last observation I have to make is this. We are asked now to part with this Bill—we are asked to part with our sole guarantee for the passing of any franchise whatever? We are not in reality dealing with the question whether the people of Belfast are to have an extended franchise now or next year. That is a pure technicality and fiction. The question is whether they are to have a real franchise or none at all; and if this Bill is allowed to pass now, I venture to predict that the Lords will disagree with any Amendments of this House in which we may be compelled to express our disagreement with their Amendments. In that case, the result would inevitably be that the Bill would be thrown out, and the solo opportunity which the people of Belfast have of getting an extended franchise would be defeated. The effect would practically be that the repeated votes we have given in this House, from a sense of justice, towards the people of Belfast will have been absolutely thrown away, and a long series of years may elapse before we may be in a position again to compel the other House to act fairly towards a class of people who deserve consideration and fair treatment quite as much as the other class which the House of Lords have taken under their protection. The course which this House takes on the drainage question means franchise or no franchise in Belfast; and I hope the House will not be led away by any ingenious technicalities. If the question is treated by hon. Members in a spirit of fair play, and not as a Party question, I am sure we shall be successful in doing for the people of Belfast what Her Majesty's Government ought to have done long ago of their own motion.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I think the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) cannot have read the clause which has been placed on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart), which gives the entire control over the expenditure which is to be incurred under this Bill to the ratepayers of the borough. It will be

    53
    necessary to insert an advertisement in all the local newspapers, and notices will have to be posted up on all the churches and chapels convening a meeting of the ratepayers. It will, therefore, be impossible to hold a hole-and-corner meeting; and it will be competent for anyone to demand a poll, when every ratepayer of Belfast will be able to record his vote as to whether this expenditure shall be incurred under the drainage scheme or not. It has already been pointed out that a noble Lord in "another place," who was formerly Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was the cause of the postponement of the Municipal Franchise Bill, and that the postponement was not the consequence of any action taken by the promoters of the main drainage scheme. In my opinion, the citizens of Belfast have been made to suffer in their health in order that hon. Gentlemen opposite may be able to pose as the advocates of an extended franchise. I am as sincere a supporter of an extended franchise as any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the opposite side; and, therefore, I hope the House will not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. I do not believe in the infallible leadership of anyone; and on this occasion I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. I hope the House will not consent to any further postponement of the question, especially when the Town Council of Belfast have declared their full intention of acting in a bonâ fide manner, and of giving the ratepayers every practical control over the expenditure. Indeed, I am prepared to pledge myself, on their behalf, that if the clause which has been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for North Belfast is inserted in the Bill, it will be acted upon by the Town Council of Belfast in that spirit of perfect good faith which has always characterized their action.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The only manner in which the Belfast Town Council can act with fairness upon the question is to give the ratepayers of the borough an opportunity of deciding by their vote. Originally, in the Municipal Franchise Bill, very excellent machinery was provided for the election of the Town Council. But the friends of the Belfast Town Council, in
    54
    "another place," struck out the whole of that machinery; and now the hon. Member for North Belfast proposes to insert a new clause, which is of an entirely illusory character. I will show the House how that is so. An extended franchise for Belfast will cover something like 30,000 ratepayers. It is proposed to have a plébiscite under the 3rd Schedule of the Public Health Act, which provides for the calling of a general aggregate meeting of ratepayers. Now, if the whole of the population of Belfast were to meet in order to decide the question of controlling the expenditure of this £500,000 under the 3rd Schedule of the Public Health Act, there would be 30,000 persons present; and I should like to know how it would be possible to pack them in the Town Hall of Belfast, which is not capable of holding more than 1,000? All that ex-Mayor Harland would have to do would be to bring down 600 men from his own works and pack the meeting, when the question would at once be decided against the interests of the majority of the ratepayers; and, therefore, the proposal of the hon. Member, seeing that the original machinery provided by the Bill has been struck out by his friends in "another place," is totally misleading, and would leave the people of Belfast in an infinitely worse position than that which they occupy at present. Therefore I ask the House not to part with the sole security they now have that the people of Belfast will be allowed a fair control in regard to the question.
    MR. DE COBAIN: I cannot help feeling that the Chairman of Ways and Means, for whose fairness, fearlessness, and sense of right in the discharge of his duty, I entertain the highest respect, is mistaken upon this particular question. In the first instance, the adoption of the Lords' Amendments in the Franchise Bill will delay the election of a new Town Council in Belfast under an extended franchise, not for 12 months, but for 18 months, seeing that the new election cannot take place until the 25th of November next year. Therefore this important scheme, with the large expenditure of money it involves, would have the start of a year and a quarter of those popular privileges which ought fairly to control the expenditure of the money. I confess that I do not often find a com

    55
    mon ground of agreement with, the observations which fell from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but certainly I think the remark he made, that this ought not to be considered a Party question, is one which we ought all to agree with. I have been reproached for the attitude I have taken in acting in concert with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). I wish to say honestly, plainly, and frankly, that because I differ from the hon. Member and others who sit below the Gangway on the other side of the House in regard to questions affecting the well-being of the Empire, nevertheless, so far as they advocate just and wise measures affecting their own country, I am altogether in concert with them. I must say that I consider this argument a most mean and contemptible one. Why, because the hon. Member for West Belfast happens to differ from me upon the question of the unity of the Empire, ought I to oppose him upon some other question which, we view from a common standpoint and a common platform, and why should we be debarred from acting together for the promotion of the public good? Such an argument is entirely unworthy of the good sense and intelligence of the House of Commons. As far as I am concerned, I have never allowed my public position to descend into that of a mere partizan. I shall always advocate public questions on public grounds, and. I shall, as far as I can, decide the merits of such questions on the abstract principle of justice, altogether apart from the consideration of the persons by whom they are advocated or opposed. It appears to me that if the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Member for Derby is acted upon, we might bring these long controversies to a final conclusion. The suggestion he made was one that was characterized by equity and fairness—namely, that we should relegate to the ratepaying class of Belfast, to whom we extend, for the first time, the municipal privileges they have hitherto been exceptionally deprived of, the duty of re-electing the Corporation upon an extended basis, and of allowing them to deal with the question of the public expenditure to be incurred under this measure. I think it would be unfair and unjust that a moribund Corporation, elected on the basis of a narrow franchise, should deal with a
    56
    question which involves the expenditure of money to the extent of £500,000 and an augmentation of taxation to the extent of 20 per cent. I hope, therefore, the House will see that, as an act of fair play and justice to the ratepayers of Belfast, it is desirable to defer the final consideration of the present Bill until the ratepayers are invested with their full municipal rights. I think the hon. Member for West Belfast has fairly stated the case. We are not fighting this Bill. On the contrary, we sympathize with the object which, the promoters of it have in view. So far as the hon. Member himself is concerned, I believe that throe out of every four of the people of Belfast who will be benefited by the extension of municipal privileges are opposed to him in politics, and also in religion; hence the ground which he has taken is a chivalrous ground, and I cannot understand why the promoters of the Bill, who profess to be in touch with the majority of the people of Belfast, and who hold identical religious and political sentiments, should desire to bar that door, which the hon. Member for West Belfast and myself desire to throw wide open, in order that they may enjoy their full municipal rights and privileges.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I only desire to point out that the silence of hon. Members representing the Town Council of Belfast with regard to the appeal made to them by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) is a conclusive reason why the Lords' Amendments should not now be considered. It is no unreasonable pledge to give, if the Corporation of Belfast have no arrière pensée in the matter, and mean to carry out, bonâ fide, what has been suggested.
    SIR JAMES CORRY: The hon. Member for West Belfast has threatened the House that if it will not consent to a postponement he will keep hon. Members here all night discussing the Lords' Amendments.
    MR. SEXTON: To secure an adequate discussion of them.
    SIR JAMES CORRY: I am as earnest in desiring an extension of the franchise to the ratepayers of Belfast as the hon. Member, and I promoted the Municipal Franchise Bill, and carried it through, this House. No doubt, Amendments were introduced into it while it was

    57
    passing through this House, which I knew would render it unworkable, and the consequence is that there is no possibility whatever of the Burgess Roll being revised in time for the election which will take place on the 25th of November next. In Belfast, on property rated at £8 and under, the rates are paid by the owner, and not by the occupier; and, therefore, the names of the occupiers do not appear in any rate-book now in existence. That is a reason which renders it perfectly impossible to carry the Franchise Extension Bill into operation this year. The rates are struck on the 1st of January in each year; and, therefore, the present rate-books cannot contain the names of the new burgesses. But when the Bill comes down from the House of Lords containing a clause to postpone the election until next year, I would propose, as a compromise, although, seeing the urgency of this measure, the Town Council might not feel disposed to do so themselves, that a clause should be inserted in the Bill to provide that the main drainage scheme shall not come into operation until the new election has taken place next year. If such a clause is proposed, then, on behalf of the Corporation of Belfast, I shall not offer any opposition to it, and in that way I hope the whole question may be settled. It is perfectly impossible for the Burgess Roll to be revised in a satisfactory way, so as to enable the new Town Council to be elected upon it in the present year. But, as I have said, I am quite prepared, on my part, to give every assistance I can to the postponement of the drainage scheme until next year, although I am of opinion that it is urgently necessary to carry it out as speedily as possible. If this suggestion is adopted, I believe the ratepayers will get all the control they can desire in regard to the expenditure of the money.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to give the most absolute contradiction to the assertion that there would be any difficulty created by a provision in the Franchise Bill requiring the preparation of the Burgess List for Belfast to be completed in time for the next municipal election. I claim to speak with some knowledge and authority upon the point, as I have myself been largely concerned in the conduct of municipal matters in Ireland. So far from making the preparation of the Bur-
    58
    gess Roll more difficult, the Bill which is now in "another place" would render it more simple, and would afford to the local officials facilities for the preparation of the Roll which have not been enjoyed hitherto. Let me point out to the House what goes on. The ordinary period at which the qualification for the municipal franchise is gained is the year ending on the 31st of August. The Bill which is now in "another place," in consequence of an Amendment introduced into it by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), provides that the period of qualification, so far as the borough of Belfast is concerned, shall be the year ending on the 20th of July. "What is the effect of that? It is impossible for the authorities to commence the preparation of the Burgess List until the period of qualification has closed; consequently, although under the existing law it would be impossible for the Municipal Authorities to commence the preparation of the Burgess Roll before the 31st of August, yet, owing to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, they will be able to commence it after the 20th of July, so that they have five or six weeks more to commence the preparation under the provision of my hon. Friend than under the ordinary law. Perhaps the House will allow me to call attention to another fact. Every difficulty that can exist in regard to the preparation of the Burgess List, under the Bill as it now stands, will equally exist next year, and in every subsequent year. The reason is, that the dates which the authorities are to observe in preparing the list of voters are fixed by Act of Parliament, and those dates will be enforced, and will be the law next year just as they are now. The period for commencing the preparation of the Burgess List will be exactly the same next year as this. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend is allowed to remain as it does, changing the day of qualification from the 31st of August until the 20th of July, it may be possible to commence the preparation of the list after the 20th of this month. The present authorities will not get a day longer if the preparation of the list is postponed until next year, because the day of qualification will still be the 20th of July, and they cannot set about the preparation of the list a single day earlier than they could set about pre-

    59
    paring it now. More than that, the period within which, the work must be done would be exactly the same. Only the same number of days will be allowed next year as will be allowed in this. So much for the argument founded upon the difficulty of preparing the Burgess Roll, which I assert to be the most impudent of all the pretences which have been set up by the Corporation of Belfast, not as bonâ fide grounds of delay, but as a mere pretext for staving off the evil day when the mass of the people of Belfast are to acquire control over their local affairs. There is only one other observation I desire to make, and it is this—that the course of procedure which is provided by the proposed new clause is a course of procedure which hitherto has not existed in Ireland as far as I am aware, but which it is proposed to import into that country from an English Act, the terms of which do not apply to Ireland at all. The Schedule of the Public Health Act of 1875 makes this provision—
    MR. SPEAKER: I feel obliged to interrupt the hon. Member. I must remind him that it will not be in Order to discuss any particular clause in the Public Health Act. What the House has now to consider are the Lords' Amendments to the Main Drainage Bill.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I quite appreciate the point you make, Sir, and I shall not further address the House on that subject. The hon. Baronet who has just sat down (Sir James Corry) has told us he would offer no objection to an alteration of the Bill now in "another place" when it comes back to us, so as to allow the municipal franchise to come into operation before the drainage works are commenced next year. My reply to that proposal is, that the offer will not adequately meet the exigencies of the case. It is not a question of what the hon. Baronet likes or dislikes, or what he is willing to do or is not willing to do. The question is—Will he pledge himself to use his influence with his friends in "another place" to induce them to take the same line of action? The offer he has made is one which only binds himself, and his friends in ''another place" would have very little difficulty in disregarding it when the result of our action here is brought before them again for review.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I understand that there is a common understanding between both sides of the House that the Franchise Bill should come down to this House from "another place" before the House parts with this Bill. That being the case—and having paid careful attention to the matter I understand that to be the arrangement—I would strongly advise my hon. Friend to postpone the further consideration of this Bill until we get the Franchise Bill from the other House. It will then be possible for us to carry out any understanding that may be arrived at as between the two sides of the House. Such a course would, in my opinion, be fair and reasonable, and it would save the time of the House. I hope my hon. Friends will accept that suggestion.
    MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to make any Motion on the subject?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; I will move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be further postponed until Tuesday next.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and add the words "upon Tuesday next."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. EWARTrose amid cries of "Agreed !" The hon. Member said: I cannot agree with the statement that an engagement was entered into that the Franchise Bill should come down to this House before the Drainage Bill was passed. ["Oh!"] The engagement was that progress should have been made with the Franchise Bill. However, in deference to the appeal which has been made by the Leader of the House, I will cheerfully acquiesce in his suggestion.
    MR. SEXTON: May I respectfully ask that "Thursday" should be substituted for "Tuesday?" Although the Franchise Bill may be reported, it may not be read a third time to-morrow or Monday; and, therefore, we have no security that it will have come down here by Tuesday.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to Tuesday.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: There would be no objection to a further postponement if the Franchise Bill does not come down by Tuesday.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words "upon Tuesday next" added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Ordered, That the Lords' Amendments be taken into Consideration upon Tuesday next.

QUESTIONS.

  GENERAL REGISTER OF SASINES, EDINBURGH—EXTRA ATTENDANCE OF CLERKS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines, Edinburgh, has requested the clerks attached to the Edinburgh District of said Register to give, from the 27th June, a daily attendance of two hours beyond the ordinary office hours, for the purpose of overtaking the arrears of work caused by the extra pressure of the Whitsunday term; and, whether these clerks receive remuneration for such extra duties; and, if not, whether he will see that these extra duties will be recompensed according to the usual conditions of the service?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Department referred to is liable to periodical increases of work, and by the conditions of their service the clerks employed in it may be required to give additional attendance without extra remuneration. It was found that, as compared with the progress made last year, the work was somewhat in arrear; and in order that the holidays might be given at the usual time directions were given for extra attendance till the arrears should be cleared off.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked whether it was intended to amend the scheme of 1881, relative to the Sasine Office, Edinburgh?
  MR. JACKSON: The Board of Treasury has not at present any intention of altering the constitution of the Register House Departments, which was fixed by the Treasury Minute of 1881.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND)—SCHULL AND SKIBBEREEN TRAMWAYS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Dr. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Barony of East Division of West Carberry, South Cork, which is now liable to a cess of 9d. in the £1, struck at last Cork Assizes as a baronial guarantee for the Schull Tramway, offered through the Skibbereen Board of Guardians representing the ratepayers of the district, and also through the Grand Juror for said barony, the most strenuous opposition to the passing of said tramway scheme when brought before the Grand Jury at the Cork Spring Assizes in 1884, as being perfectly useless to the district, and opposed to the objects aimed at in the Act; whether the majority of the Cork Grand Jury who, on that occasion, passed the scheme, were men who have no rated property within said borough, and who are, therefore, not liable for the payment of any portion of this tax, which under the Act is payable exclusively by the occupying ratepayers and not by the landlords; and, whether, since the Schull Tramway is perfectly useless to the inhabitants of the Barony of the East Division of West Carberry, having, in fact, ceased to run, owing to defects of construction, both of permanent way and rolling stock, as shown by the recent Report of Major General Hutchinson, the Government, considering the original opposition of the district to the scheme, and the already overburdened and impoverished condition of the rated occupiers, will take the case into consideration, with a view to affording some temporary relief, either by a grant of the £3,000 necessary, according to General Hutchinson's Report, to put the line into working order, or in such other way as may be found most expedient?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The rate on the barony of the East Division of West Carberry made at last Cork Assizes for the Schull Tramway appears to be a little over 6d. in the £1, according to the list of county rates. It is a fact that the Skibbereen Board of Guardians opposed the project. The hearing of the case before the Grand

  63
  Jury in 1884 occupied a considerable time, and the Grand Jury were unanimously agreed that the line should be adopted. It is, no doubt, probable that the majority of the Grand Jury had no rated property in the barony, there being 23 baronies in the County of Cork, each of which must be always represented by a resident in the barony. I understand from the Board of Trade that it is not probable there will be any necessity to go to the barony for any further contributions in the matter of putting the line into working order.

  MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE CORONER OF THE GLENTIES DIVISION, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the office of Coroner for the Glenties Division of the County of Donegal has been vacant since 3rd March, 1887; whether he is aware that much expense has been thereby entailed on the candidates for that office by reason of advertisements, meetings, &c.; whether complaints have reached him that the vacancy in the office for so prolonged a period has caused much public inconvenience; whether a vacancy in the office of Coroner for the Barony of Kenmurgh, County of Derry, has been filled, although it occurred long subsequently to the vacancy in Donegal; why has the writ for the election of a new Coroner for the Glenties Division of Donegal not been issued; and, what steps, if any, will be taken to secure an immediate election?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The delay in the issuing of the writ arose in consequence of an application for a re-division of the county into Coroners' districts, to enable additional polling places to be fixed. The first application for this purpose was informal. A further application, put forward in proper form, was granted; and upon the necessary preliminaries under that application being carried out the writ for a new election was issued on July 5. In the Londonderry case alluded to, the earlier issue of the writ was due to the circumstance that no informality arose, and the case was accordingly at once dealt with,

  WAR OFFICE—PROMOTION OF PIONEER SERGEANTS.
  DR. KENNYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware of the fact that pioneer sergeants, although they are obliged to go through special scientific training before being appointed to their positions, and in addition to possessing the qualification necessary for the post of orderly room sergeant—namely, a second-class school certificate (Army School), are yet debarred from all further promotion to which orderly room and other sergeants become entitled by length of service; and, whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance, under which this most deserving class of officers now suffer?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The importance and responsibility of the post of orderly-room sergeant are considerably greater than those of pioneer sergeant, and there is no valid reason why the higher rank given to orderly-room sergeants should be extended to pioneer sergeants. I may add that, except in the case of farrier sergeants, every non-commissioned officer must be in possession of a second-class certificate before he can be promoted sergeant.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE WORKS AT LOUGH ERNE AND BELEEK.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government, in view of the importance of the work, will advance the remainder of the money authorized for the Lough Erne works when it is applied for by the Local Drainage Board; and, whether, in view of the large number of men thrown out of employment by the stoppage of the works at Beleek, the Government will use their influence with the Drainage Board to have those works resumed?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I believe that there is no objection to the advance to the Drainage Board of the balance of the loan already authorized to be issued, if the report as to work done justifies the issue. I should say that it is a case rather for the exercise of local influence than of

  65
  Governmental pressure, even if the Government had any right to intervene.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the hon. Gentleman, whether the Government would support the Bill which had been introduced to extend the time for the completion of the work?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he had not seen the particulars of the Bill, and, therefore, could not answer the Question.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE BATHING LAKE IN VICTORIA PARK.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the water from the new bathing lake in Victoria Park passes into the old bathing lake, and thence into the boating lake, which last thus becomes the receptacle of water twice polluted; and, whether the boating lake gives off an offensive smell?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, he was informed that, in the ordinary course of things, the water in Victoria Park should flow from the upper bathing lake to the lower bathing lake, and thence to the boating lake; and he could not for a moment I agree with the hon. Member that the water could be polluted by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood bathing in it. At the present moment there was, it was believed, some leakage, which prevented the free flow of water between these three lakes; and, although there was another service of water for the boating lake, its condition had not been all that could be desired during the last few days of hot weather. The leakage he had mentioned would be set right with as little delay as possible.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT 1881— SECTIONS I. AND VIII.—PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the number of cases which have occurred under the following sections of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," with the total acreage to which they relate; Sub-section 6 of section I. enabling landlords to object to sale of tenant right on the ground of the permanent improvements having been made and maintained by such landlord or his pre-
  66
  decessor; and, sub-section 4 of section. VIII. enabling the Court to disallow applications for judicial rent on the ground of the permanent improvements having been made and maintained by such landlord or his predecessor?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied), said, that applications under Subsection 6 of section 1 of the Land Law Act only came before the Land Commission in cases where the tenant disputed the landlord's contention that the improvement of the holding had been made or substantially maintained by the landlord or his predecessors in title. Five such applications had been heard before the Land Commission, in one of which the landlord's contention had been established, and in the four other cases it had failed. There had also been one such application heard before the Civil Bill Court, in regard to which the Land Commissioners had no information as to the decision come to. The total acreage involved in these cases was 515 acres 3 roods 31 perches. With respect to cases under Sub-section 4 of Section 8, the Land Commissioners were unable to give the exact number; but they stated that there had been probably not more than 20 such cases.

  POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPHISTS ON THE JUBILEE DAY.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Postmaster General, Whether the telegraphists of the Central Telegraph Station were forced to work not only their full duty hours but in many cases from two to four hours overtime on Jubilee Day, whilst the higher officials were allowed a holiday; and, whether they received extra pay or recognition of any kind for their services; and, if not, whether like other bodies of public servants they will receive some compensation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that on the occasion to which he refers the telegraphists were no more forced than they are on any other day. The public required that their messages should be transmitted, and it was the duty of certain officers to be in attendance to dispose of the messages. When overtime was worked it was, in accord-

  67
  ance with, the usual practice, paid for. A holiday was given to as many officers as could be spared in all ranks, and not merely to the higher officials. It is not proposed to give any special payment to the officers to whom a holiday could not be allowed, although I should be glad if it were possible to do so.
  MR. LAWSONasked, whether the telegraphists would have a holiday in their turn by way of compensation?
  MR. RAIKES: I do not think that any special arrangements of that kind can be made.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—BRITISH TRADE IN SPAIN AND THE SPANISH COLONIES.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House what are the arrangements now in force as to the enjoyment by British trade of all such benefits and privileges as are enjoyed in the ports of Spain and the Spanish Colonies by the trade of the United States; and, whether it is proposed to present any Papers upon the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Article 31 of the Franco-Spanish Treaty of February 6, 1882, and Article 22 of the Germano-Spanish Treaty of July 12, 1883, secure to France and Germany most favoured nation treatment in the Spanish Colonies, while the previous Articles of those Treaties secure most favoured nation treatment in Spain. These provisions are extended to us by the Convention with Spain of April 26, 1886. Beyond this we have the repeated assurances of the Spanish Minister of State that we should receive in the Colonies the treatment granted to the United States. There has never been any question of a differentially favourable treatment of the United States in the Peninsula. The Correspondence on the subject is very engthy, and much of it inconclusive. It is not proposed to present it to Parliament.

  THE REVIEW OF 2ND OF JULY—THE HONOURABLE ARTILLERY COMPANY AND THE ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEERS—PRECEDENCE AT REVIEWS.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the First Lord of the
  68
  Admiralty, Why the Royal Naval Volunteers marched past Her Majesty on Saturday last behind the Honourable Artillery Company; and, if the old and well recognised right of the men of the Royal Navy to occupy the right of the line, when aligned with Her Majesty's Land Forces, does not apply to the case of the Honourable Artillery Company; and, if so, whether he will cause the fact to be notified in the Gazette?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)(who replied) said: By a General Order of 1883 Her Majesty was pleased to grant the Honourable Artillery Company, in consideration of its antiquity, precedence immediately after the Regular Forces; and, therefore, before the Militia and Yeomanry, who themselves take precedence of the Volunteers. While, therefore, the right of men of the Royal Navy to take the right of the line when in alignment with the Land Forces is not contested, nor that of the Royal Naval Volunteers to take precedence over other Volunteer corps, the Honourable Artillery Company must be regarded as on a separate footing, with precedence over Volunteer corps of every description.

  BURMAH (UPPER)—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can now explain the exact position of Messrs. Streeter in relation to the Burmah Ruby Mines, as to letting, working, and payment; whether he can state when the first tender or proposal was received from Messrs. Streeter, and by whom; and the name of the person who, in India, Burmah, or elsewhere, conducted any actual negotiations with Messrs. Streeter; whether any public or private tenders, as to the working of the mines, were invited from any, and what, persons, and at what dates; whether other, and what, persons than the representatives of Messrs. Streeter, and desirous of tendering, applied, and to whom, for permission to inspect the Ruby Mines, and were refused; whether an engineer and staff, in the employ of Messrs. Streeter, were, since December last, escorted to Mojok, together with machinery for working the mines; and whether they are still at the mines, and how occupied; whe-

  69
  ther he has lately received any further information on this subject; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the seizure and occupation of the Ruby Mines, and all subsequent correspondence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): (1.) The position of Messrs. Streeter in reference to the Burmah Ruby Mines is at present one of expectancy. They have offered an annual payment of four lakhs of rupees for a licence to work the Ruby Mines under certain conditions in a certain defined area. Their offer is now before the Secretary of State in Council. (2.) Their first application was received by the Government of India in February, 1886. The negotiations were conducted by the Chief Commissioners of Burmah. (3.) No tenders for working the mines were invited by the Local Authorities; but the willingness of the Government of India to receive tenders was well known at the time when Messrs. Streeter's first application was received. (4.) No person other than a Mr. Unger applied for permission to visit the Ruby Mines and was refused by the Local Authorities. His application to visit the mines was made in December, 1886. (5.) No engineer and staff in the employment of Messrs. Streeter, together with machinery for working the mines, has ever been escorted to Mojok. (6.) Despatches have recently been received from India on the subject. (7.) The Secretary of State has directed these Despatches to be laid before the Council in the usual way; and the question of the best mode of disposing of the mines will be in due course considered by the Secretary of State in Council. As soon as any final decision has been arrived at, the Secretary of State will be happy to communicate it to Parliament, and he will willingly present such Papers on the subject as can with advantage to the Public Service be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman say in what manner, on or prior to February, 1886, the willingness of the Government to accept tenders from any person was made well known?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Well, I am afraid I cannot say how it was known. I can state as a fact, from information we have received, that it was well known. I
  70
  may mention, among other things, that it was the subject of correspondence in The Times.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that he told me, in answer to a Question last year, that the whole of the correspondence was absolutely incorrect?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I do not think I ever made such a sweeping assertion as that. If I did, it was a figure of rhetoric. I do not know whether the hon. Member cares to put a Notice of another Question on the Paper. If he does, I shall be happy to give him a further answer from the information we possess.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: When shall we have the Papers on the subject, in order to prevent the putting of needless Questions and the receiving of varying answers?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The matter is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. It is obvious that, in accordance with Parliamentary usage, Papers cannot be laid on the Table until that consideration has been effected and a decision arrived at. I cannot say how long it will last; but we will proceed with all reasonable expedition.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Have Papers relating to February, 1886, only just come into the hands of the Secretary of State for India?
  [No reply.]

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—NOTICE OF EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. COXasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that notice of the examinations for men clerkships in the Civil Service, to be held on the 9th August, was only published in the Irish newspapers of 3rd July; whether the notice required that forms from intending candidates should be filled and lodged with the Secretary Inland Revenue by the 5th July; whether he is aware that it was impossible that candidates from Ireland could procure and lodge their papers in such a short time; whether, under the circumstances, he will give directions that applications from Ireland may be received though not lodged for a few days after the 5th instant; and, whether he will give instructions that longer

  71
  notice of intended examinations be given in future?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied)said, the hon. Member must have been misinformed in the matter, as the advertisement referred to appeared in the Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Galway papers before the 24th of June.

  WAR OFFICE—THE REVIEW AT ALDERSHOT—EXPOSURE TO THE HEAT.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that at the inspection at Aldershot by the Duke of Cambridge the week before last, the troops were kept seven hours on the ground under a broiling sun and without water bottles?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): On the 23rd of June the troops were paraded at 10.15 a.m., and the review was over about 2.30 p.m. Water bottles were worn on the occasion in question, and water carts were with the brigades.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION—INQUIRY INTO THE MOCHDRE RIOT—THE COMMISSIONER.
  MR. KENYONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state the name of the Commissioner to be appointed to inquire into the Anti-Tithe Disturbances at Mochdre, and the terms of Reference?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): An experienced police magistrate, Mr. Bridge, is the Commissioner who will inquire upon the spot into the origin, extent, and character of the disturbances which have occurred at Mochdre and other places in North Wales in connection with the levying of tithes, and into the conflicts which accompanied those disturbances, and who will report to me his opinion thereon.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: When will the inquiry take place?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Very promptly, Sir. I am still making arrangements,
  72
  and will make a further statement to the House.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Will the Commissioner examine into the circumstances of the case now being inquired into by the magistrates?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should like if the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the fact that the promised inquiry into the Mochdre tithe disturbance has been enlarged in its scope so as to include the origin of tithe riots in Wales, the Government will appoint an additional Lay Commissioner to take evidence in various disturbed districts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have, as the House already knows, obtained the consent of an experienced police magistrate, Mr. Bridge, to hold this inquiry. I think one experienced and well-qualified Commissioner is a sufficient and satisfactory tribunal; but I hope to obtain the services of a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language to act as Secretary to the Commissioner. Upon him will largely devolve the task of collecting and marshalling the evidence.

  WAR OFFICE—DEATHS FROM SUNSTROKE AT THE CURRAGH CAMP.
  COLONEL GUNTERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true, as reported in the papers, that two men of the 11th Hussars died from sunstroke, received whilst on vedette duty at the Curragh Camp on Friday last; and, if there was any absolute necessity for their being thus exposed to the sun; and, if not, if he will give directions that men shall not be unnecessarily sent on duty during this very hot weather?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Only one case of sunstroke is reported to have taken place at the Curragh. A man of the 11th Hussars received, a sunstroke on Friday last while on vedette duty at the rifle range, and died the next day. District orders on the subject of hot weather have been issued, with a view of preventing the recurrence of such a fatality.

  THE CAPE COLONY—THE COLONIAL REGISTRATION BILL.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the provisions of the Registration Bill published in The Cape of Good Hope Government Gazette, on Tuesday, 15th March; and, if he will inquire whether the adoption of a measure which seems calculated to disfranchise large numbers of Her Majesty's coloured subjects, who have hitherto enjoyed electoral rights, would constitute a violation of the conditions on which responsible Government was granted to the Colony?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have referred to the Bill mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and especially to the 17th clause. There is nothing in the proposed legislation inconsistent with, or contrary to, the conditions under which the present Constitution of the Colony was established. I am informed that no native who, by reason of the Constitution Ordinance, has a claim to be registered will be deprived of that right under the new Bill; but the name of any man—white or black—now on the Register, the owner of which has not the qualification laid down in the Constitution Ordinance, will be removed from the Register. The result of the section has been, I believe, practically approved by the Aborigines Protection Society, who recently, when discussing an Electoral Bill relating to the Transkei territories, observed that—
  "No one proposes that the Natives who are still under the tribal system should be entitled to vote."

  MADAGASCAR—THE SLAVE TRADE ON THE WEST COAST.
  MR. A. M 'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has reason to believe that effectual means have been taken to suppress the Slave Trade on the West Coast of Madagascar; and, whether Her Majesty's Consul at Tamatave has adequate means to punish British subjects in Madagascar who may engage in slave trading?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the
  74
  means taken have been effectual in suppressing the trade. Her Majesty's Consul has powers under Order in Council, which would, it is believed, suffice for punishing British subjects engaged in the trade.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE—ALLEGED BLACKMAILING AT THE WEST END.
  MR. W. L. BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the authorities have any record of blackmailing on the part of the police of the Metropolis; and, whether on certain occasions it has been found necessary to remove police constables in considerable quantities from, the West End to the East End of London, where the opportunities for the practice are less frequent?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that the only cases he has been able at present to find recorded against police constables, with reference to unfortunate women, are some half-a-dozen cases since 1882. I will show the hon. Member the details of those cases if he wishes it. During the last three years 6,240 unfortunates have been charged in the B, C, and E Divisions. In the investigation of so many cases, it seems probable that if any system of blackmailing had existed it would have been disclosed, although the existence of isolated cases is quite possible. About 19 years ago charges of black-mailing were brought against the police; but since that time the Chief Commissioner cannot ascertain that it has ever been found necessary to remove police constables in considerable quantities from the West End to the East End of London on this account, or that any charge of this nature has been proved except in isolated cases.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Is any notice to be taken of the statement made in the House by an hon. Member as regards 30 such cases?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is a Question on that subject.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE—CHARGES MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR BARROW.
  MR. W. L. BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for

  75
  the Home Department, What steps the Government intend to take in reference to the grave charge made in this House against the Metropolitan Police Force by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine)?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The hon. Member for Barrow will, I hope, furnish the Government with sufficient information to enable us to decide in what way the charge made in his speech can best be investigated. I may add that I have received from the Chief Commissioner, in the name of the Police Force, a request that a full investigation should be made; and, on receiving the information I have referred to, I will at once take the necessary steps for making it.

  CYPRUS—REPORT ON THE LOCUST CAMPAIGN, 1885 AND 1886.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the Reports on the Locust Campaign in Cyprus in 1885 and 1886; whether "the actual cost of locust destruction" in the year ending 30th June, 1885, was £3,387, and in the year ending 30th June, 1886, £3,341; whether, as a result of this expenditure and of previous expenditure, the engineer reports—
  "I have satisfied myself that great destruction has been wrought among the locust swarms, and they have been so kept down that there is no reason to apprehend an increase next year;"
  whether the Government is satisfied with the result so far obtained—namely, "that there is no reason to apprehend an increase next year;" and, whether it is the intention of the Government to increase the staff by supplying each Commissioner with two assistants?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): My attention has been called to these Reports. I believe the actual cost of locust destruction in the year ending June 30, 1885, was £3,387, and in the year ending June 30, 1886, £3,341. The result of the locust campaigns of recent years is regarded as highly satisfactory. The insects have ceased to do any appreciable injury to the crops. The question of the assistance to be granted to each District Commissioner for locust work is con-
  76
  sidered in the spring of each year according to the estimate of the work to be done. I can give no further information at this time of the year.

  THE PARIS EXHIBITION, 1889.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why the promised Correspondence concerning the French Exhibition has not been printed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): In the preparation of any Papers for presentation many references are necessary, and some delay is unavoidable. I do not think that in this case there has been any avoidable delay. I hope that the Papers will be in the hands of Members by the end of this week.

  ADMIRALTY—SHIPBUILDING—SHEATHED CRUIZERS.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that—
  "The Admiralty have decided to build two very fine sheathed cruizers at a cost of nearly £500,000, for the building of which three leading shipbuilding firms are in correspondence with the Admiralty;"
  and, if so, why these vessels should not be built on some of the many vacant building slips in Her Majesty's Dockyards?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): In the Official Memorandum and Estimates laid before Parliament for 1887–8 the Admiralty propose to lay down five new cruizers, costing about £140,000 each, three of which were to be built in the Dockyards, and two by contract; and there has been no departure from that programme. It is advisable, when a number of ships of a new type are to be built, to put some out to contract, as the contract and dockyard prices check one another.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS:—ARREST OF MISS CASS.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter,

  77
  dated 30th June, in The Daily Telegraph of 6th July, addressed by Mrs. Bowman to the Police Authorities, in reference to the case of Miss Cass, of Police Constable Endacott, and of Mr. Newton, the police magistrate, as well as the official reply, dated 2nd July, from the Office of the Chief Commissioners, acknowledging Mrs. Bowman's letter; and, whether he will ascertain how it happened that the Chief Commissioner informed him, on the afternoon of the 5th July, that—
  "The document had not reached him, and he is not aware of any complaint having been made?"
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he is aware that an official letter marked "C. 2457," and signed "W. F. M. Staples," was forwarded on 2nd July to Madam Bowman, stating that a complaint respecting the arrest of Miss Cass had been received, and that it would be laid before the Commissioner of Police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. MATTHEWS): Mrs. Bowman's letter arrived at the Chief Office on July 2, and was acknowledged by a clerk. It was then sent by the clerk direct to Mr. Howard, the Chief Constable of the District, for inquiry, in accordance with the usual practice in such cases introduced after the Report of the Committee of 1886, which decided that the work was too much centralized in Scotland Yard. Mr. Howard did not return to his office on the evening of Saturday, July 2, after the arrival of this letter, and did not see it till Monday, the 4th. On that day he was much engaged on special duty at the Imperial Institute till the afternoon, when he sent the letter to the D Division for inquiry. On the afternoon of July 5 it was sent back to Chief Constable Howard, with other letters in the division bag. From the Chief Constable it was sent to the Chief Commissioner, and did not reach him till after he had seen me. At the time he saw me the Chief Commissioner was ignorant of the purport of Mrs. Bowman's letter. On consideration of that letter, the Chief Commissioner suspended Police Constable Endacott from duty. The House will remember that the strain of the whole of the Police Force was excessive during the days in question; and that the whole time of
  78
  the Chief Commissioner and his chief officers was taken up by important and abnormal duties.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can give the House any information as to the probable date when the result of the inquiry by the Lord Chancellor will be made public? Is it not a fact that the salary of the police magistrate is not paid out of the Consolidated Fund; and, therefore, the House has no opportunity of expressing its opinion when the Estimates come to be discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question. I shall have to communicate with the Lord Chancellor before I can reply to it.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—ARREST OF MISS CASS—POLICE CONSTABLE ENDACOTT.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Police Constable Endacott has been, or will be, suspended from street duty pending the promised inquiry into his conduct in the case of Miss Cass?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): On July 6 he was suspended, pending the inquiry—after the Commissioner had received Mrs. Bowman's letter.
  MR. H. J. WILSON:Yesterday?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to give Notice that in Committee of Supply, or on some other suitable occasion, I will call attention to the whole question of the conduct and administration of the Metropolitan Police.

  BURIALS ACT, 1880—THE VICAR OF NORHAM-ON-TWEED.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that at the close of last month the Rev. Canon Waite, D.D., Vicar of Norham-on-Tweed, while assenting to the burial in a family vault in the churchyard of the parish of Mr. Andrew Mitchell, of Berwick-on-Tweed, a non-parishioner, declined to allow the Rev. W. A. Walters, a Nonconformist

  79
  minister, to perform the Burial Service authorized by "The Burials Act, 1880," at the burial, on the ground that that Act does not extend to the burial of non-parishioners; and, whether there is any provision in that Act making it applicable to the case of non parishioners where the incumbent assents to their burial in the parish churchyard; and, if not, whether any steps could be taken to remove a prevailing misconception on the part of the clergy generally?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am not aware of the facts connected with the burial of Mr. Andrew Mitchell. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes, I will inquire into them. As to the question of law, the Burials Act of 1880 gives no right to non-parishioners to be buried in the parish churchyard. If the incumbent assents to the burial of a non-parishioner it appears to me to be left undecided by the Act whether he could lawfully annex any condition to his assent, such as that suggested by the Question.

  WAR OFFICE—COMPETITION FOR THE MEDICAL STAFF.
  MR. LLEWELLYNasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Regulation or Order exists whereby gentlemen wishing to compete for commissions in the Medical Staff are debarred, by reason of their inability, to make a declaration that "their parents are of unmixed European blood;" whether any similar Regulation exists with regard to officers in other branches of Her Majesty's Services; whether a gentleman was recently prevented from competing for a commission in the Army and Medical Staff on account of his having an admixture of Indian blood in the third generation; and, whether this gentleman was the son of a General Officer by an English mother?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A declaration is required from candidates for the Army Medical Staff that their parents are of unmixed European blood. The reason is that it is held by the Medical Authorities that the constitutions of men of mixed British and Indian race would break down under service in Northern climates. There is, however, of course, a limit of distance
  80
  beyond which the infusion of Asiatic blood could not be held to be prejudicial to military efficiency; and I scarcely think that in the case quoted by my hon. Friend any objection would be taken. I believe that the same Rule applies in the Naval Medical Service. The gentleman referred to applied for a Schedule of Qualifications; but it does not appear that he ever sent it in filled up.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—BEAMTRAWLING IN ABERDEEN BAY.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board, with details as to the nature and extent of experiments said to have been made by that Board, and which has led the Scotch Secretary to revoke the bye-law prohibiting beam-trawling in the Aberdeen Bay; and, whether he is aware that line fishermen are universally of opinion that great good resulted from the period of prohibition now revoked?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Annual Report of the Board, which will be presented immediately, will give information and statistics connected with the trawling experiments, including those in Aberdeen Bay. I must remind the hon. Member that the bye-law in question was passed solely for purposes of experiment; and that it is matter for after consideration what shall be done as the result of the information derived from this experiment. And, of course, the views of practical fishermen as to the effect of the experiments will have weight in the question what permanent bye-laws are to be issued.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION—THE RIOT AT LLANGWM.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the persons charged with assault and riot during the collection of tithe at Llangwm have been summoned to appear at the Petty Sessional Division at Ruthin, 15 miles away from the Petty Sessional Division within which the alleged offences are supposed to have been committed; and, whether

  81
  he is aware that this entails great expense upon the defendants and their witnesses, many of whom are labourers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; it is a fact these persons have been summoned to appear at Ruthin, the reason being, as I understand, that this is the only place where there is sufficient Court accommodation; and, moreover, it was not deemed advisable that the case should be heard in the immediate neighbourhood of the scene of the riots. The expenses incurred by defendants and witnesses can, by Statute, be allowed by the Court.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DENBIGHSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS—RIOTS AT LLANGWM.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen the following statement of the Chairman of the Denbighshire Quarter Sessions, in charging the Grand Jury, on Friday, 1st July, 1887:—
  "He was glad that a large number of persons engaged in the disgraceful riots at Llangwm were to be brought to justice. As an inquiry was to be held at Mochdre, he would not refer to that;"
  and, whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; I have not seen the statement in question; but I do not consider that the words alleged to have been used are of such importance as to make it necessary for me to call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can explain why the Secretary for Scotland Bill has not been introduced into the House of Lords, in accordance with the expectations held out by the Lord Advocate; and, whether the Government still expect to introduce the Bill on an early day?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member is aware that I am not responsible for the management of Business in the other House of Parliament. I have no doubt his Question will attract
  82
  attention, and that in due time the measure will be brought into the other House.

  NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (1882)—MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT AT QUESTION TIME.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that a Motion for the Adjournment moved for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance, involves if successful the loss of a Parliamentary day, he will withdraw the proposed Second Rule of Procedure, and propose another whereby such inconvenience may for the future be avoided?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is worthy of consideration, and I will undertake to give it the attention it requires.

  THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVENTION.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether he can give the House some further information with regard to the Egyptian Convention and the movements of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's instructions not to remain at Constantinople beyond the present week are unaltered, and the situation is exactly as I stated it on Tuesday.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When this Bill would be introduced, and also when the Education Estimates would be brought forward?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was afraid they could not hope to introduce the Technical Education Bill until the Irish Land Law Bill had been read a second time. When he was enabled to form some estimate as to

  83
  when that measure would receive a second reading, he would endeavour to name a day for bringing in the Technical Education Bill. With regard to the Education Estimates, he was still less able to state the date at which they would be taken. The House had made very small progress at present with the Estimates; and he believed that it would be desirable to take all the Classes in their order on the Paper, as far as possible.
  MR. BRYCEasked, If the Government had now decided whether the Technical Education Bill was to apply to Scotland; or, if not, whether they would introduce another Bill specially relating to Scotland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have every hope that the Bill will apply to Scotland; but, undoubtedly, the claims of Scotland will be fully recognized.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE SUMMER ASSIZES—CHARGES OF THE JUDGES.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice—If his attention has been called to the address delivered by Mr. Justice Murphy to the Grand Jury of the County of Longford, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of the 6th instant, in which he said—
  "I am happy to say the number of bills to go before is so very few "—
  only two; whether he has noticed that on the same date Mr. Baron Dowse, in opening the Commission at Carlow, said, in his address to the Grand Jury—
  "He was glad to be able to inform them, and he believed it was a very usual announcement, that their labours at the present Assizes would not be very much. There were only two bills to go before them. The County Inspector stated in his Report that the condition of the county was, on the whole, satisfactory, and that there was nothing to complain of in the condition of the county as far as crime was concerned;"
  further, whether his attention had been directed to the address of the late Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Justice Holmes, to the Grand Jury of Drogheda the same date, in which he is reported to have spoken as follows:—
  84
  "His Lordship, in addressing the Grand Jury, said—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the County of the Town of Drogheda—It is, indeed, a matter of great satisfaction to me, on this the first occasion that I have been called on to preside in a Court of Assizes, to find the calendar a blank, and to be able to congratulate you heartily upon the freedom from crime which exists in the County of the Town of Drogheda. If it is a source of satisfaction to me, I can well understand that it must be also a source of satisfaction to you, who must be deeply interested in the peace and prosperity of this community. You must, of course, expect that in a busy place like this there should be minor offences; but on looking over the reports presented to me, I find that even minor offences are very few, and as far as serious crime is concerned, or even indictable offences, you appear to have enjoyed a perfect freedom from such cases since the last Assizes. I received a pair of white gloves from the Sheriff as a fitting emblem presented to the Judge when there is no criminal business to be disposed of. As soon as the presentments are disposed of I will be happy to discharge you;"
  and whether, in view of such high judicial testimony as to the freedom of the country from crime, it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill now before the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not seen the reports referred to; but I have no reason to doubt their correctness. With regard to the Question which the hon. Member appended to the extract, while I regard as very satisfactory the circumstance that many parts of Ireland are free from crime, I do not think that is sufficient reason for not pressing on a Bill intended to deal with those parts of Ireland which are not free from crime.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
  In reply to Sir JOHN SWIBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he had already informed the House that he was awiting the results of the conferences which were being held with gentlemen who were interested in this measure, in the hope that those conferences would dispose of a very large number of Amendments. He hoped he should be able to name a day for the resumption of the Committee stage after the second reading of the Irish Land Law Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 305.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 305.]

    THIRD READING. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid: Mr. Speaker, in moving the rejection of this Bill, I will endeavour to confine myself directly to matters directly bearing upon the question at issue, and thereby to confine my remarks within moderate compass, avoiding altogether all allusions to imputations and accusations, on which a good deal, perhaps, might be said, if it were convenient to the House that it should be done, in respect to the course of former proceedings on the Bill. Now, Sir, I must endeavour to consider the Bill with regard to what it is and also in its relation to Irish policy. As respects its relation to Irish policy, I am of opinion—and perhaps that opinion is shared even by many who sit on the opposite side of the House—at all events it is my own conviction—that the Bill now before us is the alternative to a policy of what is termed Home Rule or self-government for Ireland in Irish affairs, and likewise, that being so, it is a great mistake to treat this Bill, which is called a Crimes Bill, and more popularly called a Coercion Bill, as if it were a Coercion Bill of the ordinary character. In my own opinion, Sir, it marks a new era—and a disastrous era—in the history of coercion, and perhaps I may be permitted to refer to a declaration which I was empowered to make on the part of the Government which was in Office in April, 1886, in two very short passages, where I ventured to point out that the coercion in use up to that time had not attained its end, and that what we had probably to contemplate was, that if we continued upon the lines of coercion it must be coercion of a new description, and I said:—
    "If it is to attain its end, it must be differently maintained, and maintained with a
    86
    different spirit, courage, and consistency compared with the coercion with which we have been heretofore familiar … If coercion is to be the basis for legislation, we must no longer be seeking, as we are always laudably seeking, to whittle it down almost to nothing at the very first moment we begin; but we must, like men, adopt it, hold by it, sternly enforce it, till its end has been completely attained—with what results, peace, goodwill, and freedom I do not now stop to inquire. Our ineffectual and spurious coercion is morally worn out."—(3 Hansard, [304] 1041–2.)
    And, Sir, it does appear to me, that the distinction is a broad one between the two kinds of coercion to which I referred. The old coercion was aimed at crime, The new coercion—I will not deny that it includes crime in its aim—but it passes beyond the aim at crime, and it aims at association. Association is the only weapon whereby the many and the poor can redress the inequality of their struggle with wealth, influence, power and administrative authority. This is a broad and a most important distinction to which I will call the attention of the House further on in terms calculated, so far as I can find them, to make it clear to the House and to the country; but my first contention is this—that this Bill has been introduced and has been brought to its present stage, and will, no doubt, be carried on through what still remains of its progress—has been brought in without any case whatever to justify the introduction of it, even had it been a Coercion Bill of the ancient fashion, directed simply against crime. Now, I wish to found myself on that allegation, not upon the use of vague and general terms, but upon statements which the House can check, and which it is in the power of opponents to confute if they be untrue. For my first statement, which I have had occasion to make at various times during the events of the present year, is one that cannot altogether, I think, be deemed unworthy of attention. It is this—that we who are inflicting special and restrictive criminal legislation upon Ireland belong to a country which has more crime than Ireland has. I have made that assertion repeatedly, and an hon. and learned Member of this House, who has treated me with a most perfect courtesy, addressed a letter to The Times, in which he said that as this assertion had been repeatedly made, he thought it was material that its inaccuracy should be exposed, and that hon. Member pro-

    87
    ceeded to expose the inaccuracy by comparing crime upon a basis, which, in the first place, as he has since admitted, included serious or gross errors; and, in the second place—when no other refuge was left—by comparing the crime on a basis of the aggregate number of offences committed in the country, including all those which it has never been usual to include in the records of permanent and serious crime—namely, those which are not indictable offences. I confine myself, as has been invariably done, to indictable offences, and I do not look to those acts which are differently classified in different countries, and which generally belong to the department of what is called abroad "correctional police" rather than to the category of crime. Speaking of crime proper, I find in round numbers that the case stands about thus—that in England the convictions—of which I am now speaking alone—would represent something under one in 2,500, in Scotland something under one in 2,000, and in Ireland a trifle over one in 3,000. That is as relates to convictions. It may be said that the law in Ireland is not so effective as in England. Therefore, I next look to committals, and the statement relating to committals as undergone the ordeal of public discussion, because an hon. Member of this House replied to the hon. Member who had questioned my estimate of crime, and the truth and accuracy of his statement has been admitted. With respect to committals, the case as I understand it, stands thus—in Ireland there were 2,155 persons committed, against 14,062 in England and Wales. That proportion would represent the number of 54 for England and Wales upon a given population, against 44 for Ireland; or in round numbers, still more simple, the proportion of about 11 to nine in favour of Ireland. Well, then, Sir, it may be said that in Ireland crime is winked at, and many persons who commit crime are never discovered nor committed to prison on account of it. Then, Sir, I would take the amount of indictable offences committed in the respective countries. There I find they stand thus. In Ireland 6,961 indictable offences, representing, I believe, about 139 for a population of 10,000. In England and Wales 43,692 indictable offences, representing 169 in a population of 10,000. We
    88
    thus make good the proposition, which is to say the least singular—namely, that the three countries which are more largely afflicted with crime are invading, and permanently invading, another country where crime is less rife than it is with us. But then it will be said, and said with some truth, that crime in Ireland, crime of a certain kind, has a peculiar character such as it does not present in England; that it stands in relation to popular feeling and social order in a manner in which it does not stand on this side of the Channel. Sir, that is true. But this is also true; that it has always been held necessary that in order to justify a Coercion Bill there should be in Ireland a state of exceptional crime and outrage. I am now quoting the phrase which was used, and well used, not very long ago—I think at the last Election—by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners). He said there must be exceptional crime and outrage to justify coercion, and that, unless the crime and outrage be exceptional, you will hear nothing of a Coercion Bill. Well, Sir, in this House an attempt was made to interpret these words as signifying that there was a difference in the character of Irish crime as compared with the character of crime elsewhere. But that is not the basis on which Coercion Bills have been introduced in this House. They have always required, and Ministers have been required, to show a state of crime exceptional for Ireland—exceptional as compared with the state of crime and outrage at other periods in Ireland itself. I am quite certain that position cannot successfully be assailed. There is no exceptional state of crime and outrage whatever in Ireland at this time which, according to any of our Parliamentary traditions and the well understood doctrine and practice of the House of Commons, can constitute a warrant for the introduction of a Coercion Bill, even in the old sense of a Coercion Bill—namely, a Bill directed against crime. Now, Sir, what is the state of crime at the present time? In the year 1885 there were 916 agrarian outrages specially reported by the Constabulary. In 1886 there were 1,025. I have to regret that on a former occasion I stated that the number of outrages was the same, and I was taken to task by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for

    89
    Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) for having so stated it. I do not think I owe any apology to the right hon. Gentleman on this ground. He began by neglecting his duty altogether. He failed to lay before the House what it has been the established custom of this House for the Irish Minister to do—namely, to produce an authentic and official statement of the condition of Ireland with respect to the number of crimes and outrages when the plea is made for the introduction of a Coercion Bill. Having done that, we were left, as he kindly told us, to hunt up for ourselves and make up our own statistical accounts. A friend very kindly performed that office for me, and gave me a return which represented two years, which were as nearly identical as possible. Having some suspicion of my statistics, I signified that I should be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would correct me if I were wrong. But he deliberately refrained from correcting me, and had the good taste and ingenuousness in his reply to charge me with having laid these inaccurate figures before the House. I take these figures as they are, and I say they constitute no case whatever for the introduction of a Coercion Bill, even in the old sense of coercion. An increase of 10 or 11 per cent in the year 1886 as compared with the year 1885 is not an augmentation which has ever been alleged as constituting an exceptional state of circumstances, still less can it be alleged when we recollect that the year 1886 was a year of exceptional pressure and distress, and that exceptional pressure and distress, other circumstances being equal, was morally certain to produce an increase of crime; and, for my own part, I think we have every reason to feel well satisfied that the increase of agrarian crime in 1886 compared with 1885 was so small an increase in the circumstances of distress and pressure that prevailed in the country. Well, Sir, but no attempt has been made to reply to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne(Mr. John Morley), who called the attention of the House to this very significant circumstance; in the last five months of 1885 the Party now in power were in power. In those five months they did not deem the state of Ireland to be such as to make it their duty to introduce a Coercion Bill. In the first five months, and in much the
    90
    greater part of those five months—namely, until the time of the Election—they were in every way disparaging coercion, and taking much credit to themselves, which I had every disposition to give them, for endeavouring to govern Ireland without the use of this odious instrument. In the first five months of 1887 they find a necessity for introducing a Coercion Bill—a Coercion Bill of such a character as has never been known to this House. Was there, then, a great increase or any increase at all of crime in the first five months of 1887 as compared with the last five months of 1885? On the contrary, there was a decline in the latter period as compared with the former in 1885, when they did not find a Coercion Bill necessary. In the five months of 1885 there were 474 offences. In 1887, when they did find a Coercion Bill necessary, the offences were 387.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Which months of the year? We brought in the Coercion Bill before those five months had expired.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The first five months of 1887 and the last five months of 1885. I believe the comparison of months is a fair comparison, because I am not aware of anything that periodically bears on the increase of crime except the length or shortness of the day. Therefore, Sir, instead of an increase of crime, we have a decrease of crime in the periods which alone we can compare in a manner to throw light upon the views and policy of the Government with respect to crime and coercion, and this comparison exhibits the astounding change that has taken place in their views. With respect to the two years, that small increase in 1886, as compared with 1885, was an increase which might reasonably have been expected from the increase of distress, and is altogether insignificant with respect to the proposal to make it the basis of a Coercion Bill. Then, Sir, the Government have one other refuge, and that is to fall back upon the year 1870, and show that in the year 1870 the number of reported agrarian crimes in the preceding year was smaller than the number reported in 1886. That is quite true. In 1886, as I have said, the number reported was 1,025, and in 1869 the number reported was only 767. What, then, were the circumstances in which the Coercion Bill

    91
    against crime was introduced in 1870? Sir, they were these—that agrarian crime a short time before—and I must say that I am rather surprised that no Member of the Government should have turned these figures to account, or thought to exhibit the real state of facts by showing the rate of increase of crime at that time—has been almost extinct, but had begun to grow with fearful rapidity, and that growth was observable, not only from year to year, but from quarter to quarter, in such a manner as might well and reasonably alarm the friends of social order. There is a question raised as to the different modes in which the Constabulary have reported crime at one period and at another period. I do not think it has any bearing upon the argument I am now making, because the crimes, I believe, are taken according to the responsible statements made to Parliament, which exhibit with accuracy the grounds upon which Parliament adopts a certain course of legislation. The point in 1870, as I have said, was not simply the height to which agrarian crime had reached, but the rate at which it was increasing; and what was that rate? I have shown that this year there is, as compared with the time when the same set of politicians were in Office and did not think coercion necessary, a large decrease. What was the case in 1870? In 1866 the number of reported agrarian offences was 87. That was increased rapidly in 1867–8–9. In 1869 the number was 767, or nearly ninefold what it had been in 1866; and even in 1869 itself the movement was most remarkable, because, while in the first quarter of 1869, from January to March, there were 101 reported agrarian offences, in the last quarter, from October to December, which may fairly be compared with the same quarter, there were 540 such offences. Thus the increase of agrarian crime was more than fivefold within the course of a single year. What plea or shadow of justification do these facts afford for the introduction of the present Bill, which is introduced upon a stationary condition of crime at a time when there is less increase of crime than there was at the period when the Government thought there was not sufficient ground for proposing coercion? What were the facts of the case in 1870? The House of Commons almost unanimously passed
    92
    that Act. There were many Members from Ireland at that time representing popular constituencies. Yet many of them supported the Bill, while not above 12 of them voted against it. It was an accepted Bill; but this Bill, for which such urgency has been pleaded and all the liberties of the House of Commons suppressed, is opposed by a large minority of this House, and, as far as I can judge, a minority not likely to decrease. I say that it is plain by the most unequivocal and conclusive evidence, that if we have any sort of regard to the traditions of liberty or of Parliamentary usage, there is not to be alleged in support of the present measure, even if we consider it as a Coercion Bill of the old stamp—there is not to be alleged any of the justification which has always by previous Parliaments, and even by previous Governments, been considered essential to warrant the invasion of the liberties of the people, and to warrant a slight—if not an insult—to Ireland. Had this Bill been simply a Crimes Bill, I venture to give a confident opinion that the 40 odd nights which have been spent upon it would have been reduced, by three-fourths. But it is not a Crimes Bill to which this persistent opposition has been offered. It is a Bill of the new fashion, of the new coercion, which has now received, for the first time, the support of a majority of the House of Commons. I must confess I resent the statements sometimes made, impugning our conduct as opponents of the Bill, that we have done the same thing ourselves. We have not done the same thing ourselves. I do not raise the question whether what we have done is right or wrong. Fifteen months ago I publicly confessed in the House the failure of what we did, and I urged Parliament to take a better and a wiser course. If there be those who have been parties to former Bills, and who think those Bills to be of the same character as the present Bill, they are perfectly justified in saying so; but we are entitled to lodge an earnest and warm protest against that assertion, because the Bill we have now before us is of a character entirely different. But, now, to some extent the admission is made that the Bill is of a different character. The answer made by the Government is this—"True, we have put forward some rather staggering proposals, but then

    93
    look at our safeguards." Now, what are these safeguards? One of the most extraordinary and unprecedented proposals ever made to Parliament in this country—such a proposal as I believe no Tory Government ever ventured to make in the days before the passing of the Reform Act—is that which makes the Viceroy of Ireland—that is to say, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chief Secretary of Ireland—if he is a Cabinet Minister and the Viceroy is not, which makes the Chief Secretary the master of the whole law, and of the right of association in Ireland. It is alleged that there is an admirable safeguard, and the safeguard is that there may be an appeal to this House. Well, the House must be summoned if it was not sitting. That argument may have some effect with those who are greatly satisfied with the manner in which the majority of the House has estimated the value of Irish liberties. This appeal appears to us to be of a very moderate value indeed; but whatever it is, it is nothing but a partial remedy applicable to the proposal in its altogether novel form, and constituting, it appears to me, an outrage on the principle of public freedom. I am surprised at the boldness of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, though I am bound to admit that his boldness has modified very considerably. I was surprised when he claimed, as a very important safeguard, the fact that some of the provisions which Parliament adopted in 1881, and put in motion directly and by its own authority over Ireland, are now made dependent upon the right hon. Gentleman making them necessary. That is a difference which the right hon. Gentleman may think important, but which, in my opinion, was hardly worth being even mentioned in debate. It is admitted, then, that this Bill contains the gravest novelties. How stands the case? I have the words of the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) as I took them down at the time; and I at once made them the subject of notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). I said to them—We have now got an admission which,
    94
    at any rate, is of the greatest value. The words were these—
    "There is no offence punishable under this Act except such as is already a felony or misdemeanour—"
    that is what I should have called a Crimes Act—
    "or as is constituted an offence under the 2nd Clause of this Bill dealing with intimidation."
    I am not absolutely certain as to the word "second;" but it is immaterial, as the second clause did deal with intimidation. We therefore have it upon the declaration of the Government—at last the clear and unequivocal declaration of the Government—that offences are constituted under the clause of this Bill dealing with intimidation which were not criminal offences before. Therefore, our original allegation against the Bill was justified. What was the defence setup by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary? It was a defence with regard to which I hardly could have supposed for a moment that it would impose upon any portion of the House, and it was a defence entirely destructive of the position of his right hon. and learned Colleague, the late Attorney General for Ireland, because it amounted to a denial of what that right hon. and learned Gentleman had said. The right hon. and learned late Attorney General had told us that there were acts which were constituted offences under the clause of this Bill dealing with intimidation. He used those words. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have witnesses to sustain me in my allegation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General, though the matter has been debated in Parliament, has had the good sense and good faith not to deny it. New offences are constituted. We have it out of the mouth of the Government itself, and it is too late to make denial. What was the expedient to which the right hon. Gentleman resorted? He said that certain words in the beginning of the clause enacted that the conspiracy must be a conspiracy of a nature now punishable by law, and he actually relied upon those words to overturn his own Attorney General, Does not the right hon. Gentleman suppose that we are aware that there are two things in question, one the nature and

    95
    manner of the agreement which is the conspiracy, and the other the nature of the acts to which the agreement refers. The nature of the agreement, I grant you, must be the same as under the present law, and that is the effect of the words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman; but the Acts with respect to which the agreement is to be made are changed by this Bill. And what are they? They are acts of exclusive dealing, which are thus defined—
    "To compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their equal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, or to interfere with the administration of the law."
    Now, these words are a comprehensive description of what is known as "exclusive dealing." Exclusive dealing, I am sorry to say, is very largely practised in this country, and exclusive dealing is also cruelly practised in Ireland towards any Protestant who is disposed to show himself a Home Ruler. A short time ago I gave an instance of an Irish clergyman who was reduced to beggary for the offence of being a Home Ruler, and after I mentioned that case I immediately received in my correspondence offers from Ireland to make me acquainted with the particulars of many other cases. But whatever this exclusive dealing may be, there are two things to be said of it—it is far more pardonable on the part of the poor and the weak than on the part of the great, the rich, and the powerful; and, secondly, it has never been a crime by our law. It is a social evil; it is a mischief which ought to be brought to a close by the passing of sound laws, and by the progress of manners and civilization; but it ought not to be constituted a crime. At any rate, if it is to be constituted a crime, it ought to be so constituted impartially and universally. But you would not dare to lift a finger in defence of such provisions for England and Scotland. However rampant exclusive dealing might become amongst us, you know very well that you would have to look on in silence and in apparent indifference. I have a word to say as to the favourite doctrine of those who are opposed to our policy of giving autonomy to Ireland. Their favourite doctrine is this—that Ireland ought not to have any
    96
    Legislative Assembly of its own; but ought to enjoy equal rights with the rest of the Kingdom under a United Parliament. I wish to apply this test of equal rights under a united Parliament to the matter that is now before us. I say that in England, Scotland, and Wales any man is free to induce as much as he likes, and to combine with others in inducing other persons—
    "Not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
    These are rights of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, which you are going to deny to Irishmen, and having denied them, you are going to say that Ireland ought not to have a separate Legislative Assembly of her own because she is blessed with the privilege of enjoying equal rights with those enjoyed by the other parts of the United Kingdom. Now, this touches a point which it is important should be made clear. An Amendment was moved with the object of extending the immunities granted to trades unions in England to tenants in Ireland. It was proposed to grant the Irish tenant in respect of his holding the same description of immunity as is now enjoyed by a member of a trade union if he does not fulfil his obligations to his employer in the course of any dispute connected with his trade. I am at present making no complaint of the rejection of that Amendment, because I admit that there are certain differences between the cases of the tenant in Ireland and the workman in England. But my hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General moved an Amendment providing that no person or persons doing any of the things mentioned in the clause should be chargeable with conspiracy in respect of any such act unless such act would, if done by one person alone, be punishable as a crime. This is the right enjoyed by every member of a trade union in England and Scotland in regard to labour contracts, and I say that this same right ought to be extended to the tenants of Ireland. But this right, which was deliberately and I believe at last unanimously given to England and Scotland, is now denied to Ireland. I now desire to refer to Clauses 6 and 7, which, with Clause 2, make up the parts of a great plan—I

    97
    am inclined to call it a great conspiracy—against the right of association in Ireland. The right of association to induce exclusive dealing is struck at by Clause 2, and the right of association for almost any public purpose—so large and elastic are the words of Clauses 6 and 7—is placed in the hand of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If I were an Irishman and I joined a political association it would be for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether I became a criminal by that Act. I am not to be permitted to bring him into Court, to challenge him to a contest in which he would have all the advantage of public administrative authority; I am not to be permitted to obtain even publicity for the motives of his proceedings which may remain hidden away in his own breast; it is for him, dispensing with Judge, jury, counsel, and witnesses, to say whether I am a criminal or not. Am I then not justified, after what I have said, in stating that there are two kinds of coercion—the old and the new—and that the new coercion is in the term of art, no doubt, a vast improvement, for it is more crafty, it is more insidious, it is more searching and far reaching? It goes beyond all the wits that were ever possessed by the framers of the old Coercion Bills; and it strikes at the very root of public right in that one grand subject of association, which is the heart and pith of public right for a country like Ireland, and to withdraw which is fatal to its public liberty. My contentions, then, are these—There are no facts at all to justify, in the slightest degree, one even of the old-fashioned Coercion Bills, which is no more to be compared with the present Coercion Bill than a watch of the time of Queen Elizabeth is to be compared with the best watch manufactured by Mr. Dent to-day or yesterday, or than a coach of the time of Queen Elizabeth is to be compared with the best coach manufactured at the present day. There are no facts to justify one of the old-fashioned Coercion Bills; and if that process is to be performed by the Government which has been spontaneously performed by every previous Government at the earlier stages of the discussions on those painful matters, it has got to be performed by them now under challenge and, for the first time, on the third reading. If there are no facts to justify the old Coercion Bills
    98
    much less are there facts to justify the new, which creates new crime, for I would rather have a hundred new crimes than have even one new crime carried over to the secret and irresponsible cognizance of the Minister sitting in secret, subject to all the political influences which must naturally act upon him and convert him into a substitute for the judicial tribunals of the country and the rights enjoyed by us all before those tribunals. I beg to remind the House of what I have said—so far at least as I am able to judge, this Coercion Bill is the alternative to a large measure of autonomy for Ireland. We are not going to have a Coercion Bill in Ireland because Ireland is disturbed, but because we have refused to give Ireland the management of strictly and properly Irish affairs. I understand that basis of fact. You have refused it, the majority of the constituencies—that is to say, of the English constituences—outnumbering the rest and constituting the lawful and Constitutional majority in Parliament; but do not disguise the consequences. We predicted at the time when the Irish Government Bill of last year was introduced, according to the best of our forethought, that there was no alternative but coercion, and no alternative but a new and sterner form of coercion. Many of those who conscientiously objected to our course indignantly denied the justice of that prediction, and declared in this House while announcing their objections to that measure that they retained all their old and all their rooted aversion to Coercion Bills for limiting Irish liberty and crimes. What has become of all those protestations? With the single exception of Sir George Trevelyan and one or two other hon. Members I am sorry to say that the predictions have been fulfilled not only in the degree but very far beyond the degree in which I could have supposed it possible that they would have received fulfilment, and the country will have to be made to understand that the real and the true and the only option before it is between a just and liberal autonomy for Ireland, wisely regulated in details but founded on the great principles that you have applied throughout your Empire, and a system of coercion on the other side more grievous than any that has yet been put forward—more grievous, Sir, not only by the creation of new

    99
    crimes, not only by substituting Executive discretion or indiscretion for the regular and public action of the tribunals in respect of the most sacred rights, but likewise by that which of all others is most odious among the provisions of this Bill, the stamp of permanency which you have chosen to institute, thereby adopting the principle of what on all former occasions has been recognized as a painful and a temporary necessity, of which Parliament would not allow the existence except for the shortest period, and with a regular provision for resuming its consideration. But now the rule—the established state of things for Ireland—is to be this permanent Bill, as an exemplification of the equal laws and equal rights enjoyed by Ireland under the blessed Bill now before us. Why, Sir, are we to make this grievous mischoice? Is the state of the country such as you now have it, such as you are asserting it by the overwhelming force of a Government majority, so precious and so valuable in your eyes? What I conceive to be the principle of old Constitutional struggles is that the resisting Party—what would then be called the obstructing Party—were usually fighting for something that, at any rate, even if the time had come for it to pass away, was more or less great and noble in itself. Sometimes it was the Protestant religion, sometimes it was the establishment of Church and State. On the first Reform Bill, wise men, many very wise men, said—"Beware how you interfere with the representative system, which has maintained more uniformity than you find in any other country in the civilized world." Perhaps America had not at that moment fully accomplished their view. Even in the miserable controversy, as we may now call it, on the Corn Laws, multitudes of advocates of the Com Laws when that controversy began conscientiously believed, however erroneously, that they were maintaining a system by means of which the scale of subsistence and of remuneration for the British labourer was maintained at a higher rate, and that he would lose these advantages. There was always, at any rate, some decent—sometimes even some honourable or some glorious—illusion for which those opponents were contending. What are you contending for? Is there one who will rise from that Bench who will say that the state of the
    100
    case between England and Ireland for 700 years of British mastery is anything but, upon the whole, a discredit, misery, and shame? [Cheers and cries of "No !"] That is a curiosity which I should like to store up in a museum. Are there any in the House who consider that the great and noble political genius of England, which has spread her fame throughout the world, which has earned for her honour and praise even from enemies, which has made her a rallying point for those who are struggling for their freedom—that this great and noble genius, which everywhere but in Ireland has achieved such glorious works, may likewise point to Ireland and say—"In a case where the strong had to deal with the weak, where Ireland was at no time strong enough to assert herself against me, where I had my own way so far as Imperial power could give it, how well can I look at the result?" In the whole Empire, spread throughout the world, there is but a portion—I will not enter now into a controverted question with respect to the great mass of our Oriental fellow-subjects, though for my own part I should be ready to make the assertion for them—but there is not a piece of the Queen's Dominions, not so much as a square yard, which she holds by force, but she holds Ireland by force. After 700 years of mastery you have not yet learnt that mastery carries with it responsibility. If I am to descend from higher motives, I own there are two considerations of a very practical character which come home to my mind, and they appear to me perfectly undeniable; first of all, that the present system of Irish government is the cause of enormous charge to this country. I have had something to do with the finances of this country, and I do not hesitate to say that millions a year are to be saved by substituting a sound for an unsound system in the government of Ireland—that is, by granting to Ireland a free, though a guarded, liberty of managing her own concerns. The expenditure of vast sums of money might be saved which is now used for the purpose of earning and aggravating discontent, which grows year by year with the increase of civilization and with the general decrease of crime. I do not understand why it is so precious in your eyes. I do not suppose that anyone will deny that Ireland and Irish affairs

    101
    are the great cause of the melancholy, lamentable, and disgraceful paralysis of Parliament. There I imagine we are all unanimous, but you cling to that miserable mischief as if it were a treasure and a delight. I cannot understand it. You know that the literature of the world is against you. [Cries of "No !" and cheers.] Will the hon. Gentleman, whom I have not the honour of seeing, have the kindness to mention to me a single author in European literature who has reviewed the relations between England and Ireland, and the history of those relations, and who says that their condition is honourable to England? I do not understand him to answer the challenge. But, perhaps, what he means is not that the literature of the world—which is the expression of its permanent judgment in these matters—is not against us, but that the literature of the world is quite wrong. Gentleman opposite have the faculty of wrapping themselves up in a self-content of that nature. To me I confess it is one of the most grievous and painful considerations that I know. I do not speak of newspapers, because I presume that upon all subjects there will be great varieties in the mere momentary opinion of the day. I have not intentionally exaggerated; I have sought to inform myself, and so far as I am able to judge, whereas there were men who would have defended the conduct of Austria in Italy, and whereas there were even men who would have defended the conduct of Russia in Poland, you will hardly find—I have never known yet that you would find in a single case—a writer worthy of bearing that name who has—as I have said—reviewed the case between England and Ireland, and who is ready to give you the benefit of his support. There is a broad and marked distinction between this case and the other great Constitutional struggles in which the Party opposite has in numberless times past gallantly engaged and has uniformly been defeated—there is this one very broad and marked distinction, that in this case I do not understand what it is they profess to be fighting for. I see that they profess to be fighting for one thing at least—namely, the union of the Empire—in which we are most desirous to join, and in which we think it as ridiculous to charge disunion upon us as they think it riduculous to charge disunion upon them. In these things we
    102
    ought to be united. In this present controversy they appear to me to be fighting for something which means nothing but hatred between the two countries, which means nothing but to produce waste of public treasure, which means nothing but stopping the transaction of your own vital and necessary business; and, finally, which means nothing but incurring the judgment and condemnation of the civilized world. Sir, these things cannot last. In the faith that they will not last, and in the faith that every single manful protest will tend to bring them nearer the day of their doom, I move the rejection of this Bill.
    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. W. E. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) who has just sat down concluded his speech by asking a question. He asked us what was the cause for which we, on this side of the House, were fighting, and he drew a parallel between the Unionist Party of to-day and the Conservative Party of previous times, to the disadvantage of the Unionist Party of to-day. I will tell right hon. Gentleman what I conceive ourselves to be fighting for. We may be under an illusion; but it is, at all events, an ungenerous illusion. We believe that in passing this Bill we are doing that which is necessary, whether Home Rule be granted or be not granted, for preserving the rights of minorities in Ireland—of preserving those elementary principles of law without which Ireland, be it associated with this country or be it divorced from this country, never can be a prosperous country. And we believe more than that; we believe that by passing this Bill, which is a necessary preliminary to all other measures for the amelioration of the condition of Ireland, we are taking an essential and a necessary step towards preserving a united Empire, for which the right hon. Gentleman professes to have so great a regard. Now, I am afraid I am put up at rather an

    103
    inconvenient time; but it is necessary for me, in following the right hon. Gentleman, to proceed step by step through, the speech to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling us, to my great surprise, that the policy we are pursuing is an alternative policy—a policy alternative to Home Rule; and, therefore, he himself, by anticipation, answered the question which he put at the end as to what it was we were fighting for. If it be true that this policy is an alternative policy, there is no further recommendation required to commend it to the favourable attention of the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to bring in, as if it was relevant to the issue before the House, the general crime in England as compared with the amount in Ireland. I am not going to follow him through his figures on that point; but it appears to me the whole quotation is perfectly illusory and totally irrelevant. When some hon. Gentleman gets up from the other side of the House and tells us that in agricultural England intimidation exists in the sense in which it exists in Ireland; when he tells us that in agricultural England crime cannot be punished because witnesses are intimidated; when crime cannot be punished because juries refuse to do their duty—when he can get up and point to such lists of agrarian crime as those which have been laid on the Table of the House in the last two years, then it will be time for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and ask us why in common consistency we do not pass a Coercion Bill for England; but until that time come, how foolish it is to ask us to abandon a remedy which we think suited to the evils of Ireland, or to apply it to England, for which we think it is not suited by reason of any evils existing in this country.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said that you dared not apply it to England.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the right hon. Gentleman, attacked me for the method in which I have dealt with statistics, and he told me I have not followed a practice universal with all my Predecessors, and did not bring forward special statistics in order to justify a Coercion Bill. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I have before had to tell the House. The existing system of statistics in Ireland was adopted in 1881,
    104
    and in 1882 it was considered adequate by the right hon. Gentleman to the facts so furnished, and I conceive myself not departing from the line of my duty if I follow the precedent which he set with regard to special statistics. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to accuse me of personal discourtesy to himself, because I had not corrected him across the floor of the House with regard to some statistics which he erroneously gave the House.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Not a single figure. You did not correct me when I begged you to do so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely forget the incident to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; but I may remind him of the facts connected with that error, which was that the figures were not correct, and if I did not correct them across the floor of the House they were corrected by a Cabinet Minister; and yet, after that correction, the right hon. Gentleman again came down to the House and again repeated the incorrect figures. The error in the amount of crime was about 106 agrarian offences. Now, 106 serious crimes may not seem much to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Not agrarian.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. They were agrarian. But 106 is very much in excess of the total.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: 109.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, 109 is very much in excess of the total amount of agrarian crime existing in Ireland before the right hon. Gentleman began that series of Irish reforms of which he is so proud. While I am on statistics, I must refer for a moment to the use which the right hon. Gentleman has made of statistics, which I think has created very serious misconception in the country. The House may recollect that the right hon. Gentleman came down here and gave us some figures with regard to evictions in Ireland during the present Reign—allegations founded on the authority of a gentleman whom he described as an eminent statistician.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I gave his name.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; he gave

    105
    the authority, and the authority was a certain Mr. Mulhall. I was astounded at those figures; they were such as I think nobody the least acquainted with Irish statistics would have known to be correct. I have examined this point, and will the House believe me when I say that in those figures Mr. Mulhall's method of proceeding had been his. He has taken the Government Return, which gave him in two columns the number of families and the number of persons evicted. He has deliberately selected the column containing the number of persons; he has treated that column as if it consisted of families, and he has chosen to assume that the Irish family consists of seven persons, and he has multiplied the number of evictions by seven in consequence. And those are the figures which, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, are now quoted in newspaper after newspaper; they receive a currency which they never would otherwise obtain, and they are used in every quarter of England to excite prejudice against the landlord class and to throw additional weight of disgrace upon English rule in Ireland. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to attack the statistical defects of our Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that while I have always maintained that we have a justification for our Bill founded on statistics alone, we have never relied upon these chiefly or principally. We have always relied in large measure upon that condition of social disorganization and tyranny to which the right hon. Gentleman himself, so far as I can recollect, made not a single allusion in the course of his speech. But, Sir, what is the case upon the figures? On a previous occasion I pointed out that if we had no justification on the figures for our Bill the case of the right hon. Gentleman in 1870 must have been bad indeed. The actual figures of grave crime were, in 1869, 370.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Is that Mr. Fortescue's statement?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it was. I may say (in reference to Mr. W. E. Gladstone's frequent interruptions) that I refrained very carefully from interfering with the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech. I believe that the figures, according to Mr. Fortescue's statement, are exactly
    106
    these—In 1869 (excluding threatening letters), 370, while in 1886 they amounted to 767. So, if our case is bad, how bad must the case of the right hon. Gentleman have been when he passed the Coercion Bill in 1870? But the right hon. Gentleman says that we do not found our arguments on the positive statistics, but on the increase in the relative amount of crime. He would say that we should be justified in introducing a Bill in 1870 because crime was increasing, but that we were not justified now, because, although there has been an increase, it has not been very great. I traverse altogether the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be in the frame of mind that all the Irish criminals have got to do is not to increase the amount of crime, and that if they do not increase it the amount must be considered normal, and ought not to be considered by English statesmen. We do not take that view. We take the view—and I think it is justified by common sense—that if agrarian crime exists to this extent, combined—as it is combined—with intimidation and disorganization, it requires the instant attention and care of the Legislature, whether crime be increasing or not. Observe to what absurdity the opposite contention lands you; 1870 was a year in which the great reforms of the right hon. Gentleman had not had time to operate. The Irish Church Bill was passed the year before, and the Irish Land Bill was passed the same year; but they could not have produced their full ameliorative effects. The Land Bill of 1881 was in the dim and distant future; and, therefore, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman amounts to this, that in 1870 an amount of crime—not much more than half what it is now—was not to be tolerated, but that now, when this House has been occupied in passing measure after measure for the amelioration of Ireland, we are quietly to acquiesce in a state of things incomparably worse than the right hon. Gentleman supposed that he was justified in legislating for in 1870. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to make an observation which he has made in public before, and which deserves the serious attention of the House. He told us that there would have been no obstruction to this Bill if we had consented to modify

    107
    it in the direction which suited himself.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman said—" If we had consented to omit certain provisions, to which he took strong exception."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, no !.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You did not say that?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said, if the Government had brought in a Crimes Bill, and not a Bill against associations, in my opinion they would not have spent more that a fourth part of the time they have now spent.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman differs from what I said. If we reduced the Bill to the condition of a Crimes Bill by omitting certain provisions to which he objects, and if we omitted those provisions, he promises us that we should have got the Bill through the House much earlier. If a threat of Obstruction is to be used in that manner, a more deadly blow is struck at the independence and usefulness of this House than has ever been aimed at it before. The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote a statement which he says he heard from the late Attorney General for Ireland—Mr. Justice Holmes. I do not think he gave the date, but that is not material. The statement which he has put in the mouth of Mr. Justice Holmes is that under Section 2 of the Act new crimes are created. I feel certain that Mr. Justice Holmes never made any assertion of the kind, and the reason I say so is that I was in constant consultation and communication with that Gentleman throughout every stage of this Bill. He has over and over again assured me in private of what the present Irish Attorney General (Mr. Gibson) will assure the House—that under Section 2 of the Bill no new crime is created. It is true that in a certain technical sense, which I explained before to the House, Clause 6 does create a new offence. It creates a new offence exactly in the same manner as the proclamation of the Riot Act creates a new offence, and in no other. I do not speak from my own legal knowledge, but I am advised by those in whom I have confidence that under Clause 2 no new offence is created. The right hon.
    108
    Gentleman appears to draw a very wide distinction between this Bill and the previous Bills which he has had a hand in passing; and he made a very powerful and eloquent reference to the fact that the whole execution under Clause 6 would rest in the Executive of Ireland, embodied in my person, and that he had a very moderate amount of confidence in the way it is to be exercised. I am not going to defend beforehand the manner in which the powers of this Bill are to be exercised; but I deny that in giving the Executive powers of that kind any new departure is made in exceptional criminal legislation for Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman, before making this statement, ought to have revived his recollection as to the contents of previous Coercion Acts. Under the Act of 1870, it actually is in the power of any magistrate, on suspicion, to commit a man for six months' hard labour because, being out in suspicious circumstances, he does not choose to give au account of himself. Does any provision in this Bill approach the severity of an enactment of this kind? But that is not all. The right hon. Gentleman, when he talks of special criminal legislation for Ireland, has only taken account of the Act of 1882. Has he forgotten the Act of 1881? That Act was a simple and short Statute, which put in the hands of the then Irish Executive the power to imprison whom they liked for what they liked on suspicion, and for such time as they chose.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The purpose was strictly defined.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without cause shown, it rested on Mr. Forster to imprison whom he liked under the Act of 1881—a power not only in excess of that given to us by this Bill, but so far in excess that there is no common ground of comparison between the two. The right hon. Gentleman, both in and out of the House, has told the people of the country that we are departing absolutely from all Liberal traditions in the matter. He says the things we propose to do under this Bill have never been done by a Tory Government. No, Sir, but they have been done by a Liberal Government, the head of which was the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    MR. CLANCY: And you supported him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, it is perfectly true that in those days the minority of the House were in the habit of supporting the Government of the day in the maintenance of law and order. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to draw a comparison between trades unions and the combinations of tenants in Ireland. I cannot conceive a greater insult to the trades unions of this country than to compare them with the organizations of which he spoke. Those organizations are half political in their object—that is a small matter; but the political object at which they aim is the dismemberment of the Empire. One of the political means by which they seek to attain that end is the avowed destruction of a particular class in the community, and they are supported by money obtained from persons living in America, of whom the best thing that can be said is that they are hostile and bitter enemies of this country. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that Boycotting is allowed to the trades unions in this country.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never mentioned Boycotting.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman described it as "exclusive dealing," but he will, perhaps, allow me to use the more familiar expression of "Boycotting." He says, in effect, that Boycotting, or exclusive dealing, was not forbidden by law to trades unions. I am informed, however, that conspiracy to Boycott is an offence at common law by the law of this country as well as by the law of Ireland. It is, therefore, actually illegal at this moment. But notice this great difference between the case of the trades unions and the case of the Irish tenants. Trades unions are forbidden by law to do certain things in the way of coercing fellow workmen—to picket and annoy. In Ireland Boycotting corresponds to picketing and annoying; and if we carry out the Act of 1875 in Ireland with regard to tenants, there was not the slightest doubt that the Legislature would think it necessary to prohibit Boycotting in their case as picketing and annoyance were forbidden in the case of trades unions. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten some of his own statements. On May 24, 1882, the right hon. Gentleman used these words—
    110
    "What is meant by 'Boycotting?' In the first place, it is combined intimidation. In the second place, it is combined intimidation made use of for the purpose of destroying the private liberty of choice by fear of ruin and starvation."
    DR. TANNER: Hear, hear. It was done to me, Sir, and so I know all about it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "In the third place, that being what 'Boycotting" is in itself, we must look to this—that the creed of 'Boycotting,' like every other creed, requires a sanction; and the sanction of 'Boycotting,' that which stands in the rear of 'Boycotting,' and by which alone 'Boycotting' can in the long run be made thoroughly effective—is the murder which is not to be denounced."—(3 Hansard, [269] 1551.)
    There is a further passage of great interest. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I may have said, and I say now, that I have a perfect right to deal with one man rather than another, and even to tell people that I am doing so; but that has nothing to do with combined intimidation exercised for the purpose of inflicting ruin and driving men to do what they do not want to do, and preventing them from doing what they have a right to do. That is illegal, and that is the illegality recommended by the hon. Gentleman; and it is plain that those who recommend and sanction such illegality are responsible for other illegalities, even though they do not directly sanction them."—[Ibid 1552.)
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the moral of the last sentence. But what do we think of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude in this case? The right hon. Gentleman has thought it right entirely to alter his policy on the Irish Question. Of that I make no complaint; let him do that if he pleases, and let him also drag the whole of his Party with him in that remarkably sharp curve which he has described. That is a matter to be settled between him and his followers. But what I complain of is that when he thinks fit to change his opinion the whole system of morality under which we live is to be changed also, and that what was wrong, immoral, and illegal in 1882 is to become legal, moral, and right, and to be sedulously and religiously preserved by the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, while on the subject of statistics, that while in the two months of the beginning of this quarter, with regard to which the statistics have been

    111
    laid on the Table, a decided improvement is visible in Ireland, due, I believe, entirely to the bringing in of this Coercion Act. Unfortunately in the month that has just ended, and for which the statistics are not on the Table, there has been a relapse, due almost entirely to the inflammatory speeches of Mr. Davitt. The actual figures, broadly speaking, are these—During the 18 months which immediately succeeded the dropping of the Crimes Act of 1885 the average per month was 52 serious crimes. The monthly average during the June quarter was 48, showing a very small improvement. But during this June, I am sorry to say, serious crimes have risen to 62, or 10 in excess of the monthly average between 1885 and 1887. And while in last June the number of serious crimes was 62, in the June which preceded the Act of 1870 the number of serious crimes was six. The right hon. Gentleman tells us we are interfering with the liberties of the Irish people by passing unequal laws which we dare not extend to England. Well, an appeal to liberty has been from time immemorial the stock peroration among baffled statesmen. But before we take in vain the most honoured name in the whole political vocabulary it would be well to ask what is the kind of freedom that we are supposed to interfere with. Is it the freedom whose progress is marked by general security, by the increase of public credit, by the decrease of pauperism, by the decrease of poverty, by the decrease of crime, by the increase of mutual goodwill, by the exercise of each man's right to do that which it is his lawful right to do, and by the unrestricted reign of law? Is that the liberty which the right hon. Gentleman recommends, or is it that miscalled liberty which is dogged by crime, which controls lawful action; is it the freedom of the Moonlighter to pursue his midnight assassinations, and which is marked by the impotence of the law and the omnipotence of terrorism? That is the freedom which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to bow down to, and to pay worship to. But we cultivate that other freedom whose fruits are prosperity, individual liberty, and social harmony; and it is as a contribution to that cause that we ask the House now to read this Bill a third time.
    MR. C. R. SPENCERsaid, he must protest as strongly as he could against a Bill which he considered, notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to be absolutely unnecessary and unjust. The right hon. Gentleman attributed the decrease of agrarian crime in Ireland to the introduction of this Coercion Bill; but he (Mr. C. R. Spencer) believed the quiet state of the country was due to the fact that the Irish people felt that the majority of the English people were in unison with them, and that they had the support of the popular constituencies of this country. In 1881 there was a very large amount of crime in Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted; and when the Liberal Party had to pass a Crimes Act at that, period it was with sorrow and not with jubilation, and also because they felt that it safeguarded liberty as much as possible under the circumstances, while at the same time it was only of temporary duration. No doubt Bills of great stringency had often been introduced for the government of Ireland; but he believed this was the first which was unlimited in duration, and he had heard no good reason assigned why it should be made perpetual. He did not believe that the people of this country would approve an exceptional Act of that character being applied to Ireland for ever. He had seen something of the working of a Coercion Act in Ireland, and, although he believed that it had been justly and fairly carried out, he did not feel that such legislation had done good in the long run for Ireland. He felt that something must be done for Ireland in the way that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had sketched out.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that when the Cloture Resolution was under discussion he supported an Amendment upon that Resolution, which had for its object to exclude from its operation any alteration or amendment of the Criminal Law. He remembered on that occasion that the arguments which were used by those who took that view were that the security and safety of the country, as depending upon its Criminal Law, was

    113
    a thing which should not be lightly or rashly interfered with, and yet the first and the only application of the closure system in that House had been to carry through a measure of a very drastic character, effecting a considerable alteration in the Criminal Law of Ireland. The present Bill was a Bill which largely dealt with the condition of jury trial. Now, he ventured to say that the Bill which they were now passing was one which in America and many other Legislatures it would be impossible for the Legislature to pass, or, if it were to pass, it would not have the effect of law. In the 6th amended Article of the American Constitution, it was said that in all criminal prosecutions the accused should enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime should be committed. They were about to deprive Ireland by this Bill in perpetuity of certain rights by means of the operation of a Closure Rule which went on the basis of other Legislatures, but which, when operating upon the Criminal Law, without the safeguards such as he had indicated in the American Constitution, was an exceedingly dangerous thing. There were three characteristics of the Bill which were wholly objectionable. In the first place, it struck at association, and in the case of Irish tenants made action punishable which would not be punishable in the case of English trades unions. The words were—"To induce any person not to work for any person in the ordinary course of trade." This which was thus rendered criminal in the Irish tenant was exactly what was permitted to the English trades unionist. It was remarkable that when the trades unions outrages took place in this country, precisely the same language was used with respect to trades unions, which then were not legalized, as was used now of the Irish Nationalist Party and of the National League. The next evil of the Bill was that it made the Criminal Law in any portion of Ireland dependent upon the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. In this there was great danger, for the Government would have the power to suppress as criminal any any political association which might be opposed to them. The Bill would make free political life in Ireland impossible. The progress of civilization had largely
    114
    consisted in the substitution of definite law for discretion; yet here, at the absolute discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, that was to say, of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour) an action might be criminal or not, and the method of procedure by which the accused was tried might be this one day and that the other. The third great evil of the Bill was that the changes which it effected in the law were not to be temporary, but permanent. This Bill proposed to hand over not the women of Regent Street, but the whole people of Ireland to police evidence and police magistrates. With regard to riotous meetings, he believed it would be dangerous to entrust the Resident Magistrates with the powers conferred on them by this Bill. Their definition of "riotous" was not to be trusted. In Dungannon a gentleman had been prevented from addressing a meeting from his own doorsteps, and what was a perfectly peaceable meeting was proclaimed. Sometime afterwards he went to a meeting at Omagh, and found the walls placarded by the Loyalists, calling on their supporters to assemble in their thousands to oppose the rebels and assassins. It was deemed unadvisable to prevent an English gentleman from addressing a meeting there, and so a meeting, attended by 12,000 people, was held without any disturbance whatever, though 400 police and about 200 soldiers were stationed in the town. It would have been proclaimed, he believed, if no English Member of Parliament had been present, for its circumstances did not differ from that proclaimed a few days previously at Dungannon. This Bill attempted to grapple with Boycotting. It was quite impossible for any law to do so successfully. In Ulster there was a considerable amount of Boycotting of Home Rulers, and no attempt would be made by the Government to put this down under the power conferred by the Bill. A friend of his had told him that he had in his linen factory four overseers who were Orangemen. In the course of his business it was necessary to take apprentices to those overseers, and he took one of the most promising boys in the factory, and brought him to one of these overseers. The overseer took the boy; but a few days afterwards told the employer that he would not keep the boy, because he "would not teach

    115
    any of these Papists a trade." The employer insisted on his keeping the boy, and the result was that all four overseers went away from Belfast and left their employer in the lurch. Did not that sort of Boycotting deserve proclamation and punishment as much as any other? Did it not as much as any other deprive its victim of the opportunity of earning a living? He did not believe either could be prevented by law. They would probably be told that by this debate on the third reading they were obstructing the reforms which the Government wished to introduce; but if the Government would show them their reforms, they would help to carry them through the House, as they had done in the case of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. The fact was all that the Government really wanted to carry was this Coercion Bill. On that side of the House they opposed the Bill because they wanted to get at the Business of England; they did not believe that the eternal question of Ireland would be got rid of merely by passing this Bill. They had opposed this Bill in the hope, which had now proved vain, that they would induce the Government to abandon a policy which had failed for nearly a century, and might induce it to bring in remedial measures for Ireland, which, even though they might not solve the Irish question, might, at least, secure a breathing time for English reforms. They based their claims for justice, with regard to English legislation, on the representative system of England, and they could not ignore the representative system of Ireland, and hoped that their own would not also be ignored. The Government had, by their policy, driven the people of this country into greater solidarity with the people of Ireland, because the former perceived that they could not get justice for themselves so long as they refused justice to the Irish people. The Government might succeed by this Bill in stifling Ireland's voice of complaint, although he doubted it; but they would not succeed in silencing the organized utterances of England's sympathy with Ireland, which now surged and rose like the voice of many waters.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid that having taken no part in the long debates on this Bill, he begged to congratulate the Chief Secretary for
    116
    Ireland upon the perseverance and ability with which he had conducted this measure through the House, and the more especially was he pleased with the result, as he understood hon. Members opposite to imply on former occasions that no legislation should take place while the present Government were in Office. ["No, no!"] He maintained that this was not a Coercion, but a Peace Preservation, Bill, and on that ground he had given the Government a loyal support in their endeavour to pass it. In 1881 he and the Party to which he belonged had supported the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, because he had always held that when a Government, on its responsibility, came down to the House and said that they wanted power to maintain law and order, it was the duty of every Member to support them under such circumstances. The way in which the present Government had been treated by the Opposition contrasted very unfavourably with the treatment accorded to the Government of six years ago. Times had changed, and hon. Gentlemen now opposed the principles they advocated in 1881; but the Party he belonged to was a loyal Party, who would give their assistance to the Government of the day in support of law and order, no matter how much, they might differ with them in other respects. He thanked the Government that they had under the greatest difficulties persevered in carrying this Bill to its third reading.
    MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, that the hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Robert Fowler) had told them that the Party opposite was a loyal Party. Well, there were two points of loyalty—loyalty to the Crown, and loyalty to the Constitution. He began to think that those who sat on the Irish Benches were as loyal to the Crown as hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they were loyal to the British Constitution which the Tories by the methods they had pursued in that House and by that Bill had abrogated. There was a feeling on those Benches that hon. Members opposite hated them, and there was much in their conduct to give rise to that feeling; but he could not help thinking there were many hon. Gentlemen among the Conservatives in England, and also on the Benches opposite,

    117
    who did not believe the falsehoods which had been circulated concerning the Irish Members, and who believed in their secret hearts that the Irish Members in opposing that Bill had been acting throughout from, a sincere desire to do what they believed to be the best for their constituents and the country. He believed that as the result of this Bill serious crime would be increased, and that the power, influence, and prestige of what Lord Hartington had called the Revolution any Party in Ireland would be augmented, and he would tell them why. The Irish tenants had been taught by the Parliamentary Party to look for protection from unjust evictions to combination; but by that Bill the Government were seeking to do away with combination. As sure as they prevented the tenants from being able to combine so surely would crime and the old state of things before the National League was started and the present Party arose be revived and intensified. The Government had laid the meshes of their Bill so carefully that some Members of the Irish Nationalist Party would be entangled and would be sent to prison. Did they suppose that was the way to make the Bill succeed? The only result would be that a halo of glory would be thrown around those men, and their influence would be increased. It was a high moral duty for the Members of his Party to make this Bill a failure. They intended to carry on this agitation for their rights as a nation, no matter how much they might curtail their liberties. When they appealed to the people of this country they would remind them of all that Ireland had suffered, and the response which the Government would receive to their Coercion Bill would be very disappointing indeed. The Tories not very long ago had stated that coercion was unnecessary, and yet they were passing the moat drastic Coercion Bill ever introduced into the House. It remained for the Irish Members to drive the Government one step further and make them acknowledge that they could not govern Ireland by coercion, and that the only method to govern that country was by conciliation and good will. Another reason they should oppose the Coercion Bill was because it abrogated the rights and privileges of the British Constitution, which they were anxious to retain,
    MR. DE LISLEsaid, that astonishment had sometimes been expressed that he, as a Roman Catholic, should be found amongst the opponents of Home Rule; but Cardinal Cullen was just as much opposed as he was to Home Rule, as was evident from a passage from the writings of the Cardinal, in which he said that the movement for Home Rule sprang from the same spirit of revolution which the Holy See had condemned when it manifested itself in Italy, and in which moreover he went on to predict that if ever the liberty and the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland were attacked, it would be by an Irish Parliament. He (Mr. De Lisle) had reason to believe that many Irish Bishops and priests held the same view as Cardinal Cullen, and he had also reason to believe that his (Mr. De Lisle's) opinion was shared by the great majority of educated Roman Catholics. That House was now going to pass a Coercion Bill as it was called. Well, in a certain sense it was a Coercion Bill, for so long as the Irish endeavoured to realize a separate Irish Nationality, he should always stand up for coercion so far as to prevent Irishmen from violating the laws of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said that he was fighting for the unity of the Empire, and asked what they on that side of the House were fighting for? He (Mr. De Lisle) would never disguise his sentiments. What were they fighting for? He was not prepared to say that they were fighting merely for the unity of the interests of the Empire. The federation scheme might embody a very good principle; but at present they were fighting for the unity of the United Kingdom. They believed it was essential for the welfare of England that only one Parliament and one Executive should exist in these Islands. So long as a separate Parliament was the aim of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and the Party who followed him, the right hon. Gentleman would receive his most earnest opposition. The hon. Member then referred to a manifesto put forward by an Irish Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, declaring it to be the first and most sacred duty of an Irishman to rebel against the English Government. As a reward for these sentiments he had been promoted to the responsible position

    119
    of president of Thurles seminary by Archbishop Croke. Thurles was, next to Chaynooth, the largest ecclesiastical college in Ireland. The Plan of Campaign had also been spoken of by an Irish Roman Catholic ecclesiastic as almost emanating from Divine inspiration; and probably when hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway obtained an Irish Parliament, its walls would be decorated by a picture representing the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) receiving the Divine afflatus. He himself was one of those who held that before any remedial measures could be effectually applied to Ireland they must restore law and order and social morality in that country. Addressing the Grand Jury, Mr. Justice O'Brien only the other day had given a very graphic description of the condition of the County of Clare He said—
    "All accounts concur in representing that no kind of improvement whatsoever has taken place. All these reports lead me, I regret to say, to the inevitable conclusion that this County of Clare possesses the had distinction of being the worst part of all Ireland in respect of social disturbance and disorder."
    If that was so, County Clare would probably also have the distinction of being the first county to be proclaimed under that Bill. The learned Judge went on to say the Reports—
    "Lead me to the further conclusion that the County of Clare is worse at present than it has been at any time before. The record of the actual crime is not the worst evil you have to deal with. You know there is another and a greater evil that stares you in the face every day, and that is the evil of intimidation, open or unexpressed, that permeates the whole of this community."
    The object of that Bill was to get rid of that constant and cruel petty tyranny which made life in many parts of Ireland absolutely unbearable. The authors of the miseries which the Irish people were now undergoing were those who for political purposes were making war upon the landlords. The object of those persons was to ruin the Irish landlords, and with the Irish landlords they would ruin all classes in the country. Such persons were the greatest enemies of their own fellow-countrymen. He thought that he had said enough as an Englishman and a Catholic to establish the position he had taken up. In the most earnest hope that peace and prosperity would be restored to our unhappy
    120
    Sister Country, he intended to give his most cordial support to Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I have not the slightest notion of endeavouring to criticize the performance of the hon. Member who has just enlivened the proceedings of the House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, for my own part, that I do not hate him, as he seems to suppose; but on no account whatever can I so love him as to treat him as a very serious or formidable opponent. However we may regard him, we may very well give to what he has called the superior race the credit of having produced the hon. Gentleman and of having produced the arguments to which he has treated the House. Sir, I rise because I do not like to allow this Bill to pass without saying some few words in protest. I may say from the point of view of those in Ireland on whom I dare say the weight of this Bill is intended to fall—and before I say anything on the subject I will first of all say that I believe there is nothing in the whole career of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) which will have made a deeper impress upon the Irish heart than his brave and steadfast defence to the last hour to-night against this disgraceful Bill. It was impossible, Sir, to listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without feeling upon which side in this quarrel—in this controvesy—is the magnanimity and the greatness, which, I confess, if I were an Englishman, I should like to see characterizing the statesmen of a powerful Empire like this. The right hon. Gentleman has been assailed almost as scurrilously as the Representatives of the Irish people—assailed because he would not hold his arms, and because he did not attempt to tie our arms also while the liberties of the Irish people were being outraged in this House in every way they liked, and as infamously as they liked, by a majority of not 100 men of this House, who were elected, I say, not to rush a Coercion Bill through the House, but to prove that coercion was unnecessary. Yes; I say these men undertook to prove to England that Ireland could be governed by this Parliament upon equal and upon sisterly terms with England. The right hon. Gentleman has been attacked for his resistance to this

    121
    Bill; but I tell you that if the object of this Bill is not merely one to trample down our unfortunate people—if the object of this legislation, as those who promote it pretend it is, to bring peace and goodwill between these two countries, the action of the right hon. Gentleman, his brave resistance to this Bill, will do more, and has done more, to tranquillize Ireland—to drive enmity to England from Irish hearts—has done more in that way than this Coercion Bill could do if every clause of it could be administered with a rod of iron for the next 100 years in Ireland. Sir, if this Bill is received in Ireland without any outbreaks of passion or despair, you will have to thank the stringency of its provisions—not the stringency of your clôture—you will have to thank the thorough-going and determined resistance the Liberal Party gave the Bill through every stage of its course through the House; and I will tell you why, because it has brought home to the minds of the Irish people that there is now a great Party—a great English Party in this House that will not stand by and see our unfortunate people trampled down and crushed down under the heel of every landlord whipper - snapper. [Ironical cheers.] I hear hon. Members opposite jeer—they seem to imagine that the clôture is an invention solely for the benefit of the Tory Party; but, Sir, I would tell them that the friends we have got in this House now are the Party that has been in power in this Empire for the greater part of the century, and it is not altogether impossible that they may be in power again. The Spalding election, at all events, shows this much, that Englishmen have now begun to insist upon examining this question and inquiring into this question themselves; and they are beginning, the moment they have begun to examine it seriously, to revolt against the lying stuff—the poisonous stuff—that has been poured into their ears. The Irish people recognize that a spirit of friendliness towards Ireland is arising in English minds, and they reciprocate it honestly; and whatever troubles there may be before us in Ireland—and there are a good many in the way of petty tyranny and suffering and oppression—but whatever there may be before us in Ireland we are glad to
    122
    find that Englishmen are willing to risk something, to sacrifice something, in order that the two peoples may shake hands in friendship, and our answer is—so are we ready to meet them halfway, and more than half-way; and, whatever may be the régime of the right hon. Gentleman the Dictator for Ireland within the next few months, no amount of provocation, no amount of defamation from The Times newspaper, will drive us from that position. I do not know whether I should be in Order in referring very briefly, as I should like to do, to my own experiences within the last month or two among the men—[Interruptions]—If hon. Gentlemen opposite heard me out they would perhaps economize their jeers. I should like to say something of my experiences among the men of the great and powerful nation whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) is so fond of speaking of as foreign conspirators. I hope I may be in Order in doing it, because I believe it has a most vital, powerful, and direct bearing upon this Bill; and I tell you, if you only knew the men, the millions of men, who are branded as foreign conspirators, and whom Englishmen are taught to regard as murderers and assassins, that opinion of them would soon vanish. I admit they are foreign, technically; who made them foreigners? If they have been conspirators for Ireland, it is legislation like this that has made them conspirators, and it is legislation of this sort that would keep them so, and that would rankle the sense of bitterness that runs in these men's hearts. I tell you this—and I think we may fairly claim that we have not disguised our thoughts from friends or foes, whether they were pleasant or unpleasant to hear—I tell you here to-night, with solemn sense of the responsibility, that if you want to make friends of that great Irish-American nation—[laughter]—and in spite of the jeers of hon. Members opposite, I will say that truer or nobler or sincerer friends never poured out their lives and substance in any good cause—I tell you, if you want to conciliate these men—to make them friends and not to insult them and revile them—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has placed it in the power of England to do it. How

    123
    long that may be true while this brutal Coercion Bill is in force I do not undertake to answer—I am not sure I can answer even for myself; but with my life I answer that it is true to-day; and I only wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are not utterly blinded by Party interest—I will not say baser considerations—would only go out there and see these men for themselves, and not trust to the foul and miserable and infamous libels that are circulated here in England for the purpose of poisoning and aggravating the soreness between the two Countries. That is the point you have reached to-day in the relations between the two Countries; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian may esteem it one of the proudest—aye, the proudest achievement of his life, for it is a point which no English conqueror ever reached before in Ireland with all your armies and all your Coercion Acts—you have conquered, you have won the good opinion and the goodwill of many a million of Irishmen who three years ago could scarcely bear to hear the name of England without a curse, and I say it would be a miserable day's work and an unhappy day's work for the two Countries if by the operation of this wretched Bill you sacrifice and destroy all the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done. If you do that, and you may easily do that—if you do that for what? Let me ask you for what? To enable something like a couple of dozen of landlord desperadoes in Ireland—men like Lord Clanricarde and Colonel O'Callaghan; professional firebrands like Hamilton, who is carrying out evictions at Coolgreany to-day—all to enable these men to boast that they can enforce their rights against our poor people—their legal rights which your own legal tribunals have branded as dishonest, and which your own Tory Prime Minister the other night in the House of Lords disclaimed and reprobated and felt ashamed of. Well, Sir, I do not, of course, pretend to say to what extent this Coercion Act is going to be successful in Ireland; I can hardly help thinking that the taunts that are sometimes addressed to us on the subject, when men boast of the powers of coercion in Ireland, that they are not very brave, that they are a little premature. I confess that if I were an Englishman I
    124
    should be a little ashamed of some of the taunts that are levelled at us, who are fighting against and struggling against frightful odds. You have destroyed 3,000,000 of our population within this generation. You have weakened us down to less than 5,000,000 to-day. Our own people, the very flower of them, are still flying from the unfortunate country at the rate of 2,000 a week. You have 40,000 bayonets at the throats of the unfortunate people who remain. [Cries of "No !"] Yes; and our only satisfaction is that you pay for them too. You have disarmed us of every weapon—you are disarming us now of our organization—you are disarming us of the poor weapons of our tongues and our pens. You have gagged the Representatives of our own people in this Parliament, and even with all that apparently your minds are not very much at ease. Some of your foremost statesmen are not above bragging with all these savage Coercion Acts and loyal armies and spies that you will succeed in trampling us down. [An hon. MEMBER: Speak up !] I will—you will hear me, I promise you. I am commenting upon the gallantry of some of your Party in bragging as of a great achievement that would redound to the honour of England—that you will be able by all these Bills to show our unfortunate people that they are to be plundered by rack-renters like Lord Clanricarde and Colonel O'Callaghan of rackrents which I will say not a man of you could stand up honestly and defend. That may be all very gallant. I do not say it may come to pass; possibly it may. I do not think it will. I do not intend entering here to-night—it is not necessary for me to enter—into the reason why I believe that decimated though we are, and poor though we are, and crushed though we will be under this Bill, that the Irish people will be a match for this Coercion Bill. That, at all events, is my belief. I do not believe you are going to crush us. I cannot pretend to have the smallest apprehension that you are even going to crush the Plan of Campaign, nor to talk of crushing the spirit and organization and power of the Irish race throughout the world. You cannot do it. You are not going to coerce us into crime, and I confess—I do not know—I suppose it would be out of Order, perhaps, for me to speak my full mind about the subject,

    125
    but I confess I hardly think that it would not be a fit title for this Bill—of course I do not impute that it was so intended by the men who framed it, but I say it is the inherent and innate tendency of this Bill—that it is a Bill to coerce us into crime, which does not exist—a Bill to bolster-up the forlorn and disgraceful libels and forgeries of The Times—a Bill to play the game of these virtuous politicians who have nothing but words of insult upon their lips for us now—who two years ago or less were not above bargaining for our votes—aye, and in one memorable instance aspiring to be our National apostle. You are dealing with a spirit which is beyond the powers of such men as these, and perhaps a little beyond their comprehension. You are not dealing merely with a handful of us here, nor with a few thousand poor tenants in Ireland, but you are dealing with a spirit—well, somehow I cannot, without something like a chill, speak in this place, before this audience, of what is sacred to us, but this much I will say, that you are dealing with a spirit which has its life in the history of ages long gone by, and which will live as long as there is blood in the heart of one Irishman. You are dealing with a spirit which the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has already half conciliated—which it will conciliate altogether if you let it, but which I tell you you will never suppress. There is only one thing I feel almost as well assured of, and that is that the sooner this Act is put in force, and the more savagely administered by Sergeant Peter O'Brien, of Dublin, the sooner honest men and generous men in England will rise up and drive that Government from their wicked and dishonouring work in Ireland, and will back the man who repudiated this Bill, and I say it here tonight, who has closed, and closed for ever, the heart-rending and shameful story of this Government, and hatred and wrong between the two countries.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that last year he ventured in the House to state that he had 85 reasons for objecting to Home Rule in Ireland, and that those 85 reasons sat below the Gangway opposite. He would ask any right-minded man who had listened to the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for North East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) whether the
    126
    Irish Loyalists had not some ground for objecting to place themselves under a Government in Ireland of which the hon. Member for North-East Cork would be a prominent Member. The hon. Member for North-East Cork occupied a distinguished position in the Separatist Party. He was now one of the principal lieutenants of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). His words, therefore, must have considerable weight from the fact that he occupied that position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his Friends had the habit of tolling them that if they only passed a Home Rule Bill and placed the Government of Ireland under the authority of the hon. Member for North-East Cork and similar persons Ireland would become a loyal, a peaceful, and a happy country, devoted to the British Crown. These observations were made in the House of Commons and to the English constituencies. It was the English edition of Home Rule, but he (Colonel Saunderson) did not believe that the commonsense and the patriotism of either the House of Commons or the English constituencies would be carried away with such a muddy flood of saponaceous lather. It was his duty as an Irish Loyalist to draw the attention of the House of Commons and of the country not to speeches made within those walls, nor to those made within the borders of the English constituencies, but to the harangues made in their native country by the patriots sitting below the Gangway opposite, and he was happy to know that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had furnished him with a specimen of the love which he bore to the Party which he hoped would soon have supreme authority in England. The hon. Gentleman had just come back from America, and in his speech he asked whether he would be in Order if he gave some of his experiences in that country. He listened with great attention to the hon. Member, but he heard nothing whatever of those experiences. The only thing which the hon. Member told the House was that on the other side of the Atlantic there was a powerful race which once lived in Ireland but were now living in America; and then he went on to say that we had hunted the 3,000,000 Irishmen from their native country to become exiles in

    127
    a foreign land. When an Englishman left his country he was called an emigrant, but when an Irishman left his country he was called an exile. He had never heard that in the German House of Representatives the Germans attacked their Government because an enormous number of emigrants left Germany every year to seek increased prosperity in America and other lands. Would the hon. Member wish to bring back these 3,000,000 of more or less prosperous Irishmen out of the United States and place them in the wilds of Connemara, Galway, and Cork? Would he get up and say deliberately, loving his countrymen as no doubt the hon. Member did, that he would have them leave their thriving occupations in the United States and come back again to the mud cabins of Connemara? The hon. Member went on to say that he and his Friends were ready to meet the Loyalists half-way. He would like to say what that half-way house was. Coming back from America the hon. Member landed in Cork and the first thing he did was to make a speech which he (Colonel Saunderson) would proceed to quote from. The paper from which he would quote was United Ireland, whose authority the hon. Member would not dispute. The hon. Member said—
    "The last night I slept in America one of the last messages I had was a message to Charles Stewart Parnell with a cheque for £5,000 of English money. This is the work of our friends in America; this is their pledge. I have given them a pledge in return on your part, and it is this, and I do not fear to repeat it here to-day, that come what will, whatever little wretched terrors of coercion like Mr. Balfour—whatever bogies or terrors of coercion he may shake in our faces, I pledged for you in America and you will redeem the pledge—I promise here to-day that this cause will go on and that all this great Army of Irish freemen will march unconquered and unconquerable until we have trampled down the Loyalists in the last ditch."
    There they were. Parenthetically he might remark, and the House would understand, that Irish landlords, at any rate, objected to that. He (Colonel Saunderson) would have the House mark what followed—
    "And until we have hauled down the flag of Orange ascendancy and of English rule for evermore from the highest pinnacle in this land."
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: The words that I used were English misrule.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that as the hon. Member was the editor and proprietor of the journal from which he quoted, the hon. Gentleman ought to have exercised more accurate supervision in the management of his paper.
    MR. W. O'BEIEN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to say that owing to my absence I have not been of late able to interpose in any way in the management of United Ireland.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that he would accept at once the correction of the hon. Member. Still, at any rate, the hon. Member hoped in the immediate future to trample all Loyalists "in the last ditch" and to haul down the flag of England and Ireland. That was the love which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian by his policy had aroused in the breasts of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He would turn for a moment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. When he heard that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move the rejection of the Bill he did not try to imagine what he would say, for no mortal man could imagine that; but he imagined what he would not say, and he was absolutely correct in the supposition he arrived at. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman would make an eloquent speech—he always did that—and he knew that he would allude to the various difficulties of government in Ireland. But he knew also that the right hon. Gentleman would not say one single word about the National League, or about the terrorism and coercion which it exercised in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his oration, gave no indication why it was, and when it was, that he changed his opinion of hon. Members below the Gangway who were now his Friends, and of the organization which, in the immediate past, he had blasted with all the force of his eloquent denunciation trumpeted throughout the country. Neither in that House nor in the country, as far as he was able to learn, had the right hon. Gentleman ever indicated why, or when, it was that this wonderful change took place which he imagined must have taken place before the right hon. Gentleman consented to place hon. Members below the Gangway in supreme authority in Ireland—with a Parliament in Dublin—and to believe

    129
    that the creation of the National League Party would tend to the happiness and prosperity of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was a master of the art of political shunting, and he turned the attention of the House and the country from the main issue, which he objected to and did not like to confront, to a side issue which he found more to his taste and which could be more easily dealt with. Thus the right hon. Gentleman spent a large portion of his speech tonight, not in dealing with the main issue, but in dealing with crime and statistics of crime, which, he said, alone could justify a Coercion Act. He (Colonel Saunderson) had never heard right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench say that it was the amount of crime in Ireland that justified the introduction of this Bill. Nobody who knew Irishmen believed for a moment that they were naturally a criminal people. He believed that they were naturally averse to crime; but it was when they were maddened into excitement that crimes were committed which would sully the annals of any land. That was not the issue to be decided. It was rather this—What authority was to rule in Ireland? Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite hoped to get rid of the landlords, and by getting rid of them getting rid also of that dual ownership which was supposed to be a curse to Ireland. There was something worse than the dual ownership of land; the dual ownership of Ireland was at stake; it was owned by the National League and by the Queen; and what Parliament had to deal with was an organization which had usurped the authority of the law of the land, established its Courts all over the country, summoned before its Courts those who did not obey its edicts, and asserted its superiority to the Law Courts of the land. Her Majesty's Government had felt that unless they adopted the policy of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, which was surrender to the National League, it was absolutely imperative on the House of Commons to reinforce the law of the land and to make it supreme in Ireland. So long as the Irish remained a law-abiding people, so long the Bill would remain a dead letter. He had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, hoping to hear some
    130
    instance of how the Bill would interfere with any law-abiding man; but the right hon. Gentleman never touched upon that point, but contented himself with saying that the Government was passing a Bill for Ireland which they would not dare to propose for England or Scotland. That assertion he (Colonel Saunderson) denied; for if the same organization existed in England that existed in Ireland, if the English tenantry had their cattle killed and houghed in the field, if their houses were burned and their lives were not safe, Parliament would quickly pass a Bill to deal with such a state of things. That was all the Government proposed to do in Ireland. The Bill would not interfere with any real liberty except the liberty of the criminal to commit crime, except the liberty of the political agitator to preach treason, which would be put down by the strong hand in England, in Ireland, or in Scotland. The object of the Bill was to enable tenants to enjoy the gifts Parliament had already conferred on them, to enable them to buy and sell without let or hindrance. The Bill would not be used for trampling down the liberties of Irishmen, or interfering with them in the ordinary business of life; but it was a Bill to deal with an organization which had proved to be the curse of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian never mentioned the National League; but he spoke euphemistically of combination. He did not mention Boycotting; but he spoke of exclusive dealing. Yet, when he was Prime Minister, he had said that the path of the former League had been tracked with blood, murder, and outrage; he treated it as a criminal organization, and he put it down. The right hon. Gentleman never mentioned the present organization, founded for treasonable and felonious purposes, maintained by money sent by the avowed enemies of England in America; but he proposed to place Ireland under its authority. Lord Spencer once said at Newcastle that remedial measures for Ireland had been passed that were so strong that it strained the loyalty of many English Members to carry them; and yet the effective operation of these remedial measures was prevented by those who wanted to get the government of the country into their own hands. The pre-

    131
    sent Government intended that these measures should be allowed to take effect; they intended to prevent any organizations setting its foot upon Her Majesty's subjects and depriving them of their just right to enjoy the remedial measures passed by Parliament. It was the object of hon. Members opposite to prevent attention being concentrated on the issue whether Parliament or the National League was to be supreme; they wanted to divert the gaze of the public to the Irish landlords, whom they knew to be a rather unpopular class. They had chosen two test cases—Glenbeigh and Bodyke. At Glenbeigh an arrangement was progressing between the landlord and the tenants when a League meeting was held, and the parish priest was so disgusted by what followed that he called the people slaves. It turned out that an English lawyer into whose hands the property had fallen had made a most generous offer—namely, to accept one half-year's rent for six years' arrears due. At Bodyke the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) informed them the people did not adopt the Plan of Campaign.
    MR. DILLONsaid, the statements of the hon. and gallant Mem-were very inaccurate. What he had said was that he did not interfere until he was sent for to Bodyke, five months ago, and the tenants adopted the Plan of Campaign on his advice.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that made his argument the stronger. He wished to show that the Bodyke estate was chosen to test the Plan of Campaign. It was not his business to defend Colonel O'Callaghan. He believed Colonel O'Callaghan went as far as the law would permit in asserting his rights. But there were redeeming qualities in him which had not been mentioned. When he came into his property there were £6,000 of arrears due which he wiped off. Then there were the Bodyke evictions. Now, he hated evictions, and tried to avoid them. But these evictions were on the judicial rents, and he was astounded to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) hold up to execration the whole class of Irish landlords because one of them chose to hold by the bargain which the right hon. Gentleman himself had made. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that Colonel O'Callaghan was a type of Irish
    132
    landlords. He (Colonel Saunderson) might just as well say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was a favourable specimen of English statesmen. He hoped for a favourable result from the passing of this Bill, because it would relieve the tenantry of Ireland from the grinding tyranny of the National League. He had before alluded in that House to the men Troy who gave evidence on the Cowper Commission, but who were afraid to give their names; but so soon as this Bill had been introduced they at once consented to their names being mentioned in that House. He had recently had a letter from one of these men, in which he said they wrote a letter appealing for justice, or, if not, for mercy, to an hon. Member of that House who was Secretary of the Land League in Dublin, and got no answer.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: There is not a word of truth in the statement that these men ever wrote a letter to me.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: How does the hon. Member know?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: If the hon. and gallant Member does not believe my word, I can tell him that the people of Ireland will believe my word before they will believe that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he would, of course, take the hon. Member's word that he did not receive such a letter; but the letter might, nevertheless, have been written. The men said they wrote it, and he believed them. At any rate, they got no justice from the National League—who would listen to no appeal—by which they had been fined and ruined. It was with cases of that sort that this Bill would deal. The tenants were ground down and tyrannized over by the League much more than by landlords, and the Bill would relieve them from that tyranny. Now, he wanted to ask a most serious question. How was it that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian came to change his mind? How was it that as his alternative scheme for the government of Ireland he proposed to place in supreme authority men whom he had previously branded in his speech at Edinburgh as unworthy of confidence? The right hon. Gentleman in that speech had urged the danger of a state of things in which it would be in the power of the

    133
    Nationalist Party to say to the Liberal Party—" Do this, or do that." It would not be safe, he said, to enter into consideration of the principles of a measure at every step of which the Irish Party might threaten to turn them out to-morrow. Yet, when he got into power, the right hon. Gentleman was himself the first to fall a victim to this temptation. The right hon. Gentleman, in a recent letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), said that his position was exactly the same as it was on the 8th of April, 1886. The right hon. Gentleman was geographically in error. His mind might be in the same position, but his seat was now on the other side of the Table. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his coadjutors were able, as the Representatives of the Irish people, to demand in the name of the Irish people a measure which it would be very difficult to show that he had ever condemned. Why, the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten all his speeches for six years when he was thus whitewashing the men whom he had subjected to such, terrible denunciations a few years ago. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, were unworthy of confidence, were marching through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire a few years ago, when there were only 40 of them working—now there were 86 of them—did he forget absolutely those terrible denunciations? All he could say was that the right hon. Gentleman's ideas of morality—especially political morality—were absolutely diverted, and were not such as he could accept. Had the Nationalist Party changed in their methods and their objects? To show that they had not he would quote the hon. Member for North-East Cork and another celebrated Leader of the Party, Mr. Davitt. At Bodyke Mr. Davitt showed that he had not changed one iota since the right hon. Gentleman uttered those words. Mr. Davit said—
    "I trust every young man here to-day will have registered in his heart a vow which I made 30 years ago, to bear in my heart towards England and English government all the concentrated hatred of my Irish nature."
    If that Party was unchanged, he (Colonel
    134
    Saunderson) confessed he could not reconcile the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian with loyalty to the Crown, with loyalty to the Empire, and with loyalty to the Union. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had persuaded himself, from his point of view, that he was taking a conscientious and patriotic course, and he admitted that many of the right hon. Gentleman's followers probably held the same opinion; but he believed that they were led away by the glamour of a great name and great eloquence. He believed that when, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman went to another and more peaceful scene—[Cries of "Oh, oh !" and "Order !"]—he was not speaking of Heaven; he was speaking of the House of Lords, then he believed the cause which the right hon. Gentleman now maintained in the House of Commons would die a natural death. Far be it from him to wish any evil to the right hon. Gentleman. It was true that they were political opponents, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman might long be spared to sit on the Opposition Bench. He looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as the sheet anchor of the Unionist Party. The right hon. Gentleman might persuade himself that he was taking a patriotic course in pursuing a policy which he (Colonel Saunderson) regarded as being destructive of the best interests of the country; but it was his duty to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in his view, and in the view of those who sympathized with him, the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing a course which indicated that he was willing to betray and to sell his country.
    SIR EDWARD REED: I desire to say a few words before this Bill is read a third time. It is not a very happy sign of the times that the speech which we have just listened to is so entirely satisfactory to the bulk of the Party opposite that they do not require to hear any more upon the subject. In my opinion, the speech to which we have just listened is of a kind and description which is fast passing out of date and losing its power, and some better reason for the pressing of a Coercion Bill through Parliament will have to be found than any which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson) has adduced. It is rather an extraordinary circumstance in itself

    135
    that the very reasons which are adduced by the Government for the pressing forward of this Bill are precisely the reasons why I am most strenuously opposed to it. Now, we are told that this Bill has been brought into the House and pressed forward in the interests of Imperial unity—of the unity and power of the Empire. I am one of those who think that the power and unity of this Empire rest upon the power and greatness of this Parliament. I am of opinion—and it is now passing beyond the region of opinion, and becoming with me a matter of fact—that the measures which have been necessary in order to carry this Bill through this Parliament have been such as to strike a permanent blow at the authority and influence of this House. And if I were asked to find out one among all the disintegrating influences which are operating on this Empire at the present time; if I were required to point to that which, in my judgment, is doing the most harm to the Imperial power of this country, I should point to the debasement of this Parliament which this Bill has made necessary in order to secure its passage. I cannot help asking myself sometimes, how far ahead have the Government looked in connection with this matter? I myself am one who would not, as a lover of Imperial power and unity, yield one iota to any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House. I am one of those who listen to speeches like the one we have just listened to, and who witness the hilarity which has been exhibited by the Tory Party over that speech, with regret and alarm and with shame, for I regard such speeches as marks of the deterioration of this House. Now, let me ask the Tory Party opposite whether they have considered what will be the consequence in future days of the adoption of the closure, and of the other measures which we have had put into force in the pressing forward of this Bill? When a democratic majority comes into this House, and, as possibly may be the case, seeks to carry a measure inimical to the rights of property of the country, what precedent will they require for forcing their measure through Parliament but this precedent which the Government have set them in pressing forward this Bill? The power they will use is the power this Government has placed in
    136
    their hands. Before the late Government fell, and when the question of Home Rule for Ireland was before the country, I was asked, why are you going to vote for that Bill? and the answer I gave was—" I am going to vote for the Bill in the interests of Parliament and the country, and of all the Empire." I gave that reply for this reason—that it was a palpable necessity that you should either give a system of government to Ireland which would satisfy the Irish Representatives in all that was reasonable and proper, whether they remained in this House or went out of it, or resort to measures which can only be carried by an invasion of Parliamentary freedom, and of all that has made the Parliament of England memorable, venerable, and worthy. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether, when he leaves Office, when his Government is overthrown, he will leave this Parliament in the same condition as he found it in when he entered Office? This Parliament has been, in my judgment, degraded and weakened to a most frightful extent by the practices resorted to. I am quite aware that there existed in this Parliament possibilities of obstruction, and methods and habits which were exceedingly injurious to the credit and power of Parliament. Do not imagine I for one moment conceal that fact from myself; I am perfectly aware of it. I am perfectly aware that the state of things which existed during recent Parliaments could not have been maintained; it must have been got rid of in one way or another; and the question was, whether the change was to be brought about constitutionally, and to the satisfaction of the people of the country, or to be brought about unconstitutionally, and to the injury and hurt of Parliament and the Empire? I should like to know what the great Colonial Parliaments are beginning to think of this Parliament? [Ministerial ironical cheers.] Yes; but let me point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who treat that remark derisively that they are, by their present tactics, creating issues which they have not yet had to face. For example, it may well happen in the pursuance of your present methods that you may be silencing the voice of the Representatives of the great towns in this

    137
    country in matters of this description. I confess I have not sought many opportunities; but I have had, before now, no opportunity, although representing, I believe, more people than any other borough Representative in this House—I have had no opportunity of saying a word on this Bill. If you adopt methods by which the Representatives of the great boroughs and counties of this country are silenced in this House, what will be the consequences? They will appeal to their constituents, and they will do more, they will decline to be silenced. I maintain that it is not within the Constitutional right of the majority of this House to silence the minority whenever they please; and if they attempt to do so it will lead to rebellion such as we have never had in this country, because it is the function of Parliament to meet together to discuss, with whatever fulness the Representatives of the people desire, all questions which come before them. Now, I should like to revert to one or two points which have been incidentally mentioned in the speech to which we have just listened. I must confess that, of all the extraordinary doctrines to which I have listened in the debate on this Bill, the most extraordinary is that this Bill will hurt nobody but those who break the law. But this consideration neglects some of the fundamental facts of human nature and life. Suppose it to be true, as I believe it to be, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) pointed out to-night, that the liberties of the Irish people are to depend upon the will of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—suppose you put me in that position, and tell me that all the time I do not break the law I am safe, but that I hold my freedom and liberty at the will of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not care whether I am a law-breaker or not. I should regard such a state of things as an infringement on my natural right to freedom; and, whatever you say about law and order, I should fight against any man's individual will as my law. Therefore, I maintain that, in pressing such measures as this forward in the interest of what you call law and order, you are really assailing the very foundations of law and order, because you are removing not only the inducement the people have to obey the law and preserve order, but
    138
    you are raising their spirit against the law. The reason I have not much fear about this Bill being worked very mischievously, or lasting very long, as some people imagine it will, is that I am perfectly sure this Bill and its advocates will be swept away from power in the country because of this Bill and legislation of this kind. It has been boldly asserted to-night by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson) that if the people of England felt similar dissatisfaction, and resorted to the same means as some people of Ireland show and resort to, such a Bill as this would be passed for England, Why, everybody knows that the English people would never submit for a day or an hour to any Bill of this description under any conditions whatever; and the Irish people would never, and never ought, unless compelled by force. What obligation are Irishmen under to live under the condition that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant shall be the master of their liberty and freedom? What obligation has any Irishman to live peaceably under a state of things in which it rests with a Lord Lieutenant to create a law for him, control him, and to judge and deal with him as he pleases? The only justification, in my judgment, for such a Bill as this would be found in the fact that the Irish people were base enough to submit to it quietly. If I could believe that any free people in this age, with a free Press, with a Parliamentary right, could submit to the situation in which this Bill will place the people of Ireland, then I should believe they would have demonstrated their inferiority; and if they do not agitate against such a measure as this during every hour of its existence, in my opinion they will be unworthy of their ancestors, and unworthy of the present generation. I have not the slightest fear of this Bill prevailing, because I am certain its character has only to be brought clearly to the notice of the constituencies of this country and the constituencies will sweep it away. I am sure the people of England, when they come to understand this question, will never allow such an Act to continue in operation. I do not wish to exaggerate a single case, and I do not think I do so, when I say that we see, from recent events in Lincolnshire, that the people, when

    139
    they become informed of the nature of the case, will not permit the continuance of this Bill. My own opinion is that this Government will meet its fate because of this Bill, and I believe it will meet its fate before long. I do not think the Head of the Government, or the majority on that side of the House, have proved themselves lately very good judges of public feeling and sympathy. There have been signal instances in which they have proved themselves incapable of discerning even what the manifest sense of the House was; and I believe that in connection with this measure they are blind to the feelings which it will arouse in the country when the country comes to understand it. I believe that no one will stand a shadow of a chance on a Liberal platform who does not, in any future election, denounce this Bill as an infringement of the rights of the people of a great portion of the United Kingdom. That is my own firm conviction. [A laugh.] Yes; I have not trespassed many times upon the attention of the House in reference to this Bill, and I do not hesitate to say exactly what I think about it. Another remark that fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson), or, rather, slipped from him, was very significant and true. He said that this Bill is to be used to put down political agitation. It is true that he added the words "to promote treason." We know what that means—to promote what he calls treason. Now, this is the age—this is the House—in which it is boldly declared that a measure is being passed to put down political agitation; and the Government think they are going to stand for long, and stand strongly, on such a basis as that? I think it is one of the most futile suggestions possible. I have great sympathy with the Government. ["Hear, hear !"] Yes, I have; because I know the Government have to deal with remarkable evils, and very great evils; and in what I am saying I am merely, as I think the House will admit, pointing out what will be the consequences of this measure. I believe the Government have made an entire mistake in proposing such legislation, and I think, from the indications I have observed, they are now arousing themselves to the fact that the country is beginning to ask, why has all this time been wasted upon a measure
    140
    of this description? They say it is on account of obstruction. Well. I should like to ask the Government whether any man upon that Bench ever doubted not only that resistance would take place, but that it would be the duty of the Irish Members to resist to the utmost possible extent a measure of this kind. Why, to suppose that they did not know that such a measure as this would take many months to pass is to accuse them of an amount of political incapacity which, I believe, it would be libellous to impute to them. The whole pretence that this Bill has been a long time in passing on account of obstruction is hollow and unreasonable. The marvel to me is that it has not been very much longer in getting through its stages, considering the presence in the House of 85 Irishmen, all of whom would have been traitors and renegades to their country, and to their constituents, if they had not done everything in their power to oppose this measure. Therefore, the Government are, and they must remain, in the view of the country responsible for the whole time which this Bill has taken up, and they ought to be very thankful they have got it through without any greater expenditure of time upon it, although, I believe, they ought to very much lament the means they have resorted to. I declare it appears to me that no evil could have befallen this Empire comparable to the evil which has befallen Parliament. Nothing the Irish people could have done could have worked the Empire more damage, more harm, than have the tactics resorted to in the passing of this Bill. There is one other remark I wish to make, and if I am not very consecutive in my observations, I hope it will be attributed to the fact that I am noticing a speech which was remarkable for its want of consecutiveness. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Saunderson) thought it was sufficient to say—he said it with great unction and force, an unction and force which seemed entirely disproportionate to the strength of his argument—that the evictions to which he was referring have taken place under judicial rents. That is the sort of argument adduced. I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), and to refer to an unpleasant incident of recent date; but what does seem to me is, that

    141
    the Government fail to look beneath the superficial aspects of questions, or to see the reality. The other night the whole House felt perfectly well that the Home Secretary was speaking the absolute truth, and laying down a correct legal doctrine, though the speech he made failed to satisfy the House. What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) failed to do was to peer through the outside technicalities of the question, and get at the root of it. This is what they fail to do who say that these evictions are based on judicial rents. What does that matter when you are turning people out-of-doors, out of the homes they may themselves have built? I do not think meanly enough, not only of Irish people, but of anyone in this United Kingdom, to believe that they would be turned out willingly or with acquiescence from property which is, in many instances, more their own than it is that of the person who is turning them out. I believe that the Government will have to get rid of these technicalities and their officialism, and deal a little more practically with this question. I say this because I have had opportunities of coming into contact with them asses of the people. The position I have always taken up with the approval of the people is that the Bill itself is wrong; that it puts the nation in a wrong, painful, and dangerous position; that it invites disorder, because of the fact that it has been carried by measures injurious to this Parliament, and likely to work immense mischief to the very people who have adopted the means resorted to. I believe that the Government are hollowing the foundation upon which they stand; and they will find out, and that very speedily too, that when the people of England awake to the actual situation they will decline to keep right hon. Gentlemen opposite in power as tyrants over any part of the United Kingdom. They will say, make such arrangements as you can for the protection of interests; but you shall respect the feelings of the people, because it is only by this means that you can keep Parliament and the country great and respected among nations.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Mr. Speaker, I should not have intervened in the debate upon the third reading of this Bill had it not been for
    142
    the very extraordinary statements made to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I think it only right that as I am, to a certain extent, responsible for what has been said to be the legal aspect of the question, I should, without further delay, comment as authoritatively as I can upon some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was in a somewhat peculiar position a few nights ago, when we were discussing the question of the perpetuity of the Bill—when we were discussing an Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) as to whether the Bill should be made perpetual. We pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that that question depended to a great extent, if not entirely, upon the question of the evils against which the Bill is directed; and I ventured myself to point out to him that it was necessary he should make good his words, at some time or other, that this Bill was directed against political associations and not against crime. We have heard to-night the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to make good his position. I ask those who listened to his speech, and who followed his references to the clauses of the Bill, singular and vague as they were, whether the right hon. Gentleman made good in any sense at all the observation he has often made that this Bill is directed against something other than crime? The right hon. Gentleman referred to a very extraordinary statement, or to a supposed utterance of Mr. Justice Holmes, when he was Attorney General for Ireland and occupied a seat in this House. Now, I had the honour of being associated with Mr. Justice Holmes for the last three months in endeavouring to put before the House the legal aspect of the clauses of this Bill. I have been in consultation with him repeatedly outside the House, and of course been associated with him upon this Bench night after night; I have heard his statements in the House, and do not believe that any such statements as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian attributes to him can be found in any of the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Justice Holmes), [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who cry "Oh,

    143
    oh !" will kindly give me the date upon which the statement was made—indeed, some hon. Members have said they will endeavour to supply us with the particulars; but hitherto they have wholly failed. It must be borne in mind that hon. Gentlemen themselves have admitted that upon some evening shortly afterwards Mr. Holmes denied the use of the words attributed to him; and it is, to say the least, unfortunate that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid. Lothian should have been made at a time when Mr. Justice Holmes is no longer in the House, and, therefore, is unable to reply Now, I will give my view of the Bill. I am responsible for my utterances, and they can be checked by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. I say there is no new crime created by this Bill—I say there is no new offence created by this Bill; but I say, and I have never denied it for a single moment, that the mode of punishment, the mode of detecting crime, is new—that is to say, new provisions are inserted in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, said to-night there are three classes of offences which are touched by this Bill—felonies, misdemeanours, and then he used the words triumphantly as being the words which he alleges were used by Mr. Justice Holmes, "offences constituted by this Bill." It certainly was a very inapt observation for any lawyer to have used. We know perfectly well there are sections in which the words "offences punishable under this Act" are used, and in which distinction has been drawn between, felonies, misdemeanours, and offences punishable under the Act. But if my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Holmes) used the expression attributed to him, I am quite certain it was with reference to some such question as that now under discussion—namely, the way in which particular clauses should be applied. He never used them for the purpose of indicating that new offences were created. But I do not want to shield myself, under the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Holmes). I will submit to any hon. Member opposite who will answer me fairly, from a lawyer's point of view, whether the provisions of the Bill are not exactly in accordance with what I say? Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian referred to Clause 2. He admitted that
    144
    the section of the clause which he considered Mr. Holmes was referring to was Section 2, or Clause 2 of the Bill now before the House. Now, Sir, what are the sub-sections of that clause to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? They are two, and I do crave the attention of the House, because I wish these matters to be argued out fairly and squarely. The 1st sub-section relates to criminal conspiracies now punishable by law, and I do not believe there is a lawyer in the House who values his reputation who will get up and say that the whole of the 1st sub-section is not governed by the words "criminal conspiracy now punishable by law." How did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian deal with it? Instead of taking the whole sentence and seeing what were the governing words, he read out the words—
    "To induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, or use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
    And then he went on to use the argument, which I do not think anybody will consider valid—namely, that in England anybody may induce a person to any extent he likes, that in Scotland anybody may induce any person as much as he likes, but that the same right is denied an Irishman. [Mr. BRYCE: Hear, hear !] The hon. and learned Member says "Hear, hear !" Will he get up and say that the whole of this sub-section is not governed by the words "criminal conspiracy now punishable by law?" No one has a right to take up the section, and for the purpose of argument break it up into two parts, and allege that the offence is to induce a person not to fulfil his obligations. The offence is a criminal conspiracy to induce a person not to fulfil his legal obligations. I am perfectly acquainted with the law of England, and I have ascertained what is the law of Scotland on this subject; and I assert it is wholly untrue to allege, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) did to-night, if he means to refer to Clause 2, that in England it is not a criminal offence to conspire to compel persons not to fulfil their legal obligations. [An hon. MEMBER: He did not say so.] I agree he did not say so, because he left out the

    145
    governing words of the clause, "criminal conspiracy now punishable by law." I leave it to the judgment of the House whether that is fair argument. The answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that if persons in England or Scotland at the present time enter into a conspiracy which is contemplated by this sub-section they commit an offence against the Criminal Law. When it was suggested that someone might think of a new kind of crime, what did the Government do? They inserted the words "now punishable by law," for the purpose of showing that new crimes were not contemplated, but that that which constituted a criminal conspiracy should still do so. I pass to the next sub-section, and here, again, the right hon. Gentleman certainly did, to my mind, fall into a most extraordinary mistake. He indicated to the House that intimidation of the character contemplated by Subsection 2 was a new offence, and he suggested that that was the new offence which was contemplated, or which was referred to, by Mr. Justice Holmes. The right hon. Gentleman supported his argument by some analogies drawn from the Trades Unions Statutes, and suggested that what we are endeavouring to do is to place on the tenants of Ireland greater obligations than we are willing to put on the people of England. I think the right hon. Gentleman confused, for a moment, the Conspiracy Subsection with the Intimidation Sub-section. If he was dealing with the Conspiracy Sub-section, I might again point out that the whole clause is governed by the words "criminal conspiracy now punishable by law; "but if he was dealing with the Intimidation Sub-section, it occurs to my mind he cannot very recently have read Section 7 of what is commonly called the Trades Unions Act, or the Act of 1875, with reference to the Law of Conspiracy. Sub-section 2 says—"Any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence, or intimidation," &c. Now, Section 7 of the Act of 1875 lays it down that anyone who, with the view of compelling any other person to abstain from doing what he has a legal right to do, or vice versâ, uses violence or intimidation towards him, or his wife, or his children, shall be liable to punishment under summary jurisdiction or by indict-
    146
    ment. That was the section referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when he spoke to-night of "picketing and molesting" in connection with trades unions. The words of the two sections are, practically speaking, identical from the point of view in which I am now considering the question—namely, the using of violence or intimidation to or towards any person or persons. If you bear in mind that in this Bill we are simply dealing with the object of the intimidation, with the object of the violence which we desire to put an end to, I say that this section and the 7th section of the Act of 1875 are practically identical. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian says that a new offence is created by Sub-section 2, I respectfully and emphatically deny it; and I say, except in that the offence of intimidation well known to the law, the offence of using violence well known to the law, is properly described in relation to the evil intended to be met, there is no creation of new crime. My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Holmes) can no longer reply in this House; but I assert that no such statement attributed to him was ever made by him. Now, I wish to make a few observations on one or two other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, because I am unwilling to allow any doubt or any uncertainty as to what is our view in regard to this matter. In support of his general allegation that this Bill is a Bill not against crime, but against political associations, the right hon. Gentleman said that if it had been a Bill against crime three-fourths of the time taken up in the discussion of the Bill would have been saved. [Mr. BRYCE: Hear, hear !] The hon. and learned Gentleman cheers that statement; but has he looked through the Amendments we have been discussing for the last few months? Has he got in his mind what the character of those Amendments was? And, what is more important, does he remember the clauses of the Bill upon which the discussion took place? The Amendments which were discussed for weeks and weeks were directed to those parts of the Bill which solely had to do with the punishment of crime, directed to those parts of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has to-night said were

    147
    perfectly legitimate. But what he says is that the Bill goes beyond the punishment of crime, and in some mysterious way steps into the region of what is called political organization. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or wrong, I assert—and I was present almost constantly during the debates upon the Amendments—that the Amendments were not directed to the part of the Bill which is supposed to have to do with political associations, but were directed to the parts which have to do with crime. Then the right hon. Gentleman made a most extraordinary statement, which I cannot allow for one moment to pass without notice. He said that the Bill was such that it put into the power of the Lord Lieutenant, or the Chief Secretary, to say that he, the right hon. Gentleman, if an Irishman, was to become a criminal beyond recall. The imagination of the right hon. Gentleman is most extraordinary. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Saunderson) that the right hon. Gentleman seems to reason himself into thinking that these extraordinary views are the result of calm and impartial consideration; but to say that the Lord Lieutenant, or the Chief Secretary, sitting in a secret chamber, can make the right hon. Gentleman a criminal beyond recall is, I submit to this House and to the country, language of the grossest exaggeration. What are the powers of the Chief Secretary? Is it true that this Bill enables either the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant to make a man a criminal beyond recall at his own will and without the slightest responsibility or publicity with regard to the act? Why, Sir, what is the state of the facts? The Chief Secretary, who is a Member of this House, must be prepared to justify his action, because, if he acts under Section 6, the Proclamation must be laid on the Table of the House within a very few days. He must show that he has been satisfied that there has been an association formed for the commission of crimes, for carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes, or for encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes, or for promoting or inciting to acts of violence or intimidation, or for interfering with the administration of the law or disturbing the maintenance of law and order. Every one of these
    148
    things are offences now. Every one of these things, if done now with criminal intent, are offences. If the Lord Lieutenant issues a Proclamation, the Chief Secretary has to justify the action of the Lord Lieutenant in this House. Does anyone suppose that the Chief Secretary, or any Government, would be so ridiculously absurd in their conduct, so ridiculously misguided, as to issue a Proclamation unless they were prepared to justify it by facts? [Laughter.] All I can say is that if hon. Members below the Gangway think that a Government which would so behave would be able to stand long they have not very much studied the history of this country. May I remind the House what the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was? The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Lord Lieutenant was being substituted for the judicial tribunals of the country. Now, Sir, remembering that the action of the Lord Lieutenant has to be justified in this House, it does occur to me that it is not very many weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman was declaiming against the Judges and juries of the land, and telling the House of Commons they were not fit persons to be entrusted to enter into inquiries under Section 6. To say that the Lord Lieutenant is substituted for the judicial tribunals of the land is, again, to use language of exaggeration. The Lord Lieutenant does not punish crime. The Lord Lieutenant, who is responsible to the Executive Government, and who acts under the advice of the Chief Secretary and the Cabinet, thinks it right, having information before him, to put into force the provisions of the Bill. The Chief Secretary must be prepared to justify the action of the Lord Lieutenant; but the punishment of offences rests with the tribunals, either constituted by the general law of the land, or by this Bill. Nobody will tell me that the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary has power to sit in judgment on the individual whom he has caused to be arrested. Every lawyer knows perfectly well that anybody offending against this Bill after a Proclamation is liable to be tried in the ordinary way. To suggest that the Lord Lieutenant is substituted for the ordinary judicial tribunals is exactly the same thing as to say that the magistrate

    149
    who reads the Riot Act is substituted for the tribunals that try the rioters afterwards. I have endeavoured to make the matter clear. I have endeavoured to make the House understand that it is against crime this Bill is directed; and I again challenge those who may speak in this debate after me, as I have more than once challenged the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), to point out that the Bill is directed otherwise than against crime. Now, Sir, let me say but one word more with regard to one or two matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He told us that the state of facts does not justify the introduction or the passing of this Bill, and yet, at the same time, he admitted statistics showing that in 1886 crime was in advance of that which, in his opinion, justified the Coercion Bill of 1870. Sir, is Ireland more populous in 1887 than it was in the year 1869? Is Ireland supposed to have benefited in any measure at all by the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman? If things are, on the admitted figures of the right hon. Gentleman, worse and far worse in 1886 than they were in 1869, I am justified in appealing to the language of the right hon. Gentleman whose name has been already mentioned—Mr. Fortescue—who said in 1869 that the condition of things was intolerable, and that no step ought to be spared by the Government which would put an end to it. I Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told us that not-withstanding all which had been done, I think he said during the last 700 years, certainly for the last 100 years, notwithstanding his own legislation, this country held Ireland by force, and I believe that statement was cheered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. "We have heard of slanders on the Irish people. We are said to have slandered the Irish people in order to introduce this Bill. I do not think there could be a much greater slander upon a people than to speak of them as a nation that is only held by force. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say there are not hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands of loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen in Ireland? It is known perfectly well that there are; and I say that the people who have to be restrained by force are not really subjects
    150
    of the Queen, but are those who, as I have said more than once in the course of these discussions, would go a very considerable distance towards declaring themselves the open and avowed enemies of Her Majesty the Queen. I suppose it will not be denied that there are persons against whose acts any Executive Government would be justified in taking most stringent measures to defeat any design which may take the form of rebellion. In regard to the supposed perpetuity of this Bill, I have pointed out that the Chief Secretary has stated that though the power of putting the provisions of the Bill in force has no limit of time, the operation of the Bill is most distinctly limited by the action of the Executive having regard to the condition of the country. If previous Crime Acts have failed, it has been, to a very great extent, because they were only passed for a short period. If the Act of 1882 had been in force at the present time, we should have had probably very little need now for acting under its provisions; it would be the means whereby of itself, so to speak, law and order would be maintained. The reason why the former Acts failed was not because of anything inherent in the Acts themselves, but because when they came to an end they had been allowed to expire without due consideration of what would be the effect of allowing them to elapse, and without considering that the necessity for them would again spring up. If I am right in saying that this Bill is directed against crime, the whole objection to the Bill, on the ground of its perpetual duration, is to a great extent removed. I have, in a matter of fact way, placed before the House what is our view of the case, and no one can say afterwards that the opposition to the Bill rests upon any supposed admissions or assertions made by my right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland. Now Mr. Justice Holmes, in the course of discussion, made, in effect, the same statements as I have. Those statements I have made on my own responsibility, knowing that I shall have to submit those statements to the judgment of those who are well able to pronounce judgment upon them. We have brought in this Bill for the purpose of carrying out what we believe to be the duty of

    151
    the Government. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) has prophesied the most evil things respecting us. He has told us that we are going to meet our fate. We shall, of course, meet our fate; but the hon. Gentleman has not gone so far as to tell us what our fate is to be, although, I suppose, he means that we have ruined the Government by introducing this Bill. All I can say is that, having done what we believe to be our duty in introducing our Bill, we are ready to meet our fate in the sense indicated; but, whatever that fate may be, I do not think that any hon. Member will believe that it has been brought about by introducing this Bill. We have determined earnestly to grapple with crime. [An hon. MEMBER: And something more.] If the hon. Member can show where the more is, it is not even now too late to amend the Bill. I repeat that it is not too late to alter the clauses of the Bill if it is directed against political associations; but we have pointed out over and over again, and wearied the House by so doing, that the Bill is intended to be put in operation against crime. I say again that we have determined to do our best to put down crime; we have determined to put down terrorism in Ireland; and with those intentions Her Majesty's Government, if they are called upon to meet the terrible fate pictured by the hon. Member for Cardiff, will do so with resignation and without a single regret. I say it will not in any way cause them the slightest feeling of hesitation or fear because they have been told by the hon. Gentleman of the sudden fate impending over them. We do not suggest or believe that the Bill will cure all the evils existing in Ireland; but we do believe that, without the salutary effect of such provisions as these, the introduction and successful operation of remedial measures is impossible, and it is in that belief, and because we are determined to grapple with crime and to put down terrorism, that we have introduced this Bill, and intend to press it to the third reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Colonel King-Harman.)
  DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 307.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. DILLON: Sir, although this Bill appears, at first sight, of but small importance, it is one, having regard to the district with which it deals, of the greatest importance. In the first place, it is of the deepest consequence, because it deals with a problem which has been admitted by students of Irish affairs to be one of a most perplexing character. Again, it is an important measure, because it is entirely revolutionary and unprecedented in its proposals; and I venture to say, although I do not intend, for reasons which I shall lay before the House, to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, that the Government are entering on a course the evils of which it would be impossible to exaggerate. The Bill proposes to take over responsibility from the elected Guardians of the Poor in Ireland and cast it upon the shoulders of the Executive Government—the responsibility for the greatest and most terrible mass of festering poverty that ever existed in Ireland. I think it is only fair that we should warn the Executive in Ireland of that; and in the future, if this Bill passes, or, at any rate, until we get Home Rule for Ireland, which will not be long, they will have entire responsibility for the relief of the poor in this immense district, the population of which is stated at 156,000 persons. I wish to refer briefly to the details of the measure before I sit down; but at the outset I shall draw attention to some of the facts which are set forth in a Memorandum which has been circulated, together with the Bill; and with regard to this Memorandum I must say that, although it seems to me irregular, I do not complain, seeing that a fair opportunity has been given of discussing the measure. But I do say that it was a great bit of sharp practice to get a long start of Members interested in the district by means of a statement in detail deeply affecting

    153
    the matter of argument, seeing that for several days we should have no opportunity of replying. I am bound to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has acted fairly in giving us a reasonable opportunity for considering this Bill. Here you have a district including five Unions in the counties of Galway and Clare, with a population of 156,000 persons, and which district includes in its area I think all, or nearly all, of what are known as the poorest districts in Ireland. We have had the admission that from 1879 to 1885 there has been expended an enormous sum of money in free grants and loans which have not been repaid, and in charitable donations within the district. The total amount of this is £317,000, all of which came from outside the district—largely from the public funds voted by this House, and, as I have said, charitable funds, which amounted to no less than £85,000. We have had the admission of the Chief Secretary that this money was expended in order to keep the population alive, and there has been no allegation of abuse or misapplication of the money, except with regard to one portion of it. But, notwithstanding all this, from the very places where the poverty is the deepest large sums for rent have been sent over to this country. I think we are entitled to ask on what grounds of public expediency the Chief Secretary for Ireland seeks to defend this fact which cannot be got over—that in this comparatively small population, and with this enormous expenditure from public and charitable funds for the sole purpose of enabling people to keep body and soul together, these rents have been levied in the district by horse, foot, and artillery. But that is not the whole of my charge. What are the facts with regard to that district? I can say, from my own knowledge of the district, that the land there is the property of landlords who never set foot in the district, but live in this country. During the time of the distribution of the money voted to maintain their tenants the landlords deserted their duties, and never attended on the Boards of Guardians, of which they were members ex officio, and we have it stated in the Blue Book that during the worst periods the Boards had had very small assistance from ex officio members, whose presence might have
    154
    been expected. The man who owns the largest part of the district is Lord Dillon, who never set foot there during the time when there were large sums spent in keeping his wretched tenantry from starvation, but who occupied himself in issuing processes and civil bills against them. The very money that was intended for the relief of the people was used for issuing processes for payment of rent. I say that the Executive of Ireland, not having, it would seem, sufficient on hand, are now taking over the whole responsibility of this poverty-stricken population, who are sinking day by day into further misery; and you are I taking all that upon your shoulders, knowing that you have to deal with a body of men who are proved by the Report in that Blue Book to be dead to every duty which a landlord ought to acknowledge. Allow me to ask you, Sir, this—there is one provision in this Bill which seems to me, in view of the facts in the Blue Book, little short of a mockery, and I would ask you whether, in your opinion, it is not a mockery? It is said that these Commissions to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant are to take over all the duties of Boards of Guardians, and to take over none of their debts, which are to be left behind—to take over all their duties and all their means of paying their debts, but none of their debts. There is a provision from which the creditors of the Unions will, I should think, take slight comfort—namely, a provision to the effect that everything over and above the rate to be levied, which may be necessary for the support of the poor, will be handed back to the old Boards of Guardians for the purpose of paying their debts. Well, what is that likely to amount to? Well, I confess I would not offer a halfpenny in the pound for the whole of that amount. I believe that in many of these electoral divisions, that, so far from having any surplus when the wants of the poor have been supplied, you will meet with a deficit. You do not know as I do the miserable condition of these people—you do not know what position you are putting the Executive in. I have the keenest desire to avoid parading the miseries of our people before this House; but when you and the Executive are about to place yourselves in the position of the Poor Law Guardians in Ireland,

    155
    I warn you that it will be impossible for us in the future to avoid criticizing your conduct, and placing before Parliament and the country the miserable condition of the people—for which condition you will then be responsible. So great is the normal poverty of the people that the facts we shall be able to bring before this House, which, will be beyond question, and which the Executive will be bound to admit, will make even you Conservatives consent to a scale of relief under this Bill, such as will compel the production of a Budget for these distressed Unions in which you will not have a surplus, but the very reverse of a surplus. The consequences of that will be that, instead of saving money by this proposed scheme, you will plunge the Executive of Ireland into new difficulties. We have evidence here of the gross maladministration of the £20,000 of the Irish Church money, which was sanctioned by Parliament last year for use in outdoor relief. I do not stand here to defend the action of these Guardians at all. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) will remember in connection with that matter that, though it was an unpopular rôle to play before my own constituency, I stood up here, and warned him against giving large grants to the Poor Law Guardians without check and control. So strong was the view I took on that matter that I urged on the right hon. Gentleman that the Executive Government in Ireland, in which I then had the most absolute confidence, Lord Aberdeen being then Lord Lieutenant, should have the administration of this money, and that where they thought fit they should administer it by Inspectors, and not by Poor Law Guardians, or that where they did administer it through the Poor Law Guardians it should be under the immediate control of Inspectors. What has occurred since has fully borne out the correctness of my view. The principle I had in view was that public money granted to the Poor Law Guardians was a dangerous gift, and that where you made a free gift to an electoral body like the Poor Law Guardians, the Executive Government should insist upon the most rigorous control over the administration of the money. I regret that there was not
    156
    that rigorous control over the spending of the money granted by Parliament last year, because occurrences have taken place which are most painful to everyone interested in the honour of those localities. I would invite the attention of those who wish to understand this matter to the Blue Book. What are the facts? Why, we have it related here that the Guardians offered to the people in Swinford, and some of the surrounding districts, occupation on the relief works at 1s. a-day, and here are the statements of the people who were examined—that so great was the rush to the relief works to earn this 1s. a-day, that almost the entire population was put on them. Is it not an awful state of things to see such an offer as this drawing the whole population of the place—and it must be borne in mind that it was not for the whole of the week, but only for three or four days in the week that this money was given. That is the actual state of things—that an offer was made of 1s. a-day, and four-fifths of the population rushed and struggled to get it. That is a terrible fact, and one that the Government should take into consideration before they proceed with this proposal. There are two other facts which are disclosed in the Blue Book to which I must direct attention. Some time ago I directed attention to the fact which is too much lost sight of, but which is in reality most appalling; and it is that in Ireland, while the population of the whole country has decreased since 1841 from about 8,000,000 to under 5,000,000, the population of the poorest districts, of the bogs and hill-sides, and the congested districts of the West, show a largely increased population. I recollect on one occasion being struck by these facts on a rough observation of these Western districts in the course of my own experience of them. I went into particulars, and took up the matter barony by barony, and electoral division by electoral division, and in Connaught I found that in direct ratio the baronies which showed good soil and productive capabilities were thinly populated, while those districts where the land was barren and of little value were thickly populated, and in those districts the population is multiplying and increasing to this day. Now, is that not a terrible state of things? Has the right hon.

    157
    Gentleman opposite really considered what is before him? I believe that the fact, once mastered and admitted, is a frightful condemnation of the system which has prevailed in Ireland during the last 40 years, or, I may say, the last 100 years. I believe that that problem, terrible as it is, would take even those most interested in the welfare of Ireland not one, or two, or three years, but 10 or 12 years of patient and long-suffering endeavour to remedy. The right hon. Gentleman opposite may ask me what remedy I propose. Well, Sir, the answer I make is this. I, least of all the Irish Representatives, have never said any thing to minimize or make little of that problem. I have been brought face to face with it from childhood, and I know the gravity of it; and if to-morrow we Irish Members had to take upon ourselves the responsibility of dealing with it, we should do so with the full knowledge of the difficulties of the case, but we should be perfectly prepared to accept the responsibility, and we should find a remedy with great patience. But I tell you frankly that I believe it is impossible for anybody who does not enjoy the love and confidence of the Irish people to touch that problem without making matters ten times worse than they are at present. The first step you have got to take, before you commence to deal with a congested district, is to open the hearts of the people to you. Until you do that—while you come to the people as an enemy—every time you approach them you will be farther away than ever from the successful dealing with a problem which, I admit, will task the patience and experience and skill of even an Irish Government. The Chief Secretary knows very well the figures with regard to the increases and decreases which are occurring in connection with our population. But the facts are so extraordinary with reference to some of the poorest districts that I will just mention one or two of them. Here is an example of the horrible state of things which exists in some of the most wretched districts—an example of the increase of population where the valuation is frightfully low. In Lettermore, in the Oughterard Union, the population in 1841 was 1,395, and in 1881 it was 1,643; and what, do you think, is the valuation per head? Why, only 5s. 3d. In Kilcommin the population
    158
    in 1841 was 340, and in 1881 was 335, while the valuation was 9s. 9d.; and in another village in the Swinford district the population in 1841 was 2,136, while it is now 2,635, or an increase of 500, and the valuation is 5s. 7d. I know the last place of which I have spoken very well. It is on Lord Dillon's estate. Lord Dillon owns the entire electoral division. Every inch of his estate has increased in population. Why is that? Why, for the very reason that the land is valueless, absolutely valueless. The land is barren and rocky—indeed, it was a forest in the days of the grandfathers of the people who occupy it now. It has been reclaimed by the children—the sons and daughters of the tenantry who are gone, reared up in mud cabins, with no kind of decency—I do not mean with no idea of decency, for these poor people have a sense of decency—but with little possible application of what are called the decencies of civilized life, or little chance of carrying them out. The people herd together in these cabins. The men marry and begin life with no more capital than seven or eight acres of bog or mountain side. They will go and cultivate land which anyone here would call absolutely worthless. They will drag some sort of produce from that, and at once have the rent raised. That is the way the Dillon estate has increased. That has not been the system adopted where the land is valuable. Where the land was valuable without the people, there the people have had to go; but where the land has been valueless without the people, there the people have been preserved, and for generations have been reared up for the purpose of cultivating these barren tracts. The people have been willing to go into these districts of bog and mountain, and live as no Christian ought to be called upon to live; and instead of paying 1s. an acre—and no Englishman would be content to pay even that for this land—they have to pay £1 1s. an acre. That, however, is the system you will have to contend with in these Unions. You will have to contend with a frightful mass of poverty. You will have to contend with the burden of a population which could not live for a single year without charitable assistance from this country and remittances from America. You are going to enable the landlords to obtain

    159
    their rents, while the British Exchequer is to feed the people. I warn the Executive that we will take every opportunity of pointing out to the people of England what they are doing; and if we find that in any case they refuse to relieve the people that are starving, we shall lose no opportunity of attacking the Executive for such refusal, more especially if, while the people are wanting food, large bodies of police are moved into the districts to remove them for inability to pay their rents, and it will remain for the Executive Government of this country to say, if they pass this Bill, and go down and propose a grant in aid for these Unions next year, that they are going to feed Lord Dillon's tenants, in order that they may be able to pay his rents. I mean Lord Dillon or any other landlord. I do not draw attention to Lord Dillon because he is by any means the worst of these landlords. Some of these landlords receive three times the amount of rent that Lord Dillon does. But I warn the Government that they will be placed in that odious position if they pass this Bill—that they will be feeding in the five Unions under consideration 156,000 persons, amongst whom, in little more than six years, a sum exceeding £317,000 has been spent in order that the landlords may have some means of squeezing money out of their tenants. I will only devote a few minutes to criticism of the provisions of the Bill. This measure proposes to do what no Bill ever proposed to do before—namely, to set up two Commissioners, who will inevitably, in a short space of time, entirely supersede the Boards of Guardians; and they are to have the power of appointing the officers that used to be under the Boards of Guardians. They will have power to appoint the dispensary doctors and all officers that were under the Boards of Guardians, which seems to me to be a monstrous thing to propose to do. It is proposed that they should take over all the debts due to the Boards of Guardians, but none of the debts owing by the Boards of Guardians. I await with some surprise to hear what defence the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can make for this proposal, for it seems to me the most extraordinary proposal ever made by a Government. All the claims that the Board of Guardians have against the ratepayers are to be taken over, and
    160
    the Commissioners are to have the fullest powers to recover such claims. I put it to the Chief Secretary—has he considered whether or not he is prepared to defend this principle? I do not speak here in the interests of the creditors or the Boards of Guardians, because I think the banks in Ireland which have allowed the Boards of Guardians to overdraw their accounts, as I am told they have done in Swinford, have only themselves to blame. These banks are now to be told that the outstanding estates of the Boards of Guardians are to be seized on by a Body against whom they are to have no claim whatever, and that the old Body, on whose credit they have made their advances, is to be extinguished. They are to be told to remain dumb under these circumstances; and I must say that that proposal seems to me most extraordinary. What comfort do they get for that? At the end of the 7th section they will find the following provision:—
    "Nothing contained in this section shall prejudice any remedy against the Board of Guardians for enforcing payment of money due to him which a creditor of the Board of Guardians would have had if this Act had not been passed."
    Surely the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has put in this provision as a joke. Having carefully provided that every source from which the Board of Guardians could possibly get a shilling is to be impounded by the new Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman provides that no creditor shall be prejudiced from enforcing payment from the Board of Guardians in the manner which would have been open to him if the Act had not been passed. When advances are made, they are made on the faith of the Guardians. What does the Bill propose? It proposes to cut off all remedy for the creditors, and impound all the rates and transfer them to the new Body, which is to go scot-free. I do not stand here on behalf of the creditors, but I do consider it would be monstrous if banks, for instance, were to lose the money they have advanced. So much for that part of the Bill. The Bill goes on to provide—
    "If any union named in the Schedule to this Act is dissolved, or the limits thereof are altered, so that such union becomes wholly of partially amalgamated with some other union, the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Local Government Board, make, out of

    161
    moneys to be provided by Parliament, a free grant of such amount as the Treasury may determine to the Board of Guardians or to the Commissioners of the dissolved or altered union, to be applied by them in discharge or reduction of the debts affecting the union, or such parts of the union as are amalgamated with some other union."
    This, also, seems to me to be a rather unjust Proviso—it seems to discriminate unfairly between the unions which are steeped in poverty. And now, Sir, I wish to say a word on the question of outstanding rates, because what do we find in these Unions? We find that the outstanding rates bear a very large proportion to the rates that are collected, particularly in the Swinford Union. A most remarkable fact conies out with regard to the outstanding rates. I have pointed out that ex officio Guardians neglect their duties, because they give no assistance in distributing relief or in checking extravagance. Take the case of the Swinford Union. In that Union there is a system of gross swindling practised on occupiers under £4; 73 per cent of all the rates are paid, or are payable, by the rated occupiers. What do we find as to the condition of the outstanding rates? Why, that 49 percent of the uncollected rates are credited to the rated occupiers, while the lessors, I who have only to pay 26 per cent, have 5 per cent of their rates unpaid. We really find that the poor unfortunate tenants of this district have paid their rates nearly four times as well as the landlords. The same condition of things prevails in all the other distressed Unions—in Belmullet, in Clifton, in Oughterard, and in Westport. Under these circumstances, the question I want to put to the Chief Secretary is—If this Bill is passed, will he give a pledge to the House that he will honestly administer the Bill and make the landlords pay their rates, and also that he will break up the company system, and direct the Committees, or introduce a short measure for the purpose of directing them, to levy half the rates upon the landlords where the holdings are under £4. I do not oppose the second reading; but the least I and my Colleagues are entitled to ask is that the landlords should be made to pay their honest share of the poor rates.
    THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Perhaps it would be con-
    162
    venient I should follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at once. With very much of what he has said I agree and sympathize. He has a full sense of the extreme gravity of the situation of the parts of Ireland dealt with by the Bill, and he has expressed, in terms I think not too strong, the enormous task laid before this House, or any House which has to deal with this question. I deeply regret the hon. Gentleman could not refrain, even on this question, from any dragging in of subjects of Party controversy. It seems to me unnecessary that he should take this opportunity of making a speech of a Party character against the landlords, for, after all, the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the question before us is not in any sense a question of rent. He would be the first to acknowledge that if rent were abolished over the whole of these Unions, the gravity of the problem we have to deal with would not be less than it is now.
    MR. DILLON: Much less; we should have £100,000 a-year less to pay.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The question we have to meet is one of population. He gave figures which I must confess are worse than mine. In the Belmullet Union the valuation of the land per head of the population is 13 s. 2d., in the Clifton Union 14 s. 6d., in the Oughterard Union 14 s. 6d., and in the Swinford Union 16 s. 2d. Everyone who has studied the Land Question in congested districts must know that where the valuation of the land per head of the population is over 10 s., the situation is appalling. The real difficulty of the situation is the congestion of the population. Lord Dillon's property is a case in point. The hon. Gentleman dwelt in glowing and eloquent terms upon the misery of the tenants. I am not aware he has exaggerated the misery; but how has that misery come about? Because Lord Dillon or his predecessors did not use their influence in the discouragement, but rather in the encouragement, of the settlement of population. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the weight of responsibility resting upon them is heavy; but it is impossible to acquit the population itself. I do not wish to discuss the question from a Party point of view at all. I wish for the moment

    163
    to forget Party differences. I say that the difficulty arises from the increase of population; and the landlord who permits this increase is certainly to blame. But if there were no landlords, if the one reason why this population has gone on increasing is because landlords did not exercise a proper influence, will you remove the evil if you remove the landlords? It appears to me that you will remove one check which hitherto has existed in congested districts, one piece of machinery by which some check has been put upon the appalling pressure of the population upon the means of subsistence. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman said—Is it not a monstrous thing to exact rents from these people who are so poor already? I mean to pass no judgment of any sort or kind upon the particular landlords concerned; but it is perfectly obvious to the House that, be the land worth what you like, if the population living on that land increases beyond a certain point the people will be reduced to almost abject poverty. Yet the landlord ought not to be deprived of the real value of the land.
    MR. DILLON: It has no value at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman can hardly take that view, because what is the only conclusion to be drawn from it? If it be true that the land is wholly worthless the whole population ought at once to be deported. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] I am not proposing it; I am merely arguing that that is the necessary and logical conclusion from the observations of the hon. Gentleman. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman went on to describe the enormous responsibility which would be thrown on the Executive by the Bill before the House. I grant that the weight of the responsibility will be great; but I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the alternative he proposes? At one part of his speech I thought he was coming to the point; I thought he was going to make some suggestion which would enable me to dispense with, the Bill and substitute a better proposal. He said that when Ireland gets Home Rule an Irish Parliament will, by some means at present undefined, be able to solve the problem, the extreme difficulty of which he with his great knowledge of the subject fully admits. But in the meanwhile Home Rule is not granted, and the crisis we
    164
    have to deal with is upon us. It must be dealt with within the next month; and if the hon. Gentleman objects to my proposal, I ask him what scheme he is prepared to substitute? I have given this subject most anxious thought, and I hope he will believe me when I say I have approached it with a desire to benefit the population. Of course, we might have dealt with the question in other ways. If we had appointed Vice Guardians a great many evils would have arisen. We might continue the existing Guardians; but that would hardly receive the support of the hon. Gentleman, considering the strong language he has used about the existing Guardians. He has given the fullest assent to the heavy indictment brought against the present Guardians.
    MR. DILLON: I did not give the fullest assent to the heavy indictment brought against them in the Report; but I said I was prepared to admit that the gravest abuses had occurred under the circumstances of extreme poverty.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not quarrel about words. He thinks the Guardians have been guilty in the past, and he would not like to entrust to them the carrying out of any new policy. But some new policy is required, if this House desires to give relief at all. Of course, we might do nothing. If we did nothing, what would happen would be this—some creditor of the existing Guardians would distrain upon the workhouse furniture, and all credit from the merchants who now supply the workhouse with food would stop. The poor, under such circumstances, would most undoubtedly starve. I have now put before the House all the difficulties of the case. Now, what is the chief objection which the hon. Gentleman raises? He especially dealt with the case of arrears. My view with regard to that question I can very shortly state to the House. I can see that the finances of the United Kingdom are in no sense pledged to support the poor of any locality or to liquidate the debts of any locality; but I do hold that the first charge upon the rates of any locality is the support of the poor. That being an absolute first charge, the creditors have no right to that part of the assets. Everything else is given under this Bill. Everything that is required for the support of the poor goes, under my Bill, to the poor.

    165
    Everything which is not required to support the poor goes to the creditors. I perfectly admit that the tradesmen will suffer. They will suffer, as all creditors suffer who lean to insolvent debtors. I do not think this House can for one moment admit that it is the duty of the Government to liquidate the debts of a Union. Such a duty cannot be undertaken by the Government without involving the most serious consequences in the future, and without encouraging every Board of Guardians to plunge as deeply as possible into debt in the hope that the British Parliament will extricate them. I hope I have in no controversial spirit dealt with the main points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I earnestly appeal to the House to pass the Bill as quickly as possible. The crisis is an imminent one. If the Government are not empowered by this Bill to do something to support the poor of these districts, and empowered soon, it may be that great and avoidable suffering will be inflicted upon a population which suffer, I am sorry to say, already too much from the circumstances in which they are placed.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am extremely well acquainted with some of these Unions—namely, the Galway Union and the Unions of Westport and Belmullet. With regard to Swinford, I know nothing of it personally; but I believe that it is the most exceptional Union in Ireland, and is well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I totally dissent from the principle of the Bill with regard to four of the Unions. These are situated on beautiful bays; there is an immense quantity of fish on the coast, and I think it is the fault of the Imperial Government that these natural resources have not been developed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland laid it down that these Unions have no claim on the British taxpayer; but I contend that they have, because they contribute a considerable sum to the British Exchequer. You will find that the consumption of taxable articles in these Unions is the same as in the Unions in any other part of Ireland; and, consequently, if you spent a small portion of the taxes levied in the Kingdom by direct taxation in developing their natural resources, these Unions would be able to take care of
    166
    themselves. I have been Chairman of the Board in one of these Unions; I know the exigencies of the district perfectly well, and I say that if you had done there what you have in India and elsewhere you could have altered the position of the district entirely. I say the population there could exist if you would explore the fisheries and encourage railway enterprise. There are several good points in the Bill; but what I want is that you should take over these districts, as we should do if we had Home Rule in Ireland, and then, I believe, you could greatly improve their condition. With regard to the creditors of the Unions, I protest against the action of the Government, which will have the effect of injuring the credit of the Unions. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the officers will be paid by the Government, because to attempt to levy their pay in the district would be a most improper thing; but I am bound to say that I do not read this in the Bill. Again, you take power for these Commissioners to borrow money on the rates, a thing which is not allowed in any other Union in Ireland; and I say that to allow money to be borrowed on the security of the rates for current expenditure, is to strike at the root of Poor Law administration throughout the whole of Ireland, and the fact that you are administering the Poor Law Unions will make the matter worse. If the Government want to better the position of these Unions, they must give them railways, for it is perfectly absurd to talk of piers and harbours unless they give the people the means of carrying their fish to markets.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Although I am somewhat disposed to agree that this is not a question of rent entirely, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was too much disposed to take the line that the question was not at all a question of rent. In my opinion, the landlords in the district ought to bear a certain proportion of this charge, which has to be cast upon someone or other. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not want to remove the check which the landlords have on the increase of holdings; but, looking at the district where rents have been reduced by 60 per cent and 70 per cent in,

    167
    some cases, and where the landlords and agents have encouraged the increase of holdings in the past, I do not think we can look to the landlords for any great check in this way. I point out that the rent paid is not made from the land, but from the fishing industry, and from working in England in harvest-time. The present condition of things is not so much the result of a falling-off in the produce of the land; it is due primarily to the falling-off of the other industries. I think it is absolutely essential that something should be done in connection with the Unions in these congested districts. I am in favour of extending communications which will enable their produce to be brought to market, and also in favour of migration and emigration, all of which, I am afraid, are entirely out of the question under the present system of administration. I do not wish to go into that question, however, for the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have a strong objection to that point being urged this evening, no doubt because he felt how strong an argument it is in favour of Home Rule. But the question is most pressing and must be dealt with; and although I do not altogether agree with the Bill before us, I shall give it my support because it is a matter of urgency, and it is impossible to allow the insolvency of these districts to continue much longer. I believe the power of the Bill is permissive. The Government do not force any Union to accept their plan of assistance; it is only when application is made that the assistance is given. If the Government could see their way to enforce a certain rate on the landlords to meet a portion of the charge, I think it would go a good distance to meet the objection of my hon. Friend below the Gangway; but, as I have said, the matter is urgent, and we on this side of the House will be prepared to accept this as a temporary measure, and as one put forward from strong necessity.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not intend to touch on the relations which the principle involved in this Bill has to the Land Question; but I do not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the one is so foreign to the other as to render the allusions of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo at all irrele-
    168
    vant to the Bill. At this hour of the morning (1.35.), I do not think I should be justified in further discussing that view of the matter; but I wish to obtain some information from the right hon. Gentleman opposite on some points, and to make a few remarks on some of the details of the scheme by which the Bill proposes to release those Unions from their present position. In the first place, the Chief. Secretary will permit me to point out that the Memorandum which he has issued is not so complete as it might be. The Bill is ushered into the House as one which has its origin in the maladministration in the Unions of certain funds issued to them under an Act passed two or three years ago. But I would point out that the maladministration of those funds is only answerable for half the indebtedness. I perceive that the total expenditure under the Act was £20,000, and that Unions empowered to spend that sum, spent £35,000—that is to say, according to the Memorandum. But this is probably a misprint, because in a subsequent part of the Paper the figures used are £16,000 the Memorandum gives us rather scanty information as regards the balance of £14,000 not accounted for. It says—
    "They owe £16,000, mainly to contractors, in respect of the excess of their expenditure over the gift of £20,000. Besides this they owe over £5,000 to the Treasury for seed rate collected but not paid over; and they have other debts, including £2,000 to Union officers, other than treasurers, which bring up their total liabilities to £30,000. Of the rates of last year, nearly £5,000 was still uncollected when the recent Commission presented the Report above referred to."
    That is to say, practically, that these Unions owe £16,000 in respect of money which they have maladministered, that they owe £2,000 to their officers for salaries, and that they owe £7,000 as regards which this Memorandum gives us no sort of information whatever. I presume that by reading this bulky Blue Book dealing with this matter, we should get information upon this point, and I certainly think it is a point on which the House has a right to ask for details before we proceed to the second reading of the Bill. I would ask for information with regard to that. I would ask how the Guardians were permitted to run into arrear for the seed rate to the extent of £5,000? This seed

    169
    rate was originally issued in the year 1879 or 1880. The amount advanced was to be repaid by a rate leviable every year, and this sum of £5,000 must represent the arrears of a considerable number of years. Now it is material, when we are discussing the extent to which these Guardians misconducted themselves, that we should know how it was that the Local Government Board in Dublin, who are supposed to supervise the Boards of Guardians throughout the country, and who must have had before them the fact that this £5,000 was accumulating, allowed such accumulation to take place from year to year, knowing, as they must have done, that the Guardians were in this way every day rendering it more difficult for them to meet their obligations. That is an important point which I think we have a right to ask for some information upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary knows that there is a strict system of audit over the accounts of the Poor Law Guardians. The Local Government Board sends down its Auditor every year to audit the accounts, and it cannot have escaped the notice of this official that this large sum had accumulated and was not being paid over. I should like to know why the Local Government Board did not take steps to see that these large arrears were not suffered to accumulate, and why did they not take steps to compel the Guardians to pay over this money as they obtained it from the ratepayers? Then I want information as to this £7,000. I want to know what that represents. Who is it due to? There is a general indication that it is due partly to treasurers and partly to contractors. It is material, when we are passing an Act which seriously affects the credit of the Unions, that we should know who these creditors are and what the nature of their claim is. Does this £7,000 represent advances that were made by the Banks who acted as treasurers to the Unions? I presume that to a large extent it does, and that as regards a portion of it it represents debts due to the contractors of the Unions for actual necessaries supplied for the use of the paupers—food and other necessaries. These are points arising out of the Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman on which I would ask for information. In addition to these, there are some points in the Bill
    170
    itself upon which I should like to be informed. I should like to be told how far it is expected that the assistance of the Unions which are to be handed over to the Commissioners appointed under this Bill are expected to meet the liabilities which the Boards of Guardians have incurred; in other words, how far these unfortunate contractors who have advanced their money or goods to the Guardians are expected to suffer from the extraordinary enactments of this Bill. I think we should also have some information upon that point. The sole asset that I understand this Bill will leave in the hands of the Guardians for the purpose of paying their debts will be the value of the actual buildings and workhouse grounds. The Bill provides in the 4th section that—
    "On the appointment of Commissioners all the property of every description of the Board of Guardians of the Union, except money in the hands of the treasurer, should, without any conveyance or assignment, be transferred to and vested in the Commissioners free from any charge, lien, or incumbrance."
    The provision goes on to state that the Local Government Board should cause an estimate to be made of the market value of all such property, and shall make an order declaring such value, and that the Commissioners shall, within reasonable time, to be fixed by the Local Government Board, pay over the amount of such value to the Board of Guardians. Now this is a very serious matter. What is the market value of workhouse buildings? I submit that in nine cases out of ten the market value of these buildings will be absolutely nil, because the buildings would be absolutely useless to any buyer. If these buildings were put up to auction to-morrow no one would give sixpence for them, and the real effect of this proposal will be that the Local Government Board will value these buildings at very small sums, and will hand over these sums to the Boards of Guardians. Let me point out that apart from the workhouse buildings and any furniture they may have in them—which will be a very trifling asset—let me point out that apart from the buildings and furniture of the grounds upon the buildings stand the Guardians have no assets except the rates which will not be available. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes, therefore, is that the market value of the buildings and

    171
    grounds shall be ascertained and handed over. I consider that that is very unfair. I consider that what the Boards of Guardians ought to get should not be the market value of the buildings and grounds, which may be absolutely nothing, but that they should get a fair valuation fixed on the workhouse buildings estimated according to the amount they cost to build. However, that is a detail for discussion in Committee rather than on this second reading stage. Now, Sir, the first question upon which I ask information upon the Bill itself is to what extent it is expected that the creditors of these Unions will suffer by the arrangements that this Bill proposes? To my mind, if this Bill is carried out as it stands literally, it will mean that the creditors will get about sixpence in the pound That is an exceedingly unfair arrangement for unfortunate people who have advanced their money or given their goods to the workhouses. Further than this, I want information as to where the Government expect the money is to come from to pay back the loans which are to be authorized to be made by this Bill. It appears to me that the loans are to be made by the Board of Works to the Commissioners appointed under the Bill, and that the only provision for the repayment of these loans is that they are to be a second charge on the rates, the first charge being the maintenance of the paupers. The Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman practically admits that this second charge will be almost valueless—that these Unions are in such a condition that the maintenance of the paupers will practically consume everything in the shape of rates that they can collect, and that, therefore, there will be practically nothing left for the payment of this second charge. That being so, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to what he ultimately looks for the payment of these loans? The third point upon which I would ask information is how long they propose that the extraordinary state of things to be set up by this Bill will continue to exist? The Bill itself contemplates that at some future time the old state of things will be renewed—that the authority of the Guardians will be revived, and that things will be placed exactly as they were. I want to ask what the right hon. Gentleman's estimate is, because I presume he
    172
    has formed one before elaborating a scheme of this kind? What is his estimate of the period which will probably elapse before the extraordinary state of things set up by this Bill will cease, and the old machinery of the Guardians is revived? Now, Sir, so much for the details of the Bill. As regards the principle of the Bill, it seems to me to be a dishonest principle—a principle, in fact, of repudiation. These Unions are to be authorized by Parliament to repudiate their debts, and they are not to be merely authorized by Parliament to do so, but are to be assisted by Parliament to repudiate their debts. The right hon. Gentleman relies on the analogy of the Bankruptcy Law; but would he allow me to point out that there is good reason why that analogy should not hold in this case? In the case of an individual creditor whose rights are cut away from him by the Bankruptcy Law, he has advanced his money with the knowledge that the Bankruptcy Law is in existence. He has taken the risk of his debtor becoming insolvent, and, of course, having taken that risk, it is not unjust that he should have to bear whatever disadvantages the Bankruptcy Law imposes upon him. But the creditors of the Unions are not in that position. There was not in the existing law any provision for the Unions becoming bankrupt when they advanced their money and gave hundreds and thousands of pounds to these Guardians. There was no power under the law by which the Guardians could evade their liabilities. I maintain that this is ex post facto legislation of the worst character. It is legislation that seriously interferes with and strikes at the rights of creditors long after they have advanced their money, and which confers upon them no advantage in return for the very serious disadvantage it subjects them to. That is a very serious matter, and I think it justifies mo in saying that this Bill practically sets up for these Unions a policy of repudiation. I quite appreciate the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says, that the finances of the United Kingdom are in no way bound to defray the private debts of the Unions; but though that may be so, I say that this Parliament is bound not to interfere in any way to the detriment of these unfortunate creditors without giving them something in return for the rights it takes away.

    173
    The right hon. Gentleman asks what machinery can be set up in place of the machinery of this Bill. I admit that that is a question not at all easy to give a satisfactory answer to; but it appears to me that a great many plans might be suggested that would be less open to objection than the plan which is now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman proposes two Commissioners to discharge all the duties of the regular Board of Guardians. What does that mean? Why, it means that they are not merely to have placed upon them the ordinary duty of administering the Poor Law, but that they are also to have placed upon them the duty of administering the various other branches of the law that Parliament has from time to time placed upon the Guardians. It means that they are to have the working of the Laborers' Act, in the remote possibility of its being put into operation in these places; it means that they are to have the making of arrangements for the Voters' Lists; that they are to have the preparation of the Jurors' Lists; and that they are to have imposed upon them the working of the sanitary system. I respectfully say that these are all matters which should have been left in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Boards of Guardians have been guilty of nefarious conduct; but permit me to point out that it is only the Guardians who at this moment comprise the Boards who have been found guilty; and if he wishes to inflict punishment upon these individual Guardians, let him do so, and let the Unions proceed to elect new Guardians. Such a course as that would not be one whit more extraordinary than some of the provisions of this Bill. Let him, if he likes, introduce provisions disqualifying such Guardians as have been guilty of this conduct; but I say that to hand over to the nominees of the Lord Lieutenant these extraordinary duties quite independent of the administration of the Poor Law as at present vested in the Clerk of the Union and the Guardians is a measure of a most extraordinary kind indeed. I think the right hon. Gentleman should have done the very reverse of what this Bill proposes. To propose that the Guardians should be elected year after year after this Bill comes into force, for no other purpose than to defray the debts they have incurred,
    174
    seems to me an absurdity. In my opinion, he should have reversed that process. He should have placed that burden on the shoulders of the two Commissioners he provides for, and should have left to the Guardians the ordinary duty of the administration of the Poor Law. This Bill is simply a development of that policy of bankruptcy which the Government seem to think a panacea for all the troubles of the people of Ireland, whether it takes the extraordinary form of the Land Bill or the extraordinary form of this measure.
    MR. RATHBONE: I cannot help thinking that this is, to a very great extent, a question of rent. There is in these districts a large amount of land which cannot pay rent, but a certain amount of rent is paid, and that rent ought to be responsible before the taxpayers of this country, or of the other parts of Ireland are called upon to contribute. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) pointed out, the present state of things is very largely the consequence of the utter disregard of their duties by the landlords. It is only fair that those who have produced that state of things and their creditors should be primarily responsible for the payment of the rates. The rent of one of the estates to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) alluded was something like £26,000 a-year, while the real agricultural value to English or Scotch tenants is not £9,000 a-year. Many thousands beyond the rent of this estate were remitted every year through the post office on the estate, independent of the money which the tenants or members of their family carried back in their pockets from this country. The landlords of Ireland are clearly responsible for the present state of affairs. If they had prevented the multiplicity of holdings, and fulfilled their duties as guardians, &c, much of the present misery in Ireland would have been prevented.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Order for further Consideration of Proposed Resolution [20th June] read.
  (3.) "That a sum, not exceeding £71,430, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

  175
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I think it will tend to cut short this debate, which might otherwise be a long one, if I explain in a few words how this matter stands. I see that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) have both given Notice of a Motion to reduce the sum voted in Supply, by £2,000, being the additional amount required as contribution towards the new statue of the Duke of Wellington. If the House will allow me I will state briefly how we came to insert this sum in the Estimate. In the first place, let me remind the House that in 1883 the Government of the day resolved upon a great change at Hyde Park Corner, and at the time, no doubt, the proposal of the Government received almost unanimous approval. The proposed changes at Hyde Park Corner, however, involved the taking down of the old statue of the Duke of Wellington which stood there, and it was said—"Whatever you do you must not put the statue back upon the arch again, because the arch was never intended for the statue, and the statue was never intended for the arch." Then it was suggested by a Committee, presided over by the late Duke of Wellington, that instead of putting up the old statue again on the arch, the old statue should be melted down and a new one cast, and placed opposite to Apsley House, at an expenditure of £6,000. I think it is quite clear that as the Government determined to abolish the old statue they were fairly bound to replace it, and to pay for the cost of doing so, for the old statue had been provided out of public subscriptions, at very considerable expense. But when the proposal was made to melt down the old statue there arose a great outcry, because whatever may have been the merits or the demerits of the old statue, no doubt interesting associations had gathered round it, and there were many people who objected altogether to the destruction of the old statue. In the meantime His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had called together a Committee for the pur-
  176
  pose of collecting funds with the intention of beautifying the space at Hyde Park Corner which had been created, as I have said, by the interference of the Government, and it succeeded in collecting a considerable amount of money by private subscription. When the difficulty as to what was to be done with the old statue arose, this committee undertook to remove it to Aldershot, and to set it up there in the presence of the Army, on the understanding that the Government spent the £6,000 which had been already suggested in providing a new statue opposite Apsley House. All that occurred in 1883 and 1884, and I think everybody will agree that so far as the expenditure of the £6,000 was concerned, it was an expenditure which the Government was under an obligation to incur. Well, under these circumstances, last year the committee presided over by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and which had collected, as I say, a considerable sum of money for the purpose of beautifying the space at Hyde Park Corner, thought that it would add considerably to the effect of the new statue if four additional figures of suitable design were placed around it. The proposed figures, it was suggested, should represent four soldiers, and cost £4,000. Now, I want the House to understand that this £2,000 which the Government have proposed is only in aid of another sum of £2,000, to be provided out of the private subscriptions collected by the committee presided over by the Prince of Wales. I consulted the Treasury, because I did not consider that the proposal was an objectionable one, when I remembered that the necessity for the whole business was created by the action of the Government, that the old statue had been originally set up by private subscriptions, that the action of the Government had necessitated the removal of the old statue, and that the committee presided over by the Prince of Wales were prepared to subscribe half the expense of the additions to the statue in order to make the statue a really good one. In that way the sum of £2,000 was inserted in the Estimate. However, as we find there is a strong opposition on both sides of the House, under the depressed circumstances, I suppose, of the time, to this £2,000 being voted, the Government have determined not to press this Vote against the will of

  177
  the House; and I, therefore, propose to leave out the sum of £71,430 standing in Report of Supply, and to insert £69,430.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£71,430," and insert "£69,430,"—(Mr. Plunket,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That '£71,430' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Perhaps the House will indulge me for a moment or two, as the Motion for effecting this reduction originally stood in my name. I have no fault to find with the historical statement the right hon. Gentleman has given of the circumstances under which the late Government proposed the original Vote to Parliament. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was correct as far as it went; but it was deficient in one or two parts, in regard to which I should like to refresh the memory of the right hon. Gentleman. In bringing the story down to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) made a proposition on the part of the Government that this House should contribute £6,000, and that the entire remaining cost, not of the statue, but of beautifying and completing the improvement at Hyde Park Corner should be defrayed out of private subscriptions, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) was perfectly correct. That was the shape in which it was put to the House, and the Committee, presided over, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, by the Prince of Wales, with great public spirit undertook that the suggestion of the Government should be carried out. But that arrangement was not accepted unanimously; on the contrary, there were two debates and two Divisions in this House, and the objection that was taken was not an objection based on any want of respect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington, or any indisposition to undertake burdens which were fairly chargeable on the public; but a large number of Gentlemen in this House hold the opinion that, as the nation was erecting a monument in St. Paul's Cathedral at a cost of £30,000, and as various provincial towns had, out of their own funds, erected monuments to the Duke of Wellington, the £6,000 should be defrayed out of London funds, and not
  178
  charged to the public revenue. I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Division, which took place on that occasion. On that memorable evening the distinguished Fourth Party were to the Front, and the whole of that Party—the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), the right hon. Gentleman who is now doing such important work at Constantinople (Sir Henry Drummond Wolff), and also two other Members of that distinguished Party who now sit on the Treasury Bench (Mr. A. J. Balfour and Sir John Gorst)—joined with the economists who then sat below the Gangway in opposing this charge upon the general funds. I find in the Division List the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) himself. He was one of those who voted with us; in fact, 14 Members of the present Administration who were then in Parliament, and a good many more leading Members of the Conservative Party who are not now in Parliament, voted with the late Mr. Peter Rylands and myself against any charge being put on the public funds, for what we considered was a charge to be borne by London and by gentlemen who resided in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park exclusively. The House decided against us. The House was of opinion it was a fair and proper charge to make, and we never raised the question again. We accepted the arrangement that £6,000, and £6,000 only, should be paid out of the public money. Now we find in the Estimates for this year an additional sum of £2,000. I must say the House is put rather at a disadvantage. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) did not explain in Committee of Supply that this £2,000 was wanted for the addition to the statue of four figures, and that another £2,000 would be supplied out of the public subscriptions. The sum is stated in the Estimates as "an additional contribution towards the statue of the Duke of Wellington." The impression loft on my mind was that the statue which was intended to cost £6,000 was going to cost £8,000, and that the public was to be asked to make up the deficiency. I am bound to say that although the Prince of Wales's Committee is prepared to subscribe £2,000 towards the addition to the statue, I think the Government

  179
  have done quite right in not pressing this Vote. I wish it to be distinctly understood on behalf of those who oppose this expenditure, that we are not wanting in respect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington, we are not wanting in sympathy with those gentlemen who have, I think, with great public spirit come forward and endeavoured to carry out this plan. It is simply on the broad general principle that London should bear its own expenses, and should not come upon public funds for such expenses, that we have felt it to be our duty to resist this expenditure. I am glad that the Government have decided that the contribution of £6,000 shall be the maximum contribution, and have not persisted in making any further grant.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I can corroborate all that has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). I recollect that in 1884 when this question was last before the House, it was distinctly stated by me that £6,000 would be the total amount which the House would ever be called upon to contribute towards the improvement made at Hyde Park Corner. [Mr. JACKSON: That was the estimate.] Mr. Boehm had undertaken to make the statue for £6,000, and it was intended that the cost of any additions to the work should be paid for out of the contributions that might be made by the public to the Committee, Even at that time it was contemplated to add some other figures to the statue. In my opinion it would have been a distinct breach of faith had the House been called upon to pay a further sum of £2,000. I have no fault to find with the action of the Chief Commissioner of Works from an historical point of view, but I should like to say that it was never part of the original plan that the statue of the Duke should be taken down from the arch. The original proposition was that the arch should be moved, and the statue replaced upon it; but to that the members of the Royal Academy raised an objection, and it was decided that the statue should be removed.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I only rise to express my satisfaction that my right hon. Friend has withdrawn this Vote. I wish also to express my regret that a more suit-
  180
  able position has not been selected for the statue.
  Question put, and negatived.
  £69,430 inserted,.
  Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
  Resolution [4th July] reported.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,635, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March 1888, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to offer one or two observations with regard to an answer given to me in a Committee of Supply by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket). I inquired of him the other day whether any portion of the extra receipts shown on the Votes was derived from deductions made for depreciation of furniture in houses occupied by Ministers, because it had been said that there was some portion of the amount obtained in that way. When I inquired whether there was any general rule recognized under which these reductions were made, the right hon. Gentleman answered very readily and emphatically that there was an arrangement of the kind made for all Ministers alike, and that there was no exceptional treatment. I knew perfectly well at the time that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken; but I had not the proofs in my hand. The Question was brought up before the Public Accounts Committee during the present Session, and the subordinates to the right hon. Gentleman were questioned on the point, and the first answer given by Mr. Primrose was, that under the rule laid down some years ago, which applied only to the residences of the First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a charge was made for depreciation of furniture during the time of occupation. He was then asked if such a bill was sent in to all the Ministers supplied with furniture, and that was the question which the right hon. Gentleman answered me in the affirmative, but to which his subordinate said—"No. The rule applies only to the residences of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord. It does not apply to other official residences." I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that he was mistaken in the answer

  181
  he made to me the other day. The fact is, that an exceptional system exists under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord are charged considerable sums; that in this particular case amounts to £500 for depreciation of furniture supplied at their residences; but there is a very large number of subordinates who are not only in receipt of residence, but of furniture, and from whom no such deduction is made. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman can explain the reason for this distinction?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I must confess that I was not aware of the existence of the discrepancy to which the hon. Member refers, and I will certainly endeavour to get rid, as far as I possibly can, of the distinction.
  Resolution agreed to.

  BUTTERINE (FRAUDULENT SALE) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 175.]
  (Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Elton, Mr. Mark Stewart.)
  BUTTERINE (FRAUDULENT SALE) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 175.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "Butterine," and insert "Oleomargarine."—(Mr. Matthew Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Butterine' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT: As this Bill is no longer blocked, the hon. Member in charge of it will see that it is safe, and I think he will not consider it unreasonable that Progress should now be reported. The Amendment before the Committee is a very important one, and one which, I think, ought to be brought to the notice of all those who are interested in the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I desire to express a hope that the Committee may be allowed to go through with this Bill to-night, because
    182
    there are no substantial Amendments to occupy us for any length of time. The Bill was unanimously adopted by the Committee upstairs, and I have every reason to hope that it will pass through Committee in the same form as that in which it entered.
    MR. ADDISON: I rise to support the Motion for Progress on the ground that we require time for the consideration of this measure, and because I think the reason given by the hon. Baronet is strongly in favour of our not proceeding further with the Bill tonight. It is a Bill which seems to me to violate all the sound principles of legislation. [Cries of "Order!"] I am speaking to the question, and I say that this Bill is not of that simple character which has been assigned to it. On the contrary, it is one of very great importance, and one which re-enacts mediæval law in its worst form. It is an attempt to dictate to tradesmen the manner in which they shall mark and sell, and describe their goods in the interest, as it is said, of the public, who, in my opinion, are very well able to take care of themselves. There is already an Act of Parliament in force which deals with anybody who sells for butter that which is not butter; but this Bill goes beyond all that has been attempted before, inasmuch as it says—that you shall give to the article sold a particular name, sell it in a particular way, and mark it in a particular manner. I do not think that butter merchants deserve any more attention of this kind than other classes of the community.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: My own impression is, that this is an attempt to give an odious name to an article of commerce which the law allows, and which even this measure permits to be sold as a wholesome article of food. I think in the interest of those who sell the article in question some further light ought to be thrown on the character of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of it.
    MR. BIGGAR: I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Amendment to withdraw their opposition. The real fact of the matter is, the only persons who are interested in the use of the word "butterine" are

    183
    the French and the Dutch butter merchants who send the stuff into this country under the name of butter. The unfortunate consumers are made to pay the price of butter for that which is nothing more nor less than lard. This butterine rubbish competes with genuine butter in the market with the result that the farmers, and those who produce butter in this country are unable to get a fair price. If hon. Gentlemen who defend the present system knew the real facts of the case, they would be ashamed of the position they are taking up. They might just as well defend the receivers of stolen goods, as defend the men who send butterine into the market in place of butter. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to withdraw their opposition to this Amendment.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee from below the Gangway was not a Member of the Select Committee which assisted in framing this Bill. He has not spoken upon this Question with that intelligence, or with that degree of information, which he generally exhibits to the House. The Select Committee divided upon the point we are now discussing, and I think there were two to one in favour of retaining the name "butterine." The Select Committee examined a great many witnesses, and by far the greater number of those who gave evidence were strongly against the change of name. The trade which would be affected by this alteration of name, should it take place, is a very extensive trade. It is a trade which has grown largely and speedily, and the interests concerned ought not to be trifled with unnecessarily. This article, "butterine," has been described by the hon. Member as "rubbish;" but the evidence which the Committee almost universally received went to show that butterine is an admirable article of food, that it, no doubt, competes most severely with common and bad butters, that, in fact, it is so good an article that bad butters have no chance whatever against it, even when sold at the same price. As I have said, the Select Committee, by a majority of two to one, defended the name "butterine," and the evidence the Committee took was almost altogether in favour of its retention. There is a large trade in this article, and it will be felt outside this House to be a ground-
    184
    less interference with that trade if the name under which the trade has been carried on for some 10 or 12 years, and which the Board of Trade itself has adopted for two or three years, is now to be changed. It will be a great injury to the trade.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: As one responsible for bringing in the Bill, I desire to say a very few words to the Committee upon this matter. The Bill, as brought in, would have prohibited the use of the word "butterine." My own opinion was that the admission of that name materially strengthened the measure. I am bound to say that, in the course of the investigation before the Committee, there was a good deal of evidence, on the part of the manufacturers and the retailers, in favour of the use of this name. The matter became the subject of serious consideration, and I am bound to say that the use of this name being conceded by a majority of the Committee, the proceedings of the Committee were immensely facilitated and the Bill was immensely strengthened. Having acted as Chairman during the final sittings of the Committee, and knowing exactly what evidence was given, I am obliged to say that I cannot vote for the Amendment now proposed. My opinion is that the Bill, in its present shape, is one which will admirably affect the object which we have in view; and, for my part, despite the fact that it was originally intended to prohibit this name, I am unable to support this Amendment.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As representing an agricultural constituency, I earnestly support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman behind me. I certainly should have no desire to prevent those who wish to eat "butterine," "oleomargarine," or any other "ine," from indulging their tastes; but, at the same time, when an article is introduced into the market, there is a palpable disadvantage, at any rate so far as the consumer is concerned, in having that article, which is only a substitute for another article, called by a name closely resembling the genuine article for which it is substituted—so closely resembling it, in fact, as, in many cases, to displace it. I am surprised at hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who claim to represent the agricultural interests of England, opposing an Amendment which is clearly

    185
    designed to benefit the majority of their agricultural constituents. Members representing the agricultural interests of England are clearly concerned in seeing that no imitation of a good article is foisted on the customers of their constituents as though it were an article of their production. I do not see why the interests of agricultural constituencies should be subordinated to the interests of the dealers in a spurious article—because that is what one may call this "butterine." This article has got a position in the market solely owing to its imitating a good article, and imitating it by an imitation so perfect that at the town of Maryborough, in Ireland, within the last few months, I saw butterine side by side with butter, and was obliged to confess that I could not tell which was the butterine and which was the butter. So perfect is the imitation, that producers of butter, not only in Ireland, but also in Great Britain, find their interests prejudiced by those who compete with them in the market for customers who really desire to obtain butter, and who do not wish to have butterine if they can help it.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I recognize the position of the hon. Baronet who spoke a few moments ago on this question. The hon. Gentleman acted as Chairman of the Select Committee, towards the end of its proceedings, in the absence of Mr. Sclater-Booth, and, therefore, he is, to some extent, bound by the decision the Committee arrived at. But I submit that the Committee arrived at this decision to some extent under a false impression; because, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) said that the evidence given before the Committee seemed to be in favour of the name "butterine," it must be borne in mind that, of the witnesses examined before the Committee, there were at least 10 interested in the production and sale of butterine to one on the other side. It is not surprising, therefore, that the preponderating influence should have been on the side of retaining the name "butterine." The Select Committee would not of itself have adopted anything like the change which was brought about from the Bill as originally introduced by the hon. Baronet, had it not been that the advisability of the change was impressed upon
    186
    it from outside. It was declared that, in the event of any alteration taking place in the name of this spurious article, those concerned in its sale would, through their Friends in this House, exhaust the Forms of the House in order to prevent the passing of the Bill. I am informed that one hon. Member, friendly to that interest, has declared that if we alter the name of this article, he, and those who act with him, will keep the Bill 10 years before Parliament. I must say that it is the duty of this House to overcome a conspiracy of that kind, entered into with the object of defeating the will of Parliament. I will not detain the Committee by describing the manner in which frauds are systematically carried out, under this name "butterine," as the law at present stands. It must be obvious to every Member of Parliament that if the name ''butterine" was not dishonest and misleading, and if it did not mean a great fraud being perpetrated on the public, the persons connected with the trade would not have the smallest objection to changing the name to that by which it was originally known.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I should like the Committee to bear in mind exactly what the issue is which it has to decide. We should recollect that not only have we to pay attention to the interests of the butter producers, but to the interests of large classes of the community in our great towns. So far as my knowledge of the matter goes—and I have had to investigate it at the Local Government Board—I understand that this butterine is a perfectly wholesome article of food, and that, as a matter of fact, it is sold at a very low price as compared with good butter, while it is decidely superior in quality to bad butter. I think the Committee cannot be too careful, while restricting the provision in this Bill—which will render it apparent to everyone who buys butterine that they are not buying butter, but a substitute for butter—to avoid going to the other extreme. They ought to think once or twice before they brand this article with a name which in itself would deter people from buying it. The name "oleomargarine" is by no means an attractive one; and if this substitute for butter were branded with such a name,

    187
    people would imagine that it is something much more horrible than it really is, and would not buy it. The Bill distinctly provides, as I understand it, that persons buying butterine shall see on the face of it, if they want this article, that they are not buying butter, but butterine. There is a provision in the Bill that, where sold in small quantities, the article shall not only be marked "butterine," but "butterine—not butter." I think that is a sufficient precaution to safeguard butter. Every precaution is taken to make it evident to those who buy the article that they are not buying butter. I only wish to put these facts before the Committee so that they may see what it is they have to decide on. It is well known that this question formed the main bone of contention before the Select Committee, and that the name "butterine" was decided upon by a large majority.
    DR. CLARK: I support the Amendment—at least, I would support it in a modified form if the "oleo" were left out, and simply the "margarine" left in. I think we ought to give this substance its scientific name, which is "margarine." I have no objection to the substance "margarine." It is just as wholesome as butter, just as fattening, and just as useful. The substance originally sold as "oleomargarine" was a mixture of clarified fat and butter; but the article now sold as "butterine" is composed solely of clarified fat, without the butter. The manufacturers simply clarify the fat, colour it, season it, and sell it as butter. It is just as good as butter, only the one comes in the natural way from the living cow, and the other comes from the cow after it is dead. I think you ought to call this substance "margarine," which it is, and by that means you would prevent people from being misled. If you call it "butterine," most people will think you mean some kind of butter; but if you simply call it "margarine," they will know you simply mean purified animal fat, and they will taste it as such, and buy it as such. By doing this, you will prevent people from being imposed upon. I hold that you should call a thing by its proper name.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I should not trouble the Committee on this
    188
    matter, but that I had occasion to examine into this process some two or three years ago. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) says that the people who produce this article are swindlers; but when he says that, and when he says that the people who sell the article are guilty of a gross fraud upon the public, I consider that he uses language of exaggeration. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), that butterine can be made without butter. The acid which is necessary to give the material the butter flavour can only be introduced by means of butter, and that is why it is mixed with it. The material can only be manufactured from the purest suet; and, from the evidence we had, it is exceedingly good food. Though it may compete with the coarse kinds, it does not compete with the better descriptions of butter; and I certainly think that if you took the name butterine away, an injury would be done to this trade.
    MR. WHITLEY: As representing a large commercial community, I feel bound to say that I am satisfied that the proposed alteration would cause great inconvenience, not only to the trade, but to a large section of the public. The only object of this Bill is to prevent butterine being sold as butter; and why we should carry it farther, so as to seriously injure a trade which has a large amount of money invested in it, and which is supplying an article largely used by the poor, I cannot conceive.
    MR. ADDISON: I do not intend to occupy the attention of the Committee for any length of time; but we are told by hon. Gentlemen over the way that this article, butterine, is equally wholesome and equally fattening with butter. Perhaps that is the reason why I do not take either of them, and am able to out prejudice either side. But I would ask the Committee not to sanction the principle of insisting upon a certain name or description being given to a product. On what principle of rational liberty or freedom is it that we are going to dictate to any set of people in this country, whether they buy or sell a certain article, what they shall call that article? On what principle of liberty? [Laughter.] Well, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite tell us a great deal about

    189
    liberty for Ireland; and I fail to see why we should not claim liberty for the English traders to call a wholesome article they manufacture by any name they please. Why we should insist on calling this product which is under discussion by a name which sounds like a new kind of hair-oil, I cannot make out.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I have no objection to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The name he suggests would be a simple one. I adopted the name "oleomargarine" in my Amendment, for the reason that it was in the Bill as originally introduced by the hon. Baronet opposite. The Bill was brought in under that title, and I thought that by adhering to that name I should place the matter more clearly before the House. This oleomargarine may be a healthy article of food; but if that is so, and if the public have no objection to it, I should like to know what objection the people who deal in it can have to the proposed alteration of name? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks of this proposal as a novel principle of legislation, and describes our action as interfering with national liberty; but he must remember that it is the constant practice of the Legislature to interfere with the methods of conducting trade. He knows that it interferes in the question of fraudulent trade marks and names. I need not remind him that there is an Amendment before the House dealing with an analogous subject. It is a perfectly common-sense view of the matter, that persons carrying on trade by fraudulent means should be restrained by legislation.
    MR. HOYLE: I should like to say a word as to the discussion in the Select Committee upstairs on the name of this article hitherto sold in Lancashire as "Butterine." There were several Members who said that when the Committee first sat they were strongly opposed to the name "butterine," but after hearing the evidence of the scientists and traders they changed their minds. When the Committee upstairs struck out the word "oleomargarine" and inserted the word "butterine," I do not think any one was more surprised than the hon. Baronet who has charge of the Bill. I would
    190
    ask whether it would not be well for the Committee of the whole House to wait until it has read the evidence before rejecting the name decided upon by the Select Committee? I beg, Sir, to move that the 1st clause be postponed.
    MR. CHANCE: I would point out to the hon. Member that nothing would be gained by carrying such a Motion as that, as the same question arises in every part of the Bill,
    MR. RITCHIE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press that proposal, as the word "butterine" runs throughout the whole of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 87: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 289.) [3.5 A.M.]
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Oleomargarine' be there inserted.
    MR. CHANCE: I beg to move that "Margarine" be substituted for "Oleomargarine."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Committee negative "Oleomargarine" first.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to insert the word "Margarine."—(Mr. Chance.)
    Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think the Committee has taken a very hasty step in having utterly thrown overboard the evidence of the Committee which sat upstairs. As the alteration now made will involve a series of changes all through the Bill, I think it would be as well to take a little more time before proceeding further. I, therefore, now move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I would point out, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has moved to report Progress, that the alterations which will be involved by the vote of the Committee are simply verbal alterations all through. They are all consequential, and are not questions which will involve discussion. I think it would be highly improper to

    191
    postpone the proceedings of the Committee, seeing that we have now arrived at a definite and final conclusion. Seeing that the Committee have decided, by a substantial majority, on the adoption of a different term from that in the Bill, I think that we are entitled to claim that we should go on with the measure.
    MR. RITCHIE: I would point out to the hon. Member who has moved to report Progress, that the Committee having decided that the word "butterine" be left out, it would be impossible for him, even if he succeeded in obtaining a postponement, to get that word re-inserted. If he has a question to raise, let him wait until the Report stage.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: Very well; I withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: The Committee is inflicting a gross injustice on an important trade; therefore, I move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The hon. Member jumps up and proposes a postponement at a moment when the adjournment can do neither him nor his Friends the slightest amount of good. It is not possible for the Committee to reverse the step it has taken and re-introduce the word "butterine;" but if the hon. Member wishes to raise the question again, he can do so on Report. It is absolutely frivolous of him at the present moment to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Definition) agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Penalty).
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I desire to move to insert after the words "or otherwise," the words "and every employé of such person." I am aware that in asking the Committee to agree to the insertion of these words, I am departing from the principle laid down in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. It is admitted that it would be a great injustice if the
    192
    penalties under this Bill—which do not follow the precedent of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, being much more strict—were inflicted on a wholesale or retail seller by reason of the wrongful act of one of his employés. Under such circumstances, the employer would be unduly punished. I think that it would only be proper to make the employé who is the person who actually commits the offence liable jointly together with the principal. If this is adopted, I shall take the precaution to add similar words to carry out the same principle later on in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the words "or otherwise," to insert "and every employé of such person."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope the Committee will not accept the proposed Amendment. I do not think it will commend itself generally to the favour of hon. Members that the word "employé" should be here inserted. We are, in our legislation, in the habit of expressing ourselves in English, and I must say I fail to see any reasonable ground for departing from that custom on the present occasion. But the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment has himself given a reason why we should not accept it. He has said that it is not in harmony with the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. That is exactly what is the case. The whole matter was fully argued before the Select Committee. We had a large body of evidence upon this particular point, and the subject was thoroughly threshed out. My impression is that after the debates which took place upon the Committee, and after hearing the evidence which was taken, there was but one opinion—namely, that we should keep rigidly to the principle which underlies the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and require the burden to fall upon the retailer. The introduction of these words would place the Bill out of harmony with the Act on which it is framed. I would point out that Mr. Sclater-Booth, who acted as Chairman of the Committee, was the person who brought in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in 1875, and, consequently, was thoroughly acquainted with the details of that Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT: This clause is extremely severe in its penalties. It provides for the first offence a fine not exceeding £20; for the second offence a fine not exceeding £50, and for the third or any subsequent offence a fine of £100 or imprisonment with or without hard labour, not exceeding six months. I beg to move that all the words after the word "pounds" in line 26 be left out. It seems to me that a penalty of this character surrounds the trade with all sorts of risks and dangers, and that if these words were to remain in the Bill the tendency would be to drive all respectable men out of the trade, and to leave it in the hands of the more reckless and the least respectable persons.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "or imprisonment with or without hard labour not exceeding six months."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. M. J. KENNY: This question was discussed in Committee and the imprisonment clause was carried by a majority. I think it was very properly carried, because it was pointed out by the Select Committee that if there is no deterrent influence greater than a fine, it is possible that the magistrates will, in certain places, go on imposing small fines—that the traders will go on breaking the law, being content to pay the fines, unless brought face to face with the possibility of imprisonment. In this clause the Bill merely follows the precedent laid down in numerous Acts. In the case of fraudulent weights and measures, a third conviction necessitates imprisonment. In this Bill we do not propose to follow that precedent, but we leave it to the option of the magistrate, who will judge of the nature of the offence, and who will judge as to whether or not the person charged is incorrigible. He can impose a fine of 5s., or he may send the offender to gaol for a week. I would point out that the representatives of the trade themselves, the men who spoke and gave evidence for these retail dealers and dealers in butter substitutes, all accepted the principle of the Imprisonment Clause. The hon. Member who is sitting below (Mr. Maclure) himself accepted the principle, and spoke
    194
    at considerable length in support of it as representing these persons. I trust, therefore, that this matter having been decided after considerable discussion by vote in the Committee, hon. Members will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright).
    MR. MACLURE: I must entirely repudiate what the hon. Member states. The cause of my voting was that an honourable understanding had been arrived at to the effect that the term "butterine" should be used. I consented to vote for imprisonment in cases where fraud was committed through the non-use of that name. Under existing circumstances, I shall most heartily support my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester in his proposal to exclude these words. I think that a great injustice is about to be done to a most honourable trade, and to a trade which is very beneficial to the working classes of Lancashire. I think the Committee, in acting in the way it has done to-night, has taken a very false step.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I do appeal to the Committee to accept this Amendment. I should have been glad if the hon. Member for Manchester had gone farther than the Amendment he has proposed, and had proposed that there should be no penalty exceeding £20. What is it that this measure proposes? Why, a piece of gross cruelty to the retail trader. The retail trader may be perfectly honest, and it may be farthest from his intention to commit a fraud, which is a term I object to in connection with the selling of two articles, one of which is just as good as the other, although the law requires that it should be sold under a different name. ["Agreed, agreed!"] I cannot imagine that the House of Commons will allow an Act of Parliament of this kind to pass without due consideration—an Act putting into the hands of the magistrates, many of whom may be interested in the production of one article, powers to restrict the sale of another, and to deal with traders whose industry they may conceive opposed to that in which, they themselves are interested. ["Agreed!"] I claim the right to be heard on a point of this character. The second argument of the hon. Member for Tyrone cut his first to

    195
    ribbons. He said the magistrates would impose a fine of a few shillings, and that fraudulent traders would repeat offences against the Act over and over again. Well, I certainly think that when a magistrate has power to inflict a fine of £20 for the first offence, £50 for the second, and then £100, he is visited with the heaviest penalty that this House ought to pass on anyone who offends in the direction I speak of. I appeal with confidence to the Committee not to go to such extreme length. We have already been told that even in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act the penalties are not so severe as they are in this Bill. No evidence has been given to show that oleomargarine is not as wholesome an article of food as butter itself. It is not denied that it is as -wholesome; and, therefore, to impose these enormous penalties upon men for substituting one article for another I hold to be acting most cruelly.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: If the Committee will allow me to say one or two words—[Cries of "Agreed!"] If it does not listen to me, I shall move to report Progress. I shall insist upon that. I am not in the habit of intruding upon the House—
    Mr. M. J. KENNYhere made an observation.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone to withdraw that observation.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: What observation, Sir?
    THE CHAIRMAN: "He intrudes often enough."
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I withdraw it, of course; but I did not intend the observation to be heard.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: It is said that the Bill now before the House follows the analogy of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875. Now, as regards that Act, there is no penalty in the nature of imprisonment for the sale of any article which does not contain an ingredient injurious to health. No one can say that there is anything in this butterine injurious to health; therefore, all analogy based upon the Act of 1875 falls to the ground, or is entirely against imprisonment. The tendency of modern legislation is not only to form new crimes, but also to pile up penalties. I do not think the House is aware of the
    196
    number of penalties we are asked every year to impose on the subject in our private Bill legislation. If the House were aware of this fact, I think our local legislation would be much more carefully guarded. Here we are asked to allow a man to be imprisoned on the arbitrary decision of the magistrates, and we go beyond the precedent of the Act of Parliament on which the supporters of the Bill rely as an example and pattern for their proceedings. I most sincerely hope that the precedent of that Act will be followed, and that there will be no imprisonment following the sale of an article that is not injurious to health.
    MR. CHANCE: I do not agree that margarine is necessarily a wholesome thing. I have heard of its being made out of very strange substances indeed. If it is made out of unwholesome substances under the sale of Food and Drugs Act the dealer can be imprisoned. What we are dealing with, however, is not selling an unwholesome article which can be dealt with under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act; but the selling of an article which is not an unwholesome article. Well, it appears to me that a fine of £100 would be to a great many of these people an extremely heavy fine and I, therefore, do hope that the hon. Member for Tyrone will give way upon this point, and will not leave to the magistrates the power of inflicting six months imprisonment with hard labour. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. F. S. Powell), I regret that his present objection to the creation of new crimes did not come to his mind two months ago.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I believe these particular words are taken from a Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for East Cork. Well, I drafted that Bill, and I remember expostulating with the hon. Member against the heavy nature of the penalty, and it was against my better judgment that I put that in. But as regards a heavy money penalty for a third offence against the provisions of this Bill, I am assured that so large are the profits from the manufacture and sale of this material margarine that a small pecuniary penalty would be, in many cases, altogether insufficient. But, whatever may be the money penalty it does seem to me that imprisonment for six months for such a thing as selling

    197
    clarified fat is altogether beyond the necessities of the case.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I would point out that in many continental countries the penalty for the fraudulent sale of margarine for butter is two years imprisonment. But having succeeded in carrying the main part of the principle which appeared to me necessary in this Bill, and the Committee having decided upon a name which renders it more difficult to deal fraudulently with an article of this kind, the necessity for an excessively stringent punishment has disappeared, therefore, I should have no objection in acceding to the Amendment.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: When the Bill was originally introduced there was no such penalty as six months imprisonment contained in it. That was introduced when the Bill was passing through the Select Committee, under circumstances with which hon. Gentlemen are now familiar. I am by no means disposed to insist on the retention in this Bill of the six months imprisonment. I would venture to point out, however, that in the Merchandise Marks Bill which has just passed through Committee it is provided that when a false trade description is given of goods the offender is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for two years.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Marking of cases).
    MR. ADDISON: I beg to propose that this clause be omitted from the Bill. It seems to me to be an illustration of legislation gone almost wild, because this is a clause that proposes to dictate to traders in what manner they shall sell this article, which we are told is perfectly wholesome. This margarine, as it is now to be called, is to be branded or durably marked. What is meant by durably marked I do not know, as I should have thought that a compound of this kind would be difficult to mark durably; and then it is to be marked upon the top, the bottom, and the sides. If the suggestion is that a trader is to be told how he is to mark, and where he is to mark a compound of this kind, then, why should you not deal in the same way with the manufacturers of Pears' soap and other articles? Then it is to be
    198
    marked with printed capital letters. How is it to be printed; is the butterine or margarine to be passed through a printing press? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may well laugh at that, but that is the actual proposal that is made by this clause. For the first time, unless there is some Act in the 13th century that I am not acquainted with, this is the first time we have told any trader in England the exact letters and the size with which he is to stamp his goods, and the place where he is to put them. It seems to me to be a piece of legislation which if allowed to pass, no one can tell where it will stop. Let us really consider, even at this hour of the morning, what we are doing. If this compound is to be exposed for sale there is to be attached to it, in such manner as to be clearly legible to the purchaser, a label printed in capital letters of not less than half an-inch square, "Margarine," and any trader is to be liable under this Act who does not do all that. I cannot help appealing to the good sense of hon. Members whether in this country, or even in Ireland, they ever saw any attempt to interfere with people in their lawful trades in this way?
    Amendment proposed, toomitClause4.—(Mr. Addison.)
    Question proposed,'' That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I think in answer to the remarks that have been made, that I can satisfy the Committee. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs, and we went very carefully into the consideration of all these questions, and this clause was framed at the suggestion of the traders themselves, both wholesale and retail. They have no opposition to offer to the proposals which are introduced into this clause, and, as in fact, in several instances the suggestions came from men engaged in the wholesale and retail trade it shows, so far as they are concerned, they do not consider it any hardship to have these restrictions put upon them.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I submit that the traders must have been asleep to their own interests. Each parcel of butter purchased from a retailer has to be labelled "Butterine, not Butter,'' in characters 1½ inch long, while such parcel may amount to only half a-pound or

    199
    a pound. This would be a great inconvenience in a shop window; and further, the retailer will have to keep a special supply of printed wrappers to wrap up these small parcels. It is absurd to think that the retailers were aware of what they were sanctioning, and I hope therefore that the Committee will agree to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison).
    MR. HOYLE: In confirming the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Penrith as to this clause having been framed on the suggestion of the trade itself, I wish to say that was done in the hope that the word "Butterine" might be retained, and the clause was passed after the adoption by the Committee upstairs of the name "Butterine." Now that "Margarine" has been substituted, there is not the same necessity for stringent regulations.
    DR. CLARK: I was rather astonished at the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, because, at the present moment, the principle of the clause is in operation. If the hon. Gentleman went into a grocer's to buy coffee and chicory, the grocer would have to sell it with the label—''This is sold as a mixture of chicory and coffee"—and it is simply the application of the same principle to this compound, margarine. As very large profits are made out of it, there is no hardship in asking them to pay for printing the word "margarine" upon the paper in which it is sold. At the present time they do print upon the firkins the name of the material.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. F. Lawrence) has called up difficulties that do not exist. The provision trade of Liverpool, stated in evidence, that it was the custom to wrap up even the smallest quantities in paper upon which was printed the word "Butterine." One witness supplied us with numbers of examples, and stated it was the invariable practice in Liverpool, and what we asked for was that the custom which prevailed in Liverpool should be extended among all traders throughout Great Britain and Ireland. I think there is no real difficulty in the way, and as regards the inconvenience that would arise to retail traders to be compelled to ticket this article in their shops, we
    200
    were supplied also with tickets which they were in the habit of using at the present time, and all these it was argued might be used without inconvenience; therefore the operation of the clause would not be any hardship upon the trade. I would further point out that it would be unwise to listen to the proposal to omit this clause; because, if it were omitted the Bill would cease to hang together; therefore, it is of vital importance that the clause should be retained, and it is essential to the carrying out the policy which the Bill seeks to carry out.
    MR. WHITLEY: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in regard to the practice in Liverpool, as the traders have been careful there to mark the article; but I quite agree with the hon. Member for the Heywood Division of Lancashire (Mr. Hoyle) that an alteration having been made in the name, there is no longer any necessity for the clause.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: The Committee should not be misled by the statements that have been made as to the traders agreeing to this clause, because that was when the title was different, and they were threatened with an article to compete with butter under an almost identical name. But are we here to regulate the sale or the use of the article "margarine?" ["No!"] Then if that be the case, why is this thing to be put upon it? [An hon. MEMBER: We want to advertise it.] Yes, exactly so; but that is not our business; our business is to act honestly and fairly. I think the Committee has gone as far as it would be disposed to go to make the distinction, and to go one step further would be an unnecessary and unbusiness-like interference with the trade of the country. If done in this case, then there are many other articles that it would be applicable to, and legislation should follow. In the illustration given of coffee and chicory there was a mixture in which the quantities could not be ascertained; but here there is no such suggestion, and I do not think it is the business of the House of Commons to damnify any article that is genuinely offered for sale.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: This clause is the very essence of the Bill. Whatever name the Committee may decide this imitation butter must bear, that

    201
    name must be boldly displayed. As to the particular marks on the labels and wrappers, I would inform the Committee that every one of them was taken from the examples given to us of those in use in the trade in Liverpool. In some cases the labels are used, and in others the wrapper; but this is the open way in which traders should act.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 23: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 290.) [4.5 A.M.]
    Clause 5 (Presumption against vendor) agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Power of officer of local authority to inspect manufactory).
    MR. ADDISON: As regards Clause 6, this introduces an entirely novel principle into our legislation, for it enables an inspector to enter at all reasonable times any premises where the article is manufactured for the purpose of inspecting them. Now, we have heard over and over again this is a perfectly lawful trade and perfectly wholesome and proper, and yet we are to be told the inspector may come on any man's premises at any reasonable time—that being, I suppose, to be decided by his own discretion—and inspect the way in which any trader may carry on his business. That is contrary to one of the most elementary rights we have, the elementary right being that people shall not be disturbed or have their premises invaded without some reasonable cause. I beg to move the omission of the words "any inspector may enter and inspect, at all reasonable times."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words, "any inspector may enter and inspect, at all reasonable times."—(Mr. Addison.)
    Question proposed, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: This clause was introduced at the instance of one of the largest manufacturers of the article.
    DR. CLARK: This is a very important matter, and without this clause the manufacturers, instead of making margarine from suet, which is the best thing to make it from, might put into it something that was very dangerous indeed.
    MR. ADDISON: I would only add one word to what the hon. Member
    202
    says. The same thing would be exactly true in the manufacture of cigars, which I am told—I do not smoke myself—are often made from cabbage leaves and other stuff, and the same with sausages, which may or may not be made of animals of which sausages ought to be made; but I will not discuss the matter further. I should have thought the feeling of the Committee would have been entirely with me, but if not, I shall not force the Amendment to a Division. Having made my protest, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Butterine imported or manufactured).
    Clause 8 (Registration of manufactory).
    MR. ADDISON: Again, as to this clause I cannot, having regard to the wishes of my constituents who have representations to make, allow this to pass without protest. This is a proposal that the manufacturers of "margarine" as it is now to be called must be registered with the local authority in such manner as the Local Government Board may direct, and a person not so registered is to be liable to all the penalties we have heard of. On what ground has the manufacturer of margarine to register himself any more than any other manufacturer in England? It may be right with regard to gunpowder and all other dangerous compounds, but not in this case, which is an infringement of a man's rights.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Power to inspectors to take samples without purchase).
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: In Clause 9, page 3, line 14, I beg to move to leave out, after the word "may," the words, "without going through the form of purchase." This is a departure from the Food and Drugs Act, and it appears to me there is not sufficient reason for it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, after "may," to leave out "without going through the form of purchase."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: This, again, was the suggestion made to the Committee by several of those interested in the sale of the article, and no one expressed any objection to it. I would call attention to the Food and Drugs Act, in which will be found ample provision for the payment of the article.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I would like to explain, as the hon. Gentleman says those he has had to deal with approve of the clause, those I represent highly disapprove of it.
    MR. M. J, KENNY: The reason for the provision is this. Inasmuch as this Bill deals not only with shopkeepers who sell by retail, but persons who sell wholesale, it would be very inconvenient to have an inspector going into a wholesale dealer's and taking away a large packet, and the provision is put in for the purpose of providing for a email quantity to be taken for analysis. Further than that, this clause had the approval of the persons who represented the trade when they came before us.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Appropriation of penalties) agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Proceedings).
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I have an Amendment in the first line of this clause, and it is to insert in line 25, page 3, after the word "shall," the words "save as expressly varied by this Act."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, after "shall," to insert "save as expressly varied by this Act."—(Sir Richard Paget.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I should wish to ask the effect of this Amendment?
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: The effect of the Amendment is this. This clause embodies Section 28 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875; but there is a provision in a previous clause of the Act that would, to a certain extent, modify it unless these words are introduced.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: My hon. Friend has not answered the question which I ventured to put as to the safety of the innocent retailer, whether there would be security that the sample taken should be divided.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Yes, there is; all that is included in the Food and Drugs Act.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an amended Title (changed to "Margarine (Fraudulent Sale) Bill);" as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  UISTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to provide for the Transfer of the Ulster Canal and the Tyrone Navigation or Coal Island Navigation from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to the Lagan Navigation Company; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Colonel King-Harman, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 313.]

  POINDING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Motion of Mr. Watt, Bill to amend the Law of Scotland in matters relating to Poinding, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Watt, Mr. M'Ewan, Mr. J. C. Bolton, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Howell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 314.]
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Saye and Sele, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lloyd's Signal Station * (158); Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment * (159).
Committee—Quarries (83–160).
Committee—Report—National Debt and Local Loans * (141).
Report—Incumbents' Resignation Act (1871) Amendment * (144); Land Transfer (105–161); Municipal Corporations Acts (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) (143–162).
Third Reading—Tithe Rent-Charge (115), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Gas * (123).
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries * (136); Metropolis (Cable Street, Shadwell) * (134); Metropolis (Shelton Street, St. Giles) * (135); Local Government (No. 4) * (125); Tramways (No. 2) * (133), and passed.

CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE ROYAL REVIEW AT ALDERSHOT— THE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTER, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether Volunteer corps have been invited to parade at the Review to be held on the 9th instant, at Aldershot; and, if so, whether her Majesty's Government will recommend that the whole, or any part, of the cost of such attendance shall be defrayed by the country, or whether it shall be a personal charge on the commanding officers, and on those who attend under arms? said, that all who saw the Volunteers on Saturday last march past Her Majesty must have been surprised at the military aspect of the regiments, and at the manner in which they discharged their respective duties. He was informed that on the 19th of May an intimation was sent to

  3
  the various Volunteer corps that their presence would be acceptable on the occasion of the Royal Review at Aldershot on Saturday next; but there had been great apprehension which had deterred several Volunteer corps from joining. There was a fear that each man would be put to an expense which many of them were not able to bear, and that they would not be conveyed free to the scene of action; he understood also that they were to be called upon to pay their own expenses for the day. Many of the men would have to start at 2 o'clock in the morning, and they would be lucky indeed if they got home within 24 hours. The plea of economy could hardly be received since the whole cost of the Volunteers attending from the Metropolis would not involve an outlay of more than £1,000. He thought it was for the credit of the country, and would be a testimonial to the work performed by the Volunteers, that some efforts should be made to secure that the men should not at any rate be out of pocket by attending a long and arduous day at Aldershot.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): In the encomiums passed by the noble Lord upon the Volunteers who marched past Her Majesty on Saturday last, I most cordially concur. With regard to the noble Lord's Question, a Memorandum was issued on April 22nd, inviting such Volunteer corps desirous of attending the Review to notify their wish to the Adjutant General. It stated that an allowance, as in the case of Windsor Review of 1881, of 2s. per head for corps whose head quarters were over 50 miles from Aldershot, and 1s. for those under 50 miles would be granted, and that all other expenses of attending the Review would have to be met by the corps. All the corps accepting under the provisions of that Memorandum have been authorized to attend.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No. 115.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No. 115.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That no measure with regard to tithe rent-charge will he satisfactory to the country which does not provide for the re-valuation and re-adjustment of the said charge,"
  said, he thanked the noble Marquess at the head of the Government for having postponed the third reading until a day when he (Lord Brabourne) could be present to enter one last word of protest and warning against the shape in which it was proposed to send the Bill down to the other House. He would say that the Bill dealt with a great subject in a manner which unsettled everything and settled nothing. The measure had been introduced by the Government, because there had been certain disturbances connected with the levying of tithe, and the remedy the Government proposed was to abolish the Law of Distraint. But no complaint had been made against the mode of enforcing the collection of the rent-charge; the complaint was against the impost itself, its amount, and its inequality; and the effect of the Bill would be in no way to lessen the grievance. There were two classes who paid tithes—those who occupied their own lands, and those who occupied lands which were not their own. With respect to the latter, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that they were made responsible for a debt which was not their own, but this was scarcely a correct statement, because they had deliberately taken the debt upon themselves in taking their farms and agreeing to the rent. At present the occupiers of land paid tithes, because they had contracted with their landlords to do so, and if the Bill passed the only result would be that landlords would stipulate that their tenants should pay the equivalent to the tithe rent-charge in their rent settlement, instead of paying the actual rent-charge to the owner as at present. His (Lord Brabourne's) noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had, on a previous occasion, twitted him with ignorance upon this point, saying that the tithe rent-charge was entirely an owner's question. His noble and learned Friend spoke without practical knowledge of the subject. It might seem that if an occupier paid £150 per annum, it mattered not to him whether he paid it all to one person, or £100 to one and £50 to the other. But an occupier knew

  5
  perfectly well that if he paid the whole to one landlord, he had a much better chance of reduction than if he paid £100 to the landlord and £50 to the tithe owner. Moreover, on hiring a farm, the tenant knew that there was this £50 per annum charged upon it, for which the landlord was liable, and which was, therefore, the basis of the rent he must demand, and that rents would be lower in proportion if the charge did not exist. But the great difficulties of tithe collection did not arise from occupiers, for the very reason that the owners were ultimately responsible. It arose with the small owners, a very numerous class, whose number it was sought to increase by their legislation. His noble and learned Friend had committed himself to the declaration that this class would be under no greater liability than at present under this Bill. But they were to be brought to the County Court, disobedience to whose orders wag punishable by 14 days' imprisonment, and it seemed to him strange to say that there was no increase of liability when a man was to be made liable to imprisonment to which he was not liable under the present law. Throughout the country the amount of tithe was very much complained of, its commutation having been attended with gross inequalities. Great complaint was also made of the manner in which the averages were taken, tail wheat and wheat of an inferior quality not being taken into account, and the average being thereby forced up beyond what was gain. Moreover, a great deal of land now laid down in grass paid arable tithe, which was considerably higher than pasture tithe. He (Lord Brabourne) wished again to enter his earnest and emphatic protest against the doctrine laid down by the noble Marquess, that tithe was the gross produce of the laud, irrespective of cost. That doctrine was all very well in the earlier history of the world, when a virgin soil required little or no cost to cultivate; but now, when £5 or £6 per acre had to be expended in order to obtain the crop estimated at £7, the doctrine could not and would not be accepted by the people of this country. A Bill passed in the belief that such was the true doctrine with regard to tithe would not remove friction between the clergy and their parishioners, and would not add to the popularity of the clergy. Nor would this be the result
  6
  of that part of the Bill which provided that if the orders of the County Court were not satisfied, the clergy might be put in possession of the farms of these small owners. This would never be endured. The question of tithe was of great importance to the small owners of land throughout the country, and ought to be dealt with in a large and comprehensive spirit. If this was not done, and, with regard to kindred questions also, the Government would find that they would have other Spalding elections, and they would not retain the confidence of the agricultural community now suffering under such grievous depression. In order to give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing their views upon the subject, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved.
  To leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("no measure with regard to tithe rentcharge will be satisfactory to the country which does not provide for the re-valuation and re-adjustment of the said charge").—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that there was nothing which had been said by his noble Friend which differed from what their Lordships had heard upon several previous occasions. Therefore, he was not going to take up the time of the House by going over the arguments again. The Bill undoubtedly did not effect to deal with the larger parts of the question, those of re-valuation and of re-adjustment, but it was a simple effort to alter the machinery by which the tithes were now collected, and it had been introduced because it was believed that hardships to the occupier had occurred in practice; that the machinery occasionally operated with harshness, and tended to mislead the occupier as to the real incidence and burden of the tax, which was indeed imposed upon the land—though as between the owner and occupier it had by private agreement been paid by the latter. The Government, indeed, believed that the tithe was essentially in the nature of a tax upon land, and as such ought to fall upon the landowner, and not upon the occupier. They also believed that if the effect of the Act of 1836, in throwing the payment of the tax upon the occupier, were

  7
  removed much misapprehension of the nature and incidence of the tax, which was the source of some popular agitation, would disappear. There was, therefore, ground for asking their Lordships to deal with this small part of the subject, rather than to enter upon the extensive field on which his noble Friend had invited them to enter. He would earnestly impress upon the House the consideration that whatever loss this Bill inflicted on the landowners, or on the owners of tithes, it could not inflict any hardship upon the occupiers. It certainly changed the situation for the owner; but as far as it changed it in respect of the occupier, it changed it for his advantage, for, as had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne), it would be better for the occupier to pay £150 a-year to one man, the landowner, than to pay £100 to the landowner and £50 to the tithe-owner. In dealing with one man instead of two, he would be in a far better position. In his opinion, it was as dangerous to make the allegation that the owners objected to the obligation of tithes, and that therefore they ought to be free from that obligation, as to make the suggestion that mortgages ought to be put an end to, because the mortgagees did not wish to discharge their legal obligations in respect to them, and were sufficient in number to make the matter a political question. His noble Friend had protested against the doctrine that tithe had to be paid without references to the cost incurred in producing it. Well, in answer to that, all he (the Marquess of Salisbury) could say was, that he was sorry for it, but the practice now followed was that which had prevailed for 1,000 years, and that the Act of 1836 did not in any way interfere with it The Act of 1836 was simply a contrivance for the payment of a charge which, before that time, had always been of a varying and indefinite character, and putting it in a definite form; but it made no change in the right of titheowners to the payment of one-tenth of the gross profits, and they might just as well take the nine-tenths from the landlord and give it to the titheowner as to take the one-tenth from the titheowner and give it to the landlord. The rights of the landowner and of the titheowner might come under consideration at some future period, but their Lordships might de-
  8
  pend upon it that any scheme of reform which involved the plundering of the titheowner would not, in the long run, be of any advantage to the landowner. Such considerations as his noble Friend had urged were not usually very powerful in that House, and he was sure that their Lordships would not be induced by such considerations as to the wider question to reject the modest reform which Her Majesty's Government now submitted to the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, though not opposed to the principle of the Bill, he most decidedly demurred to the rather stringent doctrines which the noble Marquess had just laid down on the subject. On his side of the House they were far from objecting to the Bill, so far as it went; but he objected to the doctrine as to the basis upon which the tithe rent-charge rested. No doubt, there was no more reason why they should take away the property of the titheowner than of the landowner; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that the conditions upon which the tithe rested were of comparatively recent date, and they must well consider what was going on around them. There could be a re-examination without plundering anyone. But he thought it was essential for the interests of all, and especially of the Church, that their rights of property should be enforced in such a manner as to secure general acquiescence. He was quite sure that they would not get out of these difficulties without a full examination of the tithe rent-charge in all its bearings, and making some re-adjustment of it. He did not, however, see why this Bill should not be passed, because there were other matters which must be considered thereafter; and as he agreed with the noble Marquess that it was not necessary to wait for any general re-adjustment of the law before they passed it, he should give it his general support.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?"
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  On the Motion of The Earl of POWIS, the following Amendments made:—In

  9
  Clause 8, page 7, line 27, at end of clause insert—
  "Provided that any redemption money paid in respect of tithe rentcharge—

  "(a.) If payable to any professor in the University of Oxford or Cambridge, may, at the option of the professor, be paid and applied in manner provided with respect to the purchase money of land sold under the Universities and College Estates Act, 1858; and

  "(b.) If payable to a charity, may, at the option of the trustees or other persons administering the charity, be paid to the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales;"

  in Clause 16, page 13, line 28, at end of clause insert—
  "This Act shall apply, in the case of tithe rentcharge payable to any churchwardens, parish clerk, or other parish officer, in like manner as if such churchwardens, parish clerk, or other parish officer were an ecclesiastical corporation."
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 9, page 8, line 7, after ("sums") insert ("charged on the fund and all expenses"); line 8, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act"); line 30, after ("thereupon") insert—
  ("And also upon the Land Commissioners in case of disagreement determining the amount of the annuity");
  and in page 9, line 15, leave out from ("Act") to end of section.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out ("or") and insert ("and"); Clause 8, page 6, line 41, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 42; page 7, line 2, leave out ("so paid") and insert ("paid as hereinafter mentioned"); after Amendment proposed by the Earl of Powis at Clause 8, page 8, line 6, insert—
  ("And (c.) if payable to any trustees of a settlement or tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be paid to the trustees of the settlement and invested in like manner as if it were capital money arising under that Act");
  Clause 11, page 10, line 22, after ("pay") insert ("to the person redeeming the tithe rentcharge"); line 24, after ("rentcharge") insert—
  10
  ("Payable to any ecclesiastical corporation aggregate or sole, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners");
  Clause 12, page 11, at end of clause insert as a New Sub-section—
  "Where tithe rentcharge redeemed under this Act is subject to a mortgage, or to any charge annual or capital, the amount paid, whether as capital or by way of annuity for the redemption of such tithe rentcharge, shall he subject to the same mortgage or charge;"
  Clause 15, page 13, line 13, at end, insert as a New Sub-section—
  "Where on any redemption of tithe rent-charge under this Act any person is treated by the Land Commissioners or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as owner of any lands, and liable to pay any sum for the redemption, whether such sum is a capital sum or an annuity, and is the whole or part of the amount payable for such redemption, and such person is owner of any portion of the lands charged with the tithe rentcharge redeemed, such person shall be liable to pay the sum notwithstanding that he is not the owner of the whole of the lands in respect of which the same is payable, but he shall be entitled to recover from the owner of the rest of such lands a proper proportion of the sum paid by him;"
  Second Schedule, page 18, line 18, at end of line insert—
  "9 & 10 Vict. c. 73.
  "An Act further to amend the Acts for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales.
  "Section one and section five, so far as they relate to tithe rentcharge, to which this Act applies payable to an ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners;"
  line 31, after ("thirty") insert—
  "And sections thirty-one and thirty-two, so far as they relate to any tithe rentcharge to which this Act applies payable to an ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners");
  line 31, at end insert—
  "41 & 42 Vict. c. 42.
  "An Act to amend and further extend the Acts for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales.
  "The following portions, so far as they relate to tithe rentcharge to which this Act applies, that is to say—
  "In section one the words 'for a sum equal to twenty-five times the amount thereof,' and section four, and so much of sections three and five as relates to tithe rentcharge payable to an ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners;"
  after Clause 7 insert—
  (Provision in case of two rentcharges on the same land.)
  "Where by reason of a tithe rentcharge in respect of the great tithes being separate from

  11
  a tithe rentcharge in respect of the small tithes, or from any other cause, two tithe rent-charges are charged on the same lands, and the amount of any such tithe rentcharges for any twelve months exceeds the profit of the lands for those twelve months within the meaning of this Act, the said profit shall he divided between the persons entitled to such tithe rent-charges in proportion to the amount thereof fixed by the apportionment or any altered apportionment, and in any proceedings for the recovery of either of such tithe rentcharges, the court shall make such orders as may appear to the court necessary for giving effect to this enactment."
  Then the Queen's consent and the Duke of Cornwall's consent signified by The Marquess of SALISBURY; and Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 83.)

  COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that when this Bill was before the House on the last occasion he was afraid it was not sufficiently understood that this Bill had been fully considered by the other House, and as the Bill was passing through the other House, a large number of Amendments had been introduced by the Home Office, with a view to meet the objections which had been made against it. He was now able to state that most of the objections which had been raised during the previous debate had, he believed, been met, and that two small Amendments had been agreed to between the Lord Chancellor and the Promoters of the Bill, which, he thought, satisfied the objections raised by the noble and learned Lord on the last occasion. He trusted they would fulfil the desired purpose in a satisfactory manner, and that their Lordships would now consent to go into Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, although the whole of his objections had not been fully met by the Amendments which had been made, yet he would not any further oppose the Motion for going into Committee, though it was with some misgiving that he assented; because he believed the Bill went very much further
  12
  and had a much wider application than the necessity of the case demanded. He understood that there were a great many dangerous quarries in and about the Forest of Dean, and it was to meet such a state of things that the Bill was designed. But the width of the language of the Bill, as amended, appeared to him to be of a somewhat serious character. Many of their Lordships were acquainted with the slate quarries of Wales, and if the Bill were passed in its present shape the owners of those quarries would be obliged to withdraw the permission, now freely given to visitors, to see the picturesque parts of the mountains, for it was proposed in the Bill that places not now considered dangerous must be "reasonably fenced," whatever that might mean. The authors of the Bill could have hardly any idea of the extent to which the Bill went.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Fencing of quarries).
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 11, after ("unenclosed land") to leave out ("or is").—(The Earl Brownlow.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that if the Bill simply provided that a pit, or quarry, or opening, which was so near the highway that it constituted a danger should be fenced, he should have no objection. But what he understood it to propose was, that a pit, or quarry, or opening, should be fenced although it was such a distance from the highway that a person must be a wilful trespasser if he came to any harm. This was a most unreasonable provision, which would put owners of pits and quarries to the expense of erecting thousands of miles of fencing, although no earthly injury could occur to any person who did not go trespassing.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he would remind their Lordships that Parliament had already passed legislation of this description. By the 41st section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, it was made in offence not to fence a disused coal pit, even though the pit might be on private land. That was a much stronger measure than the one now before their

  13
  Lordships, which had been dictated by considerations similar to those connected with the section of the Mines Regulation Act to which he had referred. Beside that, the question of human life was not to be lightly dealt with. The public were perfectly powerless in this matter, for they could not be expected to have dangerous quarries fenced up. When persons passed along a highway, if there was an open quarry in a dangerous proximity, it was but right that the public should have a short and simple remedy against the owner. That was all he contended for.
  LORD THRINGsaid, the Bill was a good Bill, and a well drawn Bill. It was monstrous that persons should be allowed to lay traps for their neighbours by leaving their quarries unfenced.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that the clause, as it was worded, would include chalk cliffs, and adjoining proprietors might be required under its provisions to fence the Coast of Kent. Such a provision, therefore, might be a very serious matter.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that whilst he could not complain of the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord, he must point out that the position was somewhat peculiar, and that not only had the Bill received the support of several Members of Her Majesty's Government, amongst others, a letter had been written on behalf of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cross) to say that he would be glad to assist in passing the Bill through that House. He hoped his noble Friend would now help to give him the warm support he had promised.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made in page 1, line 13, by substituting the word ("reasonably") for the word ("securely").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Interpretation).
  On the Motion of The Marquess o f SALISBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 20, add the words("but not any natural opening").
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he wanted to know what would happen if a quarry got tilled with water, and became a pond? It was quite as likely that a harmless trespasser would get into a pond as into a quarry.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 160.)

LAND TRANSFER BILL.—(No. 108.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LAND TRANSFER BILL.—(No. 108.)

  REPORT.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Report be now received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he rose to move—according to Notice—that the Report be received that day six months. The Bill before their Lordships included the Bill for the succession to real property, brought in from "another place" several years ago, but never revived till now. He believed that the compulsory division of land on intestacy would do more harm than good. He, in the year 1835, had met a family in France, consisting of five, and one of them said—"On our parents' death, I must by law have an equal share of their property." He had inquired for them lately, and had only just heard that three of them survived, and that a mill possessed by the parents had been sold, and was now desolate. He was sure that one of them could have carried it on. He would go and inquire into the facts. He did not think their Lordships wished to turn executors into heirs, with a sort of gavelkind to control them. His lamented Predecessor had written—in 1832, in a letter to Mr. Mervale—that by disturbing the largest properties, the smallest properties would be endangered, and an agrarian law, causing change every month, week, or day, would be introduced. He found that Lord Tennyson's poem, "Love thou thy Land!" had been recited at the Eton speeches, on 4th June. He had copied it out from memory, and could recite it to their Lordships, if they should wish it. He was sure if their Lordships acted on the advice contained in that poem that they would never err in legislation. He wished the Report could be delayed for three months; and he would give their Lordships the result of his inquiries. He tried to find a Teller, but failed.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): Will the noble Lord name a co-Teller?
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Report of Amendments received accordingly.
  Clause 2 (Registration required to carry legal estate).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he moved to leave out words rendering the trouble and expense of a second registration after purchase unnecessary. As the Bill was drawn, it rendered two registrations necessary after the law became compulsory. He apprehended that, that condition would in many cases prevent sales, and he failed to see that anything more could be necessary than to compel registration on the sale.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from ("specified") to the second ("the") in line 10).—(The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he did not know that he had anything to add to what he had already said on this point. The matter was in their Lordships' hands, and they had already decided against the proposal by a majority of 40 to 16. After carefully considering the question, he could not see any objection to that provision of the Bill as to complete registration. No additional burden was thrown on the owner of the land, and compliance with the Bill would simplify the present cumbrous system. The object of the measure was to compel registration in every way possible, and, consequently, it was provided that if a person only sold a part, he should register the whole.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was convinced that so far as this clause had operation it might inflict considerable hardship. If a landowner did not register the whole of his property at the time he disposed of a piece, that would necessitate double registration, double expense, and double trouble. It was
  16
  perfectly fair that when the land changed hands the registration should be compulsory; but he did think that they should be very careful not to put upon men who had no idea of disposing of their property the expense of registration merely for the sake of posterity.
  On Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 73; Not-Contents 67; Majority 6.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Succession to real estate on intestacy).
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he would move to omit the clause, which provided that on the death of any person intestate as to any real estate, that real estate should be divisible among the same persons as if it were personal estate, subject to certain provisoes giving right of survivorship to husbands and wives in each other's real estate. In Committee on this Bill he ventured to make some observations in opposition to this clause, and, considering the nature of the clause and the important Constitutional principle involved in it, he was not without some hope that the Government might have seen their way to withdraw it. A sense of duty, therefore, compelled him to explain, as shortly as he could, the reasons he had for moving the omission of it. This proposal was open to two very grave objections. The first was, that so far from having a beneficial effect upon the various classes affected by it, it would do no good but harm; the second was the great and important change it made upon the system of the devolution of landed estate, which brought it out of harmony and made it inconsistent with the Constitution. Now, with regard to the first objection, there had not been any demand for this measure from any body of the landed classes. The usual mode by which they gauged public opinion had not shown itself. Where were the Petitions in support of it; and was it right that they should make such a change in the law, unless they were satisfied that the landed interest was in favour of it? This proposal would affect three classes. The large landed proprietors, no doubt, would not, as long as the Laws of Settlement and Entail were maintained, be affected to the same extent; but no pro

  17
  vision with regard to them had been made to meet the case of either lunatics or minors. The result would be, that if a lunatic or minor died who was last in entail, the property would be divided in accordance with this clause. Was it their Lordships' wish that honours, titles, and Peerages should be inherited, and all the property which had descended from generation to generation should be cut up and divided and sub-divided? Was such a proposal likely to be to the advantage of the landed interest of this country, or conduce to the honour and dignity of their Lordships' House? Would it be in accordance with the spirit of our mixed Constitution? Would it be of any practical benefit to anybody? The next class that this clause would affect disadvantageously was the small landed proprietor—the yeoman of the country. Take a proprietor living on his own farm and cultivating it. He and his family had inherited it for generations, he had been content to do without the assistance of a lawyer, and he had not made a will. This Bill passed, he died, and the property was cut up and divided into several portions. But there was only one house, there was only one homestead; therefore, unless the farm was worked as a whole, the value of the property would be seriously depreciated. The result would be that it would be sold to some larger proprietor, probably, and this ancient yeoman family, the backbone of the country, was obliterated. Or, if the attempt was made to cultivate the several portions by different persons, the inconvenience would be great, and the cause of agriculture, already only too suffering, would be further injured. Coming to the third class of proprietors, the small freeholders of the country, possessors of a cottage and garden, or in some cases of one or more acres of land, these were a class of people who did not make Mills as a rule; at all events, they had been satisfied with the law which did not require it. They preferred not to go to the expense of legal advice, and in their case they died intestate not unfrequently, and how was their property to be divided? It could not be divided. The house and the garden were scarcely large enough, and if they cut up their cow-keeping they depreciated their property, and it
  18
  came into the market and was bought up. And, again, this small freeholder's property, just as the landowner's or yeoman's was broken up. Was this desirable, was this politic, was this prudent? They were the backbone of the country. They were classes of men who were, in no Party sense, the true Conservative element of the Constitution, who would rally to their standard in time of war, who would be the foremost to maintain law and order in time of peace. The other great objection to this proposal was, that it would make the Law of Succession to real property out of harmony with the Constitutional system of this country. He was supported, in that view by very high authorities both in that and the other House of Parliament. He understood the noble Marquess the Prime Minister to say the other night that this proposal had been opposed by the Party of which he was the head as long as it formed a Party question, but that was not now the case. But he (the Earl of Feversham) would refer his noble Friend to the opinions of those sitting on both sides of the House who supported the view he took. He found that the late Lord Brougham, who had introduced a Bill upon the transfer of real estate, said—
  "Some persons were desirous of altering the laws relating to land by attacking the law of primogeniture; but he thought that law was sound in principle, and any alteration of it would inflict a fatal blow upon the British Constitution. That law was well suited both to give proprietors a power of dealing with their property and to support the aristocratic branch of our mixed Constitution by a power of entailing within certain not very large limits. He was not apt to be an alarmist, but holding our Constitution to be essentially a mixed one, whatever anyone might think of the possibility of getting a better system or purer Constitution, he was perfectly certain that the system, as it now stood, had worked well, and did still work well, to secure at once the liberties of the people and the stability of our institutions. Any interference with the law of primogeniture would inflict an injury on our mixed Constitution, which those who aided or permitted such an attempt would probably be the first to repent of having either helped or suffered."
  Sir George Cornewall Lewis said in the debate in the House of Commons in 1859—
  "It had been argued on both sides of the question as if this were a narrow and limited Bill, as if it did not affect the whole mass of real property; but would in its operations be

  19
  only confined to a small portion of that class of proprietors. As he understood the Bill, its effect would he to assimilate the law of descent of real property to that of personal property. The effect would be to extinguish that class of persons who were denominated as heirs. There would be no such thing as inheritance. No person hereafter would be heir to landed property. That he apprehended would clearly be the effect of the Bill. If this Bill became law the natural feeling would be entirely inverted; a person who made a marriage settlement according to the present system of marriage settlements would be robbing the younger children of the rights which the common law would give them. The House had to consider what would be not only the economical but the political effects in this country of distributing real property equally among all the children."
  On the same occasion Lord Palmerston said he objected to the Bill on every possible ground, declaring it to be at variance with the habits, customs, and feelings of the people of this country and incompatible with the maintenance of a Constitutional Monarchy. In the debate in 1866, Lord Selborne, then Attorney General, said—
  "If the policy of the law be wrong, injustice may be inflicted as much in cases of wills and family settlements as in the case of omission through accident to make a will. But really the question we have to consider is one of public policy, and in questions of public policy the burden of proof is on those who propose to alter a particular institution of the country. But I have no objection to examine the state of the law, and to contend that the law of primogeniture is not inexpedient. It is not arbitrary, because the greatest freedom of action over property is' allowed. I cannot help thinking that it would not be desirable that there should be a general system of division of estates. It seems to me that considerable benefits have always arisen and do arise in this country from keeping landed property together. By means of this system the duties of property are handed down and are better performed; there is more family and hereditary interest felt in the welfare of labourers and tenants, and improvements in land are made on a larger prospect, with a greater interest in their permanence. The class composed of the owners of landed property stand between the Crown and the lower orders, supporting the Throne and the higher institutions of the country, and at the same time maintaining excellent relations with those below them. The existing gradations of society in this country, including the hereditary peerage, are in harmony with this state of the law, and the maintenance of that graduated scale of society has been in times past of essential importance to public liberty."
  He thought that he might say he was fortified in the course he ventured to take, and, in the opinions he had expressed, by very high and distinguished authority. He might be told that cir
  20
  cumstances had changed since those opinions were uttered. How had they changed? We had admitted, no doubt, the working classes to the franchise, and had given them a large share in political power; but was that any reason why we were not to consider the position and interests of other classes? He maintained, notwithstanding what they had done, that this Constitution of ours was still a mixed Constitution, and that it would be an evil day for the country when the upper and middle classes lost their share of political power, and were unable to exercise their just and legitimate influence in the country. It was because he felt that this clause did, in principle and in operation, undermine the Constitutional system of this country—that limited and liberal Constitution which was the glory of England and the envy of the world—that he begged to move that the clause be omitted from the Bill.
  LORD ABINGER, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought that the Bill had been misnamed. Instead of being called a Land Transfer Bill, it should have been entitled a Bill for the destruction of Primogeniture and other Privileges. The subject of land transfer was of sufficient importance to be dealt with in a separate Bill; and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would be acting wisely, at that period of the Session, if he abandoned the whole of the fourth part of the Bill as not being germane to the measure. If it were intended to abolish the principle of primogeniture, it should be done not by a technical clause in a so-called Land Transfer Bill, but by a measure introduced for the express purpose of abolishing the existing system. Should the noble and learned Lord decide on not adopting that course, he (the Earl of Feversham) was satisfied that it would meet with considerable opposition in the other House of Parliament. The whole law relating to wills also required modification; and he could not give a better example of the difficulties which those who attempted to make their own wills had to encounter than what had occurred to himself. One night, after the death of his father, he suddenly woke up at 3 o'clock in the morning, and remembered that he had not made his will, and he thereupon got out of bed and

  21
  drew up a will. The following morning he took the will to a lawyer, and asked whether it was properly drawn. The lawyer said that it would not effect its object at all. That was the way some people thought they were effecting a particular object, and they died in the odour of sanctity, and found that their object was not accomplished. There could be no doubt that their Lordships hold a very high position in the country, and why? Not because they were the descendants of persons who might have been distinguished, but because, socially, they held such a position that everyone in the land knew they could neither be intimidated nor corrupted. Their Lordships should be very careful how they acted, and should not interfere with laws which had lasted so many years, and had worked so well for the country generally. He hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Feversham) would press his Amendment to a Division.
  Moved, in page 19, line 29, to omit Clause 39.—(The Earl of Feversham.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if he were to pass a criticism on the speeches of his two noble Friends, it would only be to say that they were pitched in too high a key, and dealt with questions not in the least degree affected by the measure before the House. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) entirely agreed with the general principles laid down by his noble Friend (the Earl of Feversham), and he should be exceedingly sorry to see the practice of devolving the land on the eldest son discontinued, believing, as he did, that any contrary practice would have an injurious effect upon society. He thought, however, that it was most likely to continue. But the question was, How would this Bill bring upon us the dangers of which his noble Friends were afraid? There was one expression which dropped from his noble Friend who moved the omission of the clause, which threw a light upon the difference between his noble Friend and himself. His noble Friend said it was a great hardship for a man to make a will. Now he (the Marquess of Salisbury) took a different view.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that the noble Marquess had quite misunderstood him.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his opinion was very strong that it was the duty of everyone to make a will, and that those who did not deserved very little, or absolutely no consideration, at our hands. He could not agree with his noble Friend who had seconded the Amendment (Lord Abinger), that it was at all difficult to make a will. If a man tried to be a lawyer, and made use of legal expressions, he was likely to get into trouble; but if he expressed himself plainly, and as if he were speaking to a friend, he was not likely to experience any difficulty. Intestates very generally belonged to a comparatively poor class, and were not likely, as was the case with his noble Friend, to have property in Scotland and to live in London. His noble Friend had spoken of the difficulty he found in making the Law of Entail applicable to his own son. No doubt, there were great difficulties in the Law of Entail, and one of the objections to it was that the devolution might take effect in a different manner from what was intended. At the time when Lord Brougham deprecated any interference with intestates, that class was numerous, because the art of writing was then comparatively rare. Though there were a great many people who could write, there were a great many also who could not. But since then education had made great progress, and there were few now who would find any difficulty in making their wills from inability to write. The number of persons who were innocent intestates—he meant intestates not through their own fault—was becoming very small. The law did not make for them, at present, the kind of will which most people would be anxious to make; because very few would wish to leave the whole of their property to one son. There was that balance to be established. He quite admitted that the great authorities quoted by his noble Friend were right when they said that the inconveniences which would be produced by altering the law would be so great that the law ought not to be altered. But, with the progress of time and the increase of culture, the force of that argument vanished, and we had now arrived at a period when it was no longer necessary to have the same consideration for innocent or involuntary intestacy.

  23
  There was nothing to induce us to continue a provision which occasionally caused inconvenience of a serious kind. He was unable to treat this matter as one of the great importance which his noble Friends attached to it. He did not think what was now proposed would affect the devolution of property in this country in the slightest degree. His noble Friend (The Earl of Foversham) talked of the presumption and sanction of the law influencing the testator, so that he would no longer settle his land upon his eldest son. He thought his noble Friend exaggerated very much the effect of a Parliamentary sanction. He did not know whether their Lordships had noticed the effect of the laws abolishing dower. That was one of the most remarkable instances in the history of the English law of the powerlessness of the law in affecting the feelings and action of the people. For the last three centuries he believed that the instances were exceedingly rare in which the presumption of the law in that respect had been allowed to operate. That law lay like a derelict upon the waters. Men always preferred some other provision for the wife than the law made for her. So all that was proposed by the Bill before the House was, that if men would not make wills with all the facilities afforded them, the law would make that disposition of their property which was most convenient to its machinery. Further, it was by no means irrelevant to introduce this provision in a Land Transfer Bill. The Bill would be imperfect and incomplete without it. He believed that in itself this was a matter of small importance, and that it would not produce the dispersion of large estates, or the abandonment of the practice of primogeniture. He did not believe that there was any danger that these things would happen. But still at the same time it was not desirable to make this change merely for a theoretical reason. Where, however, great practical convenience was presented, and it appeared to be a very important part in facilitating land transfer, it would be unfortunate if his noble Friend persuaded the House to reject the clause. He could not help saying, in conclusion, that he greatly doubted, if the noble Earl and his Friends succeeded, whe-
  24
  ther they could cling to their victory for any considerable number of years. That was a consideration on which he would not dwell; but they must watch the current of opinion outside. He did not say that they should slavishly bend to it; but they ought not to take an accidental opportunity of resisting it or delaying it, unless they were well satisfied that they could carry out that resistance to the end. He believed that the clause would be useful for the purpose of facilitating the operation of the Bill, and he should vote for it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that something might have been said for this clause if it had been simply a clause of pains and penalties against those who had failed to make their wills. The clause, however, went further, and contained a harsh and cruel provision for the division of estates in cases where no provision could have been made to meet the difficulties in a way which seemed to be attended with considerable danger. He believed that some advantage might, perhaps, be derived from substituting tenancy in fee simple for tenancy in tail, provided that the interests of infants and lunatics were safeguarded.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper which, he thought, would meet the objection of the noble Earl. The words which he proposed to insert would make the section read thus—
  "This section shall not apply to any real estate of a person being an infant or a lunatic at the passing of this Act, and thenceforward until his death, or being an infant at the passing of this Act and becoming before the age of twenty-one years and remaining thenceforward until his death a lunatic, if the infant or lunatic either was seized in fee simple in possession of the real estate at the passing of this Act, or is or becomes entitled to the real estate under a settlement executed before the passing of this Act."
  The noble Earl would see that, under this Amendment, all settlements executed before the passing of the Act were precluded; and anyone, after the passing of the Act, might make provision for the contingencies of lunacy and minority.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that what he wanted to secure was, that the provision which the noble and learned Lord admitted to be just in the case of infants and lunatics succeeding under

  25
  settlements existing at the time of the passing of the Act should be extended to those succeeding under settlements after the Act was passed.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 66; Not-Contents 55: Majority 11.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Castletown, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

  Dormer, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Harris, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Hothfield, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kensington, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

  Brownlow, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Manners, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Monk-Bretton, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Mar E.

  Minto, E.

  Northington, L, (L. Henley.)

  Nelson, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Cross, V.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hereford, V.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Thring, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Belper, L.

  Watson, L.

  Boston, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Bramwell, L.

  Braye, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Burton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Harewood, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Ilchester, E.

  Kilmorey, E. [Teller.]

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Manvers, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Milltown, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gough, V.

  Caledon, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hood, V.

  Denbigh, E.

  Feversham, E,

  Abinger, L. [Teller.]

  26

  Ardilaun, L.

  Herries, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Lamington, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Midleton, L.

  North, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Raglan, L.

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

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Digby, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Wynford, L.

  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON, in proposing, as an Amendment, to insert the following clause, after Clause 47:—
  "Part IV. of this Act, intituled Amendments of the law of real property, shall extend to Ireland.
  "In the application of the said part of this Act to Ireland, the Act of the Session of the fourth and fifth years of the Reign of King William IV., cap. 92, intituled, 'an Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries, and for the substitution of more simple forms of Assurance in Ireland,' shall be substituted for the Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries in England, therein referred to,"
  said, that the insertion of the clause was necessary to correct the grievances and hardships attending ownerships that were created under the Land Purchase Act.
  Moved, after Clause 47, page 23, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Application to Ireland.)
  "Part IV. of this Act, intituled Amendments of the Law of Real Property, shall extend to Ireland.
  "In the application of the said part of this Act to Ireland, the Act of the Session of the fourth and fifth years of the Reign of King William the Fourth, chapter ninety-two, intituled, 'An Act for the abolition of Fines and Recoveries, and for the substitution of more simple forms of Assurance in Ireland,' shall be substituted for the Act for the abolition of Fines and Recoveries in England, therein referred to."—(The Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he felt a little delicacy and difficulty in introducing into the Bill anything which might create additional Obstruction elsewhere. If, in "another place," it should be desired to extend the Bill to Ireland, he would make no objection.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the noble and learned Lord, and would withdraw the clause with a view to raising the question in "another place."
  Clause (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 161.)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRE LAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(The Earl of Erne.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRE LAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 143.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  EARL SPENCER, in briefly referring to the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Bill, said, that originally it was connected with the main drainage scheme for Belfast, when great opposition was offered; because it was proposed, at the same time, to extend the municipal franchise. Ultimately it was agreed to separate the question of the franchise from that of drainage, and the present Bill had been introduced, which, as it no w stood, would come into operation in November, 1888. It was, of course, desirable that the large drainage scheme which had been, sanctioned should be carried out, if it were possible, by a municipal council representing the enlarged municipal electorate; but it had been represented that that was impossible, and that the Bill could not possibly come into operation before next year. He had, however, caused inquiries to be made, which satisfied him that the thing was practicable, and that the Bill could be put into operation this year; and he would therefore move an Amendment, providing that the Act should take effect immediately after its being passed, so as to be effective next November.
  Moved, to leave out from ("borough") in page 1, line 8, to the end of the Clause.—(The Earl Spencer.)
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid, he was reluctant to oppose the Amendment of the noble Earl, because he himself concurred with the object which had prompted its proposal—namely, that those invested with the municipal franchise should
  28
  enjoy the privilege at the earliest possible moment. It was, however, not so much a question of what was desirable as what was practicable, and his opinion, which had been derived from the best possible sources, was that it would be quite impossible that such a mass of voters could be brought in within the short period indicated by the noble Earl in his Amendment.
  LORD FITZGERALDsupported the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 9: Majority 9.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he should like to throw out as a suggestion to the noble Earl that at least at the first election under the Bill the revising barrister should be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.
  THE EARL OF ERNE, in reply, said, that those for whom he was acting in the conduct of this measure had pointed out that as the ratepayers had to pay the revising barrister, it was only right that they should have a voice in his selection.
  LORD FITZGERALDasked, whether the noble Earl would consider the matter before the next stage was taken?
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid he would.
  A further Amendment moved; objected to; and (by leave of the House) withdrawn; further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed us amended. (No. 162.)

THE REVIEW OF 2ND OF JULY—THE HONOURABLE ARTILLERY COMPANY AND THE ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEERS—PRECEDENCE AT REVIEWS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNin asking, Why the Royal Naval Volunteers were not drawn up on the right of the line at the Review held on Saturday, 2nd July, in accordance with invariable practice; and whether it is intended to make any change in the Regulation in this respect? said, that this question arose on a former occasion, at the Review in 1881, between the Honourable Artillery Company and the Naval Volunteers, when it was decided in favour of

  29
  the latter. In accordance with that precedent, the General in command on Saturday last ordered the Naval Volunteers to take the right of the line, but subsequently altered that arrangement, and ordered the right to be occupied by the Honourable Artillery Company. He wished also to ask whether the Honourable Artillery Company claimed this right in virtue of the fact that they are not under the direction of the War Office and are not Volunteers. He desired to know further, whether the Honourable Artillery Company were, or were not Volunteers; and, if not, by what right were they present on that occasion.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS), in reply, said, that as to the question whether the Honourable Artillery Company were Volunteers or not, a special exemption was made in favour of the Honourable Artillery Company by Section 52 of the Volunteer Act, which provided that "nothing in this Act shall apply to the Honourable Artillery Company "; but, in a subsequent Act, the term "Volunteer" did include that regiment. If a Volunteer meant a person who gave his services voluntarily, undoubtedly the members of the Honourable Artillery Company were Volunteers, seeing that the only assistance they had received from the Government had been in the shape of arms and harness. As to the late Review, he had to say that by a General Order of 1883, Her Majesty was pleased to grant the Honourable Artillery Company, in consideration of its antiquity, precedence immediately after the Regular Forces, and therefore, before the Militia and Yeomanry, who themselves took precedence of the Volunteers. While, therefore, the right of men of the Royal Navy to take the right of the line when in alignment with the Land Forces was not contested, nor that of the Royal Naval Volunteers to take precedence over other Volunteer Corps, the Honourable Artillery Company must be regarded as on a separate footing, with precedence over Volunteer Corps of every description.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he thought the answer of the noble Lord was very vague; either the Honourable Artillery Company were Volunteers, or they were not; and, whilst he understood, from what the noble Lord had said, that the Honourable Artillery Company took
  30
  precedence before the Militia and Yeomanry; but the point really was this—whether, in the absence of these two Corps, they took precedence thus of all other Volunteers. It seemed to him that if they were Volunteers they would rank only as such when none of the regular forces were present, and thus the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers would have their right precedence, and he hoped the noble Lord would have the matter properly looked into.
  LORD HARRISsaid, that the answer he had given was perfectly clear—namely, that a General Order of 1883 gave the Honourable Artillery Company precedence.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was aware that the Honourable Artillery Company had precedence over the Militia and the Yeomanry. That was by Order, and that might be a very good answer as regarded those corps. But that Order did not refer in any way to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, and it did not appear that the Order giving the Honourable Artillery Company precedence over other Volunteers referred to them.
  LORD HARRISsaid, that the Militia and the Yeomanry had precedence over all Volunteers, and as the Honourable Artillery Company had precedence over the Militia and Yeomanry, they necessarily had precedence also over all Volunteers.

  LLOYD'S SIGNAL STATIONS BILL, [H.L.]
  A Bill to confer powers on Lloyd's to take lands for signal stations; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord President, for The Lord Stanley of Preston; read 1a. (No. 158.)
LEGITIMACY DECLARATION ACT (1858)

  AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858—Was presented by The Earl of Milltown; read 1a. (159.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.