Sitting of 7 May 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Special Report—Committee of Selection (Standing Committees).
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment* [233].
Committee—Criminal Evidence [132]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Government (England and Wales) Electors [181–253].
Third Reading—Glebe Lands* [180], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tramways (No. 2)* [242]; Tramways (No. 3)* [243]; Gas (No. 1)* [244]; Gas (No. 2)* [245]; Water (No. 2)* [246]; Gas and Water* [247]; Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* [248]; Local Government (No. 3)* [249]; Local Government (No. 4)* [250]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6)* [251]; Local Government (Gas)* [252].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Police* [212].

QUESTIONS.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886—CLAUSE 6, SEC. 2—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether fair rents payable by crofters are, by Clause 6, Section 2, of the Act of 1886, declared to run as from the first term of Whit Sunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Crofters' Commissioners; whether the decision of the Commissioners as regards the estate of South Uist occurred on the 10th of October, 1887; whether, so early as the term of Martinmas, 1887, arrears on the estate of South Uist could under the Act be dealt with or demanded; whether he is aware that in the case of Dugald Walker, crofter, Kilphedder, of South Uist, whose rent was reduced from £5 to £3, and arrears amounting to £52 5s. 3d. cancelled, except as to £6 payable in half-yearly payments of £1, Walker was asked for the first half-yearly instalment within two months of the Commissioners' decree?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The words of Sudsection 2, Clause 6, are that the rent fixed by the Commission shall be deemed to be the rent payable by the crofter as from the first term of Whit Sunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision.

  1443
  The decision of the Commission on the South Uist rents was dated October 10, 1887. The Commission hold that they are entitled to order payment of the first instalment of arrears found due by them at the next ensuing term. Dugald Walker was asked for the first instalment of arrears found due—namely, £1—at Martinmas, 1887, which was within two months of the decision; but the proprietor did not, as she was entitled to do, require that the stipulated rent as for the previous term should be paid, but intimated that he need only for that term pay the same rent as would in future be paid under the decision of the Commission, and accordingly only £1 10 s., instead of £2 10 s., of rent was charged.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886—CLAUSE 1, SEC. 4—SUB DIVISION AND SUB-LETTING.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether a crofter who may for the season allow a cottar or relative the privilege of planting a few potatoes on a patch of the croft thereby incurs the penalty against sub-division and sublet, under Clause 1, Section 4, of the Crofters Act of 1886; whether he is aware that crofters on the estate of South Uist have been warned against granting the privilege; and, in particular, whether Angus Morrison, crofter in Kilphedder, of South Uist, was warned by the ground officer on the estate, on the 3rd of February, 1888, that if he permitted his brother, John Morrison, with 10 of a family, to plant a single potato, he (Angus) would be removed from the croft?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Without knowing the facts, and exact facts, of any case, it is impossible to expect an opinion on the legal question in the first paragraph, which is stated entirely hypothetically. Crofters have been warned against subletting crofts or parts of crofts in South Uist; and the general body of the crofters there have themselves expressed their dissatisfaction at the common pasture being overrun by stock belonging to cottars to whom parts of crofts have been illegally sub-let, to the injury of the township, and threatened the withholding of rant unless steps are taken by the proprietor against these unau-
  1444
  thorized sub-tenants. Angus Morrison, who is referred to in the last paragraph, allowed his brother, John Morrison, to build a house on his croft, and to house a family of 10 in it; and this brother now has planted six barrels of potatoes, and feeds three cattle and four sheep on the township pasture. The ground officer had no authority to make any such threat as is referred to in the last paragraph, and did not do so.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES—THE REPORT ON THE "COLLING WOOD" GUN.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores requested Colonel Hope to report on the Colling-wood gun; that the Report in question was finished in October; the Commission ceased to exist in December; and that the Report was not yet before the public; and whether he will cause it to be published?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)(who replied)said: I am still expecting to receive from the Royal Commission the Supplemental Report referred to. I shall be exceedingly glad when the Papers on this subject can be published.

  FRANCE—CASE OF JAMES WILLIAMS, OF HACKNEY.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to a communication addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 15th of December last, by Mr. Bennett, editor of The Hackney Standard newspaper, Whether inquiry has been made from the French Government as to the case of James Williams, of Hackney, alleged to have been wrongfully imprisoned in France, and who was after wards released on the intervention of the late Lord Lyons; and, if so, what is the result of such inquiry?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): James Williams was convicted on March 1, 1886, of complicity in an attempted robbery in Paris, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It was represented by the prisoner's friends that he was innocent,

  1445
  and would have been acquitted had he not been mistaken at the trial for one William Chapman, who had been condemned in 1872 to three years' imprisonment for a similar offence. After appeals from Her Majesty's Embassy at Paris in his behalf, the prisoner was released on November 14, 1887, on the ground of his bad health and complete prostration, of his satisfactory conduct in prison, and in consequence of Lord Lyons's recommendation. But the French Authorities considered that Williams was guilty of the offence with which he was charged; and, although he was at first mistaken for another man of bad character, they denied that the severity of his sentence was thereby increased. Inquiries in this country showed Williams's former character to be bad, and that he had been imprisoned three times in previous years.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—AL LEGED ASSAULT AT LETTERKENNY.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact, as stated in The Freeman's Journal of the 20th of April, that a few little girls were laughing at the police at Letterkenny, when a constable threw down and trampled on a Gweedore orphan, who became unconscious and was carried bleeding into the hospital; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of this case and the conduct of the police in question?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that there is no truth in the accusation against the police contained in The Freeman's Journal. The girl informed the District Inspector of Constabulary, in presence of the doctor, that she fell over a stone and was stumbled on by another girl. She did not allege that she had been ill-used by any policeman. Two days after the occurrence the doctor told the District Inspector that the girl was then quite well, and that the injuries which she had received were very slight.

  VALUATION ROLL—WORKMEN OCCUPANTS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether householders who are workmen
  1446
  occupying houses belonging to their employers on a tenancy determinable with their employment, but for which they pay rent in the shape of a deduction made from their wages, are entitled to have their names inserted in the "tenant" or in the "inhabitant occupier" column of the Valuation Roll; whether a difference of practice prevails as to this, the names of such householders being in some counties inserted as "'tenants," in others as "inhabitant occupiers;" whether, when their names are inserted as "tenants," large numbers of such householders are qualified for and enjoy School Board and municipal franchises; whereas, being inserted as "inhabitant occupiers," they are wholly disqualified for these franchises; and, whether, if these anomalies exist, he will, in preparing a Local Government Bill for Scotland, provide a remedy, so as to place the local franchises on a broad and equal basis?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The hon. Member's Question involves more than one point of law, as to which I can give no authoritative opinion. Where a deduction from wages is made in respect of the occupation of a house owned by the employer, the usual practice is, I understand, to enter the occupiers in the Valuation Roll as tenants. But the difficulty does not arise from the name given to the occupier in the Roll. If the rental of the house is entered in the Roll, then the occupier is placed on the School Board Roll. I shall inquire whether a difference of practice prevails in the making up of the Roll in the case of the class of occupiers referred to in the Question; and if there is I will endeavour to remedy the anomaly.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES) —WARRANT AND NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ON MILITIA SERVICE— SERGEANTS' MESSES.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that Warrant and Non-Commissioned Officers on Army engagement, serving with the permanent Staffs of brigades and battalions of Militia at stations outside the depôt centres, are denied the privilege of a sergeants' mess establishment, with allowance of fuel and light; and, if so,

  1447
  whether he will consider the desirability of redressing this grievance?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied): Sergeants' messes have not been considered necessary for Militia brigades or battalions during the non-training period; and as tire sergeants of the permanent staff are for the most part married men, no grievance on such a ground is known to exist. In case of battalions at the headquarters of regimental districts the depôt mess is available.

  CEYLON—RAILWAY TO HAPUTALE.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to construct a railway to Haputalé, in Ceylon; and, if so, is it to be constructed on the broad or five and a-half feet gauge, at the estimated rate of £17,500 per mile; is the proposed railway to be constructed departmentally, or will the contract be let to an experienced contractor; and, whether, in the interests of economy, he will invite contractors to tender for broad and narrow gauge lines, the light character of the traffic in the Colony not requiring a heavy and costly line of railway?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied): The Secretary of State has sanctioned an extension of the existing Ceylon Railway, from its present terminus at Nanuoya to Haputalé, a distance of 25½ miles. It has been decided, on the strong recommendation of the Governor and the consulting engineer, not to introduce a break of gauge on this, the last section of a line 158 miles long. The estimated cost of the extension, if executed by contract, is £17,500 per mile; but the consulting engineer anticipates that this will be reduced to £17,100 per mile, if the work is executed departmentally. The conditions in this instance are specially favourable to the departmental system, the adoption of which has been forcibly advocated by the Governor on the grounds of economy and expedition. In these circumstances, there is no intention of inviting tenders for broad and narrow gauge lines.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, CLASS II. —COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF WRITERS.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to compel the retirement of any Civil Service writers pending the Report of the Royal Commission; and, if not, what is the cause of the increase of £4,000 in the Estimates (Class II., Vote II., Civil Service Commission), under the heading "Bonuses and Gratuities to Copyists?"
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am not aware of any intention to compel the retirement of copyists; but I must not be understood to pledge the Departments in any way to take, or avoid taking, any action which may seem necessary in the Public Service; but there is no connection between this question and the £4,000 for bonuses and gratuities, this being the amount which is expected will be required to meet arrangements already sanctioned.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—SUDBURY GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the hon. Member for Cumberland (Penrith Division), Whether the Charity Commissioners are aware that the Governors of the Sudbury Grammar School have not acted upon the limitations in the occupation of the Head Master, as conveyed to them by the Charity Commissioners in March last; and, whether they intend to take steps to ensure that the scheme laid down by them in regard to this school be no longer violated?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Governors of Sudbury Grammar School have acted upon an interpretation of the scheme regulating that foundation which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is not correct; and the Commissioners, in a letter of the 28th of March, informed the Governors of this opinion. The Governors have subsequently been in correspondence with the Commissioners, with a view to justifying their own interpretation of the scheme; but the Commissioners have informed them that, after consideration of those explanations, they adhere to the

  1449
  opinion expressed on the 28th of March. The Commissioners entertain no doubt that the Governors will now conform to that opinion, and will administer the Foundation accordingly.

  LIMERICK LUNATIC ASYLUM—AP POINTMENT OF GOVERNORS.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the correspondence that has taken place between the Corporation of Limerick and the Irish Government, seeking direct representation of the Board of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum, and to the concession of that principle, acknowledged by letters of Sir Redvers Buller, while Under Secretary for Ireland, For what reasons the Irish Government now refuse to ratify the appointment as Governors of the two names submitted by the Corporation for approval; whether the Corporation have intimated that the selections were the best in their interest from their Body, and disclaiming any intention to limit the Lord Lieutenant's selection, that, requiring them to nominate other names, would now be an affront on their part to the gentlemen already named; and, whether, having regard to the fact that one of the gentlemen named by the Corporation has since been appointed High Sheriff of Limerick by His Excellency, and the other is a medical doctor, the Lord Lieutenant will now consent to the appointment of these gentlemen, not relying on a strict interpretation of his letter, and which, in the first instance, was misconstrued by the Limerick Town Council?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Lord Lieutenant, in expressing his readiness to accord the privilege of increased representation to the Limerick Town Council on the Board of Governors of the district lunatic asylum, stated that he would be prepared to consider the names of any gentlemen sent forward by them, with a view to the appointment of two out of the number of gentlemen so selected. The Town Council met this by sending forward two names only, thereby endeavouring to remove from the Lord Lieutenant any discretion in the matter. The subsequent appointment to be High Sheriff of one of the persons named by the
  1450
  Town Council was due to the fact that under the Municipal Privileges Act His Excellency had no option. A strict interpretation of the letter referred to requires a list of names to be sent forward by the Town Council, who have never alleged that they misconstrued it, nor does it appear how they could have misconstrued it. The Lord Lieutenant is responsible by statute for the appointments in question, and cannot divest himself of that responsibility.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many names the Lord Lieutenant would like to have?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly more than two.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the third paragraph of the Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I think I have. The Lord Lieutenant cannot accept the nomination of two gentlemen under present circumstances.

  THE CROFTER COMMISSIONERS—THE ISLAND OF SYKE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Secretary for Scotland possesses or exercises any control over the sittings of the Crofter Commissioners; and, if so, whether he can explain why the Commissioners visited in 1887 one estate and part of another only in the Island of Skye; whether there are other estates in Skye in the same position as regards crofters and crofter applications as those visited; whether he has received complaints from the non-visited estates in Skye of the course adopted by the Commissioners; and, whether, if he have the power, the Secretary for Scotland will issue instructions that if a well-defined district, such as Skye, is once taken up by the Commissioners they shall continue their investigations until complete?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It is provided by Section 17 of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, that the Crofters Commission—
  "Shall hold sittings in such places to which the Act applies, and in such order and subject to such regulations as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe."

  1451
  The Commission, having disposed of over 600 cases, left Skye on 7th June, 1887, (1) because their services were urgently required elsewhere; and (2) because large numbers of the crofters interested in the proceedings of the Commission had left for the fishing elsewhere. There are, no doubt, other estates in Skye requiring the attendance of the Commission as well as those visited already; and the Secretary for Scotland has received complaints from some of them that they had not been attended to before the Commission left the Island. But it was considered that the public interest would be more efficiently served by the Commissioners giving some of their time to other districts having pressing claims than by their returning at once to Skye, where considerable headway had been made. The Secretary for Scotland cannot give any general undertaking as to the movements of the Commissioners. The arrangements for their sittings have invariably been decided on with reference to the requirements of the districts from which applications have been received; and with the view of dealing with them in such manner as was considered best in the interest of the whole crofter area.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—SERVICE OF LIME JUICE.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as the statute governing the serving out of lime juice to the crews of merchant vessels only applies to vessels navigating between the United Kingdom and any port out of the same, he will take steps to amend the Act so as to include every voyage taken by such vessels?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am not prepared to propose an alteration in the law in the sense the hon. Member suggests; because I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to carry such a proposal into effect.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL—STEAM PLOUGHS AND THRESHING MACHINES.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether steam ploughs and threshing machines will
  1452
  be exempted from duty under Clause 2 of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill?
  MR. TOWNSENDhad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether steam ploughing engines, used only for agricultural purposes, and using the roads only when going from the homestead to the fields, or from one field or one farm to another, will be exempt from the £5 duty on locomotives, under Clause 1 of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONalso had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended that threshing drums, straw elevators, chaff cutters, and four-wheel trollies used for conveying mowing machines from farm to farm shall be exempted from the Wheel Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I will answer this Question and those of the hon. Members for the Stratford-on-Avon and Eye Divisions together, if they will allow me. But I must warn them that my answer must be taken as explanatory only of my proposals in the Bill, and not as an authoritative declaration of the interpretation they are to place upon the terms of the Act when it becomes law. According to the terms and intention of the Bill a licence will not be required for a steam plough, threshing machine, elevator, trolley, or any other implement used solely in agriculture. But locomotives or traction engines used at all on the roads will be chargeable to duty.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CART AND WHEEL TAX—"TRADE CARTS."
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether lorries or other vessels used exclusively within the boundaries of docks for transferring timber from steamers to railway trucks, canal barges, or stacking yards within the docks, would come under the designation of "Trade Carts" or waggons used for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade; and, whether such vehicles would be liable to the new Cart Tax if it can be shown

  1453
  that they never use the roads in the course of trade?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): A licence will not be required for the vehicles referred to, if never used on the roads.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX— PROFITS ARISING FROM ABROAD
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under present Regulations, persons resident in the United Kingdom are liable for Income Tax on all profits arising or accruing from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on outside the United Kingdom, whether such profits are remitted to the United Kingdom or not; whether residents in the United Kingdom are not liable for Income Tax on incomes derived from interest on Government or other securities, or from possessions held outside the United Kingdom, unless such incomes are transmitted to the United Kingdom; and, whether there is any reason for the continuance of this differential treatment under the several schedules?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The question of the liability of persons residing in the United Kingdom to be charged Income Tax on profits derived from the sources named, whether remitted to this country or not, has been recently the subject of a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. The High Court held that they were liable; but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Court below, and the case is still under the consideration of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Persons residing in the United Kingdom who are the owners of Foreign or Colonial Securities or Possessions are liable to Income Tax only on the amounts received in this country. Whether there be any differential treatment in the two cases depends upon the ultimate settlement of the point of law involved.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS— INSPECTION OF ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the hon. Member for Cum-
  1454
  berland (Penrith Division), Whether the Charity Commissioners make and, and, if so, what, inspection of those endowed schools for which they have established schemes; and, whether such inspection, if any, is an inspection of the educational work or of the administration of the schemes of such schools?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners, having regard to the evidence given in 1886 and 1887 before the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the operations of the Endowed Schools Act and to the Report of that Committee, proceeded in the course of last autumn to take measures for the systematic inspection of all the endowed schools for which they had established schemes in the four following counties of England:—namely, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, and Staffordshire. This is the utmost amount of such inspection that, without such an increase in their staff—by the appointment of additional Assistant Commissioners—as the Select Committee recommended for the purpose, the Commissioners felt able to attempt for the present. This inspection is not an inspection of the educational work of these schools, in the sense that it implies listening to the teaching or criticism of the methods of instruction adopted by the teachers or examination of the scholars for the purpose of testing the results of that instruction. In that sense it is not an educational inspection. The inspection which the Commissioners have set on foot is directed more particularly towards ascertaining whether in each case the school is in a satisfactory condition as regards buildings, finance, number of scholars in attendance, and staff of teachers; whether the provisions of the scheme, educational as well as administrative, are duly carried into effect; and what, if any, modifications in those provisions are rendered necessary by experience or by change of circumstances. And it is evident that an inspection of this kind is not merely an inspection of the administration of the school, but is likely also to afford information of much value in respect of its educational work. The Commissioners hope to be able, in their Report to the Queen at the beginning of next year, to make known some of the results of their proceedings in this matter.

  TRADE AND WAGES—THE MASONS' LABOURERS AT THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the present contractors for the Houses of Parliament have recently reduced the wages of their masons' labourers 25 per cent, say from 6d. per hour to 4½d. per hour, and that some of the masons' labourers are often suspended in a cradle, repairing the tower, at a height of between 200 and 200 feet; whether the Government get the benefit of any portion of this reduction in the cost of labour, or whether such reduction was taken into account when fixing the terms of the contract; and, whether this reduction in the rate of wages was made with the sanction of the Government?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am sorry to say that I cannot give the hon. Member the information he desires, as I have no official knowledge as to the rate of wages paid by the contractor to the stonemason's labourers employed at the Houses of Parliament; nor have I any right to inquire into the subject. How far the contractor took into account the possibility of making reductions in the wages he pays his men I cannot say; but the Government certainly would not directly derive any advantage from such reductions, and their sanction has not been given or asked. In the case of men working in dangerous places we pay our contractor 50 per cent additional; and I be sorry to think that the men so employed did not receive a corresponding benefit.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Will the First Commissioner make some inquiry into the matter?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am afraid that in the nature of the contract I have no right to inquire.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Will he consider the advisability of seeing to it in future contracts?
  MR. PLUNKET: That raises a large question, which I could hardly enter upon in reply to a Question across the Table of the House.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— QUARTERMASTERS OF MILITIA.
  COLONEL HILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether,
  1456
  since by Article 1,060 of the Royal Warrant, dated December, 1887, Quartermasters of the Militia, after 30 years of total service, were granted pensions according to Line rates, or a maximum of £200 a-year, and that the duties performed by the old Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces are as important as those of the Quartermasters, the same boon will be conceded to these officers, permitting them to reckon service in similar manner, so as to enable them to get their maximum pension of £183?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied): I am not prepared to admit any analogy between the cases of the old Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces and the Quartermasters, In the case of the latter, their retired pay is the sole acknowledgment in regard to their past service from the time they first entered the Army. The retired pay of the Adjutants has only reference to their service in the Auxiliary Forces, and is larger than they could have looked forward to when they accepted their appointments. Before becoming Adjutants they had received for their Line service, by the sale of their commissions or otherwise, whatever they were entitled to in respect of that service. I cannot hold out any hope of an alteration in the terms offered.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS, &c.)—H.M.S. INFLEXIBLE."
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the inflexible, turret ship, 11,880 tons, costing upwards of £900,000, has been reported unfit to send to the Mediterranean, the cast-iron pathways under her turret rollers having shown signs of weakness and wear; whether these pathways were known or reported to be defective more than eight months ago; whether their state was known to the authorities before and during the repairs, amounting, it is reported, to over £60,000, which this vessel recently received in the Portsmouth Dockyard; what will it cost to replace these defective cast-iron pathways by others made of steel, or of other metal, and what time it will take; who is responsible for the fact that a vessel costing nearly £1,000,000, that has undergone in the yards recently a thorough

  1457
  repair at a cost of £60,000, and has been passed into the first class steam reserve, is now reported, so it is publicly stated, to be unfit to go to the Mediterranean and, to which branch of the Admiralty or Dockyard does the responsibility attach?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The roller-paths of the Inflexible have become somewhat worn during the time she has been at Portsmouth and since she was passed into the First Reserve, owing to her having been used for drill purposes by the Excellent's training classes; but not so much so as to prevent her being sent to the Mediterranean if required. As the period of commission abroad would be three years, it was determined not to send this ship to a foreign station, if there was a likelihood of her requiring repairs before that period of time had been passed. The state of the roller-paths was perfectly well known when the ship was under repair; but as they were efficient for some time longer it was decided not to replace them until it was necessary to remove the guns for re-lining, when the work would be much simplified. The recent expenditure on the ship has not been on repairs merely, but mainly in carrying out extensive alterations. The cost of replacing the roller-paths will be about £3,000, if the time chosen for so doing is coincident with the removal of the guns.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— THE RETURN.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the presentation of the Return relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary for the year ending 31st March, 1888, ordered 20th February last, may be expected?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, the Inspector General of Constabulary reported that this Return was in hand, and would be presented as soon as possible; but he was at present unable to specify the exact date. It was a difficult Return to prepare, as it differed from the form in which the accounts of the Department were kept; but it would be laid on the Table at as early a date as was possible.

  EXCISE—TOBACCO GROWERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the cultivators of tobacco in the United Kingdom will be grated any further concessions this season than were allowed last year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSGHEN): I am quite ready to grant any further facilities that appear to be reasonably required; but, so far, I have been asked for no specific concessions except one. The deputation who recently waited on me only urged me to allow the growth of tobacco duty free in this country for a series of years, till the industry was firmly established. Apart from the other objections that might be brought against such a proposal, I did not feel that, in the interests of the Revenue, I should be justified in acceding to their request. It would be a serious thing to do anything to imperil the very large revenue we receive from tobacco.

  ARMY—PRIZE MONEY.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the next of kin are entitled to receive prize money duo to soldiers who have died previous to the distribution of it?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied): Prize money forms part of the personal estate of a soldier, and is subject to the same rules of distribution. It is not necessary that the soldier should live till the prize is distributed.

  WAR OFFICE (SMALL ARMS)—THE NEW REPEATING RIFLE.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state to the House, approximately, at what time the new repealing rifle lately decided upon for the Army will be in the hands of all the soldiers of the First and also of the Second Army Corps respectively; and, what probability there is of a further sufficient reserve being in store by the end of the present year for the rest of the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Until a magazine rifle is recommended to me by my military advisers as suitable for adoption it is impossible to commence its manufacture. A certain number are just about to be issued to the troops for trial; and, in the meantime, preparations are being made for its manufacture if approved. There shall be no delay in pushing on the manufacture as soon as the rifle is finally adopted.

  ADMIRALTY—THE VICTUALLING DE PARTMENT—A NEW OFFICE.
  MR. JENNINGSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to create a new office in the Victualling Department of the Admiralty, at a salary of £1,000 a-year; and, whether it is to be given to an official who in 1878 was a writer in the Secretary's Department of the Admiralty, and who has already received, in an unusually short space of time, promotion to one office of £600 a-year, and to another of £850 a-year?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There is no intention to create a new office in the Victualling Department of the Admiralty carrying a salary of £1,000.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COM MISSIONERS, KANTURK, CO. CORK.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is now more than two years since the Land Sub-Commissioners sat in Kanturk District, County Cork, to hear fair rent applications; whether he is aware that a large number of these applications in this district under the Act of 1881 have been listed for a considerable time, and have not yet been heard, also that a large number of leaseholders' applications under the Act of 1887 have been listed, and not yet heard; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Land Commission will arrange for a sitting of the Sub-Commissioners at Kanturk on an early day?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me it is the case that a Sub-Commission last sat at Kanturk in April, 1886. All cases listed
  1460
  were then heard, with the exception of one which was adjourned. There are at present, including leaseholders' applications, 500 cases unheard. It is probable a Sub-Commission will sit in the Kanturk Union next July.

  NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF TEACHERS.
  MR. TUITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state what is the rule of the National Board of Education as regards the payment of salaries to teachers or assistant teachers of National Schools in cases where such teachers or assistant teachers had not entered on their duties until a date subsequent to the first school day of a month; is it customary to pay result fees to a teacher for a period of time greater than that for which he can claim salary; and, whether any cases of such payment of result fees for a period greater than that for which salary was claimed have occurred within the past six months?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the salaries of teachers are computed from the date upon which they enter on their duties. It is not customary to pay result fees for a period of time greater than that for which salary can be claimed. These fees are computed, not like salaries according to days, but according to months. In exceptional cases the Commissioners may sanction result fees in respect of a month for the entire of which service has not been given and salary is paid for part thereof only. Some cases of this kind have occurred within the past six months.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—CARRIAGE, CART, AND WHEEL TAX—HACKNEY CAR RIAGES.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether hackney carriages in London, which have to pay an annual police licence of £2, may be considered trade vehicles, and pay a tax of 5s. instead of 15 s?
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Question of the

  1461
  hon. and gallant Gentleman mixes up two different classes of vehicles—trade carts or vans, which are used to carry burdens, and hackney carriages, which are used to carry persons. The latter have for some time past been subject to duty as carriages; and the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which has just passed this House, deals with that duty. I see no reason, even if it were now practicable, for classing them as carts and subjecting them as such to the new duty, which will be levied under the Bill now before the House, when it becomes law.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—HAWKERS' LICENCES.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether tradesmen, who paid rates and taxes on their shops, may be exempt from taking out a hawker's licence when they also sent out vans or carts from which sales are made on application by customers in the streets?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): Tradesmen whose vans and carts do not go from town to town, or to other persons' houses, are not liable to Hawker's Licence Duty. Sales made on applications by customers in the streets of the town where the tradesmen reside will not render a licence necessary.

  CROFTERS—COLONIZATION.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the amount which the Government require to be raised by private subscription for colonization of crofters against the £10,000 proposed to be provided by Vote of the House of Commons; what are the conditions on which such private subscriptions are to be advanced, and is their repayment to be secured pari passu with the advances of the Government, or otherwise; what is the rate of interest included in the eight equal annual repayments of £20 17 s. 8d. each; what is it estimated will be the effective capital which each crofter family (understood as five persons) will have at command out of the £120 advanced, after paying their passage and building their house and furnishing it; and will it be paid to them
  1462
  in money or in implements and cattle, and first year's rations, and in what proportion; will the Government circulate Papers giving full information on the subject before the Vote is taken, and be willing to receive suggestions for insuring success in this first experiment in State colonization; and, is the Government willing to receive proposals, on similar lines, for similar experiments in other Colonies as well as Canada?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities) (who replied): (1) The amount is £2,000; (2) the repayment of the private subscriptions will be made at such times, and subject to such conditions, as may from time to time be prescribed with reference to the advances from the Treasury; (3) it is proposed that the repayments shall be collected by eight equal instalments, commencing the fifth year, at £11 5s. 8d. of capital and £9 12 s. interest, and so on; (4) it is proposed that the £120 shall be expended in paying the passage money, and in buying the necessary implements and cattle, and supply, accommodation, &c., for the reception of the settlers on their homesteads; but it is not possible at this moment to give an accurate estimate of what amount, if any, will be handed over to the settler; (5) the Government will be prepared to lay on the Table of the House any necessary information before the Vote is taken, and are willing to receive any suggestions to insure the success of the scheme; but they cannot postpone the operation of the scheme in order to consider such suggestions, as delay would defeat the object in view; (6) the Government will be willing to receive any such proposal for consideration.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRE LAND)—THE BELFAST TOWN COUN CIL ACCOUNTS OF 1885–6—THE ROYAL VISIT.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has the attention of the Local Government Board been given to the following items of expenditure objected to before their auditor, Colonel R. M. Studdart, as appearing in the accounts of the Belfast Town Council in the years 1885 and 1886, in connection with the visits of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and of their Royal

  1463
  Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, and amounting altogether to the sum of £1,370 4s. 3d.:—1. Payment of £30 for decorating Ulster Hall; 2. Payment of £200 for decorating and illuminating the Town Hall; 3. Payment of £217 16 s, for decorations; 4. Payment of £180 for furniture and fitting up rooms for their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales; 5. Payment of £85 for decorating Town Hall; 6. Payment of £75 for decorating and illuminating Albert Memorial Clock; 7. The balance for expenditure of a kindred nature; did the auditor report that the Corporation was justified in this expenditure; and, if so, will he state under what Statute was the expenditure legal; was it the fact that the auditor, Colonel R. M. Studdart, was the hon. treasury of a public subscription fund raised to celebrate the Prince of Wales's visit; and, will instructions be given to the Belfast auditor to maintain an independent position in regard to such matters in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have been promised a full Report on the subject of this Question to be forwarded from Dublin by post to-morrow. I will, therefore, ask the hon. Member to defer the Question until Thursday next.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS —APPOINTMENTS TO CLERKSHIPS, &c.
  MR. NOLANasked the President of the Board of Trade, How appointments to clerkships, &c., in the offices of the Commissioners of Irish Lights are obtained; if not by open competitive examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners, why; and, whether there is any, and, if so, what, objection to throwing these appointments open to public competition?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Appointments to the establishment of the Commissioners of Irish Lights are made by the Commissioners, who have not adopted the competitive system of the Civil Service. The Board of Trade have no control over the Commissioners in the matter.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS— SEAMEN PENSIONERS' RESERVE.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whe-
  1464
  ther any representations have been made to the Treasury, as to the injustice of remunerating the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve out of the Funds of Greenwich Hospital instead of out of the Consolidated Fund?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Admiralty has been in correspondence with the Treasury; but the Treasury does not see its way to sanctioning the transfer to the Navy Votes of the remuneration paid out of the Funds of Greenwich Hospital to the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS—PEN SIONS TO NAVAL RESERVE MEN.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to whether, by the terms of the Charter of Greenwich Hospital, it is legal to use any of the funds of that Institution, which were mainly intended for the relief of men disabled or too old for further service, in giving pensions to men of the Naval Reserve, who form part of the Effective Forces of the country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I am unaware of any reference having been made to the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRE LAND)—RELIEF OF IRISH TAXATION.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider, in conjunction with the Irish Government, the advisability of devoting a portion of the £127,000 granted in relief of Irish taxation to the improvement of the position of the National School Teachers of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A, J. BALFOUR)(who replied)said: I am afraid it would be impossible to carry out the scheme suggested; and if it were carried out the inhabitants of the localities, whose rates are intended to be relieved by this £127,000, would have good reason to complain.

  AFRICA (CENTRAL)—THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY—EXPORT OF AL COHOLIC LIQUORS.
  MR. LAFONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the quantity of alcoholic liquors received by, or shipped on account of the Niger Company, for consumption in the territories comprised in their Charter, during each quarter of the years 1886, 1887, and to the 31st of March, 1888, inclusive?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I must first point out to my hon. Friend that the Returns for which he asks are of the private trade of the Royal Niger Company, which they are not bound to make public, and which is different from their revenue raised for administrative purposes. The figures which I lately gave in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir George Baden-Powell) were taken from the Table of Imports taxed for administrative purposes. But the Directors of the Company have furnished me with the statement which I am about to read; at the same time, I must guard against their doing so being taken as a precedent for the details of their private commerce being subject to inquiry:—1886.—First quarter, 25,375 gallons; second quarter, 38,265 gallons; third quarter, 39,500 gallons; fourth quarter, 42,800 gallons—total, 145,940 gallons. 1887.—First quarter, nil; second quarter, 36,690 gallons; third quarter, 12,250 gallons; fourth quarter, 31,976 gallons. 1888.—First quarter, 20,125 gallons. I should, at the same time, mention that those quantities, which even now appear large, are distributed among a population of at least 5,000,000. They have been rapidly reduced from 1886; but I am informed that the import in that year was only half that in 1884.

  CROWN LAND REVENUE (WALES)— RETURN.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will grant a Return of the produce of the Crown Land Revenue in Wales arising from fee farm rents, leasehold rents, quit rents from mines, quarries, &c., from manors, castles, and
  1466
  royalties, distinguishing the amount realized each year from royalties on gold mining, from each year from 1836 to 1888 (in part continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 468, of Session 1833)?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member will find full particulars regarding the Land Revenue of the Crown in Wales in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Woods; but these figures do not show separately the receipts from gold royalties. The total amount of these royalties received in the years 1836 to 1888 is £4,657 17 s. 6¼d.; and I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the figures for each separate year if desired.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTION OF THE BRENNAN FAMILY AT COOL- NARISKA, QUEEN'S CO.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Freeman's Journal of an eviction at Coolnariska, Queen's County, on the property of Major Fitzmaurice, under the following circumstances: the evicted tenant, Michael Brennan, is 78 years of age, and his family consists of a wife and eight children, four of whom are suffering from measles. The tenant asked to be left in possession for a week or two, till the children were convalescent; but Mr. Stokes, the agent, refused to give any time, and ordered the bailiffs to proceed. That Brennan then offered to pay a year's rent down, and get security for the balance due; but this offer was also rejected. That the bailiffs then carried the sick children out, without giving them time to put on their clothes, and left them sitting on a dunghill, and afterwards threw out the furniture and bedclothes, and locked the house; whether the facts are as above stated; whether, shortly after, Brennan was arrested under an order of the Court of Chancery, and that both he and his wife were imprisoned some months ago in Tullamore Gaol by the same Court for attempting to regain the shelter of his house for his sick children; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1467
  Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the eviction of Michael Brennan, 78 years of age, his wife, and eight children, four of the latter in measles, on the property of Major Fitzmaurice, in the Queen's County; whether he will inquire if it is true, as stated in the report, that Mr. Stokes, the agent, refused the request of the man, who offered a year's rent down and security for the balance, to give a fortnight's time, until the children would be convalescent; whether the bailiffs carried the sick children out, as alleged, without giving them time to put on their clothes, and left them sitting on the dunghill; and, whether, as President of the Local Government Board, he can say what has become of this family?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I find that Michael Brennan was arrested in August last under a writ of attachment issued by the Court of Land Judges in consequence of his refusing to obey their order directing him to give up possession to Mr. Stokes, the receiver under that Court, of his holding. Immediately on regaining his liberty in January last he again took possession. A further conditional order was thereupon made for an attachment against him. He did not offer to pay a year's rent down and give security for the balance. On the contrary, he distinctly stated in his affidavit that he was wholly unable to pay his arrears; but that he hoped, with the assistance of his friends, he might be able to pay a year's rent. His wife was never imprisoned by the Court. The Constabulary report that they arrived an hour after the turning out of these people, having casually heard of it. The family were standing in the yard, dressed. They would not proceed to the workhouse, but have entered into the occupation of an outhouse, where they are at present living, and are reported to be all now quite well. In connection with the newspaper report on which these Questions appear to be based, I may mention that Major Fitzmaurice had no control whatever in the matter, the property being in Chancery, and that Mr. Stokes was not the agent of the landlord, but an official under the Court. I should further add that Brennan does not appear to have paid rent for a good many years,

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—FISH-REAR ING STATIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the great success attending the hatching and rearing of sea fish by the Governments of the United States and Norway; whether the Government are prepared to recommend the establishment of hatching and rearing stations in Scotland, for the purpose of increasing by artificial means the supply of sea fish and lobsters; and, if so, whether he will consider the suitability of the Moray Firth or the Cromarty Firth for such an experimental station; would the cost of such a station with all the necessary appliances exceed £1,000, or some such sum; and, will the Government recommend a Supplementary Vote for this purpose?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Government are not at present prepared to extend the grant of £2,000 given to Scotland for scientific purposes in connection with the Scotch Fisheries. It is estimated that a station of the kind indicated would cost from £1,000 to £1,500.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—DIS TRICT FISHERY BOARDS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government have prepared a measure for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Scotch Fishery Board, at page 24 of their Report for 1886—
  "That a general measure should be passed to enable fishermen from amongst themselves to organize, under the name of District Fishery Boards, a Local Authority which should be empowered to manage harbours and levy dues, to be expended in their repair and maintenance;"
  and, at page 25—
  "it is obvious such a measure would be a great boon to fishermen;"
  and, if so, when it will be introduced; when will the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board be laid upon the Table of the House; and, will the Government undertake that the Report shall be circulated amongst Members a reasonable time before the Vote on the Scotch Fishery Board is considered in Committee of Supply?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The whole question of the constitution and powers of the Scotch Fishery Board and the development of the fishing interest are at present anxiously engaging the attention of her Majesty's Government, as was intimated by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 25th of April; and it is not thought advisable to proceed with any measure relating to Local Boards, even if considered desirable, until it has been determined what are the steps to be taken to make the central management of the Scotch Fisheries more efficient. The Report of the Board will be laid on the Table before the end of June. The Government will take care that opportunity is given for discussion on this matter after the Report is in the hands of Members.

  IRELAND—INQUEST ON JOHN MAD DEN, AN INMATE OF THE CRANNA ORPHANAGE, NEAR NENAGH, CO. TIPPERARY.
  Me. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet received the Report in answer to the full inquiry which he promised into the circumstances of the case of the Cranna Orphanage, in County Tipperary; whether it is in accordance with the facts as reported at the coroner's inquest on the body of the boy Madden; whether the remaining children in that Institution are still on the dietary, the nature of which was then disclosed; and, whether he will take steps to have this and similar Institutions in Ireland visited at intervals by authorized Government Inspectors, so as to afford some protection to the orphan children therein confined, and to prevent the recurrence of such inhuman treatment as has been proved in the case of the Cranna orphans?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The local Constabulary authorities have furnished a copy of the verdict at the inquest on the body of the boy Madden, from which it appears that he died from weakness or syncope; but neither the jury nor the Coroner appears to have attached blame to any individual. The jury, however, in their verdict pointed out certain defects which, in their opinion, existed in the Institution as re-
  1470
  guards clothing, dietary, and attendance. A letter has been received from the Bishop of Killaloe stating that steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations put forward by the Coroner's Jury in order to remedy the existing defects.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the last part of the Question. I understand the Bishop of Killaloe very rarely visits the Institution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think a Government Inspector would be at all an improvement.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— JOHN MORRIS, A LUNATIC IN DORCHESTER GAOL.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that a lunatic called John Morris, who had committed a murder in Poole, was placed in Dorchester Gaol, to the annoyance of the other prisoners, and that as he left there he threatened the life of one William Clunes, who was an inmate of that prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have made inquiry of the prison authorities, and am informed by them that the Governor of Dorchester Gaol has no knowledge or record of an incident such as that referred to having occurred in that prison. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the date of the occurrence, and further particulars, I will make further inquiry.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS—THE SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, as no Regulations have been laid down recognizing the principle of the Saturday half-holiday in Government offices, the Treasury object to the Heads of Departments granting the half-holiday to Civil Service writers (without loss of pay) in those offices where that privilege is allowed to the established clerks?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I must ask the hon. Member not to press this Question. I am not able to make any statement in anticipation of the Report of the Royal Commission. I would only point out that writers are not in the same position as

  1471
  established clerks, writers being paid either by the hour or by piece work.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC—SAMOA.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the agreements of 1879 and 1883 between Great Britain, Germany, the United States, and Samoa were all signed by Mahitoa as King of Samoa; whether the Government have ever had any reason to complain of the non-fulfilment by Mahitoa of any part of those agreements; whether the attention of the Government has been called to a Proclamation issued to the Samoans on the 25th of August, 1887, and signed by the British pro-Consul, Mr. H. Wilson, in which occurred these words—
  "Now, therefore, we, the undersigned representatives of the United States of America and Great Britain, hereby give notice that we and our Governments do not and never have recognized Tamasese as King of Samoa, but continue as heretofore to recognize Mahitoa;"
  whether the consent of the British and United States Governments was asked for by Germany prior to the seizure and deportation of Mahitoa by a German ship of war; whether the Government propose to acquiesce in the action of Germany; whether they know that a large majority of the Samoan people are in favour of Mahitoa as against Tamasese; whether Mahitoa has repeatedly wished to take measures with regard to Tamasese, but has been restrained by the repeated assurances of the English Consul that if peace were kept in the Island the influence of England should always be used to preserve Mahitoa's right to the Throne; whether the British Government have ceased to recognize Mahitoa as King of Samoa; if so, when and why; and, whether the Government regard the Convention as being still in force as between Great Britain, the United States, and Samoa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The first, second, and fourth Questions of the hon. Gentleman must be answered in the negative. Her Majesty's Government have seen no cause to take part on either side in the differences between King Mahitoa and the Emperor of Germany. At present
  1472
  Tamasese is the King de facto, and will be recognized as such in practice by Her Majesty's Government, according to the ordinary Rules. No change has taken place in the Treaty relations between England, Germany, and the United States in regard to Samoa.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURinquired, whether Her Majesty's Government had no cognizance of the agreement that had been come to not to recognize Tamasese?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir. Well, Sir, Her Majesty's Government were informed in this country of the intention of the Government of Germany to ask for satisfaction from King Mahitoa.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR: Yes, Sir; but what I want to know is, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to disavow the action of their Representative?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I may say that, owing to the delay of the telegram informing the Consul, he took action on his own responsibility. Owing to the delay in sending the telegram from New Zealand to Samoa, he was not informed of the intentions of Germany.

  LAW AND POLICE—SENTENCE ON TWO GIRLS AT WESTMINSTER POLICE COURT.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the sentence of a month's hard labour inflicted by Mr. Partridge on two girls called Macdonald for sleeping on a doorstep in Westminster; and, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  MR. F. W. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that on Thursday last two young women, named respectively Clara and Annie Macdonold, described as governesses, and charged with sleeping in the open air, and having no visible means of subsistence, were sentenced on that charge by Mr. Partridge, the sitting magistrate at Westminster, to one month's hard labour; and, whether there are any, and, if so, what circumstances in the case not disclosed in the reports justifying the sentence; and, if there be no such circumstances, whether

  1473
  he is prepared to materially mitigate the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I will answer this Question and that of the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division of Oxfordshire at the same time. I have received a Report from the magistrate on the case, from which it appears that these women had been several times convicted, both for breaking windows and under the Vagrant Act. The magistrate suggested that they should go to the workhouse. Both prisoners declined to avail themselves of this suggestion; and, under these circumstances, the magistrate thought it best, in the interests of the young women themselves, to give them a sentence sufficiently long to enable the chaplain of the gaol to use his influence upon them, and, if possible, get them into a suitable home. Should it be found possible to do this, I am prepared to advise the remission of the sentence.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the sentence of hard labour?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is really no part of my duty to express an opinion on the discretion exercised by the magistrate. I will only add that under two previous convictions—I am now speaking from memory—their sentences included hard labour.
  MR. CONYBEARE: With a view of giving them more time to listen to the ministrations of the chaplain, will not the right hon. Gentleman order the hard labour to be remitted?
  [No reply.]

  HIS HOLINESS THE POPE—POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any unofficial communications of a political character have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Pope of Rome?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No, Sir.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY CLOTHING DE PARTMENT—SWEATING.
  MR. FLOWERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have recently
  1474
  had brought to their notice a case of "sweating" in connection with the preparation of Army clothing at Woolwich; whether any change in the tailoring or clothing staff at Woolwich has recently been made; and, for what period of time the system now adopted at Woolwich has been in force?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No such case has been brought to notice. The only shops for making clothing at Woolwich are those established for regimental purposes under the military master tailors; and the payments for military and civil labour are those laid down by Regulation. No change has been made in the system; and it is not apparent how the "sweating" system can enter in.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—TRANSFER OF ME TROPOLITAN MAIN ROADS AND BRIDGES.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is proposed, under Clause 15 of the Local Government Bill, to transfer to the Council of the County of London the care, management, and repair of the main roads in the Metropolis, which are at present vested in the Vestries and District Boards of Works, and, if so, in what manner a main road is to be defined; what executive duties, at present performed by the Common Council and other Authorities of the City of London, is it proposed to transfer to the Council of the County of London; and, whether the effect of Clause 37 of the Local Government Bill will be to constitute London, Southwark, and Blackfriars Bridges, county bridges, and place them under the control of the Council of the County of London; or whether these bridges will continue to be under the control of the Corporation of the City of London?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The duty of maintaining and repairing main roads in the Metropolis will be transferred to the County Council of London, subject to the provisions in Clause 37 (4) of the Bill; but it is intended that the Vestries and District Boards shall have the same power as an Urban Sanitary Authority under Clause 15 (2) of the Bill. Main roads for the purposes of

  1475
  the Bill will include roads disturnpiked since December 31, 1870, and any road which may be declared to be a main road by the County Council in pursuance of section 15 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878. There are certain duties now performed by the Aldermen of London which the Bill transfers to the County Council. The Liverymen elect the Sheriff of Middlesex, the appointment of whom is transferred to the Crown. The only duties transferred to the County Council of London are those connected with licensing. The London, Southwark, and Blackfriars Bridges are at present maintained by the Corporation out of the proceeds of the Bridge House Estates; and there is no intention to make them county bridges, or to transfer the control of them to the County Council.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEinquired what was the intention of the Government with regard to bridges in the County of Surrey—Putney, Wandsworth, Hammersmith, and several others?
  MR. RITCHIEasked for Notice of the Question.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—SENTENCE ON S. R. KINGSTON AND WIFE, AT SKIBBEREEN, FOR FORCIBLE POSSESSION.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the report in the London Daily Telegraph of the 3rd instant, of proceedings under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," at Skibbereen on the 2nd instant, stating that a man named Samuel Paul Kingston, who is 80 years of age, and his wife, were brought before Messrs Warburton and Major Caddell, Resident Magistrates, charged with taking forcible possession; that from the evidence it appeared that the defendants were evicted from their farm on the 20th of February last, and that they went back into one of the outhouses, and when asked to leave said they had no place to go to but the roadside; that, notwithstanding the request of Dr. Lewis, J.P., the landlord, that the defendants might be dealt with leniently, and the entreaties of Mrs. Kingston to the magistrates not to send the old man to gaol for the first time in
  1476
  his life, as he was very delicate, the Bench sentenced the old man to one month and his wife to a fortnight in Cork Gaol; and, whether, taking the circumstances into account, he will consider the propriety of advising the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the prerogative in this case, and remit the sentence on this old man and his wife?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, he had been asked a similar Question by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) a night or two since. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was sorry that he had not yet obtained the necessary information that would enable him to reply, but he hoped to have it to-morrow.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—THE DERBY SHIRE REGIMENT—COLLISION AT LIMERICK.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had seen the following paragraph in The Daily News of Tuesday, 1st May:—
  "A collision occurred in Limerick on Sunday night between civilians and some men of the Derbyshire Regiment. The soldiers have been confined for some time past, but a dozen of them broke out and paraded with belts in hand. A crowd quickly surrounded them, and some stones were thrown. The soldiers were taken back to barracks by the police. A collision also occurred at Clare Castle, near Ennis, between the Militia now in training and the Derbyshires. One Militiaman was badly injured. Several arrests have been made;"
  whether this is the same regiment that sang Rule Britannia going through the streets of Ennis while the people were at Mass, on the occasion of the late suppression of a public meeting in that town; how often have the men of this regiment come into collision with the people of Limerick and Clare; and, whether, having regard to their general conduct, he will have them removed to other quarters?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Derbyshire Regiment is the regiment which sang Rule Britannia as it marched through Ennis. The inhabitants of Limerick are reported to have come into collision with men of the regiment on nine occasions, and those of Clare on six. As far as appears, the assaults on the soldiers were unprovoked. The

  1477
  corps is well-behaved generally; and I do not see that the fact of its men having been assaulted constitutes a reason for disturbing the military arrangements by its removal to other quarters.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a Question arising out of this case. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why two Resident Magistrates—Major Warburton and Major Rolleston—were imported into Limerick to try the cases arising out of these assaults?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I can give no special reasons to the hon. Gentleman. I suppose it is in the ordinary course.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask whether there is any rotation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a certain principle adopted, I believe.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it be possible to give the House some indication of what the principle is?
  [No reply.]
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has seen a report in the newspapers that another collision between the police and the military has occurred in Limerick?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I have not.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCES AT CASTLEREA.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a report in The Freeman's Journal of the 3rd instant, to the following effect, that—
  "In Castlerea, on Saturday last, on the occasion of Mr. John Fitzgibbons's trial, a number of little boys with whistles went through the town, the eldest not being over 14 years of age. One of the policemen, who were very excited, attacked a boy only 12 years old, and struck him with a baton on the head, inflicting a severe wound. So much blood flowed that it was deemed desirable to bring him to the barrack and have the wound washed before showing him to the magistrates;"
  are the facts as stated; who was in command of the police, and were they ordered to charge the boys and baton them; what was the result of this boy being brought before the magistrates;
  1478
  and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on this occasion?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not had time to get particulars of the case referred to, but I hope to be able to answer to-morrow.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—VISITING JUS TICES AT GALWAY AND DERRY GAOLS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can yet state the result of his inquiry into the alleged absence for several days of any Visiting Justices at Galway Gaol; whether any Visiting Justices have recently, and when, visited the prisoners in Derry Gaol; and, whether, having regard to the well-known weak health and impaired constitution of Mr. Blane, M.P., now confined in that prison, he will direct the Visiting Justices and the medical officials to pay particular regard to that gentleman's health?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, that the General Prisons Board informed him that there was no rule requiring the Visiting Justices to visit the prisons at stated times. The matter was left to their own discretion. The Visiting Justices visited the prison on the 12th of last month. The Board were of opinion that there was nothing in the state of the health of the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) that called for any special treatment.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF 14 MEN AT FRANKFORD.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Frankford, on Friday last, when 14 men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment each, on a charge of taking part in an unlawful assembly on the 7th of April; whether it appeared from the evidence that a tenant, Rod. Dooley, having been evicted on the estate of Mr. C. J. Banon, and the agent having given him time to remove his effects, the prisoners, and others, gathered to give him assistance, and till his ground; whether this was

  1479
  the unlawful assembly with which the defendants were charged; whether it is the fact that the police witnesses testified to the complete peacefulness and order of the proceedings on the eviction farm; and whether he can state under what provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act the said proceedings were indicted as illegal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The inspector General of Constabulary reports that Dooley, a tenant on the estate of Mr. C. J. Banon, was evicted on March 28, owing six years' rent. He had declined to come to a settlement, notwithstanding a most liberal offer made by his landlord. The agent did give him time to move his effects up to April 7. On that day over 100 persons assembled with ploughs, harrows, and other implements; and instead of assisting in the removal of the effects they tilled the farm from which Dooley had been evicted, and to which accordingly he had no claim.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to know, when that assembly benefited the landlord, whether it can be regarded as a statutable offence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; but I apprehend that they did not assemble for the purpose of assisting the landlord.

  ADMIRALTY—DEVONPORT DOCKYARD— RESIDENCES OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can now state the result of the local reference which he stated would be necessary to enable him to ascertain whether any, and what, alterations in the accommodation provided for persons whose duty required them to reside or to sleep within the gates of the Devonport Dockyard had been made within the last seven years?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Twenty pounds was expended in 1886 in improving the sleeping accommodation and ventilation. The sleeping accommodation now provided is ample, as the numbers have been reduced, and the men are satisfied.

  ARMY (INDIA)—LICENSING OF IMMO RALITY.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with respect to a Paper to which his attention has been called, which purports to be a copy of a Memorandum issued from the Office of the Quartermaster General in India relating to the subject of prostitution, Whether he is now able to state if such a document, or any document substantially of that character, has been issued from that or any other Government Office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY STATE (Sir JOHN GORST); but I am able to state that the Secretary of State has taken such steps that the document, if authentic, will be forthwith cancelled; and orders have, as I have already frequently stated, been sent out to India which will put an absolute stop to such practices if they have existed.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked whether, seeing the very serious and important character of the document in question, the hon. Gentleman would lay it upon the Table of the House if it existed?
  SIR JOHN GORST: When I find out whether the document exists or not, I will say whether I will lay it upon the Table.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, if the hon. Gentleman would take immediate steps to telegraph to India to ascertain whether it existed or not?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—AS SAULT ON A POLICEMAN AT MACROOM.
  MR. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The Cork Herald of the 3rd instant, commenting on the sentence of four months' imprisonment passed on Wednesday last at Macroom on a man named Creedon, for a murderous assault committed upon Police Sergeant O'Shea:—
  "The young man Creedon, who very properly broke a policeman's head to save his own on the occasion of the late suppressed meeting, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment by

  1481
  two removables yesterday. Irwin, in giving the decision, practically admitted the whole case against the Crown; but because (so we gather from his speech) Creedon hit the policeman too hard he sent him to gaol. We are glad Creedon hit the ruffian hard. We hardly think, too, that the outrageous doctrine that a policeman should not be well beaten (or killed if necessary for the preservation of life) when he is breaking the law, will be upheld on appeal:"
  and, whether he will institute proceedings against the editor of this paper, on the ground that the paragraph in question is an incitement to violent assaults on the police?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): My attention has been called to the paragraph in question; and that paragraph, with the other papers, are now before the Attorney General of Ireland for his direction.
  MR. FLYNNasked, whether the Resident Magistrate who tried the case did not say that he was not there to justify the magistrates, but that he was there to suppress the meeting; and if he did not go on to say that even supposing the meeting was legal the defendant had no right to resist; also, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that no attempt was made by the prosecuting counsel to make out that the meeting was illegal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—INSPECTION OF CARRIAGES.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he could say if there is at present in Ireland any system of inspection of railway carriages carried out by persons under the control of the Government; and, if not, if he could suggest what steps should be taken to remedy the condition of things which exposes that section of the public which uses the third class carriages on Irish railways to inconveniences and discomfort which would not be tolerated on any line in England or Scotland?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): As far as I am aware, there is no systematic inspection of railway carriages in Ireland by any officer appointed by a Government Department. No formal complaint has reached the Board of Trade
  1482
  of the condition of the third-class carriages in Ireland since 1884, when an inspection was ordered of the carriages on a line of railway in the South of Ireland. If any well-founded complaint is submitted to the Board of Trade I will consider the expediency of ordering an inspection of the rolling stock in respect of which it is made under the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason that these complaints have been discontinued by the public is that they find it is no use making them?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It is very, difficult indeed for me to answer that Question. If a well-founded. complaint is made, it will receive prompt consideration from me.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—DEPUTY OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR THE GUILDFORD DISTRICT.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Mr. Britten has long been, and still is, in the habit of discharging the duties of the Official Receiver at the Guildford and other District Courts upon the public examinations of, and applications for discharge by, debtors, without being nominated by the Board as deputy; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the performance by such unauthorized persons of the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Act on the Official Receivers?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Bankruptcy Rule, 328, authorizes the Board of Trade—
  "By general or special directions to determine what acts or duties shall be performed by the Official Receiver in person, and in what case he may discharge his functions through the agency of his clerks."
  Under this Rule the Board of Trade have authorized the Official Receiver of the Guildford District (who is also Official Receiver of the Kingston-on-Thames, Barnet, Edmonton, and Brent-ford Bankruptcy Districts) to perform certain of his functions, including those mentioned in the above Question, through the agency of his Chief Bankruptcy Clerk, Mr. Britten, in such cases as he may be unable to perform them personally. But it is the duty of the Official Re-

  1483
  ceivor personally to report upon all applications by debtors for their discharge; and he is responsible, in the fullest manner, for the discharge of all duties thus delegated to Mr. Britten. Mr. Britten has not been in the habit of acting in this matter without authority.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—GUARDIANS.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether persons in receipt of salaries from the Local Government Board, or from Poor Law Unions, are ineligible to become Poor Law Guardians or members of dispensary committees in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Under Section 22 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 83, no person in receipt of a salary from the Local Government Board is capable of serving as a Guardian; nor is any person receiving a fixed salary or emolument from the poor rates in any Union capable of serving as a Guardian therein. I am not aware of any legal obstacle in the way of any such person becoming a member of a Dispensary Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does that observation apply to ex officio Guardians?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a legal Question I should be reluctant to answer without Notice. I should think, however, that it would.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. WILLIAM GOULD, OF MITCHELSTOWN.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any foundation for the statement contained in The Freeman's Journal of the 3rd of May, that Mr. William Gould, of Mitchelstown, a prisoner in Cork Gaol, has been informed by the Governor of the Gaol that—
  "He would be released if he would petition the Lord Lieutenant, and promise to abstain from polities?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Governor of the prison reports that there is no foundation for the statement made in The Freeman's Journal to which the Question refers.

  INDIA—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— THE CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. STANSFELDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir John Kennaway) for Tuesday, the 15th instant, he will undertake to lay upon the Table of the House before that date the Correspondence between the Government of India and the India Office on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts, which he has already promised to produce?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): If the hon. Member will move for the Correspondence there is no objection, although it is not yet complete, to its production so far as it goes.
  MR. STANSFELDasked, with reference to the debate that was to take place on Tuesday, the 15th, whether the hon. Gentleman would before that time be able to state to the House what steps the Government were prepared to take to carry out the decision of the House against the compulsory examination of women?
  SIR JOHN GORSTasked for Notice of the Question.

  WAR OFFICE—THE FIRST AND SECOND ARMY CORPS.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he feels himself in a position to state to the House what progress has been made with the field equipment of the Second Army Corps, as regards its transport, horses, ammunition, columns; also as to its auxiliary arms—such as Commissariat Staff Corps and Army Hospital Corps; whether the Army Medical Department is in a position to supply the necessary number of companies of Army Hospital Corps, equipped as field bearers, for the needs of the First and the Second Army Corps respectively; and, whether the supply of horses for the Second Corps has been sufficiently provided for.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have explained, in the Memorandum attached to the Estimates, that the equipment of the Second Army Corps for foreign service is not complete. For Home defence there would be hardly

  1485
  any difficulty in providing it, especially if the House grants us the powers which we are now seeking in the National Defence Bill. The Army Medical Department is in a position to supply the necessary bearers.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE—OCCUPATION AND SERVICE FRANCHISE.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the borough occupation franchise includes the service franchise or not; and, if not, how it is excluded?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If, as I imagine, the Question of the hon. Member refers to the municipal franchise, the service franchise is not included in the occupation franchise. The reason is that the service franchise was created by the Act of 1884; and the language, as the hon. Member will find, is different from that of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND)—LEGIS LATION.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government still contemplates the introduction, during the present Session, of the measure described in Her Majesty's Speech on the 9th of February as "intended to facilitate an increase in the number of the proprietors of the soil" in Ireland; and, if so, when it will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir; the Government still contemplate the introduction of a measure dealing with the subject; but the period of its introduction must depend upon the course of Public Business.

  DEPRESSION OF TRADE—THE GUN TRADE AT BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the proceedings at a meeting of the gun trade, held in Birmingham on the 1st of May, whereat it was stated that that industry was in a condition of extreme depression; and, if any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to carry out the recommendations
  1486
  of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1885 to inquire into the depression of trade, and more particularly with reference to the foreign tariffs and bounties, which were unanimously denounced by the Commission as very prejudicially limiting the markets for the production of British industry?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been drawn to the proceedings at a meeting of the gun trade at Birmingham; but I have no doubt that that trade, in common, I regret to say, with many others, has been passing through a period of depression. I am glad to state, however, that there are clear signs of a revival of trade; and the number of men out of employment this year will compare favourably to those of last year and of the preceding one. Under these circumstances, I think we must look to trade being revived, not by the adoption of the heroic measures suggested by my hon. Friend, but by the renewal of confidence in the stability of the institutions of the country and the maintenance of the peace of the world.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When will the Public Trustee Bill be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Bill is in preparation, but I am unable to say when it will be introduced.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE WHIT SUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to inform the House what Business will be taken on Friday, and what arrangements he contemplates with regard to the Whitsuntide holidays?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have already informed the House that any arrangements with regard to the Whitsuntide holidays must depend upon the passing of the Local Government (Electors) Bill before the Recess, as the

  1487
  Register must be got into order before the 20th of June. But in the event of the Bill passing before the Whitsuntide Recess, and other measures being advanced, we propose that the House should rise on Friday, the 18th, after a Morning Sitting, and return on Thursday, the 31st of May. I hope the labours of the Committee on the Local Government (Electors) Bill will be completed. this evening; but in case any accident should prevent it, I should ask the House to sit to-morrow at 2 o'clock to proceed with the Bill in Committee. I think it right to give this intimation to the House, though the contingency to which I refer is most improbable. On Thursday we propose to take the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill for second reading.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, in case there should be a Morning Sitting to proceed with the Committee on the Local Government (Electors) Bill to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that he would take no other Government Business at the Morning Sitting?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can give no such pledge. If other Business should be put down, it would be our duty to proceed with it.
  In reply to Sir CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not intend to proceed with the Attorney General's Resolution on the subject of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division (Additional Judge) to-night, after half-past 10.
  In reply to Mr. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHdeclined to give any pledge that the Bill dealing with the Wheel and Van Tax should not be taken before the Whitsuntide Recess.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADMISSION OF STRANGERS.
  In reply to Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he had stated on Friday that he should feel bound to take an opportunity of consulting the feelings of the House before making any change with regard to the admission of strangers.
  MR. BUXTONgave Notice that when the subject came before the House he would move to reject the Committee's recommendation with reference to the distribution of tickets.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  In reply to Mr. BURT (Morpeth),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time before the Recess.

  WASTE LANDS—THE DEBATE OF THURSDAY, MAY 1.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: With the indulgence of the House I desire to make a short personal explanation. A few nights ago, owing to the operation of the "count out," I was prevented from answering the very serious and absolutely inaccurate allegation made by the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) as to the existence of 100,000 acres of waste land in the County (Sussex), one of the Divisions of which I have the honour to represent.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order The question of 100,000 acres of waste laud is not a subject of personal explanation on the part of the hon. Member. If he were permitted to make a statement on that point it would be a continuation of the debate.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I was just coming, Sir, to the—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!. The hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTORS BILL.— [BILL 181.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2 (Extension of burgess franchise to county electors outside Municipal boroughs),
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Car-

  1489
  narvon (Mr. Rathbone) he wished to move the Amendment which stood in the name of that hon. Member—namely, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "the burgess," to end of clause, and insert—
  "Every person entitled to vote in Parlialiamentary elections in respect of any qualification in any part of a county not within the limits of a borough, shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate: Provided, that a person having more than one qualification in the same county shall not vote more than once in the election of the same county authority.
  (2.) "For the said purpose there shall be added to the lists of Parliamentary electors in counties separate lists of persons who are disqualified for being registered as voters in Parliamentary elections only by reason that they are peers or women, and those persons shall be entitled to be registered as county electors under this Act."
  The principle of the Amendment, which substituted the Parliamentary for the municipal franchise, had been supported by various Committees of Quarter Sessions and Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country. Perhaps he might be permitted to trouble the House with a short quotation, which gave in more concise and forcible language than he could use the opinions of a noble Lord in favour of a single register—Lord Thring, who was a high authority on local government reform as well as a strong supporter of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). That noble Lord, in The Nineteenth Century for the present month, said—
  "The Parliamentary franchise is universal; the other, the municipal, is confined to the boroughs. Select the first, and you will have one revision, one register—practically, one system of law. Take the second, and you have a country overlaid with two systems, and not the less difficult to carry into execution that, as regards the lowest qualification, the one is only distinguishable from the other by an almost microscopic examination."
  That put in a very few words the disadvantages of the course that the Government proposed to take in reference to the Bill. They proposed to create, for the first time in country districts, a new register, different altogether from the register which already existed for Parliamentary purposes in those districts. He would first point out to the Committee that the case of the country districts differed widely
  1490
  from that of the great towns, and his Amendment did not affect the franchise in municipal boroughs at all. There were good reasons why the municipal boroughs should be treated differently from country districts. The franchise possessed by the boroughs had existed for more than 50 years, while in the country districts they were creating a new municipal franchise for the first time. In regard to the Metropolis, the House had decided the other night that a new municipal franchise should be created within the Metropolis. That decision ought not to prejudice the present Amendment. There might be reasons why the Metropolis should be treated as if it were not part of a country district, but a municipal borough. It was the largest town in the Kingdom, and the Government might fairly treat the Metropolis on the same footing as municipal boroughs, while they treated the country districts very differently. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had somewhat misled hon. Members on that side of the House, at all events, as to the nature of the new register which would exist in the country districts when this Bill was passed. He had given a description of the ingenious manner in which the double register was made up for municipal boroughs under the Act of 1878. He had pointed out that the list was made up in three divisions, the first of which included those who were entitled to vote for Parliamentary and municipal purposes, while the other two divisions included those who had a vote for one of those purposes. He (Mr. Hobhouse) wished to point out that under this Bill a double register, made up, no doubt, on this ingenious system, was proposed to be extended to the country districts. This system did not snake one register out of two; but was calculated to save cost in printing and in mechanical matters rather than to save trouble to the overseers, who had to snake out the lists. Hon. Members had only to study the precepts contained in the Schedules to the Registration Act of 1885, in order to see that the task of the overseers in making up the register was not an inviting one for any person. Each of these precepts covered a space of no less than 30 pages of the large edition of the Statutes; and the person, whether he was

  1491
  a trained lawyer or a layman, who had to make out one of these precepts, was certainly not a person to be envied. In the next place, he (Mr. Hobhouse) desired to point out, in regard to the divisions, that the first division was simple enough, because it included every person who had a vote for Parliamentary elections, and also for municipal purposes. But the second division included a class of voters who might not be very numerous, but whose qualifications it was extremely difficult to detect and to classify without very considerable trouble. In the second division, which contained Parliamentary voters only, there were such classes as £10 lodgers, service voters, occupiers of £10 houses who did not pay borough rates, and certain householders who sublet for short periods. Then there was a third division, containing the names of Peers, women, persons who were occupiers of buildings that were not dwelling houses, and other persons who had no right to vote for Parliamentary purposes. He mentioned these facts, to show how difficult it was to make up the double lists, even under the present system of divisions, and he would suggest that it would be infinitely more simple to have a single register for both election purposes, with the addition of Peers and women ratepayers as was suggested in the Amendment. It would be a far more simple matter to add Peers and women to the roll for Parliamentary elections than to make up double registers as was at present done in municipal boroughs. The change would also give great popular satisfaction. It was certainly impossible to bring home to the mind of the ordinary voter why he should have a vote for a Member of Parliament, and be denied a vote for the members of the new County Council. There was another great argument in favour of a single register. As the Bill now stood, they were practically disfranchising those who had been enfranchised for Parliamentary purposes. The Parliamentary franchise at present excluded Peers and women, who were qualified to vote at municipal elections. No Member of the House objected to these persons being admitted to the franchise under the present Bill. On the other hand, many persons were included in the Parliamentary franchise who were excluded from the municipal franchise—such as lodgers, owners who were not in occupation of dwelling
  1492
  houses, and service tenants. None of these persons, however, were so numerous that hon. Members need be afraid that any of them would swamp the rest of the constituency. Take the case of the lodgers. As a rule, they constituted a superior class of voters, and he could not see why they should be denied a vote for a member of the County Council when they had a right to vote for a Member of Parliament. Take, also, the service tenant. He had been considered specially worthy of enfranchisement by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) three years ago, and the admission of that class created a new distinction between the Parliamentary and municipal franchise. He thought the Government would be well advised if they would include the service tenants. Then came another class—the freeholders. He maintained that that class had a very strong claim to be enrolled upon the list of electors—certainly a much stronger claim than they had to vote for Members of Parliament. It was confessed by financial authorities on both sides of the House that the owners of land were large ratepayers. He had referred the other night to the able Memorandum of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject, and there were also high authorities to the same effect on that—the Opposition—side of the House. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told them the other day that in the rural districts land ultimately bore the weight of the rates, and he also showed by elaborate calculation that all over the country the owners of property bore more than one-half of the rates. It was an undoubted fact that in the present condition of the agricultural districts the rates very soon, if not immediately, found their way on to the shoulders of the owners of property. Surely that was a convincing proof that the owners of land were vitally interested in the question of local taxation. He wished to put this question to Her Majesty's Government. Was not an owner of a large estate, who resided more than seven miles from the county in which he owned property, quite as much interested in the wealth of that county as the occupier of a very small holding, on which the landlord paid the rates, but who happened to reside within the county? He would take

  1493
  the two cases—that of a landlord who owned property and paid the rates, but who did not reside in the county, and the other of a tenant who occupied a holding and did not pay the rates, but did reside in the county. In the one case the Government disfranchised the owner of the property who had by far the largest interest in it, while they enfranchised the man who had a comparatively insignificant interest in it. The disfranchisement also involved disqualification because none of the men to whom the privilege of a vote was denied had any right to sit on the County Councils, either as elected or selected Councillors. That was a very serious matter. That disqualification as regarded the owner was an entirely new thing. At present he had a right to vote for and sit on Boards of Guardians, Local Boards, and Boards of Improvement Commissioners; and he was only disfranchised in municipal boroughs, where the incidence of rate-paying was very different. If the owners of property were entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament for the country districts, surely they ought to have a voice in voting for those who were to conduct the local administration, and a right also to become local administrators themselves upon questions in which they bad so much interest. No one who had listened to the debate on the question of the Poor Law on Thursday night could doubt that within a few years the new Authority would exercise Poor Law powers; and surely they would not deny to the owner as such the right to have a voice in the administration of those Poor Law burdens which had always been regarded as hereditary burdens on the land. He trusted the Committee would allow him to refer to one or two objections which might be raised to his hon. Friend's (Mr. Rathbone's) proposal. In the first place, the Government might say that this was a small matter; that very few persons would be qualified under the Parliamentary franchise, as proposed, who would not be qualified under the present Bill. He granted that, but it did not affect the principle in the least. No doubt, there were very few women who would be qualified to vote under the Bill; but that was not a reason why they should deny them the right of voting, or declare that their names should not ap-
  1494
  pear upon the register. Then, again, there was a certain class of persons who had, to his mind, a strong claim to the right now proposed to be denied them. He knew a gentleman who, at that moment, was compelled to serve the
  office of High Sheriff of a county, on the ground of holding large property in the county; but, nevertheless, he did not reside in the county, and would, therefore, not be allowed to vote for members of the County Council, or sit upon it, notwithstanding he was considered fully competent to serve a responsible and most burdensome office. Then, again, there were hon. Members in that House who took an active part in local business who would not be qualified under the Bill to sit on the County Council of their county. He maintained that it was most undesirable to exclude Members of that House from taking an active part in the administration of local affairs. The Bill affected not only large owners, but small owners who did not happen to live in the county. It affected a large class of elder sons, who were at present magistrates, and many others who, if it passed in its present shape, would have no status either to vote or to sit as County Councillors. He warned the Government that, unless they made a concession in the matter, six mouths hence there would be a considerable
  outcry; because in many counties it would be found that very useful and
  active men, who ought to be candidates for seats on the County and District
  Councils, were prevented by the Bill from standing for election, and serving the public interests. It was said that these could easily manufacture a qualification by occupying some portion of their property; but he maintained that that suggestion was preposterous, and only worthy of the time of rotten boroughs and faggot votes. Even if an owner of property Were to sleep for a few nights upon some portion of his property, it would not meet the case, because it was impossible under the Bill to get a qualification to sit on the County Council the first period of three years, unless the person seeking the qualification had been in occupation for 12 months preceding a certain date in June next. It must be remembered that the first session of the County Councils would be the most important session in their history, seeing that they would have to lay

  1495
  down broad lines of administration, and determine what their future should be—whether for good or for evil. It was most important, therefore, that good men should not be disqualified for taking part in the first election of the County Councils. Another important point was whether or not the Parliamentary franchise was inconsistent with the doctrine of "One man one vote." He would put it to his hon. Friends who believed in that doctrine, that it either meant that no man should vote more than once for the same representative Body—[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He was glad to receive the assent of his hon. Friends. It that was the real meaning of the doctrine, it was certainly embodied in the Amendment. It was, however, quite possible that some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House might desire a further and more sweeping provision, and might say that no man ought to vote for more than one County Council. If that was not accepted as the meaning in any part of the House, it was not necessary to argue the point. [cries of "Hear, hear!"] Then he looked upon that argument as being entirely disposed of, and he would put it to the House that the true test of qualification was this—that every man possessing a substantial interest of any kind, whether as occupier or lodger, service tenant or freeholder, within a county or district, should have a full qualification both to vote and sit on the local Councils under the provisions of the Bill. For all those reasons, because of the inconvenience and utter want of necessity for setting up a new register, because it was unjust to disfranchise and disqualify the classes he had referred to; and, lastly, because it was extremely unwise to limit the field from which the local constituencies should choose their administrators in future, he urged the Government to give their best consideration to the Amendment which he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 19, to leave out the words from "the burgess" to the end of the Clause, and insert—
  "Every person entitled to vote in parliamentary elections in respect of any qualification in any part of a county not within the limits of a borough shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate: Provided that a person having more than one qualification in the same county shall not vote more than
  1496
  once in the election of the same county authority.
  (2) "For the said purpose there shall be added to the lists of parliamentary electors in counties separate lists of persons who are disqualified for being registered as voters in parliamentary elections only by reason that they are peers or women, and those persons shall be entitled to be registered as county electors under this Act."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse) had done so on two grounds, the principal of which was that if the Amendment were adopted, there would only be one register, and that more than one register would be extremely inconvenient in the country districts. The hon. and learned Gentleman also advocated the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground of the injustice to those who would be excluded if his proposal were not adopted. Upon the question of a single register, the hon. and learned Gentleman implied that he (Mr. Ritchie) had somewhat unintentionally misled the House as to the effect the Bill would have if it were passed in the way it had been proposed. He did not think, however, although he might be a prejudiced person in the matter, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had fairly pointed out in what way he (Mr. Ritchie) had misled the House, when he said that the effect of the provisions of the Bill would be to establish a single register in the country districts in precisely the same way as it was now established in boroughs. The only difference between the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the plan of the Government, so far as simplifying the list was concerned, was that there would be two lists according to the former, and three according to the latter. It was quite clear, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the Parliamentary franchise and the municipal franchise should be identical, that it would be impossible to have only one list, and he did not propose to give to Peers and women the power of voting for Parliamentary purposes. Therefore, in any case, the only difference between the proposal of the hon. and learned

  1497
  Gentleman and that of the Government was that there should be two lists according to the hon. and learned Member's proposal, instead of three lists now. He could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that if the Bill passed as it now stood, the register which was now prepared in all the boroughs would be the same register, neither more nor less, as would be prepared for all the country districts. One curious part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, and he (Mr. Ritchie) did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman justified it, was that it would leave the borough register exactly as it was now, and would create in country districts a totally different register for the same purposes as that which was now in existence in boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman justified that by saying that the borough franchise had been in existence for 50 years. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not understand by what process of reasoning the hon. and learned Gentleman arrived at that conclusion. He (Mr. Ritchie) should certainly arrive at a totally different conclusion from the facts the hon. and learned Member had adduced. If it were the case that the borough franchise had existed in the boroughs for 50 years, and had been successful in operation for that period, surely it would be to cast an unnecessary slur upon that franchise which had existed so long, if they were not to take advantage of it when they were extending municipal franchise to the whole country. The proposition was that the municipal duties, which had been so long and so well performed by Municipal Councils throughout the length and breadth of the land, should be extended to the whole country. They said that to do that it was necessary to extend the qualifications. The municipal franchise was a ratepaying occupation franchise, and that was the franchise which the Government proposed to extend to the counties. So far as the register was concerned, he thought he had shown that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was adopted, it was not likely to simplify the register; whereas if the register, as proposed by the Government, were adopted, the fact that it would not be a complicated or expensive register was amply shown by what the hen, and learned Gentleman
  1498
  had himself said. He would point out what the state of things would be if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were adopted. There would be a different franchise within the borough from that which existed outside the borough—that was to say, that if an elector lived outside a borough, and happened to be a service voter, or a lodger, or an owner, and not an occupier, he was outside the limits of the borough, and would have a vote, for the County Council; whereas those persons who lived inside the borough, and were under the same conditions, would not have a vote in the election of County Councils. He (Mr. Ritchie) confessed that he did not know how it was possible to justify the retention of two franchises for the same purpose. Then, again, there would be this further anomaly—that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would establish two franchises for elections to the County Councils, which could not in any way simplify matters. In one district, there would be a totally different franchise from that which would exist in another district. Then the hon. and learned Member said, why not give the franchise for lodgers in the country districts, and he gave this curious argument in favour of making a difference between an inside borough and an outside borough. He said that in places outside the boroughs,. lodgers were not numerous. What did that mean? Inside the boroughs they were numerous, and there the hon. and learned Member did not propose to enfranchise them; outside they were not numerous, and he would give them a vote.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but as a matter of fact, he had never discussed the question of enfranchising lodgers inside boroughs.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. and learned Member had certainly used that argument indirectly by saying that lodgers were not numerous in the country districts, while they were numerous in the boroughs. In the one case, he was not going to enfranchise them for municipal purposes, although they were numerous, and outside the boroughs, where they were not numerous, he proposed to enfranchise them. What he would say in reference to the point and others, was that it might be all right and

  1499
  proper to consider the whole question of the municipal franchise, in order to see whether it ought to be amended so as to include some of those who were not now included in it; but he maintained that that question ought to be dealt with as a whole, and that what was done in the country districts should also be done at the same time in the boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed also to give the owner in the country districts a vote. He (Mr. Ritchie) was not prepared to argue that there was not much force in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to the share in the rates borne by owners; but he would point out that the number of unoccupying owners in the counties was exceedingly small, and, therefore, unoccupying far as the unoccupying owners were concerned they were in the same position as the lodgers, and it was a very small matter. [Cries of "No!"] He ventured to say that the number who would get the franchise, and who did not possess it at present, would, in the counties, be very small indeed. In the boroughs, however, there was a large number, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to exclude them. By the distinct words in the Amendment they were excluded in the boroughs. Why was that? Because he knew very well if he proposed to give the municipal franchise to owners in boroughs, the boroughs would at once raise a great outcry against the proposal. If no other argument could be adduced in support of the proposal, it was certainly not desirable to extend the provisions of the Bill simply for the very small advantage which owners outside the boroughs would obtain, while it was withheld from owners inside the boroughs. It might be a very proper thing to consider hereafter; but he was perfectly certain that if they entertained that great question now, it would endanger the success of the Bill. He knew that his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment, and his hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), who originally put it down on the Paper, had been for a great number of years staunch supporters of the principle of the division of rates between the owner and the occupier. On that side of the House, no doubt, there were many hon. Members who were not prepared to ac-
  1500
  cept that principle. There was not much force in the argument used as to the division of rates, and he did not think that if due consideration were given to the question of the representation of owners, there were few Members on that side of the House who would not be prepared to accept the doctrine of the division of rates. What was said was that if the owners were to be made liable for the payment of half the rates, they should have au adequate share of direct representation on the County Councils. This giving of a vote to owners would undoubtedly raise the whole question of the insufficiency of the representation of owners, notwithstanding that they were saddled with the liability of paying one-half of the rates. It would undoubtedly create and raise the point whether, if the owners were represented, it would not be a strong argument for dividing the rates equally between the owners and occupiers. One of the arguments used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was worthy of the attention and consideration of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member said that the owners, if they were not also occupiers, would not be capable of being elected to the County Council under the provisions of the present Bill. He (Mr. Ritchie) acknowledged that that was so, and he was quite prepared to say that he thought it was a point which ought to be remedied, but the Government could not, consistently with the lines of the present Bill, accept a franchise other than the franchise they had laid down—namely, a municipal franchise. He did think, however, that there was a strong argument in favour of saying that owners of property in counties, whether ratepayers or not, should be qualified to be elected to the County Council of the county in which they held property. That, however, was a matter which did not arise on this Bill, but would arise on the larger Bill, and the Government would be glad to give a most favourable consideration to any proposal to that effect, which might be suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman when they came to discuss the larger measure. He thought he had now disposed of all the points which had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would repeat that the proposals contained in the Bill were

  1501
  proposals to extend municipal rights and privileges throughout counties, and that they took the municipal franchise as they found it. That franchise had been in existence for a great many years. It had been wisely exercised, and the Government could not ask the House to depart from the principle they had laid down.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he thought there was one point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse), which had not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. One of the arguments raised by the hon. and learned Member had reference to the incidence of the service franchise, and he (Sir Richard Paget) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when this Bill was extended to Scotland, or when it was applied to England, where the service franchise was operative to a large extent, those who now voted under the service franchise, such as agricultural labourers, would be disqualified under the municipal franchise. He thought they might look forward to the time when the provisions of the Bill would be extended to Scotland, and what he wanted to know was whether, in that case, those who voted under the service franchise would enjoy none of the privileges of the electors under the Bill. That was an important point, and he should be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in regard to the matter. Reference had been made to the question of divided rates, and it was admitted on all sides that it would be impossible to divide the rates between the owner and the occupier without giving the owner proper representation. The question of divided rates, however, was not at that moment properly before the House, and when it came up for consideration would be the proper time for saying whether the franchise ought to remain in its present condition. His point was, that when the question of divided rates came up for consideration, then would be the moment to say whether the franchise was such as it ought to be, and whether the owners ought not to be fully represented. If they were going to divide the rates, it might be fairly contended that the owners should be adequately represented on the Council. The point
  1502
  raised by the Amendment had reference more particularly to the adoption of a single register, and he was strongly of opinion that something in the nature of the Amendment should be adopted. Certainly, the matter was one which required a little more consideration than had been given to it.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he did not think it of much use to prolong the present discussion, because it was clear that it would arise in a better form afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had rightly stated that one great reason why he (Mr. Rathbone) was anxious to raise the question now was that, to his mind, it was of great importance that there should be a division of rates between the owners and occupiers, and that taxation and representation ought to go together. He thought a great many of those who did not take much share in local administration themselves were not aware of the danger which might arise from the withdrawal of the owners of property from taking their fair share in Local County Government. It was not, however, in the County Councils that the danger would arise, but in the local Councils they were now multiplying. As the Bill now stood, with two bodies dividing the work now done by one, and owners not directly taxed or represented, he believed that in the District Councils it would be found extremely difficult to get them to look after the interests of the locality until they found debts and difficulties tied round their necks for generations. He should certainly raise this question again when they came to the other Bill, and he hoped that those who valued good administration, and thought it ought not to be in the hands of a single class, but of all classes of the community, would agree with him as to the necessity of bringing the experience and qualifications of all to bear upon the question of Local Government. It was only in that way that they could get any approach to efficient and economical Local Government, and he repeated that the present industrial position of Great Britain was what made the question of rating, taxation, and debt a very serious one in the country. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would do well not to press the Amendment at the present moment, but to

  1503
  reserve it until the larger Bill was reached.
  MR. GURDONsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon recommended the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) to withdraw the Amendment. It related to a question which had been much discussed in the country, and he could assure the hon. Member that there had not been a dissentient voice raised against it. In his opinion, it would be of great advantage only to have two registers instead of three, and he trusted the Government would reconsider the matter, and that, while doing so, they would remember the class of men to whom it was proposed to hand over the County Government.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he did not think the argument of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, that because the municipal franchise had worked advantageously in the boroughs for 50 years, it would, therefore, be a good franchise for the counties, was altogether a sound argument. He was inclined to think that, whether property was rightly or wrongly shut out from the exercise of a vote in the boroughs, at any rate it was much more important that it should be enjoyed by property in the counties. He was strongly disposed to think that property ought to have full representation upon and a large voice in the construction of the various County Councils. He said this not in favour of property as such, but rather in favour of the rates that were to be paid by property. He could not understand how hon. Members could resist a proposal to give a vote to men who now paid the rates, whom they hoped to compel to pay the rates, and on whom all the rates would ultimately fall. In spite of the difficulties which might be experienced in recasting the Bill so as to give property a vote, he maintained that those who were in favour of that principle ought upon the present occasion to vote against property being excluded altogether by the Bill from a voice in the new county government. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse) would take a Division in order, at this early stage in their proceedings, to decide definitely whe-
  1504
  ther it was proper or not to extend the municipal franchise over the whole country. If the hon. and learned Member pressed the Amendment to a Division, he would certainly vote with him.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he wished to record his voice in favour of the acceptance of this proposal by the Government. He had not gathered from the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) any adequate reason why the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that, as a matter of convenience, it was desirable to retain the register which already existed in municipal boroughs; but he had always been given to understand that it was most desirable to have one register for all purposes, both Imperial and local, Parliamentary and municipal. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, before going further, to reconsider the decision he had arrived at, with a view of establishing one register without following the principle of a household franchise in boroughs, which practically excluded many thousands of persons from the enjoyment of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in the remarks he made, had certainly grappled with the reasons given by his hon. and learned Friend for making this proposal. It was highly improper to exclude from any voice in the management of county affairs those who contributed very largely to the rates. If there was anything to be said against the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, it ought to be fully stated and properly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the question of giving the franchise to owners did not arise under the present Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: No; I did not say that. What I said was that the question of the owners being qualified to sit on the County Councils was one which did not arise under this Bill, but under the other.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he was sorry if he had confused the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He would only add that those who resisted the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend were disqualifying those who very largely con-

  1505
  tributed to the rates from taking part in the future municipal government of the country and the administration of the local funds. He should have no hesitation in supporting his hon. and learned Friend if he took the Bill into the Lobby.
  MR. AMBROSEsaid, he should support the Amendment to the extent that it gave the owners of property a vote in connection with the management of the county affairs. The hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), however, placed the Committee in this difficulty. He had associated the owner franchise with the lodger and service franchise, and many hon. Members on that side of the House—certainly he, for one—were of opinion that such franchises could scarcely be recognized in purely county questions. Surely lodgers and service tenants were not entitled to have a voice in the management of roads and county property. Therefore, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, although he was anxious to accept an owner franchise.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he had taken part in Local Board elections as a resident owner, but under this Bill that privilege would be taken away, and he could never vote except as a resident. At present, in the election of Boards of Guardians, the owners' suffrage existed. If the Bill passed, however, the character of Local Board elections would be entirely changed. They would be conducted under the provisions of the Bill, and those who now voted as owners would no longer vote as such. In other words, in every Local Board district owners would be actually disqualified from voting. As an owner he had enjoyed the privilege of taking part in various Local Board elections; but hereafter he would have no voice in the management of local affairs, except he happened to be a resident. He hoped he had made the position sufficiently clear to the Committee. They were now, as the Bill stood, taking away a right and a privilege which had been confirmed as recently as 1875 by the Public Health Act. He quite agreed that at this particular moment it would not be convenient to continue the discussion; but he trusted that, though it might not be discussed
  1506
  now, the question would be revived hereafter. Speaking for himself alone, he was not absolutely sure that the Municipal Corporations, and those who took part in municipal elections, would be unwilling to add an owner suffrage to the other suffrages now in existence in the boroughs. In his opinion, a certain amount of owner suffrage would give solidity and character to municipal elections, and he thought the experiment was worth trying by a Conservative Government. He did not think that any loss would be incurred by it, and he was sure that such a proposal would be regarded by Members of the House with great satisfaction, and would be cordially welcomed by those who were in the habit of supporting the Government. In regard to the other point, which had been alluded to by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he hoped provisions would be made in the other Bill for establishing an ownership qualification for a seat on the new County Councils. He believed that such a provision would give very great satisfaction to the electors, and he was also of opinion that the new institution about to be created by the Bill would thereby be materially strengthened.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would reconsider the provisions of the Bill, because, if they were passed in their present shape, as he understood them, an owner of property might be rated at any sum; but unless he actually lived on the property he would be disfranchised, and have no voice in the elections in that part of the county where his property was situated. It was absurd that the possessor of a highly rated property for woods, fishing, and shooting should be deprived of a voice in the government of a county in which it was situated merely because he lived elsewhere. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would correct that statement if it was inaccurate.
  MR. T. ROBINSONsaid, he understood the Government proposed to adopt the same franchise for the election of county councillors as now existed in the municipal boroughs, which he thought was right; but the Amendment before the House proposed, among other

  1507
  things, that freeholders should be added to the burgess list, but to this he objected, and he thought this suggestion would not give satisfaction to those who lived in towns. He had taken an active part in the borough management, and he knew that the existing borough qualification gave satisfaction. When the revising barrister came round to revise the Parliamentary list of voters, he also revised the municipal list, and all those who occupied land, or buildings to the value of £10, or were householders within the borough, were put on the list with a double qualification, both Parliamentary and municipal. Then at the end of the list came those who were rated under £10 and the women who were entitled to vote as occupiers were added. He had found that system to work exceedingly well; but by the Amendment, as it stood, every owner would have a vote whether he was a resident or not. He opposed that provision, also any system of plural voting; and if a Division was taken, he should support the Government.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he was afraid that it was impossible for him to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset. In the first place, although this was not an argument he would press upon the Committee, there would hardly be an excuse for the Government, after having introduced a measure in a certain popular direction, that they should be willing to make provision in it for the special representation of owners of property. As a matter of fact and experience, he did not believe that the number of owners who would be disqualified owing to their having no residence would be sufficient to justify the introduction of such an Amendment. He gathered from what fell from the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) that he and others would be prepared to vote for the Amendment as far as it conferred a vote upon the owners of property; but, on the other hand, that he and others were not prepared to support, or would unwillingly support, the Amendment as it stood, because it involved the introduction of the service and lodger franchise. He thought that the Committee, before they accepted the Amendment, ought to weigh carefully all that it involved. It involved the creation of gross anomalies.
  1508
  If it were agreed to, municipal boroughs and rural districts would be placed under totally different systems of franchise. With all deference to hon. Members who had spoken in the debate with great authority and experience, he should like to ask them whether they supposed that the borough's of England would approve of any proposal which would have the effect of conferring upon the ground landlords in towns who paid no rates a direct vote on municipal matters. Having been a Representative of a borough for some time, he could entirely endorse from his own experience what fell from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. T. Robinson)—that such a provision would be strenuously opposed by the towns. Another reason why he (Viscount Lymington) objected to the proposal was that it would introduce the lodger and service franchise. There were many lodgers in the towns, but very few lodgers in the rural districts, and while the lodgers in the counties would be enfranchised those in the towns would still remain disqualified. Did hon. Members who supported the Amendment on Conservative grounds, and with the knowledge that the Metropolis would in any case be excluded from its operation, wish to swamp the ratepayers' vote in the boroughs with a low-class lodger franchise? So far as the service franchise was concerned, it might be a very proper franchise for the election of Members of Parliament, but he did not think that one's butler or gardener ought to have the right to vote upon rural questions. He would, therefore, support the Government in their resistance to the Amendment, but he hoped it would not be pressed.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he did not know whether the discussion was purely academic or whether it was to result in a Division. He had only risen for the purpose of saying that if the Amendment went to a Division he should vote with the Government, because he looked upon the proposal as distinctly retrogressive.
  MR. WADDYsaid, that if the Amendment went to a Division, as he hoped it would, he would support it on this ground—that the anomalies it was intended to remove were anomalies which might be dealt with in different stages of the progress of the Bill. The Government and the

  1509
  country were embarking under the Bill in an entirely new system of Local Government administration. They were sure to have anomalies arising in any attempt to introduce an entirely new condition of things, and as they arose an attempt must be made to deal with them, and, undoubtedly, it would be necessary to sweep others away on a future occasion. They were now striving to assimilate and bring into an intelligible and homogeneous form the local administration of the Imperial administration of the country, and he should certainly support the Amendment, as it was a step in the direction in which they wanted to go. He could not sympathize with the argument of the noble Lord the Member for the South Molton Division of Devon (Viscount Lymington that one's butler or gardener was perfectly fit to vote upon matters affecting Imperial policy, but was not fit to vote upon the question of a county loan or a county rate. He (Mr. Waddy) should have thought that, so far as the question of interest was concerned, it would be all the other way. In small matters there could be no harm in letting the butler have his vote, but in matters of Imperial policy and legislation it was desirable that more provision, information, and a deeper sense of responsibility should be brought to bear. Sooner or later it would become necessary to assimilate the two existing franchises, and in so doing he trusted that they would greatly improve them wherever they needed improvement, and that they would get rid of that monstrous absurdity, the plurality of votes. He entirely approved of the principle which they were about to inaugurate in the new legislation—namely, that they were going to assimilate the government of the country in Imperial matters in Parliament with the government of the country in local matters elsewhere. He was prepared to support and carry out that principle wherever it might lead him, and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment moved by his hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped that hon. Members were quite alive to the results which were likely to ensue—according to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy)—if the Amendment were passed. What
  1510
  they had to do was one of two things—either of accepting the proposal to create great anomalies which could not possibly be defended, or to introduce a series of changes which would practically amount to municipal reform. It was extremely undesirable, that in a measure of this kind, they should do either the one or the other. It had already been pointed out that the anomalies would be extremely great, and that in endeavouring to remedy an evil in one part of the district they would be creating a far larger grievance in the municipal boroughs. There was another point he mentioned to which no hon. Gentleman had alluded, and that was that at two different parts of a country district there would exist different franchises relating to the same county government. That was an anomaly which could not possibly be defended, and if it were extended to the boroughs they would be practically introducing municipal reform. His hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) said, that the extension of the ownership vote to boroughs would be acceptable. All he could say was that he believed any proposal of that kind to extend the ownership vote to boroughs would be refused by the municipalities. He recollected that when Sir Charles Dilke was proposing a Bill of this kind in a speech which he made at Halifax, he said that, although there was a desire that the rates should be divided between the owner and occupier, he greatly feared that even with such a boon as that the boroughs would not consent to have the ownership vote extended to their municipal life. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) asked what it was proposed to do with the service vote in Scotland. All that he could say was that the Government did not propose in the present Bill to disqualify or disfranchise any person. They did not confer a new franchise upon anybody, nor did they disqualify or disfranchise anybody. As to Scotland their aim and belief was that no occupier of a cottage should be disqualified from having a vote. Of course, the gardener and the butler and so on would be disqualified, but if he was disqualified for the enjoyment of the county franchise, surely it would be necessary to disqualify him for the enjoyment of the borough franchise also; and

  1511
  the Government certainly did not contemplate the introduction of a measure which would entail such consequences. They had taken the municipal franchise as the basis upon which the Bill should proceed. That was the franchise upon which municipal privileges were based at present, and the Government felt it was the only safe ground they could stand upon. If they were to depart from it they would find themselves embarked on all manner of disputable points, and it would be seen from the discussion which had already taken place that whilst some other hon. Members were prepared to vote for the Amendment, because it would do certain things, others were prepared to vote for it because it would not do other things. He asked the Government, therefore, to assent to the proposals contained in the Bill and not to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he was grateful for the concession which the Government had made, which he understood to mean that they would introduce into the second Local Government Bill a prevision to give to the owners of property, whether registered as county voters or not, a qualification for sitting on the County and District Councils. In consideration of that concession, and impressed as he was with the desirability of not unnecessarily occupying the time of the House, he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. AMBROSEreferring to the Amendment standing in his name, in page 1, line 19, after "the," leave out to end of Clause, and insert—
  "Qualification of electors for members of Local Boards under The Public Health Act, 1875, and the scale of voting prescribed by section eight, and rules 10, 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 2 to that Act, shall extend to every part of a county not within the limits of a borough, and a person possessing in any part of a county outside the limits of a borough the qualification specified in rules 10, 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 2 to the said Act, shall be entitled to be registered under this Act as a county elector, in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate, in accordance with the scale of voting prescribed by such rules,"
  said, that he did not intend to move the Amendment in that form. His intention had been, if he was successful enough to secure the omission of the original words of the clause, that the Amend-
  1512
  ment should then become a Substantive Motion, and it would be competent for hon. Members to move such Amendments to it as they deemed proper. The Amendment involved two principles—one was that the owners and occupiers of cottage property should have a vote, and the other was the abolition of the plural vote, against which a strong opinion had already been expressed by an hon. Member opposite. He proposed, therefore, to break up the Amendment as originally drawn, and to deal, in the first instance, only with ownership votes. As regarded the ownership vote for Parliamentary purposes, it consisted of a freehold of the value of 40 s. per annum, or a freehold of £5, or a leasehold for a specified number of years of a certain value. These qualifications practically minimized the property rights and reduced them to next to nothing, and it was well known that in dealing with questions of that kind many difficulties would be placed in the way of persons claiming the right to vote upon a property qualification. According to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, these owners were to have no sort of voice in the election of Councils, by whom they might be subjected to the heavy penalties under the Local Government Bill. His right hon. Friend said the question was only a small one. He (Mr. Ambrose) admitted that in respect of the election of Parliamentary Representatives it was a small matter; but he denied that it was small if they dealt with property owners in the sense in which they were to be used by the Local Government Bill. He would ask his right hon. Friend, who told them that this Bill was to be on a popular basis, how he established his proposition? In what respect was it on a popular basis if he began by narrowing the electoral basis, and striking out a portion of those who were entitled to vote? His right hon. Friend said there were not many persons who would be affected. But he (Mr. Ambrose) had considered how the Bill would act with regard to one parish out of six in his Division—namely, Willesden, and in that parish alone there were no less than 640 registered owners who were entitled to vote on the election of members of the Local Board, every one of whom would be disfranchised by this Bill. Only a quarter of the number entitled to vote were at pre-

  1513
  sent on the register. They had heard something about coachmen and gardeners being entitled to vote. He did not say that those in service should not have a vote at all. If they were ratepayers, or if they occupied houses, they would have their vote; but that was quite another matter. His point was that the service franchise holder who lived in another man's house, and the lodger franchise holder also, might be very proper persons to be on the Parliamentary Election Register; but in this case they would have to do with the expenditure of local funds. In the parish of Willesden, again, there were no less than 1,805 tenants at weekly rents. Not one of those tenants paid rates directly; not one of them was affected by the amount of the rates; all of them might with a light heart vote for any policy, or any councillors who might be in favour of extravagance, and they would not be affected by it. Let the Committee consider how unjust it would be that the 1,805 weekly tenants should have each a vote, although they paid no rates, and that not one of the owners of the property, although they paid the rates, would be entitled to vote in respect of this franchise. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had announced that this was to be a popular measure. He (Mr. Ambrose) wanted it to be so, and he would make it popular by extending its basis, and including a large number of persons who would otherwise be shut out. It was said it would be an anomaly if they gave owners a right to vote, because it would be side by side with the borough franchise. But he would point out that there was a very considerable distinction between the management of boroughs and that of districts which were partly urban and partly rural. The borough was an area with a dense population; you might draw a line around it, and the population would be found to be inclosed within a very small circumference; there was in a borough a community of interest, and what suited one part of the people was likely to suit another part. By means of newspapers everyone knew what was taking place, and public opinion was thus brought to bear upon the Town Council, and there was some security that good measures would be passed. But in a rural, or partly rural and partly
  1514
  urban district, there was nothing like homogeneity; there might be a very large and straggling area, and a large number of people liable for rates from which they derived no benefit, He could refer to a case where in consequence of a sewage scheme the rates of an owner were increased by £20 a-year, although the work, having proceeded a certain distance, was stopped because it was found that at a particular part there were only a few gentlemen's houses who would be served by it. He mentioned that to show that there was not in these districts the same community of interest which existed in boroughs. The borough franchise which was created in 1836 was a considerable extension of the franchise then existing, and it was a popular measure within the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. But the case now was very different. He only asked by his Amendment the maintenance of what was the status quo; in other words that there should be no disfranchisement, and he thought it only fair to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the second part of his Amendment which dealt only with the ownership vote.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word "England," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "Every owner and also every ratepayer as defined by Rules 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' in respect of property situated within any part of a county, and within the limits of a borough, shall be entitled to be registered under this Act to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate,"—(Mr. Ambrose,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'The' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not think him desirous of saying anything die respectful in regard to his views. if he did not follow him in the discussion raised, because he understood that his hon. and learned Friend proposed by his Amendment to do practically that which the Committee had just decided should not be done, that was at least the effect of the withdrawal of the Amendment. His hon. and learned Friend now proposed to give to owners a vote as county electors, and he was going to follow that by proposing another Amendment which

  1515
  would give the owner, if he were an occupier in both capacities, a plural vote. That he (Mr. Ritchie) took to be entirely antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, and he regretted for the reasons already given in reply to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse) that the Government were unable to accept the proposal.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) was withdrawn upon his own responsibility, and he pointed out that hon. Members on those Benches sympathized with the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. He did not think his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had given any real answer at all to this request that the ownership vote should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had avowed this in his last speech; but it was true that in his former speech he had given what went for an answer, although he did not think it would satisfy hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that the principle of the Bill was the extension of municipal Government to counties, and that, therefore, it was necessary to make no difference in the franchise proposed for the boroughs and that of the counties. But, if they were to appeal to precedent, it would be seen that the House had always looked on boroughs and counties as being in a different position. He thought that something in the nature of principle of ownership election might be extended to the County Councils they were now proposing to establish. He would be glad if it were possible to extend the ownership vote to boroughs, but he recognized that it was impossible to disturb the municipal franchise in boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not in any way a disfranchising measure, but he submitted that this proposal to give the whole control of the elections to occupiers was to a certain extent a disfranchising of owners. It was provided in the Local Government Bill that many of the powers of various departments were to be handed over to the County Council. The Government were proposing to hand over the control, which owners as well as occupiers now had, to the occupiers alone. Therefore, he said that in
  1516
  principle there was no doubt that his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly right in his contention. As to the particular ownership franchise he wished to establish, he submitted that he was right in proposing to establish the franchise which now existed under the Public Health Act, and which was possessed by owners as well as occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend this to be the final franchise, and that it might in the future be altered.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the noble Lord had misunderstood him. He was arguing that they could not in this Bill propose to amend the Municipal Corporations Act, and he contended that it must form the subject of another measure.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would see that this did not affect his hon. Friend's argument, because he did not propose to interfere with that Act. The argument, at any rate, might be held that it was possible that in future they might alter the franchise as they pleased. He submitted that unless the owners did not get the vote now they would not get it at all. The service franchise might be established among electors for the County Council; but he ventured to prophesy that if at that moment the owners' franchise were recognized it would never be recognized, and, therefore, it should be secured now. It might be true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it would not make much difference whether owners were admitted or not; but, supposing it to be true, there was all the more reason why his hon. and learned Friend's proposal should be accepted. Owners of property considered—wrongly, as he believed—that they ran an enormous risk in passing this Bill, and it would therefore be well to concede this little point which would gratify them and make them believe the Government had their interest at heart. He hoped, for these reasons, that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to give his hon. and learned Friend some hope that the proposal would be considered, because, otherwise, he should be obliged to support the Amendment by going into the Lobby with him.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, the right hon. Gentleman

  1517
  the President of the Local Government! Board had told them, when he introduced the Local Government Bill, that as "they all entered by one gate," the Government would not propose to have any complicated suffrage in this matter. They proposed in the counties precisely the same suffrage which had worked so well in the boroughs. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) thought it would be admitted to be desirable that they should take no backward step. What they all desired was to approach simplicity of qualification. He resolutely set his face against the introduction of any complicated franchises, whether the plural vote, the cumulative device, or ownership suffrage; and he should on this occasion support the Government in what he believed to be the vital part of the Bill—namely, the introduction of simple residential household suffrage.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that up to the present time he had never had any doubt that the ownership vote ought to carry with it more weight than it had done. When the last Act was passing through the House he had put down an Amendment to the effect that no one should have a vote who did not pay his own rates. No doubt, the time had gone by when they could go back on the measure passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was a reasonable proposition to say that taxation and representation should go together. And he ventured to say that it was an omission on the part of his right hon. Friend and the Government that this principle had not been embodied in the present Bill. As his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out, a county was not like a borough, where people were close together and often of one way of thinking. It extended over a very large area, and to get the inhabitants to agree to one course of action might be a matter of extreme difficulty; and, under the circumstances, it was a very little thing to ask that where a man had property he should be allowed to vote for a County Councillor in each division in which that property was situated. It seemed to him that a great injustice would be done to owners of property unless they were more fairly represented than was proposed in the Bill.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he was sorry the
  1518
  Government had not treated this Amendment with a little more consideration. They were now establishing a new franchise for counties, and he urged on the Committee to make it as good as it could be made. The Parliamentary franchise was conferred upon the people because they were taxed; but here the question was that of rating property, and owners of rated property ought surely to have the right to vote. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) seemed to consider this a retrograde proposal; it was the first time he had ever heard the extension of the suffrage called a retrograde step. They wanted to make the franchise as large as possible; but this exclusion of owners would make the Bill to a very large extent a disfranchising measure. Hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of this Amendment asked that non-resident freeholders should have a voice in the taxation of their own property. There was nothing retrogressive or contrary to the principles of political economy in the Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he thought the Government were not quite aware of the strong feeling which existed on this subject, much stronger than would be shown by the division. There was a large number of Members on those Benches who, while they felt strongly on the point, were yet very unwilling to press the Government if they could help it, knowing that almost any provision in the Bill would be better than that they should be turned out of Office and the maintenance of the Union endangered. He thought that those who were in favour of the Amendment were entitled to something more in the way of reply than they had received from the Government Bench. As the matter now stood owners were to have no vote at all, while their money was to be voted away by those who had no property. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to give a little more consideration to this matter. As he (Mr. Gedge) had said, they felt very strongly that ownership should carry with it the right of voting, and if they found that principle recognized by the Government, they should regard the Bill with a very different feeling from that with which they regarded it at present.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I understand the sympathy shown by hon. Gentlemen with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose), but I trust they will feel that Her Majesty's Government were only doing their duty by adhering to the principle laid down in the Bill. We are fully conscious of the importance of securing the representation of property; but we believe that representation will be secured by the legislation now proposed, although, at the same time, we feel that it would be impossible to introduce plural voting. We have taken the borough franchise as a model for the counties, and we have made no alteration in the existing system to show that, in our opinion, no danger is to be apprehended. Those who possess property will retain the influence which I believe they very worthily exercise among their neighbours and friends, and I have no fear whatever that property will be unfavourably affected or taxed unduly and improperly by the exercise of the franchise which will be conferred upon a large number of persons. While we respect the motives of hon. Gentlemen who support the Amendment, and while we are ready to go as far as we possibly can to meet their wishes, we are bound, however, under all the circumstances, to abide by the principle of the Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the danger of an attack upon property was not what was apprehended; but it was feared that there would be among the councillors selected under the proposed franchise without any direct property representation, an imperfect sense of the necessity for economy in administration.
  MR. AMBROSEsaid, he wished it to be perfectly understood that his Amendment did not include plural voting; it tended only to give to owners of property a voice in questions of rating. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had stated that while the expense of management in rural districts had only increased during 30 years to the extent of 12 or 13 per cent, the rates in London had increased by 69 per cent, and in other Municipal Corporations by 59 per
  1520
  cent; and whatever might be said with regard to the economical administration in boroughs, it could not be denied that, on the whole, there had been a very large outlay. He had hoped for a more favourable reception from Her Majesty's Government, and he felt bound, under the circumstances, to press the Amendment to a Division. He assured his right hon. Friend that he should do so with great reluctance and pain; but he felt it was an absolute duty upon him, and every Member of the Conservative Party, to protest against the exclusion of owners of property. They were on the point of handing over the levying of taxes to people who did not pay those taxes. That, he said, could not be good for the country; and he was convinced that if the Bill was passed in its present form, bad results would follow in respect of expenditure and management. The country would find out that the Bill was absolutely inadequate for the protection of property, and mischievous, not only to the Conservative Party, but to the country at large.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he wished to make two observations on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose). First of all, he wished to state that he was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member was going to divide the Committee, because the Division would be of extreme importance both with regard to the Amendment itself and the future; secondly, he was glad to hear that, in order to put the matter in a clear shape, the hon. and learned Member was going to withdraw that part of it which related to plural voting. The Division was, therefore, going to take place on the question whether property owners should be separately represented or have a residential franchise. He was glad to hear the words of true wisdom which had been spoken from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated that property owners might consider themselves to be sufficiently and properly represented by residential franchise. That was the issue upon which they were about to vote, and it was a principle of which the last had not been heard, but which would be appealed to with effect on other and future occasions.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he thought the Government were quite right in adhering to the principle of the Bill; but, at the same time, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ambrose) was also right in standing by his principle, and he (Commander Bethell) was very glad to hear that he would divide the Committee on his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 52: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he rose to move the Amendment standing in his name, which provided that those entitled to be registered under this Act should be ratepayers. The Bill, in declaring the qualification of voters, adopted the qualification enacted by the 9th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882; and nothing could be better than the clause which governed the qualification in that case. The condition was that the elector should be rated in respect of poor rates made in the last 12 months. He had no objection whatever to that qualification; the payment of rates was therein made a condition precedent to the administration of rates. But that Act was governed by another Act of Parliament, which provided that the Vestry of any parish might from time to time order that the owner, instead of the occupier, of rateable hereditaments under £8, should be rated to the poor. The effect of that was that every occupier of a house at a rent under £8 would not pay directly one farthing towards the rates; the whole of the rates would be paid by the owner, and not by the occupier of property, and yet the occupier would have a direct voice in the administration of the rates. Now, what became of the principle about which they had heard so much from the Front Bench, and from the right hon. Gentleman, particularly, who brought in the Local Government Bill, as to taxation and representation going together, if those who did not pay one farthing towards the rates were to have an equal voice in their administration with those who directly paid them. It had been suggested during the debate that it would be a good thing for the rates to be divided between owners and occupiers. But the right hon. Gentle-
  1522
  man the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) himself had said that it would be impossible to divide the rates between owner and occupier, unless at the same time the representation was equally divided. But this was not a question of dividing the rates between ratepayers and owners; it was a question of the whole of the rates being paid by the owner. [An hon. MEMBER: And occupier.] No! under the compounding Acts the occupier would not pay anything at all. The result of this would be that in some places one-half of the electors, and in others two-thirds, would not pay rates directly at all; they would have no interest whatever in the amount of the rates; they would never hear at their doors the tap of the collector asking for their contributions. In many places they would entirely out vote all the other electors put together; and it was possible under this Bill that the whole of the District Council, and almost the whole of the County Council, should be composed of men who did not contribute a single farthing to local taxation. That, surely, was a grave matter, and one which deserved some attention at the hands of the House. They all knew perfectly well that the only check upon reckless expenditure in the matter of rates was that those who imposed the burdens had themselves to pay for them. Some argument might be raised possibly upon the fact that the Parliamentary franchise was based upon a non-direct rate-paying qualification. Why should it not be? The Parliamentary franchise was quite a different thing to the franchise which affected the administration of rates. Everyone was taxed by Parliament, and therefore everyone should be represented in the House of Commons; Parliament was a legislative assembly, and everybody was interested in the laws of his country. Therefore, he dismissed at once the argument founded upon Parliamentary franchise, which found no parallel in the franchise to be created under the Bill. Next as to the municipal franchise, which was based upon the compounding Acts. Was the example of the boroughs deserving of imitation? He altogether contradicted the statement that the borough administration had been economical. Boroughs, they all knew, under the present franchise, had been influenced by political considerations, and that influence had,

  1523
  to a great extent, drawn the Municipal Councils into extravagance, which had sometimes culminated in corruption. Therefore, if it was said that the franchise worked well in boroughs, he replied at once that it had produced extravagance to such an extent that the rates were now rising by leaps and bounds at about £800,000 a-year; and if they went on thus, the whole of the sum granted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, amounting to £3,000,000, in aid of the rates, would be consumed in additional taxation in four years' time. They all knew that the state of indebtedness of the boroughs was such that many of them were on the verge of bankruptcy, and that the debts amounted altogether to £180,000,000. Therefore, if the success of the municipal franchise was brought forward as a reason for extending it to the counties, he said that it had not worked so well that they should pass it on to the counties without consideration. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) hoped he should not be met by a non possumus; where there was a will there was a way; and he trusted that argument would not be used against his Amendment. He feared more the ignoramus argument, because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had told the House that he knew nothing of the numbers of the non-ratepaying electors who were to be placed on the electorate—that is to say, the right hon. Gentleman had not considered it worth while to take into account the number of those who did not pay rates directly, but who would by this Bill share in the administration of the rates. If they accepted the principle that taxation should accompany representation, why should they not in some way or other limit the Compounding Act. His object was, not to propose disfranchisement, but to give the Government an opportunity of declaring whether they would not in some way limit that Act. He suggested that the operation of the Act should be limited to those places where it was at present in force, and that it should he amended by confining it to those short tenancies of one month where the tenant was, so to speak, here to-day and gone to-morrow. But whatever the Government might do with regard to this matter, he wished strongly to point out the extreme hardship with which this Compounding Act bore upon the free-
  1524
  holder. The occupying freeholder was rated to the full amount of his property, yet every owner of a number of cottages could compound under the Act at a remission of 30 per cent; the result was that every freeholder was charged so much more because the Compounding Act allowed the owner of many cottages to pay 30 per cent less than his due share of the rates. That appeared to him to be a strong argument in favour of limiting the operation of the Compounding Act. They ought to try to place the franchise on a sound basis, because they knew that further functions would shortly be placed in the hands of the County Councils. Poor relief was certain soon to be placed. in their hands. What could be more injurious to the independence of the agricultural labourer, and more disadvantageous to the maintenance of the standard of wages, than to have a number of persons administering outdoor relief who did not pay one farthing towards the rates? That alone was a very good reason why they should take care that everyone who had a vote for the election of County Boards should feel directly the incidence of the rates. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice; and he trusted the Government would be able to suggest some way of limiting the operation of the Compounding Act to some extent, even if they could not go the full length of his proposal.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, after the word "person," to insert the words "being a ratepayer."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he had listened with great interest and attention to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he regretted that it was not possible for the Government in the present Bill to make the concession which he desired. The argument of his hon. Friend was to the effect that it was very desirable that taxation and representation should go together, and that the franchise should only be in the hands of those who paid rates. As a general principle, he did not mean to dispute the truth of

  1525
  the proposition which his hon. Friend put forward, but he asked the Committee for a few moments to listen to the details of his hon. Friend's arguments. His hon. Friend was obliged to admit that the present municipal franchise did not involve the necessity of payment of rates by the occupier. His hon. Friend said that the municipal franchise had led to great extravagance in towns. He (Sir Richard Webster) was not able to say positively whether that proposition was true or not, but it had been stated by the Representatives of urban districts during the present Session that there had been no extravagance in the sense to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They had to consider what the towns received for the money expended. They had public buildings, free libraries, washhouses, paved streets and other conveniences. The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was not that the rates were too heavy, but that the rural districts would get more than their share of the grant as between the urban and rural districts. He was not aware that anyone had had the courage to suggest that the Compounding Act should be repealed or modified in regard to the exercise of the municipal franchise. They must therefore either proceed on the principle of assimilating the municipal franchise to the rural franchise or upon some other principle. He sympathised to this extent with his hon. Friend, that, if it should be established that the result of this legislation was undue extravagance, and if that was shown to be caused by those who voted, and yet did not pay the rates, then a strong case would have been made out for Parliamentary consideration. No one suggested that the rural taxation would be as high a rate in the pound as was now levied in boroughs, and that it would involve the same amount of extravagance as that alleged to have taken place in urban districts. His hon. Friend had made a suggestion which, if it were possible to see how it would turn out, they might be able to adopt; but he had given them no means of arriving at such a conclusion, and, in reply to his suggestion with regard to the limitation of the Compounding Act, he said that this also depended on the same argument which he had ven-
  1526
  tured to put forward—namely, if it could be shown that the municipal franchise had worked badly, then a proposition might be put forward for an Amendment, but as long as it was their duty to recognize the municipal franchise of 1882 to be statutory, it seemed to him impossible to depart from the principle of the franchise adopted in this Bill. He could only again assure his hon. Friend that it was not from any wish on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to deal with this question if it were possible to do so, that they could not consent to his proposal, but because when they were dealing with the present state of affairs with regard to counties they found it absolutely necessary to adopt the municipal principle.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated that it was intended to apply the municipal principle in this Bill. Under the Municipal Corporations Act the ratepayers had the power of exercising control with regard to expenditure; it was distinctly provided that, before the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act came into operation, there must be a poll of the ratepayers, and he knew that when there had been extravagance a poll of the ratepayers had been had. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to give the ratepayers in the counties the same powers as the ratepayers in the boroughs possessed? It was a serious matter to deprive of their votes men on whom the burden of taxation fell, and if that was the intention of the Government, he asked that the same provision might be made between owners and ratepayers as now existed under the Municipal Corporations Act.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that of course his hon. Friend would see that this question did not arise on the Bill before the Committee. He should be glad if his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press that point upon this occasion. The Government, however, would certainly look into the matter.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped he was not to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had committed himself by his last answer to the Amendment. [Mr. RITCHIE: No, no!]

  1527
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Registration of County electors).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 19, after the word "repealed," to insert the words, "and revising assessor for such borough shall not be elected."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 23, after the word "applies," insert the words, "and the said lists of county electors and of occupation voters for Parliamentary elections in such parish shall be made out in divisions, as provided in the said Act: Provided, that a person whose name appears in any list of county electors or burgesses in a county may object to the name of any other person on a list of county electors or burgesses for a parish in that county, and may oppose the claim of a person to have his name inscribed in any such list"—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)asked, whether the Government would give an assurance that with regard to London some provision would be made for drawing up the register by streets?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that the Amendment before the Committee did not touch that question at all. The Amendment was with reference to making out the list in three divisions.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, before the word "section," to insert the words "where such parish is not within a Parliamentary borough."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that in London they wanted to get a uniform and simple system of registration. At present it was optional whether the registers should be made out alphabetically or by streets, so far as the Parliamentary elections were concerned. It depended on the will of the magistrates in the different boroughs of London. Municipal boroughs were dealt with as a whole by the Town Council, not in parts. They were now about to establish one authority for London, and it
  1528
  was quite clear that there should be a uniform system of registration The street plan had been adopted in St. Pancras, where those engaged in the practical work of registration found that they could work much more easily from the street lists than the alphabetical list. He should not press the Amendment of which he had given notice to a Division, because it would be out of Order if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General was carried; but he would be satisfied if his proposal were embodied in some other part of the Bill. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) was not opposed to the Amendment; but he would point out that the confusion and the expense resulting from the existing system would be a serious difficulty in the way of the Local Government Board.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that in his district, they had found great convenience from having a street register; because it was sometimes impossible to get access to individuals by means of the alphabetical system. The question was not a Party one; on the contrary, the principle was approved by persons of all shades of politics in London, and, therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to adopt the proposal of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Lawson).
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, he believed that the plan of having the register by streets had been found of great convenience to all parties connected with this work, and it had prevented people from being put on the register who ought not to be there. He hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the only difficulty was whether it was desirable to make it compulsory that the register should be made out according to streets. No doubt, it would be very desirable to have one uniform system; but the Committee were aware that the question with regard to places within London was very carefully considered by a Committee in 1885, which came to the conclusion that it was not desirable in other than Parliamentary boroughs that there should be street lists. The Government, however, would consider

  1529
  between that time and Report whether the principle should be made compulsory.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, the Committee of 1885 made no Report with regard to the Metropolis.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he understood that the hon. and learned Attorney General was in favour of the principle being made compulsory if it could be included in the Bill. The system had been applied in Kensington after considerable opposition; but now there was no difference of opinion whatever on the subject.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 11, leave out "Parliamentary;" and in line 14, leave out from beginning of line to "Clerk of the Peace," in line 18, and insert—
  "The Town Clerk shall cause to be printed such number of copies of the revised lists as the Clerk of the Peace may require; and shall transmit the same to."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, the Amendment which stood next in his name, had for its object the making of better provision for the registration of voters in the country districts. There were many small parishes where there was no paid assistant overseer, and where, at present, no assistant overseer was required to do the Poor Law work. Since 1885 the registration duties of the overseers had become more complicated, and now that it was proposed to make them still more so by adding a Municipal to the Parliamentary register, it became necessary that there should be in each parish a proper officer to perform these registration duties. The sub-section which he had put on the Paper was merely in the nature of a suggestion to the Government. If they had a better plan for meeting the difficulty, he should only be too glad to accept it. He would, however, impress on the Government the necessity of making better provision, and that speedily, for registration in the future. Great dissatisfaction would be felt if, under the new register, voters were not properly registered. He had suggested the Guardians of the Union as a suitable body to appoint a registration officer, because they were the only existing authority in a position to appoint an officer
  1530
  in more parishes than one. He sincerely hoped that, when we had the District Councils, the Government would deal with the general question of reforming the registration law; but, in the meantime, some temporary provision must be made, and he submitted that that temporary provision could not be effected more cheaply or expeditiously than by the system he proposed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, at end, add,—(h.) For the purpose of making better provision for the registration of voters in rural districts, the guardians of a union may. with the consent of the overseers of any parish within their union for which an assistant overseer has not been appointed under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts, annually appoint a fit person to act as registration officer for one or more such parishes. Such registration officer shall perform all the duties of overseers of the parish or parishes for which he is appointed in respect of the registration of voters, and the provisions of the Registration of Electors Acts relating to overseers shall apply to him accordingly:
  "Provided that his remuneration shall be fixed by the guardians of the union, and charged on the poor rates of the said parish or parishes, and (if he acts for more than one parish) in proportion to the number of persons on the list of voters for each parish."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he had listened very attentively to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and he could net doubt that the hon. and learned Member had some reason for stating, as he did, that there was some fear that, unless some other arrangement than that now existing were adopted, the registers would not be prepared as they would all like to see them prepared. But the question whether or not the work should be done by a paid officer was a large and important question, and he doubted whether, if anything could be done, it could be done in this Bill. He was doubtful whether it was not a matter to be dealt with when they took in hand the question of registration, which was a subject which he thought must come before the House before long. He (Mr. Ritchie) confessed he had no objection in principle to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but what appeared to him was that, perhaps, it was better that they should wait before dealing

  1531
  with the question until they took in hand the whole question of registration.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite had received the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) so favourably. He wished to point out, however, that there was another occasion when the question might come on, for he (Mr. Stansfeld) himself had a Registration Bill before the House which contained provisions of this nature, and which, if passed, would simplify the registration of the country.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that when the Bill got thoroughly to work, it would be found that the appointment of some official in many parishes for preparing the register was necessary. In many small parishes at present the work was done by the overseers themselves, in order that the localities might not be put to the expense of assistant overseers; but it would come very hard upon them if they were required at the busiest time of all the year to undertake the work of preparing the Local Government Registers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that he would consider how the difficulty could be met, and that statement was all they could expect at present. But, unless something was done to get the registers properly prepared, it would be found that there was a serious omission in the measure. In a great many parishes an assistant overseer was not necessary; but still it would be necessary that someone should be appointed in those parishes to do the work of preparing the registers, as that was work which it was essential should be properly carried out.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Llewellyn), and as the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hobhouse) proposed was merely a permissive proposal, the Government would accept it on the understanding that when they came to the Report stage of the Bill, if they found that it required any Amendment, Amendments would be accepted to that extent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  1532
  Clause 4 (Roll of county electors).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 39, leave out "roll," and insert "register;" line 42, leave out "copies," and insert "such number of copies as the clerk of the peace may require;" in page 4, line 1, after "delivered," insert "by the town clerk;" line 2, leave out "roll" and insert "register;" and in page 4, line 1, leave out "forty-nine."
  MR. HOBHOUSEin moving in page 4, line 6, to insert the words "of county fund for borough fund," said the Amendment was only a matter of drafting.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, after the words "town clerk" to insert the words "of county fund for borough fund."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view would be better carried out by an Amendment which he (Sir Richard Webster) intended to propose in line 8.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 7, leave out the word "roll" in the first two cases where it occurs, and insert the word "register."
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 8, after the word "ward" insert the words "and of county fund for borough fund."
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he wished to ask a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and to put himself in Order, he would move the omission of Sub-section 3, which was as follows:—
  "If district councils are established under any Act of the present session of Parliament, the clerk of every such council, not being the council of a borough, shall make up a roll of all persons registered as county electors in his district, and where there are wards in a district, of all county electors in each ward, and the above-mentioned Acts and sections shall apply for that purpose with the substitution of

  1533
  'clerk of the district council' for 'town clerk,' and of 'district roll' for 'burgess roll' respectively.'
  It was essential that the electoral rolls should be made equally for the districts and the counties. Hon. Gentlemen who were familiar with the formation of the registers would agree with him that it would seem under this sub-section that double expense was to be entailed by registers being prepared under the direction not only of the clerk to the District Councils, but of clerks of the peace.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out Sub-section (3).—Commander Bethell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that this point had not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government, and he had handed in a verbal Amendment in line 13 to provide that there should be no duplicate printing and that the clerks of the District Councils should send a sufficient number of copies to the clerks of the peace.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked whether the persons qualified to vote in a district for the County Council would always be qualified to vote for the District Council?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that was so.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, the limit as to residence was made to run from the limit of the district in the one case and from the limit of the county in the other.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): No; the limits would be the same.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 11, leave out "roll" and insert "register;" line 16, leave out "roll" in the first case where it occurs, and insert "register."
  MR. PICTONsaid, he begged to move to leave out Sub-section 4 as follows:—
  1534
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent a county elector from being enrolled n more than one division roll."
  It was quite possible that he might attach undue importance to this Amendment he was moving, because he was not as versed in the law as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and many hon. Gentlemen opposite, but this Sub-section in the Bill certainly struck him as a strong exception to the application of Clause 45 of the Act of 1882, which dealt with the Register of County voters. Sub-section 6, of Clause 45, provided that an elector could not be enrolled on more than one roll. In Section 51, Sub-section 2, it was stated that no person should subscribe to a nomination paper for more than one ward, or vote in more than one ward, and when he found that a county elector was to be enrolled in more than one Division of the Roll, it suggested to him that an exception might be made to the Section of the Act of 1882, excluding a person from voting in more than one Division, and he should regret to see that. The application of the Register of 1882 to the new county election was not clear. If this Sub-section were left out, it would appear they were not going to allow dual voting in counties which they did not at present allow in boroughs. In a few words such was his difficulty, and he begged to move that the sub-section be left out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (4).—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought he should be able to give the hon. Gentleman a very good reason why this Subsection was put in. The roll would, of course, be also the new burgess roll for the new District Council, and unless an elector, who was qualified to vote for more than one District Council, should have his name put down on the Register for each of the Divisions for which he was entitled to vote, he would be disqualified for giving his vote for more than one District. It was obvious that a person qualified in one rural district ought to be entitled to vote for the District Council of that District. There was no doubt that a person qualified in

  1535
  more than one Division should vote for each of the Districts of the County Council. That would be equally provided for in the other Bill. A man would be entitled to have his name down for the District in which he had a qualification, as otherwise a person would not be entitled to vote for more than one of the District Councils for which he might really be entitled to vote.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he understood that it was not intended that a man qualified in two Divisions of a County should be entitled to vote for each Division.
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not.
  MR. PICTON: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 18, leave out "enrolled," and insert "registered;' same line, leave out "roll," and add "register; "and at end, add,—
  "Where in pursuance of section four of 'The Registration Act, 1885,' the Revising Barrister has power to erase the name of any person as a Parliamentary voter from Division One of the occupiers' list, such barrister, in lieu of erasing the name, shall place an asterisk or other mark against the name, and, in printing such lists, the name shall be numbered consecutively with the other names, but an asterisk or other mark shall be printed against the name, and a person against whose name such asterisk or other mark is placed shall not be entitled to vote in respect of such entry at a Parliamentary election, but shall have the same right of voting at an election of a county authority as he would have if no such mark were placed against his name.
  If under any Act of the present Session of Parliament establishing a council for a county any portion of another county is added to that county for the purpose of such election, such portion of the county register as relates to the electors having qualifying property in the said part so added shall be deemed to be part of the county register of the county for which such council is elected, and the clerk of the peace and other officers shall take such steps as may be necessary for giving effect to these enactments."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Expenses).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERRL, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 26, after "peace," insert "or town clerk;" line 27, after "county," insert "or borough;" and in line 28, after "charges," insert "made and charged by him."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  1536
  Clause 6 (Contribution by county authorities towards the remuneration of revising barristers).
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, before the next Amendment came on, and, to put himself in Order, he would move to omit the 1st Sub-section from the clause—namely:—
  "There shall be annually paid by the county authority of every county out of the county fund into Her Majesty's Exchequer such sum as the Treasury certify to be one-half of the cost incurred for the payment of revising barristers at the then last revision of the lists of parliamentary electors, burgesses, and county electors in that county."
  The question he wished to put was with reference to the revising barristers, and he desired to know whether it was essential that they should be introduced into the counties. Those who were familiar with the revision of the lists in boroughs informed him that the revising barristers had very little to do in connection with the municipal lists. That being the ease, it would save expenditure if the revising barristers were not introduced into the counties, where the same simple franchise as existed in the boroughs would operate.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, to omit Sub-section (1).—(Commander Bethell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had in the Paper an Amendment to line 7, to add—
  "And such payment in respect of the revision of the burgess lists shall in future be made by the Treasury out of Her Majesty's Exchequer."
  and, as this Amendment had some bearing on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bethell), he (Mr. Tomlinson) would here say what he had to say with regard to it. He would not move his own Amendment, and, with reference to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said, he begged to express the opinion that, having had opportunities of ascertaining the facts, he found that the revision in connection with the municipal lists added considerably to the time required by the revising barristers. He believed, under

  1537
  the proposed change, it was essential that the revising barristers should revise the lists for the counties as well as the municipalities. He understood that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out in substance his Amendment, and that they did not wish that the revising barrister should have additional work without receiving additional remuneration.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WRBSTER)said, it would probably assist the Committee if he were to inform them at that period what the Government intended to do in regard to the revising barristers. The Government could not agree to accept any system of registration which was not done by competent revising barristers. That matter was carefully considered in connection with the Act of 1882. There was a revising authority then in existence; but that authority, being made the subject of careful inquiry, was found unsatisfactory, and it was decided that after a certain date the revision should be by revising barristers. It was not correct to suppose that no legal questions could arise in connection with revision, and therefore it would not be desirable to have the work done by persons who were not competent to deal with such legal questions as might arise. No time would be saved in that way. With regard to the existing conditions under which the revising barristers were appointed, the Committee knew that they were paid 200 guineas a-year for Parliamentary work, paying their own expenses and doing their work within certain days. When called upon to do municipal work they wore paid by the boroughs five guineas a day, for such time as they were engaged doing the work. It was found that those arrangements did not work satisfactorily, and one of the objects in view was to do away with this payment of five guineas per day. It was evident that there would be largely increased work—he did not mean in proportion to the number of new names put on the list—but still there would be largely increased work, and the Government provided in the Bill that one-half of the cost of the revision should be borne by the county, and one-half by the Treasury. Instead of being paid 200 guineas a-year, and a certain amount per day for the
  1538
  municipal work, it was proposed that the revising barristers should do the work once for all in connection with the municipal and county lists, and that they should be paid 250 guineas per annum for it, one-half to be borne by the Treasury, they paying their own expenses. That would effect a saving to the country—counties would not be heavily charged. Those who had looked into the question from the revising barristers' point of view, and also from the point of view of the Government, believed this to be a settlement by no means unfair to those who had to pay, and not an undue remuneration for those who had to do the work. He thought that, probably having regard to the pay which had been given in the past, some revising barristers might have been inclined to ask for a larger amount, but when they came to look into the matter they would admit, he thought, that the sum fixed upon by the Government was sufficient. It was highly important that there should be a uniform system of revision of the lists.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the antiquated system which formerly prevailed was very much to the point, and whether the effect of paying these gentlemen £250 a-year would be economical or not he could not say, because he did not know how many five guineas a-piece had been paid to these gentlemen; but his (Mr. Conybeare's) method of getting over the difficulty would be to place the work of revision on the shoulders of the County Court Judges. According to a Return which was printed last year, and according to a discussion which took place in that House, it seemed that the County Court Judges had only half their time taken up with County Court work. That being so, and County Court Judges being quite as capable as the ordinary revising barristers for the work of revising the lists of voters, he thought that such work might very well be handed over to them. From his point of view, however, they would never get the thing satisfactorily managed until they had manhood suffrage. The difficulties in connection with revision in many cases rendered it impossible for working men to exercise the franchise, and until either one Party or the other in the House

  1539
  had the courage to deal manfully with the question, and declare for manhood suffrage, the difficulty would never be overcome.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) was mistaken in supposing that there was any information before the House to the effect that the County Court Judges, or any large proportion of them, worked so little as the hon. Member said. There was a Bill now before the House to enable the Lord Chancellor to deal with cases where the County Court Judges had not sufficient work to do—giving him power to require those Judges who had too little to do to assist those who had too much to do; and, under the circumstances, it would be absurd—if the hon. Member would permit him to say so—to think of putting the work of registration upon the County Court Judges.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the Bill the hon. Member referred to was before the Standing Committee, but was not technically before the House, and he was referring to what was at present the case. He was referring to a Return and a discussion which took place in the House last Session. He, therefore, ventured to say that the hon. Member's correction was hardly correct.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the Bill in question was before the House, the Standing Committee being, by the Rules of the House, technically equivalent to the Committee stage of a Bill in Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I know that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)moved, after Clause 10, to insert the clause which stood in his name.
  New Clause:—
  (Transitory provisions as to the year 1888.)
  "In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, notwithstanding anything in the enactments applied by this Act, the revision of the lists of county electors may be later than the twelfth day of October, so that it be not later than the thirty-first day of October, and the register of county electors shall be completed on or before the thirty-first day of December in the said year, and shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine,
  1540
  and shall continue in operation until the next register of county electors comes into operation.
  "In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, notwithstanding anything in this Act or the enactments thereby applied, the Clerk of the Peace in a county may, if he thinks fit, instead of directing the occupiers' list to be made out in three divisions as provided by the Registration of Electors Acts, direct the overseers to make supplemental lists containing the names which would otherwise be contained in Division Two and Division Three of the occupiers' list, and the names so contained in the supplemental list corresponding to Division Two shall be struck by the Revising Barrister out of Division Ono of the list, and the supplemental list corresponding to Division Three shall be treated as if it wore Division Three of the said list,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. TOMLINSONsaid, he took exception to the second part of the clause, as he thought it would lead to unnecessary confusion.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERasked, whether the hon. and learned Member had seen the alterations which it was proposed to effect?
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had not; but he was informed that the proposal in the new clause would lead to confusion.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he did not know how otherwise the object in view could be carried out. They had passed a clause to the effect that there should be a revision of the lists, and it followed from that that the lists must be made to agree with each other. No doubt, it would be laborious to make three revisions of the lists effecting certain erasures in the case of one or other; but the alternative would lead to greater confusion, as it would be necessary to put certain marks against certain names, and to refer back to see what each mark meant. It would only be in this way that they could find out whether a man was to have a Parliamentary or municipal vote, or whether the name was that of a woman. That would be a very inconvenient course, and the Government were anxious that the revising barristers should be enabled to do their work thoroughly.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 10 Members being found present,
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he regretted he had not properly understood his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Tomlinson). If the hon. and learned Member thought the arrangement should be compulsory he would look into the matter; but he would point out that the subject had been before the Clerks of the Peace and others who were interested.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked why it was necessary to have a special provision for registration that year, which was not necessary other years?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the arrangement was proposed inasmuch as they must get through the work that year. On other occasions there had been plenty of time. That had been the course adopted in 1885.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he referred in particular to the 2nd sub-section.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he would look into the point.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he begged to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, after Clause 2, insert the following Clause:—
  "Every person who is entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of a ten pounds occupation qualification within the meaning of the provisions of 'The Registration Act, 1885,' which are set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be entitled to be registered as a county elector, and to be enrolled as a burgess, in respect of such qualification, in like manner in all respects as if the sections of ''The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' relating to a burgess qualification, included the said ten pounds occupation qualification."
  His object was to amend the occupation franchise. At present the matter stood thus. In the year 1885 the franchise in municipal boroughs was altered for Parliamentary purposes, so as to include under the qualification to vote land without buildings up to the value of £10. There was no such qualification for municipal purposes; therefore the effect of the Bill would be that in country districts occupiers of land of even considerable value would not have a right to vote, unless they had buildings on the land. He could assure the Committee that this was not an imaginary case. He had the details of one considerable estate, where a large quantity of grazing
  1542
  land was occupied by persons who did not reside in the immediate neighbourhood, and had no buildings whatever on the land. Those persons who had a substantial stake in the neighbourhood would have no right to vote as the Bill now stood, and he thought this proposal ought to be accepted, providing as it did that a person who had a status for Parliamentary purposes should be admitted to a status for municipal purposes. He intended to move a new Schedule later on, if this new clause were accepted.
  New Clause (Occupation of land of the value of £10 to qualify,)—(Mr. Hobhouse,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the proposal was one which, as a matter of principle, he did not see very well how the Committee could resist. It was an occupation and a rating franchise, and he had been told that its omission from the Municipal Corporations Act of 1885 was really more of a mistake than anything else. He therefore hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. The Government did not at all see why the occupier of land which was rated should not have a vote, although he did not possess a residence on the land. The occupier of the land was, no doubt, as much an occupying ratepayer as anything could make him.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not think any objection could be taken to the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Schedule:—
  (Ten pounds occupation qualification.) Registration Act, 1885.
  Definition of Ten Pounds Occupation Qualification.
  "A person entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of a ten pounds occupation qualification in a borough, municipal or parliamentary—

  (a) must during the whole twelve months immediately preceding the fifteenth day of July have been an occupier as owner or tenant of some land or tenement in a parish [or township] of the clear yearly value of not less than ten pounds; and

  1543

  (b.) must have resided in or within seven miles of the borough during six months immediately preceding the fifteenth day of July; and

  (c.) Such person, or someone else must during the said twelve months have been rated to all poor rates made in respect of such land or tenement; and

  (d.) All sums due in respect of the said land or tenement on account of any poor rate made and allowed during the twelve months immediately preceding the fifth day of January next before the registration, or on account of any assessed taxes due before the said fifth day of January, must have been paid on or before the twentieth day of July.

  "If two or more persons jointly are such occupiers as above mentioned, and the value of the land or tenement is such as to give ten pounds or more for each occupier, each of such occupiers is entitled to be registered as a voter.
  "If a person has occupied in the borough different lands or tenements of the requisite value in immediate succession during the said twelve months, he is entitled in respect of the occupation thereof to be registered as a voter in the parish [or township] in which the last occupied land or tenement is situate,"
  —agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

  GLEBE LANDS BILL.— [BILL 180.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read (Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent, as Duke of Cornwall), signified.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREin rising to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order, in Committee, to move the following new clauses:—
  "The Commissioners, before giving their assent to the sale of any land under this Act, shall require the incumbent to issue public notice in the parish of the intended sale in such manner as they shall think fit, and they shall receive and consider objections from any ratepayer of the parish, and if any ten ratepayers of the parish shall ask for a public inquiry as to the expediency of such sale, they shall direct inquiry in such manner as they shall think fit."
  "With a view to affording greater facilities for the acquisition of land in small parcels by cottagers, labourers, and others under Clause 8 of this Act, the Land Commissioners may, by agreement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, frame a scheme for payment in such cases of three-fourths or less of the purchase money, with interest at the rate of three and a half per centum per annum, in equal annual
  1544
  instalments spread over a period of not more than thirty-five years; and they may make it a condition of their approval of the sale of any land under this Act, that it shall be sold in parcels subject to such payment; and in the case of such sales the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall collect and receive the annual instalments, and shall pay so much of them as represents interest to the persons entitled to the same, and shall invest the residue representing the payment of capital as directed by Clause 4 of this Act."
  "The Land Commissioners shall present an annual Return to Parliament of the sales effected under this Act, specifying in what cases land has been offered or sold in small parcels to cottagers, labourers, and others,"
  said, he owed some apology to the House for attempting to move his Amendments at this stage; but the fact was that the Bill had slipped through to its present stage without his noticing it. The right hon. Gentleman (sir. E. Stanhope) who had charge of it had made no statement in introducing it nor on the second reading. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not complain of that. All he said was that the measure had reached its present stage without any remarks being made either by the Government or anyone else; and, secondly, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was not aware of its contents, and he believed many others were in the same condition in that respect as himself. The Bill, he would frankly admit, was a very important one, for it would enable the sale to take place of some and possibly of all the glebe lands in the country; and considering that these consisted of something like £600,000 acres, valued at £1,000,000 per annum, it was obvious that the Bill would produce an important effect. The objects of the measure were two-fold—in the first place, to relieve the clergy in many parts of the country where the depression in agriculture had been severe; and, in the second place, of a very serious burden in respect of their glebes. He believed that in many parts of the country, where the clergy were dependent wholly or in part on their glebes, they had during the past three or four years found themselves extremely embarrassed through the agricultural depression. They had either been unable to let their glebes without making serious reductions of rent, or they had been compelled to take them and farm them themselves, which was a thing many clergy were without the means to do. Another object of the Bill was to facilitate the acquisition of glebe lands by labourers

  1545
  and others of that class. Lord Salisbury not long ago made a speech on the Land Question in which he said it was the intention of the Government to facilitate land of this kind getting into the hands of labourers and artizans. That was an object they all very much wished for, and he believed that the object of bringing about a sale of glebe lands during a time of depression was that they might be sold in small lots with a view to their getting into the hands of artizans and labourers. But if the state of depression was such that no good rents could be obtained from the glebes, the same consideration must not be lost sight of when they contemplated the sale of the glebes for agricultural purposes. He believed, however, that if the glebes could be broken up into small parcels, so as to fall into the hands of agricultural labourers, it would be possible to get a fair price for them. The two motives, therefore, went together, and he was sure the House and the country would desire to relieve the clergy from the difficulty in which they found themselves; and, on the other hand, that it was a good opportunity to enable land of this kind to pass into the hands of agricultural labourers, so as to form a larger class of small owners than now existed in the agricultural districts. To the Bill, as it at present stood, he took two objections. In the first place, it appeared to him that it contemplated the sale of these glebe lands being only to the interest of the incumbents, the Bishops, and the Land Commission. A sale might take place with the consent of the incumbent, the Bishop, and the Land Commission, without any of the people in the parish being aware of what was going to be done. That seemed to him unsatisfactory. To his mind the sale of glebe lands was a matter of public interest, and the people of a parish, he thought, ought to be informed of what was intended. In his opinion nothing should take place without public notice, and if required there should be public inquiry on the part of the Land Commission in the parish as to whether the sale of the glebe land was desirable, and also whether the provision enabling the Land Commission to break up glebe lands into small parcels, so that labourers might have an opportunity of becoming possessors, was being properly carried out. He agreed with the proposal that the land should
  1546
  be broken up into small parcels, with a view to labourers and others becoming purchasers; but he was afraid that this provision would have very little effect, unless some arrangement was made in the Bill by which a portion of the purchase money would be left on mortgage, and the payment spread over a period of years. He, therefore, proposed to re-commit the Bill for three purposes. In the first place, to introduce a clause providing that due and proper notice should be given in the parish of a proposed sale to enable a certain number of ratepayers to require of the Land Commission that any inquiry should be held if they thought it necessary; secondly, for enabling the Land Commission to arrange a plan with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under which three-fourths of the purchase money might be allowed to remain on mortgage to be repaid in instalments over a period of not more than 35 years. He proposed that the interest payable should be 3½ per cent per annum, and the payment of capital and interest was to be made by equal instalments within 35 years. There was a precedent for this in the action the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were now taking with regard to a great deal of their land. They were selling and had sold a considerable portion of their landed property in Wales and elsewhere to the tenants thereof, and had left a large portion of the purchase money on mortgage, payable by instalments in the manner he was now proposing. The principle, therefore, which he asked the Government to assent to was adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he, therefore, thought the Government would have no difficulty in carrying it out. All he could say was that he believed unless some facilities of this kind were given to the labourers they would never be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. As his Amendment was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, and particularly with that clause which directed the Land Commissioners to break the glebe lands up into parcels with a view to selling them to agricultural labourers and others of that class, he ventured to express a hope that the Government would accede to his proposal and allow the Bill to be re-committed for the purpose of inserting clauses to this effect. The last clause was one which would direct the Land

  1547
  Commission to lay before Parliament an annual Return showing the number of sales they had effected under the Act, and also specifying in what cases they had offered the land to labourers in parcels under Clause 8 of the Bill. He could only again say that these three clauses he suggested were not opposed to the Bill in any shape, but were intended to carry out its principles and objects with which, so far as he was concerned, he thoroughly concurred. He should be extremely sorry if the glebes throughout the country were sold without an opportunity being afforded to the labourers for obtaining land in parcels suitable for cultivation by them, and he would only further say that if the Bill passed as it now stood the effect would be that the glebes would only be sold to the large land proprietors in the district, and the object of Clause 8 would not be effected.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," and add the words "re-committed in respect of Three New Clauses."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.")
  Question proposed, "That the words 'now read the third time,' stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that he could not complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had brought this matter under the notice of the House, seeing that he had expressed a cordial approval of the principle of the Bill. So far from complaining of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was very glad to have any suggestions which would make the Bill more workable. He would point out that there was already in the Bill a clause for preferential sale of glebe lands in small lots, and that there was an absolute condition that where practicable the Commissioners should offer the whole or some part of such lands for sale in small lots; and so far he and the right hon. Gentleman were in harmony. But on the specific proposals of the right hon. Gentleman he was afraid they must part company. It was true that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners sold their land in small lots, and allowed the purchase money to be spread over 30 years; but they were selling
  1548
  their own land, and could afford to wait for the money. The incumbent, however, was frequently in immediate want of his for the purpose of a prompt investment of the whole, yet, under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were to collect the annual instalments and interest, were only to give the incumbent the latter and keep the former until the whole 30 instalments had been paid.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was quite misunderstood. He suggested that the Commissioners should receive the yearly payment, pay over the interest to the incumbent or the person entitled to receive it, and invest that portion of the yearly portion in the same manner directed under the Bill to apply the whole purchase money.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that emphasized the objection he took. Then the incumbent would be kept out of the money for 30 years.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: But he gets the interest.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes; the interest. He did not think the suggestion could be entertained. The machinery was most cumbrous, and he could not assent to the proposal. As to the first clause (notice to be given of the intended sale) of the right hon. Gentleman, although not prepared to accept it, he should undertake that before the Bill passed through the House of Lords words should be inserted providing that public notice should be given.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he felt so strongly on this matter that, unless they relieved the labourers from paying the whole of the money and spread it over a considerable period, he should go to a Division on the third reading.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought it would require but a very slight extension of the machinery of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to enable them to carry out the avowed object of the Bill, and that which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had in view.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) showed a disposition to treat the suggestions which had been offered with a great deal of courteous fairness—if the right hon. Gentleman would permit him to say so—he (Mr. Bradlaugh) would ask the right hon.

  1549
  Gentleman if it would not be possible to extend the concession he had made with regard to that portion of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) dealing with the subject of the issue of notices? He (Mr. Bradlaugh) quite felt that they could not expect to have the Amendments accepted exactly as proposed. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were persons who dealt with large sums of money, and surely it would not be impossible, before the Bill left the other House, to introduce some words which would make it possible to provide machinery by which an incumbent could have the purchase money for his land when he was in need of it for some special investment. It seemed to him (Mr. Bradlaugh) that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford was not made in a spirit of hostility, but in a spirit of a desire to carry out the object of the measure. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it would not be possible to give extended operation to the spirit of the 2nd clause, as he had undertaken to do in the case of the 1st clause?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he should be glad to consider whether it would be possible to do what the hon. Member for Northampton proposed; but, at any rate, he could not accept the present Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREhere rose—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already twice spoken.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (remaining seated, with head covered): Might I appeal to the Government, as they have made a concession in this matter, to allow the Bill to be re-committed, in order that the points in question might be there discussed?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No; I cannot agree to that.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 57: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 95.)
  Main Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," again proposed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that after the refusal of the Government to re-commit the Bill he should feel it his duty to vote against the measure. He should do so with some regret, because he approved the general idea of the
  1550
  Bill; but he was satisfied that an otherwise most valuable portion of the measure would be perfectly futile, and would never be carried into effect, unless some such proposal as he had suggested were adopted for spreading the payment of the purchase money over a term of years.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought it somewhat remarkable that because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevere) was not able to carry out a particular method for the sale of those lands in small plots, therefore the right hon. Gentleman should object to the Bill altogether. The Government desired that those lands should be sold in small plots, and he had no hesitation in saying that he believed that measure in many parts of the country would not only enable them to be sold in small plots, but would lead to their being acquired by labourers.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it must be remembered that this Bill passed the second reading without any discussion whatever. The Bill dealt with a vast amount of public property; he did not call it—as his right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did—quasi-public property, for it was absolutely public property now diverted from national ecclesiastical purposes—it was as truly national property as any property in the ownership of the State. He would like to know whether the Government and those in charge of the Bill had given the House and the country any information as to the extent of this property, the number and acreage of these glebes? What had been put forward as a reason for this revolutionary proposal of the State dispossessing itself—dismantling itself—of an immense amount of real property? They were told that the income arising from glebes had been much reduced, and that the clergy found themselves much impoverished by the fall in rents and the non-letting of these glebes. That might be so, and, no doubt, was so; but, for his part, he thought it was an extraordinary proposal that on the initiative of a single beneficiary in each parish the nation should allow itself to be dispossessed of property amounting to thousands of plots in different parts of the country. He confessed that regard ought to be had to the position of

  1551
  the clergy; but if they were suffering, they were suffering in common with the rest of the community, and he failed to see what advantage was coming to them by the plan which was now being pushed through the House by the Government. What would happen? These globes and plots of land were to be sold, the amount to be passed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and a fixed rate of interest was to come from the investment in that way. But if the income was reduced, so would the capital value of these lands be reduced; and, if so, there would be a reduced amount passed to the credit of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from which 2¾ per cent, if the money were invested in Consols, would arise. Then, it seemed to him that the clergy of the country, as beneficiaries for the time being, would not be in a very improved condition—that was to say, it would be as much for their interest to take the value of the land at the moment. But if the House were agreed that these estates ought to be sold, clearly it was to the advantage of the community that the best possible price should be obtained; and if proper care was not taken to insure the obtaining of the highest possible price, there was a dereliction of duty on the part of someone concerned, and national property was being thrown away and wasted. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had indicated a way in which the best possible price could be obtained for these lands, and that was by widening the area of competition. If the agricultural labourer was assisted in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, the probability was that 20, 30, or 40 per cent more would be obtained for the lands than would be obtained under the Bill, owing to the slovenly and careless way in which it was drawn. Suppose the globe was in the centre, or formed a contiguous part of a very large property, it would fall into the hands of the adjoining owner for a very low price—indeed, competition would be almost out of the question. He thought that his right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in bringing his proposal before the House, and that he was further justified in doing so seeing that these securities had not been taken by the Government, who seemed to have charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified
  1552
  in attempting to arrest the further progress of the Bill, and await an opportunity when the proposal could be placed before Parliament with all the advantages to the agricultural labourer and to those who might want to possess themselves of small areas of land of the facilities indicated by his right hon. Friend. If this had been an estate of a landowner that had to be sold—if it had been the estate of an Irish landowner, for instance—they would have had it publicly offered on the freest possible terms, to enable the tenant to buy land, and to give, it might be, an extravagant price for it. He wanted to know why the same precedent had not been closely followed in this case? Surely the agricultural labourers of this country were not in such a flourishing condition that—The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War smiled; he did not know what there was to smile at, except that the right hon. Gentleman had a supreme contempt for the interests of agriculture.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was smiling because it was obvious that the hon. Gentleman had not read the Bill.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman happened to be mistaken, for he had not only read the Bill, but he had closely studied its provisions; and he did not hesitate to say that if similar advantages and similar publicity and similar facilities had been given to the English agricultural labourer as would have been given in the case of the sale of an Irish estate in the interests of the landlord, they would have had a much better chance of making the most of this property. These glebe lands were of the greatest interest to the parishes in which they happened to be situated, and he considered that if advertised without the publicity which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), by the clauses he had put on the Paper, sought to introduce, the most had not been done or attempted in girder to do what would have been done in every other case, and that was to give the greatest and widest possible publicity, so as to obtain the highest possible price for the land. He should be most happy to give his support to his right hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he fancied there was some slight misapprehension

  1553
  either on his part or on the part of other hon. Members as to what the Government were prepared to do. If it was possible to avoid a hostile Division on the third reading of the Bill, on which there was so much concurrence of opinion, it was well that they should do so. As to one point, he thought there was no doubt, and that was that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) in charge of the Bill consented that in "another place" there should be words introduced, so as to secure that notice should be required. Then he thought—but it appeared that there was some difference of opinion on the point—the right hon. Gentleman also admitted that there was some force in what he (Mr. Bradlaugh) had said in regard to the possibility of some arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when the incumbent needed the corpus of the money for any of the purposes specified in the sub-sections of Clause 4, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say further that he would consider whether anything could be introduced before the Bill became law which would meet that point, so that there should be a means for the labourer to purchase and pay by instalments, and yet that provision should be made for the incumbent who needed the body of the money for the purposes set forth in the subsections of Clause 4. If he happened to be right in that, he did not think that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would be so necessary on the third reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that no concession at all was made by the Government upon the point. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would make the matter clear.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he did not give any pledge at all but the Government would consider whether means could be devised for facilitating the acquisition of the land by labourers.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the extraordinary doctrine advanced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Ming-worth) had not been laid down in the House for the first time to-night. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be one of those politicians who repeated fallacies until they imagined they were the truth. The hon. Gentleman was never tired of
  1554
  speaking of this as national property. As a matter of fact, the property had never been given to the nation; it had never been bequeathed to the nation; in fact, it was in no sense national property. It was, no doubt, Church property, held for the benefit of the nation, just as the Church existed for the benefit of the nation. [Ironical cheers.] That was his (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) own conviction, and hon. Gentlemen could not expect to shake him in it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Illingworth), in his zeal for this extraordinary fallacy, sought to stop the passage of a very innocent and useful Bill at its very last stage, and he seemed to think that because what he called national property was not to be put up to a sort of national auction they were not dealing with glebe lands in a right way. One of its objects was to benefit the unfortunate present occupants of these glebes, whose sufferings were exceptionally great, and certainly not a matter to be laughed out of court in that House or anywhere else.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he expressed his sympathy with the sufferings of the clergy, but went on to say that they were only suffering with the rest of the community.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that they were suffering in excess of the greater part of the community. He knew from his own experience that that was so, but he was not there to plead in formâ pauperis on behalf of the clergy, although he maintained they were suffering in a most unparalleled degree, considering the position they were bound to occupy. The Bill provided that the lands might be taken out of the hands of the clergy and put into the hands of persons who could farm them properly and satisfactorily. It was said that these lands ought to be put into the hands of labourers. He did not object to labourers having them if they liked, but labourers could no more profitably occupy them than anybody else—they could only do so if they had capital. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that in order to occupy land profitably people must have capital to work it. How were labourers to find capital to work this land? That was part of the subject which he thought hon. Gentlemen had never really faced. He thought land should be as much as possible occupied by every class of the community; but he main-

  1555
  tamed that to imagine that agricultural labourers could profitably occupy considerable portions of land was one of those extraordinary fallacies which could only proceed from an urban point of view. In order to cultivate land they must have capital, and labourers, as a rule, had not capital. To say that this land should be specially devoted to cultivation by labourers was one of the doctrines well fitted for the platform and the newspaper article; but was not a doctrine which any practical man would seriously defend.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he did not wish to interfere in the quarrel between the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) and his hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Indeed, he could not conceive any political question, and probably still less any ecclesiastical question, on which those two hon. Gentlemen could agree. But he was bound to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University was not right in imputing to his hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford any disposition to make light of the loss felt by the occupants of glebe lands in late years. What the hon. Gentleman said was that the clergy had suffered, though not more than other members of the community, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was bound to say, from his observation, that the principal difference between the owners of land and other portions of the community of late years bad been that while all had suffered, probably those engaged in trade and commerce had suffered to an even greater extent; but they had not been so disposed to have recourse to Parliament, cap in hand, seeking relief as those who owned land. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University evidently did not much believe in the passing of any portion of these glebe lands into the hands of labourers, for, he said, labourers had not capital enough to work it. The hon. Gentleman could hardly have read the Bill which he was supporting, because it assumed they possessed capital enough to pay the whole purchase money at once. What his right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) wished to do was to make it possible for labourers to acquire land by easing the purchase as much as could be. But
  1556
  he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. E. Stanhope) to make clear what he thought was still a little in doubt. What they wanted to know was whether his (Mr. E. Stanhope's) engagement to consider what might be done in the interests of labourers extended to both the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—namely, to the question of notice, and also to the question of payment by instalments, or did it only refer to the question of notice?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought he made the point perfectly clear. He undertook to put a clause into the Bill during its passage through the House of Lords dealing with the question of notice; in regard to the other question, he only said it was a matter to which they would give their consideration.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that, as he understood the question, all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) desired was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the same power to deal with these glebe lands as they had in respect to lands already in their possession. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill treated the incumbent as though he were the personal proprietor of the land and wanted money. As a matter of fact, the incumbent had only a species of life interest, and could get nothing for himself, except the interest on the money when invested; and it was immaterial, so long as the principal was safe, whether the purchase money was invested in the purchased land or in Government Stock if the interest payable was equal. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would, between this and the time when the Bill reached "another place," undertake to consider whether he could not place some machinery in the Bill providing that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should deal with this land in the same way as they dealt hitherto with other lands in their possession?
  MR. BYRON REEDsaid, it was through no seeking of his own that he found himself, upon the first occasion on which he had ventured to take more than a barely formal part in the discussions of the House, in

  1557
  conflict with his Colleagues in the representation of Bradford. He often found himself in opposition to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), and especially so with regard to the hon. Gentleman's peculiar views as to the tenure of Church property. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had, however, pointedly replied to one portion of the hon. Gentleman's observations; but there was another portion of them to which reference ought to be made. The hon. Member had spoken of the State dispossessing itself of property. He (Mr. Byron Reed) had searched in vain for any element of State ownership of either glebe land or the other endowments held by the clergy of the Church. He was aware that State ownership was the theory of the Liberation Society, and he was aware that the hon. Gentleman who represented the Liberation Society in that House was of opinion that all Church property should speedily be brought into national possession. But this Bill was simply a Bill for providing for the speedy, easy, and convenient sale of lands which at the present time were not fully remunerative to the clergy who held them, and for the investment of the money arising from their sale for the benefit of the clergy, in whose hands the lands were at present, and for whose advantage they were by their original donors intended to exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had referred to the question of allotments for agricultural labourers, and another hon. Gentleman—the Member for South Monaghan (Sir Joseph M'Kenna)—appeared to share with him a false impression as to the scope of the Bill. He (Mr. Byron Reed) found that Clause 8 distinctly provided that glebe lands dealt with by the Bill should be offered for sale in small parcels, not only to individual labourers, but to Sanitary Authorities, who obtained by the Act of last year power to deal with land for allotment purposes, and this, he thought, altogether disposed of the objection that the labourers were unable to purchase these lands for cultivation. He ventured to think that the House generally would be of opinion that the opposition to this Bill was the opposition which was always met with from certain quarters of
  1558
  the House when any measure of Church reform came up for discussion. There were hon. Members of the House who were nominally friends of the Church, and who were, in name, anxious and zealous for Church reform, but who exhibited their friendship and manifested their zeal by opposing even the humblest and simplest and most unpretentious measure for giving scope and latitude to Church operations. But while they could not expect for a moment that the Bill of the Government now before the House would please right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had every reason to believe that it would be approved by the clergy, for whose interest in the main it was conceived; that it would be approved by the great majority of the laity in the country for whose ultimate benefit its provisions were laid down; and that it would in a very few minutes from now be accepted by a majority of the House of Commons.
  MR. PICTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed) endeavoured to minimize the importance of this subject by saying it was a matter which mainly concerned the clergy—that it was for their benefit and their advantage. But there were certain other people in the land greatly interested in this property besides the clergy, and he and others, as representing them, thought that they had a right at this stage to protest against the passage of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that Clause 8 provided all manner of facilities for the acquisition of land by cottagers, labourers, and others. Yes; but the authorities concerned were to—
  "Satisfy themselves that such offer is not practicable without diminishing the price which can be obtained for the glebe land on a sale."
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), in common with the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed), charged
  the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) with continually re-iterating the fallacy that Church land was national property. He (Mr. Picton) would like to know whether the Church was a sect or not, and was a sect distinct from the nation, or was it not? [Mr. BYRON REED: No.] The hon. Member said "No." It was, as had been said at any rate, the nation in an ecclesiastical

  1559
  aspect; it was simply the nation regarded from a religious point of view. Therefore, whatever land was said to belong to the Church belonged to the nation. Land was not held by the Church for its own interest, but it was held for the good of the surrounding population. What Churchman would say it was not held for the good of the whole population, and then, if the land was held for the good of the whole population, surely in these days of almost universal franchise the population had a right to say which use of the land would servo them? If they were of opinion that using land for the purpose of offering and extending allotments would be very much better than using land for the sake of supporting particular theological doctrines, the population of the country had a perfect right to say so. Hon. Gentlemen could not deny that it was held in the interests of the whole of the people—then the whole of the people had a right to say how best their interests would be served. The doctrine which had been stated by hon. Members opposite to be a fallacy, in the mouth of the hon. Member for West Bradford, had been consecrated as law by repeated Acts of Parliament. The Act for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church asserted that Church property was national property. On no other ground could the disendowment have possibly been effected. The principal basis of the Irish Church Act was that, after all living personal interests had been compensated, the residue was national property. They knew that Acts of Parliament could do anything; but Acts were supposed to proceed on a basis of justice, and that basis of justice was, in the case of the Irish Church property, that the property belonged to the whole nation. Besides that, Parliament was continually dealing with Church property; they had the endowments of one large Bishopric shared among other Bishoprics by Acts of Parliament; they had the property of a number of Corporations thrown into one mass and handed over to certain Commissioners to deal with as they might judge fit under the supervision of the Government of the day. What other property had they dealt with in such a way as this? The fact that they had dealt with this property in this way proved clearly that what was called Church property was
  1560
  regarded as fundamentally the property of the nation. He could not but profoundly regret that this Bill should have reached so late a stage; doubtless they, on the Opposition side of the House, had to blame themselves in part for that. But when it was remembered what a number of Committees they had to attend, and what an amount of Business had been rushed through the House during this exceedingly happy Session, he thought it need be no matter for surprise that this Bill had been a little overlooked. Still, he extremely regretted that it should have been so; for ho thought that one of the darkest blots on our history had been the want of conscience, the want of political conscience at any rate, on the part of Governments in dealing with the land of the country. The interests of classes, the interests of individuals, the interests of institutions, the interests of religious doctrines, had always been considered before the interests of the people at large, and he thought this was only a fresh illustration of the same line of action. As their Predecessors acted at the time of the Enclosure Acts, thinking nothing of the needs of the laborious population, but only of the interests of the owners, so they were acting now, thinking nothing of the needs of the labourers, but only of the convenience and pecuniary prosperity of the clergy. He did not wish to do anything to injure the clergy, far from it. He believed that those who held the same opinions as himself were among the warmest friends of the clergy; he did not wish to injure the clergy; but he maintained that the interests of the laborious population ought to be of even much more significance to them, and if the clergy were faithful to their vocation they would think so too. Therefore, although he felt it was impossible to make anything more than a protest at this stage of the Bill, he earnestly hoped that protest would be made by taking a Division.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was about to make a protest against the passing of this Bill, because he thought the people in rural parishes, and especially in the rural parishes of Wales, took a very great interest in two forms of public property—in glebe lands and Crown lands.

  1561
  In the case of this Glebe Land Bill, the Government was about to place this public property in much the same position as Crown property. Now, what was the objection to the present mode of dealing with Crown property, and with the sale of it? It was this—that when the labourer or the cottager attempted to buy any Crown land he was invariably refused, while he might find a few weeks afterwards that a whole mountain side had been sold surreptitiously to a large landowner, at whose mercy he would be placed. Much the same thing might happen in the case of glebe lands unless the Government promised to insert a clause in the Bill which would give public notice of any sale of glebe lands in any parish.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had three times over pledged himself to put such a clause in the Bill when it reached the House of Lords.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman could place such a simple trust in the House of Lords, for a similar promise in regard to the Mines Regulation Bill of last year was not carried out. He (Mr. T. E. Ellis) wished to make certain that in regard to this Bill, at any rate, they would be served in a better manner than the miners were in the Mines Regulation Bill. Now, if this clause were put into the Bill, he thought it would be insufficient, unless some provision were made by which a cottager or labourer could have access to the land by means of payments by instalments.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is discussing clauses in respect of which the House has already divided. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, not in Order in referring to those clauses.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he would, of course, bow to the decision of the Chair, and he only wished to call attention to the fact that, as it stood, Clause 8 was illusory, it was deceptive, and of no good whatever to the labourer or the cottager; it simply held out a hope in words. If these lands were to be really brought within reach of the labourer and cottager—that was to say, if the nominal aim of this Bill was to be carried out, the Government ought, in justice to the labourers and cottagers, insert a provision by which Clause 8 could be made of real value to the labourers and cottagers in our parishes. The only other remark he would like to
  1562
  make was that this property, as to which two or three hon. Members on the other side of the House had brought forward several subtleties as to its being ecclesiastical and Church property, was of great interest to the parishes and the nation, and that there was no property of which the nation and parishes ought to keep a firmer grip than of glebe lands.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he desired to take note of a curious fact in connection with the debate. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), who seemed to have assumed the representation of the Church Militant, had just made a most unconstitutional declaration. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, in declaring that he would induce another House of Parliament, with which, presumably, he had no connection whatever, to do a certain thing, had overstepped the bounds of Ministerial authority. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) and others had always maintained that the House of Lords was only a kind of appanage of the Tory Party; and it really seemed that the right hon. Gentleman had no difficulty in asserting what another House of the Legislature would do. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the ease with which he disposed of "another place." He (Mr. T. M. Healy) also desired to take note of the fact that the Government, in bringing in this Bill, had laid down the proposition that land, as an investment, must necessarily be of less value than 2¾ per cents. The declaration of the Government amounted to this—that it would be of greater benefit to the clergy of the Church of England to have their money invested in 2¾ per cents than to have it invested in land. Such a declaration made by the Government on their responsibility and authority, and coming at the present time, when the question of agricultural depression was so frequently referred to in the House had peculiar force. He hoped the country would take note of the fact that instead of land being worth 25 years' purchase, it would be better, in the opinion of the Government, for the clergy of the Church of England to invest their money in what stockbrokers now called Goschens. [Mr. E. STANHOPE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but such was the im-

  1563
  pression he (Mr. T. M. Healy) had got from the way the Bill had been manœuvred. It was not proposed to dispossess the Church of its property; it was only proposed to convert it into a different class of property. If they converted an investment in real property into an investment in personalty, it followed, as a matter of fact, that they believed realty to be of less actuarial value for the purposes of investment than personalty. Having said this he only wished to make one further remark, and that was with regard to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot). The hon. Gentleman had laid down the doctrine, which certainly was very startling to one who came from a country where the Church had been disestablished, that this property ought not to be dealt with as property owned by the nation. The hon. Member described the declaration of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) on that subject as a fallacy. But upon what other basis did this Bill proceed? What was the raison d'être of the Bill unless it proceeded on the supposition that this property was national property? Without doubt the property of the Church of Ireland was treated as national property, and now, because the hon. Member for West Bradford ventured to say that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and because he advocated that what was done in Ireland should be done in England, he was denounced a fallacious logician. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were based upon sound reason, upon precedent, and upon logic, and it would have been far better for the Government to have taken a different course with regard to this Bill than they had taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had acted wisely in the opposition he had offered to the Bill. The opposition he had offered to the Bill was founded upon good sense, and it was to be regretted that it was not taken at an earlier stage of the Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if he was distinctly to understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that when the Bill reached "another place" he would consider in a friendly spirit—in a more
  1564
  friendly spirit than he had considered his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) proposal—a proposal for facilitating the purchase of these glebe lands by labourers by spreading the payment of the purchase money over a term of years, he would not divide the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 74: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL.— [BILL 132.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee road.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "On Motion for going into Committee on Criminal Evidence Bill to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that the Committee have power to insert Amendments giving prisoners tried before Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland the same right of appeal as exists in England."
  He understood, however, from Mr. Speaker that it would not be in Order for him to move that Amendment. He would, therefore, propose an Instruction more limited in its character.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must point out to the hon. and learned Member that Notice of such Amendment would be necessary. He had intimated to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as early as it was in his power, that the Notice on the Paper was not in Order, the reason being that the subject of the Notice was not germane to the Law of Evidence which was dealt with by the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was quite satisfied with what Mr. Speaker had ruled; but it was right that he should say that it was only that evening that he had received the right hon. Gentleman's intimation, and that the Instruction he proposed to move had been on the Paper for 10 days past.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that there had been no probability of the Bill coming on, and he had given the hon. and learned Gentleman Notice that afternoon,

  1565
  in order to cause him as little inconvenience as possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Persons charged with offence and wife or husband to be competent as witnesses).
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper is as follows:—"In page 1, line 5, after 1,' insert—' This Act shall apply to England only.'" This seems to me to be in effect a new clause, and, therefore, must come in at the end.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would beg to submit to you, Sir, that, to put himself in Order, the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow, instead of moving these words as a new clause, should move to insert, before the word "where," the words "in England."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must put an Amendment down to that effect.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, he would move the Amendment in the form proposed. This was a Bill as to the necessity for which, in the case of England, they were all agreed; but he wished to point out that a measure of this nature was not required either in Ireland or in Scotland. It could hardly be pretended that the Bill dealt with the question of crime in the three countries, for there was nothing in it which touched anything which was criminal in one country and not criminal in either of the others. It was a measure which dealt entirely with the question of legal procedure, and, dealing as it did with the question of legal procedure, it must be pointed out that notoriously the legal and criminal procedure differed in England, Ireland, and Scotland. In fact, as regarded the question of criminal procedure, there was a great diversity between the three countries. In the case of Scotland, for instance, they had a Public Prosecutor, and they also had a preliminary inquiry. Now, what was the form of the preliminary inquiry? When a prisoner was taken up by the criminal authorities he was taken before the magistrates, and when before the magistrates he had an opportunity of stating his case, and making what was
  1566
  termed a declaration. If the accused was an innocent person, he had an opportunity of stating before the magistrates circumstances to show his innocence, and the facts stated by him could be investigated by the Public Prosecutor. The chances were, if a prisoner's statement was correct, and he was entirely innocent of the charge brought against him, no prosecution followed at all. The Committee would see that, in the case of an innocent person in Scotland, he had an opportunity at present practically of stating his case, and of showing that he was innocent before the magistrates; and it was of more importance to him that he should be able to avoid a prosecution altogether than that he should be indicted before a Court, and put to the necessity of being heard in his own defence, and of employing counsel and bringing forward witnesses. What was the contention of the Government in this Bill? It was that this power of enabling a person to give evidence on his own behalf was in the interest of the accused. When the Government came forward to make a change in the law of the land, the onus rested on them of showing that that change was necessary. Let them take the case of Scotland. Would the Lord Advocate tell them of a single instance in which an accused person had been convicted for want of ability to give evidence on his own behalf? That, he thought, lay at the root of this change of procedure. Would the Lord Advocate, or any lawyer from Scotland, bring forward one single instance? If such a case did occur, and an accused person was found guilty by a jury, the Prerogative of Mercy could step in, and would be exercised, so that there would be nothing suffered in consequence of the absence of the power on the part of the accused to give evidence. So far as he was aware, no such case as that which he asked the Lord Advocate to point out had ever occurred—no innocent person ever having been found guilty in Scotland, owing to there being no power for the accused to give evidence on his own behalf, or to give evidence through his wife; and, therefore, he argued that there was no necessity for the proposed change. As he said, if the necessity was shown in the interest of the accused, it was not necessary for the Government to insist on it strongly, because they always possessed the Prerogative of the Crown,

  1567
  and could always go into the question of whether or not a person was guilty even after the trial had taken place. What was the objection they took to a Criminal Court of Appeal? It was based upon this—that it was required to proceed upon evidence, and upon legal evidence; but what was the case so far as the Prerogative of the Crown was concerned? Why, they could go there beyond what was strictly legal evidence. They could go into facts and circumstances which were not evidence, and examine into matters which might or might not have been brought up at the trial; and, therefore, if this Bill was conceived in the interest of the accused, it was not necessary that he should have power to give evidence, as they had power, under the Prerogative of the Crown, to give it far more efficaciously than ho could at a trial. Another point was this. Supposing that a prisoner did not give the evidence in a case, if this Bill passed the fact of his not doing so would be adversely commented upon. Of course, it would be said, on behalf of the Crown, that they would not be likely to comment on the failure of an accused person to give evidence; but past experience showed a different state of things in the case of Scotland. In Scotland a prisoner was not bound to make any declaration, but might say, at the preliminary inquiry—"I decline to answer any question;" and it was notorious that such declinature not to answer any question, while in no way technically making up the evidence in a case, yet had a bearing on the minds of a jury. The Public Prosecutor read the prisoner's declaration, which simply stated—"The prisoner declines to answer any question." This was done for the purpose of prejudicing the prisoner's case before the eyes of the jury. It was done every day in Scotland. They saw the declaration brought up for no other purpose than that, and it would be the same thing under this Bill, if it became law. If a prisoner were not put into the box, the prosecutor would, with doubt, refer to the circumstance as showing in some way evidence of the man's guilt. It was a matter of common wisdom that, in a criminal case, a man should not be counsel in his own case. Much more was it true that, in such cases, a man should not be a witness in his own case.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is arguing against the Bill altogether, and not in support of his particular Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, he was pointing out that in the case of Scotland the procedure was so very different from the procedure in England, on account of the opportunity the prisoner had of making a declaration at the preliminary inquiry, that there was not the same necessity in the case of Scotland for a prisoner to be examined as a witness as there was in England. Then, with regard to the application of the Bill to Ireland, there was strong reason why Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the measure. He (Mr. Caldwell) was one of those who had voted most regularly for the Crimes Bill. The Government had come to Parliament with the statement that it was necessary to strengthen their powers in order to obtain convictions in that country. No allegation was made last Session as to innocent persons being convicted. The sole case of the Government was that it was impossible to obtain convictions there; and it was upon that theory and upon that footing that he, along with many others, had given the most liberal powers to the Government for the purpose of carrying out the law in Ireland. But how would this Bill affect that country? The contention of the Government was this—that the Bill was in the interests of accused persons; and it was a remarkable circumstance to reflect upon that the Government found it no longer necessary to propose measures for obtaining convictions, but were now greatly exercising themselves to force through a measure for preventing innocent people from being convicted. And when had this new state of things arisen? Why, only since the Crimes Act was passed. There was no contention of this nature last Session, and now, for the first time, owing to the passing of the Crimes Act, the Government had been forced to bring in a measure with a view to mitigating the effect of past legislation, and of preventing innocent people from being convicted. Now, whether this Bill was or was not required in Ireland, it was obvious that it would be looked at with great jealousy. Who was the Public Prosecutor in Ireland? Why, the Public Prosecutor was the Govern-

  1569
  ment. Who were the defenders of accused parties in Ireland? Why, hon. Gentlemen who sat on that the Opposition side of the House. If that were so, and if this Bill really was, as the Government said it was, conceived entirely in the interest of accused persons, who were the best judges of what was to the interest of the accused? Was it the Government, who were the prosecutors, or was it those who were accustomed to defend the prisoners? He ventured to say that the public at large would look upon this question, whether or not the measure was or was not in the interest of the accused, as a matter falling more within the province of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House than of the Government, and it would be extremely difficult for the Government to convince the country that this Bill would be in the interest of the accused. He would not detain the House any longer upon this point than simply to point out that, owing to the difference of procedure in the three countries—and this was simply a matter of procedure—the law of Scotland being different from the law of England, and the law of Ireland also differing from the laws of the two other countries, no case whatever had been made out why such a Bill should be pressed in the interest of accused persons in the two countries he referred to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, before the first word "where," to insert the words "in England."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that the effect of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would be to limit the application of this Bill exclusively to England, and, of course, this would result in both Scotland and Ireland being excluded from its operations. Accordingly, in sustaining his Amendment, the hon. Gentleman had dealt with the cases of Scotland and Ireland separately, and properly so, if he (Mr. Balfour) might venture to say so. Now, as to the case of Ireland, he (Mr. Balfour) did not propose to say anything, because he was not sufficiently familiar with Irish criminal procedure, or with the other considerations which would enter into
  1570
  the question of whether the Bill should be applied to Ireland, to have any title to intervene in such discussion; and certainly upon any Amendment directed to raising the question of Ireland, separately and substantively, he should be largely influenced by the considerations his hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) had referred to—that was to say, the prevalent opinion and wish of those best acquainted with Ireland. But he thought he did know something about criminal procedure in Scotland, and, taking the case of that country by itself, he had no hesitation in saying that he thought it would be a great misfortune if the Bill were not extended to Scotland. This was by no means a new question. They had had to consider so far back, he thought, as 1883, in the Grand Committee on Law, of which he had had the honour of being a Member, and so far as his memory went, there was but one opinion at that time as to the propriety of extending the Bill to Scotland. And he must say that the provision of this Bill, which would remove the disabilities which now prevent certain classes of persons from giving evidence, appeared to him to be merely the natural termination of that long series of beneficial amendments in the Law of Evidence by which one restriction after another had been done away with, and by which the evidence of one class of persons after another had been made competent, leaving it to the tribunal, be it Jury or be it Judge, that had to decide the matter, as to what weight was to to be given to the evidence. He had been for many years of opinion that this abolition of restrictions should not stop at those cases which it had already reached, but that as to persons accused, and their husbands and wives, in the case of Scotland as in the case of England, there should be a power to give evidence, because, as he understood the Bill, it was not intended to render such persons compellable but only competent to give evidence. Therefore, the proposal of the Bill was simply to remove the disability to give evidence, but it would lay no compulsion on the parties to do so. His hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell), in what he said as to Scotland, argued thus. He contended this Bill was unnecessary for Scotland, because the objects which it sought to accomplish were already sufficiently at-

  1571
  tained there. Well, if its ends were already served, that could not be an objection to the principle of the Bill. If the hon. Member was right in that, it was to be inferred that, through their experience or prescience in Scotland, they had acknowledged the justice of this proposal. But he was afraid his hon. Friend, whilst right so far in regard to what he had said as to Scotland, had not seen that the whole case which the Bill was directed to provide for had not already been met in Scotland. The hon. Member said, and said truly, that one of the first steps, when a person was arrested on a charge of crime, was to give him an opportunity of making what was called a declaration. Now, that was, or ought to be, an opportunity afforded to him to answer questions, or make a statement, if he chose to speak in reply to an invitation to say anything he desired to say. It was intimated to him that if he desired to say anything he could do so, and that the Public Prosecutor would take cognizance of what he said, and act accordingly. His hon. Friend was right in acknowledging that the system of public prosecutions in Scotland was a great safeguard to prisoners, because all who had had to do with the administration of the Criminal Law in Scotland were well aware that if an accused person was innocent, and told his story at once, before the magistrates, showing where he was at the time of the alleged occurrence, and accounting for any suspicious circumstances, what the Public Prosecutor did was to investigate the statement; and if he was satisfied of its truth, the accused person was at once released without trial If, on the other hand, the investigation did not bear out the statement, the case might be sent for trial. But the hon. Member had overlooked this, that while the Crown might put in and use as evidence against the prisoner the declaration he had made, the accused could not use the declaration as evidence in his own favour.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the law had been altered upon that point.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he was, perhaps, a little antiquated in this matter, but what he had stated used to be the practice, and, he believed that still, even if under the Act of last year the accused could insist upon having his
  1572
  declaration read, it was not in law evidence in his favour. But that would by no means cover the whole ground, because that declaration would only be a man's statement not tested by examination or cross-examination. It was not evidence in any sense. It would only go, So far as the interest of the prisoner was concerned, to give rise to this fair observation on the part of the prisoner's counsel, that the story submitted to the jury at the trial was the same as that which the prisoner had originally told. Those acquainted with the conduct of criminal inquiries in Scotland must know that evidence was constantly given of many things of which probably neither those who examined the accused nor the accused himself had the least idea when he was first apprehended. How was it possible that an innocent man could know what evidence was to be brought against him? Very likely the Public Prosecutor had not his evidence complete at the time when the declaration was taken, and it was clear to everyone familiar with the conduct of such inquiries, that the Scotch system of declarations, although a most excellent and admirable one, and a great defence of innocence, could by no means subserve all the purposes which this Bill would attain. It did not do so as to the accused person himself, and still less did it do so in regard to the husband or wife of the accused person—they had no opportunity of making a declaration. Supposing a man was accused of a crime and had been at home at the time, and there was no one who knew anything of his doings or his whereabouts but his wife. If that man's lips were sealed, and the lips of his wife were sealed, there were no means of proving the man's innocence, and that short and simple consideration showed that the Scotch system was by no means complete. What an innocent man would desire was that he should have an opportunity of meeting the case against him by his own testimony when the whole case of the prosecution had been disclosed. His hon. Friend had, however, said that it was impossible to adhere to the system of declarations if the accused was made a competent witness, but he did not see why it should not be easy to preserve the system of declarations along with the proposals made by the Bill. He thought it should be pre-

  1573
  served. He (Mr. Balfour) would be sorry to see the system of declarations abolished, and if he might venture to make au observation, he would say that an accused person, in addition to the ordinary warning which he received now to the effect that everything he might say would be used against him, should also be informed he would have an opportunity of giving evidence at a later stage—at the trial—if he preferred to do so. If the man chose to make his statement at the preliminary examination let him do so, and in that way the present system would be preserved. Then his hon. Friend made reference to the Prerogative of Mercy as being sufficient protection for an innocent person. He (Mr. Balfour) could only say this, that if he had the misfortune to fall under suspicion and to be convicted by reason of the law forbidding him, or those connected with him, from giving evidence, he should consider it a very poor consolation if the Home Office or the Secretary of State for Scotland exercised the Prerogative of Mercy in his behalf and granted him a pardon. A man before he could be pardoned in that way, must, of necessity, have been found guilty by a jury, and the fact of being found guilty by a jury was a ban which should not be lightly placed upon a man by anyone. His hon. Friend's third point as to Scotland was that the matter might be met by a Court of Criminal Appeal. Well, in the first place, they had not in Scotland any Court of Criminal Appeal in a proper sense of the word. They had certain procedure by which questions of law which arose at the trial could subsequently be dealt with, but they had no appeal on questions of fact, so that this would not meet the case. But, even supposing they had in Scotland a Court of Criminal Appeal, as he had said in regard to the Prerogative of Mercy, there, again, the prisoner must first have undergone conviction. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman contemplated that the accused should have the opportunity of tendering his own evidence before the Court of Criminal Appeal when he could not do so before the Court in which he had been originally tried, but, if not, the Appellate Court must proceed upon the evidence on which the man had originally been convicted, and so he would be none the better for his ap-
  1574
  peal. The object of the Bill was to afford to the person assumed to be innocent an opportunity of giving his evidence and submitting to cross-examination on it. As regarded Scotland, his hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) had stated no valid argument in favour of his Amendment. There was no sentiment whatever in Scotland against the application of this Bill to that country. The question had been before the country for five or six years, and he had never heard a single word against the general principle of the Bill. He would deprecate exceedingly this Bill becoming law in England and not in Scotland. Why should an accused person not have the same opportunity in Scotland as in England of giving his evidence, subject, of course, to cross-examination? There were cases in which a man fell under suspicion from circumstances which no one could explain but himself. He need not go into the particular kind of cases he had in mind, but everyone knew there were charges which were made almost exclusively with reference to occasions when no one but the accuser and the accused were present. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which particularly dealt with cases of this kind, the accused person was allowed to give evidence.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is now entering into the Bill at large.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he would not pursue the point, though the Amendment was to exclude Scotland from the Bill as a whole. He had put before the Committee the reasons why it seemed to him Scotland should not be excluded from the Bill. What he had said had application purely to Scotland, and he put it to his hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell), whether it would not be well for him so to modify his Amendment as to afford an opportunity of dealing separately with the cases of Scotland and Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had disposed completely of half of the contention of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Caldwell). He had for ever dissipated the idea that it would be for the advantage of Scotland

  1575
  that Scotland should be excluded from the operation of the Bill, and the very few words he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should address to the Committee related to the question of Ireland, which was left untouched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should not require to deal with the subject at such length as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, because in truth his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment dealt very shortly with Ireland, and, as he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thought, not in a very convincing strain. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Caldwell) alluded to the Act of last year, and stated, and stated very truly, that last year he had been an earnest and systematic supporter of the policy of the Government in passing the Crimes Act. But, he said, he never heard when the Crimes Act was being passed, of the necessity of protecting innocent people whom it was intended to protect by the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. Nothing was said on that subject. But the hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that last year they were not dealing with the whole question of the criminal jurisprudence in Ireland; they were bringing forward a limited measure to deal with limited difficulty. They thought that the measure they brought forward dealt adequately with that; but they did not profess—they never had professed—to cover the whole ground, and they had never excluded themselves from bringing forward, or supporting, on a subsequent occasion, any other measure which would deal with another branch of the same subject. The hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that this question was not now raised for the first time. It was discussed at great length in 1882 and 1883, and it was discussed at great length in a Grand Committee—it was thoroughly threshed out in a Grand Committee—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: No!]—and in that Grand Committee there was no question of excluding Ireland. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Yes, there was.] The hon. and learned Gentleman had the right of reply. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was informed by those who served on the Grand Committee that it never was suggested, when the merits of this question were being discussed, that either Ireland or Scotland should
  1576
  be excluded from the benefits the measure was intended to confer on the population of this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) said that this measure was for the interests of innocent people, and he developed the argument by which he proved that at considerable length. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) defied any man to find a single fragment of argument adduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman which did not apply to Ireland with as great force as it applied to Scotland. There were differences, there were great differences, between the criminal jurisprudence of Scotland and the criminal jurisprudence of England; there were no great differences between the criminal jurisprudence of Ireland and the criminal jurisprudence of England. On the contrary, the laws were substantially identical. But however divergent they might be—if they were as divergent as the criminal jurisprudence of Scotland and of England, it would nevertheless remain true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out with overwhelming force, that the interests of the innocent man, who could get no other testimony of his innocence than of himself or his wife, were safeguarded by the provisions of this Bill, and could be safeguarded by no other provision whatever. Were they seriously to believe that no innocent man accused of the crime alluded to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite existed in Ireland? Could it be seriously contended there was that difference between Ireland on the one hand and England and Scotland on the other? If there were such accused persons in Ireland, was Parliament to deliberately and with malice aforethought refuse to them the protection they were about to accord to accused persons in England and Scotland? He could not believe the House would deliberately accept a position so paradoxical and absurd as that. Every person in Ireland conversant with the question at issue was as strongly of opinion that this law should be extended to Ireland as the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was that it should be extended to Scotland. The Bar were almost unanimous on the point. There was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Longford

  1577
  (Mr. T. M. Healy) who held another opinion; but even he would not deny that the great weight of opinion in Ireland, at the Bar and amongst all classes of the population competent to judge of the question and conversant with its merits, was distinctly in favour of extending this law to Ireland. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Nobody but Crown prosecutors.] He did not think the House would hesitate to reject that part of the Amendment which referred to Ireland.
  MR. BERNARD COLERIDGEpresumed that the object of the Bill was the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent, and they who had some acquaintance with the Criminal Law in England were of opinion that the provisions of the Bill were admirably adapted to produce that effect in England. Anyone who had the smallest acquaintance with the working of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in England must know it was idle for any person who was accused under that Act to hope for an acquittal, unless he presented himself for examination and cross-examination in the box; indeed, a learned Judge was reported to have said the other day, in sentencing a man under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, that he had committed a very grave and heinous crime, and had added ten-fold to his crime by not going into the box to deny it on oath. The only reason why the power in question was not used in England was, that there was no such thing as an unfair prosecution, or ought not to be. If there was an unfair prosecution, it met with its due reward in the sympathies which were excited on behalf of the prisoner in the minds of the jury when they found the man was being unfairly prosecuted. But then they were asked to apply this to the sister country of Ireland. If English jurisprudence and the criminal laws, and the execution of them, were the same in the two countries, the arguments which were applicable to England would be equally applicable to Ireland. But what they on the opposition side of the House feared was that the object of extending this Act to Ireland was vindictive prosecutions under the Crimes Act. They would soon ascertain whether that was so or not, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would answer a question he in-
  1578
  tended to put to him. The right hon. Gentleman would disarm much of the support which this Amendment was receiving on the Opposition side of the House, if he would accept the Amendment which appeared a little bit lower down on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), and which was to the effect that this Act should not apply to persons who were indicted under the Crimes Act of last year. If the Chief Secretary would accept that proposal, they would know that the Government were only now going on in that course of dealing out equal laws for the three countries, which they failed to do in the Act of last year, and which they professed to have so much at heart in all their legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman would not accept that Amendment, they would then know that the object of extending the provisions of this Bill to the sister country of Ireland was not the obtaining the acquittal of innocent people, but to obtain convictions, on the ground that persons would not go into the box, and thus subject themselves to cross-examination with all the licence granted to the Crown Prosecutors by the tribunals in that country, which would defeat the ends of fair and equal justice.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he quite agreed with the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) that the Bill might be made very beneficial to Scotland; but he feared that in its present form it was scarcely applicable to Scotland. He did not see that, by the Bill in its present shape, the Scotch declaration was saved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill leaves the existing law as to declaration wholly untouched.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked that in that case he was prepared to accept the application of the Bill to Scotland. He thought, however, that its form should be altered, because the Bill at present seemed inconsistent with the Scotch declaration, which was not the evidence of a witness, but the judicial examination of the accused.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, it was very well observed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge) that the object of the Criminal Law should be the acquittal of the

  1579
  innocent and the conviction of the guilty. Why did no one object that this Bill should apply to England and to Scotland? Because in England and in Scotland alike, they were all agreed as to the advantage not only of acquitting the innocent, but of convicting the guilty. Why was it that anyone objected to the Bill being applied to Ireland? Because there was a feeling in that country that it was to the advantage of some persons to acquit the guilty. It had been argued by those who would exempt Ireland from the operation of this Bill as though the only person made competent as a witness was the accused person himself. It seemed to be forgotten that there was a provision that an accused's wife should be a competent witness, or that in case the wife should be accused the husband should be a competent witness. It must happen in many cases—one would think under the Crimes Act—if anybody who was innocent was ever accused under that Act, which he very much doubted. [Opposition cheers.] He was glad that sentiment met with so much assent. One would think that if innocent people ever were accused under that Act, those who had their advantage at heart—and the hon. and learned Member (Mr.Coleridge) said it was expedient to have people examined in order that the innocent should be acquitted—one would think that if the accused were innocent of the charge made against them, their friends would wish that the accused themselves and their wives should be competent witnesses. Surely, it would be to the advantage of an accused person to go into the witness-box if he was innocent. Why should hon. Members not face the facts in the House of Commons just as they would face them in any other place? Why should they not admit that the reason why it was objected that this Bill should apply to Ireland was the fear that convictions might come from it, just as convictions might come from it in England and in Scotland; that whereas they in England and in Scotland did not mind seeing the guilty convicted, there were people in Ireland who had the greatest objection to seeing the guilty convicted at all? If hon. Members spoke what they thought and what they said outside the House, they would admit that that was the gist of the
  1580
  objection to the application of the Bill to Ireland. He was reminded of the case of Kirby, who was executed that morning. Kirby was charged under the Crimes Act, and he might, if this Bill had been law, have given evidence at the criminal investigation under the Crimes Act. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: So he did.] Did he? He might have given evidence then, and he might have also given evidence at his trial. If he gave evidence in the first instance, and could not give it in the second, was not that an injustice? He was anxious to remove that injustice. It was said that this Bill was only introduced because the Crimes Act was passed. That would only be an argument if the Bill applied to Ireland, and to Ireland alone; but it was notorious that for years there had been a demand on the part of England, and he believed on the part of Scotland—long before the Crimes Act was thought of for Ireland—there was a demand that prisoners and their wives should be allowed to give evidence. There were a great many people in this country who did not know that a prisoner could not give evidence, and whose moral sentiment was revolted when they learned that an accused could not give evidence. He (Mr. Darling) had heard a learned Judge of the Chancery Division attempting to demolish the argument for the prisoner, on the ground that if there was anything in it the prisoner would have been called. That learned Chancery Judge was now a Lord Justice. In consequence of his ignorance of the Criminal Law, perhaps, he was removed to the Court of Appeal. So common was the impression in this country that it was only right that prisoners should be allowed to give evidence, that even some of the Judges who did not practice in the Criminal Courts were unaware that criminals suffered under such a disadvantage. It was proposed to do for England what England had long demanded. It was proposed to do it for Scotland as well. England was perfectly willing. Scotland was perfectly willing. [Cries of "No, no!"] They had heard to-night that Scotland was perfectly willing; and why was not Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Coleridge) said he would agree to the Bill's application to Ireland if it were not to apply to cases under the Crimes Act. Why should a man charged

  1581
  under the Crimes Act be less competent to give evidence than a man charged under any other Act? But that was not the point. The point was, that it was more desirable in the eyes of some persons that a man charged under the Crimes Act should be acquitted than that men charged with offences under other Acts should be acquitted. He did not think there was any reason in that. The man who broke one law should stand in the same position as the man who broke another law. It was as expedient that a man who had broken one law should be convicted as that a man who had broken another law should be convicted, so long as he was convicted by legal process. And what fairer legal process could there be than that be was convicted because he had chosen to avail himself of the opportunity of saying what only he knew, and having said it, the jury—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: What jury?]—an Irish jury—had come to the conclusion that he was guilty? It was not as though there was any compulsion to give evidence. An accused person might get counsel to speak for him, if he liked. A prisoner need not give evidence, but he could give it if he chose. What hardship was there in that? It was not a tenderness for the law, but it was a fear of what prisoners would say, which made this proposal unacceptable to certain Representatives from Ireland.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, it was very possible the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Darling) had a very large experience of Quarter Sessions, but it was painfully obvious he had no experience whatever of the administration of the Crimes Act in Ireland and of the scandals that had disgraced the administration of justice in certain Courts in Ireland. It had become the fashion in the House and the country for hon. Members opposite not alone to pretend to know more how certain Acts of Parliament and certain Bills would affect Ireland, but actually to lecture Members from Ireland who ventured to have an opinion as to how Acts would affect their country. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said the opinion of Scotland was in favour of this measure. It was a very singular thing that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Caldwell) hailed from Scotland, and hailed, if not from the
  1582
  Metropolis, at any rate from the largest commercial centre of Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman made statements which certainly called for some remarks from that side of the House. The hon. and learned Member, in utter ignorance of the operations of the Crimes Act, proceeded, in the customary style of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to impute motives to hon. Members from Ireland. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary for Ireland smiled at that. The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that, with the rank and file of Members opposite, nothing was more fashionable, for want of solid argument, than to pad out their speeches with ill-concealed imputations. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Deptford that they who came from Ireland and represented the Irish people had a much stronger and far more honest desire that it was the innocent alone who should suffer than he could have. [Laughter.] It was quite obvious that the omission of a word composed of three letters had caused the hilarity on the opposite Benches. It was perfectly evident that what he meant to say was that the Irish Members had as large and as honest a desire that it was the guilty and not the innocent should suffer as hon. Members opposite. He certainly thought that imputations of the character he had mentioned should be supported by arguments and facts, and not by mere quotations from the obscure pamphlets of I.L.P.U. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they would be glad of the acquittal of guilty parties. He flung that charge in the hon. and learned Gentleman's teeth. It was a grave charge, one which ought not to be thrown across the floor of the House. It was a charge for which no proof had been given, and for which no proof could possibly be given. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was a demand for a Bill of this nature in England and Scotland. He (Mr. Flynn) was not competent to say whether there was a demand for the Bill in Scotland; but undoubtedly there seemed to be a difference of opinion amongst the Scottish Members as to whether the Bill ought to apply to Scotland. There were several hon. Members from Scotland who were not quite so anxious to welcome this measure for Scotland as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. But al-

  1583
  though he was not competent to speak for Scotland, he was perfectly competent to speak for Ireland, and he took issue with the Chief Secretary on the broad and unqualified statement he made, that everybody in Ireland competent to express an opinion upon the Bill were in favour of the measure. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him (Mr. Flynn) to add two or three words to his statement, probably he would be prepared to agree with him. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that everybody he had met in or around Dublin Castle, there would be a great deal in what he said. The right hon. Gentleman ought, by this time, to be aware that there were other opinions besides those of the occupants of Dublin Castle worth listening to. In the City of Dublin and in the City of Cork there was the strongest possible objection to the operation of this measure being extended to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said, in regard to the application of the Bill to Ireland, that the clauses of the Criminal Law Procedure Act only dealt with a limited difficulty; but he had altogether forgotten to remind the Committee that the Crimes Act had to last for ever and ever. If it were dangerous to apply the Crimes Act at all, and its application necessitated such a Bill as this, they should remember that its application was for ever and ever. The hon. and learned Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge) had put forward a proposal which, if it met with acceptance on behalf of the Government, the Irish Members would be prepared to consider if they could not altogether withdraw opposition to it. But the right hon. Gentleman had shown no desire to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had not even referred to it, so far as he (Mr. Flynn) could remember. Now, that was a very important point, which touched the whole of their objections to the Bill. As regarded Ireland, the debate on the second reading was in the recollection of the House, and, therefore, he would not refer to that; but when the Bill was before introduced—he would not say whether it was the first time the subject was brought before them, because his memory did not serve him sufficiently well on the point—but somewhere about 12
  1584
  months ago one of the strongest statements as affecting Ireland upon this subject was made by the Attorney General for Ireland, who said that if the Irish Members were willing to abate their opposition to the Bill, the Government would exclude Ireland from it. But had anything happened since? Yes; the Criminal Law Procedure Act had been applied to Ireland, and had been in operation since July last, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite could on good faith make such a promise as he made to the Irish Members on the last occasion, to the effect that the measure should not be extended to Ireland if they withdrew their opposition, surely the case was very much stronger now, than when he spoke those words. The Irish had a distrust, and a well-founded distrust, of the Irish Resident Magistrates, and probably three-fourths or nine-tenths of the cases which would be affected by this Bill would come before those magistrates. The hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) he (Mr. Flynn) had no doubt, though a Tory Member, notwithstanding he had acquired with fatal facility that eloquent sneer at everything Irish, or everything proposed by Irish Members, but if he wore in Ireland and knew how the Resident Magistrates would deal with cases that came before them, he would dread placing such powers as that contained in the Bill in their hands. The Irish people had a very strong objection to seeing powers such as those contained in this Bill entrusted to hands which were not fit to exercise them. Let the Committee try to realize to itself the position under which a defendant would be under this Bill before a Resident Magistrate. Not long ago a case came before Colonel Carew, and an argument taking place between himself and the solicitor for the defence, this gentleman had boldly declared that he represented the Crown in the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He was not acting magisterially.
  MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says he was not acting magisterially.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He was not acting as a Judge in the case.
  An hon. MEMBER: Was he acting as a hangman?
  MR. FLYNNsaid, he presumed Colonel Carew was acting as Judge, jury, and gallows. At any rate, Mr. Higgons, the representative of the defendants, had declared that Colonel Carew no more represented the Crown than he did, and that his, Colonel Carew's business was to hold the balance equally between the prisoner and the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was sceptical as to Colonel Carew's acting magisterially, but he (Mr. Flynn) was not able to split hairs in the extraordinary manner in which the right hon. Gentleman was. This magistrate was acting as Crown Prosecutor, and as anything but a magistrate. Let the Committee imagine a prisoner brought before such tribunal with the provisions of this Bill in operation. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the prisoner did not come forward and give evidence in his own behalf, there was nothing more to be said about it. Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not so unskilled a lawyer as not to know what would happen. The prosecuting counsel would use the fact as very strong evidence against him. Colonel Carew would, if he gave evidence, proceed to cross-examine him, just as they read that some Judges applied the thumb-screw to unfortunate defendants; if the Crown Counsel was not sufficiently searching in his questions, or if there were certain points which might tell against the man's innocence, a magistrate like Colonel Carew, whose salary depended on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, would do everything in his power to supplement the case for the Crown. Irish Members on those Benches had the greatest possible objection to the extension of the Bill to Ireland. That objection was based upon knowledge of the facts and considerations of the greatest importance to their people, as well as the safe conduct of justice in Ireland. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would not persevere in their intention of applying the Bill to Ireland, which, although it seemed to secure the acquittal of the innocent, he feared would have there the contrary effect.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that the way in which the Amendment stood was not altogether satisfactory to some Members who made a distinction
  1586
  between Scotland and Ireland. He wished, and many of his countrymen also wished, to see the principle of the Bill extended to Scotland, and for that purpose he desired to insert the words "and Scotland," in order that the question might be raised independently. A good deal had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling), and the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) on the Amendment, into whose arguments he did not propose to enter. The Bill appeared to him to be eminently satisfactory and desirable in a country where justice is fairly and honestly administered, and as he knew that was the case in England and Scotland he desired to see it carried into effect in those parts of the Kingdom. But, as he did not believe that justice was fairly and honestly administered in Ireland, he did not wish to see the Bill extended to that country. To those who had been accustomed to live in an atmosphere of real justice, to hear the Judges impartially laying down the law, and counsel conducting prosecutions with fairness and a desire to do what is right in the interest of the prisoner as well as in the interest of the Crown, were shocked and disgusted when they read of the proceedings of some of the so-called Courts of Justice and the counsel who appeared before them.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add after the word "England," the words "and Scotland."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and Scotland' be added to the proposed Amendment."
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) would not press to have the words "and Scotland" in the Bill. The system in Scotland was altogether different from that which prevailed in England. In Scotland the first step was to examine the accused under circumstances which had become familiar to the people, and in his judgment there was no conceivable advantage in combining with that system that of allowing the prisoner to be examined as a witness on the trial. There were two alternative systems—they might have the Scotch system, or that proposed in

  1587
  the Bill, and if a prisoner was to be examined in secret under one, he did not see that there was any advantage at all in having him examined in public. He objected to it for that reason, unless the Scotch system were reconsidered altogether. At the present time a prisoner refusing to answer questions was not made the subject of remark by Judge or jury, but if he were allowed to be examined as a witness at the trial, it might be anticipated that what would happen would be that if anything like what might be called evidence by the prisoner was produced at the trial, and he did not think proper to go into the box to be examined, the Judge would draw the attention of the jury to the fact that the prisoner did not avail himself of that opportunity, and the jury would draw their own inference from the fact. That seemed a most unfair course of proceeding, and not calculated to promote the interests of justice, for it might and did happen that a prisoner had other reasons quite apart from the crime of which he was accused for not submitting to examination. He (Mr. Hunter) was not satisfied that any cause existed for the application of this change to Scotland. Certainly he had never heard from any quarter in Scotland any demand for the Bill, and in the total absence of any demand for a reform peculiarly suited to English law which had no examination of a prisoner at any stage of the proceedings, he did not see why it should be adopted in Scotland. The extension could be made at any time should it appear desirable, but he should vote against it at present.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he had not intended to address the Committee because the matter had been so clearly stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour), but he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Hunter) that there was any alternative whatever as between the judicial examination which took place in Scotch law and the prisoner presenting himself for examination in the witness-box. It would be seen at once that the cases in England and Scotland were practically the same. The difference was that the accused in England at the conclusion of the examination, and after all the
  1588
  witnesses had been examined, was asked if he wished to say anything or make any statement, and he was warned that any statement might be used as evidence against him, and could not be used in his favour, and he was also told that he was under no obligation to make any statement; while the difference in the Scotch procedure was that the prisoner was brought up for judicial examination before the magistrate before any inquiry was made. He was brought up immediately, and that was a great advantage to the prisoner if innocent. But, in point of fact, prisoners in both cases had the opportunity of making statements, both were warned that such statements might be used against them, and could not be used in their favour, and both were told they need not make statements unless they pleased. It was a great mistake to say that the Scotch judicial examination was an alternative to examination in Court as a witness for the distinct reason that the statement by the prisoner could not be allowed as evidence on behalf of the prisoner at all, whereas if he were examined as a witness his evidence would go with all the other evidence before the jury. He (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) could not agree with the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) that there was quite sufficient security in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and, therefore, the Bill need not apply to Scotland. Such reasoning would equally apply to England. But it was the last thing that an innocent prisoner desired, that he should be left to the ultimate chance of an inquiry by the Secretary of State for England or Scotland, in order that he might be pardoned—not cleared—from the crime of which he was accused. The Prerogative of Mercy was used for setting right what was admittedly a miscarriage of justice—but the object of the Bill was to prevent a miscarriage of justice—to consider anything which, laid before the Secretary of State, would lead to the exercise of the Prerogative. It was to meet cases that had happened, and no one desired it should become part of the ordinary operation of the law. It was said also that under the Scotch system, if a prisoner declined to make any statement, that was a circumstance the prosecutor referred to as one the jury were entitled to take into consideration. He had heard that tried,

  1589
  and as often he had heard the Judge give a distinct injunction to the jury that they were not entitled to take it into account. He was sure that it had now disappeared from the practice in prosecutions. It was also said that the opportunity given for the accused to make a statement was quite sufficient to take the place of the giving of evidence, but he thought it was forgotten in the first place that a much fuller examination would take place at the trial than could possibly be taken on the initial stage of the proceedings before the circumstances were known. The Bill met the difficulty now found arising from the accused not being entitled to examination. On another matter he had been personally appealed to, whether he knew of any case in which a prisoner was convicted but would have had a chance of escaping had he been able to give evidence.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, that was not the point. He asked for a case in which an innocent prisoner was convicted owing to his legal inability to give evidence in the case.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that was practically the same thing in another form of words. Taking it as the hon. Member put it, he would say that he had known more than one such case. He would go further and say he had often had to defend prisoners with an anxious mind; but he would have had no anxiety whatever had he been able to put the accused in the witness box.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that it was a great defect of Scotch law that the preliminary examination could not be quoted on behalf of the prisoner as well as against him.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he did not say it was a defect. He said it would be unwise and unfair that the examination should be taken without a safeguard.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, in his opinion it was a great defect and almost a scandal in Scotch administration that when a man was taken into custody he should at once be examined without any legal advice.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he might have legal advice.
  MR. HUNTER: But could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how
  1590
  often it had been availed of? Certainly, the statement ought in all reason and justice to be used for as well as against the prisoner. But the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had failed to understand the objection. Suppose a prisoner refused to make a declaration, but on his trial desired to tell his story and give his evidence, would he not be exposed to the irresistible observation—"That is a fine story, but why did you not tell it when you were first arrested?" In that sense, he contended, the two systems were inconsistent. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was prepared to alter the Scotch system and make it to resemble the English system, that a prisoner should be examined at his trial only, there was no objection; but he saw a great objection to a system that subjected the accused to a double ordeal; in the first place, that which was still a private ordeal not necessarily implying the assistance of a legal adviser, and then if he did not use the opportunity of giving evidence again at the trial he would be open to inferences that would certainly be drawn from that refusal. If the Scotch and English systems were to be assimilated, let that be done; but why pile "Pelion upon Ossa?" Why have the double ordeal that needs must work unfairly to the accused?
  MR. WADDYsaid, he would suggest that really the difficulty in the case applied to the three countries. The point at which the Committee had arrived had reference to Scotland, and he feared it would be disorderly to argue the case of England and Ireland, and he would not do so further than to say that it was agreed that the proposed alteration was not for securing the conviction of the guilty so much as to secure the acquittal of the innocent, and it had been called a protection to the accused.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. and learned Member that he must speak to the Amendment "and Scotland."
  MR. WADDYsaid, he was only about to suggest an alteration by which the words "and Scotland" would become unnecessary; it could be met by a slight alteration in the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. WADDYresumed his seat.
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, he desired to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid). It had been his duty for a period of 20 years to examine witnesses and to see witnesses examined before Criminal and other Courts, and he was bound to say that many cases occurred in which it would have been of very great advantage to the prisoner that the husband or wife should have been allowed to stand in the witness-box and give evidence in the case. He was bound to say also in regard to what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) and others, that he had found in many cases that prisoners considered that injustice was done to them because husband or wife was not allowed to give evidence one for the other. A good deal had been said about the declaration made by a prisoner when apprehended; but these declarations were made under very exceptional circumstances; the prisoner was in an excited state, and he was afraid that the Act was not administered as carefully as it might be. He attached great importance to prisoners being allowed to make their statement before Judge and jury, that the jury might hear the statement and cross-examination. The impression on the jury would be much more useful than that formed from the mere reading of a declaration. So far as his experience went, the Bill ought to apply to Scotland, and he should support the Amendment.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 121: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'and Scotland' be added to the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 278; Noes 52: Majority 226.—(Div. List, No. 98.)
  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.

  MOTIONS
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to the Belton and Suburban Tramways, Hartlepools Tramways, and Liverpool Corporation Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 242.]
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Keighley Tramways, North Metropolitan Tramways, and South Birmingham Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson,
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 243.]
  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Chigwell, Loughton, and Woodford Gas, Great Berkhampstead Gas, Hatfield Gas, Snodland Gas, and Swansea Gas, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.]
  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Dursley Gas, King's Lynn Gas, Littlehampton Gas, Oakham Gas, Poulton-le-Fy1de Gas, and Worksop Gas, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Mansfield Water, Mid Sussex Water, Wimborne Minster Water, and Worksop Water, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 246.]
  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Goring and Streatley District Gas and Water, Sheringham Gas and Water, and Winchester Water and Gas, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 247.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) Bill.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Torquay and Tralee and Fenit, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 248.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Bideford, Burton-upon-Trent, and Stratford-upon-Avon, and the Improvement Act District of Milford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 249.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Birkenhead and Stockton-on-Tees, the Local Government Districts of Cleckheaton, Pickering, Rawmarsh, and Wallasey, and the Wirral Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 250.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) (No. 6) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Orders of the Local Government Board under the Provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1870," relating to the Parishes of Aldham, Barford-Saint-Michael, Birch, Chappel, Copford, Deddington, East Donyland, Easthorpe, Fingringhoe, Fordham, Fryerning, Great Tey, Great Wigborough, Ingatestone, Inworth, Layer-Breton, Layer-de-la-Hay, Layer-Marney, Little Horks1ey, Little Tey, Little Wigborough, Marks Tey, Messing, Mount Bures, Peldon, Virley, Wakes Colne, West Bergholt, and Wormingford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 251.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," and "The Public Health Act, 1875," relating to the Local Government District of Croston and the Borough of Wilton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 252.]
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (SPECIAL REPORT.)
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection have leave to make a Special Report.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYaccordingly reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Bail (Scotland) Bill:—Mr. Anderson, Mr. Baird, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Hozier, Sir Robert Jardine, Mr. Mackintosh, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Angus Sutherland, Mr. Thorburn, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Shiress Will.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Member in respect of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill [Lords]:—Mr. Neville.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* (95).
Second Reading—Timber Acts (Ireland) Amendment (69).
Committee—Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) (43–96).
Withdrawn—Public Libraries Act, 1885, Amendment* (82).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballymoney, &c.)* (97).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL.—(No. 43.)
(The Earl of Onslow.)
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (Duty to carry boats and other appliances for saving life).
On the Motion of the Earl of ONSLOW,
Amendment made, in page 1, line 10, by leaving out from ("all persons") to to the end of the clause and inserting ("her crew and passengers").
Moved, at end of clause add ("ships surveyed by the Board of Trade as passenger steamers, or passenger ships in the foreign trade, being always considered a distinct class requiring special provision of boats, rafts, or other ap-
1428
pliances for saving life in case of danger, in accordance with rules from time to time, without which no certificate shall be granted them.")—(Lord Norton.)
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (the Earl of ONSLOW)said, he sympathized with the desire of the noble Lord that ships carrying passengers should be better provided with boats than those engaged in the ordinary carrying trade. The whole object of the Bill was to see that means were provided for saving life at sea according to the nature of the service in which the ship was employed. He could not consent to an Amendment making but two classes of ships. The noble Lord might safely leave it to the Board of Trade and the Committee to see that the different classes of ships were properly provided with life-saving apparatus, and carried in accordance with the nature of the service to be performed.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Appointment of consultative committee for framing rules) agreed to.
Clause 3 (Power to make rules as to life-saving appliances).
THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHin proposing an Amendment providing that the Board of Trade, "on the advice of the Committee aforesaid," might from time to time make, rescind, and vary rules with respect to all or any of the matters mentioned in the second schedule of the Act, said it appeared to him to be a most extraordinary thing that the Board of Trade should take the trouble to form a Consultative Committee to advise it in the framing of rules having the force of "law," and at the same time take the power of making, rescinding, and varying rules, without giving any reason whatever. It might be urged that his Amendment ought to be rejected because it interfered with the responsibility of the Department. In this connexion he drew attention to what he described as a curious circular recently issued by the Board of Trade referring to his Amendment. He thought the circular was illustrative of the system which was carried on at the Board of Trade. He did not wish to make any attack on the Department, but merely to show what the system was and to what extent

1429
the responsibility was borne. The circular was dated May 2, and was signed by Mr. Gray. It asked the various shipping bodies throughout the country whether they had any observations to offer upon the Amendment which he had just moved, and that, if so, the Department would be glad to receive them. When he read that circular, it occurred to him to ask the question, "Where is the responsibility of the Board of Trade?" Did it rest with the distinguished statesman in "another place," or did it rest with the permanent public servants who sat in Whitehall? He thought it was clear on the face of the Bill that the Board of Trade felt the weight of the responsibility which rested upon it. Let their Lordships consider what the Board of Trade was called upon to do. It now regulated the mightiest interests in this country, and necessarily from day to day it found itself in the discharge of its duty face to face with the ablest men in the country—the managers of great industries. Those men, knowing their own business infinitely better than any President of the Board of Trade and all his staff put together, might naturally feel that friction was being created when they were interfered with by frivolous regulations. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Moved, in page 1, line 23, after ("Trade") insert ("on the advice of the committee aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Ravensworth.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he regretted very much that it was quite out of his power to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, which was not merely a small Amendment in a small Bill, but involved a departure from established Constitutional practice and proposed alterations in Parliamentary procedure which the Government could not agree to. The effect of the Amendment would be to shield the President of the Board of Trade from all responsibility to Parliament and the country for these rules. The noble Lord had thought fit to make a rather severe onslaught upon the officials of the Board of Trade in respect of a circular which had been issued on behalf of the Board. In issuing that circular the officials of the Board of Trade were anxious that those who
1430
were interested in this question should give an opinion upon the Amendment of the noble Earl. As far as responsibility was concerned, that circular had been sent out on his own suggestion, and with the full approbation of the President of the Board of Trade. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were adopted, the power of the President of the Board of Trade to rescind or to vary the rules would be taken away, and it would, therefore, be impossible to make any alterations in them. He therefore hoped that the House would not adopt the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, he hoped that it would be thoroughly understood that he had no desire whatever to make an attack upon the Board of Trade officials.
Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he wished to enter his protest against the rules, which would have to lie upon the Table for a certain time, being laid upon the Table in a dummy form.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that, as no time would be gained by laying the rules upon the Table in such a form, it was not likely that such a course would be taken.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the laying of dummy rules upon the Table was clearly not a compliance with the requirements of the Act.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he coincided with the view taken by the Lord Chancellor on the matter.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Penalty for breach of rules).
On the Motion of The Earl of ONSLOW, Amendment made, in page 2, line 7, by leaving out ("to sea") and inserting ("on any voyage or excursion").
Clause (as amended) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Provisions for enforcing rules) agreed to.
On the Motion of The Earl of ONSLOW, the following new Clause was inserted, after Clause 5:—
(Saving as to sea-fishing boats.)
"The rules made under this Act shall not apply to any sea-fishing boat which is for the time being registered in pursuance of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868."
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution of the Committee.
THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, he moved to amend the constitution of the Committee. According to the Bill, it was provided that the Committee should be composed of:—
"(1) Three shipowners selected by the President of the Board of Trade out of a list of nine names submitted by the Council of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom; (2) three shipbuilders selected by the President of the Board of Trade out of a list of nine names submitted by the shipbuilders of the United Kingdom; (3) three persons practically acquainted with the navigation of vessels selected by the President of the Board of Trade out of a list of nine names submitted by the Local Marine Boards of the United Kingdom; (4) three persons being or having been able-bodied seamen selected by the President of the Board of Trade out of a list of nine names submitted by seamen's societies recognized by the President of the Board of Trade for this purpose; (5) three persons selected by the President of the Board of Trade out of a list of nine names to be submitted conjointly by the committee of Lloyd's and the committee of Lloyd's Register Society."
He objected to the list of names of shipowners having to be submitted to the Board of Trade by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. Although a very influential and valuable body, the Chamber of Shipping was by no means representative of all the ship-owning interests in the country. The chief objection he took to the present form of the Schedule was that the shipowners were to be selected by the Board of Trade out of a list submitted. Surely they were competent to elect their own representatives. He did not pretend that there was any novelty about the Schedule he proposed, but he claimed that it possessed the high authority of the Board itself, its leading features having already been submitted to the country in the form of a Circular issued by the Board in January, 1882.
Moved, That the constitution of the Committee be as follows:—

1. "Ten shipowners to be nominated as follows: one by the Council of the 'Chamber of Shipping,' two by the Steam and Sailing Shipowners' Associations of Liverpool, and one each by the Shipowners' Associations of London, Glasgow, Leith, North-East Coast of England, Hull, Bristol, Channel Ports, and Ireland.

2. Three members to be nominated by the Councils of the 'Institute of Naval Architects,' the 'Institution of Shipbuilders and Engineers,' Glasgow, and the Institution of Shipbuilders and Engineers,' Newcastle-on-Tyne, respectively.

1432

3. Three persons to be nominated by the 'Local Marine Boards' of the United Kingdom practically acquainted with the navigation of merchant vessels.

4. Three persons to be nominated by 'Seamen's Societies' recognized by the President of the Board of Trade for this purpose, being or having been able-bodied seamen.

5. Two persons to be nominated by the 'Committee of Lloyd's Register' and the Committee of the Institute of London Underwriters.'"—(The Earl of Ravensworth.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that neither the Schedule in the Bill nor that which the noble Earl proposed to substitute for it would fully meet the views of all the shipowners in the Three Kingdoms. For instance, he had received adverse remarks on the noble Earl's Amendment from Belfast, which port claimed to have representation, inasmuch as it contributed 50 per cent more than Glasgow or Bristol. Of the 27 members of the Consultative Council formed under the proposal of the noble Earl, 19 would be representative of shipowners only, and he asked their Lordships to consider how the master mariners, under writers, seamen, and other important interests were likely to fare with such a majority against them. This Bill was really a very small one, and the objects at which it aimed were not very large. In fact, it would only seriously affect 1,165 out of the 37,552 vessels on the British register. He was afraid, therefore, that the noble Earl was forging a Nasmyth hammer to crack a nut. The Government honestly desired to meet the views of the shipowners, and as far as they could to accept the principle that those who understood the subject should advise the Board of Trade in reference to the saving of life at sea. He would ask their Lordships to adhere to the Schedule in the Bill, though he was willing to accept any six names to represent the shipowners and builders, upon which all the interests affected could agree.
LORD NORTONthought that if neither the system of election proposed in the Bill nor that in the Amendment would give satisfaction to the shipowners, it would be better to have no advising council at all, but to leave the Board of Trade free to obtain the best opinions it could in each case. Nothing justified the establishment of a Consultative Committee, at all but the hope of making it a representative body, which shipowners generally would recognize; otherwise it

1433
was only mischievous, as dividing responsibility.
THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, the ships chiefly affected by the Bill included the magnificent vessels belonging to the great lines of passenger steamers. The noble Earl had met him to a certain extent, and, indeed, to such an extent that he should hardly be justified in putting their Lordships to the trouble of a Division. At the same time he could not help thinking that the plan for appointing the Council laid down in the Bill was a very halting and unsatisfactory one.
Amendment negatived; First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Matters for which the Rules are to provide.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWin moving an Amendment in the 2nd clause of the Second Schedule, said, the Schedule dealt with "matters for which the rules are to provide," and the 2nd clause was—
"The number and description of the boats, life-boats, life-rafts, life-jackets, and life buoys to be carried by British ships, according to the class in which they are arranged, and the methods to be provided to get the boats and other life-saving appliances into the water."
The Amendment was to insert, after the word "arranged," the words—
"And the mode of their construction, also the equipments to be carried by the boats and rafts."
The best method of saving lives was to prevent ships from sinking, and when shipowners made proper provision in the way of construction, water-tight compartments and bulkheads, he proposed that the Consultative Committee should have power to take this into consideration in mitigation of the obligations which they would otherwise apply. The second part of the Amendment was intended to meet the views of the noble Lord who had an Amendment to allow regulations to be made as to what should be carried in boats in the way of life-saving apparatus.
Amendment moved,
In Second Schedule, page 5, line 1, after ("arranged") insert ("and the mode of their construction, also the equipments to be carried by the boats and rafts.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, this was a good Amendment, because it
1434
did justice to the immense improvements which were constantly being made in shipbuilding. The Amendment would only affect a certain class, but that the very best class of ships.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD COTTESLOEin moving to add at the end after the word "buoys" the words—
"And also a sufficient quantity of oil for use in stormy weather, according to the size and tonnage of ships or boats,"
said, that he felt deeply interested in the welfare of the British seaman, although he was not personally connected with either the Navy or the Mercantile Service. With the Mercantile Service he had never in any way been connected, but he had always had personal interests in the Royal Navy, and for three generations members of his family had flown their flags as Admirals in that Service. Their Lordships would remember that in 1882 this subject was brought before the House. A Return had, at his instance, been kindly produced by his noble Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade, of the experiments which had been made and which appeared to have met with a considerable measure of success. The use of oil had in many instances been instrumental in saving life in tempestuous weather, and he thought that no ship should go to sea without carrying a certain quantity as part of her equipment. The subject had been taken up by the National Lifeboat Institution, and the result of their inquiries had recently been published in their journal. Reports were given in that journal by captains of ships who had succeeded in many instances in saving their vessels from shipwreck by the use of oil. Mr. T. A. Cregan wrote to The Glasgow Herald an account of a most effectual experiment during a heavy gale in the Bay of Biscay. A quart of oil in two canvas bags punctured with small holes proved so efficacious that scarcely a sea came on board, each wave as it reached the oil ceasing to lash and undulating past the ship without a break. Captain James Forman, of the ship Airlie, of Dundee, described the effect of the oil as "magical," and stated that but for its application he should certainly have lost all his boats. Captain Lashbrooke, master of the ketch Elizabeth, of Bade, gave similar testimony of his

1435
experience of this remedy during a storm on December 13, 1882, and the captain of the steamship Stanmore, which arrived at New York on September 21, 1882, ascribed his safety during terrible weather to his having towed a bag of oil, which slightly escaped, when the ship was running before the wind. Having shown the advantage of the use of oil as a life-saving appliance in stormy weather, he urged that no ship should put to sea without a supply of that article, and that oil should be included in the Schedule to that Bill. He ought to refer to an interesting Report on that subject made by Captain Chetwynd, R.N., who was specially engaged by the Life Boat Society to investigate and report on the use of oil in stormy weather, in which he said that the result of the experiments made had been to show that there was little difference in the effect produced by the various oils of ordinary everyday use, such as colza, linseed, fish or seal oil. In some cases paraffin was used with the same effect. Very small quantities of oil had been found sufficient to cover a considerable space with the smooth, glassy surface characteristic of oil on water. He therefore asked that it should be made compulsory on all shipowners to supply their vessels with oil as with other life-saving appliances. He hoped that none of their Lordships would ever experience the hazards and terrors of shipwreck; but were such a misfortune to happen to any of them, and they should be exposed to a tempest threatening the existence of the ship, he thought they would then be happy to avail themselves of the use of oil if any could be found on board. And if the master of the ship were in the emergency to offer them a boat which could not live in the sea while the passengers were getting on board of it, or a life-raft which would expose the occupants to the danger of being washed overboard, or a life-jacket to put on, or a life-buoy to cling to, he thought that a passenger would much prefer that the master should provide an oil bag or two to calm the surface of the water so as to enable boats to be safely launched and used for saving the passengers. Yet he regretted to say his noble Friend who had charge of that Bill hesitated to require that oil should be enumerated among the necessary life-saving appliances in the Schedule to the
1436
measure. The noble Lord moved the Amendment standing in his name.
Moved, in Schedule 2, page 5, line 6, after ("boats, life-boats, life-rafts, life-jackets, and life-buoys") add ("and also a sufficient quantity of oil for use in stormy weather, according to the size and tonnage of ships or boats.")—(The Lord Cottesloe.)
LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, with regard to an experiment at Folkestone, by which oil was forced through a pipe from below to the surface of the water, it was found that the experiment was not so successful as some persons had been at first inclined to imagine. Oil forced up from below was not so efficacious as when poured on the surface of the water. An interesting experiment was tried in 1886 on the Royal Yacht Osborne, anchored at Carrickfergus. The Prince and Princess of Wales were on board and were anxious to land. A heavy sea was rolling at the time, and great anxiety was felt as to how the Princess could be conveyed ashore, because there was not enough water for the yacht to cross the Bar. The chief engineer then suggested that oil should be made use of for the purpose of smoothing the water alongside the yacht. A preliminary experiment was made, and the effect of the oil in breaking the waves was found to be so great that it was decided to carry the experiment further. When the Princess of Wales left the yacht a steam cutter was sent ahead to distribute the contents of bags of oil from the small holes in each bag. The desired effect was attained. No broken water and no sea came into the boat. It was announced as the conviction at that time that the development of oil pouring on water could not fail to be of immense advantage, especially in the case of lifeboats. So satisfied were the Admiralty of the importance of using oil in certain circumstances that they had issued a Memorandum for the information of officers in general on the use of oil at sea, and for modifying and breaking the effect of the waves. The manner in which the oil could be used was pointed out, and the cases in which it could be employed with advantage were also referred to. There could be no doubt that under certain conditions the use of oil at sea was of the greatest possible advantage. He did not know what the decision of the Board of Trade might be, but the Admiralty did not

1437
propose to issue any instructions to commanders on the subject. They felt satisfied, after calling the attention of officers to the use of oil by the Memorandum previously referred to, that it would be better to leave officers to exercise their own judgment according to the circumstances.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he thought their Lordships must be indebted to the noble Lord for having brought this interesting subject before the House. He should have been glad to meet the views of the noble Lord and to advise their Lordships to accept the Amendment in its entirety were it not for the difficulty of mentioning one article alone and excluding others. Since this Bill had been brought forward he had received models and inventions of a great many useful appliances; in fact, his room was more like a section of the Inventions Exhibition than a gentleman's study. Those persons would feel aggrieved if any particular article was mentioned specifically in the Schedule. He was quite prepared to bring up words on Report and to leave it to the Committee which would have to decide as to the equipments to be carried by boats, and also the appliances to be carried by ships, to say whether they would include oil. He hoped that when the noble Lord saw the words on Report they would meet his views.
Amendment negatived; Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 96.)

TIMBER ACTS (IRELAND) AMEND MENT BILL.—(No. 69.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he had caused to be circulated a Memorandum explanatory of the provisions of the Bill amongst their Lordships. The Bill was an amendment of the Irish Timber Act of 1783. The Act of 1783 encouraged the planting of trees by two classes of persons. The first class was that of tenants for lives renew-
1438
able for ever; and it was provided that when they planted trees they should be the absolute owners of the property as tenants in fee. The second class was that of tenants for life, or lives, or any term of years, of which 12 years were still unexpired. It was proposed to extend these provisions to a new class—namely, the tenants for statutory terms, which, as their Lordships knew, were for 15 years' renewal. There was one other class to which it was proposed to extend the Bill, subject to registration—namely, the class of tenants holding under a lease of not less than 31 years. He would like to say, in reply to several communications which he had received, that the Bill was not to be of a retrospective character, and that it would be obligatory that registration should take place within 12 months after the planting of the trees. It would be evident that it would not be possible for any tenant to claim compensation for trees that had been planted more than 12 months before the registration; and he further had to say that under the Bill there was no change made as to the right of tenants to plant trees. The only change which the Bill made was as to those who were to be permitted to cut them down, or to claim the property in them as their own. He begged to move the second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was not quite clear that the description given of the Bill by the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) was quite accurate. This Bill embodied in itself a great number of Acts of Parliament which were passed in the last century, and he believed it was most difficult to read those Acts of Parliament together. He ventured to suggest to their Lordships that they might be passing a Bill which contained a great deal more drastic concessions than they would wish to give. They were aware that under the Act of 1870 there had been a great number of concessions given, which they were told afterwards necessitated the Act of 1881, and they were told that the Act of 1881 necessitated the Act of 1887. Therefore, they were accustomed to what were called "germs" in these Bills. He wanted to suggest to the noble Earl that instead of em-

1439
bodying these numerous Acts of Parliament, they should embody the one Act of 1783 which he named. He (the Marquess of Waterford) had read that Act, and could say—speaking only as a layman—that that Act gave the whole of the powers which the noble Earl had mentioned. It was not an amending Act, so far as he could understand it; and it referred to no other Acts. He was afraid if they passed the Bill in its present shape their Lordships would be embodying a number of Acts of Parliament of which they knew nothing. He did not wish to prevent judicial tenants obtaining all the rights which the Memorandum stated the Bill would give them; but why embody a number of Acts when one Act which clearly expressed what was meant would suffice?
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he thought it was singularly inconvenient to anybody who was interested in Irish legislation to have a Bill of this nature brought before their Lordships. It was quite impossible by looking into the Bill to make out what it meant. He went to several people for an explanation of its provisions, but without avail. What ho was afraid of was, that this Memorandum might not be quite so accurate as the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) hoped it was. If it was perfectly accurate, then he had no objection to the Bill. But what he should have thought would have been much simpler than that, was to have repealed all those numerous Acts which, he might tell their Lordships, were so bulky that they would stand three or four feet from the ground if piled on top of each other, and which would take a lawyer a very considerable time to examine; as for a layman, it was absolutely impossible. The simplest way would have been to have repealed all those old Acts, and to have brought in one sole Act which would explain exactly what was meant, so that they might understand exactly what they were doing; because such an Act as this might be used in a way in which it was not intended that it should be used in Ireland, especially now, as their Lordships knew, that there was another Bill called a Timber Bill in the other House, which would come up to their Lordships in a later period of the Session, and which might undo what they were trying to do by this Bill. That Bill might never come up; but if it did come up, it
1440
would be a second amending Bill in the same Session of Parliament. The noble Earl, he thought, would do well to have the Bill recast.
LORD FITZGERALDin a minute criticism of the Bill, said, it was wholly unnecessary to incorporate all those Acts which had been mentioned relating to the planting of trees in Ireland. They are very difficult to interpret, and he was afraid that if they incorporated them all in the present Bill it would only Tead to confusion and embarrassment. He was entirely favourable to promoting the cultivation of trees in Ireland. What he intended to propose was that the Committee stage of the Bill should be postponed until after the Whitsuntide Recess, so as to give them full time for its consideration. He was afraid he could not accept all the statements of the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) with regard to the rights of planting trees and their ownership in Ireland. The noble Earl had told them that it was perfectly settled law that the right of planting trees, quite irrespective of registration, had been established under the Land Acts. He could not accept that statement, and should like the noble Earl to mention the cases in which it had become settled law. He (Lord Fitzgerald) would point out that the statutory terms of 15 years, though of a shorter may be of a more continuous character than the terms contemplated by the ancient Acts, as at the end of every 15 years the rights of the landlord and tenant were liable to re-adjustment. At the same time, he should be glad that the statutory tenants in Ireland should have the benefit of some such enactment as was proposed by the present Bill, if it could be done with proper safeguards. But they knew from experience that legislation of the kind if unguarded was very apt to end in paring off or tearing up some rights of the landlords.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, it was very gratifying to observe the horror with which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) regarded the tearing up of the rights of the landlords. He could only regret that it had come rather late. The noble and learned Lord had not been quite so sensitive in the matter when measures of a very

1441
different character from the Bill for liberty to plant trees in Ireland were under discussion.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he was not a Member of the House while those measures were under discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he believed that was so; and he supposed that if the noble and learned Lord had been here during all the time the legislation would have been very different from what it was. It seemed to him that the real scope and object of the Bill was not thoroughly understood. It was a perfectly reasonable proposal that the Committee stage should be postponed till after Whitsuntide, which, he hoped, would afford their Lordships ample time for sufficient examination of this perfectly innocent and harmless piece of legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)in explanation, said, for the information of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford and others, that the present Bill did not propose to repeal any of the provisions of the ancient Acts. It was merely intended to give a most distinct intimation of what the Irish Timber Acts were, and it left them at large just as they were; but those Acts had been enumerated in the Bill in order that what they meant might not be left out of mind. There were no new rights created by the Bill.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he would remind their Lordships that a Bill precisely similar to this one had been amended in their Lordships' House in 1886; but, as differences of opinion had been found to exist upon its discussion, it had been dropped in the House of Commons. It provided, like this Bill, that tenants of statutory terms should have the same privileges as tenants for life, or lives renewable for ever.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BALLYMONEY, &C.) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Ballymoney, Clones, and Tuam; was presented by The Lord Privy Seal; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (N° 97.)
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.