Sitting of 11 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (No. 2)* [260]; Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment (No. 3) * [261]; Vestrymen's Qualification * [262].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Highways) * [258]; Local Government (Port) * [259].
Report—Local Government * [213]; Local Government (No. 2) * [214]; Local Government (Poor Law) * [215]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2) * [216]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3) * [217]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 4) * [218]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5)* [219].

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MOTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HIGHWAYS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under "The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878," relating to the Counties of Durham, Hertford, and Westmoreland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 258.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm an Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Public Health Act, 1875," as amended by "The Public Health (Ships, &c.) Act, 1885," relating to the Port of Dartmouth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 259.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CITY OF LONDON (FIRE INQUESTS) BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to state the view of the Government. The principle of the Bill the Government approved; and, in fact, in "another place" they had introduced a Bill applying that principle to a larger area. He only now rose to give the House to understand that, though in deference to the wish of the strong Committee to which this Bill had been referred, they did not wish to infere with its progress, it must be with the understanding that "elsewhere" they might possibly give that preference to their own measure that would not tend to the passing of this Bill into law.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY (INDIA)—"COLONELS' ALLOW- ANCES."
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state how many officers are now drawing colonels' allowances in India, and how many officers altogether are now drawing colonels' allowances, the payment of which is borne on the Indian Exchequer; whether an officer "on colonels' allowances" payable by the Indian Government, if he resides in Ceylon, or in any part of the world except India, is permitted to draw his allowances in England in full sterling value; whereas, if he resides in India, his allowances are converted at the rate of 2s. 0½d. the rupee, the value of the

  29
  rupee being at present under ls. 5d., thereby entailing upon him a loss from 25 to 30 per cent of his income as compared with his brother officers, in precisely the same position, residing else-where; whether he will state the entire sum saved to the Indian Exchequer per annum by this mode of settling accounts with the officers who reside in India; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of altering a policy which has the effect of dissuading officers trained and acclimatised in India from residing in that country after retirement?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): There are 430 officers drawing colonels' allowances from the Indian Exchequer. Of these, 418 reside in the United Kingdom, and 12 in India. An officer on colonels' allowances, residing in India, receives his pay and allowances in Indian currency like all other officers on full pay. If residing out of India he may, under the Regulations, draw his pay and allowances in sterling at the rate fixed for the purpose in 1854. It is the view of the India Office that there is no saving by paying the officers in India at the fixed rate; but there is a very heavy charge owing to the fall in exchange by paying those in England at the rate fixed in 1854, and this charge would be increased by the proposed measure. The objection raised to alter the Rule is that to do so would abrogate the rule that officers in India not on the retired list are to draw their pay in the currency, and at the rates of the country in which it accrues; but the Secretary of State does not at present see his way to make the alteration.

  NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL—NAVAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. TANNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the same or similar Regulations exist permitting naval medical officers to serve on courts martial as is the case with officers of the Army Medical Staff; and, if not, can he state the reason for this difference?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Regulations do not admit of naval medical officers serving on courts martial. In common with officers of the other
  30
  civil branches of the Navy they are debarred from this duty by Section 58 of the Naval Discipline Act, which lays down that—
  "No officer shall be qualified to sit as a member of any court-martial, unless he be a flag officer, captain, commander, or lieutenant of Her Majesty's Navy on full pay."
  The conditions of the two Services widely differ; in the Navy it has always been held desirable that the military branch only should deal with questions of discipline.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—MILTON ABBAS SCHOOLS.
  MR. KELLY(for Colonel HAMBRO) (Dorset, S.) asked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, By what authority Her Majesty's Charity Commissioners, in the absence of any scheme for the management of the Milton Abbas School, Bland-ford, endeavour to restrict an appointment about to be made by the Trustees of the school, of a head master in, or intending to be in, Holy Orders, to a temporary appointment only; and, if he can assure the Trustees of the Milton Abbas Grammar School, that if they appoint a master under whom the school flourishes, and meets the requirements of the district, the fact that the master is in Holy Orders, or intends to take Holy Orders, shall not be a reason for the Charity Commissioners to remove him if at any future time they prepare a scheme for the school?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Under the Endowed Schools Acts the Charity Commissioners have authority to make a scheme for Milton Abbas School, and therein to direct that a new head master be appointed. By Section 18 of the Act of 1869, it is expressly directed that, in any scheme for such a school as this, it shall be provided that a person shall not be disqualified for being a master therein by reason only of his not being, or not intending to be, in Holy Orders. A scheme being now in contemplation, and the Trustees having meanwhile advertised for a master, "who must be already in, or preparing to take, Holy Orders," the Commissioners thought it right to advise them that any appointment so made should be regarded as temporary. In reply to the second part of the hon.

  31
  Member's Question, the mere fact that the master proposed to be appointed is in orders, or is about to take orders, will not afford a ground for interference with his tenure by the Commisioners. Beyond that the Charity Commission is unable to give any pledge which would in any way fetter the discretion of the Governing Body which may be appointed under any future scheme.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPART- MENT)—THE SMALL ARMS FACTORY AT SPARKBROOK.
  MR. KENRICK(for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN) (Birmingham, W.) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook was purchased by the Government about two years ago, on the liquidation of the Small Arms and Ammunition Company, Limited; whether, since the purchase, a sum of about £50,000 has been spent in laying down new machinery and improving existing plant; whether the Government are now removing large quantities of the new machinery to the Enfield Factory; and, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to transfer the manufacture at Sparkbrook to the works at Enfield?
  THE SECRETARY Of STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook was purchased in 1885. About £31,000 has been spent in laying down new machinery and improving existing plant. Some of the machinery is in course of removal to Enfield, for the purpose of starting the manufacture of the new magazine rifle. The intention may be stated generally to be that the Government manufacture of small arms will be carried on at Enfield alone; but large contracts for arms have been placed in Birmingham, so that the artizans there will not suffer by the removal of this machinery from Sparkbrook, and this place will be utilized as the principal Government depôt for repairs.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SER- VICES—CONSULAR OFFICIAL AT MASSOWAH.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Civil Estimates of the last two years and of this year pro-
  32
  vide for the payment of a Consular official at Massowah; whether a Consular official was, in fact, appointed to this post about two years ago; and, whether this officer has for the last two years been working in the Foreign Office instead of going to Massowah?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Estimates of last year and those of the current financial year provide for the payment of a Vice Consul at Massowah. A Vice Consul was appointed on October 26, 1886; but in consequence of the unsettled state of the country it has been decided from time to time to defer his departure. He has been employed on important duties in the Foreign Office.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL—THE CART AND WHEEL DUTIES—FARMERS' LOCOMOTIVES— MARKET GARDENERS.
  MAJOR RASCHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as the Revenue Bill now stands, farmers' locomotives used solely for agricultural purposes will be exempt from the Cart and Wheel Duties.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In answering this question I must repeat a caution which I gave a few days ago, that any reply I may give must be taken as explanatory only of my proposals in the Bill, and not as a pledge as to the manner in which it may be interpreted when it becomes law. The interpretation of the Act will rest with the Board of Inland Revenue, subject to the Courts. With this reserve I may say that farmers' locomotives used solely for agricultural purposes will not be exempt from duty if they are used upon a road for drawing or propelling any vehicle. But I think it would be better if hon. Gentlemen interested in such points as this would wait to discuss them in Committee on the Bill, instead of asking me Questions over the Table, as any short answer I may give may lead to misapprehension.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether carts belonging to market gardeners who were also nurserymen and florists would

  33
  be exempt from payment under the Wheel Tax?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; such carts will be exempt if they are used solely for the conveyance of fruit and flowers grown upon lands in the occupation of their owner. But I must repeat the caution I gave in answer to a previous Question dealing with the provisions of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND)—PRISON SURGEONS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the average daily population of the prison of Perth is 620; of Glasgow 500; and Barlinnie 500; whether the English Prison Commissioners recommended in their first Annual Report that chaplains in prisons of an average population of 400 and upwards should be appointed at a salary of £300, rising to £400; whether the average daily population of Glasgow, Barlinnie, and Perth, is equal to the average daily population of Birmingham, Leeds, and Durham; and, whether prison surgeons in those prisons are appointed at a salary of £320 a-year, while in the Scotch prisons they begin at £200 a-year; and what is the reason for the difference of salary?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member has now asked specific Questions about particular prisons; and, in reply, I have to inform him that the surgeons at Glasgow and Perth receive higher pay than they would in English prisons of corresponding population; while the surgeon at Barlinnie and the chaplains at all three prisons receive less, the figures given by the hon. Member being substantially accurate as regards these four officers. The Scotch scales of salary were fixed by a Committee which had full knowledge of those adopted in England. In regard to the officers who are paid at a lower rate than the English scale will give them according to population, I wish to point out that although it is so in these particular cases, there are other cases, as I have already stated, in which reductions will have to be made.
  DR. CLARKasked, how the hon. Gentleman reconciled his answer with
  34
  the previous answer he had given? The Question was, whether the highest salary was £200? The answer to that Question was that that was the case. Now the hon. Gentleman told them that in the English Provincial prisons the salary was £320.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member was aware that applications had been received in these particular cases where there was a disadvantage in the case of Scotland, and these applications were now under the consideration of the Treasury. If it were found necessary to make an alteration it would be made.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL—REGISTER AND TONNAGE OF STEAM VESSELS.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB (&c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any steps can be taken to ensure a record being kept by each Colony of the number and tonnage of steam vessels entered and cleared from and to foreign countries viâ the Suez Canal, so that information may be included in the Statistical Abstract for the several Colonial Possessions, similar to that furnished in No. 78, Statistical Abstract, British India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)Her Majesty's Government will consider how far a complete record of the nature desired can be obtained.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS—ACREAGE.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he can state the acreage represented respectively by the 136,722 cases of fair rent disposed of in Court, and the 94,469 cases of agreement out of Court, reported by the Irish Land Commission up to end of March, 1888?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The Land Commissioners inform me that no record is kept of the acreage represented by the cases which are struck out, dismissed, or withdrawn. These cases number 37,059. Judicial rents were fixed in Court up to the end of March, 1888, in 99,663 cases. The acreage represented by

  35
  these cases is 2,966,026. The acreage represented by the 94,469 agreements is 2,441,846.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—DUTY ON FOREIGN WINES.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any representations or remonstrances have been addressed to the Foreign Office by the French Government in connection with the proposed tax on bottled wines; and, if so, what the representations or remonstrances may be?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I beg to refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) on the 26th of April.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COM- MISSION COURT AT DOWNPATRICK.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an application was made to the Sub-Commission Court (Messrs. Edward Greer, O'Callaghan, and Sproule) sitting at Downpatrick on Friday the 4th instant, that a case in which an hon. Member was coming over from London to give evidence in might be fixed for Tuesday the 8th instant was refused; whether the case was fixed for Saturday positively; whether, on Saturday, the hon. Member being in Court, having been summoned by telegraph, the Sub-Commissioners refused to take the case on that day, and postponed it until Tuesday; and, whether the action of the Sub-Commissioners can be justified on grounds of public convenience; and, if so, what were those grounds?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Land Commissioners had not yet been able to give him the information he had asked for. He imagined they found that local reference was necessary.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— BOW STREET AND MARLBOROUGH STREET POLICE COURTS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many sum-
  36
  monses are heard on an average in a week at Bow Street and Marlborough Street Police Courts respectively; and, whether the two Courts are required?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The weekly number of summonses heard on an average in a week at Marlborough Street Police Court for the year 1887 was 112; at Bow Street the weekly average is 132. Judging from the number of cases disposed of at each Court, and from the fact that the Committee which lately inquired into the disposition of magisterial business in the Metropolis, after full consideration, did not recommend the abolition of the Court at Marlborough Street, the Secretary of State is not prepared to say that the two Courts are not required.

  CUSTOMS—IMPORTATION OF UN- WHOLESOME TEA—COFFEIN.
  MR. BARTLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now see his way to frame Regulations to allow the importation duty free of tea unfit for human food, with precautions to prevent its getting into the market, for the purpose of the production of coffein, a chemical industry which our present Custom House Regulations drives completely to Germany?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The subject is now under reference to the Board of Customs. The firm who are seeking such a facility have undertaken to furnish further particulars desired by that Department; and, in the meantime, no definite answer can be given.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—AL- LEGED INSURANCE FRAUDS AT BELFAST.
  MR. CAREWasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the intended prosecution for insurance frauds at Belfast, Whether it is the intention of the Crown to change the venue from Belfast to Dublin?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): This matter is now under the consideration of the Attorney General for Ireland.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—DISTRICT COUNCILS —CREMATION.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to confer upon the new District Councils the right of cremation, if the said Council should think this desirable in the public interest?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): No, Sir; I have no such intention at present.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE MAIL STEAMER "ARIZONA"—DUNMANUS BAY.
  DR. TANNERhad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the reported narrow escape of the mail steamer Arizona on Monday night last, that during the prevalence of a thick fog ran into Dunmanus Bay, and very nearly went ashore; whether this is the place where the Iberian was lost; and, whether, in view of the fact that this Bay lies unprotected, parallel and close to the track of the American liners, the Board will recommend the placing a fog bell or gun on the Mizen or Three Castle Heads? The hon. Member said, he did not intend asking the first part of the Question, as he understood the thing did not occur. He would, however, ask if it was not a fact that the steamship Catalonia narrowly escaped going ashore at or about this very place during last week?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that was not exactly the same Question as that which the hon. Gentleman put on the Paper; but he had to say with regard to the lights on the coast at this place, of course it was not the business of the Board of Trade to initiate the establishment of any light. The Irish Lighthouse Authorities were now in the course of erecting a lighthouse at a place called Bull Rock, or Mersey Head, close to this very part of the coast. He was also informed that if mariners would use the ordinary precautions of taking soundings the danger to which the hon. Member referred would be avoided.
  DR. TANNERasked, if Bull Rock was not about 50 miles west of this place?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No, Sir.
  DR. TANNER: It is about 45.

  PORTUGAL—BOMBARDMENT OF MINENGANI—COMPENSATION.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken by the Government to press on the Government of Portugal the claim for compensation by British Indian subjects at Minengani on the Zanzibar Coast for their losses due to the bombardment of that place by the Portuguese in February, 1887?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): For reasons, into which I cannot enter, no claim has yet been presented; but the case of the British Indian subjects at Minengani forms part of an affair which is under consideration.
  In reply to further Questions by Mr. BUCHANAN,
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, claims had been sent to the Government; but the Government had not yet made any claim.

  EUROPEAN TURKEY—REPORTED IN- SURRECTIONARY DISTURBANCES IN MACEDONIA.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any, and, if so, what, information regarding the disturbances and insurrectionary movements recently reported from Macedonia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We have received information of acts of brigandage in the neighbourhood of the Greek Frontier, and in the Sandjak of Serres; but not of anything that could be called an insurrectionary movement.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—CAMP ALLOWANCE TO VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, If, having regard to all the circumstances, he can see his way to

  39
  grant some further camp allowance to the Volunteer Force than that notified, so as to prevent, as far as possible, any reduction in the number applying to go into camp for training?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The amount of camp allowance already authorized is in excess of the sum included in the Estimates, though overestimated numbers and failures to appear will probably equalize them. I cannot, therefore, authorize additional issues; but if at the end of the camping season a saving should appear in the item for camps in the Volunteer Vote, I will consider whether it could be divided proportionately among the corps which may earn more than the amount allotted to them. This was done in 1884, and resulted actually in all corps getting as much as they had earned.

  CUSTOMS HOUSE OFFICERS—HOURS OF ATTENDANCE.
  MR. FORREST FULTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is contemplated to increase the hours of Customs House officers, and to what extent; and, if so, whether they will receive any compensation for their increased attendance; and, whether it is a fact that, whilst the average attendance of officers in the Outdoor Department exceeds 10 hours daily, many of them are compelled to remain on duty for alternate periods of 24 hours?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I would ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press for an answer to his Question; I am not in a position to make any statement. Even if it be contemplated to make some change, he will feel that it is not to the advantage of the public interest that such matters should be made the subject of Question and answer in this House before they are completed.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—AS- SAULT ON POLICE SERGEANT O'SHEA, AT MACROOM.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that at the trial of Mr. Creedon, under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," at Macroom, for
  40
  an assault on a policeman named O'Shea, on the 8th of April last, no attempt was made by the prosecuting counsel to prove that the meeting out of which the said assault arose was an illegal and unlawful assembly; and, whether he will order an inquiry into the facts of this case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am advised that it was not necessary for the prosecuting counsel to prove the nature of the meeting. Creedon was tried not for taking part in an unlawful assembly, but for a cowardly and brutal attack on a police officer.
  DR. TANNER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not the fact that Creedon was struck first by this man O'Shea, and, that being the case, if he was not justified in striking O'shea; if the meeting was not an illegal one—in other words, if the meeting was not an illegal one, was the policeman justified in striking him first?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the hypothesis on which the hon. Gentleman founds his Question is an inaccurate one.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, has he seen the report in the Cork newspapers of this case, in which it is distinctly stated by evidence for the defence, and admitted in evidence for the prosecution, that in this case the policeman struck this man Creedon in the first instance, and that the apparent justification for so striking him was that the meeting was an illegal one?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not informed in reference to that.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already given an answer on the subject.
  DR. TANNER: Being an eye-witness of the occurrence, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman his authority for making the statement he has made in this case? I saw the assault committed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has asked for information, and I have given him the best information that I have at my command.
  DR. TANNER: Can he give me his authority? I am perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman is making the best statement that he can on the subject; but I, at the same time, would

  41
  wish to know his authority—if he is able, or not afraid, to give it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not the practice to name authorities.
  DR. TANNER: Are you afraid to give it?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—UNITED WESTMINSTER SCHOOLS CHARITY— SALE OF LANDS.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, as a Charity Commissioner, Whether the United Westminster Schools Charity has entered into any agreement to sell or lease the land belonging to the Charity in Victoria Street; and, whether such sale or lease has been approved by the Charity Commissioners?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Governors of the United Westminster Schools did, in December, 1883, with the sanction of the Charity Commissioners, enter into an agreement for the sale (at the price of £56,375) of a piece of land having a frontage to the south side of Victoria Street of 255 feet. The terms of the agreement were some-what altered in April, 1888, and the agreement so altered has just received the sanction of the Charity Commission. This is the only uncompleted transaction of which the Charity Commission have any information.

  ADMIRALTY—"A DANGER IN THE PACIFIC."
  MR. SETON-KARRasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he has seen a statement in The St. James's Gazette of the 9th instant headed A Danger in the Pacific, and in which attention is directed to the great disparity between the Russian and English Squadrons in those waters, and which, in the words of the article—
  "Is known in Singapore and Hong Kong, where they excite the gravest uneasiness, and in Russia, where they excite a corresponding degree of satisfaction;"
  and, what measures he proposes to take in order to raise the British Squadron to a strength sufficient to restore public confidence in those commercial centres?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The
  42
  article in question purports to give with great detail and authenticity the relative strength of the Russian and English Squadrons in that part of the Pacific which is comprised in the China. Station; and it draws from the statement so given certain conclusions that are affirmed to be endorsed by the great commercial ports of Singapore and Hong Kong. Both these statements and conclusions are equally fictitious. The article asserts the Russian Squadron to be at this moment composed of four ironclads and 10 cruisers, and that it is about to be re-inforced. The real strength of the Squadron is one ironclad and five cruisers, and this Squadron is far inferior both in numbers and strength to the British Naval Force on the China Station alone. There are two other English Squadrons in the Pacific, one at Esquimalt and another at Sydney, making a total of three Squadrons. It is needless to add that these facts are well known, both at Singapore and Hong Kong. Sir Richard Vesey Hamilton, the late Commander-in-Chief on the China Station, has recently returned to England, and he is satisfied with the adequacy of the force on that Station.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE—THE ISLAND OF ASCENSION.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the fact that the Island of Ascension is to be given up both as a Naval and a Health. Station, and the stores to be divided between Simonstown and Sierra Leone; when such arrangement is to be carried into effect; what measures the Government propose to adopt to prevent the Island, when thus abandoned, from falling into the hands of a Foreign Power; and, whether he will give the House an opportunity of considering the policy of such abandonment before it is carried out?
  THE FIRST LORD Of THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)(who replied) said: Ascension is to be abandoned as a Naval Station and Sanitarium, and this arrangement will be carried out as soon as the Naval Authorities at the Cape decide the Stations to which the stores are to be transferred. The Island will still remain a British Possession. The present course of action has been

  43
  strongly advocated by the Colonial Defence Committee, a Royal Commission, and many naval officers. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the abandonment of this Island he has the opportunities available to private Members of publicly protesting against it.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS—COMMITTEE ON THE "HYDERABAD DECCAN COM- PANY."
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government, in view of the interest taken in the proceedings of the "Hyderabad Deccan Company" Committee, and of the serious nature of the charges to be investigated, will take measures to enable parties interested to be heard by counsel before the Committee?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The question of allowing parties interested to appear by counsel before the Committee is one entirely for the Committee and the House of Commons, with which it would be unbecoming in the Government to interfere.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE WHEEL TAX—MARKET GARDENERS.
  MR. SMITH BARRYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether carts belonging to market gardeners, who are also nurserymen and florists, will be exempt from payment under the Wheel Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, if they are used solely for the conveyance of fruit grown on the land of the owners of the carts.

  WAR OFFICE—COMMITTEE ON EXPLOSIVES.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB (&c.)(for Lord CHARLES BERESFORD) (Marylebone, E.) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has nominated the promised Committee to experiment with shell charged with high explosives; and, if not, whether, having regard to the importance of the question, he will state to the House the reason the Committee has not been nominated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Members of the Committee on Explosives are—Sir Frederick Abel, F.R.S., Chemist to the War Department; Professor Dewar, F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and at the Royal Institution; and Dr. Dupré, F.R.S., Consulting Chemist to the Home Office on Explosives. They are, during the present week, making experiments with shell charged with high explosives.

  CROFTERS—COLONIZATION.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers in connection with the proposed scheme of emigration from the Highlands of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wands-worth (Mr. Kimber) last Monday, that the Government would be prepared to give all necessary information with reference to the scheme of emigration from the Highlands before the Vote for it is taken.
  DR. CLARKasked, whether this meant that the Government would spend the money and then come to the House for it; or would they have an opportunity of discussing the subject before the money was spent, and the people sent away?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I must ask my hon. Friend to give me Notice of that Question.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF RICHARD WALFORD AND HENRY HARDWICK —DOUBTFUL CONVICTIONS.
  MR. BERNARD COLERIDGEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were convicted in April, 1879, for shooting, and sentenced to 20 years' and 15 years' penal servitude respectively; whether he is aware that, in answer to an application on their behalf, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), on the 23rd of August, 1880, re-

  45
  fused to interfere with the sentences; whether he is aware that, after this refusal, two other persons then undergoing sentence for another crime confessed to having committed the crime for which Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were then undergoing punishment, and exculpated them from all complicity; whether he is aware that, in consequence of these confessions, Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were liberated from gaol on the 27th of February, 1883, after having undergone four years' penal servitude; whether he is aware that, on the 19th of March, 1883, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, promised that if further proof should be given of their innocence the question of granting them a free pardon should be considered; whether further proof on affidavit has since been given to the Home Office, confirming the confessions above mentioned, and exculpating Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick; whether he is aware that in 1885 arrangements were made by the Home Office for allowing the men to report themselves by letter, and why; and, whether he is prepared, under the circumstances, to grant Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick a free pardon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): My answer to the Questions of fact is in the affirmative, except that the two persons mentioned in the Question did not confess that they had committed the crime of which Walford and Hardwick were convicted. And that the affidavits recently sent to the Home Office did not contain any fresh evidence; but were the same as my Predecessor had considered in 1883. The privilege of reporting by letter is occasionally conferred on licence-holders, where the circumstances of the case justify any such concession. I am not prepared on these materials to depart from the decision of three of my Predecessors—that this is not a case in which the grant of a free pardon can be advised.
  In answer to a further Question,
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that in February, 1883, it was decided, as the case was surrounded with doubt, that the prisoners ought not to be punished any longer; but after consultation with
  46
  the Judge who tried them, and the Law Officers of the Crown, the Home Secretary declined to advise that they should be pardoned.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—DISTURB- ANCE IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the severe censure of Mr. Vaughan, at Bow Street Police Court on Wednesday the 9th, on the conduct of the police in refusing admission to certain persons at the police station on Saturday last, when they had attended to tender evidence in favour of persons charged with assault, and arrested in Trafalgar Square; and, if he will take steps to give the police magistrate's censure some practical effect?
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the conduct of the police in Trafalgar Square on Saturday last, and to their evidence in the Bow Street Police Court, at the trial of a Mr. Thompson, on Wednesday last, alleging that stones had been thrown in the Square on that occasion; and, whether he will direct the Chief Commissioner of Police to make a special inquiry into their conduct, which elicited severe comment from Mr. Vaughan, the magistrate at Bow Street?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The rule and the practice which ought, in my opinion, to be followed is to admit to the police station persons who apply for admission in order to testify in favour of an accused person. On some occasions this is impracticable, when crowds follow prisoners to a station. On the evidence before Mr. Vaughan I understand that he thought that the police were to blame for not having admitted certain witnesses who appeared in defence of Mr. Thompson. I have caused full inquiry to be made; and I am informed that these witnesses were kept back in the first instance as they were accompanied by a disorderly crowd pressing into the station, and when their application to be let in as witnesses was made at another part of the station premises the charges had already been taken. Mr. Vaughan informs

  47
  me that he discharged the defendant Thompson because upon the whole evidence he thought the blow given by him to a police constable was accidental and not wilful. I am not aware that he censured the conduct of the police in the Square or in the Court.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, whether one of the persons refused admittance was the mother of the boy, and whether she was ejected by the police with foul language?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no information to that effect. Mrs. Thompson and two men were kept back in the first instance. They then went round to the entrance in the station yard; but the Inspector told them the charge had already been taken.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist on an inquiry as to whether the woman Thompson was dismissed and called by a foul epithet by the policeman, she being a perfectly respectable woman?
  [No reply.]
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mrs. Thompson's poverty gives the police a right to call her by this foul name?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to institute such an inquiry that the public concerned may have some confidence in the proceedings?
  [No reply.]
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that not having had any answer to that Question he would put another—whether it was a part of the duties of the police to address foul and abusive language to unoffending persons?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question which stands in the name of the hon. Member.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have another Question to ask. It is whether, in view of the fact that some of us will be in Trafalgar Square to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman will state, for the guidance of ourselves and the police, whether we have not a right to circulate in Trafalgar Square?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! That again does not arise out of the Question on the Paper. If the hon. Member has an independent Question to ask, he must wait until the Questions are disposed of.
  Subsequently,
  MR. CONYBEAREinquired, whether the police had any authority to hustle persons when they stopped for a moment to speak to personal friends in Trafalgar Square; also, whether the police were authorized to interfere with persons who might be walking or standing in the Square, when no attempt to hold a public meeting was being made by anybody?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question to which he must be aware that the answer is obvious and can only be in one shape. If he merely puts the Question with the intention of throwing obloquy on the police, it can hardly be proper for me to answer it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have done nothing of the kind. I have asked the Question, as I have a perfect right to do, because what I referred to happened to myself. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the police have no authority, then I will ask whether he will permit me to lay evidence before him, and whether he will act upon that evidence, to prove that the police did hustle inoffensive persons, and did use insolent language to them? If the right hon. Gentleman says that the police have no such authority, I shall claim protection at his hands, and ask that the police, whose conduct has been reflected upon, shall be properly punished.
  [No reply.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADMISSION OF STRANGERS TO THIS HOUSE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is possible during the Whitsuntide Recess, to give effect to some, at any rate, of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Admission of strangers?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the Question of the hon. Member I have to say that the Speaker would

  49
  desire to be guided in the matter by the convenience of the House. The Speaker is aware of a difference of opinion as to accepting without further discussion all the decisions at which the Committee have arrived; but, pending the decision of the House, the Speaker is prepared to do this much—to throw the two Galleries, the Speaker's and Strangers', into one, thus gaining an additional row of seats, and providing admission to what would be henceforth one Gallery by the entrance in the Central Hall. All the other arrangements would go on as at present, till the House had come to a definite decision on the subject.

  IRELAND—RUMOURED ESTABLISH- MENT OF A CATHOLIC COLLEGE.
  MR. WADDY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him very short private Notice; and that is, whether he has seen in The Star and other evening newspapers a statement to the effect that the Government had decided on founding and endowing a Catholic College in Ireland; whether that statement is true; whether there have been any negotiations that could reasonably give rise to such a report; and what has been the tone of such negotiations, if any? It is right I should say that I regret that there has not been time to give longer Notice than I have been able to give; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that if the answer is in the negative the sooner it is given the better.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Gentleman gave me Notice of this Question a few minutes ago. I am sorry to say that I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the evening papers. There is no truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Government has decided to found or endow a Roman Catholic College in Ireland, and there have been no negotiations which could reasonably give rise to such a report.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: In answer to a Question of mine on Tuesday last, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury hinted that it might be necessary to take a Morning Sitting on Friday
  50
  next. In consequence of the rapid transaction of Public Business since that Question was answered, I suppose we may take it for granted that that idea is dropped?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I should be exceedingly glad that there should be no Sitting on Friday morning next; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is usually some time consumed on the Motion for Adjournment: and as Thursday is fully appropriated for other Business, unless the House is willing to adjourn without discussion on Thursday evening, it will be necessary to have a Morning Sitting. The Business on Monday, as I have stated, will be some Irish and other Bills. I am afraid it will be necessary to have a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, unless we can reach a Motion which it will be my duty to make with reference to the Imperial defences, and on which some discussion is likely to arise. I should regret exceedingly to deprive hon. and gallant Gentlemen on either side of the House of the opportunity of which, I understand, they wish to avail themselves of debating the proposal on which the Bill will be founded to provide for the Imperial defences. Unless that is reached by 10 o'clock on Monday evening it will involve a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. On Thursday it is intended to take the Employers' Liability Bill.
  In reply to Mr. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Committee on the Local Government Bill would not be taken before the Monday after the re-assembling of the House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) was on the Paper for Tuesday, which attracted deep interest among Members on that side of the House; and he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not defer his Resolution on Imperial defences until Thursday?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood there was a very strong desire that the Employers' Liability Bill should be read a second time before the Whitsuntide holidays; and if the Motion he proposed to make was put down for Thursday, he was afraid there was little

  51
  chance of an adequate discussion on the Employers' Liability Bill.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought he might appeal as to the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, as those near him had done their best, especially since Easter, to facilitate the despatch of Public Business. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Hear, hear!] He feared there would not be facilities sufficient to deal with the Bill on the eve of the Recess, as a number of his Friends had made arrangements to leave London before Thursday.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought that the desire to place the Bill in a secure position was greater than the contemplation of a holiday. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the arrangements which had been made. He should do his best to shorten the discussion prior to his Motion on Tuesday, and keep a House, so that adequate attention might be given to the subject. He wished to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member as to the conduct of the Opposition in facilitating Public Business.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: With regard to the question of the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, in the event of the Business not concluding at 10 o'clock, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has put Irish Business on the Paper for Monday which it will be wholly impossible to conclude by that hour? Might I, therefore, suggest to him that he should postpone the first Order—the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill—and then we might get on with the other Bill—the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill—and perhaps conclude the debate by 10 o'clock.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am exceedingly anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House; but I think it is better for the Government to adhere to the announcement that they have made.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYobserved that, as it appeared by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Morning Sitting on Tuesday was required, not for the advancement of the Employers' Liability Bill, or for the discussion of the Motion with regard to the National defences, but for the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  52
  of Ireland Bill, he would give Notice that when the measure was brought forward he would move the postponement of the debate.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there is also Irish Private Business fixed for Monday? The Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation Bill is fixed for that day, and it will necessarily involve considerable discussion. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would arrange with the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) to take that measure on some date after Whitsuntide, at a time when it would be more convenient to give the measure adequate time for discussion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am exceedingly obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion, and I will see what arrangement can be made.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  NEW MEMBER TAKING HIS SEAT.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BRADLAUGHin rising to move—
    "That, on a new Member presenting himself with his introducers below the Bar, at the time and under the conditions specified in the Standing Order 86, Mr. Speaker, unless the House otherwise resolve, shall forthwith call such Member to the Table for the purpose of taking his seat,"
    said, he desired to state expressly and without the slightest reserve that while in moving this Amendment it was necessary he should refer to and object, he did not complain of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Brand in his own case, or challenge that ruling as an honest interpretation of the law and practice of Parliament. He desired to acknowledge the great and generous courtesy which Mr. Speaker Brand had shown him at all times during the controversy, conducted at times during its five years' continuance under conditions of great tension. Standing Order 86, which was formerly Standing Order 62, provided that Members might

    53
    take and subscribe the Oath required by law at any time during the sitting of the House before the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion were entered on, or after they had been disposed of, but that the Business of the House was not to be interrupted for that purpose. That differed from the old practice set out in Hatsell, according to which, when the Member presented himself to take the Oath, the Business before the House was to cease and no other Business to be proceeded with until the Oath was taken. At a General Election no difficulty presented itself, because Members were sworn together in large numbers. It was when Members were elected at bye-elections, and the new Member with his introducers appeared at the Bar, that the difficulty with which he proposed to deal might arise. He did not desire to modify the conditions as to new Members presenting themselves or the time; what he did propose was that when the new Member with his two introducers presented himself in proper fashion at the Bar the Speaker should call upon him to fulfil the obligations imposed upon him by law. As a matter of fact there were only two cases, to one of which he did not intend to refer, in which the Speaker did not call upon the new Member to come to the Table to be sworn. But in 1884, in a suit tried at Bar, there was an information against himself, some of which was material for the purpose of this discussion. There was a count which involved the question whether he had been "disorderly" because he had come to the Table without having been called by the Speaker to come forward to take the Oath, and the Attorney General of that day, now the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), appeared against him. That right hon. and learned Gentleman presented the facts with the utmost accuracy, and there was no attempt whatever to strain any point to his prejudice. But, as appeared from one count of the information and the shorthand notes of the trial, the Court and jury were asked to find that the Statute had not been complied with because
    "He was not called upon by Mr. Speaker according to the usual practice of the House;"
    and the then Attorney General told the jury that when Mr. Speaker so called upon a Member
    54
    "The Speaker remains in the Chair, showing that he is willing that the taking of the Oath by the Member should be proceeded with;"
    and that, therefore,
    "First there will be a question whether the Speaker was in the Chair."
    It was proved that the Speaker had said to him (Mr. Bradlaugh)—
    "You have come to the Table without being called by me according to the Rules and Orders of the House,"
    That Attorney General frankly stated—
    "There is not the slightest doubt that the time Mr. Bradlaugh chose to come up would be the proper and regular time."
    He (Mr. Bradlaugh) argued against this that by
    "The mere omission of those words the Speaker might prevent everyone elected after a General Election from even taking his seat at all, and if it happened that a majority of the House were hostile to a particular Member or Members so elected, there would be no means whatever in Parliament itself of dealing with the decision of Mr. Speaker; and instead of the representation of a constituency being a matter dependent upon law, it would be a matter dependent upon the whim of the House, which sometimes is not wisely exercised, and upon the discretion of the Speaker, which, although I am sure whoever may be the Speaker, and whatever his politics, is always sought to be exercised consonant with the dignity of Parliament, is yet only the discretion of one man, which may seriously conflict with the law."
    The Lord Chief Justice, at the trial at Bar, said—
    "For some questions which you will have to determine, it is necessary to ascertain exactly what the Speaker's physical position was at the time this Oath was taken.…. It is said on the part of the Crown that inasmuch as the Speaker was standing, and inasmuch as Sir Erskine May says, when the Speaker is standing, he is in possession of the House, that Mr. Bradlaugh took the Oath, if he did take it, interrupting, if not debate, at any rate interrupting business, for the purpose of taking the Oath, and that, therefore, the 1866 Standing Order was broken. That is how the case is put on the part of the Crown as to the 1866 Standing Order. On the part of Mr. Bradlaugh, it is put that that cannot be the true meaning of it; that he had a perfect right to take the Oath; that he came to the Table to be sworn; that the business of swearing was the proper thing to be done; and that nobody had a right to interfere, and that anybody who interrupted his business was himself out of Order; that the business of swearing was to be done at the time, and that he was doing it, and that anyone who interrupted him in doing it was himself out of Order, and, therefore, that that Standing Order does not prevail against him. That is the argument Mr. Bradlaugh raises on those words;"

    55
    and the following three questions were left to and answered by the jury: First—
    "Was the Speaker in fact standing in front of the Chair, or sitting in the Chair, at the time when the defendant made and subscribed the Oath?"
    The answer is "Sitting" The next is—
    "If you think the Speaker was sitting in point of fact, then was he sitting for the purpose of preparing and correcting notes which he was about to use in addressing the defendant, or for any other purpose, and if for any other purpose, can you say for what purpose?"
    The jury answer—
    "Sitting for the purpose of preparing or correcting notes which he was about to address to the defendant."
    Thirdly—
    "Had the Speaker resumed his seat, and if he had, had he resumed it for the purpose of allowing the defendant to make and subscribe the Oath?"
    The jury answer, "No." Whilst he had argued against this as long as he could, and considered that such points were too trivial and undignified for decision by the Judges, when a grave principle was raised for judicial decision he hadn ever complained of the interpretation of the law which had then been given; but what he put to the House was this—that a Member elected at a bye-election ought to be in the same position as a Member elected at a General Election. He did not touch the authority of the House. There might be occasions when the House ought to make a special order with respect to some Member; but he thought it his duty to try to prevent any new Member from being put in the same position as he had been placed in himself. As the law now stood a new Member would be "disorderly" the moment he crossed the Bar if the Speaker did not call upon him. It was for the dignity of the House that there should not be a possibility of the difficulty which had arisen in his own case occurring again. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "on a new Member presenting himself with his introducers below the Bar, at the time and under the conditions specified in the Standing Order 86, Mr. Speaker, unless the House otherwise re-
    56
    solve, shall forthwith call such Member to the Table for the purpose of taking his seat,"—(Mr. Bradlaugh,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he assumed that the discussion of the Amendment would not occupy the attention of the House for any great length of time. He was not very confident that the matter submitted to it was quite understood by hon. Members. If he understood the position of the hon. Gentleman, it was this—that in a case in which he was concerned a proposition was submitted to a jury, and held to be correct, that the Speaker had the control of the Business of the House, and that, therefore, he could, if he thought right, exercise an arbitrary discretion as to whether he would call a Member at the Bar to the Table to be sworn or not. That was a legal proposition, but constitutionally the Speaker was bound to call a new Member appearing at the Bar to take his seat; and, supposing the Speaker said arbitrarily he would not call a new Member appearing at the Bar to take his seat, he would be acting unconstitutionally, and his position could not be maintained for a single moment. As he understood it, the hon. Member for Northampton wished the House to declare that it was not satisfied with the constitutional duty cast upon the Speaker, and he wished that there should be a hard-and-fast line of obligation which should bind the Speaker to call upon a new Member standing at the Bar to come and take his seat, and should not allow him to exercise his discretion.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that prior to 1886 there was a hard-and-fast duty on the Speaker; but the Standing Order made in pursuance of the Act of 1886 had not left that duty on the Chair.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that the constitutional duty nevertheless remained on the Speaker, who could not turn his head aside and say that a Member appearing at the Bar should not be allowed to come to the Table and take the Oath. But the real point which he wished to urge with regard to this Amendment was that it was a very dangerous one from the hon. Member's own

    57
    point of view, because it said that the Speaker should, unless the House otherwise resolved, call the new Member to the Table for the purpose of taking the Oath. The effect of this was that the Resolution invited the House to resolve whether a Member should or should not take his seat. The former contention of the Liberal Party had been that the House had no legal right to pass a Resolution interfering between a Member and his taking the Oath; but now the hon. Member for Northampton invited the House to resolve that a new Member could not come to the Table to be sworn if the House so resolved. He would ask the hon. Member to consider whether he was not, by his Amendment, endeavouring to establish a record of a right which had never been constitutionally exercised by the House?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he desired to point out to the hon. Member for Northampton that he would hardly attain the object which he had in view by the Motion which he had brought forward. He could not contradict this—that if this Amendment which he had now moved had been a Standing Order in the beginning of the Parliament in 1886, the hon. Member would not at that moment be sitting in his place.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that his Resolution only applied to Members elected at bye-elections; the question of Members elected at a General Election, who came to the Table uncalled and without introducers, did not arise.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not see what distinction there was between the two classes. The hon. Member suggested that the House should be given the right to resolve that a Member at the Bar should not be allowed to come to the Table and take the Oath. Had this Amendment been a Standing Order in 1886, certainly the Speaker could not have ruled out of Order a Motion made interposing between an hon. Member and his coming to the Table and taking the Oath. The position taken up by the present Speaker at that time had been that it was absolutely out of Order and impossible for the House to interpose between a Member coming to the Bar of the House and claiming to take the Oath, and his performance of that duty. But that ruling would have been rendered impossible under the wording of the hon.
    58
    Member's Resolution. For his own part, he could not quite make out what the hon. Member was driving at. The hon. Member seemed to imagine that it was in the power of the Speaker to refuse to call a Member to the Table of the House. But when the Speaker had refused to permit the hon. Member to take the Oath, it was in pursuance of a Resolution of the House.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that it had been proved at the trial that at that time there was no Resolution in force; the Resolution had been Sessional, and had expired with the Session. The proceedings in question had taken place 12 or 13 days after the beginning of a new Session, and there bad been no Resolution in force at that time.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was afraid they were getting on somewhat thorny ground which he would rather avoid; but the hon. Member had then claimed to affirm, and asserted his inability to take the Oath, and in consequence of that the House had passed a certain Resolution. He would ask, however, whether there was a single other case where the Speaker had ever refused to call a Member to the Table?
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that there was only one other case, that of Wilkes, where the question arose whether the Deputy was compellable to put the Oath to him, and that was put from the Chair and decided by the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the hon. Member whether he thought it worth while to occupy the time of the House on a Friday afternoon in order to guard against an occurrence which had only taken place in such an extremely complicated case? Did he think that was an object for which they should pass a Resolution which invited the House to be continually interposing to prevent hon. Members from coming from the Bar to the Table? He did not think the Motion was one which would improve the position of private Members.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he was glad he had been anticipated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) in pointing out to the hon. Member for Northampton that he could not effect any really useful object by putting his Amendment in writing on the records of the House. If agreed

    59
    to it would be merely an enunciation of what was accepted as the unwritten law. With the exception of what had taken place in the last Parliament, there was only one case in which such a question had ever arisen. As a matter of practice of Parliament, the Speaker invariably did call to the Table any new Member who presented himself at the Bar with his introducers at the proper time. He did not think that, in the circumstances, this proposed Amendment would have affected the question in 1886, if it had then been a Standing Order of the House. He certainly thought that the words "unless the House otherwise resolve" were necessary for the protection of the Speaker; and if the hon. Member was of opinion that there was any good purpose to be served by having this Resolution put on the Standing Orders of the House, Her Majesty's Government would have no objection. He did not, however, believe that it was anything more than a declaration of the unwritten law of the House, or that there was any necessity for the Resolution.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that he should certainly deem it to be his duty to press the Resolution, as he saw an advantage in it.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he considered that the hon. Member for Northampton was more justified than the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) seemed to think in asking the House to put this Amendment upon the record, even though the case might not have often arisen; because as long as so ingenious a Member as the noble Lord remained in that Assembly he could imagine that his hon. Friend must be anxious that every possible security should be taken against the repetition of the proceedings which had taken place in 1880. He joined with his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) in regretting that the hon. Member for Northampton had assented to the insertion of the words "unless the House otherwise resolve;" because he feared that the Resolution, with those words of limitation, would leave gentlemen in a worse position than they were in at the present moment. If his hon. Friend could see his way to removing those words, he would more willingly and cheerfully approve the passing of the
    60
    Resolution; but if the Government said that without those words they could not accept it, then, of course, he would rather have the Resolution with than without them. If, however, such words were now inserted, they would give a false impression of the true position of the right of an hon. Member on being returned to Parliament to come to the Table for the purpose of taking his seat.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he hoped the House would give the strongest opposition to this Motion; it was admitted to be absolutely unnecessary, and therefore ought not to be allowed a place among the Standing Orders. It required, however, a more full consideration before even this could be safely asserted; and in the absence of the Leader of the House and of those responsible for the Standing Orders of the House, he should certainly vote against the Resolution.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 152: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'on a new Member presenting himself with his introducers below the Bar, at the time and under the conditions specified in the Standing Order 86, Mr. Speaker, unless the House otherwise resolve, shall forthwith call such Member to the Table for the purpose of taking his seat,' be there added."
    SIR HENRY JAMES,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the words "unless the House otherwise resolve," said, if these words were maintained he feared they would undo all the work of the bulk of the Liberal Party from 1880 to 1885, as they would confer a right upon any Member to move that another Member should not take his seat. The position of the Liberal Party had been that such a power would be in opposition to the Constitutional rights of constituencies to return Members to the House. If they struck out the words there would be left a colourless Resolution, the passing or rejection of which was of no moment or importance.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "unless the House otherwise resolve."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment,"
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the Amendment just moved rightly showed what an awkward position the House had got into by doing what he ventured to say it never ought to do—namely, lightly and unreflectingly tamper with its Standing Orders. He wished, without discourtesy, to remonstrate with the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) on this point. The Government had put down Supply, and had told the House that Supply would be taken till 12 o'clock. The hon. Member for Northampton then moved his Resolution affecting the Standing Orders of the House; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James), who was one of the first authorities on this matter, objected, and asked the House not to agree to it. The Attorney General admitted that the Resolution was wholly unnecessary, but said he would agree to it, and the result was that the Government knocked down and destroyed their Own Motion for going into Supply. Such conduct on the part of the Government with regard to Supply was absolutely unprecedented. He should not have objected if the Motion carried had been a Motion calculated to increase the efficiency of the Orders of the House of Commons; but it was admitted by the Government that the Resolution was unnecessary. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to reconsider the position of the Government. He was certain that if the First Lord followed the argument which was put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he would see that the proposed alteration of the Standing Orders was not one which could be agreed to in a hurry and without mature reflection. It would be far better to negative the whole Resolution, and set up Supply again. He would make a very earnest and strong appeal to the First Lord to consider the suggestion he now made in the interests of the House of Commons.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he greatly regretted that urgent business compelled him to be absent from the House during the last few minutes, and that he had not had the advantage of listening to the debate. When he saw the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton he thought it better to communicate with
    62
    the Speaker and take his opinion upon it. The opinion which the Government entertained was that the Resolution was totally unnecessary; but, as the hon. Gentleman pressed it, and as the Speaker was of opinion, as he interpreted that opinion, that it was perfectly innocuous, he did not think it necessary to oppose the Resolution. The House had suffered great disadvantage from the absence of the Speaker from the debate. He did not think that the noble Lord was justified in reproaching him for his absence and for the course he thought it right to take. The desire which he had to put forward Public Business did not lead him to oppose any perfectly innocuous Motion when he was assured by high authority that it was innocuous and unnecessary. But he thought that it would be desirable that the question should not now be settled, and that they should reject the proposal and leave the hon. Member for Northampton to bring it forward at another opportunity. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: When?] His noble Friend the Member for South Paddington did not seem to be fully aware of the fact that a Motion on going into Committee of Supply was often accepted, and Supply, according to custom, was immediately set up again, so that it would be competent even if the House accepted the Resolution to set up Supply again. He trusted that for the present at least the House would not put the Resolution upon the Order Book.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that the change of mind on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers was the most extraordinary he had ever seen. It was only a few minutes since that the Attorney General assured the House that the Government Were prepared to assent to the Resolution as it stood.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. I stated distinctly on behalf of the Government that, in our opinion, the Resolution was unnecessary. It was not because we thought it necessary that we were prepared to assent to it, but for the reasons explained by the First Lord of the Treasury.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: But the hon. and learned Gentleman voted for the Motion.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Because I was not going back upon my statement.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would persist in that frame of mind. There was an extraordinary inconsistency in the position taken up by the noble Lord. The noble Lord and the First Lord of the Treasury said at one moment that the Resolution was harmless and innocuous.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say it was harmless or innocuous. I suggested rather the reverse; I pointed out that it might have mischievous consequences.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that diametrically opposite positions were taken up by Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General said that the Resolution was innocuous, and the noble Lord in his last speech said that it made a grave alteration in the Standing Orders. In his opinion, the Resolution would simply place on record what was the practice and custom of the House, only once broken in the last century and once in the Parliament of 1880, chiefly at the instance of the noble Lord himself. His right hon. and learned Friend had moved the omission of the words which he ventured to object to; and he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton would assent to the Amendment.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that he had listened to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury with considerable pain. Whatever difference of opinion he had had with hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, he thought that every arrangement entered into would be carried out by them to its full extent. He had now learned that an arrangement deliberately made one evening might be broken by the Government under pressure from the noble Lord. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for releasing him from his part of the arrangement. He was now free. The words proposed to be left out were not his. For two years this Resolution had stood upon the Paper without them. The Resolution had not been lightly and suddenly sprung upon the House. For four weeks it had been upon the Order Book in the place which it was entitled to occupy, and for two years it stood among the Procedure Rules. It was one of the very first matters which he submitted to
    64
    the authorities connected with the House when he knew that Procedure would come up for discussion. He did not want these words. He hailed with delight the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and if the First Lord had not broken the complete arrangement made on the previous night, he should have perhaps found himself bound to vote against his own words, holding himself honourably bound by the arrangement which he believed the Government would honourably fulfil. He had striven, in moving his Resolution, to avoid every memory, bitter as many of them were, connected with this struggle. He let fall no word that could imply the slightest sort of imputation upon any person directly or indirectly connected with it. He thanked the noble Lord for the honesty of his declaration, and he would like to see the Resolution rejected entirely. The noble Lord alleged that the Resolution was absolutely unnecessary. But this was clearly not true. If such a Resolution had been upon the Books it would have been needless for him to figure as disorderly before the world, and for the Attorney General to bring the three counts against him for the recovery of £1,500, nor could the three questions he had read have been left to the jury. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL was understood to dissent from something the hon. Member had said.] The noble Lord should hardly differ from him on a question of fact, for he had many reasons for recollecting what had occurred. The matter had nearly ruined him; on account of it he now stood deeply in debt; and it was to prevent others being placed in that position that he now moved this Resolution. He felt the generosity even of his foes during the period since he had taken his seat; and it could not be said that he had in any fashion presumed upon the indulgence the House had shown him. He regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury, having had time to consider this Resolution, should have allowed himself to be influenced by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington to go back from a distinct arrangement made last night. It was perfectly accurate that the right hon. and learned Member for Bury had in that House, as he himself had in the Law Courts, disputed the Constitutional right of the

    65
    House to interfere in any way between a Member who was returned and the seat to which he was entitled. Unfortunately for a Member who was struggling, there was no remedy for him against any decision of the House, for it was supreme within its own walls. Therefore, he sought to put on the Order Book a Resolution which would exempt new Members from the difficulty in which he found himself. In the interests of peace, he assented last night to the insertion of these words, because he had the desire to bury the memory of a painful struggle. He deeply regretted that Members on the other side should have felt it necessary to do anything which might seem to revive it. He should now go into the Lobby with the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, and he felt that fair-minded Members on both sides of the House ought to do the same. Whether the words were omitted or retained, the House would remain master of its own proceedings; but he had always contended, and he understood the Front Opposition Bench to contend in the last Parliament, that while there was no legal limit to the power of the House, there was a Constitutional limit to meddle with the free choice of a constituency, unless the person returned were legally disqualified from taking his seat.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, it was perfectly true he had said he would not advise Her Majesty's Government to assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton unless these words were inserted. He stated—and the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) would remember it—when he was appealed to across the Floor of the House before the first Division, that he should not assent to the Resolution, unless it contained these words. As the hon. Member for Northampton said he would now assent to these words being struck out, he must, of course, oppose that step. In this he was consistent from beginning to end. He must, on behalf of the Government, express their intention to reject the Resolution as now proposed by the hon. Member, because it was only on condition that the words proposed to be inserted should be adopted that he could possibly have given the proposition support.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether there could be a greater waste of time than had taken place on this occasion, and for this the Government was responsible? He might perhaps have hesitated about voting with his hon. Friend and Colleague; but, finding him supported by the Attorney General, of course he had no hesitation in the matter. The Attorney General admitted that he agreed that the Government should assent to the Motion if the words were inserted. It was now moved that they should be struck out; and if that Motion were not carried, he wanted to know what the Government were going to do? He had no particular objection to the Government stultifying itself in the face of the country—they knew what Dogberry wrote himself down, and he did not mind the Government doing the same; but they had a right to know before voting on the Amendment what the Government meant to do if it were carried, and also what they meant to do if it were rejected.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was sorry if the hon. Member for Northampton thought he had not acted with perfect fairness and straightforwardness. He thought he had spoken with clearness. He had stated that he thought it would be far better that the Motion should be withdrawn on this occasion. If the Amendment were carried, undoubtedly the Government would vote against the Resolution; if the words were retained, he was bound by the engagement he had made to vote for it.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given another flat contradiction to his Attorney General. Two things were clear—that the House had now got into a mess, and that this was owing to the Attorney General, who had said that whether the words were in or out he should be obliged to vote for the Resolution. ["No, no!"]
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I said nothing of the kind. I said that I could not consent to the Resolution passing if these words were struck out, but that I did not go back from the undertaking I had given if they were left in.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he trusted that the records which were being made by the "recording angels" would bear

    67
    out the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Most certainly they did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman in that sense on that side of the House. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) never remembered anything like the present mess. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) had hit an obvious blot when he proposed that these obnoxious words should not be left in the Resolution. The Resolution had been accepted by the House on the faith of the experience of the "high contracting" parties; but ought not this to be a warning to them all against making arrangements with the Government? He would not vote for the Resolution as it stood, because it asserted for the House a right which was never claimed until it was asserted by Sir Drummond Wolff's famous Motion—namely, to stop a new Member from going to the Table. The adoption of the Resolution, as it stood, would appear to confer on the House a right it had never possessed—it would surrender the immemorial right of an elected Member to come to the Table to be sworn.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he had voted for the Resolution, but the arguments had shown him that he had voted wrongly, for the Resolution as it stood asserted that the House had a right to stand between a man who was elected and the constituency who elected him, a proposition from which he entirely dissented. He trusted the Amendment would now be carried, as that was the only way to cure the evil.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'on a new Member presenting himself with his introducers below the bar, at the time and under the conditions specified in the Standing Order 86, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith call such Member to the Table for the purpose of taking his seat,' be there added."
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to know what course the Government were now going to pursue? After the arrangement which they had made with the hon. Member for Northampton, were they going to turn round and stultify themselves by voting against the Resolution, because, with their connivance, certain words had been removed from it? Not having disputed the Amendment of the right hon. and learned
    68
    Member for Bury, they surely could not intend to defeat the Resolution because that Amendment had been carried.
    MR. WADDYsaid, that when the right hon. and learned Member for Bury proposed that the words "unless the House otherwise resolve" should be struck out of the Resolution, the Government accepted the proposal at once. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] The hon. Member's memory was even shorter than usual—which was saying a great deal. The Government, having agreed to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, could not make that agreement a ground for breaking their engagement with the hon. Member for Northampton.
    MR. W. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have amused himself by making a speech on this occasion. [Cries of "Oh!" Hear, hear," and Mr. J. E. ELLIS: What impertinence!] The comment had reached him, but he thought it unworthy of answer.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: The hon. and learned Member had a perfect right to make a speech in this House.
    MR. W. H. SMITH(resuming) said, he had explained before the last Question was put that if the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury were agreed to, the Government must vote against the Resolution. The hon. Member for Northampton had claimed to be perfectly free to vote upon the Amendment as he might think fit, and consequently the Government had regained their freedom also. The words proposed to be omitted by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury having been struck out of the Resolution, the Government must vote against it.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that what he stated was, that if the Government adhered to their engagement, he felt bound to vote for the insertion of the words, but that, as he thought the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman released him from the engagement, he should support the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury, because the words objected to were introduced by him at the last moment on the understanding that the Government would accept the proposal if worded in that way.
    Question put.
    The House divided :—Ayes 152; Noes 180: Majority 28.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Joicey, J.

    Acland, A. H. D.

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

    Anderson, C. H.

    Asher, A.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Kilbride, D.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Labouchere, H.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Lalor, R.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Barran, J.

    Leahy, J.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Lefevre, rt. hn.G. J. S.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Lockwood, F.

    Bright, Jacob

    Lyell, L.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Brunner, J. T.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    M'Donald, P.

    Cameron, J. M.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Campbell, H.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Mahony, P.

    Carew, J. L.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Channing, F. A.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

    Childers, right hon. H.

    C. E.

    Menzies, R. S.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Colman, J. J.

    Montagu, S.

    Conway, M.

    Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Craig, J.

    Nolan, J.

    Crawford, W.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Crilly, D.

    O'Connor, A.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    O'Connor, J.

    Duff, R. W.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Ellis, J.

    O'Keeffe, F. A.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Palmer, Sir C. M.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Esslemont, P.

    Pease, A. E.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Pease, H. F.

    Fenwick, C.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Picton, J. A.

    Finucane, J.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Flower, C.

    Potter, T. B.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Foley, P. J.

    Power, R.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Price, T. P.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Priestley, B.

    Fry, T.

    Pugh, D.

    Gill, T. P.

    Randell, D.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Rathbone, W.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Graham, R. C.

    Roberts, J.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Gully, W. C.

    Robinson, T.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Roe, T.

    Harrington, E.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Harris, M.

    Rowlands, J.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Rowntree, J.

    Healy, M.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Healy, T. M.

    Samuelson, Sir B.

    Heneage, right hon. E.

    Shaw, T.

    Howell, G.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Hoyle, I.

    Simon, Sir J.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Illingworth, A.

    Stack, J.

    70

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Wallace, R.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Wayman, T.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Sullivan, D.

    Whitbread, S.

    Summers, W.

    Will, J. S.

    Sutherland, A.

    Williams, A. J.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Williamson, S.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Thomas, A.

    Wright, C.

    Thomas, D. A.

    TELLERS.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Waddy, S. D.

    Burt, T.

    NOES.

    Addison,.J. E. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Cross, H. S.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Allsopp, hon. P.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Darling, C. J.

    Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

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

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Duncombe, A.

    Baring, T. C.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Elliot, G. W.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Bazley-White, J.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M.E. Hicks

    Field, Admiral E.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Fielden, T.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Beckett, W.

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

    Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

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

    Gray, C. W.

    Green, Sir E.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Greene, E.

    Brooks, Sir W. C.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Grotrian, F. B.

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

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Burghley, Lord

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Caldwell, J.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Carmarthen, Marq. Of

    Heath, A. R.

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

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

    Hill, A. S.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Howard, J.

    Compton, F.

    Howorth, H. H.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Corbett, J.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    71

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Hulse, E. H.

    Norris, E. S.

    Hunt, F. S.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Powell, F. S.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Puleston, Sir J. H.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Rankin, J.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Richardson, T.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Kimber, H.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Round, J.

    Russell, T. W.

    Knowles, L.

    Salt, T.

    Lafone, A.

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

    Laurie, Colonel R. P.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Lea, T.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Legh, T. W.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Leighton, S.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Lewis, Sir C. E.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Stewart, M. J.

    Swetenham, E.

    Long, W. H.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Townsend, F.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Vincent, Col. C. E. H.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Webster, R. G.

    Mallock, R.

    Whitley, E.

    Maple, J. B.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Matthews, rt. hn. H.

    Wood, N.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Mayne, Admiral R. C.

    Wright, H. S.

    Moss, R.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    TELLERS.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Walrond, Col. W. H

    Amendment proposed, after the word, "That," in the original Question, to add the words, "this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN CATTLE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HOZIERsaid, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he wished
    72
    to point out that it was of the highest importance that experimental inquiry should be made into the characteristics of pleuro-pneumonia, for the ravages of the disease had been extending by leaps and bounds. In Scotland alone, the number of outbreaks in 1884 was 55; in 1885, there were 60; in 1886, 94, and in 1887 there were 339 outbreaks. He begged to call special attention to the striking increase between 1886 and 1887. The outbreaks were, of course, attended with great loss, which he thought might be fairly divided into three categories. First there was the loss to the ratepayers generally; and he ventured to remind hon. Members that the loss consequent upon this increase of the disease fell both upon occupiers and landlords, as both were rated equally for the compensation. In 1884, the compensation amounted to £5,581; in 1885, it was £10,391; in 1886, it was £15,131, and in 1687, the amount was £34,593. The House would, therefore, see that the loss to the ratepayers was something enormous. In the next place, there was the loss to the farmers, and especially to the dairy farmers, for whom, as well as for the ratepayers, he particularly spoke. In Lanarkshire they were engaged in supplying milk to the Glasgow market. Under recent regulations, the dairy farmer was not allowed to re-stock for 56 days; but even if he were allowed to re-stock at once an outbreak of disease was in many cases absolutely ruinous to him, because his customers, finding his supply cease, went elsewhere, and the trade which he had built up only by degrees was destroyed at one fell swoop. No amount of monetary compensation could make up for it. Thirdly, the loss fell upon the country at large, by the destruction of much of the best cattle and stock in the Kingdom. The Highland and Agricultural Society appointed a Committee last year, which, in the recently issued report, pointed out that there were certain questions which could not be definitely answered without practical experiments. These were the questions:—
    "(1) How pleuro-pneumonia is propagated, and how long it may remain latent. (2) How far the disease may be carried, and what may be considered an infected area. (3) Whether the infection can be resident in places such as cowhouses, trucks, boats, or pens which diseased animals have recently occupied. (4) At what stage of the disease it begins to be

    73
    infectious, and whether it can be detected before that period. (5) Whether inoculation gives permanent protection against the disease, or for how long it may be capable of doing so. (6) Whether an animal that has been inoculated can six weeks or more thereafter propagate the disease."
    Now, the Committee of the Highland and Agricultural Society, which was composed of very able and experienced men, quite as much so as is the Committee at the present time sitting, came to the conclusion that these questions could not be satisfactorily answered in the present state of knowledge without experiment. A deputation originally initiated by Lanarkshire, but in the end representative of almost every Local Authority in Scotland, waited upon Lord Cranbrook on the 19th of March to press these views. He received it most courteously, and gave a most satisfactory answer to the effect that the points upon which inquiry was proposed to take place had been set forth very clearly, that if an inquiry were constituted, as he hoped it soon would be, it would be upon a system which would, as far as possible, bring to light all the matters to which the deputation referred, and others which might arise for examination. It was gathered from those words that the inquiry was to be such as the deputation demanded, and they went away satisfied, taking it for granted that there would be a real series of practical experiments in inoculation, and also into all the characteristics of the disease; but, after some delay, a Committee, which was little more than a Departmental one, was appointed, and was so constituted as to be absolutely under the influence of official experts. He well knew the enormous value of expert opinion. He had the very highest respect for official experts; but he was a little doubtful as to whether his respect did not fall slightly short of the respect they had for themselves. He had an idea that when an official represented the collective wisdom of such an important body as the Committee of the Privy Council, he might get a little beyond himself. He considered him, although an omnipotent, not necessarily an omniscient being. Now, under the guidance of the official expert and other advisers of the Department, it had been decided that no experiments should be carried out by the
    74
    Committee. It was not easy to know clearly what was going on. As far as could be gathered from the meagre details supplied to the public, the Committee was chiefly employed in rethreshing the evidence which had already been threshed out by the Highland and Agricultural Society. He would be told that the Committee was not qualified to conduct experiments. But that was hardly a proof that the Committee was an eminently satisfactory one. Then he would, probably, be told that exhaustive experiments had been already conducted. He would like to ask when they were conducted; because he had a suspicion that it would be found that no real experiments had been carried out for 30 years? Moreover, to what extent had the experiments gone, and were they conclusive? Had they gone far enough to give definite knowledge of the value, whether great or little, of inoculation? Many foreign countries, and many of our own Colonies, were far in advance of us in knowledge on that point. In the Cape Colonies inoculation was almost universal, as also in Australia and Holland, where it had been found very beneficial. His own information respecting Queensland enabled him to say that no wise cattle owner there ever thought of sending a mob of cattle to the ports without having them inoculated. Further, and more especially, he asked whether the experiments had been sufficient to give us clear and definite information respecting the very nature and the very characteristics of the disease itself; did they suffice to give definite answers to the questions put forward by the Highland and Agricultural Society? To that he most emphatically and decidedly said "No." He had himself carefully looked into the matter, and he was strongly of opinion that no definite answers could be given to the questions put forward. For instance, he wished to know whether the experiments hitherto conducted enabled us to give any clear definition of what was meant by "contact." He would read the Slaughter Order of the 6th of March, 1888, which was in substance applicable to Ireland as well as England and Scotland. It was that—
    "1. A local authority shall cause all cattle being or having been in the same field, shed, or other place, or in the same herd, or otherwise

    75
    in contact with cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, to be slaughtered within ten days after the fact of their having been so in contact has been ascertained, or within such further period as the Privy Council may in any case direct. 2. A local authority shall cause all cattle which have been certified by an inspector of the Privy Council to have been in any way exposed to the infection of pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered within such period as the Privy Council may direct."
    It was to these two paragraphs that he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), who, in addition to his multifarious duties in connection with local government, had also the arduous task of solely representing the Agricultural Department in that House. That obligation could not have fallen into better hands, for he (Mr. Hozier) could truly say that no one in the House understood more about agriculture than his hon. Friend, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would except him, at an rate, from the charge he made that no one on the Treasury Bench knew the difference between a horse and a cow. He (Mr. Hozier) regarded his hon. Friend as peculiarly fitted to be at the head of the new Agricultural Department, which he earnestly trusted would be soon established. But high as was his opinion of his hon. Friend, he ventured to defy him to give a definite answer as to what was meant by the words, "otherwise in contact" or "in any way exposed to infection;" and yet it must be borne in mind that upon that word "contact" depended the whole working of the Act. A hundred Veterinary Inspectors were examined by the Highland and Agricultural Society, and they varied to an enormous extent in their opinions. Some declared that the animals must touch before they can be infected; others that infection could be communicated at a distance of from half a-mile to four miles. There was also the same divergence of opinion with regard to disinfection, how far it was necessary, and in what it consisted. And yet the slaughter order was administered by these very Veterinary Inspectors who held these diametrically opposed views. How could there be uniformity of administration if there was no uniformity of opinion. He was far from saying that
    76
    the present Committee of Inquiry was useless; on the contrary, he thought it might lead to several very desirable results, such as the rescinding of certain regulations which at present embarrassed the dairy farmer; for instance, he earnestly hoped that some arrangement might be come to by which they could keep their stock on condition that it did not leave the farms. That was one way in which the Committee might be of use. But the inquiry of the Committee did not go far enough or deep enough, and he could truly state that he echoed the minds of the dairy farmers in Scotland, when he said that in order to give real satisfaction to the agricultural community, it was absolutely indispensable that a series of exhaustive experiments should be instituted without delay to clear up points on which we were at present most lamentably in the dark.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he rose with much pleasure to second the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Hozier), because, like him, he felt deeply the National importance of this question, and because, perhaps, his hon. Friend and himself represented the county which was more than any other interested in cattle rearing. All the scientific investigation which had taken place simply led to two great practical points; what was to be done to prevent the disease called pleuro-pneumonia, and what was to be done when it had established itself amongst our cattle? He was very glad, indeed, that in deference to the wishes of the Deputation, which waited on the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council (Lord Cranbrook), this Committee had been appointed, and, although the Committee was a fairly representative one, the scope of the inquiry was not so wide as he should liked to have seen. They knew quite well what were the remedies for the disease among the farmers. They were strongly imbued with the idea that it should be stamped out at once, and that in this way a clean bill of health could be get for the country once more. And, it was well known that this bad been successful with the rinderpest which had threatened to exterminate horned cattle in this country, and they knew that the process, in order to be successful, must be applied, not par-

    77
    tially but universally, and he believed his hon. Friend would confirm the statement that £10,000 had been spent in Aberdeenshire, where the disease had nearly been exterminated, but had been unfortunately re-introduced from a neighbouring county. He should be sorry to think that any inquiry into the subject of inoculation should have the effect of preventing the stamping out process which they advocated; still he thought there ought to be elaborate experiments made in connection with inoculation, a process which they knew was very patiently endured by cattle, although sometimes the tail sloughed off, where the operation was not scientifically performed. He thought it would be well that in addition to the plan of stamping out, there should be some other form of remedy for this great pestilence. No one could deny the advisability of experiments being made. A Committee was appointed by the House to consider the experiments of Pasteur, and it was placed beyond the question that the method of Pasteur was successful. Mr. Rutherford, of Edinburgh, had inoculated cattle with great success, and inoculation had been carried on abroad with great success. He considered they ought to take the opportunity of the sitting of the present Committee to have certain experiments made with a view of finding out the scope and extent of inoculation, for there were many points in connection with the system upon which the information was not complete. What he said was:—"Continue to stamp out the disease vigorously, thoroughly, and universally—get rid of the disease if they could, and, perhaps the present plan might be successful, but, at the same time, let them have the proposed experiments, because, not only might they be scientifically interesting, but eventually be found to be practically useful."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Committee of Inquiry into Pleuro-pneumonia in Cattle will be satisfactory which is not specially empowered to conduct practical experiments, with the view of ascertaining the value of inoculation, and the characteristics of the disease."—(Mr. Hozier.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the Government would take the opportunity of testing the various modes by which they hoped to be able to get rid of that barbarous process of stamping out disease by means of the pole-axe. He did not think this could be done without exhaustive inquiries on the spot. He had been making inquiries as to the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, and as to the various views that were held by the authorities on the subject of inoculation. He found that there was a great consensus of opinion to the effect that if they could arrive at a means of preventing the spread of pleuro-pneumonia without having recourse to the pole-axe, it would be an immense benefit to the country. But he did not think this could be done without experiments, and he trusted the Government would see their way to spend a certain sum of money in making experiments. These experiments might cost £10,000 or £20,000 a-year for two or three years, but they would be well worth the trouble. If they were able to find an alternative to the pole-axe, they should be able to save far more in their flocks and herds than they would lose by the expenditure of money in the way he had indicated. He was fully alive to the importance of stamping out the disease, but he believed they would never get the people to second their efforts in stamping out the disease unless they felt quite sure that it was the only remedy which could be applied. Therefore, he was very anxious the people themselves should be taught by experiment—if there were no other remedies except stamping out—that that was the only remedy that could be adopted, and then they would co-operate with the authorities in endeavouring to reduce the disease within limits.
    MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Renfrewshire (Sir Alexander Campbell) had stated that the people would not co-operate with us in stamping out pleuro-pneumonia until they were satisfied that there was no other remedy than the pole-axe. But at the present time there was no other remedy. Inoculation had not yet been found to be useful, and in the meantime very great destruction was going on. Aberdeenshire had complied with the instructions

    79
    of the Privy Council by stamping out the disease, and the vigorous manner in which they had attacked it was the salvation of the county; but in consequence of a neighbouring county acting in a dilatory and less vigorous way upon the principle of trying milder remedies, one or two animals were brought into Aberdeenshire from outside, and the consequence was there had been a loss of something like £6,000. Unless they should have vigorous co-operation in the neighbouring counties they would have spent £10,000 in Aberdeenshire and have the disease brought in again by means of people who were trifling with inoculation. So far as he was aware, we had never imported pleuro-pneumonia; we were never free from it, and always had the disease either in Ireland, England, or Scotland; and, if that were so, we owed it to ourselves, and it was our duty to stamp it out. Stamping out, monstrous and destructive as it was, was the only remedy yet devised. The hon. Member who moved the Motion (Mr. Hozier) had somewhat thrown discredit on the present Committee; but he (Mr. Esslomont) thought the hon. Member should take the investigations of the Committee for what they were worth, and not throw discredit upon them. He hoped there would be co-operation throughout the whole of the United Kingdom in stamping out the disease without interfering with the scientific experiments, in which, he confessed, he had not so much faith as his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson). All past and present experience pointed to the fact that unless they acted together, and vigorously stamped out the disease, very great injury would be done.
    SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, that the debate hitherto had been carried on by hon. Gentlemen from Scotland, but he desired, as an English agriculturist Member, to say in a few words how heartily he was prepared to support the Motion now before the House. He thought it would be no less than absolutely discreditable if they should be told that this matter, recognized to be of vast importance to the agricultural interest, was to be left untouched, because they had no Agricultural Department, and because the proposed experiments would entail the expenditure of a certain amount of money. He
    80
    remembered the debates in the House upon rinderpest, and questions connected with the importation of foreign animals. He remembered that it was laid down by those opposed to the Party to which he belonged, that it was the desire and demand on the part of the agriculturists to enhance the price of meat. They were told over and over again that the restrictions against the importation of disease were nothing more than so many devices of the farmer, backed by the landed interest, to increase the price of meat. All subsequent experience had clearly and distinctly proved that those assertions were without any foundation whatever. The more strictly regulations were enforced, the more carefully they scrutinized every head of stock brought from abroad; the more money they spent in reasonable investigation, the more free they were from disease; the healthier were their stocks, the more numerous they became, the better it was for everyone. There was, no doubt, that pleuro-pneumonia stood on a very different footing from other diseases. It was a somewhat mysterious disease. The process of incubation was most protracted, it was almost impossible to detect in its earlier stages, and the way the disease was transmitted from animal to animal was still a matter on which there was great diversity of opinion, even among scientific men who had to deal with the subject. Everything pointed to this—that in the case of a matter so difficult to understand, there ought to be instituted a full and complete series of practical experiments in order to derive some benefit therefrom. The one experiment of the day was that of compulsory slaughter, and in the present state of veterinary science he was distinctly in favour of that remedy, and entirely objected to its abolition until it could be supplanted by something proved to be better. But far be it from him to say—indeed, it would be a miserable and weak position to take up—that because at present there was no other remedy, therefore they should do nothing but continue to slaughter, not only all animals diseased, but every animal which had been in the same herd with an infected animal. He contended that most distinctly it was the duty of the Government—in view of the fact that the disease spread

    81
    with great rapidity; that once having taken possession of a herd it went with certainty through the whole of the herd, and must entail of necessity considerable expenditure; and in view of all the difficulties which were dependent upon the infliction of compulsory slaughter, at present the only remedy—to agree to the present Motion. He thought the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was, perhaps, a little severe in his criticisim of the existing Order, for he (Sir Richard Paget) took it that the words to which the hon. Gentleman referred as not satisfactory were introduced with deliberation. There were 100 different ways which would readily occur to anyone in which the disease might spread. The words to which the hon. Member referred were introduced a long time since after much consideration. There was, no doubt, something indefinite and uncertain in the words as they stood, but he assured his hon. Friend that the words were put in on purpose, in order that they should be wide words and should include a number of eventualities which it was impossible to specify one by one. One hon. Member spoke of the Agricultural Department as a thing that was to be put off until next year. He (Sir Richard Paget) had not heard from the Government any intimation of that. Indeed, the only official intimation which had reached the House was that there was a Bill in course of preparation. He confessed it would be with feelings of utter dismay if he should hear that a measure so important, and which had been distinctly promised to the House, was now to be withdrawn without any further notice. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) pointed to the difficulty of getting uniformity of action when there was no uniformity of opinion. He (Sir Richard Paget) desired to remark that uniformity of action was, under present circumstances, more or less possible, because they had a Central Authority which could issue an order which should be compulsory upon all. But they were drifting into times when uniformity of action would become absolutely impossible. When they transferred to the newly-elected County Councils powers which were vested in a certain department of the State, when each one of those Councils would have power and be allowed to choose for
    82
    itself whether it would slaughter or not, they might come to a time when uniformity of action might be impossible. He hoped, at any rate, that in these matters, which were of the supremest importance to the agricultural interest, the Central Authority would take good care to keep in its hands such severe and drastic powers as it was now authorized to use, and did use with great advantage. It was well the House should recognize the gravity of this disease. They had got rid one by one of several of the diseases which harrassed the flocks and herds of the farmers. Rinderpest was stamped out with a determined foot by the help of the State. Foot and mouth disease had been dealt with; but only because people at last came to recognize that it did not come in the wind, but was a disease which could be stamped out. He spoke with some practical experience of this matter, having been largely mixed up in the dealings with foot and mouth disease in the West of England. In that district there were many people who thought the disease could not be got rid of; but it had been got rid of absolutely and entirely by stringent regulations. Those regulations were enforced, and were submitted to willingly, because the farmers were satisfied the authorities were acting to the best of their judgment, and that that judgment was a sound one—that the restrictions would have a permanent and satisfactory result. They had stamped out foot and mouth disease, and pleuro-pneumonia was a disease they must stamp out too. If there could be found by scientific experiment any means of dealing with it which could save them from the necessity, the brutal necessity, of absolutely destroying a whole herd, it was their duty to find them. If it were possible to find a remedy, that remedy ought to be found. It was not enough to say a remedy had not been found; they must find it. There was no way in which they could find it except by making full and satisfactory experiments. How was that to be done? By the action of the Government, who must not shrink from incurring the expenditure which would be necessary in the matter. They had a right to appeal to the Government to act in no uncertain way. He, however, knew the difficulty agriculturists experienced, and at least they should be assisted by the State

    83
    when they were doing all they could to hold their heads up in the present struggle. They said—"There is a reasonable remedy which you have it in your power to grant, and which we have a right to ask." He did not for a moment anticipate that the Government would refuse to agree to the present Amendment. He certainly trusted they would not, because he maintained that this was a matter of the greatest importance, and was not to be pooh-poohed and set aside on the ground that it was already being considered by the Committee. He desired to speak with every respect of the importance of that Committee. He had no doubt that their labours would prove of certain and distinct value, but he asked, what power had that Committee to spend a single halfpenny in experiments? They had no power to spend anything at all, and he believed the Agricultural Department was equally powerless. He trusted that the Government would assent to the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he hoped that this discussion would not have the effect of weakening the hands of the authorities in prosecuting the policy which they had resolved upon. He recollected very well that they had similar discussions to that in which they were now engaged at the time when rinderpest was ravaging the country. It was said then that the slaughtering process was very barbarous and unscientific, and that a much better remedy should be devised. While they were waiting to find out the remedy, the disease spread all over the country, and the loss was very enormous in proportion to what it might have been if active measures had been taken at once. The disease appeared almost at the earliest period of its existence in this country in Aberdeenshire. The farmers of that county resolved, after seeing what the nature of the disease was, that it ought to be stamped out. Hon. Members would, no doubt, be surprised to learn that a voluntary subscription of one penny in the pound of the rental did more than exterminate the disease in Aberdeenshire, and compensate the farmers who lost cattle to the extent of three-fourths of the loss. It might be a very interesting speculative question whether disease could be prevented by inoculation, but he thought he should
    84
    be able to satisfy the House that it was of very little value from a practical point of view. There was no doubt whatever that the Order in Council, if carried out, would have the effect, if not of exterminating this disease, of at least reducing it to a minimum. Suppose they had pleuro-pneumonia in the same position as foot and mouth disease was at the present moment—that was to say, that they did not know that it existed anywhere in the country, and pleuro-pneumonia appeared in one particular place, would anyone hesitate to say that the wise and proper course would be to slaughter the animals affected, and also those in contact with them? Pleuro-pneumonia did not spread nearly so much as foot and mouth disease. They had adopted a certain policy with regard to foot and mouth disease which had been successful. They did not think of trying experiments whether foot and mouth disease could be prevented by inoculation. He believed the severity of the disease might be lessened by inoculation; but they would not now think of trying to cure foot and mouth disease. It would be the same with pleuro-pneumonia. When they had pleuro-pneumonia exterminated, or reduced within a small compass, as he had no doubt would be the result of the operation of the Order in Council, it would be extreme folly to begin inoculation of cattle when disease broke out again. Inoculation of cattle might be very important where large herds of cattle were in an open country, and would have been here had they not resolved to slaughter all animals affected with the disease, because it might have been said they had discovered a scientific remedy, and it would be unnecessary to slaughter animals. But they had resolved to slaughter the herds affected, and it was a question of very secondary importance to farmers whether disease be prevented in future by inoculation or not, because clearly the soundest policy, if disease again appeared in a herd, was to slaughter the animals. This proposition with respect to disease depended upon the assumption that it was a disease which was not generated in this country, and he thought all the evidence was conclusive upon that point—contagious pleuro-pneumonia was not generated in this country, but had always been imported. Their hope was

    85
    that when the Order in Council had been carried out for a very short time the disease would cease to exist in the country, and then their only trouble would be to keep it out. Hon. Members seemed to think it would be a very easy matter to determine whether inoculation was or was not efficient; but practically it would be a very difficult question to test, and for various reasons intimately connected with the disease itself. He did not know whether hon. Members generally understood that by inoculation they did not produce the same disease that the animal died of. The disease from inoculation affected the mucous membranes of the animal, but it did not affect the lungs of the animal. Pleuro-pneumonia was a disease of the lungs, and inoculation did not affect the lungs at all. The presumption, therefore, was that inoculation would not prevent a disease which was not produced by inoculation. In the case of all other diseases where inoculation was resorted to, he understood the process produced the same disease, only in a milder form. The evidence before them was that inoculation did not produce pleuro-pneumonia, but something very different. Experiments had been going on in inoculation for very many years. In some parts of the Continent inoculation had been adopted, but in those parts of the Continent, where inoculation had been adopted, they were never free from pleuro-pneumonia, but had it to a greater or less extent. In other parts of the Continent the slaughtering of animals had been resorted to, and there the herds were kept free from the disease; therefore, so far, experience was against the system of inoculation. This disease was not what might be called of a very contagious character. So far as the evidence went, the disease had never been transmitted except from a live animal to another live animal. The disease ceased to be communicable as soon as the animal affected with the disease died. If a rigid system of isolation was maintained in the case of diseased herds, he thought comparatively few animals would beome infected. He knew of several cases where farmers, pursuing the policy of isolation—slaughtering any animal which was affected, and slaughtering any animal which might be unwell—had been able to get rid of the disease by slaughtering
    86
    a small proportion of their stock. If this system could be effectively adopted throughout the country, he thought it would be preferable to general slaughter. But it could not be adopted without such a close supervision as was impracticable. He, therefore, thought the only sound and wise policy was to slaughter all animals which were affected, and all those which had been really in contact with them. Of course, a great deal depended upon the definition of the word "contact." He should say that if animals were in the same shed they were in contact, but he did not think there would be any necessity to slaughter the animals in an adjoining shed. Experiments in inoculation were misleading. If a man had disease among his stock and slaughtered one or two which were considerably affected and one or two which appeared to be affected, and isolated all the other animals, he might probably get rid of the disease without inoculation at all; but, if he inoculated the animals, there was not, as the evidence showed, any great difference. Statistics of the results in one county had been submitted to him, and they were supposed to show greatly in favour of the system of inoculation. In some cases only the animals affected had been slaughtered, without inoculating the remainder; and in other cases animals affected had been slaughtered and the remaining stock had been inoculated. The percentage of subsequent losses in both cases was, curiously enough, practically the same, only six per cent of the animals in both cases had to be killed. It was extremely difficult to make practical experiments except upon a very large scale, and even then grave doubts might be entertained as to the evidence of the results. While he approved of the Committee making all inquiry and investigating into the nature of the disease, and into the question whether it could be inoculated or not, and what might be the result of inoculation, he maintained that, so far as the farmers themselves were concerned, it was not of much practical importance to them whether inoculation was a preventive or not, because certainly if disease was reduced to a minimum, as it would be by the slaughtering of all animals affected, it would be wise policy to slaughter animals in the few cases which might afterwards break out.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, as one who had had large experience of the ravages that pleuro-pneumonia wrought among herds of cattle, he agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) that until another remedy could be ascertained the only course was to apply the pole-axe indiscriminately. If the Government could see their way to give real assistance, in the shape of a grant of £10,000, for a number of successive years, he was convinced that something would be done, not only to stop the mischief that was now going on, but also to give them a thorough guide as to the future. Although the experiments would have to be made on a large scale, he believed it would pay the country to try them; and he was hopeful that the Government would see their way to deal with the matter in the way proposed. It was the duty of the Government to lead the way, and if they did so, he believed many private individuals would come forward and assist them. On the question of inoculation, he observed that the large majority of those who had thoroughly studied the scientific aspects of the case were, as far as he knew, of one mind. They did not see much use in inoculation. He hoped that the Government would come forward and give what assistance they could in this matter.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that up to the present—with the exception of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget)—the debate had been carried on by Scotch Members. He (Mr. Gray) desired to say, however, that English agriculturists were perhaps as much interested in the question as their Scotch friends, although it might not appear so from the course the debate had taken. In England they had suffered over and over again from the prevalence of this most disastrous disease. It seemed to him that they had rather got away from the subject-matter of the Amendment. The question before the House was whether they were to give certain Instructions to a Committee which had been formed for the purpose of inquiring into this matter. He considered that while that Committee was sitting they could hardly give their Instructions as to experiments in inoculation, or any other system. Although he thought it was probable his hon.
    88
    Friend the Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Hozier) would withdraw his Amendment, he hoped the debate would make an impression upon the Government. What they wanted were the sinews of war to carry on experiments. All other countries that he knew anything about, with the exception of England, generously and liberally gave money for carrying on important inquiries and experiments of this description. If they followed the example of other countries in this respect, he felt certain they should not only be benefiting agriculturists but benefiting the community at large.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, he could assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government had been very much impressed with the debate; and he had no hesitation in saying that the very interesting statements which had been made would have their due effect on the Government and on the Committee. The Government, however, could not undertake to accept a Resolution couched in the terms proposed by the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Hozier). The Resolution, if adopted, would be practically a vote of condemnation on the Committee which was at that moment earnestly and carefully inquiring into the best means of dealing with pleuro-pneumonia. Speakers in different parts of the House had advocated inoculation; the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) however, had very wisely directed attention to the fact that it was by no means certain that great advantages would accrue from any wholesale adoption of the system of inoculation. His hon. Friend who moved the Resolution quoted certain evidence in favour of the adoption of inoculation. He quoted the case of Australia and Holland, and the evidence given by the Highland Society. What were the facts? The information he (Mr. Long) had received on the point was to the effect that Australia, which had always adopted a system of inoculation, had always, at the same time, suffered from this disease. He had every reason to believe that the evidence of the Highland Society was, in the strictest sense of the word, extremely contradictory on the question of inoculation. Holland for many years

    89
    adopted inoculation; but for the last four years Holland had given up that system, and had adopted compulsory slaughter, with the result that the country was free from the disease at this moment. Surely these facts were enough to warrant them in saying that the evidence quoted in support of inoculation was not sufficiently convincing to justify them in adopting a Resolution which would undoubtedly be a vote of censure on the Committee. His hon. Friend had stated that the Committee was under the sway of Professor Brown. No doubt Professor Brown had considerable influence on the Committee, but he very much doubted whether his hon. Friend had rightly described his position on the Committee. The names of the members of the Committee showed that it was one that would not be unduly influenced by Professor Brown or any expert. Whatever might be the conclusion at which the Committee now sitting might arrive, it would be the honest outcome of the evidence given to it. They would, he had no doubt, give their best energies and abilities to elucidate the important questions they had been called upon to decide. But, with reference to this proposal of experiments, every hon. Member who had spoken had dwelt upon the importance of the disease being promptly dealt with, and the Government had been told that they ought to expend whatever money was required in order that the question might be properly and effectually dealt with. He had no hesitation in saying that if that was their desire, they could do nothing more calculated to postpone the accomplishment of that desire than to adopt this Resolution. It was only common sense to say that if they were going to initiate a system of Government experiments to ascertain the result of a certain scientific process upon animals with reference to a particular disease, it would be impossible to form an opinion which would be reliable from a few isolated instances. They would have to collect a large number of instances, and carry on the experiments for a considerable time, before they could arrive at an opinion that would be in the slightest degree trustworthy. Therefore, he did not believe the adoption of the Motion would attain the object hon. Members had at heart. The Committee had been referred to, and an apprehension expressed that
    90
    their inquiry would not be so exhaustive and valuable as it ought to be, and that they had no power to spend money. It was the case that they had no power to spend money, but they would agree that a Committee such as that now sitting in London was not one to which should be entrusted either a carrying out of those experiments or the spending of money on such experiments. It would be extremely difficult to appoint a Committee which should be a really powerful and practical one, and which should also be called upon to carry on experiments under their own supervision. For instance, how could the present Committee, with the heavy labours now entailed upon them, superintend in any part of the country experiments on a sufficiently large scale to enable benefit to be derived from them? The Committee were at this moment taking evidence on this question of experiments, and so far from the experiments being so old as to be worthless, they hoped to take the evidence of a distinguished scientific man from Holland who had had experience of the system of inoculation practised there, and who would not only speak to those experiments, but of their results. The Committee hoped to complete the evidence about Whitsuntide. The Government heartily sympathized with what had been said about the burden on the ratepayer from the charges for compensation, and about the loss to the agriculturists, and would willingly do anything they could to relieve the ratepayers, and would consider whether they could in any way strengthen the evidence proposed to be taken by the Committee. But, on the part of the Government, he could not accept the Resolution, which would practically be a condemnation of the Committee now sitting. One of the objects of the Committee being to report on the experiments in inoculation, hon. Members would agree that when the Committee had reported then this House and all interested in the question would be in a stronger and better position to approach its consideration. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would be content with the very able and practical discussion which had taken place, and with the assurance that the Government would do their utmost in this, as in other matters, to safeguard the interests of the agricultural community; and if the

    91
    Committee reported in favour of the experiments being carried out, their Report and proposals would receive the most careful attention of the Government.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till Monday neat.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) Electors (103).
Second Reading—Glebe Lands * (100).
Committee—Church Discipline (87–108).
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * (95), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education (Birmingham) * (101); Elementary Education (London) * (102); Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.) * (104); Metropolis (Whitechapel and Lime-house) * (105).

THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, seeing the illustrious Duke the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief (the Duke of Cambridge) in his place, I take the liberty of putting a Question to him with respect to a paragraph, or rather
  2
  an article, which appears in to-day's Daily Telegraph. The article is evidently intended to be very sensational. It is headed, in large letters, England in Danger, Our Army without Arms, Worst Guns in the World; and then it goes on to say—
  "We have to state on the highest military authority that the subjoined facts are indisputable, and it is, therefore, a matter of supreme importance for Ministers, discarding all less important business, to devote their earnest attention to the statements which follow."
  My Lords, I have always understood that the highest military authority in this country is the Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary of State's responsibility is complete; but the Commander-in-Chief is the responsible adviser of the Secretary of State in all military matters, aided by his staff; and if he is not the highest military authority in this country, I do not know who is. Now, I cannot read the whole of the article to your Lordships because it would take up too much of your time; but I must, in

  3
  order to enable the Commander-in-Chief to answer the article satisfactorily, mention one or two of its most salient statements. The article then proceeds to say—
  "Owing to the deplorable neglect of Parliament and the mischievous system adopted by successive Ministries in deliberately hiding the truth from the people, it has at last to be sorrowfully acknowledged that we are wholly unprepared for war, if not, indeed, at the mercy of any European enemy, unless immediate and energetic steps are taken to put the kingdom and the Empire into a state of security. The strength of our Army is insufficient; more men are instantly required. If the, men were enlisted to-morrow, barrack accommodation for them does not exist. The country is in the shameful position of having many of its artillery batteries in possession of the worst guns served out to any army of the present day. In the service it is true that we possess a gun which is unsurpassed, but we have no means of manufacturing this arm except after much delay. We are said to have the best magazine rifle which has yet been invented, but up to the present moment not one single regiment in the Army is provided with this weapon. Army stores are lamentably insufficient. … At this moment there is not, it is authoritatively stated, in any one of our land fortresses, from Portland Bill to the Tweed, a modern breech-loading gun. The latest type actually in use is the seven-inch Armstrong. The guns served out to the Volunteers are obsolete; the armaments of the forts are obsolete; the piles of shot and shell at Woolwich are for the most part obsolete."
  I do not, my Lords, propose to make any comment on these statements. These allegations are most serious. At this moment the country takes great interest in the question of the national defences; and I have thought it my duty to take the earliest occasion of giving the illustrious Duke an opportunity of expressing in this House, the only way in which he can do so, his opinion on these subjects. I venture, therefore, to ask him whether, as stated in this newspaper, these facts are indisputable, and what foundation, if any, there is for these very serious allegations.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I rejoice that my noble Friend the noble Viscount has put to me this Question. I do not suppose that anyone in this House, or anyone out of it, could have been more astonished than I was this morning when, on opening The Daily Telegraph, I observed this extraordinary sensational article; and I asked myself whether anything could possibly have emanated from me to call for anything so extraordinary and so sensational. I
  4
  can only say that I have reason to believe that "the highest Military Authority," which I admit that, up to this moment, I believed I was, is intended for somebody else. Well, of course, on that I can give no opinion; but, so far as I am concerned, I can hardly suppose that anyone should have imagined that this article could have been ascribed to me or that such sensational remarks should have appeared on so important a subject. The question referred to in that article has been a good deal before the public; and I have given very decided evidence, no doubt, before a Committee in "another place" on the general condition of things connected with the Army. To those statements I adhere; but I do not believe that my noble Friend or any of your Lordships will expect me to go into any details of that sort at the present time. I will only say that the circumstances are such that these questions are well worthy of the fullest and most anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government and of this House and of the country. But as to probable danger, imminent danger, or anything of that sort, I, for my part, cannot be a party to any such words. But I believe that Her Majesty's Government are as fully alive as I am to the present condition of things. I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Members of the Cabinet are considering all the evidence which has been brought before the various Committees now sitting; and I have no doubt that the result will be such as will at the same time be satisfactory to the country and agreeable to those who, like myself, take a warm interest in the naval and military position of the country. I cannot for one moment deny that this is a very grave and important matter; but I certainly have had nothing whatever to do with the sensational article which has appeared to-day, and I absolutely and entirely repudiate it.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships must have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the illustrious Duke and his opinions on this important question. I can only say that I am glad to find that "the highest Military Authority" is not the illustrious Duke,

  5
  as I should have imagined it was, but some lower Military Authority who has furnished this very startling and inexplicable statement. I do not wish to pass from this subject without entering a protest against the impression which seems to prevail that because Her Majesty's Government do not talk on this matter, because they do not make public speeches or show their feelings, that, therefore, deep anxiety and vigilance are not directed to this question. It has been, and is still, the subject of our anxious thought; but, owing to the very nature of the subject, we cannot do otherwise than practise the utmost reticence and reserve with respect to it. If such things existed as Secret Committees, I should have no objection to lay before such a Committee everything we know and do on the subject; but Secret Committees are not in our habit; and everybody must see that nothing would be more insane than to explain to all the world what our strength or what our weakness was, what the nature of the precautions were which we were taking, and what the subjects were as to which we were directing our vigilance and our care. It would be absolutely not only insane, but treacherous, if we were to commit such matters as these to a publicity which does not include merely our own subjects, but which must extend to all the nations of the world. I therefore rise to say just these few words as a protest against the tones of panic which prevail and the language which is used, as though the Government were passing by all these matters in utter apathy, which, in the present state of the world, would be a flagrant dereliction of their duty. But though it is satisfactory to think we are increasing our precautions, I would commend to your Lordships the following rough figures as to our action in recent years. I will take them so as to cover several years, so that there should be no question of Party in the matter. I wish to make no distinction between ourselves and the noble Lords opposite, but only to show that there has been a considerable increase of preparation in this country. I find that if your Lordships compare 1884 and 1888 it will be found that the number of men of all forces that were under the colours were 181,817 in 1884 and 212,241 in 1888—a very large increase, much larger than some of the
  6
  increases which at that time were demanded even by the most alarmed persons. And in the same way with regard to the expenditure on the Navy. I have here a comparison of the money devoted to shipbuilding and armaments. In 1883–4 there was an expenditure of £4,445,000; in 1887–8 the sum was £6,611,000. Now I do not quote expenditure as in itself a thing that is admirable, but I am merely showing that there is no ground whatever for the implied reproach of parsimony and that we are neglecting the defences of the country. I merely wish to make that one protest and observation. But before I sit down I feel that I cannot avoid taking advantage of the opportunity to enter a protest against another practice. That is, the practice of those who are, or ought to be, distinguished authorities upon military affairs making statements against the Government under whom they serve, and making them in a place where they cannot be answered. I have here the report of a speech—apparently an authorized speech—made by a Member of this House, the Adjutant General of the Army. I read in that speech these words—
  "The answer to the question why the Army and the Navy are not as strong as they ought to be is to be found in the system of our Government by party—that curse of modern England which is sapping and undermining the foundations of our country, which is depriving our statesmen of the manly honesty which was once their characteristic. What do we see when any new Administration comes into office?"
  Remember, we were the last Administration which came into Office.
  "What directly takes place? It is the same with all Parties. The first thing is the endeavour made by the Minister in Office to obtain some claptrap reputation by cutting down the expenses of the Army and Navy."
  That is the comment of the Adjutant General on the conduct of the Secretary of State for War. The next thing he says is this—
  "This is the result of what? The result of a low and vicious standard of morality which is now uppermost in men's minds. In speaking so light-heartedly he forgets, in his pride of having reduced the Estimates, the fault he has committed, the crime he is guilty of against the country."
  My Lords, I am not going to answer these comments. They relate to matters of whose existence I am ignorant; but what I do earnestly protest against is

  7
  that panic producing speeches should be made at public dinners by public men. The Adjutant-General is a Member of this House. If he thinks his duty forces him to make such statements as these, let him come down here and make them, and we will answer them. What would be thought of any man in the Army lower in rank than the Adjutant-General who wrote to the newspapers in the tone of the Adjutant-General? What is to be thought of the Adjutant-General who speaks in that tone of the Government? If the Adjutant-General thinks it worth his while, we have our case; we have something to say for ourselves; we can defend ourselves if we are attacked. But the attack is made where we cannot defend ourselves instead of here, the Forum which is open to him—your Lordships' House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTORS BILL.

  BROUGHT FROM THE COMMONS.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 103.)
  LORD BALFOURgave Notice that he proposed to fix the second reading for Monday.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, that by this Bill, for the first time, persons who held property on which the rates were to be levied, would not have the opportunity of deciding who should cause those rates to be levied. He thought some opportunity should be given to their Lordships to consider Amendments to this Bill, and therefore he hoped the noble Lord would be able to allow some time to elapse so that Amendments might be placed on the Paper.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)said, there was a difficulty in the way of his noble Friend's proposal, because if this Bill did not come into operation early in June he was afraid the year would be lost. If the noble Lord would put his Amendments on the Paper on Monday, the Government would be able consider them on Tuesday.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he might point out that Monday was fixed for the Committee stage of the Scotch University Bill, which would certainly take the whole of that sitting. He was only expressing the wish of a number of
  8
  Peers interested in Scotch business when he asked to be told whether that Bill was coming on on Monday or not. It still remained on the Paper, but none or only one of the Amendments was printed, and he could not conceive that it was the intention of the Secretary for Scotland to proceed with it on Monday. Great public convenience would result if their Lordships were told what was to be done, and it would have been a still better public convenience if they had been told earlier.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the Secretary for Scotland was not in his place at present; but he had seen his noble Friend a short time ago, and was told that he had abandoned the idea of taking the Committee stage of the Scotch University Bill on Monday. In all probability it would not come on before the Whitsuntide Recess.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsuggested that perhaps if the Secretary for Scotland attended their Lordships' House that afternoon, he would so far inconvenience himself as to make some public announcement.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to go into Committee on Tuesday if the Bill passed the second reading on Monday?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was the wish of the Government unless there was any important Amendment.
  Bill to be read 2a on Monday next.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.—(No. 83.)

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment), read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, said, he desired to make a short statement as to the changes made in the measure. In the first place, the Bill was now strictly limited to the neglect of duty and offences against morality. Whatever appeared, even indirectly, to go beyond those matters had been struck out of the Bill. The second change which had been made in its provisions was the omission of the one which re-

  9
  quired the presence of the Bishop and his assessors in a Court which was to try the matter of fact whether the moral offence charged had been committed. The sentencing in the graver cases was still reserved to the Bishop. The third change was that the function of the Commissioners, now called assessors, would be limited to trying questions of fact. It had been objected to the original measure that it would entail the disadvantages of having two additional trials; but he could not understand how the procedure laid down by the Bill could have been so greatly misinterpreted. It had provided that there should be an appeal to the Provincial Court and again to the Judicial Committee on the sentence and on points of law, but not on the verdict on the facts. The appeal against "sentence," which could only mean appeal against amount of punishment, had been misinterpreted, as if it meant appeal against verdict. There could not have been any such thing under the Bill as two trials of question of fact. It would be for the Court, not for the Bishop, to grant a re-hearing on special prescribed grounds only. But one rehearing of facts by the same Court would be preserved, if, for example, new evidence were produced. By the adoption of the system of assessors they at once secured any advantage of the old commission of inquiry, saved expense, and got rid of other objections. The reduction in the expense would be a substantial one, seeing that the witnesses would be examined on the spot, and only once. The cost of appeal upon questions of fact, which was the great source of expense under the present system, would no longer have to be incurred by either party. He knew of one recent case in which the cost of the trial had been about £300, and the cost of the appeal was thrice that sum. Moreover, when a case was sent, as now, direct to the provincial Court, it involved the discrimination of facts, and not of law only, by the single man. Decisions of fact by one mind, however capable, were unsatisfactory, and were increasingly felt to be so. Nevertheless, if both parties consented, there could be no objection to a case going to the provincial Court, and this was accordingly left possible. The expenses of a hearing under this Bill could scarcely exceed those of the present commission alone. Again, the Bill provided
  10
  for a scale of costs, and yet again for the taxation of costs. On the whole, therefore, the costs entailed by the proposed procedure under the Bill would be far less than they were under the existing system. He begged to move that the Bill be re-committed.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD COLERIDGE,in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months, said, he did not know that it was necessary for him to apologize to the House for having taken in this case a step which he had never before taken during the 15 years he had had the honour of having a seat in that House, and he should not have taken the step of moving the rejection of this measure unless he thought that the Bill involved a most objectionable and mischievous principle, which was not only objectionable in theory but was bad in the interests of order, of justice, and of religion. He did not deny that there were many things in the present Church Discipline Act that ought to be amended, and any proposal to amend them in the right way would meet with his hearty concurrence. The objection he felt to this Bill was that it exempted particular classes of persons from the ordinary operation of the law. In former days, no doubt, the supremacy of the Crown was maintained and defended by ecclesiastics as part of the attributes of the Sovereign. In the days of the Tudor and Stuart Monarchs ecclesiastics were much in the habit of defending and justifying the most execrable tyranny in the name of religion and of "making gods of Kings." That kind of supremacy had disappeared, and in its place was now recognized the supremacy of the State and of Parliament. The law of the Church was the law of the land; but under the Bill, if it became law, no offender against that law, however extreme and grave the offence he had committed—whether adultery, drunkenness, or profligacy—could be brought to justice unless the Bishop thought that he ought. According to the Bill, after persons had been brought to justice and sentence had been pronounced by the Court, it rested with the Bishop whether or not that sentence could be carried

  11
  into effect. What would be thought if corruption among lawyers was to be punished by an Act which should enable any Judge upon the Bench to shield from the operation of the law any practitioner who was made the subject of attack? Yet that was practically what was done by this Bill as regarded the Church. It might be said that persons in the condition of Bishops might be trusted to exercise properly the power entrusted to them. But Bishops, like other classes of men, were not exempt from human failings. He might say that he knew of one case where, if this Bill had been law, no proceedings whatever would have been taken against a person who dared not face the horrible charges brought against him. It should be remembered that this Bill was directed against moral offences only; but to exempt any class of persons from the consequences of their crimes was to violate the first principles of justice. It was undoubted that questions of doctrine and ritual were the most important to the Church at the present time, and the greater part of the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts consisted of that class of cases. Why were those questions not brought within the Bill? Was it that the present procedure with respect to doctrine and ritual was satisfactory? He could not think so; but if it were satisfactory, why change the tribunal in respect of morals? If it were not satisfactory in the case of morals, why should not the change also be made in regard to I doctrine? He could state a few facts from which everyone might form his own judgment. A great number of suits had been instituted on points of doctrine and ritual. The expenses of those suits had been enormous. In one case the expenses on one side alone amounted to £3,000. The judgments were, in many cases, unsatisfactory, and, moreover, they were evaded often-times upon pleas which were purely technical, which sufficed to prevent the operation of the law in a particular instance, but which settled nothing for a the future. A good deal of dissatisfaction arose as to the state of the Law of Church Discipline, and especially as to the composition and conduct of the Court. It was the practice of that Court that no member of it ever attended unless he was summoned, and no mem-
  12
  ber was ever summoned unless he was selected by the Lord Chancellor of the day, or occasionally by the Lord President. In one instance a Judge was excluded from interfering in a particular case by the special interference of a particular Lord Chancellor. He was told that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) when President of the Council, gave directions that when any question of ecclesiastical interest arose, all the Judges should be regularly summoned by the Registrar; but so inveterate was the habit of interference that in a famous case the Lord Chancellor intimated to Sir Alexander Cockburn and himself that he could do without them and that they had better stay in their Courts. Such things were manifestly wrong. No Court ought to be so constituted that the members of it had not the absolute right to attend the deliberations and the hearings of suits, and certainly no Court should be constituted so that it could possibly be said that the Executive Government interfered with its action. He recollected it being said that it was an intrusion on the liberties of the Church that these Courts should sit and act by the authority of the State. In that House, however, he need hardly point out that such a contention was groundless. In this country no tribunal could ever profess to affect the property or position of a subject except under the authority of Parliament. No one could read the Statute Book without seeing Statute after Statute dealing with these Ecclesiastical Courts, and especially the two great Courts now represented, one absolutely, and the other, to some extent, by the Privy Council. It was clear, therefore, that those two Courts were Courts of absolutely statutory creation. Then the High Commission Court, which was the strongest ecclesiastical tribunal which ever existed in this country, was created, and afterwards abolished, without the smallest reference to Convocation or to the clergy in any shape or form. It was reserved for the Public Worship Regulation Bill and for a decision of their Lordships' House to clothe the Bishops of the Church of England with a power of interfering with the process of the law. He did not wish to go into the details of the clauses, but had noticed the general objections to the Bill—the confusion which it presented of the functions of Judge

  13
  and jury or assessors, and the powers given to the Bishop. These were matters which must be discussed in Committee if the Bill went into Committee. There was, however, one question upon which he would like to say a few strong words. Unless he had misunderstood, there was, save in the particular circumstances referred to in the 7th section, absolutely no appeal whatever in matters of fact. He trusted that the House would not pass a Bill which contained a principle so alien from the present law, so perilous and unjust to persons whose characters and reputations might be vitally affected. He remembered an appeal from a judgment which, if this Bill had been law, would have been final, in which the most telling argument for the appellant was the reading of the judgment appealed from, so wrong-headed, absurd, and monstrous was that judgment. To leave the Bill as it was in this respect would make it a most unjust and oppressive measure. If he had said a word disrespectful or improper of those from whom it was his painful duty to differ, he asked their pardon. He stood there for law against personal will, and wished to see the clergy made, like other subjects of the Queen, obedient to the law, and he earnestly hoped that the discipline of the ancient and glorious Church of England, which undoubtedly was not perfect, would not be made any worse by the passing of this Bill. He begged to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now"), and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Lord Coleridge.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that he was placed in some difficulty in dealing with the speech of his noble and learned Friend, who, both personally and by the office which he held, was entitled to great respect whenever he addressed the House on any question, particularly one relating to law. Undoubtedly it was competent for any noble Lord to take the course taken by his noble and learned Friend, though it was not usual when a matter had received any amount of deliberate consideration at the time of the second reading. He should be most unwilling, in a case of this kind, to reject at this
  14
  stage a Bill promoted by the most rev. Prelate. But he acknowledged that, if his noble and learned Friend had stated good grounds for reconsidering the decision on the second reading, he had given good reason why he was not present on that occasion to move the rejection of the Bill. But had his noble and learned Friend really stated grounds which would go to the rejection of the Bill if the House were now on the second reading? He had made a speech very able and interesting, which contained much matter deserving of serious attention. But a large part of the speech had been addressed to matters which were not within the Bill and were not germane to the question whether it should be permitted to proceed. The Bill was one for providing a more satisfactory mode of trial in particular cases, cases of immorality or neglect of duty by clerks, which for certain reasons, good or bad, it had been thought right to separate from the trial of questions of doctrine and ritual. One objection of his noble and learned Friend was that this separation had been made. But the object itself was one which it was most desirable to attain. There could be no better proof of the intolerable cost which might be involved in the present mode of proceeding than the instances given by his noble and learned Friend, in which the costs of one suit had reached the figure of £14,000. Some of their Lordships might probably be familiar with other cases in which the cost had been enormous. What was his noble and learned Friend's objection to the principle of the Bill? It was that it was an attack, either open or covert, upon the supremacy of the Crown, of which his noble and learned Friend had given a just and happy definition. He had always thought that all mystification about the supremacy of the Crown, as distinguished from the supremacy of the law, was under a Constitutional system of Government unreal and absurd. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the supremacy of the law ought at all hazards to be maintained, and if the Bill had attacked that supremacy he should think it a most serious objection. If there was any such attack in the Bill as it stood, it was certainly covert and not open. In fact, so far as the supremacy involved anything in the nature of

  15
  Prerogative, it was expressly saved. Then what was there else in this Bill to interfere with the supremacy of the law as distinguished from Prerogative? The Bill itself, if it became law, would regulate the manner in which a certain part of the law of the land was to be administered. If the law was administered in a manner itself unexceptionable, it would be not an exception or derogation from, but an example of, that supremacy; for it would be an Act of Parliament regulating, by the authority of Parliament, the manner in which for the future this part of the Ecclesiastical Law is to be administered. His noble and learned Friend found fault with the Bill because it expressly exempted Bishops from its scope. But as the law at present stood Bishops could not be proceeded against by the same machinery which was applicable to those subject to their jurisdiction. Certainly the machinery of this Bill could not well be applied to the case of Bishops. There had been cases in which Bishops had been deprived for criminal offences. He remembered the case of a Welsh Bishop who was deprived in the reign of James II. or William III., but in that case proceedings were taken by means of special commission. Whether that was a proper and suitable mode of procedure was not now a matter for discussion; but this, at any rate, was quite clear—that any existing possible mode of dealing with Bishops who might be guilty of offences against the Ecclesiastical Law remained untouched by this Bill. It might or might not be desirable to provide by legislation some further mode of proceeding against Bishops, but that was no ground for objecting to this Bill, which only dealt with the machinery in proceedings of a certain kind against ordinary clergy-men—a machinery manifestly not applicable to the case of Bishops. His noble and learned Friend, as he understood him, also took exception to the Bill because of the power with regard to initiation, and also with regard to sentences, which it gave the Bishop. It was quite true that the Bill provided that upon complaint being made to the Bishop, he should only take proceedings when satisfied "that proceedings under this Act ought to be taken" on such complaint. But that was not a change in the present law. Under the Church
  16
  Discipline Act, as had been decided by a judgment in this House, the Bishop was not compelled to institute proceedings unless he thought fit to do so. He thought it would be unreasonable and intolerable that a Bishop should be compelled to proceed against any clergyman of his diocese against whom any charge of immorality, however manifestly groundless or trumped up, was brought. Before the Church Discipline Act, there was no doubt a rule with regard to the person making the complaint giving security for costs. But that was not the law or practice now. At present the Bishop was personally liable for the costs. It was said that the Court could deal with the costs, but the person who instituted the proceedings might be unable to pay the costs. It would be monstrous that upon a complaint made against a clerk the Bishop should be compelled to proceed, though satisfied that there was no primâ facie case and no real foundation for the complaint. The Bishop would, of course, act under a sense of responsibility, and they might rest assured that the person who made a valid complaint, upon which a Bishop refused to proceed, would not be slow to appeal to that most potent of all Courts, the Court of public opinion. This, he thought, would be good security against a Bishop improperly refusing to take proceedings. He could understand that if it were a matter of doctrine or of ritual, a Bishop who was supposed to sympathize with the doctrine or ritual complained of might be considered unwilling to proceed in respect of such complaint; but he could not imagine that any one would suspect a Bishop of connivance or sympathy with drunkenness or other acts of gross immorality, or accuse him of a desire to shield any person against whom a primâ facie case of that kind had been made out. But if his noble and learned Friend thought the Bishop ought to be bound to proceed whenever complaint was made, it was surprising that he did not wait until the Bill was in Committee, and then move an Amendment to carry out his object. His noble and learned Friend also took exception to the power given to the Bishop as to certain sentences, and appeared to argue that the Bill enabled the Bishop to throw his shield round a man and refuse to pass sentence though he was found guilty. But that was not so.

  17
  If a sentence of suspension, or anything less, were passed by the Court, the Bishop could not overrule it. It was, no doubt, quite true that a more severe sentence, such as a sentence of deprivation, was to be passed in, the Bishop's Court, by the Bishop himself, and not by his Chancellor, though in the provincial Court it might be passed by the Official Principal of the Archbishop. This, whatever might be the reason, was now, and had been for above 200 years, if not always, the settled law and usages in such cases. It had been recognized by such Judges as Lord Stowell and Sir John Nicholl. What the Bill provided was strictly agreeable to that law and usage. If the Court considered that the case required a sentence in excess of suspension, the Court would remit the case to the Bishop for sentence, with an intimation of their opinion, and with their finding of fact and the evidence. The Bishop in such case would exercise his judgment, and pass, or not pass, a sentence of deprivation. His noble and learned Friend had said it was a great hardship that there was to be no appeal on the question of fact. He hoped that their Lordships would not forget what the state of our Criminal Law was. If a man was found guilty by a jury of murder or any less crime, which might materially affect his position, his person, or his character, there was no appeal except on a matter of law. There might, no doubt, be recourse to the Prerogative of Mercy vested in the Crown; and this Bill recognized that Prerogative, to say nothing of any other power of mitigating punishment that might exist. But they had not at present, in ordinary criminal cases, any Court of Appeal on the facts. It was a much disputed question whether they ought or ought not to have one; and the difficulties were so great that no one seemed to have been able to overcome them up to the present time. And as to any other question of fact tried, in a civil case, before a jury, there was not any appeal in the proper sense of the word. There must be an application for a new trial, which must be based on a special ground, either some matter of law, or that the verdict was against the weight of evidence; and it was not the disposition of the Courts to overturn verdicts simply because the court from which the new trial was
  18
  asked might have come to a different conclusion from that which the jury had arrived at. This Bill would allow a re-hearing of the question of fact, if the Court were satisfied that there were special grounds for granting what would, in substance, be a new trial; and, although it was true that, in these ecclesiastical cases, there was at present a general right of appeal upon the facts, it was productive of great, and often very unnecessary, expense, and he thought the re-hearing, on special grounds only, much better. His noble and learned Friend had touched upon some other points which he humbly thought were outside the Bill, and not germane to the present measure. He had asked why the Bill was confined to morals and neglect of duty. Some good reasons might, he thought, be given for that. The necessity of dealing with that class of questions was a matter about which people in general were quite agreed; and if the Bill was good in itself it might be fairly hoped that it would pass through both Houses of Parliament without encountering those difficulties and storms which arose out of popular animosities connected with parties in the Church. Again, Parliament in 1874 had thought fit to deal separately and specifically with questions of ritual, and had provided a special and peculiar machinery for that particular class of cases. They might think, and think rightly, that questions of doctrine were of enormous importance; they would, on the other hand, probably be equally convinced of the difficulties of raising them judicially. Everyone would probably agree that the existing limits of liberty in the Church of England, on the one side or on the other, ought not to be curtailed; and, therefore, there would be no great disposition to facilitate procedure in that particular class of cases which related to doctrine. Whether that ought to be so or not he did not say. With regard to what his noble and learned Friend had said about the Judicial Committee, nobody knew better than his noble and learned Friend did that they were not over-manned with respect to judicial strength, and that it was convenient to make some arrangement as to who should attend in one Court and who in another. He did not believe that arrangements of that kind had ever been made, or proposed to be

  19
  made, in the Judicial Committee or elsewhere, for the purpose of constituting the Court in a particular manner with a view to the decision of particular cases; than which, if it were indeed done, nothing could be more scandalously improper. To suppose that any Lord Chancellor could, with such an object, send messages to such men as the late Chief Justice Cockburn and his noble and learned friend, requesting them not to attend, would imply not only misconduct, but folly amounting to idiotcy. The only possible motive for the communications which had been mentioned was that those learned Judges might not be unnecessarily withdrawn from their own Courts, to their own inconvenience or that of the suitors in those Courts, when it was known that the Judicial Committee would be attended by a sufficient number of Judges, whether they were there or not. The Judicial Committee might or might not be a good tribunal; the present was not a convenient time for arguing that point. But no one who wished to remodel the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or to abolish it, would ever think of introducing such a proposal into a Bill of this kind, to which it did not appear to be at all germane. In conclusion, while he admitted that some of the observations made by his noble and learned Friend suggested points which might be fairly considered in Committee on the Bill, he maintained that they furnished no sufficient ground for refusing to go into Committee on the measure.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEdid not think that the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down had displaced any of the contentions of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Coleridge) who moved the rejection of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord was not present when the second reading of the Bill was moved and carried without opposition. All that happened on that occasion was that he made a speech about the Bill, and while he knew there was no use in throwing it out, he thought it desirable that their Lordships and other people should understand a great deal more about it than otherwise they would have learnt. It happened that last year he found a right rev. Prelate moving the Committee stage of a certain Bill, at the second reading of which he had been unable to be pre-
  20
  sent. On hearing that, and a remark or a question by a noble Lord opposite, he rose and said he did not think that the Bill was understood. The result was that, when the Lord Chancellor put the Question, only one "Content," from the right rev. Prelate himself, was heard; while, on the other side there were a good many "Non-Contents." The result was that the Bill died, although it appeared in the Votes every day until the end of the Session. Their Lordships had been told that, when this Bill was in Committee, it would be remodelled. He had hoped that it was going to be modified to such an extent that he could accept it. He knew that in certain quarters he was represented as an obstructive of measures of this kind; but he believed he was the first drawer of a Bill for amending the defects of the Church Discipline Act and the Public Worship Act, which may be seen in the volume of evidence of the Ecclesiastical Courts' Commission five years ago. It might be bad, or it might be good; but one thing was quite certain, that it was a great deal more simple than this Bill, and was not complicated with sections and subsections. Further experience and the reading of the evidence of the Commission had induced him to alter his views on some points, especially on the veto. He had no idea, until after reading the evidence, of the extent to which the veto was carried in depriving parishioners of the rights of the Church of England in having their service conducted according to law. That was one of the things which made a deep impression upon his mind. The veto had been abused; it was liable to be abused. Even the noble and learned Lord who spoke last had admitted that it was liable to be abused in ritual and doctrinal cases. Lord Stowell had said most emphatically that it had always been the law that anyone might promote the office of judge against clerical offenders. People forgot that the parishioners had an interest in prosecuting moral offenders among the clergy, and that this was a very different thing from prosecuting a thief. That was a matter for the Queen or the Attorney General, who can issue a nolle prosequi, to deal with as representing the entire public; but the present question was a different one. The parishioners had a right to prosecute their clergyman if he either commit immorality or con-

  21
  ducted his service illegally. He agreed that it was a hardship for the Bishop to prosecute the clergyman at his own cost; but it was the Bishops' own doing in the Clergy Discipline Act of 1840. Before that Lord Stowell said that the Court was open to everybody. He did not wish the Bishops to do that work; he wanted other people to do it; they had the moral right to undertake it. And, now again, it did not appear to be perceived generally that the Bishops had got rid of the necessity of undertaking the suits themselves, and being liable to costs, and yet they insisted on retaining the preliminary veto, and demanded a final one besides, if they did not like the Judge's sentence, which was a distinct usurpation of the Royal power, and, in fact, a dispensing power, unknown to the law. It was true that the Queen, acting by her officers, could pardon a man who had been convicted; but was that a reason why the Bishop should be authorized to do the like? The Bishops claimed, under this Bill, powers that they had never had before, not even under the Act of 1840, to interfere with the sentence of their own Courts. So that there were two invasions of the Royal supremacy in this Bill. Another peculiarity showing how badly the Bill had been prepared, and modified since, was the provision that if a clergyman were convicted by any Court, say, by two Justices, who very often made mistakes, the Bishop had no veto. By the first operative clause of the Bill the trial must go on. The man might be innocent; yet he had the right to do everything except to prove that he was innocent; he might bring what evidence he could in mitigation of punishment, which is, ipso facto, confessing that he is guilty. But why should a man charged with having committed an offence be precluded from proving, not that the sentence ought to be mitigated, but that no sentence ought to have been passed upon him at all? Nothing is easier, for instance, than for a woman and a confederate to get a bastardy order against any man, and the Justices must decide according to the evidence, which the defendant may have no means of refuting; in fact, from the nature of the case, it is most difficult to do so. As the Bill was framed, a case had to be sent to the Bishop, not where he had to take action,
  22
  but where he had not to take action. He had brought these matters under the notice of the House merely to show how little the machinery of the Bill had been attended to, notwithstanding the measure had now been before the House for two months. Another clerical aggression was that their Lordships were asked by this Bill for the first time to ratify a canon by law. Such a thing had never been done before. Canons of the Church had often been overruled by our Courts of Law and by the Legislature; indeed, more than half of the 141 canons had been thus disposed of, or are absolutely illegal and ultra vires; but in no single instance had a canon been ratified by the Legislature. It was asserted that this 122nd canon might be merely a declaration of the ancient law; but, fortunately, the Convocations themselves had left on record a refutation of that hypothetical justification. For, in 1571, a canon was drawn up and passed by the Convocations; but the whole Code was refused by Queen Elizabeth, which declared that the Chancellors might not pronounce a sentence of excommunication, but that they might deprive; whereas in 1603 they enacted that the Chancellors might not deprive, but might excommunicate. Therefore, the Convocation—that is, the Bishops and clergy—had themselves proved that this canon was an aggression and a novelty, besides being contrary to the Acts of Uniformity and the great Heresy Act of 13 Eliz. c. 12. Chancellors having followed it without argument proves nothing. Decisions, even of the highest Court, without argument, had been overruled in two great ritual cases after argument. It seemed from this Bill, too, that the Archbishops and their provincial Judge might run a race with each other which is to deprive, though the Privy Council had decided, after argument, that the Dean of Arches was the proper person to do it. So the Bill overrides both Acts of Parliament and legal decisions and the oldest testimony of the canons themselves, merely to please the High Church clergy and set up some episcopal supremacy, including the power to alter as well as to pronounce the sentence, or to act either as executioner or dispenser of pardons. Another reason why this Bill should not be further proceeded with at the present moment was that the Bishops were only showing half their hand, because

  23
  it was well known that they had another Bill behind, which had been nominally "presented," but seen by no one but themselves. Before the House made any concession with regard to the measure now before them they should insist upon having the fullest information with regard to the other Bill. It was useless to talk about costs. Litigiousness was the cause of costs. Unless they cut off justice they could not cut off costs in cases where people were litigious. Broadly speaking, without going into the details of the Bill, which was exceedingly ill-drawn, these were the reasons why he entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord that the Bill ought not to be allowed to go further at this time. The Church Dislipline Act, passed by this House in 1838 and 1839, and spoilt by the Bishops in 1840, as he had explained on the second reading of this Bill, was framed by the strongest Commission, appointed in 1832, that had ever sat to consider such questions, and it ought not to be lightly set aside. Although he had put down Amendments to the Bill, he was strongly of opinion that the Bill was of such a character that it would be useless to go into Committee upon it. The question would then be left for another Session, when there would be an opportunity of bringing in a proper and thoroughly simple Bill to deal with it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that if the most rev. Prelate who had moved the re-commitment of this Bill required any excuse for having divided the subject of morals from ritual and doctrine, it was furnished by the speeches of the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. If two such speeches could be made upon a subject upon which it could hardly have been supposed there would be scarcely any difference of opinion, he would like to know what chance of passing a Bill would have had which involved the delicate subjects of doctrine and ritual? In the speeches of each of the noble and learned Lords the mischiefs which they had portrayed had been in a great measure connected with questions arising out of ritual and doctrine. It could not but be admitted that it was unfortunate that in the case of a man who had been convicted before a Temporal Court of any offence against
  24
  the moral law, the whole proceedings should have to be begun again before the Ecclesiastical Court and at great expense. He did not understand that the Lord Chief Justice was satisfied with the present condition of the law in that respect. As the law now stood, the Bishop had to prosecute, at his own expense—and sometimes the expense was enormous—a person unfit to remain in the Church; and this Bill provided a remedy, at all events in a large class of cases. It would provide a comparatively cheap, facile, and expeditious mode of getting rid of persons whom both the laity and the clergy desired to have put out of the Church. All the rest of the criticism which had been passed upon the Bill was more or less criticism upon the machinery by which the admitted evil was to be remedied. If questions having regard to supremacy and to right of veto arose, there was nothing to prevent any noble Lord moving in Committee to strike out the provision which gave the Bishops the right of veto in certain cases. There could be no doubt that the present state of the law with regard to immorality by the clergy was extremely unsatisfactory; but in consequence of the Bill containing a provision to which he objected the Lord Chief Justice moved to reject the Bill, instead of moving to strike out the objectionable clause. He had been unable to discover in the Bill anything of that spirit of ecclesiastical aggression in which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) so evidently believed. The object of the Bill was to facilitate the expulsion from the Church of those clergymen whose conduct the general body of the laity and clergy alike condemned, and he trusted their Lordships would agree with the Motion made by the most rev. Prelate.
  On Question, resolved in the negative; Then, the original Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Sentencing clerk found guilty by civil court).
  LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved an Amendment the effect of which would be to provide that the Court which tried a man should pronounce the judgment and sentence as was done in all other Courts.
  THE BISHOP Of LONDON,in opposing the Amendment, said, the real purpose of the clause was to provide that in cases such as were contemplated further on in the Bill, the Bishop should have a voice in settling the sentence. The Bishop was only called in where the sentence exceeded admonition or suspension.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he would point out that a parallel might be found in criminal information cases, where a Judge often pronounced sentence from the notes of another Judge or of the magistrate who tried the prisoner.
  Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Complaint against clerk for criminal offence or neglect of duty).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked, what was the meaning of a "criminal offence against ecclesiastical law?"
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that offences against ecclesiastical law were offences concerning doctrine and such as were inconsistent with the duty and position of the clergyman—neglect of services prescribed by the law and like offences.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that under the present law a clergyman was bound to read the service every day in church. Some persons might think that hunting was unsuitable in a clergyman. Would a clergyman who hunted twice a week come within the definitions of the Bill?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that hunting was not an ecclesiastical offence. No doubt, such offences as refusing to bury or marry would be included.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he should like to know whether there was any criterion of what amounted to a neglect to visit parishioners?
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, that on that point he would refer the noble Lord to the Pluralities Act Amendment Act of a few years ago.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he begged to move the insertion of a new clause, to put the Isle of Ely under the archidiaconal jurisdiction of Ely. In consequence of some quarrel in the
  26
  Middle Ages, the Isle of Ely was the only part of the county of Cambridge which was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Archdeacon of Ely. He moved the clause at the instance of the Bishop of Ely.
  New Clause agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill be reported to the House as amended."
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he thought something should be done to protect Bishops against the cost of proceedings under this Act, and he hoped the Government would consider what could be done in this direction.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, this Bill would certainly diminish the costs of such proceedings. Even under the present law he had, by trying the case himself with assessors, got rid of a peccant clerk without any expense.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, Her Majesty's Government would consider, before the next stage of the Bill, whether some clause could not be inserted to meet the point suggested by his noble Friend.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, no provision as to giving security for costs would be of any avail, as parishioners would not give such security, and the effect would be that the immoral clergyman would not be prosecuted at all.
  Motion agreed to: Report of Amendment to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 108.)

UNIVERSITY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  STATEMENT.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, he had been requested by his noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland to state, for the information of those Gentlemen who were interested in this matter in Scotland, that the Committee stage of the University (Scotland) Bill would not be taken until Tuesday, the 5th of June.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BIRMINGHAM) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 101.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Board for Birmingham to put in force the Lands

27
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same: And

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 102.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1815, and the Acts amending the same: Were presented by The Lord President; read 1a.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.