Sitting of 7 June 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust [No. 209].
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Ballina and Killala Railway and Harbour.
Considered as amended—Tottenham Local Board (Division of District).*
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—North Sea Fisheries* [278]; Official Secrets [256], debate adjourned; National Debt (Supplemental) [264].
Report of Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure—Mortmain and Charitable Uses [No. 207]; Bail (Scotland [No. 208].
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [First Night]—R.P.
Third Reading—Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2)* [203], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Local Government (No. 3)* [249]; Local Government (No. 4)* [250]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6)* [251]; Local Government (Gas)* [252]; Local Government (Ireland) (Bangor and Warrenpoint)* [225].
Considered as amended—Tramways (No. 1)* [222].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BALLINA AND KILLALA RAILWAY AND HARBOUR BILL
  (by Order).
  BALLINA AND KILLALA RAILWAY AND HARBOUR BILL

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BIGGAR, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, said, it was a Bill which proposed to extend the time for the completion of the railway and causeway and pier authorized by the Ballina and Killala Railway Act so long ago as 1883. During the time which had elapsed since, the promoters of that railway had not endeavoured to raise a single penny of capital for the undertaking, except the amount of money they were bound to lodge in accordance with the usual legal provisions which applied to all Private Bills. Even in regard to that sum of money, the Company did not pretend to have raised it in the form of capital, but appeared to have borrowed it for the purposes to which it was ap-
    1348
    plied under the original Act of 1883. The Company had done a great many unreasonable things. In order to make this railway a nominal capital of £100,000 was authorized, and the district through which the line was to pass guaranteed £40,000. The Act guaranteed payment of 5 per cent upon this capital during the progress of the work, and also gave a guarantee of 5 per cent for 35 years afterwards, to show the bona fides of the promoters in regard to the transaction. But, so far as the capital of £100,000 was concerned, power was taken to cancel the greater part of it, and the ratepayers were made responsible for all the money advanced to the Company. Power was given to borrow a further sum of £20,000, so that the Company had the power to cancel £60,000, and the result would be that the unfortunate guarantors would be in this position—that they would be liable to pay the amount of the guarantee at 5 per cent and the interest on the borrowed money. Power was taken by the guarantors—no doubt very properly—to appoint a receiver in case the money was not regularly paid. The ratepayers of the district, who were liable to suffer seriously in consequence, signed a Petition praying to be heard by counsel in the House of Lords in 1885, when the promoters of the scheme applied for an extended power of taxation, by which they proposed an additional sum of £12,000. The Preamble of that Bill was declared not to have been proved, and the Bill was thrown out. The Committee of the House of Lords altogether objected to the scheme. The present Bill was now proposed in the hope that, if it found its way to a Committee of the House of Lords, it might find a more pliable Committee, and it was further hoped that it would pass through the House of Commons unopposed. As a matter of fact, the promoters had raised an objection in the House of Commons to the locus standi of the ratepayers who wished to petition against the Bill. The practical effect, if they were responsible in that respect, would be that the Bill would come before the House as an Unopposed Bill, unless some Member of Parliament took a special interest in the matter. Under these circumstances, seeing that the promoters had not raised a single penny of capital in the five years allowed them

    1349
    for the purchase of the land and the construction of the railway—that they had purchased no land at all or carried out any of the powers originally taken, he thought the House ought to refuse to give a second reading to the Bill, and save the locality further responsibility and trouble. One of the original provisions of the Bill was that the expense of this Act of Parliament should be borne by the Company, so that the guarantors would be rendered liable, not only for the expense of making the railway, but also for the cost of any litigation, preliminary expenses, fictitious sums run up in the shape of engineers, and so on, while, in point of fact, the railway might never be made. No provision was contained in the Bill as to the payment of money in the event of the line not paying working expenses, nor was it provided that in such a case the guarantee should cease. If the scheme had been a feasible scheme, the Company could have gone before the Privy Council in Dublin and have the payment imposed upon the ratepayers supplied by a loan from the Treasury to the extent of 2 per cent. These gentlemen, however, were afraid to go before the Privy Council in Dublin, knowing that they had no bona fides in connection with the scheme. They were told that the Killala people at one end of the scheme were favourable to it. Of course, the shipowners at Killala were in favour of it, because they expected to get some profit from the outlay, and they hoped to see money raised which would find its way into their own pockets. On the other hand, the people of Ballina, at the other end, the most important town in the district, and a town most exceedingly well situated as a port, were very much opposed to the scheme; and the ratepayers, whom it was proposed to make liable, very strongly objected to it. He might also remark that in the original scheme there was a provision that the landed proprietors should pay one-half of the taxation; and, in addition, there was a provision that they should not be entitled to deduct from that payment any charges upon their own property. Therefore, considering all the circumstances, and especially seeing that the promoters had not been able to advance any money whatever, and that they had really no bona fides, he begged to move his Amend-
    1350
    ment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months.
    MR. COMMINSsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. Five years ago the promoters undertook to make a railway which was to be completed in the course of five years; but instead of making the railway in five years, and a harbour with a pier at the end of it, they had not even acquired a single rood of land for the purposes of the line. That was clear from their own statements in a document which had been put into his hand since he entered the House. They had not raised one single shilling of the money, nor had they put in force the provision which would have enabled them to have obtained certain advances from the Treasury. Having allowed five years to pass without raising the capital, all they had tried to do having been to take borrowing powers to raise 50 per cent additional capital at the expense of the ratepayers, they had increased their nominal capital from £100,000 to £150,000, on which 5 per cent was to be payable for 35 years. Indeed, the Company had endeavoured to make that payment chargeable for ever upon the unfortunate ratepayers through whose district the railway was to pass. Now, the whole transaction depended upon the bona fides of the promoters. They told that House the object of the Bill was to extend the powers already confirmed by the original Act; and they inserted a provision, which practically amounted to an undertaking, that the Directors would not be guilty of embezzlement. In point of fact, the Bill contained one of the most extraordinary provisions he had ever seen in a Bill submitted to Parliament. The Bill said—
    "The Company shall not out of any money which they are by any Act authorized to raise, pay, or deposit any sum which by any Standing Order of either House of Parliament now or hereafter in force may be required to be deposited in respect of any application to Parliament for the purpose of obtaining an Act authorizing the Company to construct any other Railway or to execute any other work or undertaking."
    Of course, if they appropriated any of the money authorized by the scheme to any other undertaking, they would render themselves liable to a prosecution for embezzlement, and it was quite

    1351
    superfluous on their part to declare that they had no intention of doing so. The only reason given by the promoters for the Bill was that during the five years which had elapsed since the original Act passed they had done nothing whatever. They had not shown that they had even purchased the land, or a single yard of it, nor had they done one single thing in pursuance of the powers conferred upon them live years ago. Yet they proposed to continue these powers for a further period, so as to enable them for three years longer to speculate on the credit of the ratepayers' money, and try to induce other persons to come in and take this unfortunate project off their hands. He should feel inclined to support any bonâ fide proposal for the extension of railway communication for the opening up of the trade in a district of this kind; but the present proposal was one which was stamped on the face of it with a total want of bona fides, and the Bill was proposed in reality in order to shut other persons out of the field. What was proposed was practically that a concession, as it was called on the Continent, should be given to the promoters, and the railway accommodation of the district handed over to them for a certain number of years. So far they had done nothing, nor had they shown any intention of doing anything; but if this Bill passed, Parliament would practically close the door to enterprising speculators, and prevent them from constructing a railway. He thought the best thing they could do was to let this unfortunate Act expire, and not renew the powers which were given to the Company in 1883.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. JOHNSTONsaid, he did not propose to occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes in saying a few words in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He regretted the course the hon. Member had taken, and the hostility he had exhibited to a project which had been put forward in order to develop the resources of Ireland. His only reason
    1352
    for intervening at all in the debate was that when he was an Inspector of Irish Fisheries, he had, as a Commissioner on Piers and Harbours, taken part in an inquiry at Killala, as to the desirability of promoting the pier authorized to be constructed under this scheme. He was, therefore, thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of the district; and, as the result of the inquiry upon that occasion, he was prepared to give his warm and hearty support to the proposition contained in the present Bill. He trusted that the House would not be prevented from giving the Bill a second reading. The Bill itself simply proposed an extension of time for the construction of a line that was authorized five years ago.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he doubted very much whether the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan would meet the support and approval of hon. Members on that side of the House. He would only remind the House that his hon. Friend had certain little weaknesses, and that among them was the great weakness of objecting to all railway schemes. [Mr. BIGGAR: No.] His hon. Friend had opposed nearly every railway scheme in Ireland that had been produced, and he was sorry to say that after a hard struggle his hon. Friend was successful in defeating a project in which his constituents were much interested, and were most anxious to carry out. He (Colonel Nolan) was, therefore, not inclined to take the opinion of his hon. Friend on railroads, as he would be prepared to take it on almost any other question. He supported the Bill for very much the same reason as that which had been expressed by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston). He had been Chairman of the Commission of which the hon. Member was an efficient Member, and that Commission found that this part of Mayo wanted an harbour, and that Killala offered a splendid position for one. There was a very large quantity of fish there; but the great difficulty was the want of a market, and it was found impossible to get a market without a railway. If he had an opportunity of making inquiries on the spot, he might say he found that Sir Thomas Brady, the senior and best known of the Fishery Commissioners, was also most strong in

    1353
    favour of the Bill. That fact was stated in the document issued by the promoters, and although Sir Thomas Brady was away at that moment, he had no doubt that he was very much in favour of this railway. Personally, he did not pretend to know anything about the place himself; but he believed that a railway would do a great deal of good. He was well acquainted with South Mayo; but this was in North Mayo, and he did not profess to have an intimate knowledge of that locality. The Grand Jury of the County of Mayo had decided in favour of the Bill, and they were not likely to impose a tax on the cesspayers unless that tax was of advantage to the locality. He believed that the Grand Jury of Mayo conducted its business as fairly as any Grand Jury in Ireland, and he would give a reason for saying that. No less than five Members of Parliament belonging to the Irish National Party had been called on to serve upon the Grand Jury, so that it might be said to be as fairly composed as any Grand Jury in Ireland. It was also a most economical Grand Jury. It was in a very different position from other Grand Juries in Ireland, because he knew that in some counties it was the custom not to call Members of Parliament to serve upon it. The Grand Jury of Mayo had decided that the cesspayers should be made liable for this expenditure, which was not likely to be more than 10 d. in the pound for the guarantee. He would suggest that it was possible to insert a clause in the Bill that if in the present Session, or any future Session, any further advantage was to be given by the Government in the way of developing railway enterprize in Ireland, the guarantees under this Bill should have the full benefit of it. As to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for South Roscommon (Mr. Commins), he did not know whether, like the hon. Member for West Cavan, he was opposed to all railways; but he would remind his hon. Friend that this was really a case in which the accommodation was much required, and that the cesspayers of the county were in favour of it. Indeed, he believed it would be found that, as a general rule, the cesspayers of most counties were in favour of the extension of railway enterprise.
    MR. KELLYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) had told the House that Sir Thomas Brady was in favour of the Bill. He was afraid the hon. and gallant Member had been deceived by a statement which the promoters of the railway had put into the document they had just issued. The hon. and gallant Member had given an extract from one Report of the Fishery Commissioners; but he had carefully avoided referring to a recent Report in which it was stated that, as far as the interest of the fisheries at was concerned, the Commission could not recommend this outlay. So much, therefore, for its being a scheme which Sir Thomas Brady had recommended as being for the benefit of these fisheries. He knew it was a very responsible position to be a party to the throwing out of a Bill on the second reading; but there were circumstances connected with this case which, in his opinion, justified that course in the present case. The promoters had put forward a statement in which they had had the hardihood to say that the parties opposing the Bill had presented a Petition against it, and were applying to be heard by counsel. They had not, however, had the honesty to say that they themselves had taken a technical objection to their being heard, and fully counted upon shutting them out from the inquiry. The Petitioners in question were the cesspayers, who would have to provide the guarantee. The promoters of this Bill had been conspicuous by the absence of all bona fides whatever. They had sought in 1885 to have the guarantee of 8d. in the pound raised to 10 d., and a Petition signed by more than 2,000 cesspayers had been presented against the Bill, which was then rejected. The promoters said that a Petition was being signed in favour of it; but it certainly had taken a very long time to get it up. This, at any rate, was clear. In 1883 the Company obtained power to construct a railway; in 1888 they had not turned a sod. They said they had taken steps to acquire the land; had they taken steps to acquire the capital? They had not ventured to say that they had raised one farthing of the capital. He found that there was scarcely a single fact stated in the document they had issued

    1355
    which could be relied upon. The project was one of speculators simply, who desired to speculate with the money of the ratepayers of a very poor part of Ireland. The Company in 1885 proposed that they should be able to raise 10 d. in the pound out of the rates in perpetuity; but the House would not consent to that. They had in 1883, however, succeeded in getting a guarantee of 8d. in the pound for 35 years. They had obtained that not only for the construction of the railway, but also for all expenses in connection with its promotion. So from first to last the poor, unhappy cesspayers of an impoverished barony would have any liability. They could have gone before the Privy Council in Ireland and have obtained assistance from the Treasury; but they had not done so, because they knew that in the first steps they took it would become apparent that they were simply a body of speculators who were interested in the scheme. He regretted that he felt himself compelled to vote against the hon. Member for Belfast in opposing the Bill, and that he was compelled also to vote against the construction of a railway in a very poor part of Ireland. He did so, however, without any hesitation, because he felt satisfied that if this scheme were put an end to only a short time would elapse before a better scheme was promoted, which would result in the construction of a more satisfactory railway in the district at a very early date.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB (, &c.)said, he thought it was most desirable to open up this country by means of a railway. The only objection he had heard to the proposed railway was that hitherto nothing had been done; but if that objection was to be raised it would apply to almost every scheme for the development of Irish resources during the last five years. Hon. Members knew very well that the circumstances of Ireland had been such as really to prevent any money from being raised by the public for such works. A better state of things was now anticipated, and there was a better prospect of obtaining money for projects of this character. He, therefore, earnestly hoped that the hon. Member for West Cavan would withdraw his opposition, and that the House would give a second reading to the Bill. The hon. and learned Member who spoke last (Mr. Kelly) said that the
    1356
    hon. and gallant Member for North Galway had not studied the recommendations of the Fishery Commission. He (Sir John Colomb) could retort upon the hon. and learned Member himself, because if he had looked at the Report of the Commission carefully, he would have found it officially put down in the Index that Killala was one of the 12 centres of the Irish fisheries. The House had also received personal and direct information from a member of the late Fishery Board who had inquired personally into the matter. The hon. Member for West Cavan had not always proved a true prophet in regard to these railway projects. The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway told the House that the hon. Member generally opposed railway schemes; and he would remind the House that the hon. Member had opposed, in two successive Sessions, an important Bill for railway extension, which was, in the end, carried, and had been of great advantage to the South of Ireland. In view of the fact that this railway was approved by the representative bodies of the locality, he hoped the Amendment would not be persevered with.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan would not press his opposition at all at this stage, or that, at any rate, he would give some more satisfactory reasons for the rejection of the Bill. He thought that if the House took upon itself the task of throwing out a Bill of this nature, instead of sending it to a Committee, it would set a bad example and dishearten persons who took an interest in the extension of Irish railways. There might be many objections urged against the present scheme; but at this stage of the Bill he was of opinion that the House ought not to reject it. Personally, he believed that the construction of the railway would prove of great advantage to the district. He knew something of Killala, having visited it often, and he believed that it was of great importance that a railway should be extended from Ballina to Killala, in order to give proper railway facilities for the North-West of Ireland. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan would withdraw his Motion.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he sympathized very much with

    1357
    the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for West Cavan; but he would suggest to the hon. Member that it was not desirable to reject the Bill at the present stage. This was a scheme for the construction of a railway which was approved by Parliament five years ago. The Bill had now been brought before the House—a Bill of an ordinary character, asking for an extension of time for a limited period. According to the Forms of Parliament, at the time the original Act was granted all the details of the scheme were inquired into and examined, and an application for an extension of time simply involved the question whether the promoters had a justifiable excuse for not having put into operation the powers conceded to them. The question now was whether there was a bonâ fide intention and prospect on the part of the promoters of going on with the railway within a reasonably short time? With respect to the fact that the powers obtained by the Company had been neglected during the last five years, he presumed it would be allowed that the circumstances of Ireland had not been favourable during those five years for the execution of public works. The question now was whether there was a real intention on the part of the promoters to fulfil their obligations, and to construct a railway? That was a question which would be carefully considered by the Committee appointed by the House to inquire into the Bill. He had suggested that possibly the promoters would be willing to give the Petitioners an opportunity of referring that question to a Committee without disputing their locus standi in respect of that point if they desired to have it investigated—namely, whether there was now a bonâ fide intention to go on with the railway, and if security could be given as to the future action of the Company? The opponents of the scheme were not satisfied with an inquiry limited to that point, but wished to have the whole question of the policy of this railway re-examined. He could not advise the House to permit such a reopening of the question, without, as far as he could see, there being any circumstances to justify it. If such a course were taken, it would establish a precedent that would be exceedingly inconvenient, and might be attended by the worst consequences. It might be
    1358
    extremely undesirable if, whenever an extension of time was sought, such re-examination was to be entered into. As to the nature of the guarantee given by the Company for the construction of the railway, that was a further subject for examination, and he would promise that it should be inquired into. He thought, under all the circumstances, the House would be well advised if they consented to the second reading of the Bill. He would vote for the second reading.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he thought it must be admitted that the history of the question was not wholly satisfactory. No doubt, the condition of Mayo was an additional excuse for the Company not having carried out the works that were authorized during the five years they had had the power of doing so. He was quite willing to admit that the condition of Mayo during those five years had not been favourable; but he would remind the House that that could not have been the sole reason that influenced the minds of the Company in not carrying out the scheme, because they approached Parliament in 1885 in order to got a further and heavier guarantee from the locality than they had obtained by the Act of 1883. He must say also, in respect of the speech of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney), that to a certain extent he thought that the cesspayers of the district were rather harshly treated, although, no doubt, they had, through their Local Authorities, assented to the scheme of 1882 and 1883. It was possible, and not very improbable, that since then circumstances had convinced them that the burden was not one which they ought lightly to impose upon themselves. Arguments had been laid before him which would indicate—although he did not attach value to them either one way or the other—that the railway, when made, would be illusive, and that it would not be specially useful to the area that was to be taxed in order to guarantee it. Something had been said in the course of the debate about the opinion of the Royal Commission. The opinion of the Royal Commission he could very shortly criticize. The Royal Commission desired that there should be a railway from Ballina to Belmullet; and, on the whole, the Commissioners

    1359
    were disposed to think that the railway should pursue the coast route rather than the inland route. They certainly expressed their opinion in that direction, although not very strongly; but they did emphatically say that they did not expect the harbour of Killala would be of much use to the fishing industry. Therefore, the Commission did support a part of this scheme which he understood this Company desired to promote. Although he did not think that the House at this stage ought to throw out the Bill, and although he should be sorry to be in any way instrumental in checking, in the smallest degree, railway enterprise in the West of Ireland, there was a warning which he should like to give to the Gentlemen connected with this scheme. The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) said he desired to see a clause introduced into the Bill which would give the Company the benefit of any Government assistance which might be hereafter given in the case of railways in Ireland. Now, if any Gentleman connected with this Bill were speculating on any Government assistance, he begged to warn them against any such expectation. If this Bill passed, it must in no way be considered that the Government were pledged in the matter at all. No doubt, there might be a desire to know what the general intentions of the Government were in regard to Irish railways, and the Gentlemen who were promoting this Bill might be anxious to have some notification of that nature; but he specially refrained from giving it. With that warning, he would recommend the House not to reject the second reading of the Bill, but to allow the measure to go before a Select Committee in the ordinary course, and there to be judged upon its merits. He would remind hon. Members that if the Bill appeared to be unsatisfactory when it left the Committee there would still be an opportunity of rejecting it.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought that, after the statements which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, some time should be allowed for the promoters and the opponents to reconsider their position. The promoters had now had a
    1360
    very candid statement from the Government—in which he (Mr. T. M. Healy) entirely concurred—that they considered themselves in no way bound to give any future assistance, or any guarantee under any possible future legislation, to the development of Irish railways; and it might be, under those circumstances, that the promoters might feel themselves no longer justified in going on with the Bill. Indeed, they might have been engaged in a fishing expedition with regard to the present measure, and he thought it was desirable to give them power to examine their own consciences, and see if they really intended bonâ fide to go on with the Bill. In the second place, it was desirable, after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, that the question of locus standi should not be raised between the petitioners and the promoters. The question of locus standi was a most unfortunate one, and, if a promise were given that the promoters would not oppose the locus standi, it might mitigate the sufferings of the opposition which the Bill might meet with in that House. Under the circumstances, he thought the proper course would be to say that the House would defer for a week any action upon the measure, and that there should be an adjournment to enable the parties, who were not at arms' length, to come together and see if they could not arrange their difficulties on the question of locus standi. An opportunity would also be afforded to the promoters of ascertaining whether, after the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, which he altogether approved of, as far as the guarantee was concerned, they would proceed with the Bill. As to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who spoke from the Opposition side of the House (Colonel Nolan) with regard to the opposition of his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan to guarantee legislation, he could only say that he gave a cordial assent to the views of his hon. Friend. The history of guaranteed legislation in Ireland showed that it had been throughout a system of failure and fraud. He thought that, under all the circumstances, the best course to pursue would be to adjourn the debate, and he, therefore, moved that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. H. Healy.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was an objection to the course proposed, which he thought the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) would at once see. Under the Rules of the House of Lords the Bill must reach that House by a certain time if it was to be considered at all this Session. Therefore, the course which it was proposed to take would imperil the progress of the Bill. He would, therefore, suggest that the hon. and learned Member would, in these circumstances, withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether an adjournment until Monday would be objected to?
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw the Amendment, which was certainly a most objectionable way of defeating a Private Bill. He thought the question ought to be determined one way or another upon its merits, and that it was not right to impose additional expenses upon the promoters of Private Bills by protracting the period of inquiry.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would withdraw the Motion for Adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 227; Noes, 51: Majority 176.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES BILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, with Amendments and a New Title.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]

  BAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 208.]
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

QUESTIONS

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—JURIES—EXEMPTION OF VOLUNTEERS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the additional obligations to be placed on members joining the Volunteer Service, he will endeavour to bring about their exemption from liability to serve upon juries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The question of exempting Volunteers from liability to serve on juries is well worthy of consideration; but this House has always been somewhat jealous of any exemption from jury service. It shall, however, be carefully considered in the event of any general legislation on the subject.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—BELFAST POST OFFICE STAFF.
  MR. NOLANasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that two members of the Belfast Post Office staff have, within a recent period, been under treatment for mental derangement, and that one of them has succumbed to the malady; whether it is a fact that the deceased was a man of irreproachable character, with 20 years' service; whether he was recently sent on special duty to Dunfanaghy, and placed in a subordinate position to a clerk of equal rank, but his junior by many years; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case, with a view to discovering whether the mental attack, which ended in the death of this officer, was in any way attributable to the treatment which he received in his office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, it was a fact that two members of the Belfast Post Office had, within a recent period, been under treatment for mental derangement, and that one of them succumbed to the

  1363
  malady. He made inquiries into the matter; and the medical officer had assured him that the unfortunate condition of the two men was owing to causes practically unconnected with their duties.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—SUPER- VISION OF INCLOSED GARDENS.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since the Metropolitan Police have been withdrawn from the nightly supervision of inclosed gardens, complaints have been made to the Police Authorities that those places have been used by burglars as a base of operations; and, whether the Chief Commissioner proposes to take any, and what, steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that no complaints, such as those suggested, have been made to him. The Reports of the Superintendents show that the withdrawal of men on beat from private grounds has not led to an increase of crime; and the Chief Commissioner is of opinion that this withdrawal has greatly conduced to the safety of the public and their property.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE SWINESHEAD CHARITIES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the hon. Member for Penrith, Whether he has received an intimation that the Vicar of Swineshead declined to allow a poll to be taken by ballot on an election of the Trustees, who were to be chosen in order to carry out the scheme of the Charity Commissioners in respect to the Swineshead Charities, notwithstanding that the Chief Commissioners had written on the 29th of March last—
  "It will be open to the ratepayers, at any meeting for the purpose of appointing a Trustee or Trustees, to determine, if they so desire, that the election shall be by ballot; and that the meeting summoned to choose Trustees decided that the election should be by ballot;"
  and, whether, in view of these facts, the Charity Commissioners will cause another election to be held?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners have received an intimation that the Vicar of Swineshead recently declined to allow a poll to be taken by ballot at the
  1364
  election of Trustees to the Swineshead Charities. A Petition has been also received, praying them to withhold their approval of the appointment of the Trustees who were elected. This they have no power to do; but by Clause 50 of the scheme any question affecting the regularity or validity of any proceedings under the scheme shall be determined by the Charity Commissioners upon a proper application being made to them, and they are prepared to entertain such an application.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—CIRCULAR OF MR. J. C. VEASEY, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India has had his attention directed to a "confidential" Circular, No. 5, issued by Mr. J. C. Veasey, Inspector General of Police, Bengal, dated Calcutta, December 30, 1887; whether the Circular in question directs Sub-Inspectors to submit weekly to District Superintendents a confidential Report in which—
  "Everything, however apparently trivial, that can have a political significance"
  is to be set forth; informs District Superintendents that—
  "Sub-Inspectors should invariably have it impressed upon them that the collection of information for the weekly Report is by no means the least important part of their duties, and that aptitude for this kind of work will recommend them for advancement;"
  and directs that among the subjects to be reported upon are to be the following:—
  "Religious excitement; comments on Laws and Government measures; affairs in independent or semi-independent Native States, and rumours regarding them; constitution, objects, and proceedings of Native Societies, whether established for political or ostensibly for other objects; political or mass meetings; their origin, organization, and result as to public feeling in the neighbourhood, selected with especial reference to any tendency towards, or probability of, agrarian excitement;"
  whether, in a particular district, an Inspector of Police has considered that this Circular imposed on him the duty of inquiring whether certain persons who attended the meetings of the Indian National Congress at Madras in December last paid their own expenses, or whether those expenses were paid by the public; whether the Secretary of

  1365
  State will express his disapproval of this system in India which places religious assemblies, jubilee rejoicings, and the political meetings of a loyal population under the scrutiny of the police; and, whether the Secretary of State will lay a copy of the Circular in question upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has no official knowledge either of the Circular in question or of the action of the police under it. He will direct inquiries to be made from the Government of India on the subject. Of course, no pledge can be given at the present stage as to laying the Report on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —POLITICAL SPEECHES—SIR ARTHUR BLACKWOOD.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to a report in The Daily Chronicle of May 31 of a speech delivered by Sir Arthur Blackwood, a Post Office official, as follows:—
  "He believed that our dangers were no less great and imminent in some senses than they were 200 years ago. They had still the same arch-enemy in the background, and underground, but now their dangers proceeded to a great extent from this fact—that blindly, by a false charity called toleration, the nation had yielded up its liberties, and allowed the rights and privileges conceded to Roman Catholics to be preverted into the right to legislate for the Protestant nation, and had allowed a Romish hierarchy to be established in our midst. Beyond that our chief danger laid from the existence in the largest section of the visible Church in this country of a traitorous clergy Ritualists, who were Romanists under another name, and were working insidiously, determinedly, and persistently to raise up the Romish standard, doctrine, and practice in our midst, and, alas! with too widespread and fatal success all over the land;"
  whether other employés of the Department are free to address public meetings in an opposite sense, or generally may take part in platform work on public topics; and, is it the fact that the promotion of a great many Catholic and High Church postal servants depends on the favour of this gentleman?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My attention has not been called to the speech referred to otherwise than by the Question of the hon. and learned Member. Officers of the Post Office are at
  1366
  perfect liberty to take part in public meetings on any subject with the exception of those involving political partizanship; and the occasion on which the speech in question was delivered does not appear to me to fall within that category. The promotion of Post Office officials rests not with the Secretary of the Post Office, but with the Postmaster General, and no consideration of religious creed ever enters into such questions. I may, however, mention that Sir Arthur Blackwood has often recommended for promotion officers who, I happen to be aware, are Roman Catholics.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand that the permission granted to the Post Office officials is that they may not denounce other people's politics, but they may denounce other people's religion?
  [No reply.]

  GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN— THE SORTING OFFICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether vacancies in the Sorting Office, General Post Office, Dublin, are usually filled by selection from a class of messengers attached to the Dublin Office; whether boys who are taken into the sorting office during the Christmas pressure are kept on and finally appointed; whether these boys are relatives or friends of the superintendents and overseers of the sorting office; and, whether he will see see that the vacancies are given to the messengers or thrown open for public competition?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)in reply, said, the boy sorters in the General Post Office, Dublin, were not chosen exclusively from the messengers. Of the 27 appointments made within the last two years 13 were from the class of messengers. A few of the boys taken on during the Christmas pressure had been retained after the pressure had ceased. They had been appointed to vacancies among the sorters. Only one of the boys was a relative of an employé in the Post Office. The boy was a son of one of the sorters. He was not aware that any of the others had been appointed on account of friendship. Vacancies were filled up in certain proportions from the messengers. He did

  1367
  not intend to interfere with the present system.

  EXCISE (IRELAND)—LICENCE OF A MARQUEE, HOLLYMOUNT, CO. MAYO.
  Mr. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a marquee kept by Mr. Andrew Grogan, of Claremorris, on the fair ground at Hollymount, in the County of Mayo, on the 16th ultimo, was, about 7.30 a.m. on that day, entered by the local sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who pronounced Mr. Grogan's licence to be illegal, although his authorization was in due form, and acknowledged by the supervisor of Excise in the district; whether the sergeant then threatened Mr. Grogan with prosecution, and threatened likewise all who might patronize Mr. Grogan's marquee that day; whether Mr. Grogan was twice before prosecuted on like pretext, the charge each time being dismissed; and is there any protection for Mr. Grogan against a repetition of such interference?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Inspector General of Constabulary reported that the local officer did warn Grogan on the occasion in question that his licence was illegal, inasmuch as it was not signed by one of the Justices usually acting at Petty Sessions in the district, as required by law. The sergeant did tell Grogan that he was liable to be prosecuted; but he did not threaten anyone who might patronize the marquee. Mr. Grogan could protect himself by fulfilling the requirements of the law.
  COLONEL NOLANasked, were the police to judge whether the magistrate who signed the licence was a magistrate within the Petty Sessions Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, of course the person to decide that question was the Judge before whom the case came.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, what he wanted to know was, whether the police could prevent people going into the marquee when the question of the jurisdiction of the magistrate who signed the licence was undecided?
  MR A. J. BALFOURreplied that the police had not done so in this particular case.

  BANKRUPTCY ACTS—THE RUABON COLLIERY, LIMITED.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that the Ruabon Colliery, Limited, went into liquidation in the year 1878; whether the colliery was subsequently sold for £10,600, out of which the bondholders have received only about £1,500 in dividends; whether the receiver, in his double capacity as receiver and agent for the bondholders, has been paid a sum of over £2,600 for expenses in winding up; whether it is true that the firm of Hermann Loog, Limited, London Wall, stopped payment on January 1, 1887; and, whether, since that time, no meeting of the creditors has been called, nor any Report made to the creditors as to the progress of the liquidation?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am informed that the Ruabon and North Wales Colliery Company (Limited) was ordered to be wound up in October, 1878, and on November 28 of the same year Mr. John S. H. Banner was appointed official liquidator. The proceedings in this case were very complicated; but I shall be very happy to show the right hon. Gentleman the Papers relating to it. The file of the Company does not show that the liquidation was ever closed. The assets of the colliery appear by a contract filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies to have been sold by the official liquidator, acting in conjunction with the representatives of the creditors, debenture-holders, and contributories of the Company, to a Company formed for the purpose of purchasing the property, called the Preesgweene Colliery Company (Limited). That Company was ordered to be wound up by Mr. Justice Day in 1882, and the liquidation does not appear to have been closed. With regard to the second Company referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I am informed that it was ordered to be wound up on January 22, 1887, and that no meeting of creditors has been called, nor any Report made to them.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If

  1369
  he will inquire from some independent quarter, say the Coastguards stationed there, whether it is a fact that the harbour at Greystones is filling up with sand and shingle; and, if such proves to be the case, whether he will call on the Board of Works to take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, the harbour was being carefully watched by the Commissioners of Public Works. They would be glad to get information on the subject. He would call their attention specially to the suggestion the hon. Member made.

  INDIA—THE IRRAWADDY FLOTILLA COMPANY—HIRE OF FLATS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether 15,000 rupees per month are now being paid for the hire of three flats from the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company; whether such flats could have been conveniently built in Calcutta at an outside cost of 150,000 rupees; whether very large sums are being paid to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company for demurrage; and, if he can say by whose fault such demurrage charges arise?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has no information on this subject; but he will cause inquiry to be made.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked if the Papers which the hon. Gentleman anticipated a week or two ago had yet arrived?
  SIR JOHN GORST: No, Sir; unless the Indian mail came in to-day they have not yet arrived.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—SECTION 15—MAIN ROADS AND FOOTPATHS.
  MR. F. PARKERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will consider the desirability of inserting, with reference to the 15th section of the Local Government Bill, words of interpretation to indicate that the term "main roads" includes every foot-path being part of a main road?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The question referred to by my hon. Friend
  1370
  is to be raised in Committee; and I will take care it is fully considered before the Amendment is reached.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—TRANSFER OF COUNTY BOUNDARIES.
  MR. BIDDULPHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will request the Boundary Commissioners to present the Report containing their general recommendations to Parliament at an early date, with a Schedule showing the area and population of the several parts of counties proposed to be transferred from one county to another, distinguishing the cases of wholly or nearly detached parts of counties from those whose transfer is recommended for other reasons, so that the House may be in possession of the Report and Schedule before discussing the Boundary Clauses of the County Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have at present no information as to the date at which the Boundary Commissioners will be in a position to make a Report giving the details to which my hon. Friend refers; but I will communicate with the Commissioners, with the view of ascertaining within what time their Report will probably be ready.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Would he state if it is the intention of Government to insert a clause in the Local Government Bill rendering it necessary for gentlemen appointed Medical Officers of Health to possess a Public Health diploma, such diploma having now obtained State recognition by the Medical Act of 1886, Section 21?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Under the Medical Act, 1886, a medical practitioner who has a diploma for proficiency in sanitary science, public health, or State medicine, which appears to the Privy Council or the General Medical Council to deserve recognition in the Medical Register, may have such diploma entered on the Register. I do

  1371
  not propose to introduce in the Local Government Bill a clause rendering it essential that a medical practitioner, in order to be qualified for holding the office of Medical Officer of Health, should hold one of the diplomas referred to; but, no doubt, the authority appointing the officer, in connection with the applications of the several candidates, will give due consideration to the diplomas which they may hold.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—PROPOSED DISTRI- BUTION OF THE EXCISE DUTIES.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed to make any re-adjustment in the distribution of the Excise Duties in aid of local purposes, so as to prevent injustice to those boroughs which will not be treated as counties under the Local Government Bill, and which, whilst taxed equally with other boroughs, have no main roads entitling them to any grant-in-aid in return?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)(who replied) said: I presume that the hon. Gentleman refers to Quarter Session boroughs, in which at present the County Authority has no power to declare a road to be a main road repairable by the county. The Bill gives such a power, so that Quarter Session boroughs will, in future, possess a right to have their main roads declared such.

  INDIA—NAGPUR—THE GOND RAJA
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India recognizes the infant Gond Raja as the lawful representative of the ancient Kings of the Nagpur territory; whether, when the Government of India assumed the direct rule of that territory, the Crown Lands of the late Gond Raja (being also an infant at the time) were taken away, and a cash allowance of much less value settled on the family; whether the late Gond Raja, on coming to years of maturity, made complaint, and was informed that his complaint was barred by lapse of time; whether, in orders dated June 30, 1854, the Govern-
  1372
  ment of India stated "that this allowance will be upheld in all its integrity, without any abatement or reservation whatever;" whether, on the death of the late Gond Raja and the succession of his grandson, the present infant Raja, the cash allowance has been reduced to less than half; and, whether the guardians of the infant Raja have memorialized the Secretary of State against this reduction, and have stated that the reduced allowance is insufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the family?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The present Gond Raja, who is the grandson and adopted son of the late Raja, has been recognized by the Government as the head of the Gond family, which once ruled in Nagpur before it was dispossessed by the Mahratta power in the middle of last century. When the Government assumed the direct rule of the Nagpur territory in 1854, on failure of heirs to the Mahratta ruling family, the Gond Rajas appear (from the records in the India Office bearing on the arrangement for the assumption of rule in Nagpur) to have been in receipt of an allowance of 125,000 Nagpur rupees. The family is still in possession of 48 villages, the claim to which seems never to have been interfered with; and there is no evidence of any lands (in no sense could they be called "Crown lands") having been taken away. The allowance continued to the Gond Raja in 1854 was the same as that hitherto paid by the Nagpur State. There is no record of any complaint as to the alleged substitution of a cash allowance for land having ever been made by the late Gond Raja. The quotation, which is correct, is taken from a letter communicating orders from the Secretary to the Government of India to the Commissioner of Nagpur. The paragraph in which that quotation occurs refers to, and is based upon, a paragraph in the Commissioner's letter, in which his opinion is stated that—
  "Generally these allowances should be upheld for the lives of incumbents, and when the allowance has been in the same family for more than one generation that it should be continued to a second life," &c.
  It is evident, from the context, that the allowance was not intended to be guaranteed in perpetuity. On the death of the late Gond Raja the allowance was,

  1373
  in accordance with rules for the succession of Nagpur political pensions laid down by the Secretary of State in 1863, reduced from Rs. 1,06,837 9 as. 8 ps. (the equivalent of 125,000 Nagpur rupees) to Rs. 50,000. The present Raja also succeeds to the 48 villages held by his grandfather. The Ranis Moti Knar and Basant Knar have appealed to the Secretary of State against the orders of the Government of India, and their appeal has been rejected.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEgave Notice that, on the Indian Budget, he should call attention to the promise made by the Government of India to the Gond family, and to the way in which, in his opinion, it had been broken.

  SAVINGS BANKS—CARDIFF TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether all depositors in the Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank, not sending in a formal claim to the official liquidator by the 20th of this month, will be excluded from sharing any sums recovered on their behalf from the Trustees and Managers; whether the only communication from the liquidator to the depositors is in the form of an occasional advertisement inserted in the local newspapers; and, whether, considering the lapse of time since the failure, that all the depositors' pass books are in the liquidator's possession, that many of the depositors are illiterate, and that many reside considerable distances from Cardiff, the Government will take steps to ensure that the liquidator shall either take the pass books as a sufficient proof of claim of the amount still due, or that he shall forward to each depositor a circular form of claim for his signature, and its return to the liquidator by the prescribed date?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The hon. Member is under a wrong impression in supposing that the Executive Government has any power to direct the liquidator as to the course he ought to take at any particular stage of the liquidation. The liquidation is conducted under the direction of the High Court, and it is from the Court that the liquidator must take his instructions. On inquiry, however, I learn that, finding that in response to the usual ad-
  1374
  vertisements the claims of only a small proportion of the depositors had been sent in, the liquidator had decided to apply to the Court for directions to send a Circular to each depositor who had not sent in a claim, together with a form of claim to be filled up and returned.

  THE BERLIN CONFERENCE—ARTICLE XXXIV.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What notifications have been addressed to the Signatory Powers of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, as provided by Article XXXIV., since the signing of the Act in February, 1885; what are the territories to which those notifications relate; and, in how many instances possession has been taken, or a protectorate assumed, without objection being raised by any of the Signatory Powers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government, and several other Powers, have made such notifications. If the hon Member will move for a Return I will see what Papers can be given. We are not aware of objections having been raised by other Powers in any instance.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEERS—MUSKETRY PRO- FICIENCY.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, If, having regard to the limited practice and the difficulties as to ranges which impede the musketry proficiency of many Volunteer recruits, those members of the Force who fail to get out of the third class within the 60 rounds allowed by Government may still endeavour to qualify for the capitation grant under the new Regulations either at their own expense or at that of the corps?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE)Under existing Regulations a Volunteer has three chances of passing into the second class. My hon. Friend proposes that if he fails to get out of the third class after these three attempts, and after firing 60 rounds of ammunition, he should have, at his own expense or that of his corps, a further opportunity of qualification. Unless carefully safe-

  1375
  guarded, it is clear that this concession would give to the richer corps a great advantage over the poorer. But, looking to the difficulties which certain urban Volunteers have to encounter in respect of shooting, it may be desirable to make some concession in their case; but I cannot help thinking that the experience of the first year would be the best means of enabling us to settle this and some similar questions in a satisfactory manner.

  POST OFFICE—INTERNATIONAL TELE- GRAPHIC CONVENTION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Postmaster General, If, before the terms of any Convention between Her Majesty's Government and the French Republic are finally agreed upon, every effort will be made to provide for the reduction of the cost of messages to the combined inland rates of both countries after the purchase-money has been recouped, and that, in the meantime, it should not exceed that combined rate of 1d. per word by more than ½d., having regard to the large commercial interests affected, and also to the fact that submarine telegraphy over the longer distance between Great Britain and Ireland, or the Channel Islands, involves no advance on the British inland rate, and that the charge between France and Algeria is only 1d. per word?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I think I should explain to the hon. Member, with reference to his Question, that while no extra charge is made upon inland messages passing over the cables between Great Britain and Ireland and Great Britain and the Channel Islands, there is no question that the maintenance of those cables involves a considerable yearly loss. The negotiations with the French Government are still proceeding; and I can, at the present time, only say that I hope a substantial reduction in the present charge for messages passing between this country and France will be made.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—SHIPPING IN- DUSTRY—INCREASE OF LIGHT DUES.
  MR. ROYDENasked the President of the Board
  1376
  of Trade, Whether the increase on light dues charged by the English Government on and after June 1, which amounts to about 16½ per cent on the rate hitherto charged, has been authorized by an Order in Council; and, why such a tax has been placed upon the British shipping industry at a time when it is so greatly depressed?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): On April 12 I informed a deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce that, in view of the practical insolvency of the Mercantile Marine Fund, it would probably be necessary to re-impose for the current year half of that portion of the light dues which was taken off in 1884. The Press gave the fullest publicity to that statement at the time; and I had reason to believe that the shipping interests were satisfied that it was a disagreeable necessity that this should be done, as I received no communications to a contrary effect. Consequently, an Order in Council was issued re-imposing that amount of light dues from June 1.

  ARMS ACT (IRELAND)—GUN LICENCES.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Warburton, R.M., refused to grant a gun licence to Mr. William Cotter, of Breenymore, who holds an extensive farm; and, whether a local magistrate recommended the granting of the licence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the answer to the first part of the Question was in the affirmative. The granting of the licence was recommended by a magistrate.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the licence was refused?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is left to the discretion of the magistrate.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—INSANITARY STATE OF THE REGENT'S CANAL.
  MR. PICTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the state of that portion of the Regent's Canal which passes through the north of Regent's Park; whether he is aware

  1377
  that the whole of the sewage of the Zoological Gardens is discharged into the Canal, thus making it an open sewer; whether he knows that an analysis of the water shows it to be saturated with offensive matter; and that representations have been made in vain both to the Directors of the Gardens and to Local Authorities; and, whether, if he has not been informed on these points, he will cause inquiry to be made, and, if necessary, take such precautions as may be needed for the protection of the public frequenting that portion of the Park?
  MR. LAWSONasked, that the House might also be informed whether any action had been taken in this matter after the inquiry promised to him some time ago by the President of the Local Government Board?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I have no knowledge of the inquiry to which the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) refers. I had not received any complaint as to the state of the Canal until I saw the hon. Member's (Mr. Picton's) Question on the Paper. The Zoological Society hold their gardens on lease from the Office of Woods, and I have no control over them; but I have been informed, on the authority of the Superintendent of the Zoological Gardens, that the water in the Canal near the outlet from the Gardens has been frequently analyzed by the sanitary officer of the St. Pancras Vestry, and that, owing to the quantity of water flowing from the various tanks and reservoirs in the Gardens into the Canal, the water in the vicinity of the outlet was found to be in better condition than it was in other parts further up the Canal; that the drainage of the Zoological Gardens does go direct into the Regent's Canal; and that solid matter is not allowed to pass into the drains, but goes into cesspools, which are supplied as required.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the public, direct an analysis to be made of the water in the Canal as it passes through the Park?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had no objection to do what the hon. Member asked; and if the hon. Gentleman brought forward any statement in con-
  1378
  tradiction of that which he had just made, he would, of course, consider it.

  CUSTOMS—EXAMINATION OF PASSEN- GERS' LUGGAGE AT LIVERPOOL, &c
  MR. WOODALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware of the serious delay, confusion, and inconvenience caused by the present system of Customs examination at Liverpool and other English ports on the arrival of passengers by the great ocean steamers; whether it is true that at one time the necessary examinations were made in certain cases on board the vessels before passengers were allowed to land; and, whether, in the case of Transatlantic steamers calling at Queenstown whose owners are willing to provide proper facilities, he will consider the expediency of putting Customs' officers on board at that port, so as to ensure that baggage may be deliberately and effectively examined during what remains of the voyage, with the minimum of inconvenience, and with the advantage of avoiding detention on arrival in the Mersey?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): This Question has received the careful consideration of the Commissioners of Customs. Examinations were made on board before the baggage room on the landing stage was provided. The possibility of examining baggage en route between Queenstown and Liverpool has been frequently considered; but it was found that the proposal would involve considerable expense and be of doubtful convenience, and it has, therefore, been set aside as not practicable.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION— DISTURBANCE AT LLANEFYDD.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, at the tithe distraint sales at Llanefydd on May 17, before any act of violence on the part of the people or of the emergency men and police took place, Mr. Stevens, collecting agent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, rushed at, assaulted, and held by the throat Mr. William Jones, of Nant Farm; whether Mr. William Jones had, prior to such attack upon him by Mr. Stevens, done anything beyond booing and groaning; whether,

  1379
  immediately on Mr. Stevens laying hold of Mr. William Jones by the throat, and before the people had taken any part in the struggle, an emergency man struck Mr. William Jones across the mouth with a loaded riding whip, while two or three other emergency men belaboured him with their batons and threw him into the ditch; whether at that time the emergency men and police turned round upon a small number of unresisting men in the road, and indiscriminately batoned women, boys, and old men alike; whether the force with which the police struck the people was such that in one case the policeman's baton was split in two; whether the number of the wounded, many rendered insensible and all suffering from scalp wounds, amounted to over 20; and, whether the Riot Act was read before the attack upon the people was made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Chief Constable of the County of Denbigh that Mr. Stevens did not rush at or hold Mr. Jones by the throat. Mr. Jones, who was a prominent leader of the disturbances, assaulted Mr. Stevens by striking him across the legs and pushing against him violently. The Chief Constable cannot say by whom Mr. Jones was struck. It happened in the general melée which followed an attack made by the crowd on the police. I understand that the persons described as a small number of unresisting men in the road were a noisy and angry crowd of some 300 or 400 men, the police numbering 25. One woman, who belaboured a policeman with a hedge stake, had the weapon taken from her. This was the only woman touched; no boys were struck, and one old man of about 60 was slightly struck, but he followed with the mob the next day. It was a fact that one policeman's baton was split. About 20 were injured; but they did not all suffer from scalp wounds, and no one was rendered insensible. The Riot Act was not read, the attack being made by the people and not by the police. From all the statements I have received on this subject I am of opinion that the police, far from exceeding their duty, have behaved with great moderation under very trying and difficult circumstances.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSasked, whether the right
  1380
  hon. Gentleman had received any statement from anybody but the Police Superintendent.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he had received his information from Mr. Stevens and several other persons whose names had escaped his memory.

  POST OFFICE—CONTINENTAL MAILS— THE AUSTRIAN TRAIN SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the alterations in the Austrian train service to Calais, by which certain fast trains are withdrawn; whether the delay in the delivery of London letters in Vienna amounts to 18 hours, and the delay in the delivery of Vienna letters in London is even greater, and whether he will remonstrate against the changes in question; and, whether the Austrian Government now charges a now impost of two kreutzers on newspapers from England, and if that charge is warranted by the Postal Union Regulations?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have observed articles in the newspapers on this subject, and have instituted inquiry upon it. The evening mail now leaves Vienna at 5 p.m., instead of 3.25, and reaches London, viâ Calais, at 6 a.m. on the next day but one, instead of at 4 a.m. viâ Ostend. Letters from Vienna to London have, consequently, the advantage of being posted an hour and a-half later, while they are delivered at the same time. Some disadvantage may, I fear, be caused to English Provincial towns by the later arrival of this mail in England. There has been no alteration in the hours of despatch either of the day or night mail from London to Vienna, though I have reason to believe that the latter is now delayed for several hours at Cologne, and reaches Vienna about 10 hours later than formerly. I shall lose no time in addressing the Austrian Post Office as to the probability of any better communication being arranged. I am not aware that the Austrian Government charges a now impost of two kreutzers on newspapers from England. That Government established some years ago a financial impost of one or two kreutzers on foreign newspapers entering the Empire; but this tax is not a postal charge, and is

  1381
  not levied under Postal Union Regulations, which, of course, do not affect the general taxation of the countries belonging to the Union.

  AFRICA (EASTERN COAST)—ITALIAN ACQUISITIONS.
  SIR LEWIS PELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Can Her Majesty's Government afford information as to whether or not the statements which have recently appeared in the public prints are correct, that the Italians have demanded certain concessions at Kismayo or other points on the East African Coast?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Yes, Sir; it is true.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—RICH- MOND PARK—SITE FOR A VICARAGE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the information as to the position of the site in Richmond Park or Petersham Park, on which it is wished to erect a Church of England Vicarage, has now been received; and, whether, if the request is complied with, similar grants of land in those Parks will be made to other Religious Bodies which may apply for them?
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any application has been made to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the grant of a piece of land in Petersham Park or Richmond Park for the erection of a Vicarage; what answer has been returned to such application, if it has been made; and, whether, if Her Majesty's Government have not refused the application (if any), they will undertake to make no grant of land for any such purpose until an opportunity has been afforded to the House, on the Civil Service Estimates, or otherwise, of discussing the propriety of making a grant of Crown property for the purpose aforesaid?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, the churchwardens had made an application for a site for a Vicarage as indicated in the Question. He had made inquiries, and he had come to the conclusion that he would not be justified
  1382
  in advising that such a grant should be made.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— GRATUITIES TO MONITORS.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the non-payment by the Board of National Education of gratuities for instruction paid to monitors for the year ending June 30, 1887 (especially in reference to the Boys' National School of Stradbally, in the Queen's County) so long over due; and, whether the Commissioners have a considerable time ago promised payment forthwith, and yet the account is still unpaid?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Commissioners of National Education informed him that a change of teachers had taken place, and the payment of portion of the salary due to the incoming teacher in question was overlooked; but it had since been directed to be paid.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is the statement in The Daily News of May 5 correct, to the effect that a secret inquiry under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," was held by Mr. Hamilton, R.M., at Ballyconnell House, Cloughanely, County Donegal, the residence of Mr. Olphert, a local landlord, and that a man who refused to give evidence thereat was sent to Derry Gaol for seven days; and, is it in conformity with the Statute to hold such inquiries outside Court-houses?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Resident Magistrate informs me that there is no ground whatever for the statement in The Daily News referred to by the hon. and learned Member in this Question.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman he would have any objection to afford an inquiry into this matter? Perhaps he had better read a telegram that he

  1383
  had received as the ground for this Question. It was from Mr. Waugh, Central News correspondent, and stated that a Star Chamber inquiry had been positively held at the house of Mr. Olphert. That was the authority, he presumed, for the statement; and as Mr. Hamilton gave this a point blank contradiction, and as it was alleged a man had been sent to gaol, he would ask the Government either to hold an inquiry into the matter themselves or afford the House an opportunity of doing so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, as they had the statement of Mr. Hamilton that he had not only held no inquiry at Mr. Olphert's house, but that he had never been inside it, and the testimony on the other side being some newspaper correspondent, he did not see that anything would be gained by holding an inquiry into the matter.
  MR. CLANCY: Where was the inquiry held?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the proper place, of course.
  MR. M'CARTANwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether an inquiry had been held in any house belonging to Mr. Olphert; and whether several of Mr. Olphert's servants were sent to gaol for contempt of Court on refusing to answer questions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not see that this had any reference whatever to the Question on the Paper. No inquiry had been held except in the place required by Statute.

  POST OFFICE—EXPRESS LETTER DE- LIVERY IN BELGIUM.
  MR. KENYON (, &c.)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is acquainted with the system of express letter delivery existing in Belgium; Whether he can hold out any hope that a similar system will before long be adopted in this country; how far the anticipations, formed when the inland pattern and sample post was restored in the latter part of last year, have as yet been realised; and, whether there is reason to believe that the scale of charges laid down has proved satisfactory?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am acquainted with the system of express letter delivery existing in Belgium; but the arrangements in force in that coun-
  1384
  try are, in some respects, unsuitable for adoption here. I shall, however, shortly have before me the Report of a Committee which I lately appointed to consider in what way similar ends could be attained in this country; and I hope before long to be able to announce a decision in the matter. At the present rate the inland pattern and sample post packets posted during the first year will exceed 2,000,000; and the anticipations formed will, no doubt, before long be realized. I think the large circulation affords sufficient proof that the scale of charges is generally considered to be satisfactory.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPART- MENT)—SERVICE GUNS—SUPPLY OF AMMUNITION.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that in September, 1886, the list of Service guns consisted of not less than 147 sorts of guns, of which 69 sorts were used in the Navy; whether each of these, except only some five or six, required separate ammunition; whether in a large number of cases, and especially in the case of guns of the modern breech-loading system then coming into use in the Navy, the difference between such guns was small, and the danger arising from mistakes as to the supply of ammunition to guns of so many sorts thereby further increased; whether this great variety of Service guns has been increased or diminished since that date, and to what extent; and, who is the official to whom responsibility would attach, in respect of guns ordered during (say) the last five years, should this variety of guns requiring separate ammunition prove detrimental to the Public Service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): These numbers may be taken as practically correct, if every variety and mark of the same calibres of ordnance be included. The majority of smooth-bore guns are, however, practically obsolete, and are used merely for drill and saluting purposes. Others are converted as opportunity arises to later patterns, to take in some cases the same ammunition as that of other guns now in the Service. As a rule, each nature, in contradistinction to variety or mark, requires its own charge and projectile; but some charges

  1385
  and some projectiles are common to more than one nature. Some difference of charge arises from the fact that the first guns of a particular calibre may not be so strong as after certain improvements—such as chase hooping, for instance—they become. Every endeavour is made to make all guns of the same nature take the same ammunition; and as opportunity arises guns of early make are strengthened up to the same power as those of later design. The difference between calibres of guns was formerly smaller than with the new breech-loading system; and it is now so great that the risk of danger arising from supply of wrong ammunition is less than formerly. The variety of Service guns has been reduced. Whereas there were 20 different calibres or rifled muzzle-loading guns varying from 2·5 inches to 17·72 inches, there are now only 11 calibres of breech-loading guns varying from 3 inches to 16·25 inches.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, his Question as to who was responsible for the great variety of guns had not been answered.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: A number of officials will be responsible.
  MR. HANBURYinquired whether the Director of Artillery was responsible?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not going to answer the Question in that way.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: Is it the fact that the guns of the Pembroke have no ammunition?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No; it is not the case.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE LAKE IN BATTERSEA PARK.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, with reference to the promise given on March 22, that measures would be immediately taken to cleanse the lake in Battersea Park, Whether he can now state when the work will be commenced; whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory condition of the drinking fountains in Battersea Park; and, whether the necessary steps to insure a supply of pure drinking water will at once be undertaken?
  MR. WEBSTER: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire (Mr. Tatton Egerton), I have been asked to
  1386
  answer this Question. I have to state that since my hon. Friend the Member for the Knutsford Division stated on March 22 last that measures would be immediately taken to cleanse the lake at Battersea Park, difficulties have occurred which have prevented the work being proceeded with. The summer months have now begun; and as it would not be beneficial to the public health that the lake should be drained and cleansed during the warm weather, it is deemed expedient that the works should not be carried out until the end of the summer. As regards the drinking fountains, I am aware that their condition is at present not satisfactory; and I am happy to be able to inform the hon. Member that a tender has been accepted, and that a contract will shortly be signed for works which will enable a supply of pure drinking water to be provided for the fountains. I may add that the Park has only just been handed over to the Board, being a Park which the Act of last Session placed under their jurisdiction.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887, CLAUSE 24—THE WATERFORD ES- TATE.
  MR. MULHOLLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the purchasers of the Waterford Estate, in County Derry, have applied to the Board of Works for a reduction in their annual payments, in accordance with the provisions of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," Clause 24; and, what reply, if any, has been made to their application?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM(who replied) said, he understood 12 applications for reduction of their annual payments had been received by the Board of Works from purchasers of the Waterford Estate. The matter was at present under their consideration, and no reply had as yet been made to the application.

  UPPER BURMAH MINES—MR. BAR- RINGTON BROWNE'S REPORT.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Mr. Barrington Browne's Report on the Upper Burmah Mines has been received; and, whether the Government

  1387
  has come to a decision upon the agreement for working the mines; and, if so, whether the decision will be given at an early date, so as to avoid the loss of the season for getting the machinery to the mines?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Mr. Barrington Browne made his first Report to the Government of India before he left India. He is now making a more elaborate Report, which will be completed in a few days. Till the further report has been received by the Government of India, no final decision can be arrived at; but no avoidable delay will take place.

  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES—FE- MALE AERONAUT AT THE CRYSTAL PALACE.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the performances on Whit Monday at the Crystal Palace of a female aeronaut, who ascended some mile and a-half into the air, hanging to a balloon by her teeth; and, whether he is prepared to take any steps for the suppression of such exhibitions?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; I had not seen an account of this performance; but I am advised that the law does not prohibit public performances on account of their danger to an adult performer, and that I have no authority to interfere. The law leaves these matters to the good taste and feeling of the community, which, I hope, will always be sufficient to discourage any unseemly exhibition. I understand that the danger in this case is more apparent than real, as the woman is really suspended from the car.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS—APPOINT- MENT OF REGISTRATION OFFICERS.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Local Government Board have, by Circular or otherwise, directed the attention of the Boards of Guardians to the clause of the County Electors Act empowering them to appoint registration officers for country parishes; and, if not, whether they will do so without further delay?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Board, on the 29th of last month, addressed a Circular Letter to Boards of Guardians drawing their attention to the clause in the County Electors Act with regard to the appointment of registration officers.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—SECTION 8—TRANS- FER OF POWERS TO BURIAL BOARDS.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the effect of Section 8 of the Local Government Bill will be to transfer to the Local Government Board all the powers now exercised by the Secretary of State in regard to burial matters; and, if so, why certain enactments relating to those powers are not included in the First Schedule to the Act; whether, when the powers and duties of Burial Boards are transferred to District Councils, such Councils will be subject to the Burial Acts, or to "The Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879," or will have the option of proceeding under either Act; and, whether Burial Boards will continue to exist in boroughs and to act under the Laws which now regulate their acts and proceedings?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Clause 8 of the Local Government Bill will not transfer to the Local Government Board any powers exercised by the Secretary of State in regard to burial matters. When the powers and duties of Burial Boards are transferred to District Councils those Councils will, in the exercise of those powers and duties so transferred, be subject to the Burial Acts. The Council, as the Local Authority under the Public Health Act, will have power to act under the Public Health (Interment) Act, 1879. Consequently, the District Council will be able to proceed either under the latter Act or under the Burial Acts, according to the circumstances. Under Clause 47 of the Bill the powers of Burial Boards in boroughs will be transferred to the Town Council as in the case of any other district. This clause does not at present apply to the scheduled boroughs; but it is proposed to amend the Bill so as to extend it to them.

  GOLD AND SILVER COMMISSION—THE REPORT.
  MR. WIGGINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Gold and Silver will be presented to Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Government have no cognizance of the proceedings of Royal Commissions, and are, therefore, unable to answer questions in regard to the progress made by them; but I have heard unofficially that the Members of this Commission are now engaged in the discussion of their Report, and, I therefore, presume it may be in the hands of the House before many weeks.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the noble Viscount the Member for Lewisham, Whether the Agricultural Department is satisfied that the Order in Council prescribing the slaughter of all animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia which had been in contact with animals so affected is being thoroughly carried out by Local Authorities throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; and, if not, what steps the Privy Council propose to take to have the Order universally enforced?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, some little difficulty arose in carrying out the Pleuro-Pneumonia Slaughter Order in some districts in Great Britain when the Order was first issued, owing to a misunderstanding on the part of some Local Authorities; but, at the present time, the Order may be said to be carried out satisfactorily. The Inspectors of the Agricultural Department have visited nearly every outbreak in the country, with a view to ascertain what action has been taken by the Local Authorities, and to advise them generally upon the mode in which the Order should be carried into effect. In the district of the Metropolitan Board of Works the slaughter has not in all cases been carried out within the time specified in the Order. The Privy Council have, however, urged upon the Board of Works the absolute necessity for taking immediate stops in the matter, and the Board have given instructions for the Order to
  1390
  be carried into effect forthwith. The Agricultural Department have every reason to believe that a similar Order, passed by the Irish Privy Council, is being rigidly enforced under the supervision of officers of the Veterinary Department in Dublin.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—IM- PRISONMENT OF MR. KILMARTIN.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, considering all the circumstances of the case of Mr. Kilmartin, his delicate state of health, and the fact that the sentence which he is now undergoing is in excess of that originally awarded, the Lord Lieutenant would remit the remainder of Mr. Kilmartin's imprisonment?
  MR. HARRISwished, before the Question was answered, to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman had Mr. Kilmartin's permission to ask the Question?
  COLONEL NOLANreplied that he had not spoken to Mr. Kilmartin on the subject. He put the Question entirely on his own responsibility.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The surgeon of Galway Prison reports that the prisoner referred to is in good health. I do not see anything in the case requiring the Lord Lieutenant to adopt the course suggested. There is ample provision in the Prison Rules for dealing with cases of ill-health when and if they arise.

  INDIA—THE MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACTS.
  MUNDELLAasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What action is being taken by the Indian Government with respect to the adoption of the Merchandize Marks Acts; and whether, having regard to the fact that falsely marked goods, which are precluded from shipment in British vessels, are being shipped to India from foreign ports, in foreign bottoms, her Majesty's Government will press upon the Government of India the duty and expediency of prompt action in this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The action taken by the Government of

  1391
  India has been to consult the Local Governments and Administrations, which is the first step in Indian legislation. A Bill has also been introduced to make the British yard, foot, and inch legal standards in India. The attention of the Government of India will be called to the allegation that falsely marked goods are being shipped to India from foreign ports in foreign bottoms.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICA- TIONS FOR FAIR RENTS—ROSCOM- MON.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the last Spring Quarter Sessions, the County Court Judge of Roscommon dismissed the applications to have fair rents fixed of the following persons:—Anne and John Murray, tenant, against Arthur Mitchell, landlord; Patrick Brehenry, tenant, against Countess of Kingston, landlord; John Noone, tenant, against Messrs. Knox, landlord; whether the originating notices were served respectively on October 19, 1887, December 2, 1886, and May 30, 1887; and, whether the applications were dismissed with costs against the tenants, the sole ground being that the area on the originating notices was set forth in Irish instead of Statute measure?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. In one case the dismiss was with costs.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Arising out of the answer given to the Question, may I ask the Chief Secretary whether this is a fair sample of the spirit in which tenants will be treated when their interests are handed over to the County Court Judges?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—AL- LEGED INSURANCE FRAUDS AT BELFAST.
  MR. TUITEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether the Government have yet taken any steps to discover the person who forged the name of Finlay M'Cance, J.P., Belfast, by means of which a policy of assurance was obtained on his life from the Equitable Assurance Company in
  1392
  favour of Mr. James A. Henderson, proprietor of The Belfast News Letter.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN), in reply, said, the strictest investigation was being made into the facts of the case by the Attorney General, who had assumed charge of the prosecution on the part of the Crown, in order that all the persons concerned in the frauds might be made amenable. It would be obviously calculated to defeat the ends of justice if details were now gone into.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—COM- MITTAL OF SHANE O'DONNELLS— SECRET INQUIRY IN DONEGAL.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Shane O'Donnell, who has been twice committed by Mr. Hamilton, R.M., to Derry Gaol for refusing to answer the same questions put to him at a secret Court of Inquiry in County Donegal, is a poor rate collector and a relieving officer; whether Mr. Hamilton, R.M., threatened in the course of the inquiry that O'Donnell would be deprived of those offices held by him under the Board of Guardians unless he gave evidence to incriminate persons in the district in which he acted as rate collector and relieving officer; whether O'Donnell is landlord of Father Stephens, now also in Derry Gaol, and whether they resided in the same house; whether Mr. Hamilton, R.M., recently summoned three bank managers to produce the books of their respective banks, at a secret Court of Inquiry in County Donegal, with the view to ascertain the names of depositors, and the amounts of their deposits; whether he is aware that bank managers have not any authority to carry out of the bank the books belonging thereto; and, whether Mr. Hamilton had any authority for acting thus in these two cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Resident Magistrate replies to the first and third paragraphs in the affirmative; to the second paragraph in the negative. He summoned two bank managers before the preliminary inquiry. The Statute under which the inquiry was conducted appears to fully authorize the Resident Magistrate's action in the matter.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he ever asks for information from anybody except the individual against whom the accusation is brought?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must be aware, when he asks the Government for information, that all the Government can do is to go to the best source at their command. That they have done; and if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the information I have given, there is no reason for his asking these Questions.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—EVICTION OF JAMES KILMARTIN, BALLINASLOE.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that, at an early hour on Friday morning last, Mr. Gilman, District Inspector, Ballinasloe, with a force of 60 police, assisted the sheriff's bailiffs in taking possession of Mr. James Kilmartin's holding, Shralea, Ballinasloe; whether it is a fact that Mrs. Kilmartin had to rise from her sick bed, and go out in the cold drenching rain with her little children, while in the state of health described in the following certificate:—
  "This is to certify that Mrs. Kilmartin, Shralea, has been under my treatment for some weeks, suffering from severe mammary abscess. In addition, she is on the eve of being confined, and in my opinion eviction from her home in her present condition may seriously imperil her life.
  (Signed) J. T. DE LA HUNT,
  L.R.C.S. and P. Ed.
  Ballinasloe, 1st June, 1888;"
  and, is it a fact that, while this eviction was being carried out, the husband of this woman (Mr. James Kilmartin) was in Galway Gaol, suffering three months' imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for language used at a public meeting; and, if so, will the Government state what they purpose to do with regard to this case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was sorry he had not been able to obtain the information which would enable him to give an answer to the Question. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to postpone it.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRE- LAND)—BALTIMORE AND GARNISH.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government intend acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Public Works with regard to the erection of fishery piers at Baltimore and Garnish, in the County of Cork?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, as the House was aware, he was anxious to state the general policy of the Government with regard to the recommendations of the Commission on Irish Public Works; but he had not yet had an opportunity of doing so. Perhaps the hon. Member would wait until an opportunity arose.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— BANTRY PIER.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the contract for the repairs to the Bantry Pier has been given without inviting tenders; whether the contractor had agreed to effect them for a certain amount; whether he subsequently refused to carry out his arrangement; whether he has re-arranged for a much larger amount; and, whether the Clerk of Works is son to the County Surveyor, on whose recommendation the contract has been given?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension as to the position of the works in question, as he (Mr. Jackson) was informed that they had been handed over to the County Authorities several years ago, and the Board of Works had no responsibility for or knowledge of the subject.

  ADMIRALTY—COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF BRITISH AND FOREIGN NAVIES—THE RECENT RETURN.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table the "recent Return prepared by competent Naval Authorities," showing the comparative strength of the French Russian, and English battleships and cruisers in 1890, which was

  1395
  quoted by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in his speech at the dinner of the London Chamber of Commerce on March 21?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD)(who replied) said, he did not quote an Official Return, as implied in the Question. The Return, however, which had been moved for by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), and which was now in the hands of the printers, would furnish full information as to the vessels of war built and building by the principal European nations.

  THE WRECK COMMISSIONERS-COLLI- SION OF THE "MOTO" AND "SMYRNA."
  MR. BRYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the collision between the steamship Moto and the ship Smyrna, which occurred in the English Channel on April 28 last, and which caused the immediate sinking of the Smyrna, and the drowning of 12 of her crew; whether it is the fact that although the weather was foggy the steamer was going at full speed with her sails set; whether, at the trial of an action instituted in the high Court of Justice in respect of the collision, the counsel for the Moto admitted that her captain (who was navigating the vessel at the time) was to blame, and the Judge decided that the Moto was alone to blame for the collision; whether the Board of Trade, after having intimated their intention to cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending the collision by the Wreck Commissioner, have now stated that they do not propose to have such inquiry held; and, whether, considering the above facts, and that it is only in and by such an inquiry that the certificate of the captain of the Moto can be dealt with, it is desirable in the public interest that such an inquiry should be held?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): My attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Member. The deposition made by the master states that the Moto was going at the speed of eight knots, but does not say whether the
  1396
  sails were set. The Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, by which Court the case has been investigated, found the Moto alone to blame for the collision, and that Court is the Court of Appeal from the Wreck Inquiry Court. The Board of Trade had given notice that an official inquiry would be held; but that notice was given before they were aware that the case would be taken to the Admiralty Division by the owners of the Smyrna. As the case has been taken to the Admiralty Division and settled there, the order for inquiry has been countermanded in accordance with the usual practice in such cases. I am not aware that counsel for the owners admitted that the master was to blame; and the reports do not show that the Courts made any animadversions on his conduct. I am advised that this is not a case in which any further action can be usefully taken by instituting any inquiry before the Wreck Court; nor can the Board of Trade refer the case to a Local Marine Board for investigation, as they have no evidence which leads them to believe that the master has been guilty of incompetency or misconduct within the meaning of the Statute.

  IRELAND—NEWTOWNARDS FARMERS' ASSOCIATION—INTERRUPTED MEET- ING.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the meeting of farmers recently addressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at Newtownards, If he can now state whether the hon. Member was closely followed by a detective in a car from Belfast to Newtownards and back; whether District Inspector Ward called on the hotel proprietress who owned the hall where the meeting was to have been held, and caused her to refuse the hall for the meeting; whether he is aware that Mr. M'Master, P.L.G., who engaged the hall, is the Honorary Secretary of the Newtownards Farmers' Association, which holds its meetings regularly in the same hall; whether several constables were placed at the door of the premises on which the meeting was held, and whether these constables endeavoured to intimidate the people by staring into the face of every

  1397
  man as he left the meeting; and, whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was followed by three policemen wherever he went, on that evening, through the town of Newtownards?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me the reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The District Inspector did call on the proprietress of the hotel. He did not cause her to refuse the room. I understand Mr. M'Master holds the office stated. I am not aware whether he had actually engaged the room on the occasion in question. Several constables were not placed at the door, but two were close to it when the persons who attended the meeting were leaving. These police did not endeavour to intimidate the people in the manner alleged, or in any other manner. The police, in view of former occurrences, apprehending violence towards the hon. Member if his presence were generally known, considered it advisable to keep him in sight, in order to preserve the peace if necessary.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform me for what purpose the police were placed at the door when the people were coming out, because I can say that, from my own knowledge, they did intimidate them?
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, how he reconciles the answer which he has just read from the police with the reply he gave me this day week to almost an identical Question, when he said that, on the authority of the police, he could state that there was no truth whatever in the statements made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman read out this Question, as I do not carry it in my memory? With regard to the Question asked me by the hon. Member for East Mayo, I can only repeat what I have already said—that the police did not intimidate, nor can I see personally how staring in the face of a man leaving a meeting is a method of intimidation.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me for what purpose these police were placed at the door?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he concluded it was for no special reason.
  1398
  He presumed they wanted to know what was going on, or possibly that there might be a disturbance. If the hon. Gentleman desired it, he would make further inquiries into the matter.
  MR. DILLON: I am certainly curious on that point. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire for what purpose these constables were placed at the door of the meeting; and whether it is customary for constables to be put on the door when Loyalists hold meetings?
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he was perfectly prepared to read out his Question, as he had been invited to do by the Chief Secretary. His Question was—
  "To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, immediately preceding the visit of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to Newtownards at the end of April, the District Inspector and the Head Constable of Police visited the proprietress of the Ulster Hotel, and urged her not to let the hall upon her premises (in which the farmers of the district usually held their meetings) for any meeting at which the hon. Member was to be present; and, whether, on the meeting of the farmers of the district, addressed by the hon. Member, being held elsewhere, constables were posted at the entrance to the room, and what was the object of this proceeding?"
  The reply of the right hon. Gentleman, on the authority of the police, was that there was no truth in the suggestion conveyed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I can understand the Question, there was no truth in it. The Question was, whether the police had gone to the landlady to urge her not to let the room?
  MR. DILLON: So they did.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. E. Ellis)—and I repeat it—that there is no truth in that allegation. In answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo, I again say that the police did not go to the landlady with the view to urging her not to take in the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DILLON: But the right hon. Gentleman has passed over the most important factor of the allegation. ["Order!"] It is at the invitation of the right hon, Gentleman himself that his answer was read out. He has passed over the most important part of my Question. I want to know how he disguises the fact that in reply to my hon. Friend last week——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is impossible now at this stage to enter into a debate as to whether an answer given now is a different one to an answer given some time ago.
  MR. DILLON: I am extremely unwilling to prolong this more than is necessary. ["Order!"] I am simply now claiming the right which every Member of this House has of making a personal explanation, when the truth of what he stated is assailed. I stated in public that these constables were standing at the door of the room, and did intimidate people; and I say that the Chief Secretary stated in his place in the House that there was not a word of truth in that statement. I wish to know, on a question of personal explanation, from the Chief Secretary, does he adhere to the statement he has made that there is no truth in my assertion?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not in the nature of a personal explanation. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further to elucidate the facts, it is quite competent for him to give Notice in the ordinary way.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary, arising out of this Question, is it not usual for the Constabulary in Ireland to attend all public meetings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I should imagine it is a very usual thing. But if either my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Gentleman wishes further information on the point, I shall be very glad to give it.
  MR. LABOUCHEREwould ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would be good enough to tell the House what took place at the visit between the proprietress of the hotel and the District Inspector and constable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know what did not take place; but I cannot be expected to give a full account of the conversation between these persons. The District Inspector positively denies that he urged this woman not to admit the hon. Member.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary, whether he was aware that The Newtownards Chronicle, on the Saturday after the meeting took place, stated that a District Inspector Ward, accompanied by Head Constable Smith and another constable, did call on the woman and urge her not to admit the hon.
  1400
  Member for East Mayo; and, whether any inquiry has been made of Constable Smith?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now giving his version of the story. If the hon. Gentleman is desirous of an answer, and puts a Question in the usual way, he will, no doubt, get it.

  COAL MINES, &c., REGULATION ACT, SEC. 49—THE STOPES COLLIER, BOL- TON.
  MR. LEAKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that at the Stopes Colliery, Little Lever, near Bolton, belonging to Messrs. Fletcher and Sons, the men have never provided timber for propping in the mine, either before or since the passing of the Coal Mines, &c., Regulation Act, but that it has always been, and is, provided by the owners; whether the Statute makes it incumbent that "suitable timber shall be provided at the working places;" whether he is aware that at four adjoining pits belonging to Messrs. Fletcher—namely, at Outwood Colliery and Bradley Fold Colliery, the owners saw the timber in suitable lengths, and deliver it to the men at the working places, according to the provisions of Rule 22, section 49, of the Act, and that at the Stopes Colliery whole trees are delivered by the owners at the pit-brow, and required to be sawn in lengths by the men with hand saws, marked, and sent into the mine; whether the Act renders the owners criminally responsible if suitable timber for propping is not provided at the working places in the mine; whether, on the practice alleged to exist at the Stopes Colliery being reported to him by the Inspector, he can use his influence to suppress it, and to substitute one more consistent with the intention and provisions of the Coal Mines, &c., Regulation Act; and, whether he is aware of any agreement or arrangement between the owners and their workmen at this colliery which should prevent his influence being so used; and, if so, whether he can state what is the nature of the agreement?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): At the Outwood Colliery, near Bolton, I am informed that the props are piled in suitable lengths at the pit-brow, and the

  1401
  colliers make selection from them. I have no information as to the Bradley Fold Colliery. The Act does render the owners criminally responsible if suitable timber for propping is not provided at the working places; but, as I have before stated, the Act is silent as to the persons by whom the timber shall be prepared and selected. That is matter for contract between the parties. The practice at Stopes Colliery is not, therefore, inconsistent with the Act; and there seems to be no ground for the Inspector to interfere.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE AFFRAY AT MITCHELSTOWN IN SEPTEMBER LAST—THE CHIEF SE- CRETARY'S SPEECH AT BATTERSEA.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is correctly reported in the Times of May 17th, 1888, to have said at Battersea on the 16th, in speaking of the persons shot at Mitchelstown—
  "One of them at least unquestionably was killed by a ricochet shot,"
  and—
  "I believe that was true of other unfortunate victims in this calamitous struggle;"
  what was the name of the person killed by the ricochet shot, and of the other unfortunate victims respectively; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a statement of the evidence or information on which he has asserted the fact and declared the belief above mentioned?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am correctly reported in The Times. The name of the person first referred to was Lonergan. The names of the other victims were Shinnick and Casey. The evidence on which I made the statement was contained in the Report of the Departmental Commission which inquired into the conduct of the police. From that Report it appears that it is physically impossible to fire a rifle out of the window from which the shooting took place in the direction of the place where Lonergan was standing; and impossible to do so in the direction of the places where Shinnick and Casey were standing, without either leaning out of the window, or standing back from the window and side ways to it. These posi-
  1402
  tions are both of them awkward and unnatural, and there is no evidence that either one or the other was adopted by the police. I stated, on a previous occasion, that I was prepared to show the Report confidentially to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley). That offer I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report on the Table of the House, or such part of it as had reference to the allegations mentioned in the Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I could not lay the Report on the Table; but I will consider the propriety of laying before the House that particular part of the Report to which I referred.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: And, possibly, if the right hon. Gentleman lays that particular part before the House, he will be good enough to have it accompanied by a slight tracing, which will give us some explanation of the positions he has alluded to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsignified his assent.
  MR. T. M. HEALYinquired from the Speaker, whether it was not in accordance with the Rules of the House that when a Member of the Treasury Bench rose to reply to a Question with reference to a Report, and makes reference to that Report, he was not bound to lay the Report upon the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no obligation of that nature as regards a confidential Report; but as to official or ordinary Reports, if a Minister quotes from them he is bound to lay them on the Table.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is a Departmental Report. I presume it is the Report of the inquiry presided over by Colonel Turner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the question of Order, I may remind the House I have not quoted from the Report.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): Did not District Inspector Irwin expressly declare that he had himself seen the constables break the windows in order to fire, and then take deliberate aim?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite possible that evidence may have been

  1403
  given; but I do not see how it affects the statement I have just made.
  MR. CLANCY: Did not the police themselves swear that they took deliberate aim?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that they swore that they took particular aim at the people who were killed. [Cries of "Yes, they did!"]
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to his speech, whether, if he did not quote the Report, he did not make it the basis of his answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly I made it the basis, and I distinguish that operation from quoting it. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) is capable of making that distinction himself.

  NATIONAL DEFENCE BILL—EMBODI- MENT OF VOLUNTEERS FOR GAR- RISON DUTY—EMBODIMENT OF MILITIA REGIMENTS.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, before proceeding to the third reading of the National Defence Bill, he will ascertain, by detailed Returns called for from each Volunteer regiment in the Kingdom, how many men in each regiment would be willing to be permanently embodied for garrison duty for a period exceeding two months; also, in each case, what remuneration would be considered by them as sufficient inducement for their being taken away thus from their ordinary occupations and the support of their families; and, in case it should be found that the average rate of wage earning of the men consenting to be thus embodied ranges between 25 s. and 30 s. a-week, whether he will allow it to be definitely ascertained what the total cost per month and year of such embodiment of the Volunteers would be, and from what source the funds for meeting it are proposed to be obtained hereafter; also, whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake before the third reading stage of the National Defence Bill is reached, which provides for the permanent embodiment of the Volunteers whenever the Militia are embodied, to lay before the House
  1404
  a detailed Return showing on what dates each Militia regiment was embodied on the two separate occasions of the breaking out of the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny; also showing for how many years and months each regiment remained thus embodied, and in the case where a regiment proceeded out of England to the Mediterranean or elsewhere, the period in years and months during which regiment served outside of the United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): As far as my means of ascertaining go, the National Defence Bill has been heartily accepted by the Volunteers as a whole, who recognize that there is no intention by this Bill to alter the purpose for which they were raised, but simply to render their services more available when an invasion of this country appears imminent. Although the National Defence Bill gives the Government for the time being the power to embody the Volunteers whenever the Militia is embodied, neither this nor any other Government would ever resort to such a measure except in a time of the greatest national emergency. As, therefore, there is no intention of embodying the Volunteers for garrison duty like the Militia, I do not see that any special advantage would arise from calling for the Returns asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Whenever the country was in real danger I am certain that every Volunteer would come forward; and, short of that, no Government would ask them to do so.

  SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES—THE MEM- BERS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will give a Return showing, with respect to the proposed members of the Royal Commission on Scotch Universities, what degrees each Commissioner has taken at any Scotch University, and in what years?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): No, Sir.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Lord Advocate, whether the Government had taken pains to ascertain whether the gentlemen who had been appointed Commissioners had any practical experience of

  1405
  the Scottish Universities; and if not, on what mode they had proceeded?
  [No reply.]

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—OUTRAGE IN THE REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. NORRISasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the disgraceful scenes which are reported to have lately taken place in Regent's Park; if he will define the nature of the control and supervision of his Department, and state if the roads commonly known as the Inner and Outer Circle are within his jurisdiction, or under the jurisdiction of the police; if there are two separate Commissioners, termed the Paving Commissioners, one having authority over the outer gates by day, and the other by night; and who appoints the gatekeepers at those gates; and, if he will also state by whom those Commissioners are nominated, and by whom are their duties defined, and if they, or his Department, or the police, are responsible for the supervision of the grass land between Gloucester Gate, and the North Gate, where acts of misbehaviour are of frequent occurrence?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am advised that the whole of Regent's Park is by statute placed under the management of the Office of Works, and that the park-keepers and the Metropolitan police have within the limits of the park the same rights, duties, and responsibilities. Practically, the enclosed portions of the Park are placed under the control of park-keepers, who are responsible for the public peace within the enclosures; whereas the roads are patrolled by the Metropolitan police, who are responsible for the public peace upon those roads, and also upon the portions of the grass land between Gloucester Gate and the North Gate, which have not been up to the present enclosed. The Commissioners of Works appoint gatekeepers, who are on duty during the daytime at the outer gates; and, by an arrangement with the Paving Commissioners (which has been in operation since 1851), the latter supply night watchmen for duty at night. The Paving Commissioners are, I believe,
  1406
  appointed under the Crown Estate Paving Act, 1851. They have no authority or responsibility as to the preservation of the peace. I have been considering whether by an improved system of lighting the Inner and Outer Circle roads, or by any other means, order can be better preserved upon those roads; and I shall place myself in communication with Sir Charles Warren on the subject.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE COMPENSATION CLAUSES—THE LICENCE DUTIES.
  MR. SUMMERSasked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he is correctly reported in The Hampshire Advertiser, of May 22, as having said, in answer to a question put to him at a public meeting at Southampton, that—
  "If the ratepayers wished to spend more than the 20 per cent raised on the licences in compensation they could do so; but in that case they would spend other money at their disposal, whether from rates or otherwise"?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I see nothing in the quotation in the hon. Member's Question to make me doubt that it is an accurate report of the statement I made.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE SUB- WAY TO THE EMBANKMENT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, With what object is the subway from Palace Yard to the Embankment kept closed to the public; how many constables are kept on duty in or about the subway; and, whether he will give instructions for the subway to be re-opened for the convenience of hon. Members and of the public generally?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, this subway was closed in 1885, with the view to the safety of the House; but he would communicate with the Office of Works, and see whether it could not be re-opened, at any rate for the convenience of Members. There were 10 constables on duty there; and he would consider the further question as to whether it could be opened to the public.

  CENTRAL AFRICA—ASSAULT ON BRITISH OFFICER AT NYASSA.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information with regard to an attack alleged to have been made on the Rev. W. P. Johnson, of the Universities' Mission, and Mr. Buchanan, Acting British Consul, at Nyassa; who the attacking party were; and, what steps are to be taken for their punishment?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A Report from Mr. Buchanan states that, having landed, accompanied by Mr. Johnson, to seek an interview with the Chief Makangila, he and his party were roughly treated; one man was drowned, apparently in an attempt to swim off to the steamer. The only reason given by the Natives was that they objected to the exhibition by Mr. Buchanan of the Consular flag. No steps have been taken for punishment of the aggressors, who are far beyond the roach of Her Majesty's Forces.

  RECONCILIATION TO THE SEE OF ROME—13 ELIZ., c. 2—PETER'S PENCE—25 HEN. VIII., c. 21.
  MR. COMMINSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that it is provided by 13 Eliz. c. 2—
  "That by colour of bulls and writings certain wicked persons very secretly and most seditiously, in such parts of this Realm where the people for want of good instruction are most weak, simple, and ignorant, and thereby farthest from the good understanding of their duties towards God and the Queen, have, by their lewd and subtle practices and persuasions, so far forth wrought, that sundry simple and ignorant have been contented to be reconciled to the usurped authority of the See of Rome.
  "That for remedy and redress thereof, and to prevent the great mischiefs and inconveniences that may thereon ensue, if any person shall use or put in use within this Realm any bull, writing, or other instrument gotten from the Bishop of Rome, or from any other person or persons authorized or claiming authority by or from the Bishop of Rome.
  "Or shall obtain or get from the said Bishop of Rome, or any of his successors or the See of Rome, any manner of bull, writing, or instrument, written or printed, containing any thing, matter, or cause whatever, or shall publish, or by any means put in use any such bull, writing, or instrument, shall be deemed and adjudged
  1408
  by the authority of this Act to be guilty of high treason, and the offenders therein, their procurers, abettors, and councillors, shall be deemed and adjudged high traitors to the Queen and the Realm;"
  whether he is aware that "The Statute Law Revision Act, 1863," repealed all the remaining portions of this Act, but left these untouched, and whether they are and remain a portion of the Revised Statute Law; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention to introduce a Bill for the repeal of these provisions, which are severe upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects? The hon. Gentleman also asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the 25th Henry VIII., c. 21, amongst other things, provides that—
  "Peter pence had been taken out of the realm by the Bishop of Rome, who was to be blamed therein" (amongst other things) "for his using and beguiling the King's subjects, pretending and persuading to them that he had full power to dispense with all human laws, uses, and customs of all realms in all causes which be called spiritual, in great derogation of the King's Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to right and conscience;" and "That no person or persons in this realm, or of any other of His Majesty's dominions, shall from thenceforth pay any Peter pence, or any other impositions, to the use of the said Bishop or the See of Rome, but that all such Peter pence should from thenceforth clearly surcease and never more be taken, perceived, nor paid to any person or persons in any manner of wise;"
  and that these provisions of this Statute remain unrepealed by "The Statute Law Revision Act, 1863," which repeals other parts of the Act; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to bring in a Bill to repeal these provisions of the Statute of Henry VIII.?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Certain portions of the Act of 13 Eliz. c. 2, were repealed by the Act of 1883, as being no longer in force. But the substance of the Act in question was expressly maintained by the Act of 9 & 10 Vict., c. 19; and, therefore, it would not have been right to have repealed the whole Act. There is not, in my opinion, any necessity to introduce a Bill for a repeal, as the Acts do not press upon any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. As regards the 25th Henry VIII., c. 21, the same answer may be given—namely, that it is not, in my opinion, desirable to repeal the whole of the Statute.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACT, 1887—THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Rules and Regulations under the Savings Bank Act of last Session will be laid upon the Table of this House?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The criticisms of the various Departments concerned upon the Draft Regulations for the Post Office Savings Banks prepared by the Postmaster General are now being considered by the Post Office Authorities; and on receipt of the Postmaster General's Report the Regulations can be finally settled by the Treasury. The corresponding Regulations for Trustee Savings Banks have been drafted, and will be settled to correspond with the Post Office Savings Bank Regulations when finally approved. When finally settled, the two sets of Regulations will be laid on the Table of the House simultaneously. The Annuity and Insurance and Investment Regulations have already been laid upon the Table.
  In answer to a further Question from Mr. HOWELL,
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the Regulations would be laid on the Table as soon as the Report was received from the Post Office. There would be no delay in settling the Regulations after the Report was received.

  COMMITTEE ON IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. WATTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a Committee was appointed by the Government of Lord Derby in 1867 to arrive at an estimate as to the value of the Irish railways, preliminary to purchase; whether the proposal was supported by 76 Peers and 90 Irish Members of both Parties; whether said Committee reported unanimously in favour of State purchase; and, what was the reason why the scheme was not carried out?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the hon. Member had misunderstood the Reference made to the Committee. The terms of that Reference expressly excluded from consideration the question of the purchase of Irish
  1410
  railways by the State, and the Committee, therefore, made no recommendation on the point. He had no information as to the reasons which led the Government in power which came into Office in 1868, after the Report was presented, to proceed no further with the recommendations.

  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) —LAND IMPROVEMENT ADVANCES.
  MR. MARUMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the Board of Public Works (Ireland) have recently adopted a Rule suspending payments of instalments of land improvement advances where only one year's rent is due by the occupier, although it is customary to have a running gale upon such holdings, and hitherto there had been no stoppage of payments under such circumstances; and, whether, in view of the agricultural depression and the necessity for affording industrial employment, he will have the old practice reverted to?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that the Board of Works has made no recent Rule such as that referred to; but the established practice is when there is no hanging gale to refuse to issue instalments after a year's rent is due, but when there is a hanging gale it is always recognized by the Board, and due allowance made for it.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—DUNGENESS.
  MR. POMFRETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the natural advantages of Dungeness, Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to sanction the formation of a harbour of refuge at Dungeness in lieu of the one that was to have been made at Dover?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Without contesting the statement of the hon. Member as to the natural advantages possessed by Dungeness as a harbour of refuge, I can only say that the Government are not prepared to give any pledge as to the formation of a harbour of refuge there.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADMISSION OF DYNAMITARDS TO THIS HOUSE.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, if

  1411
  his attention has been called to Questions 782 and 789 of the Evidence taken by the Select Committee as to the admission of dynamitards to the House of Commons; whether the order, said by Mr. Monro to have been issued through Mr. Speaker's Secretary to the hon. Member for Bermondsey for the admission of one of the alleged criminals is in existence, and could be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if so, would a Select Committee be granted to inquire into the manner in which this order came to be granted to an alleged dynamitard?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have read that part of the evidence taken before the Select Committee of this House on the admission of strangers to which the hon. and learned Member calls my attention. The evidence has been fully considered and reported on by the Committee, and it was open to any Member of it to have pursued this particular portion of the evidence further if it was thought expedient to do so. Under these circumstances, I am not in a position to offer the hon. and learned Member another Committee; nor am I in a position to re-open the proceedings of this Select Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To-morrow I shall ask the noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington), who presided over the Committee, why it was that the English Member who gave a ticket to a dynamitard was not summoned before the Committee?
  MR. LAFONE: May I, Sir, with the indulgence of the House, make a short personal explanation on this subject? I never gave any order of admission such as has been mentioned in evidence as given by me. The order was not an order of admission to the House at all; and I have never given orders for strangers to inspect the House without accompanying them myself; therefore, I am quite certain that, from first to last, there has been some mistake about this matter. If you will read the evidence you will see that Mr. Monro afterwards referred to the order said to have been issued by me, and remarked that, having since inspected the ticket, he found "it was not signed by Mr. Lafone, but by the Speaker's Secretary," and that it was stated to have
  1412
  been given to a visitor by Mr. Lafone. Mr. Monro might just as well have given the name of any other Member. I can only repeat that I have never given a ticket, and never been the means of admitting anybody to go over the House, without personally accompanying them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am sure the House will accept fully the statement of the hon. Gentleman; but I now ask, especially after what the hon. Member has told the House, showing that Mr. Monro was so grossly mistaken, whether the right hon. Gentleman can possibly see now any reason for not granting a Committee of Inquiry to take further evidence in reference to this gross mistake committed by Mr. Monro?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I really do not see that it is necessary that a fresh Committee should be appointed, or that the former Committee should be re-appointed. The former Committee that sat were capable of pursuing the inquiry further if they had thought fits; but they do not appear to have thought it necessary to do so.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the reason why some Members of the Committee were opposed to summoning the hon. Member for Bermondsey was that they wished to cast an unjust stigma on a political opponent?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say what the motives of the Committee were. I am only prepared to give the Committee full credit for desiring to do their duty to the House and the country.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recommend the House to take any action in the matter; and when will he give facilities for doing so?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not prepared to answer that Question without Notice. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the time of the House is fully occupied; and I could not ask the House to embark on a discussion which is likely to be prolonged. If, however, I received an assurance of a general desire on the part of the House to consider the Report, I would at once afford an opportunity of doing so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he would ash Mr. Monro can he

  1413
  give any explanation with regard to the point blank contradiction of his testimony by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone); and if he would tell the House what was Mr. Monro's exact position in Scotland Yard?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he was afraid he would have to ask for Notice of that Question, for his memory could not carry the information that would enable him to answer off-hand.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether the evidence was that the Speaker's Secretary had issued the order, which order was said to have been given by the hon. Member for Bermondsey to one of these suspected parties; and, whether he would refer to Mr. Monro the distinct contradiction of his statement by that hon. Gentleman; and if he would tell the House what was Mr. Monro's exact official position?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that Mr. Monro was one of the Assistant Commissioners of Police. He presided over the Criminal Investigation Department. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished for any explanation of Mr. Monro's evidence he must give Notice of the Question.

  THE NAVAL AND MILITARY DEPART- MENTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he was now in a position to inform the House of the names of the Gentlemen who were about to serve on the Royal Commission under the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington)?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H SMITH): I think I have already stated the terms of the Reference to the Commission; but perhaps it would be convenient if I stated them again. They are as follows:—
  "To inquire into the civil and professional administration of the Naval and Military Departments, and the relation of those Departments to each other and to the Treasury; and to report what changes in the existing system would tend to the efficiency and economy of the Public Service."
  The following are the names of the Gentlemen who will serve on the Com-
  1414
  mission:—The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) (Chairman), the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), Lord Revelstoke, Mr. Thomas Henry Ismay (Shipowner, of Liverpool), General Brackenbury, Admiral Sir Frederick William Richards, K.C.B., the hon. Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple), and the First Lord of the Treasury.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. BRADLAUGH (Northampton),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, there was no probability of the Lunacy Law Amendment Bill being reached to-morrow. With regard to the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill, he had ascertained the feeling of the House so far as he could, and it appeared to him to be in favour of referring it to the Grand Committee on Law. The Bill would accordingly be referred to that Committee.

  WAR OFFICE—HYPOTHETICAL INVA- SION OF THIS COUNTRY.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, Whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would lay on the Table the Paper to which Viscount Wolseley referred when he stated that 150,000 tons of shipping would be sufficient to convey 100,000 men across the Channel, and that what the noble and gallant Viscount said the other night, that 480,000 tons would be required, was incorrect?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, that there was no such Paper—it was a calculation; and the statement he made himself he believed was correct.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the noble Lord lay the Memorandum to which Viscount Wolseley refers on the Table?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not understand Viscount Wolseley to say what the hon. Baronet had imputed. Viscount Wolseley said that in The Soldier's Pocket Book an estimate

  1415
  had been made of the minimum amount of tonnage required to convey individual soldiers or horses.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked, whether, in the noble Lord's estimate, he took account of the guns without the ammunition?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes; the ammunition is included.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I should like to ask, whether these 100,000 men are supposed to be brought across the Channel in one trip?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The calculation which I laid before the House the other day was based upon the assumption that that was the amount of tonnage necessary to bring over an Army of 100,000 men, composed partly of Artillery and Cavalry, with a certain quantity of stores, packed as closely as possible for a short voyage.
  MR. HANBURYasked, whether it was true that there was no ammunition, except for experimental purposes?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No.

  NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE). TITHE DISTURBANCES IN NORTH WALES—ACTION OF POLICE AND EMERGENCY MEN.
  MR. T. E. ELLISrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the attack by emergency men and police upon men, women, and young persons attending tithe distraint sales at Llanefydd, Denbighshire, on May 17th, and the action taken consequent thereon by Denbighshire magistrates in issuing a proclamation, and calling in the military to carry out tithe distraint sales in various districts of the county; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he regretted to have to intervene between the House and the detailed discussion of the Local Government Bill. It was a misfortune that so little was known in Par-
  1416
  liament or in England of the occurrences which had taken place, or the sufferings of the peasants on the Welsh hills, and there was no Minister for Wales with time and opportunities to watch the proceedings and to hold the balance even between the parties in the tithe struggle. The events to which he wished to refer took place on the 17th of May, the day before the Whitsuntide Recess. As soon as the House re-assembled he gave Notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary of a Question, which he intended to put on the following Monday. The Question was put on the Monday; but the reply made by the right hon. Gentleman was so evasive and so unsatisfactory, and so at issue with the facts, that he had been compelled to put a further Question that day. The statements made by the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the Question, were not only inaccurate and misleading, but some of them absolutely false. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Clergy Defence Association had been constantly distraining for tithe, and selling the distrained stock without intermission since Christmas. They had now reached Llanefydd, a hill district, a short distance from the town of Denbigh. On the occasion of the struggle, to which he wished particularly to refer, a crowd assembled that was estimated by the Chief Constable, according to the Home Secretary, at 300 or 400. They had just visited a homestead called Bryngwyn, and the mass of the crowd numbering 300 or 400 entered a field on one side of the homestead, while Mr. Stevens and the emergency men and police entered into the road on the other side, and the only people present besides Mr. Stevens and the emergency men were some 50 or 60 men, women, and children. He entered into this matter because there was a crucial difference between the statement of the Home Secretary and those of the people of the locality.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)asked what was the date referred to by the hon. Member?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The 17th of May. There were not more than from 50 to 60 in the crowd which was attacked by the emergency men and the police. It was a misfortune that the events were

  1417
  not reported in full by the papers that were accessible to hon. Members; but the local papers, some of them in English, and some of them in the vernacular, had published full reports. The first paper he would quote from was The Wrexham Advertiser. He believed the account given in this newspaper had been substantiated by various bystanders. The report said—
  "The unfortunate row commenced when the majority of the crowd were at the homestead (Bryngwyn). Mr. Stevens and his emergency men were standing outside in the open place, and a young man was hissing, as is not unusual at such events, and being close to Mr. Stevens, who appeared not to like the noise, he caught hold of the man's throat and pushed him away. At that moment an emergency man struck him from behind with his staff, and the young man returned the blow by cutting his face with a stick."
  He (Mr. T. E. Ellis) did not mean to justify this use of a stick when a man was not attacked; but when attacked by an emergency man from behind, and surprised by a blow from a staff, this young man, William Jones, certainly did return the blow with a stick.
  "Two more emergency men then attacked him; he was thrown down into the hedge with an emergency man upon him, and received four severe wounds upon the head. At this moment the police and emergency men made a raid upon the small number of unresisting men in the road, and used their staffs unmercifully upon women, boys, and old men alike."
  He would quote also an account of the attack from another newspaper, The County Herald, not published in the same town, and the report in which was supplied by another correspondent. The County Herald said—
  "After going round the building once or twice, Mr. Stevens, his men, and most of the police went into the road, most of the crowd remaining in one of the fields.
  Therefore, the statement that the emergency men were outside is corroborated by two independent witnesses. The writer of The Herald report goes on to describe the attack made by the emergency men and the police on the crowd—
  "How the row began it is difficult to say, but it is stated that a young man kept booing right in Stevens's ear, and the latter jumped at his throat. The man then attempted to push him, when an emergency man came up and knocked him down with his staff. The police immediately pulled their staves out, whether by command or not we are unable to say, and began bâtoning indiscriminately. Men were knocked down without the slightest provocation. Blood was to be seen streaming on all
  1418
  sides. Men were lying down on the road insensible, or carried away by four or five of their friends. All were suffering from ghastly scalp wounds, and many suffered keenly from the loss of blood The sight of some of the wounded was awful. The blood flowed in such a proportion from the top of their heads till it congealed on their necks, face, and shoulders, presenting a sickening appearance. Such was the force with which the police struck their unoffending victims, that in one case, at least, a policeman's staff was split in two, and the half of it, with the number of the policeman on it, is now in the possession of one of the witnesses of the affray. Another one dropped his staff altogether. Of course, all those bludgeoned did not take their dose quietly, and a policeman and an emergency man were also wounded, but only slightly. One big, burly policeman, evidently with much more strength than brains, was seen to rush at a man who was trying to get away from the scene, and, using all the force he was capable of, to knock him down with his staff. Men who had been struck down once were again struck when on the floor."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Home secretary said that there was only one man who received a scalp wound; but, knowing too well the nature of the information sent by police authorities in Wales and Ireland to the Government, he (Mr. T. E. Ellis) took the precaution to consult the medical officer, who thus reports—
  "In answer to your inquiry concerning the condition of the wounded men whom I had to treat at Llanefydd, on the occasion of the disturbance in connection with the collection of tithe, I beg to say that on my arrival I found 16 or 17 men and boys of varying ages—one old man of 73, another of 60, and youths of 17 and 18. They were suffering from scalp wounds of different degrees of severity. In some cases there were three or four wounds on the same head."
  He found in the newspaper the names of more than 20 people who were seriously injured, their ages varying from 17 to 74. The doctor added that—
  "Hugh Roberts, of Plas Cwtta, was seriously ill for several days suffering from concussion of the brain."
  This man had only just come upon the scene, like several others. They had done nothing whatever, and some of them were not anti-tithers at all, but were in sympathy, if anything, with the authorities, and were only there in order to see what happened. He thought he had been able to show, from the few figures that he had given, that the attack was wanton, brutal, and in some respects that it was incredibly cruel; that old men of 60 and 74 were knocked down by the emergency men and police, and after they were knocked down were

  1419
  bâtoned on the head while upon the ground. It was not, therefore, too much to say that such an attack was incredibly cruel. Assuming that the young man, William Jones, was acting illegally, or had done anything violent in booing and groaning, there were 30 or 40 policemen who were quite capable of taking him into custody. But what happened? This man hooted and groaned at the tithe collector, who rushed at his throat, and immediately after an emergency man hit him with a riding whip. As soon as the attack was made on this youth, the emergency men turned round on the crowd and attacked them indiscriminately, hitting with their bâtons old men, women, and children alike. Now it seemed to him that, in cases of this kind, the police should be very careful not to provoke the crowd and engage them in a conflict. What he complained of, above all, was that these emergency men, who were nothing more than brigands and bandits in semi-military uniform, armed with the regulation police bâton, should have been let loose upon a crowd in this scandalous and indefensible manner. They were told, a short time ago, at the Winter Assizes at Anglesea, by Mr. Justice Wills, that "those who had to enforce the law should do so with the minimum of annoyance and inconvenience." Was it not a grim commentary on that advice that these emergency men should have been sent in semi-military uniform, furnished with police bâtons to use on the heads of the unresisting crowd? It might be said that the people had their own remedy, and that they could summon the emergency men and police before the magistrate. But was that the fact? What the magistrates did in face of this wanton attack was to publish in hot haste a proclamation calling attention to the illegality of men meeting together and using violence. Not content with warning the people of the provisions of an Act of Parliament, they went on to refer to the proceedings at Llanefydd as riotous, disorderly, and illegal. That was nothing more nor less than condemning them at once. Was it to be expected that people would ask for reparation from magistrates who had already prejudged the case, and threatened them with fine and imprisonment? Not only did the magistrates act in that manner, but they directed a troop of Lancers to come in and do the duty of
  1420
  the tithe collector. A private meeting of the magistrates was held at Denbigh, in which it was decided that the military should be called in, in order that they might accompany the tithe collector or emergency men who were engaged in the duty of collecting ordinary debts. Now, he maintained fearlessly that there was no occasion whatever, and no shred of justification, for calling in the military to do the work of tithe collecting, and to summon a detachment of Lancers at the cost of the county of Denbigh. If the Chief Constable of Denbighshire had used proper discretion, and had followed the example of the Chief Constables in Montgomeryshire and Anglesea, there would have been no occasion for calling in the military at a very heavy expense. The use of military for ordinary tithe collecting was utterly subversive of freedom and Constitutional rights. In another district, some miles distant, the military had been ordered to encamp for weeks in the field of the Vicar. His (Mr. Ellis's) opinion in regard to the use of the military for the collection of tithes was not a personal opinion of his own, but was already contained in what had become a State Paper. At the time of the crofters' disturbances in Scotland, this question was brought before the Government of the day. The authorities, as soon as they found themselves in any difficulty, asked for a contingent of Marines and soldiers; but what did the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) say in answer to the application? His reply was—
  "The duty of preserving the peace and exercising the law in a county rests upon the county authorities who are by statute authorized to maintain a police for that purpose. The number of the force must necessarily depend upon the state of the county and nature of the service; but recourse should not be had to military aid unless in case of sudden riot and extraordinary emergency, to deal with which police cannot be obtained and soldiers should not be employed upon police duty which is likely to be of a continuous character."
  In this case the military were sent not to quell a riot or to meet a case of emergency, but for the work of collecting tithes. In the district of Abergele and Llanfairtalhaiarn, a district several miles further off, the military had not been brought in in order to keep order. He

  1421
  might be told that all these disturbances in North Wales were due to the obstinacy of the farmers and peasants in not quietly paying their tithes. Now, the farmers and peasants throughout the whole of Wales had exercised the Constitutional right given to them in order to declare to the country generally what their views were in regard to the payment of tithes. He did not propose to enter into that question now. It was, however, a notorious fact than an overwhelming majority of the Members for Wales had been sent to the House of Commons in the last three General Elections to ask that the tithe should be used for some national purpose. Hitherto, the House of Commons had paid very little heed to the prayer of these peasants and farmers, or to that of the vast majority of the Welsh people. The Government refused last Session even to grant one night's discussion upon the question, although they knew it was a question which threatened social order in the Principality. Then what course had the farmers and peasants of Wales to take? They had to do the same as the other sufferers did in former times in England. They found themselves compelled to say that they would not pay the charge upon their land and labour, for a purpose repulsive and injurious to them, except under the compulsion of distraint. Although they were condemned by a Police Commissioner from London, the course they took was one which was justified by history, and certainly by Mr. Justice Wills, who presided at the last Winter Assize at Anglesea. What Mr. Justice Wills said on that occasion was—
  "If the people said they were not willing to pay for things which they did not like, and that they submitted to distraints so as to show their protest against the law, they would be perfectly justified in doing so. As long as they did that, nothing would be said against them. That was a kind of protest by which some of the best improvements in the laws, which years and years ago were found to be very oppressive, were brought about. This was a course which had been systematically carried out by the Quakers."
  Perhaps the House would consider that to be very high authority for the course these peasants had taken, and he found in the Charge of Mr. Justice Wills that there was another little sentence which was worth repeating to the House, the Home Secretary, and all the authorities
  1422
  in Wales who were acting under him. The learned Judge said—
  "The Welsh people were very awkward to drive, but they could be led anywhere by a little kindness and consideration."
  When the Chief Constables and the officers of the law treated them with kindness and consideration it was found that the Welsh people were very easy to lead. There was no people with whom a generous appeal found a more generous response; but when they tried to drive them there were no people who would struggle harder to resist those who were endeavouring to coerce and harass them. He confessed that he deplored exceedingly that there should have been any bad feeling in Wales in regard to this question. But he thought it was an insult to the Welsh people that the military should have been brought down there without cause. It was not only an insult, but a great financial loss to them; but, over and above all, it was intolerable that emergency men and the police should have been let loose to baton an unresisting and unoffending crowd. No doubt, it would be said that they ought to pay their tithes without requiring a process of distraint to be resorted to. If they wanted to face the Welsh question, and to bring it to a solution, they must do what the people of Wales asked them—namely, to devote the money to purposes that would be generally beneficial to the whole people. As long as they refused to do that, and brought forward coddling Tithe Bills, this struggle would go on. There were hundreds—nay thousands—of peasant freeholders in Wales who would pay no tithe except under distraint and compulsion. He gave the Government fair notice of that, and he did not do so without having investigated carefully what the condition of things and the facts were in Wales. Hon. Members on his side of the House had made up their minds once and for all that wrong-doing in Ireland must not go on unrestrained and unredressed, and he pressed them to make the same declaration in regard to wrong-doing in Wales. He appealed with confidence to Members on that side of the House to show to the Welsh people that they were not without sympathy in the struggle that was now going on. He also appealed to the House to listen

  1423
  calmly to an expression of opinion from the Welsh people themselves, and to remember, above all, that the Welsh people would not give up their rights and duties as a people. He asked the House not only to condemn what had taken place in Wales, but to stop the use of the military for the collection of ordinary debts.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSsaid, the state of affairs in Wales and the question raised in this discussion were extremely grave and important; and he was very sorry to see that when his hon. Friend rose to address the House a number of Members, especially on the Ministerial side, took so little interest in a matter concerning the welfare of one of the component parts of the United Kingdom as to walk out of the House. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House resisted any appeal made to them for Home Rule, on the ground that the Imperial Parliament was both able and willing to discuss and decide properly any question affecting the interest of any portion of the Kingdom, and this was the way in which they chose to show their willingness and their capacity. He trusted that the Conservative Party, who were now charged with the important function of government, would not pursue the policy of ignoring grievances in regard to Wales which had led to such deplorable results in the case of Ireland. He could not but believe that if the standpoint occupied by the Welsh people was properly understood for a moment by the people of England, they would not hesitate to apply their minds to the solution of this and similar questions; and if the grievances which were complained of were once properly understood they would be speedily removed, He did not propose to enter into the historical aspect of the question; but it was impossible to consider the tithe disturbances in Wales without regard to the nature and object of the grievances which brought the people together. They had in Wales the collection of debts due to particular persons and applied for a special purpose, that special purpose being one with which the vast majority of the Welsh
  1424
  people had no sympathy whatever—enforced by the continuous presence of the military, which was in itself calculated to wound the feelings of a people who had been, if possible, too patient under a long course of neglect on the part of their rulers in England. The principle of military aid was that when a sudden emergency arose, with which the Civil Authorities were unable to cope, they should have the assistance of the discipline of regular soldiers to enforce that obedience to the law which the Civil Authorities were incapable of enforcing. In this case neither of these conditions existed—the civil power was not overmatched—and matters had gone on for a considerable time, and they would continue to go on until an equitable and proper solution was arrived at in the way that was desired by the great mass of the Welsh people. The tithes against which the Welsh people protested were applied to the purpose, not of religion in general, but of a particular form of religion with which the people of Wales generally were entirely out of sympathy, and for which proceedings like those at Llanefydd were scarcely likely to awaken any affection or regard. It was difficult to see what course it was possible for the Welsh people to take? Lord Salisbury admitted the other day, when on a visit to Wales, that Wales was pre-eminently a nation, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had said that when a nationality had a grievance it should express its sense of it in no uncertain terms, The Welsh people had done so. How could they express their sense of their grievance more forcibly than they had done? They had returned a large majority of Members to Parliament pledged to settle the Tithe Question and that of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. They had exhibited their distaste and their grief at the methods adopted to enforce a particular form of religion by the presence of military and armed policemen; and if the account given by the Welsh newspaper authorities was only true in part, the authorities, in their attempt to enforce the collection of the tithe, took a course which was most calculated to provoke the people. Overborne, beaten, and harried by the police and the military, what refuge had they? If they came to that House the Ministerialists walked out, and

  1425
  evinced no interest in the subject, returning only to record their votes against the Representatives sent to the House by the Welsh people, Then, to what Constitutional source were they to apply for a remedy for this state of things? It was said that they had a remedy in the judicial tribunals in their own neighbourhoods —that they had the magistracy in their own country. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] His hon. and gallant Friend said "Hear, hear!" It only showed how little he knew of the constitution of the Welsh magistracy. He was himself so honourable and gallant a man that he could not understand how the magisterial system worked in Wales. The magistrates themselves were mainly selected from one class of the people, from the upholders of one form of religion, and it was not in accordance with the ordinary forces of human nature that they should expect any amount of proper sympathy from them with the grievances of the people. But the magistrates seemed to have prejudged the case; if they had contented themselves with an exposition of the law, whether that exposition had been right or wrong, there would have been no occasion to trouble the House with it. But, instead of doing so, they prejudged the question by issuing a proclamation authoritatively. The proclamation said that the Justices of the Peace of the Division assembled in Petty Sessions—he did not know whether it was a hole-and-corner assembly or not—had been informed that serious disturbances had recently taken place. Who was it that informed them? Had they the same information as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had to rely for his information upon the Chief Constable, who was himself one of the accused party, or upon Mr. Stevens who was also accused? The magistrates said that they had been informed of the recent disturbances which had taken place in the Division in regard to the collection of tithes. They desired to point out that two or more persons assembling together and conducting themselves in a turbulent and violent manner, and showing an apparent tendency to enforce their demands by violence, and making a great noise—as many hon. Members opposite often did—or acting in any way calculated to inspire the people with terror, or to intimi-
  1426
  date any person from the performance of his duty, committed an offence which rendered them liable to imprisonment with hard labour. As he had said, if the magistrates had contented themselves with an exposition of the law, it would not have been necessary to raise that question in that House. They might have shown their knowledge, or their ignorance, and the House of Commons would have passed it over in contemptuous silence; but they went on to show their real purpose, and here it was that he ventured to differ from the Home Secretary as to the construction which the right hon. Gentleman placed on the proclamation the other day. The magistrates in the proclamation proceeded to say—
  "The Justices further desire to point out that such tumultuous and riotous proceedings as had recently taken place in Llanefydd were unlawful, no matter what might be the cause or object of them."
  From whom did the magistrates obtain their information? Presumably, from the same sources which supplied the right hon. Gentleman with material for answering the Question put to him in that House. Whom did the Justices mean to describe as authors of the tumultuous and riotous proceedings? No hon. Member would believe that the police were included by them among those who were alleged to have been engaged in unlawful doings; but the fact was clear that the police were the cause of those riotous and tumultuous proceedings. That the magistrates intended, however, to point out the police and bring them under their censure he did not for a moment believe, and if not the proclamation is a condemnation by them of the people beforehand; no legal inquiry having been held or evidence on both sides produced and taken. The Justices in their proclamation declared that the law must be respected, and the peace preserved, and they gave notice that all persons who disturbed the peace of a district by taking part in any unlawful assemblies would be proceeded against according to law. That, however, would depend on what the assembly was. In this case, the police were the culprits, if there were a tithe of truth in the reports of the newspapers which had been quoted by his hon. Friend. Unfortunately police information was, as a rule, one-sided, and whether intention-

  1427
  ally or not was often untrue, and dangerous to be relied upon; and thus it had become necessary, in order to preserve peace and order in Wales, that attention should be called to the subject. His fellow-countrymen were essentially a peaceful and quiet people. If hon. Members knew how just the complaints of the Welsh people were; how constantly they had been neglected; if Englishmen, instead of declining to trouble themselves with the affairs of a small nationality like Wales, knew, as he knew, that there was no more patient law-abiding or religious people than the Welsh—he did not suppose that they were altogether without faults—they would pay more attention to their grievances. He did not claim that the Welsh were exempt from faults any more than other nationalities; but he did say that a better people, under a system which had ignored them for years, than the Welsh people it would be impossible to find. The Welsh people were not anxious to get rid of the mere payment of the money which was demanded of them for tithe; what they desired was that it should be paid and devoted to national and not to sectarian or Party purposes. He had as strong a desire as any man for the preservation of peace and order; but he thought the authorities ought to be most careful in enforcing the law not to display an array of arms, or call in unnecessary forces, which were only calculated to provoke a spirit of retaliation. It was to the attempt to enforce the claims of a particular form of religion by "Apostolic blows and knocks" that the disorders were to be chiefly to be referred. All who knew the Welsh people knew that they were only too ready to yield to any kind appeal that was properly made to them. The root of the evil consisted in this—that they had a disinclination to see their scanty supplies taken away from them for the support of a system which they did not believe in, and with regard to which they were altogether out of sympathy. Therefore, he deplored the refusal of the Government last Session to give the Welsh Representatives even one evening for the discussion of this great grievance; and he joined with his hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire in pressing on the Government that, however unimportant
  1428
  and however patient they might deem his fellow-countrymen, it was absolutely necessary to bring their minds fully to bear on what the Welsh people alleged to be their grievances. If they would only once do that, the English people would soon be convinced that those grievances were no sham or fancy grievances, and that they prevented them from fulfilling what, if they had fair play, was their destiny in the future. He, therefore, took this opportunity of earnestly appealing to the Government and to the House to bestow some attention upon Wales. It was scarcely an exaggeration to say that Englishmen knew much more of the internal condition of Japan than they did of the internal condition of Wales. If they refused to enlarge their knowledge and apply themselves to the subject, there was no alternative but to give to the Welsh the management of their own affairs. There were some who ought to know more, both in reference to Wales and Welsh literature, and yet a highly respected Member of that House had recently declared that Welsh literature was nothing but a few fragments of ancient poetry. If that ignorance prevailed in regard to Welsh literature, what was likely to be the state of facts with regard to the condition of the country and the habits and feelings of the people?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am bound to remind the hon. Member that by the Rules of the House the discussion must be kept closely to the definite point which has been raised, and that is the attack by emergency men and police upon men, women, and young persons attending tithe distraint sales in Denbighshire on the 17th of May.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSsaid, he would certainly comply with the injunction laid upon him by the Chair. He was just winding up the few observations he intended to make by expressing a hope that this opportunity would serve to impress on the minds of hon. Members of that House and the Government the necessity of making itself better acquainted with the wants and necessities of Wales. If they did so, he was satisfied there would be no further necessity for onslaughts to be made on the people by the police, nor for Motions for the Adjournment to be made in that

  1429
  House to secure the attention of the Government to the grievances of Wales.
  COLONEL CORNWALLIS WESTsaid, when he came down to the House that afternoon he had no information that there was to be an attack made upon the magistrates and police of the county which he had the honour to represent. He had not, under the circumstances, prepared any defence, and would, therefore, only state, in reply, that which was within his own knowledge. The action of the magistrates had been strictly legal, and the proclamation was issued with the sole desire of preventing future trouble, and to warn the population of the risk and danger they incurred by acting as they had repeatedly done. It was not a fact that the military had been called in before the police were made aware that they were unable to cope with the difficulty. He knew, as a matter of fact, that the police attended in small numbers by order of the Chief Constable, who himself came with only two men to see whether it was possible to deal with the matter quietly, and show the people that he had some consideration for them; but his attempt was not successful. He was followed by a howling crowd of 500 or 600 people. The same thing occurred again, and a meeting of the Justices followed, at which it was decided that there should be superior force present in order that the law should be carried out. What otherwise could the magistrates have done under the circumstances? There was a law which they were compelled to carry out, and they had done no more than their duty compelled them to do. The feeling of the people had been excited to such an extent as to call together large crowds, and it was not reasonable to suggest that the police were to allow themselves to be beaten off the field. He contended it was perfectly justifiable for those who were responsible for the peace to see that the law was carried out, however disagreeable it might be to those to whom it applied. He believed there might be difference of opinion with regard to the payment of the tithe, but the objection here was not alone to the portion of the tithe for Church purposes; he regretted to say that in his district there was an objection to that which went to support the schools in the locality. The people had
  1430
  been led by the Radical Press to believe that the payment of the tithe, in any shape, was objectionable, and that they were right in refusing to pay it. It had been to him the cause of the greatest possible sorrow to see what had been going on; and, believing that the agitation had been got up by men who urged the crowds to attend, he felt that the sooner a stop was put to the system the sooner would the peace of the country be restored. So far as the magistrates of the county and the Chief Constable were concerned, he believed they were actuated by the most humane motives, and, moreover, that the calling in of the soldiery had been the cause of preventing much that would have otherwise occurred, inasmuch as the soldiers at the present moment were on the best terms with the people of the district.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that for 17 years before his hon. and gallant Friend was returned for his Division he had represented the County of Denbigh; and, as one of the oldest Welsh Members of the House, he begged to tender his thanks to the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) for introducing this subject. In his opinion a gross outrage had been committed. The correspondent of The Wrexham Advertiser said that he passed several men upon the read who were being assisted home—
  "They were large bandages about their heads, and their collars, coats, and vests were covered with blood. Most of the men had been struck from behind, but William Jones, Baren Farm, had been struck on the temple and had a black eye. His face was a mass of red, while his clothes were covered with blood. On going into the small farm-house a scene almost indescribable met one's view. Several young men and youths patiently sat awaiting the doctor's attention; while one poor fellow was sitting undergoing the operation of having a large wound on his head stitched by Dr. Pritchard. The floor was more like that of a slaughter-house; blood mingled with hair formed a carpet. Large patches of blood were plainly to be seen on the road and on the grass alongside the road, while marks of a scuffle were visible against the hedge. The strange part of it is that the affair occurred in a very open place shaped like a triangle."
  His hon. Friend had mentioned the case against Major Leadbetter, about whom he wished to say no more than that, like many military men, he was more remarkable for zeal than discretion. When he heard the opinion of the magis-

  1431
  trates quoted against him, he was inclined to adopt a passage in Shakespeare's Henry the Fourth, and say with Master Dumbledon he should want some better assurance for Falstaff than Bardolph. He liked not the security. The magistrates seemed to him to have entirely lost their heads, and to have done an absolutely unconstitutional act. They sent forward a troop of Lancers, with ammunition enough to blow up the whole town of Denbigh, for the purpose of collecting a civil debt. Happily, the consequences were not as bad as they might have been; but, although it appeared that the troops had behaved exceedingly well, and, as he understood, had fraternized with the people, and had been regaled by the young women with new buttermilk and old Welsh songs, still great harm might have been done by having 50 or 60 armed men in a place where strong feelings prevailed, and it was obvious that bloodshed might have resulted. Looking at the circumstances, he asked what it was that had turned these peaceable, loyal, and law-abiding people, that he had known as such for 50 years, into an unruly mob? His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Denbigh (Colonel Cornwallis West) answered that it was the agitation of the Radical newspapers. It was very difficult for him or anyone else to deal seriously with that sort of answer. The fact was, the articles in the Welsh newspapers were the outcome, and not the cause, of the disturbances. If there had not been a deep-rooted feeling that the people were unjustly treated it was not likely that those articles would appear in the papers, or, if they had appeared, they would not have been read. The Church in Wales was losing ground in the rural districts——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not in Order in referring to the position of the Church in Wales on the question of tithe. The Question before the House relates to the conduct of the police towards men, women, and children at a certain place in Denbighshire on a particular day.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he respectfully pointed out that if there had been no tithes there would have been no distraints, and if there had been no distraints there would have been no disturbance. At the very place
  1432
  the tithe was paid by Nonconformists in the parish Nonconformity held the field. [Cries of "Order!"] He was as anxious as anyone in the House to reduce this discussion to proper limits, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) to look carefully into the matter, and see whether there was no way in which he could prevent these occurrences. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to have a second Ireland in Wales, the action of which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) complained was the one most likely to bring about such a consummation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he certainly did not propose to follow the hon Gentleman (Mr. T. E. Ellis) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) in their remarks about the application of tithes in Wales, the Disestablishment of the Church, and the various reasons which produced the excitement that, unhappily, prevailed in the Principality. He had viewed the progress of that movement with the greatest distress and anxiety, and no one could have regretted it more deeply than he did. This was not the time for him to enter into a discussion of that general question; but hon. Gentlemen opposite should not forget what fell from their own Leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and should not lose sight of the fact that, whether the tithe was devoted to one purpose or another, the people of Wales were not acting in the wisest way in encouraging persons to refuse payment of tithes, and in throwing away what might some day become a valuable national property. And now to come to the disturbances in this particular Welsh parish. Of course, he should not follow the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Adjournment in all the details he gave. He had no notice of the hon. Member's intention to bring this subject forward, and had only been able to gather hastily such papers as came readily to hand. But he did ask the hon. Member whether he seriously represented these riots as having originated in a sort of attack made by emergency men and by agents of the Commissioners rushing about Wales and assaulting persons gratui-

  1433
  tously and without reason? [Mr. T. E. ELLIS: Yes.] He (Mr. Matthews) could only say that the information at his disposal was of an entirely opposite complexion. He was informed by the Chief Constable, whose integrity nobody doubted or denied, that this organized attack upon the police followed at least two abortive attempts to collect these very tithes. On the 16th of May the representative of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners went in order to attempt to levy these tithes with two policemen. He did not say they were attacked, but they were so molested by a large crowd that they gave up the attempt to gather the tithes. They renewed the attempt next day with a force of 10 policemen. Again the crowd was noisy and threatening, and interposed such obstacles that the men had to desist and go back without distraining. This driving back of the officers of the law was not by mere passive resistance, but by the action of a crowd evidently brought for the purpose. Undoubtedly they interposed physical obstacles of considerable weight to any carrying out of the distress. ["No, no!"] He was speaking from the information before him, and he preferred the reports of a Chief Constable even to that of an anonymous correspondent of a newspaper. The crowd were more violent than on the previous occasion, and he repeated that they began the attack on the emergency men, and then the police interfered. He thought the "carpet of blood and hair" must be the result of Welsh fancy, and could not be quite taken as an accurate representation. Doubtless, many of the crowd were handled in a way one regretted to hear. The next point was the proclamation by the Justices. A Justice—whose name he was unable to give, as he had not the paper before him—had written to say that his was the hand which penned the proclamation, and he said they believed the crowd were really not aware they were doing an illegal thing when they assembled in crowds and conducted themselves as these people had done, and that the object of the proclamation was to point that out clearly to persons who were, when their feelings were less excited, both peaceable and law-abiding. That proclamation was no condemnation of any individual, or pre-judgment of the
  1434
  case of any person who might afterwards be brought before the magistrate; but merely stated that conduct of that sort was riotous and disorderly, and brought persons within the Criminal Law, without saying that A., B., or C. had been guilty of that conduct. It was in consequence of that further disturbance on May 18 that the magistrates came to the conclusion that the civil force at their command was insufficient, and that they ought to call in the military. He (Mr. Matthews) disliked the employment of the military in such cases as much as anyone, and was deeply grieved when it was necessary; but the Local Authorities were the best judges of the necessity; they acted not only with knowledge of the locality, but with the best possible information from the heads of the police. They had deliberately come to the conclusion that the police force was no longer able to keep the peace. If the magistrates even wrongly came to the conclusion that the police force at their command was not sufficient, it was their duty, as it was their right, to demand the assistance of the military, and it would be impossible for the military authorities to refuse. Hon. Members seemed to think that it was the act of the Central Government, but the Central Government had nothing to do with it. It was no part of his duty to defend the magistrates, but it would not be seemly if he were to allow even the suggestion that the magistrates of the country were supporting those men in violent attacks upon a peaceable population. That was a travesty of the facts and the order in which they occurred. Those persons disliked the application of the law; they were bent upon resisting it, and had done so for two days, and on the third occasion it passed into violence, blows were struck upon both sides, and the magistrates upon that demanded the assistance of the military, which the military authorities had no right to refuse. If he could do anything to restore peace in Wales, he should be very happy to do it. He hoped those people would take the admirable advice of the hon. Member who had moved the adjournment—that they should make their resistance a passive resistance, one which respected public order and the law of the land so long as it existed, and he felt quite sure the sympathies of

  1435
  that House would be extended to them much more in the wider struggle in which they would shortly be engaged.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) that the necessity for the Motion for Adjournment arose almost entirely from the gross inaccuracy of the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman, and on which he necessarily based his replies to Welsh Members. He did not mean this as an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he was obliged to frame his answers from the official information which he received from his subordinates in Wales; but, as a matter of fact, his information in relation to the public disturbances there was almost always inaccurate. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to carry back his mind to the former disturbances which occurred in Mochdre in the same county last year. The Questions which hon. Members then addressed to him were replied to upon the information, no doubt, supplied by the same individuals as in the present case, and it was to the effect that a large body of villagers, numbering 500, had made a wanton and unprovoked attack upon the police. Hon. Members knew at the time that that was inaccurate, and accordingly a Motion, similar to the present, was made for the adjournment of the House, and thereupon the right hon. Gentleman granted an investigation. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to compare the information he had then received from Wales with the facts proved at the inquiry. The Commissioner, in the inquiry referred to, stated in his Report that the disturbance was caused by a misunderstanding on the part of the police, who mistook the pressure of the crowd for an attack upon them. It was because the people trod on the heels of the police in coming down a narrow and steep lane that the latter turned round and attacked the people, and that had been represented as an attack upon the police by a crowd of 500 people. If the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter, he would find that the information given to him was as remote from the truth now as it was in the last case. It would be scarcely denied that the
  1436
  young man who was first embroiled in the disturbance was alone on the particular spot. The order of the procession was as follows:—Stephens was going on first, and William Jones was going by his side, then followed about seven or eight emergency men, then about 20 or 30 policemen, and these were followed by about 40 or 50 people. The rest of the crowd were taking a short cut across a field, and between Mr. Jones and the people in the road there intervened a number of emergency men and about 30 policemen, so that Jones was entirely cut off from the people. And yet it was intended to be conveyed that this young man made a most wanton attack upon Mr. Stevens, knowing that he was guarded by a number of armed emergency men and about 30 policemen, while he (Jones) was entirely unsupported. The statement bore upon its face the stamp of improbability. The policemen were all armed with bâtons, and what was the statement of the reporters, who obtained the most accurate information in their power, which they would naturally do, because it was to the interest of the newspapers to gain the most reliable information upon the subject? They said that Jones was hissing and booing, and that thereupon Stephens laid hold of him and tried to push him into a fence. That was the beginning of the struggle. Jones did not strike, but simply resisted being rushed to the fence, when he was struck by an emergency man, who rushed forward, raised his whip handle, and struck the young man on the head; Jones then struck back, and thereupon three or four emergency men felled him to the ground with their batons. The police then faced round and made an indiscriminate attack upon the people who had taken no part in the affair, and did not know that any row had occurred; they made an attack on men, women, and children in the crowd, some of whom were casual wayfarers on the roadside, who, seeing a mass of people, wanted to know what was the matter. Amongst the men who were attacked and wounded was a farmer, who did not support the movement, having himself paid his title in full, a fact which he mentioned to show how indiscriminate was the attack made by the police. There was the greatest in-

  1437
  dignation in the country at the conduct of the police, owing solely to the fact that they had made a wanton attack on innocent and defenceless people. If an attack were made upon the police, and they simply injured their assailants in defending themselves, not a word of complaint against them would be heard from those Benches or in the country. The conscience of the country would not support any complaint in such a case. He defied anyone to say that this action on the part of the police was done for the purpose of defending themselves from assault. The fact was that—whether it was that the police lost their temper or not he could not say—they had invariably been the first to attack and strike the first blow. There were considerable suspicions in the neighbourhood that the attack was premeditated, because the number of police had been greatly increased, although there had been no previous violence on the part of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had said the force had been increased because there had previously been two abortive attempts to distrain; but neither the hon. and gallant Member for West Denbighshire (Colonel Cornwallis West), nor the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had alleged that such attempts were abortive owing to as much as a single act of violence, and there had been no violence on the previous occasions. He (Mr. Bryn Roberts) ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman would not declare that it was illegal on such an occasion for the people to express their disapproval of the course taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and certainly no such expression of disapproval could justify an attack upon them by the police. It was practically admitted by the magistrates themselves that the previous attempts to levy were abortive, solely because Mr. Stevens did not like to be hissed and would not carry on his work under such circumstances. It would be well for the right hon. Gentleman in future to employ some independent person to report to him the real facts of the case, and he would then find that these disturbances would cease, because the emergency men and the police, knowing that then the real facts would be truly reported to head-quarters, would cease to make these wanton attacks upon the people.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 217: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No.129.)

MOTION

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (MORNING SITTINGS).—RESOLUTION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That whenever the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill shall be appointed for Tuesday or Friday the House shall meet at Two of the clock."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he presumed it was the wish of the House that the Bill should be proceeded with rapidly, and that there would be, he hoped, no objection to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal; but if the House gave up Tuesday and Friday mornings to the consideration of the Bill, he thought that on Mondays and Thursdays no Business should be put in the front of the Paper except this Bill and matters of Supply and Ways and Means.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he thoroughly entered into and sympathized with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. The Government felt that in asking the House for Tuesday and Friday mornings they were asking a great deal; but they did so for the sake of a measure in which the House took a very considerable interest, and which they were bound, therefore, to further as much as possible, not only on the two days he now asked for, but also on Mondays and Thursdays. The Government intended, therefore, that the principal Business on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays should be the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill in Committee, unless it were interrupted by Supply or any urgent measure, such, for instance, as the measure of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Wine Duties. There were also other small matters which might, from time to

  1439
  time, have to be placed on the Paper. It might be necessary, for instance, to take the Report stage of a Bill, in order to send it to the House of Lords, or a Money Resolution such as that which stood first on the Orders that Day with reference to the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. Unless that Resolution were passed, the Grand Committee could not deal with the clauses. There were necessarily matters of that kind which might have to be interposed between the meeting of the House and the commencement of the principal Business of the evening. He only mentioned those matters in order that there might be no suggestion of a want of faith on the part of the Government.
  In answer to Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby),
  MR. W. H. SMITHfurther said, that whenever it was found necessary to take other Business before the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill it would be so stated on the previous evening.
  In answer to Mr. STANSFELD (Halifax),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that on Tuesdays and Fridays no Opposed Business of any kind would be taken, except the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked if the Government would promise to do their best to keep a House on Tuesday and Friday evenings?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, he had no objection to give that pledge.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as the rest of the Session was to be mainly devoted to the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, he should like to ask, whether the Government proposed to introduce and press home the measures relating to Scotland which they had promised?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly. It is the desire of the Government to make progress with and pass several Scottish measures in the course of the Session, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman and those with whom he sits will assist the Government in passing the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill rapidly through the Committee, in order that we may be able to pass those other measures which we regard as of great importance, and which we consider ought to be passed this Session.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked if that applied also to Irish Bills?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly. Scotland is not to have a monopoly.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 181.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 181.]

    COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. SPEAKER: Before the House proceeds to the consideration of this Bill, there are several Instructions on the Paper standing in the names of hon. Gentlemen to which it is my duty to refer. The first Resolution stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. Gardner), and refers to the mode of election and constitution of Boards of Guardians. That question was settled by a Division upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) for an Instruction to the Committee on the Local Government (Electors) Bill, which was in these terms—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill with a view to assimilate the qualifications of electors of guardians of the poor, including the abolition of plural voting to the conditions prescribed in the Bill with regard to electors of county authorities."
    So that the Motion made with regard to the constitution of Boards of Guardians was clearly dealt with on that occasion. The second Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace), and it deals with the question of the administration of justice. That question, in my view, it would be irregular to attach to a Bill of this nature, otherwise a very reprehensible practice would be followed or instituted of attaching to a Bill a subject which is in no way relevant to it; it would amount to what is called a tack to a Bill, a practice which would load to considerable inconvenience, and which has been severely reprehended in former times. The same objection applies even in a stronger degree to a Resolution

    1441
    standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson), because the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes not to give extra powers to the proposed Councils, but he proposes to create a distinct series of Bodies whose jurisdiction would not be coterminous with counties, and which would extend over matters, as in the case of fisheries, of even International importance. Passing over, for the moment, the fourth Instruction, the last three instructions are unnecessary, as it is competent for hon. Gentlemen to move what they propose in Committee without the necessity of a previous Instruction. I have, therefore, lastly, to allude to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. F. S. Stevenson), which is in Order, and I now call upon that hon. Gentleman.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, it was not his intention to detain the House for many minutes on the subject of the Instruction standing in his name, partly because the necessity for dealing with this matter was largely pointed out in the course of the discussion on the Motion for Second Reading, and also because he ventured to think, and hope, that before the close of the discussion on the Instruction he had placed upon the Paper, it might be possible for the Local Government Board to make some proposal in the direction he wished to go. He was not aware what course the Government would take; but he ventured to point out that assenting to this Instruction did not commit them, or others who might support it, to any particular line of action. What it did commit them to was the principle that, in any measure of Local Government reform there should be included a provision for dealing with the reform of Local Vestries. The Vestry was an institution most endeared to the people; it was most connected with them by every tie that was historical, and in it they felt the deepest interest. He thought enough had been said on the second reading to show that there existed in many quarters of the House the feeling that no measure of Local Government would be complete unless it contained a provision of this character, and during the period that had elapsed since that debate a similar feeling had been found to exist. The rural districts
    1442
    laboured under a considerable disadvantage as compared with municipal boroughs. When the latter had a grievance a great agitation came into force; Members received letters from Town Clerks and deputations waited upon them; but in the case of rural parishes the inhabitants were scattered apart, and had no means of taking such steps and bringing their grievance before the House of Commons and the country such as were possessed by the municipal boroughs, and it was therefore necessary for them to wait until the time of a General Election, when the feeling of the local population found expression at the polling booth. In the case of a measure of such magnitude as that, he thought that the House and the Government would be very ill-advised if they were to wait until the next General Election to hear the opinion of the rural districts on this subject, and if they did not forestall what was now the opinion in the country at large. He had had the opportunity of coming face to face with the opinion in the rural districts, which was that the Bill, as it now stood, was not such as to meet the wants and requirements of the great bulk of the inhabitants of the rural districts. They were particularly interested in the magistrates, so far as their judicial functions were concerned, and in the Boards of Guardians. But while the Bill failed to deal with either, it also failed to deal with that in which they were still more concerned. Although parishes differed widely in size, some being very small and others very scattered, yet the parish formed the historical unit around which certain associations grouped themselves. To the inhabitants, the management of charity lands, allotment lands, were all matters of interest and were closely connected with parochial affairs, the administration of which at the present time was little more than a farce. The Vestries met at an hour when the bulk of the inhabitants were unable to attend; they met at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock in the morning, and this fact prevented the people from recording their opinions on local matters. Again, they were interested in having the power to elect their own chairman. At present, the incumbent of the parish took the chair, ex officio, and it was impossible, in those circumstances, for the inhabitants to

    1443
    have the same freedom of expression, of opinion which they would otherwise possess; and when it was decided that a poll should take place there came into operation, under Sturges Bourne's Act, the system of plural voting, which was of such a nature as to prevent the free expression of the wishes of the inhabitants. They were told that all this was to be remedied by the Local Government Bill, inasmuch as under it the inhabitants of the parish would have a direct voice in the election of representatives on the County Councils; but there was no sufficient reason for thinking that the inhabitants of the rural districts would find from the County Councils that amount of consideration which would remove from them the apathy and indifference which they now felt in Local Government. In the first place, the County Council would meet in the county town, which, in many instances, would be very remote indeed from other parts of the county, and it would be difficult for anyone, except those who had leisure and wealth, to engage in the transaction of county business. Again, the inhabitants of the parish would not have any strong interest in the action of the County Council, because the elections would be so frequently fought on the drink question, and if the Compensation Clauses remained in the Bill those who were sent to the Council would not be the persons who sympathized most with the wants and wishes of the inhabitants. These were some of the reasons why they would not take interest in the County Councils, and it was on their account that they wanted to send men who would really represent them. Then, with regard to the District Councils, they were told that the powers of the Sanitary Bodies, including such matters as that of allotments, were to be transferred to them. He ventured to think that it was impossible for the interests of the inhabitants of the different parishes of a district to be adequately represented by an area so wide as the existing sanitary area. He ventured to point out that the reason why the Allotments Act had been in many parts inoperative was that its application had been entrusted to so wide an area as that in which it was now proposed to establish the District Council. He was also of opinion that the question of water supply ought not to be dealt with
    1444
    by District Councils, but by the parish. Since the debate on the second reading he had received letters from various parts of the country, in which special stress was laid on the power which ought to be vested in the parishes to maintain their own water supply. It was pointed out that in many places it was impossible to obtain an adequate water supply, the cause being that the sanitary area was too wide to allow the wishes of the inhabitants to be carried out. In the case of a parish of 500 inhabitants, it appeared that the only means of getting water was to sink a well, which could only be done by voluntary effort at the present time, the Vestry being unable to take any action in the matter. It appeared to him that such a condition of things ought to find a remedy in the present Bill. He contended that if the parish was left out the title of Local Government Bill would be a misnomer, and he believed that the Government had not altogether realized the task they had entered upon by that omission. The Government were, in his opinion, taking a step in a wrong direction in removing from the Vestries powers which were capable of considerable development, and he pointed out that if they took steps of that kind in a centralizing direction, they would be unable to retrace them, and the powers taken away from the parish vestry could never be restored. Therefore, they ought to make an earnest endeavour to restore to the parish what the Bill proposed to take away from it. Their object should be to develop local life and interest. He could not conceive why, with all the interests and associations clustered around the parish, they should be unable to do what was done so successfully in France and America and other countries. They were told that some parishes were too small to be dealt with as being capable of self-Government; but as far as that went, out of about 15,000 parishes in England and Wales there were only between 1,200 and 1,300 in which there were less than 100 inhabitants, and in those cases there would be no serious difficulty in extending the process now carried out under the Divided Parishes Act. While England and Wales together had about 15,000 parishes there were in France about 36,000 communes. The average size of the latter was considerably less

    1445
    than the average size of an English parish, and the commune had its own Mayor and Municipal Council. If the system existed in France under the circumstances described, it ought to be much easier to carry out that system in England. Again, he had the example of certain American States before him, and would take New York as typically representative. He found that a village in that State of 300 inhabitants had certain powers vested in its representative authority, and he remarked that they were wider than any Member of the House would propose to confer upon an English parish. From the extremely long list of powers he would read a few items. They had power to compel the removal and abatement of public nuisances, to regulate hawking and peddling and parish grounds, to establish bye-laws, to regulate museums, and to protect trees, to regulate the water supply, drainage, and other matters. These were powers which, as he had said, no one would propose to give to the authorities of an English parish. The wide scope of those powers showed, however, how easy it would be to vest in the English parish the powers asked for. He did not wish to press at that moment any particular Amendment upon the attention of the House, because the object of the Instruction was to enable consequential Amendments to be made in the Bill in connection with parish Vestries, but he thought there were some principles which ought to be adhered to in any Amendment which might be introduced in Committee to deal with this matter. To Clause 47 he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in which certain of those principles were embodied, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would find on examination in a more perfect form. In the first place, it provided that the powers proposed to be transferred to the District Council should remain with the parish, if the Vestry should choose, and on the condition that the Vestry should be reorganized on a new basis—namely, that it should meet at a reasonable hour, that the members should vote by ballot, elect their own chairman and other parish officers, that they should have the right of delegating to them certain functions, and that the matters placed in their hands
    1446
    should be such as were distinctly and specifically the affairs of the parish itself. Such matters as those specified in Clause 47 were also to be retained in the hands of the existing Vestries. His Amendment also proposed that the allotments question should be in the hands of the parishes instead of the District Councils. In addition to this the parish was to act as trustee of charity lands, and other powers might hereafter be conferred upon it. He pointed out, however, that the carrying of this Instruction did not necessitate that those who voted for it should vote for the Amendment be had mentioned with regard to Clause 47. There were other Amendments of which he had given notice also relating to the parish, and there was one that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had placed on the Paper which he should most cordially support. But if this Instruction were lost it would be impossible for hon. Members to introduce any Amendment dealing with parish government, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give a favourable consideration to the Instruction in order that a most vital and essential part of Local Government might not be destroyed, but that, on the contrary, everything possible should be done to develop that local life and energy which he was afraid the Bill in its present form did so much to take away. He hoped the Government would not shelter themselves under the futile plea that the introduction of an Instruction of this kind would over-burden the Bill. That would be simply for the Government to shelter itself behind a plea so often put forward by crafty politicians for the purpose of disguising their craftiness. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would support the Instruction, by doing which they would make it possible for hon. Members on both sides of the House to bring forward on the Committee stage proposals dealing with the reform of parochial government. If the Government were not prepared to do this the district clauses ought to be opposed, on the ground that they would take away from the parish powers which could not be restored, and because, so far from meeting the wishes, feelings, and wants of the various parishes, they would, on the contrary, be taking the life-blood from them, and doing more

    1447
    than had been done perhaps during the last two centuries to remove that sense of independence and self-reliance which, in the past, had so largely helped to make our rural population what they were at present, in spite of an injurious Poor Law and a still more injurious land system. For these reasons he hoped the Government would not meet the Instruction with an emphatic "No," but that they would declare their willingness to accept its principle in order that the reform of parish government, so essential at the present time, might be effected.
    MR. COBBsaid, he would not detain the house more than a few moments in seconding the Instruction which had been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. F. S. Stevenson). He could not help thinking the course the Government had taken in dealing, or rather in not dealing with the question of parish Vestries was a very unexpected one as regarded the rural population in villages in England and Wales. He thought it was generally understood in the debate that took place last Session on the Allotments Bill——
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. COBBsaid, he was saying that the course the Government had taken, in excluding altogether any notice of Vestries was a very unexpected one to rural populations in England and Wales. Those of them who had taken part in the discussion last Session had reason to believe what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie)—namely, that the question of Boards of Guardians and Vestries would be dealt with in the present Bill. Now, he (Mr. Cobb) looked upon what the right hon. Gentleman had said as a distinct pledge, and he would very shortly quote what the right hon. Gentleman had said in answer to a question put by him (Mr. Cobb) and his Friends. On the 19th August last the right hon. Gentleman used these words—
    "The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in supposing that the present Government imagine that they will deal adequately with the question of local government, if they confine their
    1448
    attention to the reform of local county government or the setting up of a County Authority. If the hon. Member saw the Bill now in print he would find that we propose not only to deal with County Authorities, but with all authorities within the county."—(3 Hansard, [319] 1,183.)
    He (Mr. Cobb) did not know whether when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of all the authorities within the county, in his own mind, he included Vestries; but he (Mr. Cobb) could tell the right hon. Gentleman this—and he had some knowledge on the subject, as he had had an opportunity of seeing and conversing with a great many of those who had hoped to derive some benefit from the Bill—he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that those people and the country people generally believed that the right hon. Gentleman had meant that. On the 5th of September, in reply to an hon. Member, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board used these words—
    "I have already said more than once that it is the intention of the Government on the earliest possible day to introduce a Bill dealing with Local Government, not only providing Local Government for counties, but also dealing with Boards of Guardians and other Local Authorities, which, I hope, will be placed on a more popular basis."—(3 Hansard, [320] 1,302.)
    That, also, they (on the Opposition side of the House) took, and he knew that the labourers and artizans in rural districts also took it on their part to mean that the Vestries and Boards of Guardians would be dealt with. Hon. Members expected, and those people expected, a thoroughly popular measure. They had expected a measure which would not only reform existing institutions, but would also provide new institutions founded upon a popular basis. Now, he would ask the House whether there was any body more important in a rural district than the Vestry? The Vestry had been looked upon, for reasons which he would point out presently, as they had hoped it would be looked upon in the future, as really a Village Parliament. They had hoped, and they had reason to hope, that the parish would be adopted as the unit of Local Government, and he was sure, when he had told the House the reasons they had for so doing, hon. Members would admit that they were reasonable in their expectation. Everyone remembered the scheme which was introduced by the

    1449
    right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1871, called the Rating and Local Government Bill. In introducing that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the unit of local administration would be the parish, and one of the objects of the Bill, and as be (Mr. Cobb) understood the right hon. Gentleman, the main object of the Bill, the incipient object, if he might say so, was that the Vestry should annually elect parochial boards and manage their own affairs. He was not going to follow the hon. Member for Eye through his speech. The hon. Member had passed over somewhat lightly the reforms of the Vestries which they had hoped to find in this Bill; but he would, with the permission of the House, point out some reforms to which the agricultural population of the country looked as applying to their institutions. They were very simple, so simple that he could not imagine how the Government had failed to deal with them. He could not imagine how the Government could vote against this Instruction; he could not imagine what object they had in doing so, as these simple alterations which were proposed were necessary in order to do justice to the agricultural population in the counties. What were the main reforms asked for? First of all, there was a reform which he was sure everyone in the House would admit to be absolutely necessary. Surely, it was right, in the case of the meeting of a Vestry, as in the case of a meeting of Parliament or of any other legislative assembly whatever, that the meeting should take place at an hour when those interested in its proceedings were able to attend. But how was it in the case of parish Vestries? Did not hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House know, as he knew, that parish Vestries were very often designedly called to meet at such a time that those who were interested in its work were not able to be present? The meetings were called for 10, half-past 10, and 11 o'clock, and so on, hours at which, as hon. Members knew, labourers and artizans and small shopkeepers could not possibly attend, and the result was that the Vestry meeting very often consisted solely of the vicar and the parish clerk. Now, the vicar was instrumental in calling the meeting. He (Mr. Cobb) had had some experience
    1450
    of vicars calling these meetings, and he had taken some trouble to investigate several cases where meetings were called, not in the evening, but in the morning, at hours when it was impossible for the parishioners to attend. It so happened that in his own constituency he had come across many cases of the kind, one of them of such a remarkable nature that, with the permission of the House, he would state it. In his own constituency in Warwickshire there was a village called Kineton. Well, the villagers there, the artizans and small shopkeepers, and agricultural labourers, sent a very proper and respectful requisition to the vicar, asking him to call the Vestry at a time when they might be able to attend and express their views on parochial affairs; and he would read the letter which the Rev. Mr. Miller, the Vicar of Kineton, sent in reply to this requisition. It was a long time ago, and he (Mr. Cobb) had had the letter he was about to read in his possession for some time; but that was the first opportunity he had of using it. The letter was dated the 24th of March, 1886, and was in these terms:—
    "Mr. G. Jarvis and others.
    It appears to be customary to choose one of the twelve hours of the day for a Vestry meeting—if otherwise, many might reasonably complain. Permit me to advise you—to 'be content with such things as ye have,' to 'love God with all your heart, your neighbour as yourself, and to do your duty in that state of life unto which it has pleased God to call you.'
    Yours faithfully,
    F. R. MILLER."
    Now, one would have thought that this gentleman, looking at the position he occupied in the Church, would have been able to quote accurately the Church Catechism. The Church Catechism was, at all events, liberal in this respect—that it gave some hope to everyone who read it, that there might at some time or other be a change in their state of life; but this vicar told the people that they must be content with such things as they had. He misquoted the Church Catechism, and said they were to do their duty in that state of life to which it had pleased God to call them, though the House knew very well that the Church Catechism mercifully contemplated some possible change in that position by holding out a hope that it might please God to call them

    1451
    ultimately to something better—some amelioration in their present condition. As a matter of business, there surely could be no objection to accepting that Instruction. What possible objection could there be to introducing clauses in the Bill, obliging the Vestry meetings to be held at such times as to enable the parishioners to attend? Secondly, as was well known under the present law, the Vicar had the right to take the chair at every Vestry meeting. Why should that be? Why, in the world, should Vestries not have the right of selecting their own chairmen? If the Vicar was the best man to take the chair, they might be quite certain that he would be the person chosen; but, if he was not the best person, why on earth should he have the right to take it? Vicars were not all accustomed to live in their parishes, and, for local as well as other reasons, might not always be the best men to take the chair, although he admitted that in many parishes probably they would be the best men. He was not giving altogether his own opinion upon that subject, for, if the House would allow him, he would quote a passage from what he thought the best book upon Vestries which had been written. It was called a Treatise on Vestries, and was written by Mr. Justice Wills. Here was a passage bearing upon the Chairmanship of Vestries, which occurred on page 51 of that book—
    "The proceedings of Vestries are liable probably to more irregularity and informality than those of any other class of public meetings, inasmuch as they are not only frequently distinguished by great heat and animosity between the contending parties, but are commonly conducted by chairmen whose bias is strong and almost uniformly in one direction, and whose habits and occupation render them unlikely to be familiar with the usual practices of men of the world in respect to the conduct of public meetings and the transaction of business thereat."
    Then, the third point of reform, those who advocated this Instruction maintained was a very simple one, especially if this Bill was to be passed. It was thought in connection with the Vestries that the principle should be recognized of one man one vote, and that that vote should be given by ballot. He did not wish to go over the same ground traversed during the second reading of the Bill, and he did not wish to deal with
    1452
    the evils of plural voting, The Government were thoroughly alive to those evils, or they would not have adopted in this Bill in the election of the County Council, the principle of one man one vote. Well, he asked, if County Councils were to be elected on that principle, why should not Vestries and Boards of Guardians be so elected? They were giving the villager the right of voting by ballot; they were giving him a vote which would count for as much as that of any other man, whatever amount of property he might possess, at County Council elections. But these County Councils were of very little importance to the villager as compared with the Boards of Guardians and Vestries in which he was interested. Then there was a fourth point on which reform was required, and that was the right of adjournment of Vestries. One was accustomed in public meetings—in that House, as also, he supposed, in every assembly that was conducted on proper principles—to decide the question of adjournment for themselves. It was generally held that those who belonged to an assembly should decide whether or not an adjournment should take place. He admitted that there was some difficulty from a legal point of view with regard to Vestries in this matter; but he believed that, according to the latest decisions, it had been held that the only person who had the right to adjourn a Vestry meeting was the Chairman, who was the incumbent of the parish. What a very small thing then it would be to introduce into this Bill a clause bringing about these reforms in connection with parish Vestries—particularly upon this point, saying that Vestries should be adjourned by resolution. Probably, the most important thing which the parishioner claimed for parish Vestries was that they should have the right of electing their own parish officers by ballot, as he had explained, on the principle of one man one vote. The election of parish officers was a very important thing indeed. Here, again, he would assure the House that he was not going over the whole second reading ground with regard to churchwardens and overseers, except to this extent—namely, to point out that it was a most important thing for the people in a village to have the right of electing their own

    1453
    churchwardens and their own officials—for this reason, that in a great number of parishes the parochial charities were vested in the incumbent, overseers and churchwardens, and if the people had the right to appoint overseers and churchwardens, they would have a majority on the Committee that carried out the distribution of these charities, and thus they would have what was intended for their own benefit in their own hands, instead of in the hands of those, who, he was sorry to say, now largely applied those charities, not for the benefit of the poor, but for the benefit of the Established Church. He did not know whether he was right in saying so, but it had struck him in reading the debates an the Allotment Bill of last Session, that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had not sufficiently appreciated the importance of this question of Vestries. He knew that it seemed a very small matter to many hon. Gentlemen in the House, and he must say that it seemed small also to some of those who were now pleading for parish reform, before they had to mix with the people in the counties as he had had to do, and before they were aware of how vitally important it was to the people in the parishes that they should have the management of their own affairs. He could assure the Government that this question of parish Vestries was no small matter. He believed that that question, and the question of Boards of Guardians, which the House would have to consider very fully when they came to the Amendments on the Bill, were far more important and far more thought of by the people in the villages than any question of County Councils or District Councils. Those questions, in his opinion, the people in the villages cared very little for. Now, he hoped very much that the Government would allow this Instruction to pass. If they did not, ho was speaking for himself, he hoped his hon. Friend who had moved the Resolution would go to a Division upon it. He should like to know why hon. Members should not have, at all events, an opportunity of bringing forward any Amendment they might like to propose in Committee. Why should the Government deprive them of an opportunity of having their proposals debated. He could tell the
    1454
    Government that the Bill, as it now stood, would not satisfy the villages; he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board knew that, but he was quite sure that the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) did. That hon. Member knew it probably better than he (Mr. Cobb) did, having mixed more with the people than he had. The hon. Member know that the villagers of the country thought more of their Vestries and Boards of Guardians than they would think of any County Council or District Council that might be established. It was true, and he admitted it, that the Government had been liberal in the matter of County Councils, and he, for one, accepted what they offered gratefully. It was true that the Government gave the people of the villages a vote for members of the County Councils—that was to say, for a very small fraction of a member of a County Council for every village—but it must be borne in mind that County Councils would be inaccessible to the ordinary villager. The County Councils would be far distant, and almost as difficult to get into as that House—and every Member of that House knew how far away he was from every villager, and how little a villager could expect to get anything from that House. But he thought the main reason why he should urge the Government to accept this Instruction was this—that the villagers of the country had certainly been led to expect that parish Vestries would be dealt with in the Bill. He had already quoted what the President of the Local Government Board had told them in dealing with the Allotments Act last Session. But the expectations of the villagers had been founded not only upon what the right hon. Gentleman had said, but upon other speeches made to them by politicians, and especially by one who was now supposed to have great influence on the counsels of the Government. He (Mr. Cobb) remembered very well, in September, 1885, travelling a very long distance to attend a meeting—and a very good meeting it was, he enjoyed it very much—to hear a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). This was what the right hon. Gentleman said in Glasgow on that day; and he quoted it because it ex-

    1455
    pressed in far better language than he (Mr. Cobb) could hope to use, what his (Mr. Cobb's) views were now, and what he hoped the right hon. Gentleman's views still were. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I want to build up a system of Local Government from below from small beginnings. I would like to see no parish, no village, without some kind of Local Authority. I do not want to crush out the germs of local life, however small and insignificant they may appear to be. I want to foster them, and to promote the political education of the people."
    Then, again, a few weeks afterwards, on the 14th of October, at a meeting at Trowbridge, at which he (Mr. Cobb) was not present, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "But what is meant by Local Government? If you want to know what the Liberals mean, let me ask you to read the admirable exhaustive speech which was delivered last night at Halifax by my Friend, Sir Charles Dilke. You will find our proposals complete in every detail. I will only say briefly of them in a sentence that they comprise the idea of a thoroughly popular Local Government in every village, in every Union, in every county, which should be given the largest powers and widest discretion, by which the local affairs of the people should be conducted without supervision or interference."
    He only hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham adhered to these views that day. He could only hope that one of the benefits, at all events, that the rural labourers would reap from the present action of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Rural Labourers' League would be the promotion of the opinions then expressed by the right hon. Gentleman; although he (Mr. Cobb) very much feared, from the names of the Vice Presidents of that Institution, that it would not turn out to be so so. He felt that he had detained the House too long. He presumed that the answer which would be made by the President of the Local Government Board, when he got up to address the House, would be that there was no time to put everything into this Bill. Well, of course, they all, as sensible men, recognized that. Of course, the Bill could not deal with everything; but he (Mr. Cobb) had a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He had pointed out, as far as possible, the nature of the changes they desired.
    1456
    Those changes could be effected very easily indeed. He (Mr. Cobb) had a Bill before the House which probably the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not read. If the right hon. Gentleman had read it, he would probably have found that some of its clauses might very well be introduced into this Bill. They would be very simple, and, he thought, could be accepted by all sections of the House. But he had a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman even as to the short time it would take to get this measure, and that was that he should drop some parts of his own Bill, which, it was obvious, would give rise to very great discussion, and which he thought it was equally obvious the Government would never pass. He alluded to the Lincensing Clauses of the Bill. If the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) were present, he (Mr. Cobb) would have made bold to have suggested to him that he would save some of the time of the House by dropping one of the measures that the Government laid before the House—namely, that for giving a salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had already wasted a considerable time on that measure, and if the right hon. Gentleman would now give it up, there would, no doubt, be plenty of time to pass the few clauses he (Mr. Cobb) recommended. He invited the attention of hon. Members on the other side of the House to his proposal. There were, he knew, a great many hon. Members on the other side who represented agricultural constituencies. He defied those hon. Gentlemen to tell him that this question which he was dealing with was not one of interest to agricultural constituents, and he defied them to tell him that when they voted against the Resolution, as they would be doing that night, at the behest of the Government, they would not be voting against that portion of their constituents who were the rural labourers and artizans. He could tell the Government that if they made this small concession—and it was a very small one indeed, though large to the people who lived in the country districts—if they would really reform the Boards of Guardians and Vestries, they would confer the greatest blessing that had been con-

    1457
    ferred on the people of the villages for many years; for those people would feel, what they had never had occasion to feel before—and what he (Mr. Cobb) felt they could not feel then—namely, that they had power to manage their own affairs.
    MR. JAMES ELLISsaid, he wished to say a few words on the Resolution before the House from a practical point of view. He had, during a great part of his life, taken part in the management of the parishes immediately around his place, and he had extensive experience of the great utility and value of the work——
    MR. SPEAKERI am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have not yet put the question.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions for the reform of parish vestries."—(Mr. Francis Stevenson.)
    MR. JAMES ELLISsaid, he was saying he had had great experience in regard to the operations of Vestries. In the parish in which he lived at one time the Vestry meeting was held in the morning, and the vestry of the church being so small, it was found inconvenient to hold it there. There were three public-houses in the village, and the meeting was held at each of these in succession. When he went down to the first Vestry meeting at the first public-house the clergyman took the chair, and he (Mr. Ellis) moved that the meeting be removed to the village school room. That resolution was carried, and from that time to the present the Vestry had been held in the village school room at half-past 7 in the evening, which was the time proposed by the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Resolution to the House. From the time the Vestry meeting was held in the evening almost every householder in the parish in which he lived had regularly attended it, and taken part in its debates, and the result of that had been that a village life had grown up. The state of things was entirely different to that which had obtained before these evening meetings were held. The same practice had extended to several of the large villages round that with which he was more intimately connected. The Vestry meetings there were now held in the evening,
    1458
    and were attended by a great part of the inhabitants of the villages, and he was only sorry that these Vestries had not greater powers than they at present possessed. Some villages were too small to have efficient Vestries, and he believed that if the Government had consolidated the villages so that they would have had no Vestries at all except for districts of a population of 500 or 600, and if greater powers had been given to the Vestries, they would have had a better Local Government Bill, even if no District Councils had been proposed at all. He believed they might have gone directly from the consolidated Vestries to the County Councils, and that by doing that they would have had a much better Bill than that proposed by the Government. His opinion was this—and he know, from his experience of Boards of Guardians, that many men who were intelligent and fit to take part in village debates, and would be perfectly fit to go and represent villages on Boards of Guardians, were unable to do so, because they had no conveyances, and the place of meeting was often six or seven miles from their homes. That would also be the case with regard to County and District Councils. The man who took part in and would do the work of the village Vestries, would not take the same active part which it was desired that they should in the management of county affairs. He had not found the difficulties connected with the position of the clergymen of the parishes which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb) had found. In his own parish, he (Mr. Ellis) always took the chair himself, as the clergyman was averse to taking it. The meeting was held on Saturday evening now, so as to enable him to attend to take the chair; but in other villages he believed that the clergyman mostly took the chair, and, no doubt, in nine cases out of 10 they were the best men to do so. No doubt, it would be found, if the needed parish reforms were brought about, that the clergymen in the parishes would be alive to the responsibilities of their position, and would be prepared to act justly by those they came in contact with. He was amazed that any gentleman holding the position of a clergymen of the Church of England should have written such a letter as that which the hon.

    1459
    Member (Mr. Cobb) had read. He (Mr. Ellis) complained that the centralization system of the Local Government Board had been snatching one right after another from the parishes. He remembered some years ago thinking that it would be a good thing to take the young people round and beat the bounds of their parish. There were difficult points to remember in connection with the bounds of an English parish, and few people could tell where the bounds were. The English parish was not a straight square, like an American division, but went in and out, here by a brook, there by a lane, and it was important that the young men of the parish should know where the bounds were. Well, when they had beaten the bounds, what did the Local Government Board do? Why, they struck out the two guineas expenses which had been incurred, and the people of the parish had to collect the money themselves. It was not so much that fact as the interference of the Local Government Board that he complained of. Then there was another matter in which the Local Government Board had interfered with the parish. They used to kill sparrows in the parish. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh at the killing of sparrows, and think it a very foolish thing; but, so far as he was concerned, he thought it a very wise thing; at any rate, they used to do it in the parish of which he was speaking, and when a charge was made in respect of the operation the Local Government Board struck it out, although the money, of course, would come out of their own pockets. This charge also had to be met by a popular subscription. He thought the Government, in their Bill, should make the villages big enough, and then give them the right to manage their own affairs. With regard to education, he thought that the parishes, when made sufficiently large, should have the management of that. He was not prejudiced against the Church schools, having been a manager of several national schools and chairman of a large Board. He had no feeling against the national schools, but he must say the time was coming—and must come—when the education of the people in the parish must be managed by the people of that parish. The reason that the parishes had not the management of
    1460
    education was that some areas were extremely small, and there were a large number of extra-parochial districts where no burden for education was borne. Well, if the Government had sent out someone with powers to construct parishes, say, of 500 inhabitants or upwards, and then give those parishes as much power as they could, they would have done much better for the parishes than by constructing an elaborate scheme of county government. Another thing they wanted in rural parishes very much, and that was the right, as there was in towns, to establish free libraries. It might be a small library; but they wanted a library. They wanted also the right of constructing play grounds for the people In his own parish, in consequence of the In-closure Laws, the parish common was taken away about 1800, and the people could only play now on the side of the road. In his opinion, the parish Vestry ought to have the power of acquiring some field, which they could devote to the recreation of the people. The Vestry, too, ought to be able to provide a room in which the people could meet in the winter time. These were larger questions than some people imagined, because they affected the condition of the labouring class. The absence of amusements, of libraries, and of other means of instruction, tended to drive men more and more into the large towns. Day by day and year by year they were intensifying an evil which they all lamented. It was time they looked this matter fairly in the face—to give power to the County or District Councils would not attain the object in view; they must make the parishes large enough, and then give them power to act. A good example of parish government was afforded across the water; our kinsmen in America were wiser than they were. Some people might think that American politics were corrupt. Perhaps they were, but the village and town assembly had always been clean. He did not allude to large places like New York, but to little villages far back, not only in New England, but away West. The village life there was pure; and it was from such village life that great Presidents of America had arisen—men like President Lincoln. He begged the House not to pass this measure, for-

    1461
    getting that the one thing they ought to care for in this country was the welfare of the parishes.
    MR. STEPHENSsaid, he very gladly joined in the request made on the Opposition side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give his earnest consideration to this matter. He felt that the House could hardly realize, and he was quite sure that the country at large did not realize, that by this Bill the parishes of England would practically cease to exist. It would be found that under Clauses 46 and 47 parishes were entirely superseded in all their remaining powers by the Rural District Councils. The Rural District Council was the successor to the Rural Sanitary Authority. Of a Rural Sanitary Authority he had had a good many years' experience; and he had no hesitation in saying it was the worst possible Authority for all local purposes. They were, in fact, no more than mere outposts and delegates of the Local Government Board. Local administration, in its spirit and essence, should proceed from knowledge of the facts and local conditions which men possessed themselves of, consciously or unconsciously, during the routine of their daily life. Hon. Members would find from the Return made in 1881, which was presented to the House not long ago, that the Unions of the country averaged from 120 to 180 square miles in extent; and, whatever government that might be, it certainly could not be described as Local Government. It could not be asserted that the men who met together, sent from the different parishes which made up those Unions, really had that intimate and direct knowledge of local needs which constituted the valuable qualification for local administration. He knew that in his own experience it certainly was not so. Sitting with many other Guardians, he found that they concerned themselves with the affairs of their own immediate parish alone. In needs beyond their own parish they had no knowledge or interest, and they could not be even induced to stay to take part in the work of considering and deciding upon matters which were presented to the Authority on the part of parishes with which they felt they had no concern. At one time the whole farce of this local administration
    1462
    was felt to be so great that the Chairman of the Authority he spoke of declined to preside over its meetings. If they abolished the parishes, the agricultural labourer would really lose all chance for the real expression of his wants. Who were available for Guardians in the country districts? It had always been found that the clergy and the tenant farmers practically constituted the great bulk of the Boards of Guardians; and he put it to the House whether upon such a question as allotments the country clergy and tenant farmers could really be in hearty sympathy with the wants and the wishes of the agricultural labourers? It was upon such matters as allotments that the agricultural labourer must be allowed to speak for himself. He had no other chance whatever of speaking for himself but in the meeting of the inhabitants in open Vestry assembled. In a parish in his own constituency there was during last Easter, on the part of the inhabitants as a body, the greatest anxiety to procure allotments; 400 or 500 people flocked to the Easter Vestry Meeting in their anxiety to devise means for the obtaining of allotments. There was no hostility whatever on the part of anybody, either rich or poor. They were all agreed that allotments should be procured; but when the people came to the Vestry what they practically found was that the Vestry, as an instrument for the purpose they had expected to employ it, was useless. It was pointed out that they must proceed under the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings); but what was said was that the opportunity afforded by that Bill was too remote—that the machinery provided by it was so complicated, that the men could not use it for themselves; and the people went away under circumstances of the greatest irritation. Everyone felt for them, and it was not unnatural that the irritation found expression in some violence of language. It was really felt by everyone that the labourers had a real grievance, and that they were deprived of what was naturally and historically the most valuable and convenient mode by which inhabitants might make known and provide for their wants, with which they must certainly be better acquainted than anyone else. He earnestly hoped the House

    1463
    would consider that the debt of the nation to the parish in the training which it afforded was very great, and that the Government would not, as it were, indirectly and stealthily give a deathblow to the ancient parishes of England.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he desired to say but a few words upon this subject, and he should not have intervened in the debate at all were it not for the fact that he represented an agricultural district where this difficulty was very seriously and painfully felt. It was thought by some persons who were best acquainted with this subject in the division which he represented that this Bill would do more harm than good, unless it were very seriously altered on the lines of the Resolution now under consideration. Practically, under the name of extending Local Government, they were giving to Local Government a deathblow. Bad as the arrangements at present were, they were, at all events, local arrangements; there was a mingling of different areas and different jurisdictions, but this was to some extent advantageous locally. There was no definite arrangement made by the Bill by which they could be sure that the area they were going to establish would be the whole area of a county or a Parliamentary Division. If the division he represented was to be a County District, the extent of the district would be something like 436 square miles. If, on the other hand, they dealt with sanitary districts alone, his district would be something like 130 or 140 square miles in extent. It might be that it was wished to keep the entire representation in the hands of the wealthy, whose time was at their own disposal, and who had means of transit of their own—and he regretted to say that the means of transit were not very abundant in the division he represented—but to contend in the face of people living at the extreme limits of districts or areas of the size he had specified, that this was Local Government, was simply playing with words. He would not go into the details which had been referred to a great deal by speaker after speaker; he would not enter into the various grievances which necessarily arose; but he did wish to criticize as earnestly as he could the mischief of having extended areas instead of working on the unit of the parish and taking
    1464
    that area as the one from which they were to operate. He could not help thinking that the Government were rendering it absolutely impossible to have anything like Local Representative Government, because it would not be within the power of very many men who had not great wealth to attend, as they ought to attend, the various meetings connected with the administration of local affairs. He thoroughly believed that by their present proposal the Government, in the words of one of his constituents, would do more harm than good to the great principle of Local Government, and, therefore, he should give his hearty support to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. S. Stevenson).
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, he thought that the remarks of the last few speakers would certainly lead one to believe that the opinion of those hon. Gentlemen and their Friends had undergone a considerable change since the introduction of the Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, he thought a reference to the speeches delivered by those hon. Gentlemen and their Friends on the introduction of the measure would certainly not lead anyone to conclude that this Bill would tend to the destruction of local self-government. It had been said that night that this Bill, instead of giving now life to local self-government, would lead to its total destruction. That was very different from the statements which had been made by nearly all the speakers from the Opposition side with the exception of the ex-Under Secretary for the Home Department when the measure was introduced, and which were to the effect that there was a general consensus of opinion that this Bill went a great way in extending local self-government. Hon. Members opposite might congratulate themselves upon the fact that their commendable efforts with regard to this measure had been supported by a speech from an hon. Member below the Gangway on the Government side of the House. It might be a matter of great gratification to hon. Members opposite that a measure that had been introduced into that House by the Government had been condemned by an hon. Member on their own side of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] The conclusion which the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division

    1465
    of Middlesex (Mr. Stephens) had drawn, that because the Allotments Act did not give the Vestries the power of granting allotments, that Act was therefore a failure, was inaccurate. If the labourers desired to obtain allotments, the Act provided efficient machinery to enable them to get them. The hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. F. S. Stevenson), who had moved this Instruction, had said that in no single instance had the compulsory powers of the Act been put into force. The hon. Member was mistaken in that matter, because he (Mr. Long) had reason to believe that at that moment a Rural Sanitary Authority were contemplating putting the powers in force.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, that he had referred to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had given a few weeks ago, which was to the effect that in no single instance in either England or Wales had the compulsory powers of the Act been put into force.
    MR. LONGsaid, he thought the hon. Member had overlooked the fact that what was the case some few weeks ago might not be the case now. However that might be, he (Mr. Long) had heard hon. Members opposite express a desire that land for the purposes of allotments should be acquired by voluntary sale rather than by the exercise of compulsory powers of purchase. This subject, however, was scarcely germane to the question before the House. He ventured to repeat the remark he had made upon the second reading of the Bill—namely, that there was no doubt a great deal to be said in favour of a reform of the smaller area of local self-government, but he understood that the object of the Instruction now moved to be that those powers of local self-government proposed under the Bill should be conferred on the parishes of the country. Now, if they conferred powers of local self-government on an authority or a district before they had put that district into a proper condition to receive those powers, they would find it much harder afterwards to amend their boundaries and create a district which should be satisfactory to receive such powers. The Government believed that it was far better to get their local areas adjusted first of all through the medium of the
    1466
    County Council proposed by this Bill, and then later to confer upon those local districts in the shape of parishes the extended powers of local self-government, than to begin by conferring powers and creating authorities and having afterwards to alter and adjust their boundaries and destroy the authorities which they would thus have commenced by setting up. He quite admitted that there was no question which demanded more anxious and careful attention or from which greater local benefit would be derived than that which related to the re-adjustment of the parish boundaries. At present those boundaries were most irregular and most inconvenient, and in many cases their re-adjustment would be of the greatest advantage, especially to the labourers within their areas, who ought to be encouraged to take an active part in local administration. In this respect he did not think that any very strong case had been made out for strengthening the procedure which was proposed by the Bill. It had been remarked that the Bill might be called a County Councils Bill or a District Councils Bill, but that it had no right to be called a Local Government Bill because it was not based upon the parishes. That point, however, had been sufficiently discussed upon the second reading of the Bill, and he did not think that hon. Members opposite had thrown any new light upon it by their remarks that night. Her Majesty's Government had put this Bill before the House and the country as one which they had carefully and anxiously considered, and which they honestly believed would establish a better system of local self-government in our counties and districts. By that measure they must abide, not only because if they were to alter their minds in the direction indicated by hon. Members opposite, time would prevent them from carrying the Bill, but because, more than all, they believed that they were proceeding in the right direction by following the lines laid down in this measure. He earnestly hoped that in view of the great mass of Amendments that had been placed upon the Paper, the House would proceed to the consideration of the measure in Committee as rapidly as possible.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who

    1467
    had just resumed his seat (Mr. Long) complained, in his opening remarks, that a different view was taken of the Bill that night from that which was taken on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill. That was very likely the case, in many instances; but he (Mr. Broadhurst) thought that the hon. Gentleman would admit that a considerable part of his (Mr. Broadhurst's) speech upon the second reading of the measure was devoted to the complaint that the Government had overlooked the mainspring of county life by not beginning with the parish. He, therefore, at any rate, was not open to the charge which the hon. Gentleman had made against some of the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches. It was, after all, not unnatural that hon. Gentlemen overlooked some of the main points of the Bill on the occasion of the second reading, for the best of all reasons—namely, that the House was so possessed by the Radical nature of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in introducing the Bill, that they could not turn their attention to the contents of the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a great Radical speech, introducing a highly flavoured Tory measure. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) had discovered that since the second reading many hon. Gentlemen had read the Bill, and ascertained its true nature, and he now complained of their making speeches on the merits and demerits of the Bill rather than on the great merits of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie). The speech of the Secretary of the Local Government Board had disclosed this fact, that the Government in regard to this Bill had proceeded on entirely novel lines in matters of reform; and that instead of following out the good old Tory doctrine of rather improving that which already existed, they had devoted their time to creating new institutions. If the Conservative Government had carried out their favourite doctrine in this ease, they would have been maintaining their ancient principles, and, what would have been almost equally novel, they would have been carrying out a good and sound system of reform. It would have been a great deal bettor for the
    1468
    Government to have proceeded to reform the Vestries. Even if it were necessary to proceed in parts, it would have been better to have proceeded by reforming the Vestries instead of creating these great, unwieldly, unmanageable Councils, which the counties and villages would have no sufficient control over, and have very little voice, as it were, in their compostion. If they had commenced with the Vestries themselves, they would have laid a great foundation for County Reform, and they would have solidified and enlarged a sure and certain foundation for a great and effective system of Local Government Reform. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) and his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), who were in charge of the Bill, and the Government themselves evidently lacked knowledge of the principles of construction. They ignored the elementary principles of construction, for they began with a great superstructure, and altogether neglected the fundamental principle, that the foundation was to carry the weight of the whole system. The reform of the Vestries should be the mainspring, and must be the mainspring, of any effective and comprehensive system of Local Government Reform. It was discovered now that the Government had commenced at the wrong end, that they had proceeded upon wrong lines, that they were adopting entirely wrong principles; and the Government would do well, even at the eleventh hour, if they were to admit their mistake, admit their want of knowledge of the way to proceed upon the question of Local Government, and ask leave to withdraw the Bill until they had made themselves acquainted with village life and with what really constituted a system of Local Government. His hon. Friend. (Mr. Long) knew something of village life, he was aware; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman would claim the same extensive knowledge for all his Friends to the right and to the left of him—he did not think the hon. Gentleman would make that large claim upon the imagination of the House. If they admitted the principle that they could not deal with all the parts of Local Government in one Session, let the Government ask leave to withdraw the Bill and introduce a measure to reform

    1469
    the Vestries, and thereby construct a foundation upon which next Session the House would give them every opportunity and every encouragement to build a sound and proper superstructure of Local Government. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board was amazed at the originality of the Mover of the Resolution (Mr. F. S. Stevenson), and seemed to say in his speech—"Why this is a different sort of speech from what you made on the occasion of the second reading, and, therefore, I have nothing to say to it; I have no answer to it." No; there could be no answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. S. Stevenson); there was nothing to be said to justify the position which the Government assumed upon the occasion. The speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobb) who, seconded the Resolution, and the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicestershire (Mr. James Ellis), were speeches of hon. Members who thoroughly knew the subject upon which they were speaking, and who were acquainted with the village life which they were bringing under the notice of the House of Commons that night. If the Government were unable to meet the arguments advanced in debate by his hon. Friends, why did they get up and, in the person of the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), say they could not accept this Instruction. There was nothing more reasonable in the world than that the Government should accept this Instruction. The Instruction embodied, as he had already said, a sound Conservative principle. It embodied the principle of improving that which already existed when it was capable of improvement. But Conservative principles seemed to have changed sides; now they heard revolutionary and Radical principles advocated by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, while his hon. Friends endeavoured, to the best of their ability, to plead to the Government to return to their ancient professions, and improve the existing institutions of the country, although small they might be, in the shape of the parish Vestries, and to proceed upon that basis for reform of Local Government. It was a very re-
    1470
    markable speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. James Ellis). He told the House, in language plain and simple and unmistakable, of the enormous increase in village life which has followed upon the voluntary reforms of Vestries, small though they were in the case of the villages in his neighbourhood. What Member of the House was there who could not welcome with delight the statement made by his hon. Friend, and desire that the state of affairs to which he alluded should be perpetuated in every parish in the United Kingdom? The establishment of these great County Councils would not meet the pressing wants that had been explained to the House that night by his hon. Friends. By the establishment of these Bodies, the questions of the parish library and the parish playground would not be met. When would they be able to deal with the improvement, or rather the creation, of some elementary system of sanitation. This was a matter of great importance, as many villages had no sanitary arrangements at all, and one of the chief evils existing in villages was the want of a proper water supply. They would find in villages within 20 miles of that House whole rows of cottages wholly dependent for their water supply upon ponds, at which the sheep of the common and the cattle which travelled along the roads drank, and in which they often walked. [Laughter.] He saw that some hon. Gentlemen opposite made merry at his statement. If he were connected with some of the great estates of this country, which he was sure some hon. Gentlemen were connected with, he would be ashamed to hear a statement made in that House, that the inhabitants of many villages, even within 20 or 30 miles of the Metropolis itself, had to depend upon roadside water for their domestic purposes. A system of Local Government was needed that would place in the hands of villagers power to alter that evil condition of things. This Bill, he feared, would do nothing of the kind. It was a Bill which, unless the Instruction moved by his hon. Friend was acted upon, would be, as he had once before said, so far as Local Government was concerned, a great sham, and there would be no representation for the labourers and the villagers. They were creating great Bodies, great Councils, and Local Coun-

    1471
    cils, which would be monopolized by the squire, by the great farmer, and the parson, but in which the labourer and the village mechanic would have no part or parcel. He was very glad to notice, he hoped he noticed correctly, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) was not very emphatic in his refusal to accept the Instruction proposed by his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had yet to give a final decision on this question, and he (Mr. Broadhurst) hoped the Government would reconsider the not very emphatic words of the hon. Gentleman, and that they would even at that hour express their willingness to consider in Committee, if they refused to accept the Instruction that night, some Amendments drawn upon the principle aimed at in the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he generally agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Broadhurst), but he confessed he did not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman's expression of hope that the Government would withdraw this Bill. He (Mr. Winterbotham) had not said a word about this Bill in the House as yet; but he hoped the Government would persevere with it, for there was in it that which he thought was good. He was sorry that at the beginning of the Committee stage the Government should have met them with a non possumus, after the able and admirable speech which was delivered by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stephens). That speech proved conclusively to the minds of many of them that the hon. Gentleman had studied village life, and that he knew the feelings of villagers upon this question. It had been well said that the villagers of England cared little for County Councils. For the most part they believed, and he thought they believed rightly, that the Quarter Sessions, which had hitherto conducted their affairs, had conducted them ably, honestly, and economically, and they did not look for any great help and furtherance of the objects they had dearly at heart from the change from Quarter Sessions to a great central authority. What the villagers of Eng-
    1472
    land wanted were, the administration of their Poor Law; the administration of their charities, and the control of their education. He entreated the Government not to receive this Instruction in the way in which it had been received by the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long). The hon. Gentleman could not have read it; he spoke of it as an Instruction to the Committee to give to the parish Vestries powers of government. There were no such words in the Instruction. He (Mr. Winterbotham) begged the House to take notice of what the Instruction said.
    The words were—
    "That it should be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions for the reform of parish Vestries."
    There was nothing there about giving any powers of government to parish Vestries. A Bill was introduced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1871. He wished the Government had had the courage to adopt an admirable provision in that Bill, in Part 2, Section 7, a provision for the election of a parish board every year with a chairman. That was all this Instruction asked them to do. They talked about not having time to do it. He asserted that, if they would so far accept the wishes of agricultural constituencies in this country, and if they would give the Vestries some locus standi before the District Council and County Council, they would save a great deal of time, for it would give an inducement to forward other parts of the Bill through Committee. But the Government, through the Secretary to the Local Government Board, met them with a non possumus. The hon. Gentleman described the able speech which was delivered by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Stephens) by misrepresenting entirely what that hon. Member said. He said the hon. Member spoke of the destruction of local self-government. The hon. Member said nothing of the sort; what he spoke of was the destruction of village life in England.
    MR. LONGsaid, that what he stated was that in all the speeches delivered that night the Bill was described as one tending to destroy local self-government in the country.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would appeal to hon. Members who

    1473
    heard the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Stephens) whether he did not correctly represent the tendency of the speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman when he said it went to show that the Bill destroyed village life in England; the hon. Member did not say one word about the destruction of self-government. The Secretary to the Local Government Board spoke of the condensation of the Bill, instead of its criticism. He (Mr. Winterbotham) was one of those who pointed out to the President of the Local Government Board last Session, when the Allotments Bill was under discussion, that the Guardians were not the people who would successfully carry out the Act, and he also pointed out how differently they on the Opposition side of the House would regard the powers placed in the hands of the Guardians if they had reform of parish life, and especially reform as regarded the election of parish officials. He had not the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman's reply by him. He remembered that the President of the Local Government Board, in answer to him, said—and he thought he could give the very words—
    "If the hon. Member, and those who act with him, will have patience until I introduce the Local Government Bill, they will see that I am prepared to reform the election of Guardians."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He never used those words. What he did say was something to the effect that if he waited until the Local Government Bill was brought in, he would see that the Sanitary Authority, which was the Board of Guardians, would be differently constituted.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that the words painted in Hansard would be found to be rather different to what the right hon. Gentleman had just said. At all events, the Members of the Opposition did look forward with hope to the Local Government Bill as likely to provide a reform in the election of the parish officials. Let them have a reformed Vestry, and give that Vestry some locus standi before the District Council. That was all the Instruction asked for. It was not very much to ask. Members of the Government must know how very keenly
    1474
    villagers clung to their village life and to their parish authorities. In what way was reform desired? First of all, they wished that the Vestry meeting should be held at a time when people could attend. They wanted that the Vestry should meet once a year and elect a Chairman. If the parson was a fit man, he would be elected; if he was not desired, he ought not to be thrust upon the people. Then, again, they thought it unfair that the efforts of those who gave up a day's work to vote at a Vestry election should be rendered nugatory by the action of men who might have six votes apiece. They asked for no powers of government. They asked the Government to reform the Vestries, and then give them power to consult the District Council on any matters in which the parish might take an interest. He hoped hon. Members would realize the spirit in which the proposal had been made. He hoped they would enter on the discussion apart from Party politics. He wished to make the Bill as perfect as possible. This part of it deeply interested the agricultural labourers. He appealed most earnestly to hon. Members opposite who represented agricultural constituencies to vote with the Opposition to-night, and thus acknowledge that the wish and desire of the agricultural labourers throughout England, that their parish life should be maintained, ought to be observed.
    MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that one thing which puzzled him was that hon. Gentlemen opposite always stopped short of the very point on which information was wanted. What would they give these reformed parish Vestries to do? He had listened carefully to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, but had been unable to ascertain what work they would give the Vestries. He had asked questions upon the subject of gentlemen outside the House, but had been unable to get a satisfactory reply. Only that day he had a long conversation with a gentleman once a Member of the House. That gentleman said—"You are all wrong; you are beginning at the wrong end; you are not beginning with parish Vestries." He asked his friend to tell him what parish Vestries were to do when they were reformed? The gentleman stopped short there, as hon.

    1475
    Members had done. One or two proposals were made the other night, but whether they were seriously made he could not say. He would refer to them in a minute. First of all, let him refer to some remarks made by an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Broadhurst) speaking from the Front Opposition Bench. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the reformed parish Vestries ought to deal with allotments, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Stephens) said that the labourers in his parish were annoyed, because, having met together to take action under the Allotments Act, they found themselves unable to do anything in their parish Vestry. Now, under the Allotments Act, the movement for the acquisition of allotments in a parish must emanate with the parish Vestry. He (Mr. Llewellyn) had had some experience in respect to the acquisition of allotments. Since the Allotments Act was passed, and in every parish with which he was connected and in which steps had been taken, the people had been called together and then and there stated what their requirements were. The next step, as they all knew, was to go to the Rural Sanitary Authority, and then followed what, he was glad to say, was the general experience of parishes—allotments were procured without the enforcement of the Compulsory Clauses. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) considered that all duties with regard to water supply and sanitary matters ought to be left to the parishes. He (Mr. Llewellyn) maintained that the parishes had power in such matters now. He was bound to say they had not got the motive power; that rested, in the first place, with the Sanitary Authority. But, as hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well, under the Sanitary Act of 1875 the Sanitary Authority had power to delegate to parochial committees the powers of the Act for the carrying out of the works of their own parish, and it was quite right it should be so. It was left to those who had to find the money to say how it should be spent. It was said also that the management of the schoolroom should be left in the charge of the parish. Where schoolrooms belonged to the parish, there was no reason why they should not be in the management of the parish authorities; but in the
    1476
    majority of cases parish schoolrooms were private property, and in such cases the parishes could have no right to interfere in the management of the schools. When one hon. Gentleman rose the other night, he (Mr. Llewellyn) thought they were about to hear something of the real work of the parish Vestries. Without a smile, the hon. Gentleman proposed that the parish authorities should have the charge of the parish pig club, the parish cow club, and the parish cricket club. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was serious; but his proposal was recorded in Hansard. There were anomalies in regard to the parish Vestries; but did hon. Gentlemen think that these Vestries should be reformed and officers appointed to take the management of the parish pig club, the parish cow club, and the parish cricket club? It was also said that where parishes were small they might be grouped. But if they once joined two parishes together they destroyed the unit. They would have two churchwardens, two overseers, and two assistant overseers, and they would at once destroy the unit they proposed to create. And, in addition to that, they would multiply authorities. They would have the parish authorities, or a group of parish authorities; they would have the District Council, and possibly they would have some other authority. Surely that was not the object of local reform in the present day. He would not detain the House longer, because he felt he had no right to do so. But he earnestly begged hon. Gentlemen who possessed experience of parish life to bring that experience to bear in the debate, and not allow ideas to be put into their heads by others. If an hon. Gentleman's experience was simply restricted to the parish Vestry, he begged he would not try to bring the proposed Councils to the level of such Vestries.
    MR. A. H. D. ACLANDsaid, he would like to say one or two words with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The hon. Gentleman had asked those who advocated the retention of parish Vestries what duties the Vestries were to perform? The supporters of this Instruction simply asked why they should not reform and put on a satisfactory footing a body which existed and which met

    1477
    every year. What was it to do? Why should it not consult, as town's meetings in other countries did, with great advantage to the people? Why should it not, when it chose, consult on all matters concerning its welfare which might be raised? The Vestry was to have power to meet in open assembly, and consider anything which concerned its welfare. One of the best clauses in the Bill which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) introduced in 1871 was the clause which provided that the Chairman of the Vestry should be compelled to summon a meeting whenever five ratepayers asked that any matter which concerned the parish should be considered. That was practically what was asked now. Allow him to point out that, even under the present Bill, they would not be able to do without the parish assembly. The Bill said that the District Council should take under their charge Acts like the Free Libraries' Act. How were they going to carry out the Free Libraries' Act through the District Council? Take the case of a District Council composed of the representatives of about 20 parishes, of which the population ranged from 200 or 300 to 3,000. Suppose that in a large parish of 2,000 or 3,000 a benevolent man gave a library on condition that the parishioners were willing to support it. Did hon. Members mean to tell him that the District Council would impose a rate on that parish without consulting the people? If the District Council did so, the Free Libraries' Act would be carried into force in country districts in a manner very different to that in which it was carried out in towns. The District Council would be compelled, unless it went against the spirit in which the Free Libraries' Act was passed, to come to the people and say—"Do you want a free library established in your midst?" District Councils might try as much as they liked, but they would not succeed in carrying out the Free Libraries' Act without consulting the parishes, and if they had to consult the parishes they would have to consult reformed Vestries. The same remarks applied to other Acts. If recreations or playgrounds were wanted the parishes would have to support their establishment. Parishes were to a great extent, and must remain, the centres of local life in these matters. They must
    1478
    be consulted, and, therefore, it was as well they should exist not under the antiquated system which dated back 100 years or so, but under a system based on modern ideas. He had tried to give, very briefly, some answer to the question—what were the Vestries to do? He would ask what was the reason, when they must have the Vestry, for not reforming it. If the Government would introduce in the Bill three or four simple clauses, making the existing Vestry a responsible body, they would meet with no opposition, but they would certainly grease the wheels of the Bill. He said, frankly, that if the Government refused to meet them on that point, they must not be surprised—he said it in no Party spirit—if some cry was raised, not merely in agricultural villages, but in many of the large mining villages which were well fitted for self-government, that it was somewhat unfair that in the matter of, at least, deliberative powers the Government would not meet them. Hon. Members would, perhaps, be asking shortly—"Will you make any provision for working-men Representatives to go to the County or District Council?" If the Government refused to provide some reasonable means by which working men now on Local Boards and School Boards could find their way to County and District Councils, it might fairly be said they were hardly meeting the villages in a reasonable way. For his part, he thought it was a great pity that in this comparatively simple matter the Government had not tried to lay what he might call a democratic foundation, without injuring the principle of the Bill. Had they done so, they would have made their Bill popular, without damaging it; but, what was most important of all, they would have provided a real educational agency throughout the mining and agricultural districts. He sincerely regretted that that political training in our villages was not to be provided. It was a great misfortune that thus one really valuable educational opportunity would be lost.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had very frankly told the Government that if they did not accede to the Instruction he and his Friends would make that question one for agitating throughout the length and breadth of the country.
    MR. A. H. D. ACLANDsaid, he had expressly stated that what he said was in no Party spirit, but that the Government must not be surprised if a cry was raised by the agricultural and mining villages that they were unfairly dealt with.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the House would judge of the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman met the Government. It seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman's observations amounted very much to a threat that they would agitate the country against the Government. So far as he (Mr. Ritchie) was concerned, he was not astonished at the course the hon. Gentleman thought it best to pursue. They had already seen the remarkable change in the reception which that Bill had had at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) said the reason why there was such a material difference in the way in which it was regarded now and at the time when he had had the honour to introduce it was that his speech was a democratic speech, but that the Bill was a Tory measure. But he thought the bulk of hon. Members on both sides of the House would assent to his claim that there was not a single observation he had made in that speech which was not fully justified by the text of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite at first imagined that the Bill was of so broad a character that it would not be received with favour on this side of the House, and, therefore, they praised it; but when they found that hon. Gentlemen on his side were willing to accept it as a fair attempt to settle the question of Local Government upon large and liberal lines they changed their views as to the merits of the scheme. Some hon. Gentlemen to-night had treated this question as one of vast importance, so much so that if the proposal now made were not accepted they would rather see the whole Bill withdrawn. Others had said that on no account would they desire to see the Bill withdrawn. Some spoke of the powers given as of a small, others as of a large, character. So they differed from one another. He would beg of hon. Gentlemen, when making such a proposal, to agree as to its scope. Some had practically confined their recommendations to changes in the mode of appointing the chairman, in the hour
    1480
    of meeting, and in the mode of appointing the overseers. But such changes would hardly warrant the moving of this Instruction. Others had desired to effect changes of a large character. He was afraid to think of the great number of questions which some thought ought to be entrusted to the parish Vestries. The House had been told that the water supply, drainage, the administration of the Poor Law, and education ought to be in the hands of the Vestry. He would point out that if such changes were contemplated they must necessarily lead, not only in that House, but throughout the country, to a very large amount of discussion and of opposition, for it must be borne in mind that the aim and object of the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. W. E. Gladstone's) Government in 1872 was to take away from the parish Vestries those powers which it was now contended ought to be conferred upon them. The Sanitary Commission, before the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman, reported that the Vestry failed to discharge some of the duties which the hon. Gentleman would confer upon them, and that was the reason why the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) brought forward his legislation of 1872, which had proved of such advantage to the country. Therefore, the step which the hon. Gentleman would take now was a retrograde step. The Government were told that if their Bill passed, the parishes would have no opportunity of discussing questions which concerned them. But the Government made no change in that respect. It was as open to the Vestry to meet after the passing of the Bill as it was now. The hon. Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicester (Mr. James Ellis) had told the House that neither as to the appointment of a chairman, the hour of meeting, nor several other matters which had been alluded to, was any difficulty felt in his own or in the surrounding parishes. The Vestry met in the evening, and when there was a desire to appoint a chairman other than the vicar there had never been any difficulty. It was impossible to deal with the large matters which hon. Gentlemen had in view unless you reformed the area of the parishes. The hon. Gentleman said that there ought to be no parish with a population less than 500

    1481
    or 600. But it was well known that there was a large number with a smaller population; and, therefore, it was impossible to deal with the great mass of the questions raised on the other side of the House until you reformed the area of the parishes. That was the answer of the Government to the proposal. The County Council would be a very proper body to inquire into the question of the revision of the areas of parishes, and the Government looked forward to the County Council as a great engine of reform in parochial and other matters. The Government were bound to look at the Instruction in the light of the Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Halifax. Both desired to set up in the parish the Vestry as the executive. The Vestry was to be the only Body by which the Acts with regard to sanitary matters, baths and washhouses, and so on, were to be carried out. That, as he had said, was a distinctly retrograde step. While the Vestry was a useful medium for expressing the wishes of the inhabitants of the parish, it was altogether unsuited for the purposes which hon. Gentlemen had in view. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction said that' if carried, it would not necessarily imply that all the Amendments put down on the subject should be adopted; and he added that if it were accepted other Amendments might be put on the Paper. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that they were now getting towards the middle of June, and that there were already on the Paper Amendments almost unparalleled in number, while the matters to be discussed within the four corners of the Bill were almost more than the House could properly get through. What chance, then, was there of being able to deal satisfactorily with the large and very important question of the parish Vestries, in addition to all other questions? The Government believed there was considerable room for improvement in many matters connected with the parishes, and he begged the House to believe that they would be very glad if they were able at some future time to deal with many of the points which had been raised that night.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that he must enter his protest against
    1482
    the language of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The Government had been fairly treated from the first with regard to the Bill. It was a very complicated measure, and therefore it must meet with very great discussion and difference of opinion. As far as he could judge, there had not been any disposition on that (the Opposition) side to treat the Government unfairly. One question he would raise to-night was this—what were the means by which the Government might hope that the Opposition would continue to act in that way? It was by meeting them in a different spirit from that which the right hon. Gentleman had shown to-night. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that a threat had been addressed to the Government, when all that had been done was to give them a friendly warning. The right hon. Gentleman imputed motives and designs. That, surely, was not good policy on the part of a Member of a Government introducing a measure of this importance and complexity. To impute to the Opposition a design to defeat the measure was, in the circumstances, likely to engender a suspicion that the Government would themselves regard its defeat with equanimity. If the acceptance of this Instruction were necessarily to be followed by proposals to confer very extensive powers upon the Vestries it might be objected with reason that the progress of the Bill would be retarded. But he believed that the Party with whom he was connected would be quite content if the moderate Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper were accepted. The statements made by the right hon. Gentleman last Autumn had certainly raised expectations that the Vestries would be dealt with by the Bill. On August 19 the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "The hon. Member is quite mistaken in supposing that the present Government imagine they will deal adequately with the question of Local Government if they confine their attention to the reform of Local County Government or to setting up of a County Authority. If the hon. Member saw the Bill now in print he would find that we propose not only to deal with County Authorities, but with all authorities within the County."—(3 Hansard, [319] 1183.)
    Was not a Vestry an authority within a county? Then, on September 5, the right hon. Gentleman said—

    1483
    "I have already said more than once that it is the intention of the Government, on the earliest possible day, to introduce a Bill not only dealing with Local Government, not only providing Local Government for counties, but also dealing with Boards of Guardians and other Local Authorities, which, I hope, will be placed on a more popular basis."—(3 Hansard, [320] 1302.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Bill carried out the promise of that speech. It proposed to set up a properly constituted Sanitary Authority.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the impression produced by the right hon. Gentleman's words was that he proposed to deal with Boards of Guardians, and to establish them on a more popular basis. But the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would do nothing for the parish and nothing for the Vestry. On the contrary, the 47th section of the measure would deprive the Vestries of rights which they now possessed. Ought he not, therefore, to compensate them by endeavouring to infuse a little new life into their constitution? There was practically nothing in the Amendment which he had put on the Paper which was not perfectly consistent with what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said on the second reading of the Bill, or with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He (Mr. Stansfeld) was aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had referred to remarks which he had made on a previous occasion, but it had been from an imperfect report; because when he came to study the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he found that the right hon. Gentleman and he himself were in the most perfect accord. The right hon. Gentleman had thought that it was advisable, without going into any great scheme, to do something to infuse life into local matters, and to train the people in the management of public affairs. For his own part, he did not think that anyone would say that that would not be a measure advisable in itself. Supposing the Government insisted on taking from the parish those functions which, in his opinion, it might be advisable to leave to them, why should they not do something to reform and popularize it, and to infuse local life into the parish? Why should they determine to do no-
    1484
    thing? That was really the question. Why was it absolutely necessary, if they were taking away something, to do nothing ill return? The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that because he did not know what Amendments might be proposed he, therefore, could not accept this Instruction. He asked whether the tone the right hon. Gentleman had adopted in complaining of the Amendments was a tone in which he ought to address the House? That was not the tone, temper, or method by which the right hon. Gentleman was likely to conciliate persons who, though sitting on the other side of the House, had no desire to defeat his Bill. He believed that hon. Members on that side of the House would be satisfied with a very moderate discussion if this Instruction were accepted, with the few and moderate proposals he had made, and he felt certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose but would gain time. He had never, in a considerable experience of that House, known a policy such as that pursued by the right hon. Gentleman to be successful; it was better to treat the House with confidence, instead of assuming an ill purpose in everything that was proposed on that side of the House, and to give as well as take. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was to take everything and give nothing. That was a mistake; the right hon. Gentleman had gained nothing by it, and would gain nothing. In these circumstances, he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would make this concession on the strength of the assurances which he (Mr. Stansfeld) had given the right hon. Gentleman he would increase the progress of the Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had referred to a speech which he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had made on the second reading of the Bill, and especially to the remarks he had made with reference to the organization of the parish. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he believed, from reading that report, that they were practically in accord upon the point at issue. For his own part, he thought that that was a perfectly accurate statement. As far as he understood the proposals of his right hon. Friend, he

    1485
    would be prepared to support them, and he did not think that there would be much difference in the House on the matter. As far as he understood the opinions of the Government, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), they were favourable to some further organization of the parish; and he did not think that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax would provoke much discussion or opposition. As he understood these proposals, all that the right hon. Gentleman asked was that the powers now possessed by the Vestries should remain in their hands; but that, having regard to the popular organization which was now about to be given to the District Councils and the County Councils, something in the shape of a little more popular organization should be given to the Vestries. He thought, also, that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially those who had lived in the country, and could speak with authority with reference to parochial matters, would agree that it was most important, in introducing this great change, that attention should be paid to the beginnings of Local Government, and the smallest interest should be considered. The great mass of the new voters to whom they were intending to introduce the privileges and responsibilities of Local Government should have something in the nature of an education in connection with what he might call their domestic interests. If the ratepayers in the parishes had some work to do, they would become, in consequence, very much better electors of County Councils and District Councils, and be much better able to deal with the important work which they had to consider in connection with the larger institutions. What was the difficulty? Why could not this very moderate organization be given to the parish? What seemed to be the opinion of the Government was that they had undertaken a somewhat large business, and that they had got almost as much on their hands as they were able to manage—at all events, without something like a definite assurance on that side of the House that their difficulties should not be increased and complicated by further indefinite proposals; and
    1486
    when he looked at the Amendments on the Paper, especially those of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. F. S. Stevenson), he did not wonder at the reluctance of the Government to consent to Instructions which might open to them a perfect sea of trouble. If the hon. Member for Eye was to move all the Amendments, although he (Mr. Chamberlain) should give the matter his most cordial and serious consideration at the proper time, he would also be prepared to agree with the Government that at this period of the Session, and with the work undertaken, they were not justified in opening the gates to all this new controversial matter. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax had, in his (Mr. J. Chamberlain's) opinion, put a new face on the matter; and he thought that it would be worth the while of the Government to consider what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he had, as far as possible, on behalf of hon. Members behind him—and certainly speaking for the ordinary Opposition—given a pledge that the discussion would be confined to the very moderate proposal which stood in his own name. He (Mr. J. Chamberlain) did not know how far the right hon. Gentleman had entered into previous consultation with those who worked with him, or how far he was able to speak absolutely in their name; but, if an honourable assurance was given, he thought that the Government might consider these questions, which they themselves admitted it would be very desirable to add to the Bill, and which they considered as necessary to complete the measure, if there was to be nothing in the nature of controversial discussion.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, he wished to explain that what he had said was that if this Instruction were given, he should be willing to support the Amendments to the 47th clause to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, instead of moving his own.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that that statement rather strengthened the argument of the right hon. Member for Halifax. If other hon. Members on that side of the House were inclined to deal with the subject in the same spirit, and to accept concessions from the

    1487
    Government on this point with the understanding that they would not introduce unnecessarily controversial matter, and that the discussion should be confined to the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Halifax, as far as he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) could see, the Government might improve their Bill without delaying the measure or undertaking any serious responsibility.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was sure there was a general agreement in the House as respected the desire to improve the parochial organization, and hon. Members opposite would do him the justice to remember that he was himself one of the original patentees of the idea that village life should be enlarged by improved organization. Therefore, he was in sympathy with the object which had been advocated to as great a degree as any single Member on the other side of the House. He was also sure it was the feeling of the Government that they would not have completed the work to which they had set their hands, until they had not only made small adjustments in parochial life, but had dealt as broadly and thoroughly with that portion of the question as they had attempted to deal with other portions of it. The great difficulty was that they had not only to deal, if they accepted this Instruction, with the particular Amendments that would follow from it, but also with the question of grouping the parishes. The question of boundaries and grouping must precede the re-arrangement of the parish. The Government had, therefore, thought that that was too large a matter to deal with in the present Bill, and that they could not deal with it satisfactorily until they had organized a system of grouping. In his own Bill he proposed the parish as the unit of organization, and one of the strongest arguments used against his proposal was the great diversity in the sizes of parishes, and the differences of organization that were required. That was one of the reasons why his own plan failed to commend itself to public attention. He rejoiced to think that there was now a public feeling in favour of re-organizing the parish; but it must first be seen how they would stand when grouped, and that would be too great a task to undertake by the present Bill.
    1488
    They did not wish to accept the Instruction; but it would be admitted that that was a work which ought to receive considerable discussion, and they entirely recognized the friendly feeling that had been expressed with regard to any compromise. They did not desire to meet the House with any non possumus; but it would be the desire of the Government to conduct the measure through Committee without any infusion of Party spirit, and they would most gratefully accept any assistance that might be given, from whatever part of the House it might come; but they could not accept the proposed Instruction on account of the difficulties he had stated.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would point out that the objection in regard to the question of boundaries would not be involved in his proposals, for the reason that they were applicable to parishes as they are.
    MR. RITCHIE, in explanation, said, that the speech of his which had been quoted as implying a promise to deal with Boards of Guardians had special reference to dealing with allotments, as to which he said the Guardians were to be superseded by a more popularly elected authority.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that the speeches just made produced the belief that there was a limited good which it was in their power to attain, and he could not but believe there must be on the part of the Government a desire to concur in any measure to attain that good, unless it could be shown that there were insuperable difficulties. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out what was, no doubt, a practical difficulty in the way of dealing with the question—namely, that there must be a grouping of parishes before the House could proceed to deal with the important questions that would be raised in regard to the powers and action of the Vestries. Now, although the interpolation with respect to the grouping of parishes was a very necessary matter, admitted to be necessary before the larger question connected with the improvement of the Vestries could be proceeded with, yet it was no necessary condition at all with respect to such limited and moderate proposals as those which were now made from the Opposition side of the House

    1489
    and by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld). He hoped the Government would be disposed to consider that view of the case. As far as his hon. Friend the Mover of the Instruction (Mr. F. S. Stevenson) was concerned, he had in the frankest manner put aside all idea of bringing forward large questions under cover of this Instruction, because he had bound himself to act in a manner which would make it impossible that that difficulty should occur. It might be there were other Members who were not prepared of a sudden to pledge themselves in the same definite manner; but yet the Government might rely upon it that those who were now promoting the Instruction avowedly with a limited and practical view, and certainly not with the intention of raising unnecessary debate, and thereby retarding the progress of this hopeful and valuable Bill, would do the best they could, if occasion arose, of preventing any difficulty that might arise if the Instruction should be granted—that was to say, the Opposition Leaders would use any influence legitimately in their power upon hon. Members, to whose confidence they might in any degree have access, for the purpose of restraining such Members from making proposals to which the objection just stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would apply—namely, that they could not be entertained until the important matter of the grouping of parishes had been dealt with. That was a state of facts and expectations which might encourage the Government to accede to the Instruction.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he desired to acknowledge the very considerate manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached the consideration of this question, and he was quite prepared to admit that if the Government had an unlimited amount of time at their disposal this question might be most hopefully considered by the House. But the Government felt that they had entered upon a task of very great magnitude, and did not think that the time would permit for the consideration of the question which its great importance demanded. The Government recognized fully the desirability, even the necessity, for doing much for the improvement of the parish Vestry, and of giving to
    1490
    village life the strength and power that it once possessed; but they had undertaken as much work as they could possibly carry to a successful issue. Under these circumstances, and at this period of the Session, the Government must ask the House to postpone the consideration of that portion of the Local Government Bill until another Session, when they would be disposed to give it the most full and favourable consideration.
    MR. H. GARDNERsaid, as the only other Member who had given Notice of an Amendment in regard to the point, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment, and follow that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), if the Government would accept the Instruction now before the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 229: Majority 46.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Cremer, W. R.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Crilly, D.

    Allison, R. A.

    Crossley, E.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Davies, W.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Austin, J.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Ballantine, W. H. W.

    Dodds, J.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Duff, R. W.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Ellis, J.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Esslemont, P.

    Brown, A. H.

    Evershed, S.

    Burt, T.

    Fenwick, C.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Byrne, G. M.

    Finucane, J.

    Cameron, C.

    Flower, C.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Foley, P. J.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Foster, Sir B. W.

    Carew, J. L.

    Fowler, right hon. H. H.

    Causton, R. K.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Fry, T.

    Channing, F. A.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Gane, J. L.

    Gardner, H.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Gill, T. P.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Gladstone, right hon. W. E.

    Collings, J.

    Commins, A.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Conway, M.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Grove, Sir T. F.

    Cossham, H.

    Gully, W. C.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Craig, J.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Craven, J.

    Harrington, E.

    Crawford, D.

    Harris, M.

    1491

    Hayden, L. P.

    Pugh, D.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Quilter, W. C.

    Healy, T. M.

    Quinn, T.

    Hooper, J.

    Randell, D.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Reid, R. T.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Rendel, S.

    Joicey, J.

    Roberts, J.

    Jordan, J.

    Roberts, J. B.

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

    Robertson, E.

    Robinson, T.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Roe, T.

    Kenrick, W.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Kilbride, D.

    Rowlands, W. B.

    Labouchere, H.

    Rowntree, J.

    Lalor, R.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Lane, W. J.

    Schwann, C. E.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Sexton, T.

    Leake, R.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Sheehy, D.

    Smith, S.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Lockwood, F.

    Stack, J.

    Lyell, L.

    Stansfeld, right hon. J.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Mac Innes, M.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Stuart, J.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Sullivan, D.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Summers, W.

    M'Donald, P.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Thomas, D. A.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Mahony, P.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Tuite, J.

    Marum, E. M.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Montagu, S.

    Waddy, S. D.

    Neville, R.

    Wallace, R

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Wardle, H.

    Nolan, J.

    Warmington, C. M.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Watt, H.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Wayman, T.

    O'Brien, W.

    Whitbread, S.

    O'Connor, J.

    Will, J. S.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Williams, A. J.

    O'Hea, P.

    Williamson, J.

    O'Keeffe, F. A.

    Williamson, S.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Wilson, I.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Philipps, J. W.

    Woodall, W.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Woodhead, J.

    Picton, J. A.

    Pinkerton, J.

    TELLERS.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

    Power, P. J.

    Power, R.

    Morley, A.

    Provand, A. D.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Aird, J.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    Bazley-White, J.

    Allsopp, hon. P.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Ambrose, W.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Beckett, E. W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Baring, T. C.

    Barry, A. H. S.

    Biddulph, M.

    1492

    Bigwood, J.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

    Bolitho, T. B.

    Bond, G. H.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Granby, Marquess of

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Gray, C. W.

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

    Grimston, Viscount

    Gunter, Colonel R.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Hall, A. W.

    Brooks, Sir W. C.

    Hall, C.

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    Charrington, S.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Coddington, W.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Compton, F.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Corbett, J.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Hill, A. S.

    Darling, C. J.

    Hoare, E. B.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Hoare, S.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Holloway, G.

    Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Howard, J.

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

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Dixon, G.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Donkin, R. S.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Duncombe, A.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Jardine, Sir R.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

    Jeffreys, A. F.

    Elcho, Lord

    Johnston, W.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Elton, C. I.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Farquharson, H. R.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

    Kimber, H.

    Fellowes, A. E.

    King, H. S.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Fielden, T.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Finch, G. H.

    Knowles, L.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Lafone, A.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Lambert, C.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Lea, T.

    Lees, E.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Legh, T. W.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-

    Forwood, A. B.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Long, W. H.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

    Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

    Gedge, S.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    1493

    Maclure, J. W.

    Selwyn, Captain C. W.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Madden, D. H.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Mallock, R.

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Maple, J. B.

    Sidebottom, W.

    Matthews, rt. hon. H.

    Smith, right hon. W. H.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Spencer, J. E.

    Mayne, Adml. R. C.

    Stanhope, rt. Hon. E.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Milvain, T.

    Stewart, M. J.

    More, R. J.

    Swetenham, E.

    Morrison, W.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Mount, W. G.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Theobald, J.

    Noble, W.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

    Townsend, F.

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Norton, R.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Watson, J.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Wharton, J. L.

    Powell, F. S.

    Whitley, E.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Rankin, J.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Reed, H. B.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Richardson, T.

    Wood, N.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

    Wright, H. S.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Wroughton, P.

    Robinson, B.

    Yerburgh, R. A.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Round, J.

    TELLERS.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Russell, T. W.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      COUNTY COUNCILS.
      Clause 1 (Establishment of County Councils).
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gurdon.)
      MR. T. M. HEALYasked, what Business the Government proposed to go on with in the remaining minutes at their disposal? There were a great number of Bills in which the House was interested. If the Government proposed to go on with the North Sea Fisheries Bill, or any non-contentious Business, he imagined there would be no opposition; but it was very undesirable to embark on any contentious Business at such a time.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, no contentious Business would be proposed.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.— [BILL 145.]
  (Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Forwood.)
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.— [BILL 145.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. J. E. ELLISdesired to know when it was proposed to refer this Bill to the Standing Committee on Law?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, Notice of the Motion would be put down that night.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Baron Henry de Worms.)
  NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.

    [BILL 278.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he hoped the House would now agree to the second reading of the Bill. It was simply to give effect to the provisions of the North Sea Fisheries Convention, entered into last year between Great Britain and other Powers interested in the fisheries. It prevented the supply of liquor to fishermen in the North Sea and provided for the supply of provisions and other necessaries to fishermen by vessels licensed for the purpose. To this and the infliction of penalties for offences against the Fisheries Act the Bill was solely confined.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, was there any provision in the Bill for providing compensation to those persons who were to be prevented from continuing the sale of liquor?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was extremely unlikely that any such claim would be advanced.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 263.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he hoped that the Bill would not be really taken until the House was in possession of the Return as to Inferior Courts which had been the subject of several Questions.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he would take care that should be so.
    Consideration deferred till Thursday next.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.— [BILL 256.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Lord George Hamilton.)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.— [BILL 256.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, this was a measure to give increased powers against the offence of disclosing confidential matter by officials. He believed there was no objection to the Bill in principle, and any Amendment thought desirable could be discussed in Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he could not agree that the Bill had in it nothing of an unusual character. It seemed to him to be one of a very unusual character, because it appeared to create certain new offences to be brought under the cognizance of the Courts. This amounted to a fundamental alteration in the Criminal Code of the country, and he thought the House was entitled to ask for some more lengthy explanation as to the scope, general purpose, and powers of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Have you read it?] Yes; he had read it with great care; such care that he had no need to hold a copy for reference. Yet he did not mean to trouble the House with a résumé of its contents, or indulge in
    1496
    criticisms more pertinent to the Committee stage; still his knowledge of the Bill induced him to object, as he emphatically did, to its second reading being taken at such a time without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said no contentious Business would be taken, and probably he thought this was included in that category. If so, he had "reckoned without his host "——
    MR. KELLYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: Five minutes is a very short time to devote to a second reading discussion, and, moreover, Business is now interrupted by 12 o'clock.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT (SUPPLEMENTAL) BILL.— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Jackson.)
  NATIONAL DEBT (SUPPLEMENTAL) BILL.— [BILL 264.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, this was Business of a pressing nature, for no annuities could be granted until the arrangements in the Bill were settled. These were rendered necessary by the financial arrangements in regard to the National Debt which the House had sanctioned, and he believed the Bill contained nothing of a controversial character. He did not know that any explanation was required from him.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT [SALARY].

    COMMITTEE.
    MATTER—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed'
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parlia-

    1497
    ment, of a salary to any Registrar of a County Court, who may be required to give his whole time to the public service, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the County Court Acts."
    MR. BIGGARobjected.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he hoped this merely formal Resolution would be agreed to. Unless it were passed, salaries that might become payable under this Consolidation Bill could not be paid, nor could the provision be made in the Bill.
    CONYBEAREsaid, he wished to know substantially what it meant, for he had never heard of it before. Of course, he was aware that it was a formal Resolution. He noticed that a salary was to be given to Registrars giving their whole time to the Public Service; but he had supposed they could be required to do that already. Did the Bill make any alteration in the status of County Court Registrars?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, no; there was no alteration of status.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEFENCE [REMUNERA- TION, &c.]
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th June.]
  MATTER—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to Railway Companies for receiving and forwarding traffic under the authority of a Secretary of State or the Admiralty, and of compensation to any person suffering loss for anything done under such authority, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better provision respecting National Defence."—(Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
  MR. PICTONobjected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, this was merely the usual formal Resolution, and he hoped the objection would not be insisted upon.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he attached such importance to this matter that he could not withdraw his objection.
  Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN [REMUNERATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such officers, surveyors, and other persons as may be appointed to carry into effect the provisions of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Liability of Employers for Injuries to their Workmen.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MOTION.

  ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Parties appearing before the Select Committee on the Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation Bill [Lords] have leave to print the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee, day by day, from the Committee Clerk's Copy, if they think fit.—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Berwick, after the death of his uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Liability of Trustees (111); Universities (Scotland) (re-comm.) (128–133).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Metropolitan Police* (134); Pier and Harbour* (135); Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Dunipace Water)* (136); Water* (137).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.)* (104); Metropolis (White-chapel and Limehouse)* (105).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets)* (85).
Withdrawn—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert)* (126).

WIMBLEDON—THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD ORANMORE and BROWNEsaid, that on a former day he had given Notice of his intention to ask several Questions to-morrow with reference to the severance of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon. He should not, however, act upon the Notice, as the matter to which the Questions referred was, he understood, still under consideration. He wished to guard himself against any misapprehension by stating that he had not the smallest sympathy with the remarks that had lately appeared in an illustrated paper with reference to the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief. On the contrary, he considered these remarks most unjust and ungenerous.

ZANZIBAR—ITALTAN DEMANDS OF TERRITORY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish to ask whether the noble Marquess at the head of the Government can give the House any information with regard to the unfortunate difficulty that has arisen between the Italian Consul and the Sultan of Zanzibar?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the information which we possess is exclusively telegraphic. The incident has come upon us somewhat suddenly, and I do not think that we know very much more than appears in the newspapers. The Italian Consul states

1315
that he has suffered an affront at the hands of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and requires, as reparation for that affront, the cession of certain territory called Kismayu, on the mainland. He further states that this territory was promised to the Italian Government by the Sultan. Both these allegations, I understand, are denied by the Sultan himself, and that is where the matter stands at the present moment. I see that the Italian Consul has lowered his flag.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS—INQUIRY INTO THE STANDING ORDERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT OOMMITTEE.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in moving that the Notice of Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Standing Orders of the House, which stood in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, should have precedence over the other Business upon the Paper, pointed out that the first Order of the Day related to the University (Scotland) Bill, which was a Government measure. Therefore, his Motion amounted to no more than a proposal to substitute one Government Order for another. Thus private Members, who, by the way, were not as sensitive as many private Members were "elsewhere," could not oppose with justice the proposal which he submitted to the House.
  Moved, "That the first and third paragraphs of standing Order No. XX be suspended, and that the Lord Privy Seal's Motion have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notice which stand before it,"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he was opposed to the Motion on technical grounds.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he hoped the Motion of the noble Marquess would not meet wth serious opposition.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I rise to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine and report upon those Standing Orders of this House which relate to the conduct of Public Business."
  It is somewhat ominous that at the commencement of a discussion upon the Standing Orders of this House we should find it necessary to suspend one of the best known Rules of our Procedure. I
  1316
  can promise the House, however, that I shall not detain it any great length. It will be the more easy for me to abbreviate my speech, because the House has already had the opportunity on three occasions during the present Session of discussing its Rules of Procedure and its constitution. The first occasion arose on the Motion of the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Rosebery) for the appointment of a Committee to revise the constitution of this House, when it was thought by your Lordships that to appoint a Committee to consider so large and important a subject was a step which could not be taken with perfect safety. Another noble Lord (Stratheden and Campbell) on a subsequent occasion proposed a Motion for a Commission to inquire into the subject of the Standing Orders of this House. The view of the noble Lord, I understand, was that it was desirable that we should examine that subject with the assistance of some Members of the other House and of other gentlemen whom he thought qualified to join in the work of inquiry. That view also failed to commend itself to your Lordships. The third occasion was when my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Dunraven), with characteristic independence and courage, brought forward a Bill embodying the various changes which he considered it was desirable to carry out in the constitution of this House. That Bill was fully debated before your Lordships on the Motion for second reading and was withdrawn. These discussions, if they did nothing else, revealed a considerable difference of opinion between those who had turned their attention to the subject of the constitution of the House. The noble Earl the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at the conclusion of his speech, used the following expression:—
  "He trusted that their Lordships would without further delay undertake the duty of repairing, renovating, and reconstructing their House."
  Now, I believe that in the opinion of this House it is necessary and desirable to proceed without delay to repair and renovate this House, but I am not equally sure that we are prepared at this moment to undertake its complete reconstruction. Between the very divergent opinions upon this subject—the opinions

  1317
  of those who are in favour of abolishing the House of Lords as at present constituted, and, on the other hand, the opinions of those who think that there are no changes that can be carried out with propriety—I think that there are certain middle views upon which useful legislation can be founded and useful action taken. It is possible that it may be necessary to reconstruct this House at some future time; but in order to reconstruct you must first pull down, and before doing so I believe that it is the opinion of your Lordships that we ought to exhaust all measures of reform, repair, and renovation on and within the lines of the present constitution of the House. In reforming the House of Lords with a view to increase its efficiency I believe that we shall have to proceed on the lines indicated by the noble Earl opposite, who was once Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In a speech during the debate on the Bill of my noble Friend behind me the noble Earl said that the reform of the House should be undertaken in a tentative, guarded, prudent, and careful manner. I believe the noble Earl on that occasion spoke the opinions of the majority of your Lordships. I believe that the ancient method of the inclined plane is the method best suited to the Assembly with which we have to deal. It is a method which we ought to prefer to the more violent methods of modern science. In accordance with this spirit the Prime Minister, in the debate on the Bill of my noble Friend, announced to the House the policy which the Government were prepared to pursue with reference to this question, and he said that he would be willing to introduce a measure to facilitate the entrance of Life Peers into your Lordships' House. He also stated that he would be prepared to bring in a measure to give power to this House—a power which we do not at present possess—to expel from our midst any of our Members who may have been convicted of offences rendering them in the opinion of all right-thinking men unworthy to sit in a House representing a branch of the Legislature. Those two matters will have to be dealt with by a measure which the Prime Minister will introduce before long. But there are besides many points connected with the procedure of this House which it will be
  1318
  necessary to deal with if we wish to treat the whole of this subject in a thorough and comprehensive manner. The Prime Minister intimated in his speech—and I believe we all agree with him—that the procedure of this House is open to considerable objection and requires renovation. It is with this view that I have given Notice of a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the subject of the Standing Orders of the House. I do not pretend for one minute that by a recasting of the Standing Orders you can remove all the objections that are entertained to the composition of the House and its constitution; but the speeches that have been made and the writings that have appeared during the last few months have convinced us that there are many matters which are not suitable for legislation, but which can and ought to be dealt with under the Standing Orders. Let me point to one difficulty that meets us upon the very threshold of the subject. I have found the utmost difficulty in ascertaining exactly the position of some of our Rules and regulations. They have grown up, some of them under prescriptive right, some of them by immemorial custom, and some of them exist on our Journals simply in the form of Resolutions. Others, again, occupy places in the book containing the Standing Orders. It would be much simpler and much more useful if the majority of the Resolutions which are passed by this House with reference to its proceedings could find a place among the Standing Orders. This is now far from being the practice in our House, although it is the practice in the other House. Let me refer, by way of example, to the question of the hour at which this House meets. Some few years ago a noble Lord moved that the House should meet for Public Business at half-past 4 o'clock instead of at half-past 5, and a Resolution was passed to that effect; but I cannot find that there is any Standing Order upon the subject. This shows how difficult it is to classify the Rules that regulate our Procedure, and to find the sanction under which those Rules have been established. Now, I propose to enumerate the chief complaints and criticisms which have been brought against the Procedure of this House, and to show that they constitute a justification for the appointment of a Committee such as that for which I now move.

  1319
  The first and most important subject which can be dealt with under the Standing Orders is the quorum of this House. The late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on both occasions of his bringing this subject before the House, dwelt at some length upon the utter inadequacy of the quorum of three, which, he believed, was held to be the quorum of our House. I cannot ascertain under what authority the quorum is fixed, but it does stand at as low a figure as three. The noble Earl gave us some amusing anecdotes illustrating the impropriety of a quorum being fixed at so low a figure. I do not propose to enumerate them, but I should like to tell the House what I believe to be the greatest inconvenience of so small a quorum and the strongest reason which exists for an alteration in our Rules in this respect. The greatest objection I conceive to be this—that it is quite possible that the House of Commons may have spent several weeks in the discussion and elaboration of a measure which it sends up to this House in a late period of the Session, and which it is in the power of this House to reject by the votes of an unduly small number of Members of this House. I can find within recent years two instances of such a proceeding. In the year 1878, on the 5th of August, the Tenant Right (Ireland) Bill was brought up to this House, having been passed by the House of Commons. A Motion was made to read the Bill on that day three months, and a Division took place, consisting of 25 Non-Contents and eight Contents. In so small a Division as this the measure was rejected. A still worse case occurred last year on the 12th of August. The Agricultural Labourers' Holdings (Scotland) Bill, which had passed the House of Commons, was brought up to this House. On the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill there were nine Contents and nine Non-Contents. The Committee was, therefore, negatived, and the Bill was lost. I only give these two cases because they show a state of things against which it is our duty to guard. I will give some instances of smaller Divisions in this House. In August, 1867, in a Division there voted on the one side one and on the other side nine—total, 10. In the same month of the same year in a Division there voted on one side seven, on the other 11
  1320
  —total, 18. In 1868 in a Division on one side there voted 13, on the other side six—total, 19. In 1871 there voted in a Division on one side seven, on the other eight—total, 15. In 1879 in a Division on one side there were three, on the other 13—total, 16. In 1885 in a Division on one side here voted seven, and on the other six—total, 13. I do not want to found any very strong argument on these figures, but I do think they show that when we have a quorum such as that under which we perform our legislative duties it is possible that measures may be rejected by a very inadequate number of votes. I commend that subject to the attention of the Committee if your Lordships should grant it. Then, with regard to the question of the attendance of your Lordships in this House, I approach a very difficult and, perhaps, a very delicate matter. My noble Friend behind me, in the debate a few weeks ago, suggested that a minimum of attendance by your Lordships at the debates in this House should constitute the right to vote. Whether your Lordships would agree to that I do not know, but of this I am sure, that it is within the power of the House, though perhaps some of your Lordships may not be aware of it, to enforce the attendance of its Members not only at Committees, but also at any other time during the progress of legislative Business in this House. Whether or not measures should be adopted to enforce a better attendance I know not, but undoubtedly the subject is one which should receive the attention of the Committee. Then my noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs called the attention of the House to the functions of the Lord Speaker, or rather to his want of functions. My noble Friend who introduced a Bill on the subject of Procedure in this House also told us that the want of authority by our Speaker paralyzed the energies of the Members of this House and prevented a large number of able Members from taking part in our debates. I have never been able to understand why the Chairman of the House of Lords should not exercise the rights and enjoy the authority exercised and enjoyed by any chairman of any meeting throughout the whole country. It is a fact that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does possess the authority and the right

  1321
  to call Peers to Order, although I have heard that doubted. [Cries of "No, no!"] I find on page 17 of the Standing Orders the following Rule:—
  "If any Lord has occasion to speak with another Lord while the House is sitting they are to retire to the Prince's Chamber and not converse in the space behind the Woolsack, or else the Lord Speaker is to call them to Order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation."
  Thus the Lord Speaker has authority to call us to Order, and, therefore, he has authority to regulate our proceedings, at all events, in some respects. If that is the case, why should he not be allowed to select those who are to address the House in their turn? My noble Friend opposite, I think, more than once called attention to the inconvenient and almost unseemly character of these contests which occasionally take place between noble Lords in their natural desire and ambition to address your Lordships. Two noble Lords gave us an excellent illustration of this difficulty during the last debate upon our Procedure, and I cannot help hoping that if we do revise our Standing Orders in this respect, our Speaker will, in future, have the right to call upon any noble Lord to address the House, instead of its being left to one of the Leaders of either side to make the Motion that one of two speakers should be heard. Then there was the subject, and it was one of great importance, of resignation by life Peers of their office and status of Peers. My noble Friend opposite alluded to this question in his able and eloquent speech on a former occasion. He said that in 1678 a Resolution was passed by the House affirming that no Peer could divest himself of his Peerage, or that, in other words, it was impossible that any Peer should resign his seat and his post in this House; and my noble Friend argued that, inasmuch as it was in the power of the House to pass this Resolution, by the same reasoning it must be within the power of the House to pass a Resolution affirming the right which they had previously denied. I am bound to say that I cannot quite coincide with the view of my noble Friend. But let me say that in the Standing Orders there is a Resolution that no Peer can take his seat until he has attained the age of 21, and if the reasoning of my noble Friend is correct, it would be equally impossible for us to
  1322
  assert that a Peer should not take his seat until he was 25 years of age, which is an Amendment I have heard suggested by many who take an interest in this question. I have mentioned these matters because I think that when we come to examine into the Standing Orders we shall find that we must be very careful in the Resolutions which we place upon the Paper, and we must take into view the analogy which will be drawn from any Resolutions which we may so insert. My noble Friend opposite suggested in the course of his speech that Joint Committees of both Houses should sit to consider the state of Business in each House, for the purpose of relieving the congestion of our House, and the inactivity of the other by a consideration of the Bills to be brought forward in both. That was a very important suggestion; but in looking over the Standing Orders of this House I could not help being struck with the fact that the regulations to guide and control our proceedings when we are sitting in conference or on Joint Committees with the other House are such as to discourage to a very high degree any such negotiations between the two Houses. No language of mine can, I think, sufficiently well describe the inconvenience of the Standing Orders affecting our proceedings in conjunction with the other House of Parliament. The House will bear with me if I read what is the present condition of our Rules on the subject of conferences with the other House—
  "The place of meeting with the Lower House upon conference is usually the Painted Chamber, where they are commonly before we come and expecting our leisure. We are to come in thither in a whole body, and not some Lords scattering before the rest, which both takes from the gravity of the Lords and besides may hinder the Lords from taking their proper places. We are to sit there and to be covered, and they are at no Committee or conference even either to be covered or to sit down in our presence, unless it be some infirm person, and that by connivance in a corner out of sight, to sit but not to be covered."
  That, undoubtedly, does seem absurd and a mere laughing matter; but I cannot help thinking that if we are to encourage, as I hope we always shall encourage, joint action on the part of both Houses of Parliament, it is impossible to keep on our Standing Orders such a Rule as that which I have just read, and I trust that the Committee which will revise our Standing Orders will once for

  1323
  all obliterate it from our Rules. Then there are many other small matters which affect the dignity and convenience of our debates. There is, for instance, the question which was also mentioned by my noble Friend as to the difficulty which arises from our not being allowed to name each other in debate. That is a small matter, but it affects the convenience of the House. There is likewise the question of the hours of sitting, which I have previously mentioned, and also that of whether there should be an adjournment at a certain hour for dinner as some have suggested. There is another question of some importance—namely, that of the reporting in this House and the arrangements which may have to be made to facilitate the obtaining of better reports of our proceedings. I have the honour to be Chairman of a Committee of both Houses on this subject, which has not yet concluded its deliberations, and therefore I cannot now refer to the matter in any detail; but, if it is thought necessary that an official report should be made of the proceedings in Parliament, it would probably be found requisite that the reporters should be allowed to come within the sacred precincts in which we sit, and in that case the Standing Orders would have to be altered. Then, if the Prime Minister introduces and succeeds in passing his Bill to enable us to expel any Member of this House who is thought unworthy to sit in it, an alteration of the Standing Orders will be necessary in regard to that subject. I have, my Lords, now enumerated the chief points with which the Committee that we desire to appoint would deal. As I have said before, the policy of the Government is to repair and renovate within the lines of the present constitution of the House, and I believe that in the Bill which my noble Friend will present, and in the action of the Committee which I trust your Lordships will appoint, remedies will be found for many of the criticisms which are passed upon this House. I will say also for this Motion that it does not compete with and is not antagonistic to any more ambitious schemes which we have heard suggested in various quarters, and which I do not believe the action of this Committee will in any sense prejudice. It is designed to meet many reasonable objections, to remedy obvious defects, and to disarm
  1324
  some legitimate criticism. That being the scope and object of the Committee which I beg to move, I think I am entitled to express the hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House in dealing with this question will co-operate with the Government in the honest attempt which they are making so to improve the Procedure of this Assembly as to maintain the traditions and to enhance the influence and authority of the House of Lords.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine and report upon those Standing Orders of the House which relate to the conduct of public business."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although I do not rise to offer the slightest objection to the appointment of the Committee which has been proposed by the Lord Privy Seal, I am not perfectly sure that I should not have preferred that he should not have given his reasons for his Motion, but should have simply moved it. The first ground which he adduced for the appointment of the Committee I confess I did not think was a very strong one. He wishes to change some obsolete and ridiculous Standing Order in regard to maintaining a formal superiority for Members of this House over Members of the other House when they meet in conference. With respect to the question of a quorum, the noble Earl certainly made as much as he possibly could of that point; but, notwithstanding the instances which he quoted of Divisions taken in this House when very small numbers were present, I am not aware that any great practical inconvenience has arisen from that cause; while, on the other hand, if a quorum consisting of a considerable number of Peers were adopted, enormous practical inconvenience might result, more especially for any Liberal Government which might be in Office. With regard to his suggestion as to the authority of the Lord Chancellor in this House, I am entirely opposed to it in principle. The noble Earl referred to the powers of the Speaker of the House of Commons; but it should be remembered that the Speaker is elected by the House of Commons, and is considered to be a perfectly neutral person and perfectly impartial. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor is a political officer, and is generally, if not always, a Mem-

  1325
  ber of the Government; and that gives him a political character. Although I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, like his immediate predecessors, would wish to be perfectly impartial, yet it is impossible that on any vexed question of a Party nature suddenly arising, the decision which he gave might not be supposed at least to have been influenced by political or Party feeling. Then, again, I have great doubts whether we should extend the age of admission to this House from 21 to 25 years. I do not think that would be an advantage. I think that every encouragement should be given to young Peers to come into the House at 21, in order that they may be allowed as early as possible to become acquainted with Public Business. With regard to the practice of Members of the House referring to each other by their titles, the same objection applies as in "another place," that it might possibly add a little to the direct acerbity of debate. The Committee might do some service by removing Standing Orders that are obsolete, and by classifying the remainder, but I hope that in other respects it will do more good than the speech of the noble Earl has foreshadowed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I think that the Motion might have met with a somewhat less ungracious reception from the noble Earl opposite. It is not to be expected that those who are in favour of this Committee should all hold exactly the same views as to the matters which will come before it for consideration. The noble Earl naturally differs from my noble Friend as to some of the points that will come before the Committee; but, while we should be glad to avoid that melancholy result as much as possible, I cannot admit that that is an argument against appointing the Committee. Undoubtedly, there are some matters in the Standing Orders of this House which will require very little alteration, but there are others which ought to be put upon a more reasonable footing than they are at present. Some of these points are of considerable importance. Two of them are of great importance—namely, the question of the quorum and the question of securing the attendance
  1326
  of noble Lords during the debates. There are, I think, other matters for consideration, as to the apportionment of time, especially in view of the circumstance, which appears now to have become permanent, that we have to wait very often a considerable period while the House of Commons is not doing its work, until that House sends up measures, and we have to approach a vast mass of accumulated Business at an advanced period of the Session. It might, therefore, be considered whether some possible alterations of detail in our modes of proceeding would not make it more easy to meet that difficulty. All that I intend to urge is that I do not think we should necessarily abstain from appointing this Committee, either because we may be unable to find solutions in which all will agree, or because the alterations to be made are not of first-rate and revolutionary importance. We do not undertake, as I have had the honour of saying to your Lordships before, to make any startling or dramatic changes in the character or constitution of this House. We wish, as the noble Earl has said, that any reform we attempt should be made tentatively, believing that the work will be done better if it is done slowly and by small steps, if we are careful never to depart from the original lines which the traditions of this House have brought down to us, and if we are careful also to avoid conforming to a mere passing and accidental impulse, remembering that the process of improvement ought to be constantly going on, and ought not to be the subject of sudden, large, and sensational steps. I hope that will be the spirit that will always animate your Lordships' House, from whatever side the Government may be constituted; and I have very little doubt that if we address ourselves in that spirit to the task before us we shall materially and sensibly add to the influence of this House, and to the value of the services which it is capable of rendering to the country.
  Motion agreed to.

LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.
(The Lord Herschell.)
LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.

  (NO. 24.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Trustee may insure buildings).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, it appeared to him that some Amendments were necessary in the drafting of the clause. He expressed a doubt whether the Statute of Limitations should apply to cases of gross negligence on the part of trustees, and whether in that respect the clause had not gone too far.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he should be willing to accept any necessary alterations in the drafting of the clause, but he must dissent from the view taken by the Lord Chancellor in reference to the application of the Statute of Limitations to the cases of negligent trustees, who had not been guilty of fraud. He would, however, carefully consider any Amendment which the Lord Chancellor might place upon the Paper with regard to the point.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Statute of limitation may be pleaded by trustees) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Extent of Act's application).
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he might mention that the Rule Committee of Judges had power to settle the list of investments for funds in Court, and that it might be desirable to await the determination of the list upon which the Judges were then engaged, and which might render the greater part of the clause unnecessary. With regard to the Sub-section (f), he thought it would be better to include all the inscribed stocks of Colonial Governments, so as to avoid applications to the Courts, which were most expensive to the parties and liable to do injury to any securities which might not be approved.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he viewed the matter from the point of view of a layman and not from the legal point of view. He stated, with all respect, that in this matter of dealing with trust property lay as well as legal opinion should be considered. He thought that the Judges had been somewhat extreme—he might almost say superstitious—in the restraints they had imposed on investment. Although it was true that that caution on the part of the Courts might here and there be of ad-
  1328
  vantage in the interests of safety, yet at the same time he thought that some trusts were exposed to loss. He should, therefore, be disposed to say that where there was reasonable ground for considering the investment to be safe, they ought to think, not only of the few persons affected by the investment if it should fail, but of the persons who would be injured if they were excluded from the benefit of it. He protested against the doctrine that they ought to be guided by the opinion of the Judges exclusively in this matter. He was in favour of very considerable latitude in the investment of trust funds, because he believed that very great benefit would accrue, especially in these times, when persons could not afford to sacrifice the margin of advantageous investment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to refer to the difficulties surrounding the action of trustees and to generally approve the view just stated by the noble Marquess. He expressed the hope that nothing would be done to discourage investment in Colonial Stock.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was disposed to share the lay view of the noble Marquess. He was most unwilling to leave this matter to a general order of the Courts. It was a matter in which both Houses of Parliament were just as able to judge as the Judges; and, therefore, he should prefer the determination of the question by Parliament. Sub-section (f) arose in this way. It was in the present form in the Scotch Investment Act of 1884. The Scotch trustees had been empowered to invest in Colonial Stocks; and, therefore, it was thought desirable that the English trustees should possess the same power. Then the question had to be considered whether power could be given to invest in inscribed stock of every British Colony without any control. This applied not only to existing inscribed stock, but to those stocks which might hereafter be inscribed. After full consideration of the question, the Committee of the House came to the conclusion that they could not recommend unlimited power to invest in every inscribed stock of every British Colony. Then there was the further question whether it was possible to lay down any guiding line which should enable a distinction to be drawn between those stocks which would be safe and those which would not. The Com-

  1329
  mittee could not see their way to suggest any method of discriminating in the matter.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Tuesday the 19 th instant.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 47.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definitions).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved to insert the following definition of "affiliation":—
  "Affiliation' for the purposes of this Act shall mean such a connection between an existing University and College as shall be entered into by their mutual consent, under conditions approved by the Commissioners, or, after the determination of their powers, by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council."
  He thought if the noble Marquess accepted his Amendment it would greatly simplify the Bill, and get rid of the words "added to" and "addition," which were particularly bare and meagre.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, he was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl. He was afraid, however, that the word "affiliation" had two or three meanings and was not quite understood. He preferred the word "addition." The object he had in view in leaving out the words "affiliation and incorporation," and any other form of union, and inserting the words "added to," was to give the widest possible meaning to the term employed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he hoped the noble Earl would retain the word "affiliation," because it was a term which they all knew quite well, and one which was used in connection with the Universities. The word "addition," on the other hand, meant anything in the world. He was glad the noble Marquess was willing to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend.
  LORD WATSONthought the Amendment made the meaning of the word "affiliation" perfectly clear.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must confess that he did not see any objection to the Bill as it originally stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was quite willing to accept the word "affiliation."
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that if the word "affiliation" was to be substituted throughout for the words "added to," he should withdraw his proposal to substitute "associated with" instead of "added to."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of LOTHIAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, at end of Clause 3, add—
  "'College,' where by the context it does not apply to a college presently forming part of any university, means any institution which may be added as a college to such university by the Commissioners, or after the expiry of their powers by the university court under this Act.
  "'Governing body' means a body constituted on a permanent footing, and charged, by Act of Parliament, Royal Charter, deed of endowment and trust, or otherwise, with the management and administration of any fund devoted to higher education.
  "'Students Representative Council' means a students' representative council in any university, constituted in such manner as shall be fixed by the Commissioners under this Act."
  Amendment moved,
  After the word "institution" omit the words "which may be added as a College to such University by the Commissioners, or after the expiry of their powers by the University Court under this Act," in order to insert the following—"established on a permanent footing for the purpose of teaching the higher branches of education, and which shall be sufficiently endowed, in the opinion of the Commissioners, and after the expiry of their powers by the University Committee.—(The Lord Watson.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that so far as he understood the Amendment he was prepared to accept it, but he should not like to do so off-hand. Therefore he would state what he proposed to do on Report.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would appeal to the noble Marquess to allow the Amendment to be inserted now, and, if necessary, it could be dealt with on Report.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANassented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Commencement of Act).
  Clause 5 (University Courts).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he should like to refer to this clause.

  1331
  Sub-section (c) provided "the head of each College presently existing in or which may hereafter be affiliated to or incorporated with the University" might hereafter be added to the University Court. He could not see that it was necessary that the head of the College should be part of the University Court. Objection had been taken that these courts were too bulky, and he thought it would be a good commencement to omit these words and leave it entirely to the Commissioners under Sub-section 1 to add such number of the Governing Body of any College affiliated to the university as they might see fit. He moved the omission of Sub-section (c).
  Amendment moved to omit Sub-section (c).—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he quite agreed that this was a matter of very considerable importance, because the University Court would be a very unwieldly and cumbrous body, and it was obvious that if a great number of small Colleges took advantage of the provisions of the Bill, and if it was imperative that the head of each College should be a member of the Court, too many members would be added to the Courts in proportion to the University representatives. Although there was a difficulty in laying down any imperative rule, it would be wise to impose some reasonable limitation on the numbers who were to represent affiliated Colleges. Therefore it appeared to him to be necessary to make some alteration in the direction suggested by the noble Earl. It might be left to the Commissioners to fix the amount of representation, having regard to the proportion of the teachers and the number of their students as compared with the number of University students and teachers. He did not say the proportion should be precisely the same, because some Universities contained a very large number of students; but, at the same time, considering the nature of these bodies, he thought the representation should bear some proportion to the total number of the teachers and the students whom they brought in as affiliated to the University, and that should not only apply to their representation on the Court, but to the purposes for which they sat.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that it was a very great pity that, in order to
  1332
  conciliate the various claims to sit in the Courts, these bodies had been swollen to a very unwieldly size. He confessed that, where they were giving such very large powers to the Commissioners, he thought it would have been a simpler solution of the matter to leave the composition of the University Court to the Commission. But as a different course had been taken it appeared to him that Sub-section 1 more than covered what was put forward by Sub-section (c). In many cases the head of a College would not be engaged in teaching. He had in his mind one great College where the head would be in that position, and he would be forced to be a member of the University Court, probably against his will. He would also remind the Committee that the Bill gave a certain fixed proportion to the great University on the University Court, and that the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow might double their classes without having any power to increase their representatives; while, on the other hand, each small College might have two representatives, and have at least one. So that the result might be that the affiliated Colleges would altogether swamp a University in the University Court. He would, therefore, suggest to the noble Marquess the following Amendment, which, however, he would not move—
  "That the Commissioners should arrange for the due representation on the University Courts of affiliated colleges, having regard to the relative number of the colleges, of the teaching staffs, of students proceeding to graduation, and of the nature of the connection proposed to be established in each case."
  They must remember that affiliation, according to the definition that was to be inserted, and the various forms of union contemplated in the Bill, covered a very great variety of possible relations between the Colleges and the University. They might have a union for purely graduating purposes, and an affiliation of a character approaching incorporation. But under this clause there was no discrimination with regard to the representation, and he thought that the Universities had a fair claim to have their ase reconsidered by the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was quite willing to admit that grave matters for consideration had been raised, and suggested the postponement of the Amendment to the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was willing to postpone his Amendment to the Report stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANremarked that the object of the Government in framing the constitution of the Courts was that they thought it was desirable, as far as possible, to make the numbers statutory. That number might be infringed by Sub-section 2. He still thought that it was desirable that the Court should be constituted by the Bill as far as possible, but was willing to consider the omission of the sub-section under consideration.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked for the reason why it was proposed to give the Crown the right to appoint two assessors? He could see no reason for it. He begged to move the sub-section giving that power.
  Amendment moved, In page 2, line 32, to leave out sub-section (h).—(The Earl of Rosebery).
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANexplained that the Government thought it desirable that the Crown should have the right to nominate as members of the Court men of eminence in science, art, or business. It was obvious that such men would be of the greatest possible advantage to a University Court, and there appeared to be no other easy manner of obtaining the advantage of their assistance than that proposed in the clause.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought it was undesirable to introduce into the Court any members nominated by the Crown. The Court was to manage the business of the University, and it would be of no use to have members on it who did not regularly attend. If the eminent men referred to by the noble Marquess resided in the place where the University was, they would most likely be nominated by the Senatus, for they would in all probability be connected with the University. If they resided elsewhere, he did not think they would be of much use. As to redressing the balance of parties, he thought it would be a very great mistake for the Crown to nominate any members for that purpose. He moved the omission of the sub-section.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. He should have thought that the noble Earl would have presumed that the Crown would only nominate members who could attend the meetings of the Court. He was not thinking of political parties in this matter, or in connection with the Bill; and he, therefore, did not think that the Crown nominees would have anything to do with Party politics.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that considering the enormous power they were placing by statute in the hands of the Court, it was of importance that it should be a body of great weight, including a variety of representatives, and appointed by a number of authorities. Those who administered the Imperial affairs of the country would generally appoint fit persons to take part in the proceedings of the University Court, and he did not view with any alarm the fact of the Crown appointing two assessors.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was not at all re-assured by the explanations. He looked upon these Crown assessors as amiable superfluities, and he failed to find out any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, for their existence. It was admitted that the smaller the body, consistently with due regard to representation, to conduct business, the more efficiently was the business likely to be done. This Court was an inconveniently large body. It almost approached the size of an overgrown modern Cabinet—than which body there could be nothing more ridiculous for the transaction of business. He wished to ask the further question. Where were these superfluous representatives of science and art to be found? Look at Edinburgh. He wanted to know where the representatives of science and art were to be found outside the University? Were they to be found in Glasgow? There was one perhaps in Aberdeen, the ex-principal, but he did not think it likely that the Crown would appoint him. Perhaps there were at St. Andrew's some persons who were prepared to undertake the duty of Crown assessors. If these eminent gentlemen were only to swoop down on great occasions, they would disturb and not redress any balance of parties.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he could not disguise from himself that the presence of two eminent and distinguished persons selected by the Govern-

  1335
  ment for the time might be of essential use to the University. The Scotch Universities owed a great deal of their financial resources to the Government, and they might in the future wish to obtain additional resources, and these two representatives of the Government on the Court might be useful intermediates between the Government and the University. The balance of advantage was on the side of the proposals in the Bill.
  LORD WATSONsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken seemed to forget entirely the scheme of this Bill. Great part of the work of a University Court was of an ordinary business character—the administration of property and Revenue, and questions of teaching and discipline—and whenever the Court performed an important Act requiring an ordinance, they necessarily came into contact with the Universities Committee, without whose sanction that act would have no effect. He believed that the men chosen as members of the University Court would be of sufficient mark and ability to give good advice on all questions that would come before them. There would be plenty of them to do the work, and they would not want assistance.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had not put any Amendments on the Paper, and did not wish to move any which might be adverse to the opinion of his noble Friend; but he wished to point out that his noble Friend had put most inconvenient restriction upon the power of the Rector in the appointment of his assessors. The Rectors in the Scottish Universities were generally political persons. It was one of the traditional privileges of the Scottish students, and one which they very highly prized, that they elected the Rectors of the Universities, and they made it to a large extent notoriously a political matter. There was a Conservative Committee, a Liberal Committee, and possibly a Home Rule Committee, too, in connection with each University. Politics, fortunately, did not always guide the students in their choice. They sometimes chose eminent men in politics and in literature, and very often they chose men of general eminence in the country, but almost invariably they chose men who could not practically take part in the work of the University. Therefore, the Rector came to be represented by
  1336
  his assessors. His noble Friend put the Rector under this extraordinary Parliamentary statutory direction—"The Rector may, before he appoints an assessor, confer with his students." By the insertion of these words they put the Rector in a most invidious position. By law, the Rector had the right, once he was elected by the students, to appoint his assessor, and he almost invariably appointed a good man. But if they compelled him to consult the students, he would he placed in an exceedingly inconvenient and invidious position. The students were eminently capable of deciding upon a man of eminence as Rector, but he did not think they were so well able to choose a good man of business for the working purposes of the University. He would, therefore, suggest that the words he had quoted should be struck out, so that the Rectors should be left free, as they were now, to choose their assessors.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he must press his Amendment to a Division.
  On Question, "That the sub-section proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not Contents 18: Majority 20.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Powers of the University Court).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 10, leave out "but without the power of alienating, except on application to and under the sanction of the Court of Session."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the sub-section giving the University Court generally all the powers necessary for the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University should be amended by leaving out the words—
  "But without the power of alienating, except on application to and under the sanction of the Court of Session,"
  said, the omission of these words would rather give larger powers to the University Court in respect to its property. He thought the University Courts, powerfully constituted as they were,

  1337
  more especially with the addition of Crown assessors, would be amply sufficient for the regulation of the property of the Universities. It would only be fair in a case where no jobbery could be suspected that they should have the largest powers conferred upon them.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKbegged to point out that under this clause the University Council had power to review, on representation made by any of its members, or by any member of the Senatus Academicus, any decision which the Senatus Academicus might come to in the exercise of its powers under Section 7. He thought it should be made distinctly clear what Her Majesty's Government meant, and whether the University Court or the Senatus Academicus was to be the absolute authority in matters of discipline and teaching, whether the resolutions of the Senatus were to be subject to alteration and repeal on the part of the University Court.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that the word "review" meant what the noble Lord had suggested it meant.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the omission of Sub-sections 8 and 9—first, because they were in the wrong part of the Bill; and secondly, because he considered the Bill would be better without them. When he said they were in the wrong part of the Bill his reason was that if they looked at the Bill they would see that the first six sub-sections dealt with certain administrative acts, and that Sub-sections 8 and 9 contemplated the giving of certain powers to enact regulations, and, in fact, power to introduce all sorts of changes. If they were to be introduced they should have been introduced in Clause 20, which dealt with ordinances.
  Amendment moved to omit Sub-sections 8 and 9,—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that he would consider the Amendment on Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved the substitution of the following for Subsection 10:—
  "To appoint committees of their own number, consisting of not less than five members,
  1338
  with powers either to transact directly such business as may be entrusted to them by the University or else to report thereon to the University Court."
  His reason for moving this Amendment was similar to the reasons he had given for moving a previous Amendment—namely, to enable the University Court to deal more readily and in a more business-like way with their own affairs. He understood the noble Marquess had no objection to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKproposed, in page 7, line 17, after Sub-section 10, to insert as a now Sub-section the following:—
  "To appoint representatives, being members of the University Court, to act as representatives of the University on the governing body of any college or colleges which may hereafter be associated with the Universities."
  He urged that it was desirable in the interests of harmony and good understanding between the Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them that there should be some representation of the Governing Body of the University on the Governing Body of the College. He thought the University Court should be represented on the Governing Body of a College in order to maintain harmony and good understanding between them, not with reference to the management of property and funds, but only with reference to discipline and teaching.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 17, after Sub-section 10, insert—"11. To appoint representatives, being members of the University Court, to act as representatives of the University on the governing body of any College or Colleges which may be hereafter associated with the Universities."—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he thought it was necessary to keep in mind that the Colleges and the University were to be affiliated of consent and under conditions approved by the Commissioners. He did not doubt that, in some cases at all events, it would be exceedingly distasteful to Colleges managing their own affairs to admit representatives to administer their funds or their patronage. He thought that the University Court ought to have a review of the teaching and discipline of every College associated with it; but beyond that the admission

  1339
  of representatives of the Court to the Governing Body of a College should be a matter of arrangement.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that he had a subsequent Amendment which particularly specified that the representatives of the University Court should have no power in the management or regulation of the funds or property of the College other than the contribution of the College to the University funds.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not see the force of the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Watson). Taking the definition of affiliation as it had been given, he pointed out that the conditions must be approved by both parties and by the University Commission. In these circumstances, he thought it could not be wrong to make those arrangements by that Court instead of adopting the method provided by the Bill, which was a one-sided arrangement. He thought the noble Marquess, in framing the Bill, had almost precluded by this marked omission the putting of a representative of the Commission on the Governing Body of the College. It ought, therefore, to be made clear in the Bill that a representative was considered by both parties desirable.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought that any representative of the University Court on the Governing Body of a College should be a purely optional matter, and he, therefore, could not consent to the Amendment. He remarked that Members of the House had had no opportunity of considering this proposal, as there had been no Notice given of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would suggest that an Amendment should be proposed on the Report stage to carry out his suggestion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought he could see his way to accept the principle contained in this suggestion, and offered to consider the Amendment with that view, before the Report stage.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Appointment of Commissioners and secretary).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYremarked, that he did not propose to say a word in regard to the Commission; but it was not to be taken that those on his side of the House approved of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that if the noble Lord did not express an opinion, he must be taken as approving of the Commission.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Power of the Commissioners).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved the insertion of the following sub-section in the part of the clause empowering the Commissioners to make ordinances:—
  "(C.) Where it shall seem requisite to frame regulations under which the patronage of existing bursaries vested in private individuals shall be exercised."
  He said his object was to leave some discretion to the Commissioners to leave alone those private bursaries which had worked well, and to deal only with those which should be proved to have given rise to jobbery.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, to insert the following sub-section:—(c) "Where it shall seem requisite to frame regulations under which the patronage of existing bursaries vested in private individuals shall be exercised."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that he had no objection to offer to the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he desired to congratulate the noble Marquess on having withdrawn from the Bill, as it stood originally, what was really a confiscatory clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the Secretary for Scotland if he thought it necessary that the 13th sub-section of this clause should be retained as it was?—
  "To lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of a Students' Representative Council in each University."
  It was proposed in another clause that the Rector might consult this Council with regard to his assessor; but the Rector had already that power, and, as a matter of practice, did consult the students now. He thought it was very

  1341
  doubtful as to whether Parliament should by Act of Parliament compel the Commissioners to lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of a Students' Representative Council, and to allot to them certain powers, because it must be remembered that when they said in an Act of Parliament that a thing "may" be done, it was an indication that it ought to be done. They knew nothing about these Students' Councils, and he did not think it was wise to mention them in this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that while he admitted that the principle of the sub-section was a new one, he thought it was very desirable, in the interests of the students themselves, that the Commissioners should have this optional power. He saw no reason why the Representative Councils should not be made as efficient as possible, and a responsibility given to their students themselves by their formal recognition. His desire was that the students should be consulted as to the Assessor by the Rector rather than by the Chairman of his Election Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could not congratulate the noble Marquess upon having made out a strong case. With the single exception of consulting with the Rector with regard to his Assessor, the Bill did not propose to confer any functions on the Students' Representative Council. As this one function could be performed now without the Bill, he did not see any necessity for the creation of the Council.
  LORD WATSONsaid, he thought it might be proper to lay down certain regulations; but he thought it was going a little too far to say that the Commissioners were to find out what were to be the functions of a Students' Representative Council in each University.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he did not concur with the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) with regard to the Students' Representative Council. He contended that the sub-section was an actual Instruction to the Commissioners. There was no doubt that students in the Scottish Universities were an active and rather aggressive body at the present moment. He thought they would take an active part in the management of the Universities, and he therefore thought it would be a
  1342
  wise thing to recognize them as a factor in University affairs, and to give them a recognized constitution and status. That might be done in a dangerous or revolutionary sense; but he thought the constitution of the Commission of which they had heard the names was a very ample provision against any danger of that kind. The matter might be safely entrusted to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he hoped their Lordships would now be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place on the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNintimated that on Report he should move the omission of the sub-section.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Marquess of LOTHIAN, the following Clause was inserted after Clause 14:—
  (Extension of Universities.)
  "The Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the university court, may, if they think fit, make ordinances to extend any of the universities, by adding new colleges to them, under regulations to be laid down by the Commissioners, subject to the following conditions:—

  (1.) The university court, and the college which it is proposed shall form part of the university, shall be consenting parties.

  (2.) The approval of the universities committee shall be signified.

  (3.) The college shall have been, under its existing constitution, placed on a permanent footing, and shall be sufficiently endowed, in the opinion of the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, of the universities committee.

  (4.) The university and any college or colleges which may be added to it shall severally contribute for the general purposes of the university as increased by such addition such annual sum as the commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the university court, may determine, having regard to the special circumstances of the case.

  (5.) Where such college is established on a permanent footing under Act of Parliament, Royal charter, deed of appointment, or other trust, and under its constitution the college funds are managed by persons other than the members of the teaching department, such funds, other than those contributed to the university, shall continue to be managed as heretofore, subject to the control and review of the university court.

  (6.) The university court, or any college under which this Act shall have been made part of the university, may respect-

  1343
  tively resolve that such college shall cease to form part of such university; and, upon such resolution being passed by the university court, or notified to the university court by such college, the university court shall rescind the ordinance by which such college was made to form part of such university. Provided always, that all questions of payment or repayment of any sums of money which may be alleged to be due or repayable by either the university to the college or by the college to the university, on such ordinance being rescinded, shall be disposed of by an order of the universities committee, after such inquiry as shall to the said committee seem necessary, and whose decision thereon shall be final."

  Amendment moved, to omit Sub-section 3 of New Clause.—(The Lord Watson.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was willing to assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he thought the same course should be followed with respect to Sub-sections 4 and 5, and he would move their omission.
  Amendment moved, to omit sub-sections 4 and 5.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was prepared to agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he understood that when a College was to be united with a University, the union was to be effected with the consent of the Universities Court; but from Sub-section 6 of Clause 15, it would appear that the separation of the College from the University might be effected by a resolution of the University Court without the consent of the Universities Committee. He had been told that the consent of the Universities Committee was implied in another part of the Bill, which he failed to discover.
  LORD WATSONexplained that, as the clause stood, if one of the parties desired to withdraw from the arrangement that had been made, it was imperative on the University Court to rescind the ordinance. Under these circumstances, he thought that under the plain construction of the clause there would be no reference made to the Universities Committee. Whether that was desirable or not was another question.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that in any case there must be a safeguard against compulsory separation.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANassured the noble Earl that that danger would be guarded against. Clause 19 provided that the ordinances should be laid before Parliament.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 21 (Transfer of property by Commissioner of Works and vesting thereof).
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he had an Amendment, the object of which was to exclude the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens from the operation of the Bill. This was a subject of great interest in the Scottish Metropolis. It was difficult to see why it was proposed that this Garden should be handed over to the Edinburgh University, and, so far as he had been able to gather, the University did not want it. Neither the Town Council nor the public approved of the change. As regarded the Town Council, they had indicated their strong wish that the existing arrangement should continue; and they had good grounds for expressing that opinion, including this, that they had spent as much as £19,000 in order to acquire the control of the Arboretum attached to the Garden. The only difficulty in accepting the Amendment was, he supposed, that if it were accepted it might be thought that the sum of money proposed to be awarded to the University of Edinburgh ought to be reduced by the amount now spent in keeping up the Gardens. He should be sorry if such a course was insisted on, because it was obvious that the University of Edinburgh might not spend as much on the Garden as was now spent. They might feel that there were other matters which had a prior claim on their consideration.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, lines 24 to 28, leave out ("but subject as to the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens and all buildings therein as to the provisions hereinafter contained for the redemption of a sum of one hundred and fifty pounds per annum now payable to the Professor of Public Law in the University of Edinburgh").—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that this was a matter entirely in the

  1345
  hands of the Treasury, and that it was out of his power to agree to the Amendment. A similar provision had existed in previous University Bills.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped the question would be raised with greater success in the House of Commons.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Report on finance to be made annually).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved, as an Amendment, that the Report "be presented to and considered by the General Council of the University," as well as laid before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked, if there was any necessity that the Report should be laid before Parliament?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANstated that he was unable to accept the Amendment, and that he thought it was advisable that the Financial Report should be laid before Parliament.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday the 19 th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 133.)

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE— LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF FIFEasked, Whether it was the intention of the Government to create a Minister for Agriculture according to the promise held out by them? He did not think he needed to offer any apology for introducing this matter, because he did not think the conduct of the Government had been altogether satisfactory with regard to it. If the Bill was ready it should be produced, and he wished to know whether there was any chance of its being introduced in time to be adequately discussed, and to be passed this Session?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that a Question on this subject had been already answered in the other House, and he could only repeat the statements that had been made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the other House. The Government had always intended to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons, and the noble Earl could gather for himself what were the chances of such a Bill making any progress in the other House at the present time. Of course, it would be possible to introduce the Bill in that House, but the great practical objection to that was that it was eminently a financial Bill. The Bill was quite ready, and the Government hoped before long to be able to pass it through the other House. In the meantime he would consider the matter, and if there was no possibility of introducing it in the other House they must attempt to bring it forward in the House of Lords and to pass it this year.

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—PETER- SHAM PARK—SITE FOR VICARAGE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MEATHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether any application had been made to the First Commissioner of Works for the grant of a piece of land in Petersham Park as a site for a Vicarage; and, if so, what reply had been sent to such application?
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that the Petition with regard to this piece of land was presented to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who found that it was a matter that should be dealt with by the First Commissioner of Works. An inquiry had been made by the First Commissioner, who ascertained that the piece of land was part of Petersham Park; and, after looking carefully into the matter, his opinion was that, at present at all events, the Petition was one that should not be granted.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.