Sitting of 12 February 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th February,]
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Central London Railway Bill is committed, that they have power to consider the propriety of inserting clauses in the Bill requiring payment to the Local Authority of a royalty or a share of the earnings of the Railway, after fair interest on capital and working expenses have been provided for as compensation for the right to tunnel under the public streets."—(Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I beg to withdraw this Motion with a view of taking the discussion upon the principle involved in it upon the South Kensington and Paddington Subway Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LANCASHlRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  (by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. COURTNEY: Although I have no objection to allowing this Bill to proceed, I think the attention of the House ought to be directed to it. It is a Bill promoted by the Lancashire County Council. Last year it was proposed that County Councils should have power to promote Bills in this House, but the proposal was rejected. It is, nevertheless, contended that by the nature of their existence they have power to promote Private Bills, and I do not think that in an ordinary case this House would interfere with them. If they were to introduce an improper measure there would be the means of stopping them, and it is within the power of the Local Government Board to disallow expenses that have been improperly incurred. In this case the Lancashire County Council are proceeding at their own risk, and I do not suggest that the House ought to interfere with them, because if they are incurring expenses they have no right to incur, there will be means of correcting the evil. I only think that it ought to be brought distinctly to the knowledge of the House that this is a Bill which is promoted by the Lancashire County Council.
  MR. LAWSON: I wish to ask whether, in the event of the expenses incurred in promoting the Bill being disallowed by the Local Government Board, they would have to be borne by the individual members of the Lancashire County Council? Is it contended that they would not have the power of introducing an indemnity Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to this Bill. Like himself, I am entirely in favour of the principle of the measure, but while I am in favour of the principle I also agree that neither the Lancashire County Council

  455
  nor any other County Council has power to spend money upon the promotion of a Private Bill. The question was raised during the discussion of the Local Government Act, and it was decided that no such power should be conferred. Notwithstanding that fact, the Lancashire County Council are promoting this Bill, the object of which is a very good one. Other authorities have incurred expense in promoting Bills which they had no power to promote. If the Auditor in auditing the accounts of a Local Authority sees that expenditure has been incurred which the Local Authority was not warranted by law in incurring, it would be his duty to disallow it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lawson) asks me what would be the consequence in the case of this particular Bill if the auditor were to disallow the expenses. I imagine that the amount would be surcharged on the members who were responsible for the expenditure and who had signed the accounts. I do not think it would be necessary in that case to bring in a bill of indemnity, but an appeal from the decision of the auditor to the Local Government Board would probably be preferred. The Local Government Board would then look into the matter, both from a legal and an equitable point of view, and if they thought proper they would remit the surcharge. It is quite clear that a County Council has no right to promote such a Bill, and if they incur any expenditure in such a case it is at their own risk.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON AND PADDINGTON SUBWAY BILL—(by Order.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. BAUMANN: Before the Bill is read a second time, and we proceed to the discussion of the Instruction of which the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has given notice, I wish to enter a protest against the conduct of the promoters in regard to the measure. The Bill proposes to make a subterranean railway from Bishop's Road, Paddington, under Kensington Gardens and the Albert Hall, with a station in South
  456
  Kensington at a point which is, I believe, in the parish of St. John's, Westminster, The scheme raises a very important Metropolitan question—I had almost said a question of national interest, because the duty of preserving Kensington Gardens may be said to be one of national interest. I endeavoured yesterday to get the promoters of the Bill to adjourn the Second Reading until next week, but failed. It is obviously a question which ought not to be sent to a Committee upstairs in haste. An opportunity should be given to the Metropolitan Members and to the inhabitants of London generally of expressing their opinion upon the proposed invasion of the amenities of Kensington Gardens. Yet, not a single day has been allowed. In regard to other Bills the London County Council and the City Corporation have always been most obliging in fixing the Second Reading for a date that would suit the convenience of all who desired to oppose it, but the result of the tactics of the promoters in this instance is that I have not been able to communicate with the Metropolitan Members, and the people of London have had no opportunity of expressing their opinion in regard to it. I should like to ask why the promoters are so nervously anxious to force the Bill through the House. Promoters generally invite discussion, but I am afraid that in this case they consider that the more the Bill is looked at the less it will be liked. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston) I do not feel justified in attacking the Bill on its merits, but I make this protest in the hope that public attention will be called to the fact that Kensington Gardens are proposed to be tunnelled under and a station erected in the Gardens, for no other purpose than to bring money into the tills of the Albert Hall. I hope that before the Third Reading a sufficiently strong public opinion will have been aroused to save Kensington Gardens from this fate, and to prevent this iniquitous Bill from becoming law.
  MR. WHITMORE: I am not concerned in the promotion of this Bill, but I believe that it proposes to construct a new line between Paddington and South Kensington, by a subway under Kensington Gardens, and I hope the House will not at this stage

  457
  interpose any difficulty in its way. Without possessing any certain knowledge on the subject, I believe that the amenities of Kensington Gardens will not be interfered with, and there will be a full opportunity after the Bill has been in Committee of considering it on the Third Reading. At the present moment my constituents and the people of South Kensington and Brompton are obliged to make a very long circuit in order to get to North Kensington and Paddington, and in their interests I must support the Second Reading.
  MR. COURTNEY: It is only fair to say that, as far as I know, the promoters of this Bill have done nothing unusual, nor have afforded ground for an attack that would prevent the measure from going before a Select Committee.
  COLONEL MAKINS: I support the Bill in the interests of the Albert Hall, and I feel with regard to Kensington Gardens that the public user is perfectly safe in the hands of the Chief Commissioner of Works, who would oppose anything that would be likely to be injurious to the Gardens.
  MR. BRUNNER: I think, after hearing the hon. Member for Peckham, the House will be surprised to hear that the action of the promoters of the Bill has met with the approval of the First Commissioner of Works, and also the proposal to erect a station in Kensington Gardens.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I beg to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the South Kensington and Paddington Subway Bill is committed, that they consider the propriety of inserting clauses in the Bill requiring payment to the Local Authority of a royalty, or a share of the earnings of the Subway, after fair interest on capital and working expenses have been provided for, as compensation for the right to tunnel under the public streets."
  It was intended to raise the very important question involved in this Instruction upon the Central London Railway Bill on a permissive Instruction, but it has been thought to be more in order to have a mandatory Instruction. The same question arises on both Bills, and also upon a third Tunnel Bill which will subsequently come before the House
  458
  How many more Bills of the same character may come before the House it is impossible to say. The experiment of establishing the first tunnel railway (from London Bridge to Stock well) has been a success both in an engineering and a financial point of view, and there is no doubt that this success will lead to other schemes, in which the public will be ready to invest their capital. The question assumes, therefore, very great importance in the interests of the public. The promoters of these Bills propose to avail themselves of the soil under the public streets, and to carry their railways to a large extent under the public streets. The present Bill proposes to empower the Company to make a tunnel railway from Paddington to South Kensington, without the payment or compensation to any one for the tunnel under the streets, to enter houses within 100 yards of the works, to shore them up and to repair any damage that may arise from subsidence. This particular tunnel railway will be very near the surface of the road, whereas some of the other tunnels are 30, 40, 50, and 60 feet beneath it. The idea is to carry the tunnel under the roads, so as to avoid the compensation which would have to be paid if it were made through private property. My contention is that the public have a right to claim compensation for the use of the sub-soil under the public streets. I know it will be suggested that the absolute freehold of the sub-soil is not vested in any public authority, but the public have a right to use the surface of the road and to use the sub-soil also for subways and for gas and water pipes, electric wires, and other purposes. The shadowy right of the landowner is hardly worth considering, as for all practical purposes the public are the owners of the roads and the sub-soil under them. In order to save expense we have now a private company coming here asking for legislative powers to use the sub-soil of the roads without paying anything for it, and also to secure other advantages in connection with the use of the roads. If they were to carry their tunnel 25 yards either one side or the other they would impinge upon private property, and have to pay enormous sums in the shape of compensation; but they ingeniously contrive to carry their tunnel through public property and thus

  459
  to avoid any such payment. I think, however, that the public have a moral, if not a strictly legal, claim to some substantial consideration. If the company say the subsoil of the roads does not belong to the public, my answer is that it does not belong to the company, and if the public hare no right neither have the company any right whatever. Indeed, they are now coming to Parliament to acquire the right. It is suggested that the public would be protected by giving the County Council power to purchase this tunnel railway on the lines of the purchase provisions of the Tramways Act of 1870. The absurdity of that proposition needs only to be stated to carry its own refutation with it. It is universally admitted that it is impossible to put in force the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1870 without further legislation. In fact, I know of no way in which to protect the public except by imposing a rent or royalty, or by taking a share of earnings after the payment of interest on capital and working expenses. I do not ask for a confiscatory royalty or a heavy share of the earnings. On the contrary, I desire that only a fair amount should be paid by the company for the benefit acquired under the Bill. I do not believe that a provision of this kind would seriously embarrass the company. It is quite true that the Tunnel Railway from London Bridge to Stockwell has not been placed under these conditions, but that was an experiment, and favourable conditions were granted, in order to induce the public to invest their money. As the experiment has been successful, such favourable conditions are not necessary, and provisions in the interest of the public are now only reasonable. I do not propose to order the Select Committee to insert particular or definite clauses in the Bill, but simply to direct them to consider the propriety of inserting clauses such as those which I suggest, and, unless this Instruction is agreed to, I am afraid that the question which I am raising will not be fairly before the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the South Kensington and Paddington Subway Bill is committed, that they consider the propriety of inserting clauses in the Bill requiring payment to the Local Authority of a royalty, or a share in the earnings of the Subway, after fair interest and
  460
  working expenses have been provided for, as compensation for the right to tunnel under the public streets."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
  COLONEL MAKINS: The hon. Member has enunciated an entirely new principle, and I think it rather hard that this particular company should be made the vile corpus for trying the experiment. Powers of this kind are never granted by Parliament to any company except for the public benefit, and they will take care that the public get the benefit in one way or the other. It has never before been the practice, in regard either to schemes for gas or water, or the laying down of electric wires, to make the public partners with a private company. The pecuniary interests of the public are protected in the Bill, because if the line is made and turns out as profitable as its promoters hope, a large sum will be put into the public coffers by way of rates. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Instruction.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Having taken considerable interest in these tunnel schemes for several years, I wish to make one or two observations. The question is not, I understand, debarred from the consideration of the Committee, and therefore I think the Committee ought to be left entirely free, as they have been heretofore. My hon. Friend who has spoken on behalf of the public cannot ignore the fact that no Committee will sanction the scheme unless they believe it to be in the interests of the public. The experiment has been tried on the other side of the water and has been attended with success, and the principle now advocated is that the County Council, while contributing nothing towards a scheme which may be a failure, shall nevertheless share the profit if it is a success. There is nothing given up by the community, and I hope my hon. Friend will allow the matter to rest with the Committee, and not attempt to hamper their decision or relieve them from the responsibility which ought to rest with them. I should be quite ready to give consideration to a proposal to enable the County Councils, Corporations, or other Local Authorities to carry out these undertakings for themselves; but it is not fair to private companies for the public to stand over them and say, "We will take

  461
  a share of your profits, but we will not take upon ourselves the responsibility of carrying out the undertaking."
  MR. LAWSON: My hon. Friend is wrong in thinking that this railway is asked to pay anything to the County Council. The only desire is to lay down the principle that the Local Authority, whatever it may be, shall have some profit from the user of the subsoil for a subway. I would not vote for the Instruction if I thought it would in the least degree embarrass the enterprise, but the Instruction itself lays down that a fair profit as well as the working expenses shall be paid before any royalty goes to the public. In the case of tramways, it has been laid down that the Local Authority shall have power to purchase after 21 years. When these enterprises are extended, as they undoubtedly will be, now that the tunnel railway on the other side of the water has become a success, there will be an increased difficulty in developing underground communications in any direction, on account of the use already made of the ground under the great arteries of communication. It is virtually impossible for the Committee upstairs to insert in the Bill similar clauses to those which were inserted in the Tramways Act, as nobody would wish to see our Local Authorities try to run our underground railways, and it will, consequently, be impossible for the Local Authority to obtain any compensation in that form or return for the user of the subsoil. I admit that benefit will be conferred by giving facilities to the public in the way of communication, but I think the House would do well to draw the attention of the Committee to the point, even if the Committee refuse to insert any such clause dealing with the question.
  MR. ISAACS: I object to the Instruction on two grounds—first, on legal grounds, and secondly, on the ground of equity. So far as the law is concerned the hon. Member for St. Pancras has admitted that he has not a perfect case to put before the House. The veriest tyro in law as to public rights in land knows that the fee simple of a road is not vested in the Public Authority. He therefore asks the Committee to do that which in the present state of the law is absolutely illegal, And so far as equity is
  462
  concerned I venture to think that there is a strong case against the Instruction. I am afraid that the hon. Member has not recognised how unduly the Railway Companies who provide under-ground communication between different parts of London are handicapped. They are heavily taxed, while the omnibuses have very little to pay indeed, and are allowed to pass freely over pavements which are laid down, repaired, and cleansed at the public expense. One under-ground railway alone, whose net revenue last year amounted to £208,000 contributed £25,435 in taxes and Government duty; in other words, it had to pay half-a-crown out of every sovereign of net income it earned in the shape of local rates and Government duty. The Omnibus Companies which are earning handsome dividends are subject to no rating or taxation of the kind. I therefore venture to think that the present proposal ought not to be entertained by the House.
  MR. BARTLEY: As a Metropolitan Member I should like to say a word or two upon this proposition. It seems to me a reasonable proposition that some part of the benefit of these undertakings should go to the locality. No doubt the undertakings are rated to some extent; but despite that fact, I think the time has come, inasmuch as these subways will become very numerous, when a step in this direction should be taken, as it is an absurdity to suppose that the London County Council can undertake these speculations for themselves.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I listened with attention to what fell from the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Isaacs), but I must remind him that, so far as omnibuses are concerned, anyone can place them upon the roads; whereas we are asked now to give Parliamentary powers to a private company, and to hand over to them a distinct monopoly. We are told that this Instruction should not be passed because something similar was not put in the Tramways Act; but under the Tramways Act the Local Authority have a right to purchase the tramways after 21 years, and the Tramway Companies are bound to repair the whole of the roads on which their lines run, as also 18 inches on each side I

  463
  would ask those hon. Gentlemen who insist so much upon the legal aspect of the question, what contributions it is intended under the Bill shall be given to the freeholder? Have the company consulted him? If he has a right to the subsoil of the road, are they not asking the House to give them powers to ride roughshod over the interests of the very persons whom they now so kindly take under their wings. In my opinion no reason has been given why the Instruction should not be agreed to, and it is only right that if these great facilities are given to speculative companies, the public should maintain some lien, for the benefit of the community, on the monopolies thus created.
  MR. COURTNEY: Undoubtedly the hon. Member for North St. Pancras has brought a very grave question before the House, and I think he deserves our thanks for having done so. But the Instruction is open to the objection which he had to urge the other day in regard to the Instruction moved in the Leicester case, namely, that it orders the Committee to do something which they have a perfect right to do without it, and this raises the presumption that a particular course is recommended by the House. I am not for a moment saying it is not desirable that the interests of the localities should be looked at, and the fact that subways have been made without a provision of this kind being insisted upon is no presumption against beginning now. One way of attaining the object of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras is by providing that, after the profits of the company have reached a certain point, arrangements could be made for cheap fares; another is the payment of a fixed rent; and a third is by entitling the locality, after a certain period, to acquire the undertaking. I would strongly urge the hon. Member to withdraw the Instruction, and leave the various points that have been raised to the Committee upstairs.
  MR. JAMES: The hon. Member for North St. Pancras has laid before the House a somewhat plausible plan, but I do not agree with him that the undertaking on the other side of the water has yet been proved to be not only a physical but a financial success. I think it is altogether premature
  464
  as yet to say that that undertaking has been of a nature to secure the full confidence of the public. I will not attempt to enter into the legal question further than that by saying, that if this Instruction is agreed to it will necessarily complicate and add to the legal difficulties. The whole question was carefully gone into and considered by a Committee last year, and there was a general opinion that the Local Authority ought to regard the promoters of schemes of this kind as their best friends. Unless something is done to relieve the present congested state of the streets there will be no alternative but for the Local Authority to construct new routes, at an enormous cost.
  MR. NEVILLE: I think it is perfectly clear that the soil which will be interfered with by the construction of this railway is not the property of the Local Authority at all, but of the owners of the adjoining land; and if the legal question is raised I am afraid the result will be to put money into the hands of the private owners instead of the Local Authority. The soil is only vested in the Local Authority down to a certain depth, such as is necessary for the construction for an ordinary street. I think it is quite clear if the Instruction is not withdrawn the results may be the reverse of what the hon. Member who has moved it desires to see.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras that as his object has been accomplished in having brought this very important subject before the House, he should now, after the discussion which has taken place, withdraw the Instruction.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, and on the understanding that the suggestions contained in the Instruction will receive the attention of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  To Mr. Richard Chamberlain, for one month on account of private affairs.—(Viscount Wolmer.)

  FOREIGN TRADE (COMPARATIVE GROWTH).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the total Imports and Exports for each of the years 1854,1859, 1864, 1869, 1874, 1879, 1884," and 1889 of the following 12 Countries, viz., 1. France; 2. German Zollverein and German Empire; 3. Belgium; 4. Holland; 5. Russia; 6. Austria-Hungary; 7. Denmark; 8. Sweden and Norway; 9. Spain; 10. Portugal; 11. United States; 12. United Kingdom."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)

  ARMY OFFICERS' PAY, RETIREMENT, AND PENSIONS.
  Address—
  "For Return showing the Pay, Retired Pay and Pensions of Lieutenants and Warrant Officers respectively."—(Sir John Colomb.)

MOTION.

  ARMY SCHOOLS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Bill to extend to Army Schools the benefit of certain educational endowments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Stanhope.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 211.]

QUESTIONS.

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called by the Official Examiner to the condition and quality of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company; whether he is aware it is the worst sample delivered by the company during the past 12 years, that it contains 50 per cent. more volatile matter, 300 per cent. more saline ammonia, and 250 per cent. more organic ammonia than the water supplied on the same day by the Chelsea Water Company drawing from the same source, and that it also exhibited marked browning on ignition of solids; whether the information now in his possession confirms his statement of 31st July, 1890, that there is "no abundant vegetation or cut grass, &c., spread about the Thames Valley," to account for the condition of the water; whether his advisers are still prepared to deny contamination with sewage, and will certify that this water is fit for human consumption; what position does Dr. Tidy hold with relation to the Local Government Board,
  466
  and by whom his salary, as water examiner, is paid; how many weeks' supply is stored by the Grand Junction Company; and what steps the President has taken to compel the company (after his answer that the filtration power was deficient) to create a larger storage and filtration?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: My attention has from time to time been called by the Official Examiner to the condition and quality of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company. When a question was asked in the House on the 31st July last with regard to this company, I stated that the attention of the Directors had been repeatedly called to the necessity for increased filtering area, and that they had recently intimated that the construction of additional filters would be undertaken without delay. The Directors in accordance with this undertaking obtained plans and estimates, and in the autumn of last year entered into a contract for the construction of filters, having an area of about six acres. The works were unfortunately interrupted by the severe frost during part of November, December, and January. Work has since been resumed and is now making active progress; but as a matter of fact so far as the means at the disposal of the company for filtration are concerned, the company are at present in precisely the same position as in July last, when I gave the answer referred to. The sample of the water delivered by the company to which my hon. Friend refers, is, I presume the sample which is referred to in the Report of an analysis by Mr. Cassal with which he has been so good as to supply me. This sample appears to have been submitted to the analysist on the 30th January. I am not in the position to make any statement as to the accuracy or otherwise of the analysis referred to. But I may state that I am advised by Dr. Frankland that the proportions of volatile matter, saline ammonia, and organic ammonia, furnish no evidence of sewage contamination. Analysis of a sample of water that was taken by Dr. Frankland on the 22nd January last showed that the water delivered by this company was the best of the Thames derived waters. After notice was given of the question

  467
  of my hon. Friend, I arranged for further samples to be taken, and to be analysed. These samples were obtained on the 5th February, and Dr. Frankland, in his Report, states that they both contained a very large proportion of organic matter, chiefly of vegetable origin, and that during the 23 years in which he has submitted the waters delivered by the eight companies supplying London to the same process of organic analysis he has never met with a sample so strongly contaminated with organic matter, and that only on one occasion, in 1868, was there a near approach to this degree of pollution. The water is described as being repulsive both to the eye and palate, and he states that its supply for human consumption was undesirable. But he says that the excess of contamination is due to the presence of an altogether abnormal amount of vegetable organic matter in solution, that the Thames always contains some soluble constituents of sewage more or less changed by various processes of purification, and that he could find no evidence of any additional amount of these constituents in the two samples of the company's water sent to him for analysis. He thinks that in Mr. Cassal's analysis there was nothing to justify the assertion that sewage contamination exists. As to the circumstances which would account for the condition of things referred to, I am informed that in consequence of continuous rain on the 29th January, the first subsequent to the breaking up of the frost, the Thames was in an exceedingly muddy and turbid condition on the 30th January and following days; and owing to the fact that the filters were covered during the frost with ice of about a foot in thickness, there was great difficulty in cleaning them, and they were not in good condition at the time mentioned, and were incapable of dealing with the water turned on to them. The considerable difference in the qualities of the Grand Junction and the Chelsea water on the occasions referred to is accounted for by the fact that the Chelsea Company have a larger Storage than the Grand Junction Company, and can discard the flood water, which the latter company are not able to do. The storage and settling reservoirs of the Grand Junction Company do not contain more than three and a half
  468
  days' supply of water, those of the Chelsea Company are capable of containing 15 days' supply. Dr. Tidy holds no position in relation to the Local Government Board. I believe that he is the chemical adviser to certain of the Water Companies, and is paid by those who employ him. As I have already stated, the filtration works to which I referred in my previous answer are being proceeded with; but I cannot but add that I regard it as extremely unsatisfactory that water of this character should have been supplied, and further that the difficulties on which the company rely as an excuse, ought not and would not have occurred if they had had a proper storage and filtration area.

  HANDCUFFING PRISONERS.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the practice of marching prisoners, handcuffed together in long lines, through the streets of Chester still continues; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have made inquiry both of the Chief Constable of the Borough and of the County. The former reports that, according to the invariable practice for years, prisoners are not marched through the streets at all, but conveyed in cabs or vans. The latter reports that it is not the practice to handcuff prisoners, unless it is absolutely necessary for their Safe custody, but that it has been found advisable to use handcuffs in the case of prisoners coming from a certain district where riotous elements exist, and there was reason to anticipate attempts at rescue or escape. I have written to the Chief Constable, saying that, as a rule, it is very undesirable to march prisoners handcuffed through the streets, and asking whether some other means cannot be devised for meeting the particular danger which he specifies.

  BARBED WIRES.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now informed himself as to the second death in Cheshire in 1890 caused by a wound from barbed

  469
  wire; and whether he is now contemplating legislation forbidding the use of barbed wire at the sides of public roads and footpaths?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have obtained from the Coroner the depositions in the case referred to. It appears that the deceased was a farmer, and that whilst engaged in driving some cows from one field to another his hand came in contact with some barbed wire fence which was placed along a quick-set fence to prevent the fence being injured by cattle, and that the death was occasioned by blood-poisoning caused by the wound. The evidence does not show that the fencing in this case was at the side of a public road or footpath.
  MR. BRUNNER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the question, namely, whether he is contemplating legislation forbidding the use of barbed wires? Now that the planting of spring guns and mantraps has been prohibited ought not barbed wires also to follow in their wake?
  MR. RITCHIE: I certainly see a great difference between the one and the other; but I may inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not contemplating legislation.

  INSTRUCTION IN DAIRY WORK.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the demand for instruction in dairy work in Munster; and whether he will advise the appointment of a Government instructor in dairy work in the Province?
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any communications from the Irish Industrial League, on the subject of instruction in dairy work by competent Government instructors, and whether, as Ireland labours under great disadvantage in competing with such rivals as Denmark and Sweden, where efficient teaching in all agricultural matters is supplied by the State, he will favourably consider, and recommend to the Government, the appointment of suitable dairy instructors in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: In answer to this question,
  470
  and to that of my hon. Friend which stands next, I would say that I am far from doubting that a knowledge of the most improved methods of dairying is of great importance in Munster. I must remind them that in addition to such facilities as are given to the localities to provide instruction under the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, the Government have aided in supplying, through the Munster Model Farm and through the National Board, a competent knowledge of the subject to many hundreds of persons.

  THE PATENT OFFICE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is within his knowledge that, while the official journal of the Patent Office prefixes to its list of abridgments an intimation that
  "Inventors are strongly recommended, before applying for patents, to consult the Abridgments of Specifications,"
  there are many important classes of specifications, including hydraulics, railway signals and carriages, paper making, steam engines, spinning, production and application of gas, and ventilation, of which no abridgments have been published for a quarter of a century, while several of those published before 1866 are out of print; whether under the heads of electricity and chemicals, with their various sub-divisions, any abridgments have been issued since 1876, except since 1883, in the costly volumes of the illustrated journal; whether the subject-matter index from 1856 to 1883 is out of print; and whether, in view of the Patent Office fees and publications yielding a surplus revenue of nearly £100,000 a year, steps are likely to be taken to expedite the Patent Office publications and bring them up to date?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The Abridgment of Specifications in the Patent Office is a work which was only commenced within a comparatively recent period, but it is being now pushed forward as speedily as possible, and I estimate that during the financial year ended March 31, 16,000 specifications will have been abridged, and that approximately the same rate of progress will be maintained until the arrears are

  471
  overtaken. Abridgments of only three classes are out of print, and I am not aware of any large demand for a reprint of these. I may inform the House that the abridgments for the subjects of electricity, acids, alkalis, oxides and salts, and benzine and carbon derivatives, have been published up to 1876; and as regards the period between 1877 and 1883, the bulk of them have been made and are now in course of printing. The subject-matter index for 1856 to 1883 is out of print, but it has been widely distributed. For the future, its place will be taken by indexes to abridgment classes.

  MAGAZINE RIFLES.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 100 Mark II. magazine rifles will be reported on before larger quantities are manufactured; whether the 2,000 now turned out weekly are Mark I.; and whether, out of an issue of 100,000, 45,000 were returned for repairs within the year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The present intention is that the 100 rifles of Mark II. should be reported on before others are manufactured; consequently the 2,000 a week now turned out are of Mark I. The total issue of Mark I. has been 44,500, of which, within the year, 3,720 have been returned for repair, being about 8 1·3 per cent. of the issue; but among these were included the arms exchanged for new rifles by the battalions which were ordered abroad, so that the number returned in actual need of repair was considerably under 8 per cent., and not 45 per cent., as my hon. Friend suggests.

  NAVAL WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet been able to overcome the "financial difficulties," which he has stated more than once he has experienced in obtaining from the Treasury the proceeds of mulcts, fines, unclaimed prize money, &c., in order to enable him to carry out, to some extent at least, the recommendations of the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee; and whether, since
  472
  the widows and orphans of the men lost in H.M.S. Serpent had to appeal to public charity, he will consider the desirability of establishing a Naval Widows' and Orphans' Fund?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: It has been decided not to attempt to establish a General Widows' Fund on the lines proposed by the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee in 1885. The unclaimed wages and effects of deceased seamen and marines are now paid over to the funds of Greenwich Hospital. There are grave difficulties in the way of similarly appropriating mulcts, fines, and unclaimed prize money. There is a Naval Widows' and Orphans' Fund, from which the widows and orphans of all men whose deaths are directly due to the Service receive pensions. The widows and orphans of the men lost in H.M.S. Serpent are now being assisted from this source. The capitalised value of the annuities either paid or payable is about £24,000.

  STEAM COLLIERS FOR THE FLEET.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the necessity for steam colliers which can keep up with the Fleet, and also supply our coaling stations, with a minimum risk of capture, he will consider the advisability of offering some inducement to shipbuilders to build fast vessels for this work?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There are about 120 vessels on the Admiralty list of ships suitable for "cruiser colliers." The fastest of these are 12 knot ships, the average about 11 knots, which speed it is considered would be ample to enable them to cruise with a fleet. If necessary, faster ships could be adapted to the work in a short time. We do not consider special inducements to build fast vessels necessary.

  THE SULTAN.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to lay down an additional battleship to take the place of the Sultan, which was included in the Scheme of the Strength of the Navy of England relative to those of Foreign

  473
  Powers in the Naval Defence Programme, and has since been struck off?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: When the programme of new construction is more advanced we will consider the question of repairing and re-engineing the Sultan. In the meantime, we do not propose to add to the number of battleships building. The progress of the new ships laid down since 1889 has been so rapid that the relative position of the English Navy as regards new construction, compared with that of Foreign Navies, has much improved during the last two years.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the acknowledged distress in the Innishowen Division of the County Donegal, he can see his way to provide relief works by the construction of boat slips, shelter piers, and roads, more particularly in the Urris and Clonmany districts, for the protection of the fishermen's interests and the better development of the Division?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will understand, from previous answers which have been given to similar questions, that I can make no specific reply at present.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give us any information as to when any portion of the fund subscribed for the relief of distress will be handed out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What fund?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Lord Zetland's fund.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must be permitted to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he has no right to ask me about a private fund, with which this House has nothing to do, and with which he has had nothing to do.
  MR. S. MACNEILL: May I ask whether the Earl of Zetland and the right hon. Gentleman did not, in a letter published on January 3, appeal for funds for the relief of distress in their respective capacities of Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  THE LEICESTERSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. TAPLING: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  474
  State for War whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Times of 31st January last, relating to alleged insubordination in the Leicestershire Regiment at Bermuda; whether it is true that since 22nd January the regiment has been in almost open revolt; whether it is the case that the intervention of the Grenadier Guards has been found necessary to prevent serious breach of the peace by soldiers of the Leicestershire Regiment; and whether there is any foundation for these and similar statements contained in the same paper?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Beyond the fact that at Christmas there was a slight drunken disturbance between a few men of the Leicestershire Regiment and some of the coloured population, which was immediately stopped by the officers on the spot, there was no foundation whatever for the reports telegraphed from Halifax. The General Officer commanding reports that, with this small exception, the conduct of the Leicestershire Battalion has been excellent; and I much regret that such unfounded and unfair statements should have been sent home.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the steps which the Government are taking, or are going to take, with regard to Haulbowline; and when do they propose (if at all) to erect the necessary workshops in connection with the dockyard?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have already answered this question three times. The dock and basin at Haulbowline are complete. Existing buildings and machinery are being adapted and provided for fitters' workshops, and will shortly be completed.
  MR. FLYNN: At what date may the docks be expected to be completed, or at least so advanced that operations on a ship may be begun?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: That is a question I can hardly answer. It must be remembered that the yard at Haulbowline is a graving dock, and will only be used when a ship is damaged below the water-line.
  MR. FLYNN: I shall revert to the matter on the consideration of the Naval Estimates.

  RIVER ZAMBESI SURVEYS.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will have placed in the Tea Room the Chart showing the latest surveys of the mouths of the Zambesi River?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The latest survey of the Chindé, the only mouth of the Zambesi recently surveyed, is not yet out of the engravers' hands. The existing plans of the Zambesi mouths shall be sent over to the House of Commons.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is the intention of the Government to exempt long leaseholders from the operation of the Irish Land Purchase Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure that I understand the purport of the question. The intentions of the Government are fully set forth in the Bill now before the House, and to that I must respectfully refer the hon. Baronet.

  SOUTH-EASTERN (IRELAND) POSTAL DISTRICTS.
  MR.MORROGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the inconvenience and delay caused in the delivery of the mails to the inhabitants of the South-Eastern Postal Districts served by runners from Kinsale and Carrigaline; and if he could not substitute one post-car for the present system of three runners?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: It is not quite clear to what district the hon. Member refers; but if it is the district of Ballyfeard to which the question applies I have to state that the post to that district is now maintained at fairly convenient hours from Kinsale. The question of substituting for this service a mail car from Carrigaline viâ Minane Bridge has been carefully considered, but the additional expense involved precludes me from sanctioning such an arrangement. I shall be glad to have further inquiry made in the matter, if the hon. Member will give fuller particulars.

  THE POTATO CROP IN SOUTH-WEST CORK.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can inform the House whether Colonel Spaight, the Local Government Board Inspector, who as far back as July or August last year visited the south-western districts of the County of Cork with a view to inspect and report on the then anticipated failure of the potato crop, has made any Report; and, if so, what was the nature of his Report; and will he lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Reports have been made by Colonel Spaight and other Inspectors to the Local Government Board with regard to the condition of the potato crop in certain districts of County Cork. I shall lay upon the Table shortly a Report as to this district from the Local Government Board, and that Report will be based in the main on the Reports of the Local Government Board Inspectors.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me, in regard to the distress, whether it is intended that the Police, Resident Magistrates, and Local Government Board Inspectors shall be appointed by the Government to perform the duties of disbursing a private fund?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of the question.

  BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN AFRICA.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will have placed in the Tea Room a map showing all the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, up to the latest date, of the coast of Africa between Delagoa Bay and the mouths of the Zambesi, together with the country lying between that coast and the Zambesi on the north, and the 28th degree of east longitude on the west?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I learn from the Foreign Office that as the limits of the territories or spheres of influence in that region are at this moment the subject of inquiry and negotiation, it would be inexpedient to exhibit an official map, in which many features could not be positively defined.

  INCHIGEELA POSTAL SERVICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the insufficient postal arrangements in the Inchigeela district, County Cork, which provide only carriage of letters to and from Inchigeela three times a week, viâ Ballingeary; and whether a daily mail car between Macroom and Inchigeela, or a daily post by messenger from Inchigeela to Ballingeary, might be established?
  MR. RAIKES: The post to and from Inchigeela is maintained six days a week by messenger on foot, but between Inchigeela and Ballingeary the post is restricted to three days a week, because the letters are few in number. It would give me pleasure to meet the wishes which have been expressed in the matter; but, so far as I am at present able to form an opinion, I fear that the additional expense involved in improving the service will be greater than I should feel justified in incurring. The inquiries shall, however, be pursued, and I will come to a decision as soon as possible.
  DR. TANNER: If representations are made by the inhabitants will the right hon. Gentleman have the subject further investigated?
  MR. RAIKES: I shall be happy to give due consideration to any Memorial sent me.

  ANTHRAX.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to direct an inquiry to be made as to the alleged discovery by Mr. Hankin of an effective cure for anthrax?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I understand that there have been some communications between the Department and Mr. Hankin on this subject already, and I have directed further inquiry to be made at an early opportunity.

  ILLITERATE VOTERS.
  MR. ADDISON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, having regard to the increasing number of declarations of illiteracy made at some Parliamentary elections, he is
  478
  prepared to bring in a measure making it an offence under the Ballot Act untruly to make such declaration with a view to evade the provisions of the said Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R WEBSTER,: I have on information to show that such declarations are on the increase, and I am not, therefore, prepared to propose legislation such as that suggested. I believe that the spread of education will in due course of time diminish the number of illiterate voters.

  ZANZIBAR.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement by the German Chancellor, reported in the Times of 6th February, that in addition to 4,000,000 marks paid to the Sultan of Zanzibar for the surrender of his Coast territory, another 6,000,000 was to be paid as compensation to the sufferers by the disturbances in that quarter; and if he can say whether any portion of that money is to go to the British-Indian subjects who suffered, or to any other British subjects, or to the East Africa Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: There was a mistake in the Times telegraphic summary. The sum of 6,000,000 was mentioned as destined for the improvement of the country. Nothing was said about compensation to sufferers, and I fear that, in the circumstances, they have no valid claims.

  ACTIONS AGAINST RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph from the Traders' Gazette copied into United Ireland of 6th September;—
  "King's County. MacSheehy John Thomas Resident Magistrate, defendant; W. C. J. Crawley, Esquire, Ely Place, Dublin, plaintiff. Queen's Bench amount £33 13s. 1d., costs £5 16s.;"
  what action do the Government intend to take with regard to this Magistrate; and whether he will grant a Return of

  479
  the cases tried under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, in whose adjudication Mr. MacSheehy has taken part? I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, at the October Quarter Sessions of the County of Kildare, held before County Court Judge Darby, Colonel the Hon. W. F. Forbes, Resident Magistrate, was sued by several shopkeepers for goods supplied to his wife and children, and was also sued by Mary Grogan, a cook in his employment, to recover from him a sum of £7 8s. 10d., for wages, and 6s. for cash lent by her to her master; whether he is aware that County Court Judge Darby gave decrees in all the cases, certifying for fees for counsel, and allowing witnesses' expenses; and that Mrs. Forbes swore that whenever she went to her husband's study to speak to him about these bills, the lamp was always put out, and sometimes she was struck and knocked down by the said Colonel Forbes, Resident Magistrate; whether he is also aware that, at the Easter Quarter Sessions, the said Hon. Colonel Forbes, Resident Magistrate, was also sued, and decreed, for goods supplied by several tradesmen; whether it is intended to retain this gentleman in his position of Resident Magistrate; and whether he will grant a Return of the cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, in whose adjudication the Hon. Colonel Forbes has taken part?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matters referred to in these questions are solely personal, and the Government do not intend to interfere.

  DISTRESS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter of the Rev. Patrick Logan, P.P., Kilcar, County Donegal, dated 29th September, 1890, which appeared in the freeman's Journal, calling attention to the fact that 500 families of his parishioners would by the 1st November not have a potato to eat or to seed the ground in the coming spring; whether, on the 5th November last, the said Rev. P. Logan had an interview with him in Carrick, County Donegal, and handed him a tabulated
  480
  statement respecting the population of his neighbourhood, and then stated the potato crop in his parish was a complete failure; and whether he assured Father Logan that he was "anxious to aid him through this period of distress "; whether his attention has been directed to another letter of the said Rev. Father Logan in the Irish Times of 15th January, again calling public attention to the acute distress in the district of Kilcar; and whether the Government intend to make any provision for the relief of these destitute people?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am somewhat surprised at this question of the hon. Gentleman, because relief works have been for some weeks actively proceeding in the district referred to. The number of labourers employed on the works on the 21st January was 305.

  THE FINN VALLEY RAILWAY.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended that the cesspayers are to be under any liability in respect of the working of the new Finn Valley Railway; whether the fair town of Brockagh will be touched by the line; and whether the tracing on the map in the Tea Room is correct in showing the line along the north side of the river from Dooish to Frintown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The arrangements are not yet finally completed. There is no ground for believing there will be any liability on the cesspayer. The district south of the river will be served by the line.

  TRADE WITH BRAZIL.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the proposed Treaty between Brazil and the United States, manufactures from the latter country of cotton, steel, and iron will be admitted into Brazil at 25 per cent. less duty than will be levied on similar goods shipped from the United Kingdom; and whether he has received any information on the subject from Her Majesty's Ministers in Washington and Rio de Janeiro?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The intelligence received in this country is conveyed in a telegram from Washington,

  481
  and does not afford information as to the manner in which the Brazilian Government propose to apply the provisions of the Treaty in question. Her Majesty's Ministers at Washington and Rio de Janeiro will, no doubt, in accordance with the general practice of the Diplomatic Service, duly report by despatch the terms of this Treaty and its bearing upon British trade. I will inform the hon. Member when those despatches are received.

  A LAND DISPUTE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what ground it is stated that Lord Waterford's tenant, Michael Keily, was satisfied to purchase his holding (on being served with an ejectment) on terms involving his paying the Government in instalments more than he paid the landlord in rent; and what is the name of the Court valuer who visited Keily's holding, and certified that the advance was a safe one for the Purchase Department to make?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the first part of the question, I understand the matter referred to has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland in an answer which he gave the hon. Gentleman on the 3rd inst. As regards the other inquiry, the name of the Inspector who valued the holding was Mr. Philip Newton.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He stated that Mr. Keily had expressed his satisfaction at having to pay £7 instead of £6 10s. I ask upon what ground?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked if the arrangement was a satisfactory one to the Government. I answered, that whether or not it was satisfactory to the Government, it was eminently satisfactory to the tenant, as it had been entered into at his urgent request.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, under stress of notice of ejectment.
  MR. MADDEN: I came to the conclusion that the tenant was satisfied, as he made the request to the landlord, and his request was granted.

  HOURS OF LABOUR ABROAD.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, as a Select Committee is to be appointed to inquire into the question of restricting by law the hours of railway servants, he will send the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, or some other competent person, to the United States to inquire into the working of the various laws which have been passed by the State Legislature to restrict the hours of adult male labour, and to report thereon to this House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: No, Sir; I do not think that it would be advisable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member with regard to Mr. Burnett. His time is very fully occupied with important matters in this country. I have already requested the Foreign Office to obtain information with regard to the various laws and regulations of foreign countries respecting the hours of labour of railway servants, and this information will, I hope, be received in time to be laid before the Committee.

  NAVAL PENSIONS.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Naval pensions which were to be transferred from the Greenwich Hospital Fund have been so transferred?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: Yes, Sir; we have decided that the transfer shall be made at a date to be fixed in concert with the Admiralty.

  WELSH POSTMASTERS.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the large number of vacancies which will be caused in Welsh post offices by reason of the superannuation of postmasters over 65 years of age at the end of the current year, he will take steps, as far as is consistent with the efficiency of the Service, to appoint only persons who speak and understand the Welsh language

  483
  to post offices in the districts where that language is generally used?
  MR. RAIKES: It is not intended generally to superannuate Postmasters over 60 years at the end of the current year. A notice has, however, been given to those over 65 years of age that this course will be taken as regards offices in the gift of the Postmaster General. And it will, in my judgment, be necessary to require the retirement of those over 70 at a still earlier date. No such step, however, is in contemplation as regards the minor offices to which the Treasury nominates, and which are those to which the right hon. Gentleman's question probably refers, as these are often situated in backward and remote parts of the country. I have always taken care, with a due regard to the efficiency of the Service, to appoint persons who speak and understand Welsh to Post Offices in districts where that language is in general use.

  HEFFERNAN'S CASE.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with respect to the case of District Inspector Carter and Constable John Loohig, both of Tipperary, in which a Coroner's jury found a verdict against them for the shooting of a boy named Stephen Heffernan, on the 5th September, 1889; and whether the inquisition has been quashed, or a nolle prosequi entered to it; and, if not, do the Government intend to prosecute on this inquisition?
  MR. MADDEN: I stated fully why I saw no reason to take further proceedings in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on the 4th December last, and I now beg to refer him to the answer which I gave on that occasion. With regard to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that the action referred to was decided not on a technical point, but on a substantial issue. I cannot accept the view of the verdict of the jury put forth in the fourth paragraph of the question having regard to the findings to which they in the first instance agreed, and no reason why the Government should take the very exceptional course suggested in the latter part of the question.
  DR. TANNER: Did not Inspector Carter frequently admit that the men
  484
  fired without orders and killed this man. Is he not to be held responsible?
  MR. MADDEN: I have answered questions relating to this already, and must refer the hon. Member to the answers given in December.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen a report of the case, Johannah Heffernan against John Collis Carter, District Inspector, and Constable Loohig, tried before Mr. Justice Holmes and a special jury of the City of Dublin, on the 22nd, 24th, 25th, and 26th days of November, in which the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on the principal issue put before them, namely—
  "That the firing of the shot was not necessary for the self-defence of Carter and his policemen while engaged in the performance of the duty aforesaid;"
  whether he is aware that a verdict was given for the defendants on a technical point, namely, that at the time of the boy's death there was not a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit to his mother, within the meaning of Lord Campbell's Act; whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Holmes, who tried the case, declared in his Charge to the jury that it raised a most grave and important issue, and that the jury who tried the case was a special jury of the City of Dublin, consisting of men of various political opinions; whether, under this verdict, the entire cost of the case falls upon the mother of the deceased, although it is practically a verdict of manslaughter against the police; and whether, since the costs amount to £285 2s. 9d., the Government will save this poor woman from ruin by defraying the costs?
  MR. MADDEN: The answer I gave to the last question applies to this.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it the intention of the Government to enter a nolle prosequi in this case?
  MR. MADDEN: That course will not be taken. The case was laid before a Bench of Magistrates, who refused an information.
  DR. TANNER: Is Carter to be promoted for the murder of this boy?
  MR. MAC NEILL: Inasmuch as this case resulted in loss of life, I must ask a further question as to the Bench of Magistrates who refused the information. Was it the ordinary Bench, or one

  485
  exclusively composed of Resident Magistrates selected for the purpose? Was not the brother of one of the Magistrates, within two days after the decision was given, made a Deputy Lieutenant of the County of Dublin?
  MR. MADDEN: It was an ordinary Petty Sessions Bench. If the local Magistrates do not attend, the Government cannot be held responsible.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: What were the issues found by the jury? Was it not that the firing of the shot was not necessary for the self-defence of the police while engaged in the execution of their duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Government not to allow this woman to be mulct in the police costs?
  MR. MADDEN: The issues submitted to the jury were—1st, as to whether it was the duty of the police to disperse the crowd; and, secondly, was the performance of that duty accompanied by personal danger, which the Judge in his Charge explained to mean danger to life or risk of serious injury. The jury without difficulty found both these issues in favour of the defendant—they agreed it was the duty of the police to disperse the crowd, and that there was personal danger. They stated, however, they could not agree as to the remaining issues, which were—was the firing necessary in self-defence, and had the plaintiffs any pecuniary interest in the life of the deceased? They asked the Judge, could they find a verdict on one conditional on the other? He told them no such verdict would stand, and they then found for the plaintiff on the self-defence issue, and for the defendants on the issue as to pecuniary benefit. How they could reconcile their finding on the self-defence issue with the finding as to the duty of the police to disperse the crowd I cannot imagine, as they admitted the duty was attended with personal danger.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask the Government whether, in any single instance of the finding by a Coroner's Jury of a verdict of wilful murder, they have allowed it to stand against the person concerned without making some effort to set it aside. Is this to be the only case in which no such effort is to be made?
  MR. MADDEN: There have, especially under previous Governments, been many verdicts of wilful murder in which no step whatever has been taken by the Government of the day. In this case the Government laid it before a Bench of Magistrates, who refused an information and, in my opinion, that decision was amply justified by the evidence in the civil action.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: There are two points on which I wish to be satisfied. Was not the jury composed almost entirely of gentlemen of the right hon. Gentleman's way of thinking, there being very few Catholics among them, and will the Government see that the woman is not mulct in these heavy costs?
  MR. MADDEN: As to the constitution of the jury I have no information. Under the circumstances, the Government cannot undertake to pay the plaintiff's costs.

  ARMY BANDMASTERS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the bandmasters of the Army were invited to compete for position of Director of Music at Kneller Hall on 10th and 11th November last; and whether he can state the names of, and number of marks awarded to, the first three candidates as arranged by the Court of Examiners?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: All bandmasters serving at home, who were eligible by age, were invited to compete. As the decision of the Court of Musical Examiners was only one among the considerations on which the selection was made, I do not think it would be desirable to state the marks of the several candidates.

  HYDE PARK.
  MR. EDWARD HOARE: I beg to ask the First Commisioner of Works whether he will cause direction posts, similar to those in Hyde Park, to be erected in Regent's Park?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: Yes, Sir. Since our attention has been called to the matter several posts have been put up, and more will be erected.

  THE GOLD COST.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is correctly reported that Mr. E. A. S. McMunn has been called upon to resign his post as District Commissioner at the Gold Coast; and, if so, whether he will inform the House as to the reasons for this; and whether a Report has yet been received from the Governor of the Gold Coast as to the alleged sanctioning of slavery and the slave trade in the colony?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Mr. McMunn has not been called upon to resign; but, in accordance with the terms upon which he was appointed, his appointment has been cancelled, it having been established to the satisfaction of the Governor and the Secretary of State that he was not qualified to render efficient service on the Gold Coast. The answer to the second paragraph is, No; but the Governor has been reminded.
  MR. PICTON: Was the cause of disqualification excessive zeal against slavery?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir; certainly not.

  FALCARRAGH EVICTIONS.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, during an eviction in Falcarragh in November last, assaulted the hon. Member for South Donegal, and refused to give his name when he was requested so to do in order that his misconduct might be reported to his superior officer; and whether, having regard to the great difficulty of identifying Royal Irish Constabulary constables by reason of their uniforms and helmets which conceal their features, and the repeated refusal of the Government to place numbers on the uniforms of this Force, he is prepared to suggest any methods by which members of the Force whose conduct is impugned may be identified?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I am informed, no assault was committed on the hon. Member. It is the practice for constables to give their names when asked for in a proper manner.
  MR. MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the statement of a constabulary officer in contradiction of that of myself and my hon. Friend? Is he aware that when I was at the Falcarragh evictions, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, I unintentionally entered the cordon? I was not asked to move, but was rudely jostled by the constable. I asked the constable for his name, and as he refused to give it I had to take means to identify him.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: And is the Chief Secretary aware that I witnessed the assault?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware the fact was brought to official notice by the hon. Gentleman. If he was able to take exceptional means to identify the man I suppose he was satisfied.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I was only able to identify him by chalking him, and that I did do.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to have the constables numbered in future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I propose to make no change.

  PACKETS AND THE POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL EYRE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that foreign packets are allowed to come through the Post Office in closed envelopes, whilst those sent from England must be open at both ends, whereby injury is frequently caused to the enclosure; and, if such is the case, whether anything can be done to remedy this inconvenience?
  MR. RAIKES: I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to be under the impression that printed papers may be sent to this country from places abroad in unclosed envelopes, but that the same method of packing is not allowed in the opposite direction. I may assure my hon. Friend that such is not the case, the same facilities being permitted in both directions. This only applies to countries coming within the jurisdiction of the Postal Union.

  SUAKIN.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have sanctioned the action

  489
  of the Egyptian Government in sending an expedition to recover a portion of the Soudan, near Suakin, which was some years ago formally abandoned at the urgent instance of the British Government; and whether care will be taken that these measures do not throw any burden on this country, either directly, on account of the military operations in the Soudan, or indirectly, by withdrawing a portion of the Egyptian forces, and throwing the defence of Egypt and the Nile more heavily on Her Majesty's Army?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have raised no objection to the occupation of Tokar and Handoub by the Egyptian troops, as the occupation was strongly urged by the Civil and Military Authorities, in order to relieve the district round Suakin from oppression and plunder by the Dervishes, and especially in order to facilitate the opening of trade in grain. No additional burden will be thrown on this country by the measures that are being taken.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will it not be necessary to occupy the country with British troops when, the Egyptian garrison is withdrawn for this expedition?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is not anticipated that any addition will have to be made to the garrison of Suakin on account of the occupation of these outposts.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  COLONEL HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, considering the disadvantages under which the Newfoundland fishermen are labouring owing to the heavy bounties given by France upon fish, and the grave importance of the fisheries dispute, he can state that Her Majesty's Government are taking active steps to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The system of giving bounties upon fish is one to which the French Government attach great importance, and as it is entirely a matter of internal regulation we have no ground for objecting to it. The dispute with respect to the Treaties is receiving the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  DR. TANNER: Will not attention be paid to the claims of the poor fishermen who suffered, seeing that the Government have made an allowance to Mr. Baird for the disturbance and annoyance to which he was subjected?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

  INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CONVENTION.
  COLONEL HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the further Papers respecting the Industrial Property Convention held at Madrid will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; further Papers will be laid on the Table when it is seen whether the projects submitted by the Conference are signed on behalf of the countries which respectively adopt them.

  TRADE WITH BRITISH COLONIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Report of the Treaties Committee has been received, upon the representations of the Agents General of the self-governing colonies, and of the Imperial Federation League, as to the importance of annulling the clause in the Treaty with Belgium of 1862, and the Treaty with Germany of 1865, precluding the conclusion of preferential commercial arrangements between the Mother Country and the colonies, or between any other portion of the Empire, except between the Colonies of Australasia; and, in such case, if he has any objection to state the nature of the recommendation of the Committee, and the decision of the Government upon the subject?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I can only inform my hon. Friend that the second Report of the Trade and Treaties Committee has just been received, and is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I must not be understood as admitting the accuracy of my hon. Friend's interpretation of the effect of the two Treaties to which he refers.

  THE CASTLEREA ARRESTS.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  491
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 18 prisoners have been remanded seven times by Mr. Brady, R.M., who has been holding a Court at Castlerea under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and have been taken from their beds at 9 or 10 o'clock in Castlebar Gaol and sent to Castlerea, arriving at midnight, and then kept in the police cells all night without a bed to lie on; whether he is also aware that one of the prisoners (Mr. T. Forde) was treated in this way, though he had been for some days suffering from illness; and whether this prisoner has been discharged on the report of an independent doctor; can he explain why the prisoners were not brought by the train which arrives at Castlerea at 11 o'clock a.m.; and why these prisoners are detained till midnight, and then sent back by train to Castlebar, to arrive about 4 o'clock in the morning, when other and more convenient trains are available?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that seven, not 18, prisoners, as alleged in the question, have been committed seven times for refusing to be sworn or to give evidence at the Castlerea inquiry. Such prisoners, who are to be again brought up, are released from prison about 9 a.m. and conveyed to Castlerea by the 10 o'clock train the same morning. In no case have these prisoners been kept in police cells. When it is necessary to detain any of them in Castlerea Police Barracks for a night a comfortable room is provided, with a fire. Timothy Forde was at once discharged from custody when it was found that he was suffering from a slight complaint. In every case where it was practicable to have prisoners sent back by the early train it was used. Any inconvenience suffered by these prisoners is solely the result of their determination to obstruct and impede the administration of the law.
  MR. O'KELLY: I now ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what hour of the night the police arrested Mrs. Owen Lavin, of Lisahurka; whether he is aware that Mrs. Lavin, who is in a delicate state of health and whose husband was at the time in prison, objected to go with the police, and asked to be permitted to wait till next day when she would be driven on a friend's car to Castlerea; whether
  492
  the police, the day or two following, came to Mrs. Lavin's house at 2 o'clock in the morning to arrest her mother-in-law, an old woman 75 years of age, and in bad health; and under what authority did the police act in these cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the woman was arrested at 11.45 in the morning, that she made no complaint of delicate health, but on the contrary, seemed to be in excellent health. She offered to go with the police, and a seat was provided for her on the car. The police did not endeavour to arrest the mother-in-law at 2 o'clock in the morning. She had absconded. The police acted on the warrant issued by the Resident Magistrate.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Crane, of Fairymount, County Roscommon, who was in a delicate state of health, having a baby only a few weeks old, was arrested at 1 o'clock in the morning, and brought to Castlerea; and if he can explain why her request to be allowed to go into Castlerea next morning, and have her husband accompany her, was refused by the police?
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken for the relief of distress along the seaboard from Cahirciveen to Kenmare; whether he is aware that a deputation of 300 labourers from the Ballinskelligs district, a locality remote from the facilities of the railway works, waited on the Cahirciveen Board of Guardians to demand work or relief; and whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the advisability of constructing a pier at Ballin-skellings, which would give employment to the starving people of the district, and tend to develop the local fishery?
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Shaskett was recently arrested on the De Freyne estate under an Inquiry Court warrant at midnight and brought into Castlerea in custody, the result being that from the fright she sustained she was unable to take any food until she reached home 20 hours after; and whether the practice of

  493
  making arrests at night has been sanctioned by the Government? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman Whether he is aware that Edward Egan, of Carreenturpane, was arrested under an Inquiry Court warrant at midnight, and brought into Castlerea; that, after Mr. Egan returned, the priest had to be sent for to anoint him; and that he is now in a dying state, owing to the shock and the exposure of the night to which he was subjected; and whether the practice of making arrests at night has been sanctioned by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not in a position to answer these four questions, and must ask that they be put down for another day.
  MR. J. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the allegations as to the midnight arrests?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I will inquire into any special case brought to my notice. I have shown the hon. Member he is in error in the one case he has named.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Plan of Campaign on the estate, in regard to which these cases have arisen, has broken down?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CHARGE AGAINST MR. P. MAGAN, J.P.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what steps were taken to recover from Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., for the Counties of Ross-common, Westmeath, and Wexford, the amount he was alleged to have obtained under the Arrears Act of 1882 by false representations; what amount, if any, has been recovered, and in the case of what tenants; what amount of rent was sworn by Mr. Magan to be due by these tenants up to 1st November, 1881; what is the actual amount which has been found to be due; whether any inquiries have been made as to whether money may have been similarly obtained in the case of other tenants on the same estate; has Mr. Magan's conduct in this matter been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; does he still hold the Commission of the Peace and act as a Magistrate; have any steps been taken to prosecute Mr. Magan and recover the
  494
  penalties provided under the Arrears Act; and in how many cases have prosecutions under the Arrears Act been instituted; what were the charges, and what was the result?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question till Monday.

  STOCK FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which of the Education Acts have issues of stock for school buildings been authorised by Parliament without the maximum amounts being named; and were these stocks issued under the Imperial guarantee?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave him on Monday, he will find that I said nothing about issues of stock. I spoke of loans being made without limit of the liability. I may refer him, for instance, to 33 & 34 Vic., Cap. 75.

  THE JAMAICA EXHIBITION.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that no news of the opening of the Jamaica Exhibition was published in this country until a week after the event; whether he can state the reason of this delay; and whether he can present to the House any official account of an Exhibition which is of such interest to those connected with West Indian industries and commerce?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Telegrams direct from the West Indies are very costly, and this may probably have been the reason why no accounts of the proceedings at the opening of the Jamaica Exhibition have been given by the Press until yesterday. My hon. Friend will see in the Times of yesterday a full telegram from New York. The more detailed accounts by mail have not yet arrived; but it will be considered, when the Governor's despatch has been received, whether there will be advantage in presenting it to Parliament.

  H.M.S. MOHAWK.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to be good enough to inform the House

  495
  of the nature of the Report (official or otherwise) received from Her Majesty's cruiser Mohawk since her arrival at Las Palmas; whether it is true that she is described as being top-heavy and very uncomfortable in a sea way, owing to which all hands were turned out for two nights in succession on the passage; "that the gangways were carried away, and the boats stove in;" that there were two feet of water in the steerage, whilst the pumps had to be kept going an entire day, the vessel at the time heeling 45 degrees; and whether, in face of this, it is intended to reduce the top-weight of cruisers of this class now under the course of construction?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No Report has been received from Her Majesty's ship Mohawk since reaching Las Palmas. If anything unusual or exception had occurred on the voyage there, it would have been reported. No cruisers of this class are being built.

  THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case of assault committed in the Commercial Road on Sunday last, when the Magistrate who tried the case expressed the following opinion:—
  "The attack the prisoners had been guilty of justified a man in using any deadly weapon in order to protect himself, and even if the prosecutor had shot both men dead, he would have been justified in doing so;"
  and whether, in view of these frequent outrages, and the various interpretations of the law on this subject, he will inform the Magistrates and Judges what a man may and may not do under similar circumstances?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I am informed by the learned Magistrate that he did not make use of the words quoted. What he said to the prisoners was as follows:—
  "Some people contend that your conduct would justify the complainant in using a revolver and shooting you both dead, but with that I certainly do not agree."
  I have no reason to believe that outrages such as the one referred to are frequent, or that the law on the subject is not thoroughly understood. I should, however, be exceeding my duty if I took
  496
  upon myself to define or interpret the law for the guidance of Judges and Magistrates.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I took the words verbatim from the Daily News.
  DR. TANNER: Hear, hear! Good paper!

  H.M.S. SANSPAREIL—THE 110-TON GUNS
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is true that the new split band of the Sanspareil 110-ton gun, on being tested, showed signs of shifting, and that each round fired caused the muzzle of the gun to droop, inclining it to one side; and whether he is bound to accept the gun from the manufacturers, irrespective of test?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The gun is still under proof, and some further rounds are about to be fired, including some against a 20-in. compound armour plate, with an 8-in. wrought-iron plate behind it. A detailed Report will be made in the usual course when the tests are completed. The Admiralty is not bound to accept this or any other gun irrespective of test.

  THE CONVICTION OF A CLERGYMAN.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has observed the case, reported in the papers of 11th February, of a clergyman who was, on the evidence before the Magistrate, committed for stealing a variety of articles from the Army and Navy Stores, and was tried before Sir Peter Edlin, Chairman of Quarter Sessions, that he pleaded guilty and no evidence was heard, but his counsel was allowed to make an ex parte statement, saying that he was the son of a man of position, that having failed in other pursuits he became a clergyman, that he failed in that profession also owing to intemperate habits, that he was suffering from want and anxiety when he committed the offences charged, and that if he was let off his friends would take care of him and place him in a home for inebriates, that Sir Peter Edlin thereupon released ,him on security on condition that his friends would take care of him; and whether the Chairman has the power to act in this manner?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen a newspaper report, from which I learn that the prisoner, who had already been two months in custody, was liberated on condition that he found one surety in £100, and entered into recognizances in the same amount to come up for judgment if called on within the next 12 months, so as to insure his good conduct during that period. I am advised that the action of the Judge was in accordance with the law as laid down in the 117th section of the Larceny Consolidation Act, 1861, and in the 1st section of the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Have any cases occurred in which poor men convicted under similar circumstances have been treated in this way?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It does not appear to me to be unreasonable that a man who appears to me to be out of his mind should for a first offence be treated in this way.

  CLASSICS FOR ARMY CANDIDATES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the circumstances which have caused the recent change, making a classical language compulsory for candidates in the Army; and if he will produce Papers on the subject?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: In accordance with the recommendation of the majority of headmasters of public schools, and with the full concurrence of the Civil Service Commissioners, it has been decided prospectively that elementary Latin shall be an obligatory subject for military candidates. I will consider whether any of the correspondence can, with advantage, be produced.

  BULKHEADS.
  MR. FURNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the serious inconvenience caused to shipowners through the uncertainty with regard to No. 12 of the General Rules of the Board of Trade, under "The Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, 1888;" whether, though the Rules came into operation on 1st November last, no decision has yet been arrived at by the Board with regard to the application of the said Rule 12;
  498
  when the Committee on Bulkheads, appointed to inquire into the matter, is expected to report; and whether the Report, when presented, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The General Rule No. 12 under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, to which the hon. Member refers, is as follows:—
  "12. Watertight compartments.—When ships of any class are divided into efficient compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade they shall only be required to carry additional boats, rafts, and other life-saving appliances of one half of the capacity required by these Rules."
  The Board of Trade are not in a position to arrive at a decision with regard to this Rule until they receive the Report of the Bulkheads Committee appointed to inquire into the matter. This, I hope, will be about the end of next month. The Report, when received, will be laid on the Table of the House.

  COFFIN TARGETS.
  MR. JACOBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any truth in the statement that "coffin" targets are to be discontinued; and, if so, whether he will sanction the use of Wimbledon targets this year for class firing by the Reserve Forces?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The use of the so-called "coffin" targets will be discontinued, and regulations are in preparation for introducing the Wimbledon marking for use by the Regular Forces. The Musketry Committee has recommended changes based on like conditions for the Auxiliary Forces, but before they are adopted the proposal will have to receive very careful consideration.

  ROADS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH.: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Secretary for Scotland has received representations from County Councils and others on the subject of new roads in certain parts of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and suggesting grants in aid; and whether, in its proposed special dealings with these localities, Government would take this point into favourable consideration?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Secretary for Scotland has received communications

  499
  from several bodies in the Highlands of Scotland praying for grants in aid of the construction of roads. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the question of grants in aid to these Highland districts have not made any special recommendation for the purpose referred to, but the Government will give the whole matter their most careful consideration.

  THE CZAR OF RUSSIA AND THE CITY.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will explain the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Ministers accepted the responsibility of becoming the medium through which the Memorial of the Lord Mayor and Citizens of London, on the subject of the treatment of the Jews in Russia, was returned to the Memorialists?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I am under the impression that the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Ministers accepted the responsibility mentioned in the question were sufficiently disclosed in the letter from the Under Secretary of State to the Lord Mayor.

  MR. O'BRIEN AND MR. DILLON.
  MR. J. M'CARTHY: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Dillon have been already arrested?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information on the point. I imagine the question should be addressed to the Home Secretary.
  MR. J. M'CARTHY: Then I will address it to the Home Secretary.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not received any information to that effect.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive such information?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should not be surprised at receiving it.

  THE VOTE OF CENSURE.
  MR.W.H.SMITH: In the ordinary channels of information I see a statement that the Debate on the Vote of Censure will probably terminate on Monday. It would probably contribute to
  500
  the convenience of the House if that statement were confirmed by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR.J.O'CONNOR: Will only one day be given to the discussion?
  MR. W.H.SMITH: I was ready to give any longer amount of time that might be required. But it appears from the morning papers—especially from one peculiarly representing the Party opposite— that it is intended to conclude the Debate on the first day, and it is obvious that if this is so the fact ought to be generally known.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 207.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
    SIR W.HARCOURT: I may state, at no unnecessary length, the reasons why I feel bound to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. There are circumstances in connection with the Bill of which I confess I do not remember any example. During the progress of the discussions on the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of it has very fairly recognised that there are omissions which ought to be supplied. One of these omissions related to the very important question of derelict farms, and when an Amendment dealing with that matter came to be discussed the Government found themselves unable to defend their own Amendment. These deficiencies were discovered too late to be remedied in Committee, and the Government promised to deal with them when the Bill came before the Upper House.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I simply withdrew the Amendment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I pointed out at the time there was great difficulty in dealing with the matter at that stage, seeing that it was a vital and important matter. The Government saw their Amendment would not hold water, and withdrew it; but I certainly did not anticipate they would leave their Bill

    501
    derelict as well as the farms. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit the intention to reserve this Amendment to be dealt with in the House of Lords, for he pledged himself the Bill should come down to this House in a form which would enable this matter to be discussed. And I assert that the House of Lords is a singularly inappropriate Body to deal with these matters, for it consists of large tithe owners and landlords. If, therefore, there were no other reason, I should vote against the Third Reading of a Bill admitted by the Government to be an incomplete measure. These conditions have been produced by the desire of the Government to rush legislation of some kind, regardless of its thorough consideration. In 1889 the Government introduced a Bill to settle the tithe question on the principle of throwing all the burden of the tithe on the occupier. This was strenuously opposed by the Liberal Party, who were denounced as wicked obstructionists. Our opposition was described as factious. Yet the Government saw fit to give way, and that principle, which has now been rightly abandoned by the Government, would have been embodied in an Act of Parliament but for the strong opposition of which the Government complained. In the course of the Debate on that Bill we were described as unscrupulous obstructives, as Church robbers, and as the friends of disorder. Then in 1890 the Government introduced another Tithe Bill of quite a different character. It embodied the principle for which we had contended, namely, that the liability should fall on the landowner, and not on the occupier. The old Bill had disappeared, Sir, mainly by reason of your ruling, because you determined that the Amendments proposed by the Attorney General were so complete a change in the character of the measure that they, in fact, constituted a new Bill. Now the first Bill of 1890, so far as it placed the liability on the owner instead of the occupier, was a measure to which I, at least, offered no objection. Still, the Bill contained a number of provisions which, in our opinion, were most injurious to the occupiers of the land. It made occupiers, who were under a contract to pay tithe, liable to execution, bankruptcy, and eviction. It gave most extraordinary powers in the case of the small yeoman, and
    502
    enabled a receiver to go in and intermeddle with his farm. To these things we offered strenuous resistance. Again, we were denounced as unscrupulous obstructives, but with the unexpected assistance-of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Compensation Clauses we got rid of that Bill. And the result of our unscrupulous obstruction was that the Amendments for which we contended have now been adopted in the present Bill. We now have No. 2 Bill of 1890 before us. The 1st clause contains a principle for which I have always contended, namely, that the liability shall be on the owner, and not on the occupier, and that the Bill also removes many of the objections we had entertained to its predecessor. Therefore I, for one, did not vote against the Second Reading. I was quite willing, bearing in mind how far former Bill shad been amended in their progress, to see if this one could not be made to fall in with our views. I have forgotten to mention the ambitious scheme of redemption which characterised the two first Bills, and which was found to be so totally unworkable that it had to be thrown overboard in the present Bill. But I repeat, I was extremely willing to see if this Bill could not in Committee be made acceptable. With reference to the present Bill, this I will say: that the 1st clause contains a principle for which I have always contended as against the principle contained in the Bill of 1889. That, in point of fact, is what we have achieved by our opposition. But there is one thing to which I do not think sufficient attention has been called in this House, and I doubt whether it is understood in the country. One of the great professions of the authors of the Bill of 1889 was that it would be a great thing to do away with distress for tithe. But this Bill does not do away with distress for tithe at all. Distress for tithe will exist as much with this Bill in operation as it exists now. Distress for tithe is the only remedy. If you look at Clause 1 you find such sums shall be recoverable from the occupier by distress in like manner provided by the Tithe Act with respect to arrears of tithe rent-charge. That is the old remedy of distress, and no other; it is also the only remedy under Sub-section 2 of Clause 2, in the case of occupying owner and the occupier

    503
    under covenant to pay tithe. Under Clause 2 we find the order of the Court shall be executed by an officer appointed by the Court, who, subject to the direction of the Court, shall have the powers of distraint conferred by the Tithes Act. Therefore, in the great majority of cases, distress will be the only remedy, as before; and therefore the idea that this Bill has some particular merit in getting rid of distress is a total delusion. It is also believed that under this Bill the owner will take the whole liability for tithe, that he will make a new arrangement with his tenant, and that the tenant will know nothing about the payment of tithe as such. That is the idea of Clause 1, but it is a mistake to think this will happen. In Section 2 of Clause 1 we come upon the case of the occupier who is liable, under covenant made before the passing of this Act, to pay tithe, and that sub-section will govern nearly all the tenant-farmers in this country. Of course, if you have a lease of seven years and that comes to an end, then a new contract can be made in which the tenant-farmer may no longer be subject to the payment of tithe; but in the case of tenants from year to year, which constitute three-fourths or more of the agricultural tenancies in the country, there will be a continuing contract made before the passing of the Act, and the tenant, therefore, will continue to be liable to pay tithe, unless he gives his landlord notice to quit and a new contract is made, which is not likely to happen. Therefore, in tenancies from year to year, this Bill will have no operation in relieving the tenant from payment of tithe; he will continue to pay tithe not levied from him as rent, but qua tithe, and levied by the landlord instead of by the tithe owner, levied in the same way, by distress. The situation, therefore, will not be altered in the slightest degree. I suggested, not in the House— but I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman objects to my mentioning it—that we should apply to the case of tenant-farmers the same words as were put into the Tithe Commutation Act of 1883, by which year to year tenancies would be treated as annual tenancies simply, so that the provisions of the Act would come into operation with reference to every annual tenancy at the end of six months.
    504
    If that had been put in the Bill the tenant farmer would be relieved from payment of tithe, he would know nothing of tithe as tithe, and his arrangement would be made with his landlord quite irrespective of the payment of tithe. Now that would have been a reform worth making, but this Bill will leave the tenant-farmer, in the case of an. annual tenancy, liable to pay tithe, just as he is now, and the tithe that the landlord pays will be recoverable, not as rent, but qua tithe, and by distress. Let me illustrate this. Suppose a tenant in Wales, willing to pay rent—unwilling to pay tithe. He will pay his rent, and the landlord will say, "I have paid the tithe; you must repay me." The tenant will refuse to pay tithe, as he has before refused, and the landlord will then distrain as and for tithe, and never as rent, under this Bill. I point these things out, and depend upon it you will find the "rub" of this when you come to the working of the Act. The notion that you have instituted a reform as to the liability for tithe when you object to provide for year to year tenancies will be discovered to be a great delusion. That I have to say on the 1st clause of the Bill. I think it is very defective in that respect, though I have no objection to the principle of the clause. Then we come to the important Clause 2. I have said the only machinery left in this Bill practically, with the exception of the collection of rents by the receiver, which, in my opinion, will only constitute a small part of the operation of the Bill, is by distress. You may say so it is now, but it will not be at all after the passing of this Act as before, for you have called in the machinery of the County Court to effect this distress; it can only be done by that machinery—an expensive, inconvenient, and oppressive machinery. Therefore, we have laboured through this Bill. I confess that was my object, to reduce the difficulties of the County Court in the execution of the provisions of the Bill. I will bear testimony, as I have done before, to the extremely reasonable, courteous, and conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted these discussions, and that the Bill has reached its Third Reading stage is mainly due to the change in the management of the Bill, from a former experiment

    505
    of which, we have had experience. But though the right hon. Gentleman has accepted something like 10 Amendments of a material character from this side of the House—a circumstance which shows that charges of obstruction are totally unfounded—although the right hon. Gentleman has allowed there are omissions in the Bill which have to be dealt with else where, or not dealt with at all, there still remain points in the 2nd clause which make the danger so great that they constitute the main reasons why, not having voted against the Second Reading, I feel bound to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. First, take the matter of expense. What right have you to benefit the tithe owner and to put the tithe payer to greater expense in doing so? Is there any man in the House who believes that if you are going to exact this tithe charge through the machinery of the County Court the tithe payer will not be put to far greater expense than he now incurs? Every man of practical experience knows that will be the case. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did not feel at liberty to allow that costs should be restricted. We fought this question of costs hard—we fought for a Schedule for many hours, and we had the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), the only assistance we had from the particular Party of which he is a Member, in reference to this Bill, and indeed all our Amendments were mainly defeated by those gentlemen, who say they are Liberals in all things save in reference to Ireland. There have been narrow majorities far below an ordinary Government majority, but those majorities which have defeated our Amendments for the interests of small owners and occupiers have been made up of the Liberal Unionists. Therefore, I do single out the solitary and remarkable exception in the assistance we have received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury. But do not let it be said there was obstructive opposition, for if after a few hours—I might say after some days—we succeeded in obtaining a Schedule of costs, it was worth the time expended. But the Schedule does not go far enough. The Schedule only deals with the fees in Court, and not with those extraneous costs which will be the
    506
    inevitable consequence in many cases of giving this jurisdiction to County Courts in Wales. You are, I say, doing that which we have always protested against, giving an advantage to the tithe owners at the expense of the tithe payers—an advantage to which the tithe owners are not entitled, and for which the tithe-payers ought not to pay. This is a great blot in the Bill. I will not say much about the 3rd clause of the Bill, that is in charge of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray). I voted with him, and we were defeated by the votes of representatives of the great landowners in England. I suppose they thought they were acting wisely, at all events they are generally able to take care of themselves, and I do not feel very much called upon to contend in their interest; but I doubt very much whether the small owners and yeomen of England, who are not so able to take care of themselves, and who have few representatives or sympathisers on that side of the House, will regard this achievement, this principal measure of the Session of a Tory-Unionist Government, as a blessing in disguise; at all events, the disguise is very complete, and the blessing will disappear as the Act comes into operation. Apart from these matters, there is one matter which is conclusive in inducing me to vote against the Third Reading. We contended that if you were going to confer a jurisdiction necessarily more vexatious and more costly than the existing proceeding, you should take very great care to make that jurisdiction one which would engender confidence, and not irritate and cause vexation among the people among whom it is to be newly introduced. In Wales you are going for the first time to County Court the great majority of the agricultural population. ["No, no!"] That, in itself, is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman says "No;" but I speak on the information of persons well acquainted with conditions of agricultural tenure in the Principality, which I do not assert that I am. I will say large numbers of the population. You are going to County Court these people; what does this mean? It means bringing them in matters that affect their deepest sentiments and strongest convictions under the jurisdiction of a tribunal that is as ignorant of their feelings as it is of their language. That is

    507
    one great defect in your Bill. I will say nothing against the County Court Judges, except that I think they are not very likely to know much of the sentiments of the Welsh people, and will not gather it from any knowledge of the language in which those sentiments are expressed. If you tell me the Courts will deal with these matters as with other small debts, that is nothing at all to the purpose. This is not a question of small debts at all, and it has never been under the jurisdiction of the County Court as a small debt. You are making it a County Court question for the first time, and you are bound in doing this to see that the County Court shall be surrounded by proper safeguards appertinent to this new jurisdiction. There is this also in the peculiar condition of Wales: that whereas in England the great majority of the persons amenable to the Bill will have the right to appeal to a jury, in Wales hardly any of the persons subject to the Bill will have that right. We have contended throughout this Bill as well as we could that if you granted this new jurisdiction you should at least give in that jurisdiction some weight and some voice to public opinion and popular sentiment among the Welsh people. If you had chosen you might have mitigated, I think, the exasperation which may be caused by this Bill, and I think you would have been wise if you had done so. The Government think our opposition to the Bill has been too strenuous. I suspect that one of these days they will regret it was not more strenuous and more persistent, so that we could have converted them from their errors on this occasion as we did before. The day will come when the Government will be only too glad to concede the right of trial by jury to Wales, as they are now glad to cast the burden of the tithe on the owner instead of the occupier. I do very much regret that again the Government have availed themselves on this matter of the assistance of their allies who are Liberals in all things except as affecting Ireland. They have voted down Welsh opinion in favour of trial by jury; this is a test of their Liberalism in all things except as regards the Union. If the Government had made this concession I think we might have made a settlement of this question, and certainly I would not
    508
    myself—I speak for no one else—be voting against the Third Reading of this Bill. You think this Bill is going to settle this question, and bring tranquillity to Wales. I hope it may. I wish I thought it would. I think it is much more likely to bring a sword than to bring peace. At all events, from the form this Bill has finally assumed, in spite of all our efforts, successful on some points, but unsuccessful in many more, I have come to the conclusion without hesitation that I must vote against the Third Reading of a Bill which, I am sorry to say, I believe will cause more evil than it is likely to cure.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have just witnessed what is always a great and solemn spectacle—that of a man struggling with the supreme difficulty of explaining the reasons for the difference between his views and his actions. I am quite sure, judging from the erratic course the right hon. Gentleman has hitherto pursued on this subject, that if it had remained among the Forms of the House that there should be not only the Question that the Bill be read a third time, but also the further Question that the Bill should pass, on that further Question the right hon. Gentleman would again change his mind. What are the reasons the right hon. Gentleman has given for taking, with regard to the Third Reading of this Bill, a different course to that which he adopted on the Second Reading? First of all, he told the House that the Bill is better than previous Bills. The right hon. Gentleman claims the parentage of the principle on which the Bill is based, namely, that the liability for the tithe rent-charge should be transferred from the occupier to the owner. I think, however, that it ought to be stated, in all fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, that it was on his motion and persistent action that the House in 1889 established that principle in opposition to the Bill then proposed by Her Majesty's Government. [Sir W. HARCOURT: I admit it was with his assistance] The right hon. Gentleman further claims that a great part of the Amendments which he and his friends proposed to our Bill of last year have been adopted in the present Bill; that during the progress of the Bill through Committee we have adopted ten

    509
    at least of the Amendments proposed on his side of the House; and he has praised, in terms for which I thank him, the manner in which I have attempted to perform the duty of conducting the Bill through the House. Surely these are all reasons for not taking a more hostile course to the Bill on the Third Beading than he did on the Second Beading. The right hon. Gentleman says the Bill is admittedly incomplete. I have made no such admission. The right hon. Gentleman declares that we have recognised an omission in the Bill which ought to be remedied, and he referred to the question of derelict farms and the right of entry of the tithe owner. I myself never regarded the right of entry of the tithe owner as a right of any serious value to him; and if that right is to be complicated by questions of compensation, I do not think we have done any injury to the owner of the tithe rent-charge by omitting it from the Bill.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to explain, for certainly it has not been understood until now. Is it understood, then, that this Bill abolishes altogether the right of entry upon the land by the tithe owner?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The 2nd sub-section of Clause 1, as it at present stands, leaves only the right of distraint to the tithe owner to be carried out through the County Court. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Norfolk, with regard to which I have made a promise on behalf of the Government that we will endeavour so to amend it in another place that the House may again have an opportunity of discussing it. That promise was made simply because hon. Members lost their opportunity of discussing the matter, not because I myself had any objection to the Amendment. The only point upon which the right hon. Gentleman can fairly say the Bill has been admitted to be incomplete by us is that just at the close of our proceedings on Tuesday night the Attorney General, at the urgent request of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, consented to include in the Bill certain provisions as to costs of solicitors and witnesses in undefended
    510
    cases which he had previously promised would be made by Rules of Court. I must say I think the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, that he is justified in objecting to the Third Reading because of the incomplete condition of the Bill, is not founded on the facts of the case. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to complain that the Bill does not abolish distraint for tithe rent-charge. We have never said that the Bill does abolish it. What we have said is that it abolishes the liability of the tenant for the tithe rent-charge, and abolishes the possibility which now exists that the tenant may be distrained upon for a debt that is not his own. Under Clause 1, he can only be distrained upon for the equivalent of the debt which he has himself contracted to pay, until he chooses to make a fresh contract. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the time when the 1st clause will take effect, but he never placed an Amendment on the Paper to carry out his views. He objects to Clause 2, on the ground that it will bring into the County Court a large number of the people in Wales. But the only people, either in England or Wales, who can be brought into the County Court will be the owners of land. No doubt there are in Wales a considerable number of small owners of land; but to say they form a very large part of the population is to speak with an exaggeration which is hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. There is no injustice: there can be no injustice to Wales in this matter, or in the matter of trial by jury. The right hon. Gentleman also objects to the County Court as the tribunal in these matters, because he thinks its decisions will not be based on popular sentiment. I hope judicial decisions will never be given in accordance with popular sentiment. I hope they will be given in accordance with justice and law. Hon. Members from Wales admit that they have confidence that the County Court Judges will act according to law and justice. But if the right hon. Gentleman feels so strong an objection to the 2nd and 3rd clauses, how is it that when these clauses were put from the Chair his name does not appear among those who voted against them? The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) at the time pointed to the absence of the

    511
    right hon. Gentleman as a proof of his lukewarmness.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Permit me to say I had an engagement which I could not break, and which made it necessary for me to be absent when the Division on Clause 2 was taken. I certainly was not deliberately absent.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, and I will not pursue the subject. The real question is not the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman, but whether the Bill in its present shape is such that the House ought to accept it? I will not, however, enter into a discussion of the merits of the Bill, for these have already been fully discussed. I believe it to be a measure which will be an advantage to the tithe owner in assisting him to recover a debt legally due to him; an advantage to the tenants of England and Wales, who will be freed from liability to distraint for a debt not theirs; and an advantage to the tithe payers, who, in cases where it can be shown that the tithe, owing to agricultural depression, is excessive, can claim and obtain relief and remission.
    MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS: I cannot allow the Third Reading to pass without recording on my own behalf and on that of my constituents, and I hope I may without presumption add the people of Wales, my protest against the principle of legislation involved in this Bill. This is no doubt, in name, a Bill for England and Wales, but no one will deny that in substance it is a Bill to punish persons in Wales who have declined to pay tithe, not because they desire to rid themselves of a just and honest obligation, but because they object to what they consider the misappropriation of the tithe. That such is the true intent of the Bill was confessed in some observations which were made in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes). I have no sort of inconsistency to defend, nor do I think there is any inconsistency in the course which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. I presume the right hon. Gentleman, in common with others, might well have approved of a portion of the general principle of the Bill, whilst he hoped his own efforts and the
    512
    efforts of others would have the effect of inducing the Government to adopt such suggestions and Amendments as would have enabled him on the Third Reading, not partially or generally but wholly to approve of the Bill. That expectation, if it was indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman, has been lamentably disappointed, and we are confronted by the argument that the Bill is being passed for the benefit of each and all the various classes of society within the Principality of Wales, while the Bill is condemned by the almost unanimous voice of the Representatives of that country. The Government refuse to allow the people of the different nations who go to make up the Kingdom to legislate for themselves within their own borders on the ground that the House of Commons is able and willing to consider their case; and yet when the whole body of the Representatives of one of the nations unite with one voice in condemning the provisions of a Bill ostensibly brought in for their benefit no heed is given to the representations made. If the measure is to benefit Wales, why do the Government not take care to make the majority of the Welsh people their coadjutors in the work of pacifying Wales? Why do the Government exclude the people from the exercise of part of the judicial functions with which in other matters they are entrusted? Why is it there has been such a desperate resistance to the demand for trial by jury? In principle it cannot be pretended that there is anything in the arguments of the supporters of the Government, because trial by jury already exists in cases where the amount in dispute is over £5 Why if there is no question of principle, and the Bill is for the benefit of Wales, do the Government decline to make the people their assistants in carrying the measure into effect? The effect of refusing trial by jury in cases under £5 is really to deprive the people of Wales of the right of jury trial in such cases altogether, because, practically speaking, the people who will be brought into Court under the provisions of this Bill will be persons whose tithe is under £5. I object to the Bill, not only because it is an irritating measure, but a measure which increases and aggravates and complicates the difficulty which already exists around the collection and appropriation

    513
    of tithe in Wales. I object to the Bill because it is unnecessary, and not demanded by any large section of the people. Who is it who demands the Bill? It is not the landowners. It is not the tenant farmers or small yeomen, and it is not in all cases the clergy, because in some parts of England, notably in Essex, dread notes of dissatisfaction have been heard from them. And in some parts of Wales the clergy themselves do not seem to regard the Bill as a boon. The increased expenses which will be put on the people through the intervention of the County Court will put a new bone of contention between the people and clergy, in addition to sowing dissension between the landowners and the clergy. I consider it is going to extreme lengths for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to characterise the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, or that of any other Member of the House in regard to the Bill, as erratic, especially when we recollect the peculiar gyrations and singular evolutions which have been performed by the Government itself in regard to the tithe question. I should have thought that, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would have avoided imputing to the Opposition a course of conduct which has so signally marked the proceedings of the Government on behalf of certain classes who are now owners of tithe. There have been some amendments made in the Bill, but those amendments do not reach the point which the Welsh Members wish to attain. The right hon. Gentleman eloquently and warmly expressed the hope that our Judiciary would never be affected by popular sentiment. In a sense, I re-echo the right hon. Gentleman's hope. If the right hon. Gentleman means that those who exercise judicial functions ought not to be affected by the clamour of the moment I agree with him; but if he means that Judges are to shut their eyes to the circumstances that surround them, if he means that people who share in the popular sentiment are to be excluded from the administration of judicial functions by being kept out of the jury-box, I disagree with him in toto. I do not desire to frame any indictment against the County Court Judges of
    514
    Wales; but Judges have their prejudices as well as jurors. It is impossible for a man to disentangle himself from the effect of his training and surroundings, and it is because I and my hon. Friends believe the prejudices of the one class are less injurious in the long run to the nation's welfare than the prejudices of the other, that we are anxious to insist that justice will not be done if the people of Wales are not made assistants and coadjutors in the carrying out of this Bill by being empannelled as jurors in cases under £5 as they can be in cases above £5. With this protest on behalf of my constituents, against what I believe to be an unnecessary and mischievous Bill, I shall go into the Lobby against the Third Reading.
    MR.C.W.GRAY: Since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) has imagined that I was opposed to this Bill, he has been good enough to pay a good deal of attention to my views. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do so once more and refrain from opposing the Third Reading of this Bill. It contains so valuable a principle in its 1st clause in regard to the transference of the tithe to the right shoulders that I think we ought to allow the Third Reading to be taken without waste of time. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he left Clause 3 entirely in my hands. Well, it is in reference to Clause 3 that I have been at issue with the Government; but I have been beaten, and I will not unnecessarily prolong the Debate by reiterating what I have said about it. I will say that at a former stage of the Debates on this vexed question I hoped that more concessions would have been made by the Government on Clause 3. I based that hope on words that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), who, replying to an appeal on my part respecting the value of buildings, said the point I had urged in regard to a separate assessment of buildings and land, and a reduction of the rate able value of buildings was one which the Government regarded as well deserving of consideration. But as the Debates proceeded, and some hon. Members opposite—particularly the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member

    515
    for Northampton—turned their prentice hands to the defence of property, I knew my cause was lost. The alliance then made between the representatives of the tithe owners here and those Radical Members would, I knew, be too much for me, and I acknowledge that it is useless for me to try again to get any of nay views incorporated in Clause 3. All I can say is, I hope that when this question again engages the attention of Parliament—and it must do so when the Report of the Commission on the Redemption of Tithe is presented—the compromise and the give-and-take of which we have heard so much, will be more real than they have been during the present Debates. Before I sit down I wish to thank the Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Hicks Beach) in charge of the Bill, for the continued courtesy with which they have treated the views that have come from all sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did somewhat, I must admit, upset my equilibrium the other night by the way in which he was good enough to apply to me the simile of the ostrich. But I have since had time to rub up my natural history, and I find that, after all, I need not mind the simile, because the ostrich is described as a wary bird that is difficult to catch, and that, when assailed at close quarters, is in the habit of giving very hard kicks. After the very hard kick the right hon. Gentleman says I gave him the other night it would not be graceful on my part to say more on the point.
    MR. G.OSBORNE MORGAN: As I am one of the Members for a county which is, perhaps, more affected by this Bill than any other, I should be wanting in my duty to my constituency if I did not enter a final protest against it. Upon the whole, I think the Bill in its present shape is rather better than the measure as first produced to the House. I cordially acknowledge the great courtesy and good temper which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has shown during the whole Debate. If I may say so, it seems to me he has a shown qualities which mark him out for even a higher position in this House than that which he at present occupies. But
    516
    having said this, I must add this Bill will be immensely unpopular in that part of Her Majesty's dominions for which it is specially intended. Look at the Division Lists on this Bill. I think nearly all the Liberal Members for Wales—certainly all those in town at the present moment—voted solid against the Government proposals. But there are three Conservative Members for Wales and two for Monmouthshire. Out of these five Members, only one—the Member for Pembroke Boroughs, who, after all, represents what is called "little England beyond Wales"—is the only man who has given any support to the Government. It is literally a "one man, one vote" support. I agree with my right hon. Friend in saying it is scarcely prudent for the Government to force down the throat of the population which will be chiefly affected by it even a good Bill. There is in Wales a much larger number of small occupying freeholders than the Government supposes. There are certainly very many thousands of them. The 1st clause maybe welcomed by these men, but the 2nd clause will be resented by them. That clause constitutes the Welsh County Courts tithe collectors to the Welsh clergy. It makes a popular tribunal the agent of an unpopular law. What do you gain by such a provision? It will make the Courts unpopular without adding to the popularity of the clergy. You will have litigation in every case, conducted in populous centres, where of course it is much more easy to get up hostile agitations, and when this has been done, you will have to go through the same process as at present, the only difference being that the distress will be levied by the Court and not by the tithe owner. It is quite clear that the clause will not be acceptable to the County Courts or to the numerous litigants who will find their business stopped by the number of cases that will be brought into Court by the Act. It has been called a Clergy Relief Bill. I doubt very much whether it will do much good to the clergy. I believe there are many clergy who feel that the Bill will only make their position more untenable than it is at present. I believe it will be another downward step in the direction of the future of the Welsh Establishments.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE, who spoke amid cries of "Divide," said: I am by no means a strenuous supporter of this Bill, but I cannot give a silent vote for the Third Reading, because there is much in the measure which I and many of my friends disapprove. Bat if anything could have induced me to support the Bill with all my heart it would have been the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman and by hon. Gentlemen opposite against it. There can be no doubt that my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has with the utmost courtesy accepted many Amendments from the other side, but I cannot say he has treated Amendments coming from his own side in the same way, and the result is that the Bill is capable of much improvement. I was not thoroughly aware of what the Bill did until I read it as amended—and I doubt whether other Members were. It is one of the inconveniences of rushing a Bill through Committee that it takes just as long on Report as in Committee. I find that the 1st clause of the Bill deprives the landlord of his present right to enforce a tenant's covenant to pay the tithe rent-charge, and leaves him open to the one remedy of distress to enforce payment of the tithe rent-charge. That seems very objectionable. The 2nd clause deprives the tithe owner of his right to get his money by distress at the end of 21 days, and keeps him waiting for probably five months before he can do anything at all. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he does not value very highly the power, of which the Bill also deprives the tithe owner, of taking possession if the land is in the owner's occupation, but I can assure him, from my own experience and practice, that that power is very efficacious. It is true it is seldom put in force, but that is because the mere threat of exercising it is sufficient. The tithe owner can only get the tithe out of the future rents if there is nothing to distrain on, and they will not be able to touch them until a year after they are due. The Bill also makes the rates assessed on the tithe rent-charge a personal debt due from the tithe owner, who may not have received the tithe rent-charge on which they are assessed—a personal debt which can be obtained by execution or distress upon his property.
    518
    The argument of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Bowen Rowlands) simply came to this: that the law ought either to provide for the immediate dis-endowment of the Church of England or to provide that no tithe rent-charge should be recoverable against any occupying tenant. With regard to the costs, I must point out that they can never be incurred by the defendant unless he has refused to pay that which the Court has decided to be a just debt, and if any costs are incurred it will be his own fault.
    MR. HENEAGE: I should not have interposed at this stage of the Bill but for a remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), who endeavoured to make out that I and some of my hon. Friends differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) in the recommendations he has made with regard to the measure. On the contrary, as far as I am concerned, I have voted consistently every time in the same Lobby as my right hon. Friend, and there has not been one of my right hon. Friend's recommendations which has not had my concurrence. As nearly all my right hon. Friend's recommendations have been carried without a Division, I should like to know what has led the Member for Derby to believe that we differ from my right hon. Friend. Though I supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. Gray)—and regret that it was not carried—I loyally accepted the decision of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will be right and I wrong, and that the Bill will prove thoroughly satisfactory to every one in the country.
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and of the Attorney General to the 5th sub-section of the 2nd clause. It provides—
    "Where the occupier of the lands out of which the tithe rent-charge issues is liable under any contract made before the passing of this Act to pay the tithe rent-charge, and is, consequently, liable by virtue of this Act to pay the amount thereof to the owner of the lands, the owner of the lands shall serve notice of such liability on the owner of the tithe rent-charge, and, thereupon, before an order under this section is made, there shall be such

    519
    service on and hearing of the occupier in addition to the owner as may be prescribed."
    But there is no penalty whatever imposed and no security taken that the owner shall serve such notice, and, therefore, it seems to me that there has been an oversight. There ought to be a provision declaring that where the owner of the land neglects to serve notice on the owner of the tithe rent-charge, then his remedy against the tenant shall cease. If no penalty is attached to an omission of this kind on the part of the landowner, it is questionable whether he does not by omission render himself criminally liable to an indictment. Under the Bill a statutory obligation is imposed, but no penalty is provided for non-performance of that obligation. I merely draw attention to this in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter with the view—if he agrees with me—of having the defect in the Bill cured in another place.
    MR. MORTON: I intend to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill, and I venture to trespass on the time of the House for a few moments in order to say what I had not an opportunity of saying on the Second Reading of the Bill. [Cries of "Divide!"] I object to the Bill because it is an openly avowed electioneering Bill, and nothing else. We are told that it is the result of a bargain between Lord Salisbury and the Church—the Bill being offered to the Church for its support at the next election. Well, I object to the measure being forced through Parliament simply on that account. If it were brought forward as a matter of business to facilitate the collection of tithe, I could understand it, and should support it, but we know very well it is no such thing. Then, I object to the Bill because I object to any interference with the collection of tithes until the question of what shall be done with this national property has been settled by Parliament. That is one of my strong objections to interfering with the subject at all, because I say it settles nothing. It does not get rid of the question before us, and which has been before us all along. So far as the 1st clause is concerned, I, of course, heartily agree with the principle that the landlord or owner of the land should pay the tithe. It was
    520
    always intended that he should do so, but most landlords have contracted themselves out of it, and would do so now if they could. [Continued cries of "Divide!"] We have been told by the Postmaster General that the real reason why this Bill is brought forward is to settle the religious difficulty in Wales. Well, this is not going to settle it, and, even if it were, to my mind it is not the proper way of settling it. My opinion is, that the proper way to settle the matter is by Disestablishment and Disendowment; but I do not want to go into that question until it is before the House. I have here a letter from a noble Lord, written in January of this year, in which the same opinion is expressed. At any rate, therefore, we shall have one supporter when this Bill gets to another place. [Cries of "Name!"] I have no objection at all to giving the name. I refer to Lord Brabourne. That we should have a proper settlement of this question in the way I point out is the view not, perhaps, of the money-making Bishops, but of the hard-working clergy. They would prefer to see a settlement by Disestablishment and Disendowment, because the present difficulty separates them from the people. But I have another objection to the Bill, and that is that the tithe is not now, and will not be when the measure is passed, honestly divided amongst the Church ministers. We are constantly being told, especially by the Church, that, the religious income is for the religious instruction of the whole of the parishioners. That I quite agree with, but I disagree with this Bill, because it does nothing to compel the Church itself to divide the income properly amongst its own ministers. The parish in which I live has five churches, each with an ecclesiastical parish of its own. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] Perhaps it will surprise some people who support the Church so strongly to hear that the whole of the income in the parish goes to one church, and that the other churches which are called upon to perform four-fifths of the work have no endowment whatever, and have to depend, like the Nonconformists, on what they receive from the people. Is that right? Is it right for one clergyman of a parish to put the whole of the income in his pocket and allow other

    521
    clergymen to do the work? Before I agree to any interference with the collection of the tithe I want to see these questions settled, and I am speaking not as a Nonconformist, but as a Churchman. I have another reason—[Cries of "Divide!"]—and a very important one, as it comes from the Church herself. The Church has declared that it is persecution to force people to pay tithe in support of a Church they object to. I may be told that that is not correct, but my attention has been called to the fact that this subject was discussed in 1771. [Cries of "Divide!"] I have here a copy of a letter written by the celebrated Benjamin Franklin on this question of persecution. On June 3rd, 1772, he wrote:—"Sir, I understand from the public papers——[Continued cries of "Divide!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: 1 must point out that the hon. Gentleman's observations are not relevant to the question before the House.
    MR. MORTON: The letter shows that the Church of England claimed that it was persecution to compel Episcopalians to pay tithe or tax in support of the Presbyterian Church, and the Americans settled the question (and that is what I want you to do before you pass this Bill) by allowing every person to pay his tithe or tax to the Church he made use of, and gave the minister of that Church power to compel him to pay it. As a Churchman, I object to persecution, and I object to dealing with this tithe question until we settle it in the interest of the whole of the people. [Cries of "Divide!"] If the Bill had been brought in by a Liberal, not a single Member on the other side would have voted for it. I shall vote against it as a Churchman and a churchwarden, and I shall oppose every Bill of this sort until you are prepared to disestablish and disendow the Church.
    (6.57.) The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 161.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ELECTORS REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) BILL.—(No. 147.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: It will not be necessary to occupy the attention of the House long in explaining the Bill the Second Reading of which I now rise to move. In consequence of the passing of the Local Government Act, the register has been very largely increased by the addition of numbers of electors for the purposes of the County Council elections. Representations have been made to the Local Government Board that the time between the last day for the revision of the register and the day for the completion of the register is not sufficient. The last day for the revision of the register is the 12th of October, and the day for the completion of the register is the 20th of October, leaving, therefore, only eight days for printing and completing the register. The most important representation which was made to the Board on this subject was made by a deputation from the County Councils Association. It was not in any way a representation from any particular Party, as no Party question was involved, and it was introduced by Mr. Hibbert, at one time Secretary of the Local Government Board. It was stated by this deputation that while in every case the expense of preparing the register would be enormously increased if the present limit of time were maintained, in some cases—those of large counties with a great number of electors—it would be absolutely impossible to complete the register in the requisite time. In any case the haste necessitated would lead to a great deal of inaccuracy and incompleteness. The hon. Member for Somerset induced Parliament to pass a Bill in 1889, which was operative for two years, and which remedied the complaint which had been made. But we are now face to face with the election for County Councils on the 1st of November next, and therefore it is essential that if anything is to be done in the direction I have indicated it should be done quickly. It was represented to me by the deputation which waited on me that the difficulties in the way of private Members passing Bills were so great that unless the Government undertook the charge of the present Bill there was exceedingly little chance of its passing, and the consequences would be very serious at the election for County Councils in November.

    523
    I Could not but acknowledge the force, of this representation. It would be great misfortune, if the registers ware not ready in time, and sufficient time, given to secure that they should be a correct as possible. I have, therefore, introduced this Bill, which make some important alterations in the dates. The main alteration is setting back the end of the qualifying period from July 15th to June 26th. The reason that date has been taken is in order that householders going into occupation on quarter day should not be placed in any less advantageous position than under the present period. Instead of leaving only 12 days between revision and completion the Government propose by an alteration of the dates to give a period of 27 days, which it is said would be ample for the purpose. Under the Bill the revision will be over on September 23rd, and the register will be completed on, October 20th. When I undertook to introduce the present Bill I did so with certain qualifications and reservations, which were assented to by all the Members of the various Political Parties who attended with the deputation which waited on me upon the subject. I said to the deputation that it was quite impossible, in view of the, other engagements of the Government, to introduce a Bill of this kind if it should be made the ground for an attempt to revise the whole registration law and re-open the various important questions which I know many Members desire to see opened upon the question of registration. It is obvious that a revision of the whole Registration Law is a matter of first-class importance, and would require to be very fully discussed in this, House, so that we could hardly expect to get it through without giving up a considerable amount of Government time for that purpose. On the other hand, the proposals in the Bill are of a very simple character, and deal entirely with, machinery. They raise no questions of serious importance in connection with the registration of voters. The Government have undertaken the charge of the Bill with a view of making the register as complete and accurate as they can for the next election, and I hope the House will assist and support the Government in the limitation which they have laid down, and not endeavour to
    524
    carry the Bill beyond the four corners of these small machinery alterations. There is, however, one alteration, which I think will meet with general acceptance. The register for Parliamentary, and local voters as now practically the same, and if the register is to be brought into operation on November 1st for the purposes of local elections, I see no reason why it should not be brought into operation for all purposes on that date. If the Bill is to be operative for the next register we have no time to lose. I will ask the House, therefore, to assist the Government in passing into law at the earliest possible date the recommendations I have made.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR H. JAMES: I think the House will agree that the Bill makes a useful alteration in the law, and will probably be accepted without much contention. I have only two criticisms of a practical character to make upon the Bill. The County Council Register comes into operation on November 1. It is to be deposited with the returning officers on October 20. A week must be allowed for printing. The Government must find some means of trying the appeals, for otherwise the appeals from the decisions of the Revising Barristers must go unheard. The result would be that persons not entitled to vote would be upon the register and persons entitled to vote would not be on the register at the time of the election. I do not see how the Government can meet that difficulty if they adhere to the dates they have given. Another point is, that by changing the date from July 15 to June 26 any person having gone into occupation on July 1 would be disfranchised for a year. I do not think we should ruin the Constitution if, for this year, which is the only year to which it will apply, we made the qualifying period 345 instead of 365 days.
    MR. COBB: I think the measure which has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will be regarded by hon. Members generally, on both sides of the House, as introducing for a special and limited purpose what he

    525
    considers a necessary change in the present state of things; but at the same time I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury in regard to what he has pointed out as practical objections to the measure. I do not speak so much with regard to the way in. which it will operate with reference to County Councils, of which bodies I know very little, but I understand to some extent the way in which the Bill touches the Parliamentary Register, and it is solely as to the Parliamentary Register that I now wish to speak. I may, however, say one word with regard to the County Councils Register, and that is, that in my belief, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board were to issue a circular to those who are responsible for the preparation of the register, urging them to proceed with their business with all possible despatch, the work that has to be done might be accomplished in plenty of tithe. If this is not done, I think the most simple way of dealing with the matter would have been not to have brought in this Bill, but simply to have postponed the elections of the County Councils from the 1st of November to the second week in January. I believe the bulk of the people all over the country agree with me that that would be the most practical and popular way of dealing with this question. With regard to the Parliamentary Register I would call attention to four practical objections which seem to me to present themselves on a consideration of this Bill. The revision of the register by the Revising Barrister, under this measure, is to take place between the 20th of August and the 23rd of September. Now, Sir, I venture to think that that will be found to be a most inconvenient period for overseers, especially for those who reside in the rural districts, a large proportion of whom are farmers. It would be highly unsatisfactory to those who have to discharge the duties of overseers to be called upon to go before the Revising Barristers at that particular period of the year. If it is difficult for the farmer I am afraid it will be more difficult for the voters, and as I know, representing an agricultural constituency, in such constituencies voters are to a very large extent
    526
    agricultural labourers. The period between August 20 and September 23 is not only the time of harvest for grain, it is also their harvest for wages. At this period they earn the highest wages they receive throughout the year. I also know from experience that many of these men have to attend before the Revising Barrister because of objections to their votes. Without making any imputation against anybody or introducing any party feeling, I may say that in my own division I was told that in one year 400 absurdly frivolous objections were taken to votes of men in the labouring class in the hopes that some of them would not be able to attend and defend their claims, and so would be disfranchised. That is a point, however, I will not now deal with; it is a matter that will have to be dealt with some day. That is my first point, that the time proposed for revision will be very inconvenient not only for the overseers, who are generally farmers, but for the agricultural labourers who will have to defend their votes if they are objected to. Then I want to point out a much more serious objection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) has pointed out there would be some disfranchisement under this Bill, but I do not think the House is aware of the extent to which that disfranchisement will really go. I observe the memorandum attached to the Bill which the President of the Local Government Board has been good enough to distribute for explanation of the contents of the Bill, says in the last line that the Bill "does not in any way propose to alter the franchise." Now, I question the strict accuracy of that statement, because I think I can show that the Bill will disfranchise a large number of the working classes, and therefore it does to that extent alter the franchise. The Bill proposes to alter the period of qualification for occupation voters on the Parliamentary Register from July 15th to July 15th, as it is at present, to the period from June 26th to June 26th; it proposes also to alter the date when the register shall come into force from January 1st to November 1st. Well, of course that is a very excellent provision; we all recognise that, for it to some extent shortens the time of the present ridiculous period for which a

    527
    man has to live in a place before he can vote; but even that very shortening from January 1st to November 1st, even that, because the Bill is retrospective, in itself causes disfranchisement. I am afraid I may be rather tedious, but these are technical matters, and I will try to make myself clear. Every voter who is now on the present register, that is, the register which came into force on January 1st, 1891, under the present law, can give his vote in any election which takes place between January 1st and December 31st, 1891. Now, what can that man do when this Bill is passed? If he changes, or if he has changed his constituency without receiving any notice of any new legislation, after June 26th, 1890, it is clear he will not be entitled to be on the new register, under the arrangement in the Bill, coming into force on November 1st, 1891. If that is the case, he will not be upon that register, he will not get any qualification for that register, but he will distinctly lose the right he has now to vote in all elections which take place between November 1st, 1891, and January 1st, 1892. If that is so, clearly there is a disfranchisement, I do not know of how many voters, but if it disfranchises only one man surely that is not seriously proposed, and surely the House will not agree to it if it is? And now I am going to point out A disfranchisement which seems to me to be very much more serious and which, so far as I am able to gather the facts, will be a disfranchisement under this Bill of thousands of the working classes. I will try to make this clear. The effect of this Bill will be that every single voter who changes his constituency—I say constituency, for I am not alluding to successive voters—or who has already changed his constituency irrevocably, and without notice of this proposed change, between the 26th June and 16th July, 1890, will be disfranchised under this Bill for a period of 10 months, from January 1st, 1892, to November 1st, 1892, I will give an instance to make that clear.
    MR. RITCHIE: It is so.
    MR. COBB: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman admits that, I need not trouble the House with my illustrative instance. All these men, therefore, will be disfranchised for 10 months. Well,
    528
    then, a Bill which takes away existing rights——
    MR. RITCHIE: We will make provision for that.
    MR. COBB: Then, upon that understanding, I pass on from that to mention another point. The scope of this Bill and the scope of the Schedule is to put every date forward by 19 days; but there are exceptions for which I do not know the reason, and one exception is the payment of rates. Instead of the payment of rates being put forward by 19 days it is put forward by 35 days. Of course, it is obvious that imposes a liability upon a man to pay his rates in order that he may vote at an earlier date than that to which he is now subject. I do not want to continue discussion; I have prepared Amendments for Committee with a view of remedying these points to which I have taken exception. Of course, if there is a flaw in the view I have taken I shall be the first to admit it if it is pointed out, but if my view is the correct one, then I think these dates ought to be altered. No one ought to be disfranchised under this Bill; no farmer or labourer ought to be taken from harvest operations to attend before the Revising Barrister; and the period for payment of rates ought not to be altered. I must say it is an unfortunate time for us to approach this question. I quite agree that we have in the near future to deal with it, and I know the idea now is to deal with the next County Council election, but there will be plenty of time to deal with it before another County Council election comes on, and for the sole purpose of facilitating one County Council election on November 1st, all these alterations are to be made, and all these difficulties will arise, and there are so many technicalities connected with it that there may be other wrongs and inconveniences done by the Bill which none of us are yet able to see. I cannot understand why the Government, instead of making these changes now, do not make a determined effort and push on the printing. I am sure that if the printers are pushed they can get the work done in the time we have now. I am told by Town Clerks there is no difficulty in pushing on the Municipal Lists, but if there is a difficulty, then a simpler way would be to postpone the County Council elections to the first or

    529
    second week in January. I have taken the trouble to collect opinions from those interested, and since the deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, when I am not quite sure that the scope of the Bill was understood, and they believe that this postponement would be the better course.
    COLONEL HUGHES: I admit difficulties arise in carrying out the object of the Bill, which is that the elections on November 1st shall be on the new rather than on the old register, and to avoid postponing elections until January. The arrangement of the Bill appears to me to be excellent, and I have no doubt that any good suggestion will receive attention at the next stage, and hence it is that I mention one point, and that is the fixing of June 26th as the date from which the qualifying period shall extend back for 12 months. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have intended 12 months prior to June 25th, because Midsummer Day is June 24th, and therefore this date of June 26th appears to me—and I speak from practical experience—just one day too late, because those whose tenancies expire on quarter-day will hold occupation until 12 o'clock on the 24th, but they will not be in possession on the 25th, so if the 26th is the end of the qualifying period they will be a day short. As we come so near quarter-day we might as well make the date coincide, so that the 24th may be the end of the qualifying period, up to the 25th instead of the 26th. I am sure my object will be appreciated, and I conclude that it was forgotten that the Midsummer quarter-day is June 24th, though Christmas and Lady Day fall on the 25th of the months. With regard to hearing householders' objections before the Revising Barristers in the months of August and September, I think, perhaps, the evening sittings which are used for the purpose of listening to lodger qualifications, might be utilised to a certain extent for those householders who cannot attend in the day time, but in regard to appeals it does not strike me how that can be remedied, because the Courts are not sitting. But no doubt some special arrangement might be made for taking appeals in the month of October; there are not many of them. The balance of convenience is very much in favour of
    530
    the Bill, and I do not think it is beyond the skill of its promoters to make it perfect in Committee. I trust that we shall have a new register for the convenience of the County Council elections, and perhaps of a general election, and that we can thus dispose of our electoral differences before Christmas.
    MR. F. ROBINSON: I quite admit the difficulties attending this question, but I am afraid the proposal of the Government will create new difficulties I should like to see avoided. It seems to me the better plan would be to postpone the elections. I should like to see the elections in counties and boroughs postponed until March 31st, which is the end of the financial year in these local matters. November is one of the worst months in the year for election purposes. It is dark at four o'clock in the afternoon, and when we think of our country friends traversing long cross roads and dark by-ways after attending a County Council election, I am disposed to think their interest in the proceedings will much diminish. They have not had the experience in this matter which we have had in the towns. When November was fixed originally the same objection did not exist as now, because the poll closed at 4 o'clock, but now that the polling time is extended to 8 o'clock, I can assure the House there are very serious inconveniences to contend with in the dark hours of a November afternoon, when the electors are open to all sorts of corrupt influences. It is very objectionable. I cannot conceive how in country districts the people are to be brought to the poll if the polling is fixed for November, and kept open till 8 o'clock. I have had considerable experience in local municipal matters, and I know the difficulties that exist, and I firmly believe that a few years' experience will so convince people of the difficulties and inconvenience that everybody will be glad to have the elections changed from November to March, when the days are longer and brighter, and which is the end of the municipal financial year. The alteration will have to be made eventually, and why not make it now? The President of the Local Government Board pleads shortness of time, but my proposal would not take any longer than the present Bill,

    531
    and it would, in addition, give plenty of time for the registration to be attended to and also for all registration appeals to be determined in time to be inserted in the new list of electors. No Party question is involved, and I earnestly appeal to the Government to consider my alternative plan.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: As I had the duty of introducing a similar Bill to this on behalf of the County Council Association, I may be allowed to say a few words. As has been pointed out this is a practical measure, it has no political import, and there is no attempt to drift into it important questions of registration in which much interest is taken. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby there are practical necessities for the Bill. He seems to think that by putting sufficient pressure upon printers and Revising Barristers the lists might be got through in time, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in a large county where there may be 100,000 names to put on the register under the present law it will simply be an impossible task without waste of money and danger of inaccuracy. That is the opinion of all the Clerks of the Peace, and no class of men have so intimate an acquaintance with the subject. The object of the Bill is twofold—to save Clerks of the Peace this almost impossible task and the money of the ratepayers at the same time. The proposal is to put forward the date by 19 days, and an alternative has been indicated—the alteration of the date of election, and there have been several expressions of opinion in favour of this alternative course. I must say, however, the suggestions made have been somewhat discordant. The hon. Member for Rugby proposes to alter the date of election to January 1st; but the ton. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Robinson) thinks March a better time. No doubt we all have our private preferences; but I may point out that at a large meeting of County Council representatives, held in November last, the alternatives to the Bill were fully discussed, and only one Gentleman present was in favour of postponing the day of the county council elections. Those of us who are familiar with these matters must strongly object to having the date of election put more into the
    532
    middle of winter. The 1st of November may not be a perfect day, but certainty it is better than the 1st of January. It would be a mistake to postpone the day of election, already fixed for November, to the following spring, and thus compel many County Councillors, who have other duties to attend to at that time of the year, to begin their County Council duties at an inconvenient season of the year. There is one clause in the Bill which was not included in the Bill promoted by the County Council Association last year; that which affects the Parliamentary Register. We thought that was outside our functions, but the House will see it is only sensible and practical when you have a register complete, to bring it into operation without delay. The defects which have been pointed out will no doubt be considered by the Government. As to disfranchisement, which the hon. Member for Rugby has so clearly explained, I am sure that there is no disposition, either on the part of the Government or of the parties interested in the Bill, to refuse to insert any necessary safeguards for the protection of any elector who may be affected by the change. It was considered by the original framers that the number of electors who would be thus affected would be almost inappreciable. As to the selection of the 26th of June, that date is chosen because in certain years the 24th might fall on a Sunday, and as in that case the tenant would go out on the 25th the qualification period would remain as under the existing law. If we put back the period to 12 months preceding the 24th that would alter materially the franchise as it stands at present, and a principle in the Bill is to affect the franchise as little as possible.
    MR. COBB: In no way.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I am in no way responsible for the memorandum; I am speaking of the view of the promoters of the Bill introduced last year, and I believe the Government in this Bill have the same intention. It may be that the memorandum, a little over or under, states the effect of this Bill, but I believe the intention in the Bill is to affect the franchise as little as possible, while making a change in machinery to save inconvenience and expense to all the ratepayers in the country. I trust a way may be found of meeting the objections

    533
    raised and I hope there will be no unnecessary delay in the passage of what I am sure will be a very useful measure.
    MR. J. STUART: Those who endeavour to substitute for the Bill an alteration in the date of the County Council elections may be doing a very good thing so far as County Council elections are concerned, but they lose one of the great points gained by the Bill. The principal point gained is that you get a County Council election upon a brand new register, and we have all the more probability of getting a general election for Parliamentary purposes on a brand new register, or at any rate on a newer register than it would otherwise be. Not only is the register to be a new one for the County Council elections, but it will bring the voter to the poll at a period nearer to the beginning of his occupation than now. It will shorten the period between the commencement of his occupation and the end of his qualifying period. That I consider is a great advantage in the Bill. Whether County Council elections should be held at a later or earlier period of the year than at present is another question. I think, for the reason I have given, most sections in the House will welcome the principle of the Bill. There is no doubt that the Bill does bear traces of a want of full consideration in its preparation, and it is unnecessary to add a word to the extremely lucid explanation given by the hon. Member for Rugby, to show that on the points he indicated the Bill needs amendment. There is another point which the right hon. Gentleman will, I believe, be ready to correct, the opportunity for new lodgers under the present Bill is less for the signing of these clauses—I do not mean for the presentation of them—by something like three weeks. That I believe will also be put right. We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for putting various points of disfranchisement straight. There are two points of difficulty to which I desire to call attention. One is with regard to the date on which poor-rates are to be paid, and the other is a more permanent disfranchisement caused by the date of a change of residence from one borough to another. With regard to the first, I admit that it is an excellent thing for the rate-collecting authorities that they should have an
    534
    opportunity of getting their rates in sooner, but I do not see why there should be any alteration in the number of days allowed under the present system. The hon. Member for Woolwich has suggested that the qualifying period should be from term-day to term-day. The very fact that the suggestion came from the hon. Gentleman shows how entirely out of the region of party politics is the suggestion. For three weeks ago the London Liberal Members, in a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman, brought this very matter before him. I cannot admit that by putting back the date from the 26th of June to the 24th of June, there is any alteration in the franchise. Suppose, for instance, the term-day were to be altered from the 24th of June to the 15th of July, there would be no substantial alteration in the character of the franchise, but there would be prevented that disfranchisement which takes place at present because of the non-coincidence of the quarter day with the termination of the qualifying period, I cannot see how the franchise would be affected by putting back the date which the right hon. Gentleman has now put back by 18 days, two days more. At the present every man who changes his occupation from one borough to another on quarter day loses his vote for a year and the disfranchisement will continue under the new arrangement. It does seems very hard that if a man occupying a house on one side of a street, which is in the Bethnal Green Division, crosses over on quarter-day to the other side of the street, which is in Shore ditch Division, he should lose his vote.
    LORD H. BRUCE: I am quite sure the Government are actuated with the best intentions in asking the House to read this Bill a second time, but I regret for all that, that it is not a more comprehensive measure or far-reaching one. No measure of registration will ever be a just one until every qualified elector is placed on the Register by some recognised official without any trouble or difficulty to the voter. The onus of the objection could still remain, as at present, on either political parties for the ultimate decision of the Revising Barrister.
    MR. LAWSON: I wish, to emphasise the appeal

    535
    made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart) to the President of the Local Government Board that he should, now that he is tinkering with the law, change the date from the 26th to the 24th of June. If he did so, he would rectify an anomaly which is felt very grievously in the Metropolis by both Political Parties equally. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman wishing to avoid large questions of registration, but I assure him he would do a great deal for us in London in regard to the mere business work of registration if he consented to the alteration in the dates we suggest. It is really a very small matter. He will have our support in any case, but he would do a great deal more to merit the gratitude both of the London Members and the London County Council if he acceded to our wishes in this respect. I do not think there is any advantage gained by introducing the question of what month is best suited for the elections. That has nothing to do with the Bill. We merely ask for a very small reform of machinery; and if the right hon. Gentleman is able to make the concession we seek, I am quite certain none of my colleagues in the representation of the Metropolis would try to introduce any Amendments in Committee inconsistent with the purpose he has said animates him and the Government. (8.11.)
    MR. MALLOCK: Sir, with reference to the remarks made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, I wish to ask the Attorney General if he will explain whether the Midsummer tenant going out on the 24th June would be put on the register. If a tenant came on the 24th June, 1890, for instance, and his tenancy terminated on the 24th June, 1891, and if again the Bill were altered from the 20th June to the 24th June, would that tenant be put on the register? I have letters from the representatives of all parties suggesting the 24th June might be the date adopted. There is one inconvenience which must occur from this Bill. At present the overseers have 37 days from the 24th June to the 31st July to watch the changes and to make out their lists, and that time in many cases is hardly sufficient. Under the Bill the 37 days would be reduced to 18. If I understood
    536
    the President of the Board of Trade aright he is going to accept the suggestion of the right hon. the Member for Bury, and that he will take care that those who come into residence between the 26th June last year and the 15th July should not lose their votes. I had intended to draft an Amendment to that effect, but now it will not be necessary.
    MR. CAUSTON: Sir, several hon. Members have made suggestions about the qualifying period. For my part, if we cannot have the qualifying period the 24th June, I would much rather, under present circumstances, continue the present qualifying period the 15th July. Of course, we are all in favour of the acceleration of registration, but I think it is quite possible, if a little pressure were put on the Revising Barristers, or if an addition were made to their number, that the registration work could be completed by the 30th September. I think the revision might be commenced on September 1st, and still be completed by the 30th, which would get over the harvest objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby. So many objections have been pointed out to the details of this Bill that it would be much simpler if the Government adopted the suggestion I make to keep the qualifying period for the present at the 15th July, and to see that the Revising Barristers do their work between the 1st and 30th September. The President of the Local Government Board said he had no intention of dealing with the general subject of the franchise and registration. I suppose he made that statement on behalf of the Government as a whole. Yet we have on the Paper to-night a Bill which deals with the ordinary Registration Law and later on we shall have something to say about it. With regard to the present Bill, several inconveniences have been pointed out, especially those indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, and, therefore, the Government must expect that when the Bill reaches Committee they will have to deal with several Amendments.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The hon. Members who have discussed this Bill have pointed out

    537
    several matters of detail and principle. First, with regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury as to the best way of dealing with the possible contingency of appeals for Revising Barristers. If this is felt to be a serious difficulty we shall have to consider before the Bill leaves the House how far it is possible to include in the measure some alteration with regard to appeals. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Rugby that that is a matter for inquiry and consideration. We quite recognise that. Assuming that the House has determined that the operation of the register should be accelerated in the case of the Parliamentary Register, there is one way it appears to me of meeting this difficulty. At present, owing to the old rule, appeals from the Revising Barristers cannot be heard until the 6th of November. It is a relic of the old term, called the October Sitting. The Revision Court is always a strong Court of three Judges; and it occurs to me, should it be ultimately determined to retain the provision that the Parliamentary Register should come into force on the 1st November, that some arrangement might be made whereby the Revising Barrister would put stars against the printed names, or print them in italics, thus indicating that certain questions were raised. Then arrangement might be made for appeals to be heard at the very commencement of the sittings, so that the register would be in effect, even so far as the starred names are concerned, if not by the 1st of November, within a very few days after. So far as the Parliamentary Register is concerned, no serious inconvenience, if any at all, would occur. [The hon. Member for Rugby dissented.] The hon. Member is quite right; I say it is impossible altogether to avoid the difficulty. With reference to the suggested alteration of the date for County Council elections, it will be remembered that all municipal elections take place at the beginning of November, and it would involve various disturbance and dislocation of business if those elections were put forward to January or March. The next matter which requires mention is the possible disqualification, not in future years, but in the year 1891, for the fact that persons have not occupied for the qualifying
    538
    period, the 12 months, in consequence of having removed between the 25th June and the 15th July. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has intimated that that can be cured by a provision in the Bill. So far as that temporary disqualification is concerned there would be no difficulty in meeting it. The hon. Member for Rugby objected to the Bill on the ground that the revision would take place during the harvest months. I do not see that there would be much difference between the existing period of revision and the proposed period, as affecting the harvest months. I do not think it will turn out that there will be any serious inconvenience in that respect. I would remind the hon. Member that his objection also applies to the County Council elections, and if the objection be insisted upon we shall have to consider whether the Bill is to be pressed forward, because it is an objection which strikes at the position of the whole matter. It is not possible to discuss it unless the hon. Member moves the rejection of the Bill. One or two hon. Members have fallen into a little error, not unnaturally, with regard to the first line in the Schedule, as to the payment of rates on the 15th May and the 1st June. The word should really be "notice" instead of "payment." The rates in question are the rates payable on the 5th January. As a matter of fact, the earlier we put the notice as to the payment of rates, the better it would be for the voter, because he would have a longer notice that he would be disqualified if his rates were not paid. But lower down the Schedule there is an alteration from the 20th July to the 15th June. The hon. Member referred to the 1st June and the 15th May.
    MR.COBB: I did not name any date at all. I said that the payment of the rates was put forward, instead of 19 days, 35 days.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; it was some other hon. Member who made that observation. As a matter of fact, if he looks at the history of this matter he will find that it ought to have been put at an earlier date in the original Act. It is, however, a matter of no substantial importance, because the notice is to be given

    539
    on the way 15th may, and on the 15th June the man has to pay his rates. We think that a proper date, having regard to the scheme of the Act. It is a matter for the House to decide whether an earlier or a later date should be fixed. I think it will turn out for the proper working of the Bill that it ought to be the 15th June. It has been suggested that the matter could be brought right by bringing greater pressure to bear on the printers; bat from communications I have had with Clerks of the Peace, I find that the necessity of one or more revisions of the list, and, in some counties, the distances to be traversed before the printer can be reached, constitute serious difficulties in the way of satisfying the objections of the hon. Member for Rugby. The hon. Member for Southwark suggested that we should increase the number of Revising Barristers. Well, I should be glad if a larger number of deserving members of my profession could receive the small emoluments which are given for the very hard work of registration, but, after all, we have to consider the necessities of the case, and it does not seem to me requisite to increase the number of Revising Barristers. We should not have more of these gentlemen than necessary to perform the work of revision efficiently. We might get over the difficulty of revision by having a larger number of Revising Barristers, but it would not get us over the difficulty of printing, which is one of the principal
    difficulties.
    MR. CAUSTON: I suggested that the 30th September should be the date fixed upon, which would give time for printing.
    SIR R.WEBSTER: That date, as compared with the 23rd September, has been very carefully considered by the Clerks of the Peace in the counties with the idea of getting the two or three days that they think necessary. The date we have adopted has not been selected haphazard, 'but after very careful consideration. The hon. Member for St. Pancras and one other Member suggested that we Should make the qualifying period end on the 24th June, so as not to disfranchise anyone, but, as was pointed out by an hon. Member behind me, that would disqualify people very seriously. I need not remind the House that the qualification is for "on and for
    540
    12 months preceding" the qualifying day, so that if you fix the 24th June it would be a positive disqualification to many voters who would not be able to prove that they were in occupation of their new premises on the 24th and 12 months preceding, and they would remain on the register for a long time in respect of an old occupation, and would not be able to qualify for the new register. That would effect an alteration in the law which ought not to be made in this Bill. It would be unwise to incur the risk of disfranchisement in a large number of cases for the sake of the simplification of the process by taking the earlier day. Why the 26th is taken is this: No difference of qualification in any year except the first can arise as compared with the existing law. Any question of the occupation not having been long enough in the year 1890–91, can be met by a special clause. The disqualification arises by the fact that on no other date would the occupier have been long enough on the register; but when you have to shift from the 15th July back to an earlier date all that you have to do is to take the earliest possible date that would not disqualify, and the earliest possible date is the 26th June. The 25th June would have given rise to some legal questions, therefore, to be absolutely safe the 26th is taken instead of the 25th. It is immaterial for the purpose of this Bill which date is taken. It would only be material if we were going to make such an alteration as is proposed by the hon. Member for Hoxton and the hon. Member for St. Pancras. That we have said we cannot do, but we have gone back as far as we could to give as much time as possible for the registration. I have only to say, in conclusion, that whilst the Government are anxious to further registration, and to effect, if possible, that the registration shall be got into operation for the municipal elections by the 1st of November, with sufficient time for good revision—for the work of the overseers being properly done, and for the ministerial work of printing being efficiently carried out—if the objections which have been raised are felt by the majority of the House to be such as to out weigh the good we have thought the Bill would effect, the only alternative will be not to proceed with the measure.
    MR. STANSFELD: I am glad the Attorney General has spoken to the House, as we were waiting with anxiety for a further statement from the Government in response to the criticisms addressed to them from this side of the House—and addressed to them in no unfriendly spirit. There is no disposition on this side of the House to defeat the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite might put his foot down, and refuse to accept Amendments, but I hope he will take a wiser and more tactical view of the situation. I think it would be possible to modify the Bill so as to meet objections raised on this side of the House; and I gather from what has occurred that the Governments will be ready to give every consideration to our proposals, though reserving to themselves the right not to persevere with the Bill. As to the risk which would be involved in putting the date back from July 15 to June 26th, as at present advised, I think it could be done, not by naming the 24th specifically, but by adopting such phraseology as "up to the 25th" without saying "included," which would give the 24th both to the incoming and the outgoing tenant. I do not think it necessary or desirable to multiply discussions on the details of the Bill, or even on the various inportant points of criticism which have been suggested to the Government and the House. What we were anxious to ascertain was whether the Government would receive, and not repudiate, suggestions in the form of Amendments in Committee coming from this side of the House. I think I do not incorrectly interpret what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Attorney General when I say that they are perfectly prepared to go into Committee on the Bill, and then exercise their judgment as to how they should deal with Amendments. Still I think it would be rather premature for the Government to announce what Amendments they will and will mot accept. It will be for hon. Members and the Government to exercise their judgment on the different Amendments when they are moved in Committee The objections to the Bill seem to these As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has pointed out this Bill will unless
    542
    amended, certainly disfranchise certain persons, and the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to move Amendments in Committee to rectify that effect.
    MR. RITCHIE: We shall be willing, if possible, to insert some clause in the Bill which will prevent the disfranchisement pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury. It has occurred to me, however, that there will be some difficulty in the matter.
    MR. STANSFELD: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in intimating that if possible he will do it, and that if he finds it impossible he will not do it. It is intended to prevent disfranchisement in the Bill if it can be done in the drafting, and we shall be entitled to criticise any Amendment which may be proposed from that point of view. We, of course, reserve our rights as the Government reserve their rights. The next question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury was the question of accelerating appeals. I do not understand the Attorney General to speak positively on that matter, but he is inclined to the opinion, or hope, that a way may be found of meeting that difficulty.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The Courts sit before the 24th October on account of the Long Vacation, but it seems to me that the register could be printed provisionally so as to be completed by the 1st November.
    MR. STANSFELD: That seems to me satisfactory as a Second Reading statement, and we shall be within our right in discussing any solution of the difficulty the Government may propose. Another objection taken by the hon. Member for Rugby was as to the revision going into the harvest time. I do not feel myself a competent judge on that subject. I have not at my finger-ends the beginnings and endings of the harvest time, but the matter might be dealt with to suit the seasons of the different counties. I ask the Government to consider all these points in a fair spirit, as we on this side are disposed to do. I do not know whether they will propose to recommit the Bill—
    MR.RITCHIE:No.
    MR. STANSFELD: They will table all their Amendments at once?
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
    MR.STANSFELD: If that is done we shall be able to look on the Amendments on the hypothesis that they are all to be inserted in the Bill, and shall be able to form an opinion as to whether they are reasonable and satisfactory. I feel quite sure we shall come to agreement, and that the right hon. Gentleman is not inclined to be too severe.
    MR.T. M. HEALY: I wish to enter a protest against the Bill, on the ground that it will not operate fairly in the case of Ireland. Under this measure, if there is a dissolution on the 1st or 2nd of November, the English people will have the advantage of a new register, whilst the Irish people will have a register ten months stale. Of all the remarkable pieces of forgetfulness that it is possible to imagine on the part of the Government in drawing up a Bill of this kind dealing with "integral" parts of the United Kingdom, this is the worst. In the event of a dissolution taking place in the early part of November, Ireland is be left out in the cold. How are you going to mend this? Of course you will time your dissolution to fill your own sails. You will naturally think of your own people. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are two other partners to this firm, but you have been good enough to forget us. It was all very well before the franchise was extended to treat the two countries, England and Ireland, as not on a parity. Even when the narrow franchise of former days was in force you took good care that the register should start in the month of January in Ireland. With that beautiful Imperial symmetry which you are so fond of talking about and so ready to depart from when it suits your purpose, you have made our Irish Register to synchronise with yours. Now, without rhyme or reason, but simply because it suits your County Councils—we having no County Councils at all—you declare that we may take our chance of a dissolution whenever, for ought I know, it suits the policy of the British East Africa Association and the dukes thereupon. I object in toto to this proposal on behalf of both Ireland and Scotland. The Scotch Members do not seem to have roused themselves on this point. The matter is one of very great
    544
    importance. The General Election of 1886 took place in January and February, and it was, I presume, determined to have it at the time because the registers were fresh. The question of freshness or staleness of a register becomes of enormous importance when dealing with a franchise so extended as is that at present in force. What happens is practically this: in order to have a vote in this present year, a man must have been in occupation since the 20th of July, 1889. consequently all the removable classes are deprived of the franchise and you have all through the country a mass of people whom it is impossible to find at any General Election. We are now nearing General Election, and it is natural, after having for five years had a Tory Government in office, that we should be some what anxious to rid ourselves of such an incubus, and it is equally obvious that Gentlemen opposite should be anxious to retain their salaries as long as they can. The Government bring in this Bill with the most reckless disregard of all the other component parts of the Kingdom to which it will apply. I have put an Amendment on the Paper, the reasonableness anybody but a Tory or a Liberal Unionist would admit. If you are going to appeal to the people they ought to have notice that the appeal is to be made. Why should this House any longer tolerate such dissolutions? The constitution of this Parliament for five or seven years is a matter of sufficient gravity to justify giving the people the advantage of being registered in advance. Why is the House of Commons to be left at the mercy of a Minister who has perhaps just returned from Berlin bringing peace with honour, or has just made a light railway in Ireland, or passed a Special Commission Act, to make a snap appeal to the people upon side issues of that kind? I say solemnly that in this country where you have a seven years' Parliament the least you can do is to have an enumeration of the people beforehand. My Amendment is in this sense. What will be the argument of those who oppose it? Will it be that it will be too much trouble to carry it out? You cannot expect to get your seats without trouble or to get your places without trouble, and I do not think the

    545
    people will tolerate the notion that they are to be choused out of their right to settle the composition of the House of Commons for want of a better system of registration. The present system is a disgrace to civilization. We hear about the rings in New York, and yet will it be believed that in the United States every citizen has to come up every October or November and swear he is a citizen and entitied to vote? What you insist upon in this country is that a man shall be in possession of his premises practically for two years before he is entitled to vote, and you offer no facilities to the subjects of Her Majesty to assert their rights as citizens, and to make their voices heard. If you have faith in the people, as you say you have, why are you always so anxious that the people should not be registered? It is one thing to tolerate the present system in regard to chance bye-elections, but when you have 670 elections taking place at once, surely the people should have an opportunity of making an examination of conscience before hand, and of getting upon the register. In bringing in this Bill, simply in order I suppose to save a few pounds, you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If you are so anxious to save a few pounds to the County Council or to the taxpayers, why are you not anxious to expend a few pounds in securing the proper registration of Her Majesty's subjects. What ought your object to be on this question of registration? Ought it not to be to get as many people as possible on the register, to get the proper people on the register, and to see that the voters cast their votes at the proper time. From whom does this proposition come? From the Liberal Unionist Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Hobhouse) who brought on this Bill last year, and had it promptly blocked. I ask what good can come out of Nazareth? Does anyone believe that the hon. Member for Somerset wants to get people put upon the register? That he wants more voters in his constituency? If so, will he vote for my Amendment? My object is to put people upon the register, and I say that before you have a general making up of the minds of the people, such an opportunity as I ask for should be afforded them. That was done by
    546
    the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1885. We were about to have a dissolution, and we all knew it, because the Redistribution Act had been passed. Well, what was the provision then made? A provision was made to secure that, before the people were asked to vote under the new arrangement, they should have the opportunity of being enumerated and registered. If that was done in 1885, why should it not be done in 1891 or 1892? Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to be the only Minister who is prepared to give the people before they vote the opportunity of registration and enumeration? Why do not the Tory Party do it? I am told that my Amendment will limit the power of dissolution. I do not care whether it will have that effect or not. It provides that if you dissolve in any months except the months of January, February, and March, you must give the people the opportunity of being registered so that you may not shut them out. Why is any person to be shut out who has paid his rents and rates and lived in the constituency long enough to qualify him for a vote? Why is he to be shut out at an important crisis in his country's history, because he was not in occupation on the 20th June or the 1st of July? Is there any magic in the dog-days, because it would seem to be the suggestion of the Tories that you must have a dog-days' date for your registration? What magic is there in the month of July? [Laughter.] Oh, I withdraw. An hon. Gentleman opposite reminds me of the battle of the Boyne, though I believe it was the battle of Aughrim that was fought in the month of July, but, barring those eventful dates of Aughrim and Boyne, I see nothing at all magical in the month of July. After all this is a practical question, one on which the fate of the Empire might depend for years to come. You who sit opposite declare that the people are opposed to Home Rule. The Liberal Party say, on the contrary, the people are in favour of Home Rule; but, at any rate, everyone admits that the Home Rule policy is a question of vast importance. I say that full opportunity should be afforded for registration, and that the people of Ireland and Scotland ought not to be left

    547
    to the chance of a dissolution in November or December, before means had been taken to secure a proper system of registration. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Bill dealing with the subject of Registration can be satisfactory which does not provide for a special registration of voters prior to a General Election where Parliament is dissolved at a time when the existing Register is more than three months in force,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. RITCHIE: I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman, in making his remarks, has not shown a nearer approach to the tone in which the debate up to this time has been carried on.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It was too low.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. and learned Gentleman says it was too low, but at any rate he knew that the change as regarded England had been caused by the large number of voters added to the Municipal Roll for 1888. For my part I confess that I share the idea that amendment is required in the machinery of registration generally, and we should not have touched this question at all without dealing with it in a much more comprehensive way, had it not been that the matter was one of pressing importance, on account of the County Council elections. The circumstances are not the same in Ireland, where there are no County Council elections, as in England. It is not that Ireland is forgotten, but the circumstances are altogether different. The hon. and learned Gentleman finds fault with us for not making some alteration in the time at which the Parliamentary Register in Ireland should come into force. He called attention to this matter the other day, and we promised to consider it, but after all it is a small matter. As I understand, the difference is all a question of a month. I am informed that a serious difficulty might arise in Ireland if the Parliamentary Register there were brought into operation
    548
    earlier than it is now. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken up the cudgels on behalf of my poor country, Scotland. If there are no other Members present to defend Scotland I will constitute myself her champion, and say it is an outrageous thing that the people of Scotland should have to elect their members on the old register.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I said I did not know anything about it. I asked a question.
    MR. RITCHIE: Then why does the hon. Gentleman speak about it? If the hon. Gentleman wished to speak on our case in Scotland, I think he ought to have informed himself as to the law. Perhaps he would be surprised to know that the Parliamentary register comes into operation in Scotland now on the 1st of November, so that no alteration as regards Scotland is required. This proposal will bring the English system of registration into harmony with the Scotch. So much for the preliminary observations of the hon. Member.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: And Ireland is to be left out in the cold?
    MR. RITCHIE: I told the hon. Gentleman the other day that the Government would make inquiries, and if anything could be done they will try to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's views. With regard to the Amendment I hardly think it can be seriously proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment would mean that, in the event of a Vote of Want of Confidence, the Government against their own will should be compelled to remain in Office to conduct the affairs of the country with the House of Commons against them for a period of something like three months. Such a proposition is one that it is almost too absurd for the House of Commons to consider.
    MR. MACINNES: The County Councils Association, which comprehends persons of every shade of political opinion, are unanimous in pressing for this measure. Although in very large cities there would be no difficulty in doing the work, it has been proved to the satisfaction of the Association that in many of the rural districts it would be impossible to find people

    549
    to do it. Therefore, we ought to be grateful to the President of the Local Government Board for introducing a measure which will provide the necessary machinery.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Sir, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The House will remember that two or three years ago the public were some what surprised at a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which laid down that compulsory absence—if I may use the expression—even for one night, even though the voter was in all other respects qualified, prevented him from being placed on the register. In fact, to take an extreme case, supposing a man to be two nights absent in a Volunteer camp doing Volunteer service in obedience to the orders of his superior officer, he is thereby disqualified. I have received representations from Revising Barristers and others asking me to get the matter put right, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that when the subject was debated during the last two Sessions everybody was prepared to say there was no justification for the existing disqualification. It was then pointed out that there might be other cases of temporary absence where by a voter would be disqualified by being sent away, and that there was no reason for such a person losing his vote by reason merely of absence in the discharge of duty. Some limit, however, must be adopted, and as four months is the period of absence which disqualifies in the case of ordinary residence, a similar limitation has been introduced into the present measure. Last year objection was taken to the Bill On the ground that I did more than was necessary to cure the evil, by introducing the section relating to police officers. Whatever may be thought as to desirability of that alteration of
    550
    the law, this year I have thought it better to do no more than simply cure a mischief which has been largely felt in various parts of the United Kingdom, and therefore I have confined the Bill to the simple provision that a man shall not be disqualified from being registered—
    "By reason only that during part of the qualifying period, not exceeding four months at any one time, he has, in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service, or employment held or undertaken by him, been absent from his dwelling-house or lodgings, or not resided in or within the required distance from such county or borough."
    I hope the House will consent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. CAUSTON: This Bill is of a very different character to the last. This is really a Registration Bill, and we have been told by Her Majesty's Government over and over again that they do not like tinkering with registration. No more tinkering Bill has been introduced in this Parliament than the present, with regard to registration. I quite admit that the Bill deals with a grievance, but is it the only grievance in reference to registration? Why should only soldiers, sailors, and petted persons be selected for the purpose of being relieved from a grievance? Why do the Government not deal with the grievances of the lodgers and occupiers? Why do they not do what the learned Solicitor General suggested on the 2nd December, 1889, in the Westminster Town Hall, when he said that—
    "When Parliament had made up its mind as to the particular class of persons who should enjoy the Franchise, it was their duty to see that it was rendered as easy as possible for every individual belonging to that class to obtain and keep the privileges."
    Is this Bill intended to carry out the view of the Solicitor General? I hope that a stand will be made against this Bill—not that I object to getting rid of any disqualifications, but because I think we have great reason to complain of the tinkering policy of Her Majesty's Government. We all know that Her Majesty's Government are very much divided on this subject of

    551
    registration. Almost at the time that the Solicitor General was speaking in Westminster Town Hall, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking at Hull. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby was urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the subject of registration; but he was told then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would mean a new distribution of political power—one more tinkering with the Constitution. He said—
    "I think we may say for sometime now we may look to the results of past experiments, without attempting once more to pick our Constitution to pieces."
    That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks we shall be doing if we give these men, who, as the Solicitor General says, had the franchise extended to them, the opportunity of having their names on the register. We all know, whether the Conservative Government deals with this question or not, that it is the intention of the Liberal Party to do so at the earliest possible moment, and I hope we shall deal with it in a thoroughly practical way—one man one vote, three months' occupation and six months' register, or something even better than that, and then we shall be carrying out the view which the Solicitor General so earnestly expressed at Westminster. I say we have to deal with the occupiers and the lodgers. It is well-known that if a man moves out of Southwark to Lambeth on the 16th July it takes him two years and five months before he can get a vote. Yet the Government come down and make a proposal to deal with volunteers, militia officers, and so forth; but they have no regard for working men and for those who are just as much entitled to vote as the classes for whom they are pleading now. The original Bill was called "The Electoral Disabilities, Naval, Military, and Police Bill;" this is called "The Electoral Disabilities Removal Bill," which I suppose is to apply to gentlemen's servants and coachmen taken out of town by their masters. I hope that the scope of the Bill is now sufficiently wide to enable us in Committee to deal with other disabilities. Last year, Mr. Speaker, I think you would have ruled the hon. Member out of order who had put down
    552
    such an Instruction as this which I put down—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the removal of the disqualification of occupiers and lodgers by reason of change of their constituency or occupation."
    I do not know whether the scope of this Bill is sufficiently wide to enable us to deal with occupiers and lodgers; if it is, we shall have an opportunity of dealing with their grievance—and the Attorney General says he is anxious to do away with their grievances—in Committee. I do not allow the Second Reading to pass without entering my protest against that which is a one-sided and tinkering Bill.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I am glad that the Government have thought it right to introduce this Bill; hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about "one man one vote," and all I can say is we shall be very glad to give every qualified man a vote, but a great many—especially soldiers—are now deprived of that right, for although his name appears on the register yet when a soldier is sent on duty—on a flying column for instance—for two or three weeks he thereby loses his qualification. Coast-guardsmen are treated in a like manner, and by going out for their annual training lose their votes. Surely under these circumstances hon. Members opposite will not oppose this Bill which, after all, only does tardy justice to a deserving body of men. It does harm to nobody; it only enables people already on the register to record their votes, and prevents their disqualification through having to perform official duties.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: We on this side of the House have no desire to keep any man off the register, and our chief complaint is that the Attorney General has not taken this favourable opportunity of doing away with many other anomalies in our electoral law. His chief argument in favour of the Bill was that it was only a small measure; well, from time immemorial such an argument has been treated as no argument at all. The hon. Member who has just spoken has complained of the disqualification of soldiers, but surely it is an equal grievance that the service franchise does not apply to County Council, as well as to

    553
    Parliamentary elections. County Councils in several parts of the country have petitioned in favour of this extension of the franchise, and surely the anomaly might have been got rid of by this Bill. Again, many of a very deserving class of men seem likely to lose their votes this year. I mean the agricultural labourers, who through the recent severe weather were driven to accept parish relief, through circumstances over which no human being could have control. Again, I say our chief regret is that the Bill is not a larger one, and is confined to doing justice to one class of the community instead of to many, that are also deserving of consideration.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division that this Bill does no harm to anybody, although I recognise with satisfaction the pronouncement he has made in favour of the principle "one man one vote." I hope that when the time comes in the not distant future when that principle is embodied in a Bill it will have his active support. Now, I do not at all oppose this measure in so far as it tends to give a man a vote. We want a universal suffrage, therefore any proposal that gives an individual a vote will have our support. But I do desire to point out to the Attorney General that the Bill will inflict a very great hardship on men who have to go away from home in search of work. It will disfranchise a good many miners in my own constituency; and although I have a majority there which I am not afraid will be diminished materially, still I am sure the sense of fair play which the hon. and learned Member possesses will induce him to say that no humble citizen should be disfranchised by inadvertence. In my constituency the miners have to go from one part of the country to another in search of employment, and I think the limitation of four months' absence might very well be extended. May I point out that when these men go away from home to work they keep up their homes in Cornwall and send home their wages for the support of their wives and children, and I therefore think they are entitled to keep their names on the register of voters. Yet by
    554
    passing this Bill as it stands you will be disfranchising hundreds of them. Cannot the Law Officers of the Crown see their way to modifying this provision, and extend the period from four months to six or nine months. If they do not do so I shall have in Committee to propose an Amendment on that point. I am sure they will recognise it is very unfair to take from one class of men a privilege which they are by the same Bill conferring on another body. I wish they would have the courage to bring in a larger measure, and not to give us reforms in these homoeopathic doses. Still we must not, I suppose, look a gift horse in the mouth.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: The first thing on which we have to congratulate ourselves is the departure which the Government have taken in this Bill. Those who took part in the Debate upon the last Bill before the House must at least be pleased that they have gained so much by action which was then termed obstruction, for the Government have now seen their way to very materially alter the scope of the Bill, and the measure is not likely to be defeated from this side of the House. I, at any rate, do not intend to oppose it; but I do join with my colleague in protesting against the manner in which its operation has been limited. The Bill itself shows distinctly how much amendment is required in our Registration Laws, and that the Government should have merely proposed to deal with the grievance of only a small section of those who are disqualified under the present system is a matter of very great regret to us. I can quite understand the enthusiasm for this Bill displayed by the hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division—a constituency in which there is a large military vote—but it should be borne in mind that there are many electors who are disqualified from voting by equally unfortunate circumstances. In my own constituency at the present time those who live on one side of a street and who were at the last election qualified to be upon the register, are now unable to vote, not through any default of their own, but simply because the landlord of the houses omitted to pay the rates at

    555
    The qualifying period. I think the Government ought to deal with a grievance of that nature, and not allow the disqualification of voters for no fault of their own. I hope, indeed, that the Government will seriously consider this matter before the next registration, and see if they cannot bring in a small Bill dealing with that particular grievance. I know there are many other grievances in connection with our registration system. For instance, take the case of a lodger on the register. He finds he is prospering, and is able to take the house in which he had been lodging, but immediately he does so he loses his vote as a lodger, and has to go through the whole probationary period as an occupier before he is qualified to again have his name on the register. Surely that is a small reform which the Government might take in hand, and it is one of many instances of our present ridiculous system. I think that when they are dealing with the matter of registration they might attempt a thorough reform, and not take up the time of the House by a tinkering little Bill like this. If they would only bring in a more comprehensive measure, or give facilities for a private Member to push forward one of the measures which have already been introduced this Session dealing with such matters as successive occupation, I think they might rely upon active support, for they would then be doing justice to deserving classes of the community.
    MR. PICTON: The hon. Member for Basingstoke will, I think, be reminded pretty frequently hereafter of his declaration in favour of the one man one vote principle. He has, I think, a little understated the true Radical doctrine. That doctrine is not merely one man one vote, but it is every man one vote, and we say that no man ought to be left off the register if he has the least claim to be on it. But if there is any class of men whose claim to a vote is weaker than that of any other, it surely is that class who depend for their daily bread on the favour of Government officials. I do not go so far as to say that soldiers should be left off the register, but I say that their claim is weakened by their acceptance of Government
    556
    employment. I think we have already a great deal too much official influence in this country, and a good deal might be said in favour of a law which deprived of their votes all who necessarily come under official influence. This Bill is intended to make a very striking exception in favour of one particular class of the population. There are tens of thousands of men subject to disabilities far more unjustifiable than those dealt with in this Bill, but the class now to be relieved comprises simply those who are known to be under Governmental and official influence. They are to be relieved, whilst others are to be left out in the cold. I remember myself that when on being elected a Member of this House I was compelled to change my residence, and I was left off the register for two years, and had no vote simply on account of that enforced change. Now, this disability is inflicted on hundreds and thousands of citizens year after year, and no effort is made by the Government to remedy an anomaly of this kind; but because Tory Members think that their principles are likely to be supported by those who are in the pay of the Government, and by the liveried servants of the rich, this special exemption is made in their favour. Who does not know how rapidly the register changes? In the course of a year probably one-third of a constituency is altered chiefly through changes of residence of the voters. Now we feel that every British citizen who has once been recognised as a voter should retain his right to vote in the future, unless disqualified by disorderly or criminal conduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne has shown how this Bill is likely to affect his constituents, and how desirable it is that they should be relieved. Therefore, although I have considerable hesitation whether I ought to vote for the Bill, I shall support the Second Reading on the ground that I do not like depriving any one of his right to vote. Still, I think every adult man is entitled, as a citizen of the British Empire, to have a vote, and that preference ought not to be given to those specially subject to Governmental and official influence.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I see according to the title

    557
    of the Bill it is one to remove certain disabilities by reason of absence. Will it at any stage be open to the House to enlarge the scope of the Bill by moving the omission of words "by reason of absence"? I take it that it would not be competent while these words remain in the title to deal with any other disabilities.
    MR. SPEAKER: It would not. The whole scope of the Bill is compulsory absence by reason of duty.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: There is no reference to compulsory absence in the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Member will see that the Bill deals with compulsory absence.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I agree with every word which has been uttered on this side of the House with regard to the short comings of this Bill. It is, indeed, a wonderful thing that in this nation, which is supposed to be a model of self-government, there should be at least half a million of people deprived of their votes by a bad system of registration, while half a million of people have a vote which they ought not to possess, and yet the only Bill introduced to remedy the evils of that system is the small Bill before us. Notwithstanding all that has been said against the Bill, with every word of which I agree, we cannot, as Liberals, holding the principles we do, vote against it. We are bound to support the Bill also on the ground that it refers only to genuine inhabitant occupiers, who ought all to have a vote. The Bill ought to go a great deal further than it does, but so far as it goes it is framed on right principles. It is much too partial in its application, but we accept it as part of a larger measure which will assuredly some day become law.
    COLONEL HUGHES: I wish to remark, with regard to the protest that this Bill does not go far enough, that the question of successive occupations has been a grievance for 30 or 40 years. For example, a lease holder buying the reversion of his lease hold and becoming a freeholder has to begin his period of qualification over again, and the same applies to a lodger becoming the householder of the house
    558
    in which he lodged. But why is the Conservative Party to be attacked for not remedying that state of things when the Liberal Party, having themselves, had the opportunity of doing so, took no advantage of that opportunity to give effect to the principles they profess to hold? Over and over again they might have put their professions into practice, but they have never redressed the grievances of which they are now complaining. I therefore do not think they are justified in their present loud complaints.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 177.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. CONYBEARE: I cannot allow the Second Reading of this Bill to pass without a challenge. I do not know whether there are any of my colleagues in the representation of Cornwall present; but I shall certainly be prepared to take a Division upon the Bill unless we receive some explanation of it. From the hesitating way in which the right hon. Gentleman moved the Second Reading, I am inclined to think he does not know much about the Bill, but it is scarcely courteous to the Members of the House that any measure should be moved without a word of explanation. I will read the Preamble to the Bill—
    "Whereas in pursuance of the Truro Chapter Act, 1878, a canonry in the cathedral church of Exeter has been transferred to and forms part of the Truro Chapter Endowment Fund, subject to an annual charge in favour of the Archdeaconry of Cornwall of three hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eight pence, which charge has been since the recent avoidance of the same archdeaconry reduce to two hundred pounds a year."
    Although I know something about the political, if not the ecclesiastical, arrangements of Cornwall, I confess I do not quite appreciate the logic of that part of the Preamble. The Preamble goes on—

    559
    "And whereas it is expedient that the said sum of two hundred pounds a year, being the future stipend attached to the said archdeaconry, should be paid out of the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners instead of out of the endowment of the said canonry."
    I should like to know why it is expedient? there is no reason alleged. I think, however, I could give a reason why it is expedient. We have a right to know why it is considered that this £200 should be paid out of the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? What I think is the true reason is that the Cathedral at Truro is what is called in vulgar parlance a white elephant to the Church Party. The building of the Cathedral was commenced some years ago under circumstances which reflected great credit upon the generosity, if not on the common sense, of the members of the Church of England in Cornwall. It was thought it was absolutely necessary, in order to convert the miners of Cornwall from their evil ways, belonging as they do to the Wesleyan persuasion, that a Cathedral should be planted in their midst, and consequently the good people put their hands in their pockets and subscribed a large fund for the purpose of erecting a Cathedral at Truro. Any lovers of Church architecture who have not seen the Truro Cathedral would do well to visit it; it is a fine building, and shows that the art and ability to construct magnificent places of worship is not yet dead in this country. The erection of the Cathedral was placed in the hands of the eminent architect, Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Pearson's original estimate was that the entire building, choir, nave, central tower, and two western towers would cost £95,000. I believe I am right in saying that more than £100,000 has been spent already, and only one-third of the Cathedral is at present erected—that is to say, the choir, central lantern up to the ridge of the roof, and the baptistry are the only parts which have as yet been completed. The foundation stone which was carefully installed by itself in a portion of the vacant ground where the nave is one day to be built has yet to be reached, and now stands as a monument of the improvidence of those who undertook so
    560
    great a work without setting down and counting the cost. Cornwall is a poor county. The people in the county who belong to the Church are no doubt the richest portion of the community, but they are not the most numerous, and although a great deal of money has been collected outside the county I apprehend that the question of the endowment of this great Cathedral is one of very great difficulty to those who are, and ought to be, the main support of the diocese—namely, the Church inhabitants, residents, landowners, and so on of the County of Cornwall. There has been a great deal of difficulty in getting together enough money for the adornment of the Cathedral itself, and I believe that great difficulty exists to find the £3,000 a year which is necessary to support the different ecclesiastics and others connected with the service of the Church according to the regulation and style of conducting Cathedral Institutions. I have not the slightest doubt that this Bill has been brought in to supplement the efforts of the Church people to raise a sufficient endowment for their ecclesiastics and Cathedral Institution in Cornwall by taking this £200 a year out of what I may say is a public fund for the purpose of allocating it to a particular purpose in this way. Beyond that I do not know that there is a very great deal to be said either for or against the Bill. At first sight it would appear that it is merely a transfer of Church funds from one body of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to another body; that is to say, the ecclesiastical people connected with the Cathedral Church at Truro. But then comes in this important point: The day will come, no doubt, when we shall be engaged in the work of disestablishing and disendowing the Church of England. It will then be pleaded that this £200 has been given over to the Cathedral Church at Truro in such recent times that it ought to be excluded from the rule which would bring about a general disendowment. I maintain you have in the funds belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners funds which belong to the nation, and which will, when disendowment takes place, come to be used for national purposes, purposes perhaps connected

    561
    with education and the like. If this transfer takes place it will be competent for the Church Party in Cornwall to say, "This endowment is quite of modern origin; we have been given this money for a specific purpose, and you cannot rightly take it away from us." I do not think there is any other point in regard to which I need trespass longer upon the attention of the House. I must, however, say I hardly think it reflects credit on the Representatives of Cornwall that when a Bill of this kind is brought forward there should be none of them present except the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Courtney) and myself.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,: I think it is very likely the other Representatives of Cornwall are not here this evening because they have had an opportunity of considering this Bill, not only this Session but last Session, when it was in the hands of private Members, and they are quite satisfied that there is no foundation for the fears which have just been expressed by the hon. Member for Camborne. I think that if the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the Act of 1878, he, too, would have got over his fears. This is simply the transfer of Church property from one diocese to another. It was provided in the Act of 1878 that after the first vacancy in the Archdeaconry of Cornwall the amount to be received by the Archdeacon should be reduced to £200 a year, and it was further provided by the 11th section that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not have the power to pay it directly out of the Common Fund. It is most desirable that the payment should be transferred directly to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There is not the slightest ground for the supposition that anyone will cite the fact that we have passed this Bill in 1891 as a modern endowment of the Archdeaconry. It is clear upon an examination of the Bill in connection with the Act of 1878 that there is no additional charge at all. It is a mere matter of book-keeping, and I need not inform hon. Members who are looking forward to the time when the funds of the Church may be appropriated to other purposes, there is no form in
    562
    which those funds can be more easily available than the form in which they lie with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    MR. PICTON: We have a general objection to Bills of this kind. We think the House ought always to be unwilling to manipulate Church funds except in one case, and that is to appropriate funds entirely to secular purposes. I understand that this £200 is to be paid out of the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. What is the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? It is the Socialistic Fund of the Church. I suppose it is employed in helping poor livings, and in relieving poverty-stricken parishes; in levelling up where the state of ecclesiastical funds is considerably below the general average. It is a benevolent fund, intended, so far as it is possible under the circumstances, to do justice. Now, is it fair that this fund should be robbed for such as that of restoring an endowment which was appropriated in the year 1878? I think it is very improper. For all we know some poor living will very likely go without this £200 a year, because the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will not be able to afford to make a grant on account of this drain upon it. We are continually told by enlightened and superior persons that we are quite wrong in talking about ecclesiastical endowments as national property, that they are the property of certain corporations, whether the corporations are sole or bodies of men. Yes, but the House, by continually encroaching upon the preserves of various corporations—taking money out of the purse of one corporation and handing it to another corporation—shows that in its opinion the money does not belong to the corporations in the same sense as whatever little money I have belongs to me, or whatever estates hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may have belongs to them. The House of Commons would never dream of touching the estates of corporate towns, but the House knows that the estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners stand on a different footing. Therefore, though I dislike this Bill for the reasons I have stated, and think it

    563
    will improperly take away money from a fund that is intended mainly for the poor and give it back to those who are better off, yet I welcome it as an additional illustration of the conviction that is so deeply rooting itself in the hearts and minds not only of Liberal but of Tory legislators that ecclesiastical funds do not belong to these corporations in the sense that property may belong to individuals. I know that legally they do, but there is a moral difference. As I have a strong objection to the Bill, I hope my hon. Friend the member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) will divide against it, and, if he does I shall certainly support him.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: If there were any doubt—I will not say in the minds of legislators because I cannot conceive that there is a shadow of doubt in their minds, but in the minds of anybody that the property of Ecclesiastical Commissioners is national property—that doubt must now be dispelled. [Sir R. FOWLER: "Oh, oh!"] There is one exception. I do not know that the opinion of the House is likely to be swayed by the prejudices which occupy the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The Church of Ireland was on every legal ground on all fours with the Church of England. When the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland took place, how did, parliament proceed? It appointed special Commissioners for the purpose of carrying out the disendowment of that church. The whole of the revenues of the Irish Church were swept into the coffers of that Commission, and life interests alone were satisfied by the Commissioners. That being so, I do not think we need concern ourselves with the question whether the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is national property. It has been admitted on all side since these questions came up that tithe is national property. The leader of the House admitted it last Session, and on this side of the House I believe not a single voice is raised to express the contrary opinion. I want to know, however, why the House of Commons should be occupied with trivial legislation of this character. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says it is altogether a question of a single individual. I want to know why the time of the House
    564
    of commons should at this moment be engaged in considering the interests of the Archdeacon of Cornwall. Why should the House of Commons be engaged in considering the interests of a single individual and the Archdeacon of Cornwall? Why is he not contented with the provision made in the previous Act? Why, year after year, are we considering these questions of bookkeeping? The right hon. Gentleman did not give us the facts. Is it to increase the endowment of the Cathedral of Exeter. Is it to return part of the money which, under the Truro Act of 1878, was with drawn from Exeter and given to this new See? I object to the Bill on the ground indicated by the hon. Member for Camborne. Cornwall is a county of Nonconformists. The people run no risk of relapsing into heathenism, though the Church were to relax all her efforts there. I know it is sometimes a plea put forward in favour of a system of Church Establishment, that if State recognition were withdrawn, our remote agricultural districts would be in danger of relapsing into heathenism. No doubt the hon. Baronet has that fear. Cornwall is another instance of that of which Wales is an eminent example. The Welsh people have made ample provision out of their convictions and their poverty for their modest religious requirements. True, they do not lavish thousands a year on a Cathedral and then come here for an additional £200 for an Archdeacon. I look upon this Bill as a covert insult to the religious people of Cornwall that the House of Commons should be engaged in thrusting upon them the manifestation of a hostile system of religion at the national expense, with all the pride and hauteur the system involves. The Government, it is well known, cannot get through its important business, and is obliged to take the time of private Members, and yet it turns aside from the business of Supply to make itself responsible for this frivolous proceeding. I think we ought to indicate to the dignitaries of the Church of England—for all these schemes come from another place—there is a mint royal for their manufacture. I think that whenever these frivolous Bills come before us we ought to say to the Church of England as a Religious Body that it

    565
    ought to take the management of its affairs under its own control—not coming to the House of Commons for all these modifications, making the House of Commons responsible for these enactments, and the losses Religious Institutions must suffer because, forsooth, it prefers to be under the control of a foreign body rather than take in hand the management of its own affairs. I hope that a protest could be made on every occasion when such measures come before Parliament. There ought to be shown that there is in this House a growing determination to bring to a speedy end this state of things, and to bring about a change by which the Church of England shall manage its own affairs. I hope that in the Division we shall show an unanimity of feeling on this side of the House. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees does not wish the House of Commons to be occupied with this trumpery business. I do not think he will be singular, but will show himself to be a true Representative of the people in his own division of Cornwall, and that there is but one feeling on the part of the people of that county—a feeling of protest against that which is rather more nor less than a sham institution in their midst.
    MR. H. BYRON REED: It is somewhat puzzling to know why the exception taken to this harmless necessary Bill by my hon. colleague opposite should lead up to a violent diatribe delivered by the hon. Gentleman against the Church of England generally, and in Cornwall in particular. The Bill provides for a redistribution of certain Church revenues in the See of Truro, and without it the redistribution cannot take place. We have long been aware of the strong views of my hon. Friend on Church matters, but this is a matter of simple conformity with the law of the land. The Bill has no opposition from Nonconformists in Cornwall, who, indeed, have nothing whatever to do with the matter. It is a necessary measure for the redistribution of Church Funds, and hon. Gentlemen opposite incur great responsibility by obstructing a piece of Church reform—for purposes which I will not specify, but which the House will understand. I support the Bill not only as
    566
    a Churchman [Mr. CONYBEARE: "Church lecturer." Cries of "Order!"] but also because any measure of redistribution has to come under the criticism of Parliament. I believe that the Bill is acceptable to the people of Cornwall—Nonconformists as well as Churchmen—and it is in their interests that the measure has been introduced.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: We on this side of the House are quite willing to incur the responsibility of spending a certain time in the criticism of a measure to which the Government have thought it well to devote a very solid portion of an evening so early in the Session. More especially I think Scotch Members may say a word or two, for we cannot but reflect on the extent to which we have been sacrificed in this matter. It was in the course of the week that the first popular matter in relation to Scotland this Session was going to be brought forward when that evening was taken from us by the Government it was said for the Tithes Bill, but it turns out that of two Government evenings a considerable part of one is devoted to this measure. What is this measure? It is to give £200 a year from the general fund of the Church of England to a specific purpose. It is public money devoted to a public purpose. And to what purpose?
    MR. H. BYRON REED: A church of England purpose.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes, I am speaking according to the law as it exists at present. I am not bound to express my opinions on every occasion as to what purposes public property ought to be devoted. The hon. Member who has a great interest, a lively interest in this subject—I speak with all respect and not satirically—agrees with me in that. We are told that this is Church property, but it is property of which this House is bound to see to the distribution. The proposal is to give £200 a year from the general fund of the Church of England, which is intended to be applied to the augmentation of poor livings, for the purposes of ostentation and show in a district where there is an enormous preponderance of Dissenters, to swell the endowment of the Dean and Chapter and the diocesan central arrangements in a new diocese. Now I just want

    567
    right hon. Gentlemen to think what they are doing. In this country the rents of great districts may be paid into the hands of one person, and this man has a great responsibility in the manner in which he uses those rents. He is bound to provide for the education of the district. I will go further and say the landowner has no right to devote the rents of a great district of this kind to the exclusive endowment of a religion which is not professed by the great majority of the inhabitants. If that is not the case in Cornwall I do not know where it is. But, unfortunately, the diversion of great reserve funds of this kind is not for the practical purposes of religion, but for swelling the ostentatious and showy part of the Establishment. A bishopric cannot be founded unless the Bishop receives £3,500 a year, while in the august Church of France—[Cries of "Order!"] I am not aware that I am in any way out of order.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I was not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman was not in order in what he was saying, but he was addressing hon. Gentlemen behind him, instead of addressing the Chair.
    SIR. G. TREVELYAN: To please the hon. Gentleman I will look hard at him. In the august Church of France a Bishop is endowed with £1,000 a year; but in the Church of England you cannot have a principal clergyman to look after other clergymen without endowing him to the extent of £3,500 a year, an income equal to that of a large landed proprietor. You encourage in every possible way those people who have the wealth of the country, where, perhaps, the enormous majority of the people are Dissenters. You encourage them to provide the enormous capital sum to provide this income, but likewise to provide the Bishop with a house, with a committee of ladies to furnish it according to the latest style. In fact, the money which ought to go to the real interests of the Church in the district is devoted to religious ostentation and extravagance. I do not think that such a course is likely to add to the general popularity or the efficacy of the Church. This poor sum of £200 a year should be left in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the real purposes of the Church.
    SIR R. FOWLERIt is ungracious on the part of the right hon. Baronet to complain of the course the Government have taken this week. May I remind the right hon. Baronet that if the Government had not forced the Tithe Bill through its remaining stage this week the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not be able to bring forward his Motion with regard to Ireland next Monday. The hon. Member for Bradford, of course, is an enemy of the Church of England, and therefore we can understand his action.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish it to be understood that I am no enemy of the Church of England as a religious institution, but that I object to it as a privileged institution. I have not the slightest hostility to the Church, and the Church suffers more from her friends than from me.
    SIR R. FOWLER: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. What I wished more particularly to say is this: that at the General Election of 1868, when ecclesiastical questions, and particularly the question of the Irish Church, were prominently before the country, I was returned by a Cornish constituency to oppose the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. That shows that the people of Cornwall are not so much opposed to the Established Church as hon. Members opposite would have the House believe. I know a very large proportion of the people of Cornwall are Wesleyans. I do not know that they can be called Nonconformists. John Wesley did not, I think, call himself a Nonconformist. However, this Bill has simply to do with the distribution of Church property, and I hope no other matters will be imported into the discussion to delay the Second Reading.
    MR. MORTON: I oppose the Bill because I object to money being taken from the Church funds for the purposes here contemplated. There are numbers of churches which cannot get any money from the Common Fund; they are told there is no money to spare. If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can afford £200 a year to go to a rich Cathedral and a nearly useless office, it is utterly wrong that Churchmen should have to go about to Public Bodies like the Common Council of the City, begging

    569
    for money to enable them to carry on services in the various parishes. I certainly am no enemy to the Church As a voluntary worker I have rendered her some assistance, and I oppose the Bill in the interest of the Church.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND: I know Cornwall well, and am able to say that Truro Cathedral is not a rich Cathedral, but, on the contrary, is probably the poorest in England. It has been contributed to by Nonconformists in the noblest way, and they are proud of the edifice, and with reason. The services in Truro Cathedral are carried on with great difficulty, and this is simply a restoration of £200 a year out of £3,000 or £4,000 Cornwall contributes to the general fund. I admit that the Church of England may have no title to take up the time of the House; but so long as there is an Established Church, that Church must have this authority from Parliament. This Bill has absolutely no reference to Disestablishment, but I admit that by Disestablishment the Church might be freer and more able to do her work in the land; but so long as she is established she must come to the House for authority for what is required to be done, and she has a fair claim to come to Parliament in the present case. For that reason I cannot refuse to vote for the Second Reading.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Those who are not specially interested in the maintenance of the Established Church can hardly be expected to be influenced by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and, for my part, I protest against the Church of England having further public time allotted to it this Session. Having regard to the time which has been spent on the Tithe Bill, those who are not specially interested in the Church of England have now some claim to the attention of the House. This House, after all, has no control over the actions of the Church of England, and while we have no control over their actions, it is rather hard that they should usurp so much of our time and attention. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are
    570
    most devoted to the interests of the Established Church will admit that regrettable incidents take place from time to time—such as those which occur in regard to burials—in which the conduct of individual ministers is reprehensible. These things ought to come under the authority of Parliament or of some public official. So long as we have these burial scandals without public control it is hard that the Church should take up so much time and attention. Why I protest so strongly to-day is because I have heard that a deputation of miners has interviewed the First Lord of the Treasury to ask that special facilities may be given for the discussion of the eight hours question. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to give any definite promise in respect to a matter which interests hundreds of thousands of people, but he can put a little Bill like this before the House in a prominent place on the Orders. This seems to me a scandalous state of things, and I hope that some of us will take care that it is made known to the miners through out the country. [Laughter.] A Member of the Government laughs, but I challenge him to rise in his place and tell the miners why no time is to be found for their business, whilst time is found for a miserable little Church Bill like this. The Members of the Government seem somewhat subdued just now in face of the result of the Northampton election. A Midland borough has just returned are opponent of theirs by a larger majority than has ever been known there before.
    An hon. MEMBER: On the eight hours, question.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Both candidates—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This has nothing to do with the question before the House. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Bill on which, as yet, he has not even touched.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I only ask some Member of the Government to get up and give the House some reason why this Bill should be regarded of such importance as to be put before the question of the hours of labour in mines.
    MR. F. S. POWELLI must say I was surprised to hear the

    571
    observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down, for, unless I am very much mistaken, he, like myself, is the son of a clergyman. What I learnt in early days, and what I have seen and heard of late years, has led me to form very different conclusions from those to which the hon. Member has unfortunately been driven. I do not think it it fair to blame the Government for the Debate that has taken place. I was not aware, until I heard the speech of the hon. Member, that his speech was inspired by the Government; but as to the business of the House being diverted from secular matters to the Church of England, the Statute Book will show that more Public General Acts were passed in this House relating to the Nonconformist Bodies last year than relating to the Church of England. Several Acts were passed affecting Nonconformists; but, so far as I know, not one Act was passed affecting the Church of England. Hon. Members seem to forget that the establishment of Truro Cathedral was entirely due to voluntary contributions. All that is now proposed is that a paltry annuity of £200 should be secured in order to give more completeness to the Cathedral services. Every one of the Sees recently created has been established on a fund of £100,000 or thereabouts, voluntarily subscribed. That occurred within the range of my own knowledge and observation in the case of Wakefield and Liverpool; it is therefore clear that these endowments are popular. I hope the House will read the Bill a second time.
    MR.CRAIG: I should like to ask the Solicitor General as to Section 11 of the Act of 1878, which imposes restrictions on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and declares that they shall not endow the Canonries of Truro. Is the object of this Bill to repeal that section, declaring, as it does, that this £200 shall be paid out of the Common Fund of the Commissioners?
    SIR E. CLARKE: Section 11 sets forth that nothing in the Act should authorise the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to apply any portion of
    572
    their Common Fund towards the endowment of the Dean and Chapter of Truro. But endowments could be paid out of the Canonries of Exeter, and the object of the Bill is to enable this endowment to be paid out of the Common Fund, instead of the Canonries of Exeter.
    (11.42.) The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 57.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    (11.55.) Order to go into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates read.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: May I ask when it is proposed to take Supply? The whole of the Estimates are not yet before the House. Supply appears on the Paper to-day for the first time as the fifth Order. To assign it such a place on the first occasion of its appearance is most unusual. The usual practice is to put it down as the first Order, so that when the Estimates are first submitted hon. Members may have the opportunity of raising questions on going into Committee.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: If Supply had not been put down on the Paper the Government would have been blamed if the House should have found at about 10 o'clock that the other Government Business was exhausted. It is therefore necessary to put it down. The Government propose to take Supply tomorrow. It would be highly inconvenient to wait until the whole of the Estimates are prepared before taking Supply.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Are the Supplementary Estimates to be taken before the Estimates for the present year? I shall be astonished to hear that Estimates have ever before been presented in the fragmentary way in which they have appeared this year. We know that there is to be a Supplementary Estimate relating to the relief works in Ireland. Do the Government propose to go into Committee of Supply on the ordinary Civil Service Estimates for next year before they bring forward the Supplementary

    573
    Estimates to meet the financial exigencies of this year?
    MR. JACKSON: The Government will be fallowing the usual practice in going on with the Estimates for next year even before proposing the Supplementary Estimates for this year. It is very desirable to present reliable Estimates. The Government, therefore, have thought it right to postpone the Estimate of the expenditure for the relief of distress in Ireland, as they cannot yet tell accurately what the expenditure will be. It is impossible to say how much will be spent by March 31, as we have no certain data to go upon.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I wish to propose an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, when that Motion is put for the first time. If Supply is taken to-morrow, I fear that I shall be prevented from moving my Amendment, as the Resolutions of which notice have been given will have priority. It has hitherto always been the custom to put down the Civil Service Estimates for the first time on a Monday or Thursday.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: As the Government do not seem disposed to answer me I put my question to you, Sir. The first question to-morrow will be that you do leave the Chair. I wish to know whether when the Resolutions of which notice has been given as Amendments to the Motion that "Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair" shall have been disposed of, the Speaker will again put the Motion before leaving the Chair?
    MR. SPEAKER: In the circumstances, the right hon. Member for Bradford would not be precluded from moving a Resolution.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates I will call attention to the subject of glebe lands and move a Resolution.
    MR. JACKSON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on the part of the Government
    574
    to prevent him from taking the course which he wishes to take. I will consult my colleagues as to the course will be taken to-morrow.
    MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask whether Supplementary Estimates are to be presented in connection with any other matter than the relief of Irish distress?
    MR. JACKSON: I cannot speak positively on the point.
    Supply deferred till to-morrow.

    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.— (No. 9.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 3rd June.

  TRADING (REGISTRATION) BILL (No. 183.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I understand that the hon. Member for Islington, who has a similar Bill on the Paper to this, was informed by the President of the Board of Trade that as soon as the Bill was read a second time the right hon. Gentleman would consent to its being referred to a Select Committee. What I wish to know is whether if this Bill is read a second time, the right hon. Gentleman will consent to its reference to the same Committee?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I have no objection myself to refer this Bill, if read a second time, together with the Bill of the hon. Member for Islington, to a Select Committee; but I think the House ought to be informed that these Bills propose to inflict a penalty upon those firms which do not register their names, and that may be rather a serious interference with trade. I am not prepared to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill until the House has first assented to the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Islington.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    FALSE MARKING PREVENTION (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 187.)
    Second Reading deferred from Monday till Friday next.
  MOTIONS.

    RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. King, Bill to vary and extend the provisions of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854," and of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1873 and 1888, ordered to be brought in by Mr. King, Mr. Kimber, Sir Roper Lethbridge, Sir William Plowden, Mr. Edmund Robertson, and Mr. H. S. Wright.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 212.]

    Motion made, and Question proposed,—

    "That there be laid before this House a Return of weekly paid Servants of Railways of the United Kingdom, who were on duty during the month of September, 1890, for more than ten hours at a time, or who, after being on duty for more than ten hours, were allowed to resume work with less than eight hours' rest, and of the average rates of wages of each grade of such servants, to be furnished by each Company separately in the subjoined form:—

    Class of Servant

    Total number of each class in the employment of the Company.

    Average hours of regular daily duty.

    Number of Servants regularly on duty more than ten hours per day.

    Number of instances in which ten hours has been exceeded.

    Per-centage of number employed

    Number of instances of such duty exceeding ten hours by—

    Number of instances of duty being resumed after rest of—

    Rate of wages per week.

    After what number of hours is overtime paid?

    At what rate in excess of ordinary time is overtime paid?

    One hour.

    Two hours.

    Three hours.

    Four hours.

    Five hours.

    Six hours.

    Seven hours.

    Eight hours.

    One hour.

    Two hours.

    Three hours.

    Four hours.

    Five hours.

    Six hours.

    Seven hours.

    Station Masters

    Engine Drivers

    Firemen

    Goods Gaurds and Brakesmen

    Shunters

    Inspectors

    Passenger Gaurds

    Porters

    Permanet-waymen

    Pointsmen

    Signalmen

    Ticket Collectors

    RAILWAYS (BOARD OF TRADE ORDERS).
    Return ordered "of Orders made by the Board of Trade under 'The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889.' "—(Mr. Channing.)

    RAILWAY SERVANTS.
    MR. CHANNING: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to accept the Return in the form in which I move it, in order to give the Select Committee the data on which, the Railway Servants found their case for a 10 hours' day. Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to the Return with any modifications that may be thought desirable?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Returns have been made since 1888 in a certain form, and I propose to present to the House shortly further Returns for November, 1890, in the old form, adding the two last columns of the hon. Member's form with regard to overtime. I do not think it would be advisable to grant the Return in the form in which the hon. Member has moved it. It relates to certain classes of servants whose employment has nothing whatever to do with the safety of the public, and would raise new issues altogether in this matter. If, when the Committee has been appointed, it should desire information with re

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.

    Return ordered—

    "In the following form, from each Trustee Savings Bank in the United Kingdom, showing the whole of the transactions which took place in the year ended the 20th day of November 1890, so far as regards moneys placed in the hands of the Trustees of such Savings Banks for investment other than with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, pursuant to the 16th section of the Act, 26 and 27 Vic. c. 87; also showing, at the 20th day of November 1890, the liability of the Trustees of such Savings Banks to Depositors in respect of moneys received for investment pursuant to the said 16th section of the Act 26 and 27 Vic. c, 87, and the nature and amount, in detail, of all assets, including the reserve fund (if any) held to meet the same:—

    Return of Transactions pursuant to the 16th section of the Act 26 and 27 Vic. C. 87 and the Rule of the Saving Bank.

    Dr.

    Sums Received.

    Uninvested Balance in hands of the Treasurer at 20th November 1889

    £.

    s.

    d.

    Sums received form Depositors for Investment in the year ended 20th November 1890

    Interest received from Investments in the year ended 20th November 1890

    Sums received for Securities Sold or Paid off in the year ended 20th November 1890, viz.:—

    Amount

    Nature of Security

    Sums Received

    for

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Other Receipts (in detail)

    gard to work over 10 hours a day, then I should be perfectly willing to call upon the Railway Companies to furnish it. So far, Parliament has only asked for Returns over 12 hours a day. Therefore, I cannot agree at present to the form of the hon. Member.
    MR. CHANNING: These Returns take a long time in preparation, and several weeks will be lost if they are not proceeded with at once.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is plenty of time.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn

    Cr.

    Sums Paid.

    £.

    s.

    d.

    Sums paid to Depositors in respect of Investment in year ended 20th November 1890

    Sums paid to Depositors for Interest on Investments in year ended 20th November 1890

    Sums paid for management

    Sums paid for Commission on Purchases and Sales of Securities, year ended 20th November 1890

    Sums paid for Securities Bought in the year ended 20th November 1890, viz.:—

    Amount

    Nature of Security

    Sums Paid

    for

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Uninvested Balance in the hands of the Treasurer at the 20th November 1890

    £

    Liability to Depositors at the 20th day of November 1890, in respect of Moneys received for Investment pursuant to the 16th Section of the Act 26 and 27 Vic. c. 87

    £

    Nature and Amount, in detail, of all Assets, including the Reserve Fund (if any) held to meet above Liability to Depositors, pursuant to the 16 Section of the Act 26 and 27 Vic. c. 87:—

    Nature of Assets.

    Amount of Assets.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Uninvested Balance in Treasurer's Hands

    £

    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

COLONISATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Leave given to the Viscount Gordon (E. Aberdeen) to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons (pursuant to message of Monday last) if his Lordship think fit, and, his Lordship (in this place) consenting thereto, a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [H.L.] (No. 31.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have given notice of an Amendment, which I read the other day to your Lordships, to Clause 4 as proposed, and I did so with great regret that I should have to delay a Bill for which I am sure the country will be greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and in the purport of which I fully concur. I must say that I still think the Bill as now drawn will be a dead letter, because the parents who are intended to be dealt with are of a class who will never sue for a writ of habeas corpus to get the custody of their children. The fees alone in the High Court would be a bar to their so applying. The Bill also does not touch the class of cases chiefly in view, namely, those of vicious parents, throwing away all the good training of a child in an Industrial School when the child's term of detention has expired. My Amendment is upon Clause 4. That clause says that when the Court has rejected the application of a parent on the ground that he is wholly unfit to take care of his child, if the Court is of opinion that the child is being brought up by its foster parent or by the Institution taking charge of it in a religion different from that of the reprobate parent, it shall be the duty of the Court to secure that the child shall be removed from that better training, and shall
  430
  be taught in the religion which has led to its abandonment and to the parent's unfitness. This may be a necessary reservation of the parental right in a Bill in which all other parental rights are very properly thrown over; but what I want to point out is that if there are no means of teaching the child in the reprobate parent's religion, of course the provision fails. No Act of Parliament can compel the performance of an impossibility. If there are means, there are no funds provided in the Bill to replace the funds theretofore supplied by those taking care of the child.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 4, page 2, line 11, after ("brought up") to insert ("Provided means can be found available for the education of the child in such religion, and any additional cost so incurred shall be a charge on the school-rate, if any, in the district.")—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, for various reasons. In the first place, I think I can show him that inasmuch as the provision which he has just read runs through the whole clause, and is a necessary power in it, what he proposes would be an unjust taxation of some of Her Majesty's subjects, and one which this House has no power to make. The only effect would be that, having given an expression of opinion upon the matter, the proviso would have to be struck out of the Bill as one of the definitive measures. I observe that the noble Lord, in giving his opinion of what the clause provides, says that it shall be the duty of the Court to provide for the education of the child in the religion in which the parent would have the right to have it brought up. That is not the clause. The noble Lord is mistaken in his view of it. The clause says in terms that—
  "The Court shall have power to make such order as it may think fit to secure that the child shall be brought up in the religion of its parent"
  whose legal right it is to secure that the child shall be so brought up. Therefore, the noble Lord will see that instead of its being any statutory obligation or duty on the part of the Court, the Court is simply empowered, if it shall think fit, to make such order as

  431
  the circumstances of the case may require. Personally, I should not be averse to some such provision as I think the noble Lord has in his mind, although the language of his Amendment, if he will forgive me for saying so, is some what vague. I think that what the noble Lord means is that where the parent of a child is, in the opinion of the Court, unfit to be entrusted with its care, and the child is being brought up in a religion different from that of the parent, if the parent has no means to provide for the child being brought up in that religion, there is apparently presented to the Court the difficulty of either allowing it to be brought up in a religion contrary to the wish of the parent or of delivering it up to the parent. I see the point at which the noble Lord aims, but I do not think the difficulty arises. He has, I think, mistaken the effect of the clause. Here, we will say, is a Protestant parent applying to the Court and desirous that his child shall be brought up as a Protestant; the child is being up brought as a Roman Catholic, and yet the Court would have only power to continue it in the custody of a person who certainly would not provide for its Protestant instruction. That is the difficulty in the noble Lord's mind. Well, I do not see the apparent difficulty, but he omits to consider that the whole matter is referred to the discretion of the Court, and I should imagine the Court will exercise its discretion in the best way possible for the interests of the child. It is not for me to say what the Courts might think proper to do; but possibly they might think it better that the child should be brought up in the Roman Catholic religion, although the child of a Protestant, or vice versâ, and taught its moral and religious duties, rather than that it should be taught nothing of the kind at all. It is very likely the Court would come to that conclusion. I will not say what conclusion I should come to myself, though I have a strong opinion on the matter. I doubt very much whether any Court would consent to take the noble Lord's view as to the provision that should be made for children who would have no religious teaching. I am afraid he would encounter a very strong body of opposition, if he were to try to establish a kind of sectarianism in these cases at the expense of the State. But
  432
  I understand that the noble Lord admits the Bill is a useful and desirable one, and let me also call his attention to the fact that this section was agreed to without a Division, by a very large Committee representing both Protestant and Roman Catholic Peers. The religious difficulty did not arise. This religious question is the one question which I believe would be found most likely to imperil this Bill. Do let me, therefore, urge upon the noble Lord not to press his Amendment to a Division. If it passes with the full authority of this House that this the greatest of difficulties, the religious question, has been surmounted, it will go to the other House with a weight which it certainly will not carry if it is only passed by a majority of your Lordships. I do, therefore, again urge the noble Lord, fully recognising that the Bill is of importance and is greatly needed, as he says it is, not to press his Amendment to a Division.
  LORD NORTON: After what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, before the Bill is put before the House for Third Reading, I should like in a very few words to call attention to the immense satisfaction with which the passing of this Bill will certainly be regarded, especially by the vast number of people who have long been engaged in that most difficult and most important philanthropic work—the training of neglected children. Even speaking within the range of personal observation and experience, one can testify to the fact that the difficulties of that work which are intended to be dealt with and overcome by this Bill, are of constant occurrence. The noble and learned Lord has alluded to the future of this Bill in other regions beyond. I am sure that the fact of its having been introduced by himself, and having received the approval of so many noble Lords in this House, ought to afford a very favourable prospect as regards its future. At any rate, it should surely remain free from the criticism that this is a piece of sentimental legislation. I should rather be inclined to think that some of the

  433
  criticism indulged in in other quarters has been of a sentimental kind; I refer to the almost superstitious dread which seems to actuate the minds of some persons of any interference with the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of parents. There is certainly one thing which this Bill will bring before a certain class of parents in a very forcible manner, and that is the responsibilities which they should recognise as attaching to them, and more especially in the matter of paying for the maintenance of their children, who have been brought up in institutions and by charitable people. My object in rising is to express my grateful appreciation of the action of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in introducing this Bill, and the immense satisfaction with which it is regarded by all classes.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL BILL [H.L.] (No. 6.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COLONIES (CONFERENCE ON IMPERIAL TRADE AND DEFENCE).
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: In asking your Lordships to agree to the Motion which I shall presently have the honour to read, I do so with a feeling of considerable responsibility upon me. It is not by any means a light matter to ask your Lordships to affirm that it is advisable that representatives of the various component parts of the Empire should be invited to meet together for conference in London. Such a Conference is, in my opinion, only to be justified when there are matters of very grave import indeed, affecting the whole Empire, to be discussed. But I think there are such problems now ripe for solution—problems and questions of a very far-reaching character. I do not mean to say that it might be possible to arrive at a solution of them at any one meeting of the Conference, but there are questions which are clamouring for discussion of a much more authoritative character than can be carried on merely by an interchange of views between private individuals. They are problems of such a character that they can only, be ultimately solved, in my opinion, by
  434
  such an authoritative discussion as could take place in such a Conference as I suggest. I have a good precedent for my Motion. It is only four years ago since representatives of the colonies met in London the Ministers of the Queen to consider weighty matters affecting the welfare of the Empire. That was an event of great moment. It was the first time in the history of this country that the Mother Country and the colonies had ever met together to discuss matters face to face. As long as the British Empire endures the first occasion in which the mother and her children met together to consult must stand out as a remarkable landmark in the history of our race. Whether that landmark shall in the opinion of historians mark the point at which a gradual decline towards disintegration takes place, or whether, on the other hand, it shall point down a long vista of united and peaceful progress, I think depends very much indeed upon the wisdom and the action of the present generation. Probably the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not absolutely deny that the settlement, or partial settlement, of some difficult matters then in dispute with foreign countries was facilitated by the informal interchange of views to which the occasion of the Conference gave rise. And a great deal of good resulted also—an amount of good which must not be undervalued simply because it cannot be measured or weighed and read within the four corners of an Act of Parliament—from the contact and free interchange of views that took place between representatives of all the colonies and Her Majesty's Ministers. We learned a great deal about the opinions, the wishes, and desires of the colonies, and the colonies probably learned a great deal about each other, and they learned also probably a great deal that they did not know before as to the practical difficulties attending the management of a great Empire. In all these matters, to say the very least of it, as well as in other respects, another Conference could not possibly do any harm. Certain matters which were under discussion at that Conference are still unsettled, and ought to be settled. The Conference, I believe, did a great deal, in the way of defence. A good deal has been done in legal matters;

  435
  Legislation is in progress with the object of enabling Judgments of Colonial Courts to be enforced in this country, and those of the Courts at home to be enforced in the colonies. A good deal has actually been done in matters relating to bankruptcy, probate, letters of administration and the like, and I think I am right in saying that there is practical unanimity as to such important subjects as the saving of life at sea and the Merchandise Marks Act. But other matters are not settled, such as the investment of trust moneys in Colonial Funds, an alternative telegraphic route to the East through Canada, and cheaper telegraphic communication. I might mention many other matters, but I mention those to show that even in practical matters such as were introduced at the last Conference a great deal remains, to be done, and might be usefully undertaken if another Conference were, assembled. But those are, comparatively speaking, small matters. The two subjects, however, to which I wish especially to call the attention of the House are very large and grave matters indeed. If the last Conference was remarkable in what it did, it was also remarkable in what it left undone. The subject of organisation for military defence was the most prominent matter laid down for discussion, and yet, strange to say, very little indeed was done in respect of it. A great deal was done in the direction of increasing the naval resources of the Empire; and the direction which it took was that of providing special ships, a special squadron, for the defence of a certain group of colonies, the expense being shared between the mother country and the colonies interested. I have nothing to say against that principle of applying mutual help localised in that way. On the contrary, I think that is the direction in which the principle should be applied. I believe very strongly in the principle of individuality, and that mutual help and self-help should go together; but at the same time I should like to see the great principle of mutual obligations, of mutual responsibilities, and of mutual help applied in a larger, a more unselfish, and a more Imperial spirit. In the proposition that I shall make, in the propositions which I should wish to see introduced at the Conference, I admit
  436
  that I am coming near the confines of a proposition which I consider to be quite untenable; it may be urged, if mutual help is to become the principle observed, that all the subjects of the Queen are interested in securing that the forces of the Crown should be able to protect them in either offensive on defensive war, and therefore that all the subjects of the Queen should contribute in due proportion to the maintenance of those forces. That is a proposition or assertion which I consider entirely untenable, in practical politics at any rate, because to carry out such an idea as that would necessitate such an amendment and alteration of the Constitution as would amount to a complete revolution. It would require the creation of a Parliament or of a deliberative body of some kind, which should have the power of raising taxes for the maintenance of the forces of the Crown, and, of course, dealing also with questions of peace or war and all other questions in reference to which the forces of the Crown might be called upon to operate. That is a matter with which I have nothing now to do, and I shall stop far short of any proposition of that kind. I think that mutual help can be given and that mutual responsibilities can be kept within strictly defined limits without necessitating any change whatever in the Constitution or without creating any difference whatever of that kind. It is, of course, impossible to say offhand that the British Empire is more interested in any one particular portion of the Empire than in any other portion, or that it is more concerned for one fortress than for another fortress within its limits; but it is easy to see, at any rate, that the British Empire as a whole and every portion of it, individually and collectively, is especially and particularly interested in one matter, and that is the security of our water-borne commerce and our right of access to the markets of the world—in other words, the security and safety of the great highways of the sea. That is a matter which can be treated quite separately and independently of any other operations of war by sea or by land. You may divide the forces of the Crown for practical purposes into three classes: the forces organised for purposes of purely local defence, the regular forces of the Crown, naval and military,

  437
  and the forces maintained for the special purpose of securing our commerce and enabling our merchants to send their merchandise in safety across the oceans. That is a matter which I think concerns all portions of the Empire in a degree and to an extent quite different to the degree and extent in which we are concerned in respect of any other defensive or offensive matter, and on that account I can see no reason why Imperial funds should not be raised for a purpose in which the whole Empire—every portion of it—is so especially interested. What I should like to see done would be that a fund should be raised by the mother country and the self-governing colonies, to be devoted to the proper armament, and maintenance, in a proper state of defence, of certain coaling stations and certain strategic points, and the complete equipment and maintenance of a fleet of swift ocean cruisers. It is impossible for me to pretend to say what coaling stations or other places should be selected to be maintained by such a fund, or what number of ships would be necessary, or of what particular kind they should be, or what amount of money would be required, or what would be the best method of raising the money. But I will say this: that, in my opinion, by far the best way of raising such a fund would be by the imposition of Customs' duties, because I believe that such a plan would work automatically, fairly, and easily; but I admit that it is open to the great objection, from our point of view, that as the amount to be raised would be infinitesimally small as compared with the value of foreign imports, the expense of the machinery for collecting the duties would be out of all proportion to the duties to be raised. That, of course, is a serious matter as affecting a country like this, which has, practically speaking, no ready machinery for collecting Customs' duties of that kind. All those, however, are matters of detail; they would have to be and could only be decided in such a Conference as I ask for. No doubt there might be differences of opinion on such matters of detail, but I have no doubt that they would be got over and adjusted in that spirit of compromise and that spirit of give and take which is so characteristic of a practical race. On the main principle, however, I do not anticipate that there would be any very great
  438
  difference of opinion. I believe that the great self-governing colonies would be glad to recognise that the time has come when, in a matter of this kind, they might reasonably be expected to take upon themselves some share in fulfilling obligations with us. I believe that they would be glad of an opportunity to do so, and I do not anticipate—on the great main principle that it is advisable and desirable and legitimate that a special fund should be raised for this special purpose—that any large difference of opinion would arise. There is another reason which argues strongly in my favour, and that is a matter which is personal to ourselves in the United Kingdom. It is, and I should imagine always will be, a great temptation to all Governments to neglect their duties in respect of those coaling stations and strategic points on account of a desire to appear economical. I should myself be very far from saying that the great spending Departments of the Government are conducted with the greatest economy possible now. I am not at all sure that we taxpayers get the very best value for our money that can be got; but it is possible for a Member of Parliament, and even for a private individual, to arrive at a tolerably fair estimate as to the condition of the Army and the Navy. No Government would neglect its duties too far in that respect, being naturally fearful of the "wrath to come" which would overtake them; but in respect of the arming and protection of our coaling stations and matters of that kind the case is far different. I defy any one of average intellect and ingenuity to find out anything certain about the condition of these coaling stations. They are of the utmost importance to us. We live day by day—we get our daily bread—by our commerce; our commerce in time of war is absolutely dependent on our fleets, and our fleets in turn are absolutely dependent upon the coaling stations and other strategic places which can succour them, and where they can obtain fuel and supplies. The whole safety of our commerce in time of war depends upon those little places scattered about the world which the valour of our forefathers has coloured red upon the map; and yet those little centres of security are practically speaking utterly ignored, and

  439
  utterly unknown to the people of this country. Those places lie altogether outside their ken, they know nothing of them, and, what is worse, it is impossible to bring the existence of those all-important spots belonging to the British Empire and their condition under the focus of the most scrutinising eye. Owing to that and to many other reasons, I say that the temptation of all Governments (and of course I speak entirely in the abstract) to scamp their work in that respect and to neglect their duty is very great; and I submit that it would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom and of the whole Empire that matters of so great importance should be lifted clean out of range of the possibility of being interfered with by any Party considerations whatever, and should be maintained and administered by an Imperial fund, which could not in any way be influenced by Party politics either here or in any of the colonies of the British Empire. My Lords, those are the reasons why I am anxious that this question of the creation of a fund for certain Imperial purposes, that is to say, for maintaining a fleet of swift ocean cruisers and for keeping in a proper condition of defence the coaling stations and other strong positions and fortresses should be submitted to the discussion and consideration of the representatives of the colonies, meeting Her Majesty's Ministers and the naval and administrative advisers of the Crown. I believe that good results would follow, and that if such a fund was formed and maintained, it would introduce a very wholesome principle—that of mutual obligation, mutual responsibility, and mutual help; and I also believe that it would add greatly to the stability and security of our commerce and trade in times of difficulty or of war. That is the first matter which I should like to see submitted to a Conference, and I turn next to another and perhaps a more important matter. I will now deal with the encouragement of trade within the Empire—the desirability of developing the material resources of the Empire. A great deal, no doubt, can be done in that way by greater facilities of communication and matters of that kind; but it is useless to blink the fact that if anything definite and lasting is to be done it can be accomplished only by a
  440
  system of preferential treatment within the Empire. I look at that from three distinct points of view—first of all, the advantage to be gained in developing our resources within the Empire; secondly, from the point of view of counteracting the influences which in their tendency are dangerous to the principle of unity of the Empire, which attract and deflect British capital from profitable investments in the Empire; and thirdly—and most important of all—from the point of view of additional strength which it would give to those ties which already bind the Empire together. It was a subject which was mentioned at the last Conference, and upon which a most interesting and able discussion, or rather conversation, took place, but as it was a matter which was practically out of order and not contained in the reference to the Conference, it was, of course, debated in a more or less perfunctory manner, and the discussion of it was, as it naturally would be, partially paralysed by the knowledge that no practical result could ensue. What I want is to have that most vital question discussed at the proposed Conference with the view of producing some practical result. I do not wish to go into the matter at any very great length, but I must ask your Lordships to consider whether, in view of the general commercial attitude of foreign countries towards this country, it is not at any rate legitimate to do something to counteract the effect of foreign tariffs in attracting British capital? Ought we not to do so if we legitimately can, and especially if, when doing so, we can also accomplish another very desirable result? What is the general attitude towards this country? On every side we see the barriers of hostile tariffs raised higher and higher against us. Consider for one moment the present fiscal policy of the United States, the effect which it has upon British industry and upon Canadian industry, and the effect which it has upon the principle of unity as between Canada and the Mother Country. I do not for a moment mean to say that what is known as the M'Kinley Tariff was designed with any hostile intentions against this country. In fact, the United States have told us over and over again that it was not designed with any hostile intentions against us: and as they say so, of

  441
  course it was not. Still, as a matter of fact, it has very unpleasant results, and of one thing, my Lords, you may be perfectly sure, that is, that not one atom of the stringency of that tariff will be relaxed out of consideration for this country. So great is the patriotism of the people of the United States that I feel sure, whether it be in respect of the provisions of that tariff or in respect of the extremely irksome regulations attached to it, or whether it be in a matter which I have seen remotely mentioned, the granting of increased subsidies to lines of ocean steamers—if they think it necessary to do anything of that kind to benefit their own industries—it may make them very unhappy, but they will manage somehow or other to bear the inconvenience for the purpose of so benefiting themselves, while reflecting that they are inflicting injuries on British and Canadian industries at the same time. I will not argue the point whether capital is deflected from its natural channel by those means. Whether anything can be done to remedy it or not is a matter of opinion, but I do not think the facts will be gainsaid. I will pass very lightly over this, because, after all, the question which interests and which influences me most is the great question of the unity of the Empire. I believe that it is best for the interests of every portion of the Empire, of every colony, of every dependency, and of the mother country, that the great principle of unity should be maintained, and I am firmly convinced that the best and the surest and most lasting way in which it can be maintained is by making it pay to do so, by making it a practical material advantage to them all to remain portions of one Empire. What are the ties which bind us together now? The ties that bind the Empire together are no doubt strong, but, practically speaking, they are ties of sentiment, community of origin, of race, blood, and religion, common institutions and common traditions, all the ties which arise from common ancestry, and very strong ties they have proved themselves. There is one tie, however, and that perhaps, in some respects, the strongest of all, which is wanting—community of material advantage. We must not forget that ties of sentiment must tend to become weaker and weaker. The natural affection of a man for the
  442
  country of his birth, and the feeling of affection with which we all look towards a country where those who are near and dear to us dwell—all those naturally strong human feelings must gradually tend to become weaker. No doubt the sentiment of patriotism in the largest sense will remain, but the actual affection of a people for the place of their origin must become weaker, and all attractions of that kind must tend to shift from these Islands to the various countries which are the actual native land. Now, community of material advantage may sound very sordid and very commonplace, but still, as a matter of fact, it is true that the strongest tie that can bind men together and communities together is that of community of material advantage in matters of trade and commerce. It is perfectly true that trade and commerce are the most fruitful sources of jealousy and of international quarrels, but it is true also that trade makes and cements the strongest feelings of attachment and friendship. Such community of interest can only be gained in one of two ways; either by commercial federation or by preferential treatment. My Lords, I look upon the commercial federation of the Empire as a dream. I do not mean to say it is a dream incapable of realisation; but absolute Free Trade throughout the Empire I look upon, for all practical purposes, as nothing but a dream. But the other—preferential treatment—the granting of special advantages within the Empire, is by no means a dream. That is a matter which can be practically realised and brought into manifest life by a little sacrifice of principle or, might I say, a little sacrifice of prejudice on our own part. There is no physical difficulty in the way. The British Empire can produce everything that man may need. There is not a product beneficial for man that does not naturally grow on British soil. There is nothing that can be made up and manufactured that is beneficial to man that cannot be made up and manufactured on British soil. The British Empire is, or if it is not now, it could very easily become, practically self supporting; and, therefore, in advocating preferential treatment I am not advocating anything supremely or physically difficult. I am not advocating the forcing of industries

  443
  by anything in the nature of Protection. All that I am doing, all that I wish to do, is to endeavour to develop all our natural capacities, all our national resources, by the help of British capital. I desire to do something to counteract influences which are deflecting and dragging British capital abroad, taking it away from profitable investment within the British Empire; and I want to create that common material interest which must—I will not say alone—have a very strong influence in determining the direction in which the component parts of the British Empire will progress and grow in the future. What are the objections? The main objection that I know of lies in the fiscal system pursued by this country. It may be argued that Import Duties are in themselves utterly abominable things, and that no good can ever arise from their imposition. That is a matter which I will not discuss. It may be argued that any kind of departure from our present system must be radically wrong. That is a matter which I will not discuss either. I will grant for the sake of argument that our system is absolutely perfection itself, and I will grant for the sake of argument that it is absolutely wrong in principle to impose any more duties; but even so, I would appeal to your Lordships to consider whether there are not exceptions to every rule—whether there may not be circumstances to justify a departure in one instance from what is otherwise a very sound general principle; and I would appeal to your Lordships to say whether the present is not such an exception—whether the object to be aimed at, the strengthening of the ties which bind the Empire together, would not afford such an exception as would justify us in departing a little from the principles which we may hold in themselves to be in general absolutely true? One thing is perfectly certain, it is impossible for us to remain standing still. In one of two directions we must move. We must move either in the direction of preferential treatment within the Empire or in the direction of preferential treatment for the foreigners. It is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships what are the directions in which those two different courses must lead us. This preferential treatment could be brought about without interfering in the
  444
  slightest degree with the perfect liberty of action of the colonies. They could raise their revenue by any means they liked. They could take any measures they chose for the development of their own resources. They might make any arrangements among themselves. They might, for that matter, if it was thought desirable, make any arrangements with foreign countries. The only thing they could not do would be to give more favourable treatment to goods of foreign origin than to similar goods of British origin. Now I maintain that discrimination in favour of a foreign nation by the United Kingdom against the colonies, or discrimination in favour of a foreign country against the United Kingdom by a British Colony, or discrimination in favour of one colony as against another—I maintain that such acts approach so near to commercial hostility as to be compatible only with the most shadowy ideas of a common allegiance. With this single exception, that foreign goods should not be favoured as against British goods, the colonies would maintain all the privileges and freedom that they now enjoy, every atom of it, under a system of preferential treatment for goods of British origin, as against similar goods of foreign origin. One other matter is very certain, and that is that the initiative must come from us. In the first place the great difficulty in our way lies in our fiscal policy, and not in the commercial policies of any of the colonies; and in the second place I think it is obvious in a great Imperial question of this kind that the initiative should come from the Mother Country, that is, from the heart and brain of the Empire. I think, my Lords, that the present affords a good opportunity. The commercial condition of the Empire is in a somewhat peculiar state. I have already alluded to the M'Kinley Tariff, and there can be no kind of question that the fiscal policy of the United States offers a temptation to Canada to enter into an illegitimate union. There is a sort of political parody of the duel scene in "Faust" going on in North America at the present time. Well, my Lords, there are many other questions which might come under discussion. I believe there is a Committee sitting now considering the Commercial Treaties in force. There are two questions which have exercised

  445
  the minds of people both in the colonies and in this country, and those are the status of the colonies under the Commercial Treaties, how far they are free to enter into any commercial arrangements, their relations with each other—and also a far greater question, that is, how far it would be advisable that the colonies should have a more direct voice in the negotiation of Commercial Treaties. All those matters are at present under discussion, and, in fact, the commercial relations of the Empire are all more or less in a state of suspension, and are waiting for some force or energy which will enable them to crystallise again into definite shape. It would be a great misfortune, to my way of thinking, if the opportunity were lost—an opportunity for using that force or energy which will enable them to crystallise in the best possible way. I admit that it is impossible for statesmanship to run in any way counter to the natural development of the community. All these communities must, and will, infallibly develop in their natural direction according to the genius of the people, and as influenced by natural laws and by their environment and the circumstances which surround them; but statesmanship surely can do a great deal by promptly seizing opportunities, by strengthening the existing ties which now bind us, by supplying those ties which are now wanting, by uniting preference with International Law, and by doing all that is possible to counterbalance and counteract the evil which is being done by the artificial attraction and the artificial stimulus that is now given under the commercial and fiscal systems that are universal in foreign countries. It is quite possible that no immediate result would ensue from the Conference I suggest. I do not mean to say that I should expect the Conference would be able to lay down heads of Bills which should be submitted to our Parliament, and to the colonial Legislatures, or anything of that kind; and I admit at once there is not the slightest use in inviting the Conference to consider matters of that kind if they are to be met by a flat non possumus as to any change in, or relaxation of, the rules of our present fiscal system. But if they can be met with any degree of open mind on that point the greatest good would
  446
  result from a Conference. All those matters of detail which are still unsettled—the effect of the most favoured nation clause upon the arrangements amongst the colonies themselves, the effect of preferential treatment within the Empire, the amount of duties which would have to be taken off colonial produce which is at present heavily taxed by this Free Trade country, the duties which would have to be put on foreign products, the amount of money that would have to be raised and the method of raising it for the creation of such an Imperial Fund as I have suggested—all these matters, and many others, would be discussed and threshed out in Conference, and can only be discussed and threshed out in Conference—hammered out by discussion and brought into such a shape as that they could be submitted to the people in the form in which a great scheme of a national character should be submitted to the people of this country and to the people of the whole Empire. My Lords, I believe that a scheme of that kind would commend itself at any rate to the democracies. Democracies are not slow to grasp large Imperial ideas and are keen enough to see the benefits which would accrue from them. In some respects the idea of instituting an Imperial Fund for certain common purposes of required defence and of steps to be taken in the direction of preferential treatment within the Empire in order to counteract in some degree the effects of foreign tariffs, and the addition of another powerful tie to the ties which already bind us, is an idea which I believe would be quickly grasped, and which would commend itself to the people. They would lay hold of the Imperial idea. The notion of a great Empire occupying the four corners of the earth, advancing steadily in the paths of peace and progress under one flag, exercising complete freedom to develop in every possible direction, according to their own individualities, and, at the same time, knitted together by the great tie of sentiment as well as of material advantage, is an idea which would commend itself, not only to the people of the United Kingdom, but of all the colonies of the British Empire. We should see also that if labour is to be benefited and is to be maintained in a superior position it can certainly best be

  447
  done by the earnest co-operation in all trade and manufacturing matters between those countries in which the most similar ideas are entertained as to the conditions under which labour ought to be employed. All these matters will commend themselves to the people; and what I am most anxious for, what I most earnestly desire, is that those opinions, which are largely shared I think in this country and throughout the whole Empire, but which are comparatively vague and in the air now, should be wrought and brought into a tangible shape and form by discussion in a Conference, so that something definite, something they can understand, might be submitted to the people, not only of the United Kingdom, but of the whole Empire. That is my object, and I trust your Lordships will agree to the Motion which I have now to make.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Colonial Governments be invited to send representatives to a Conference to be held in London to consider the advancement of trade within Her Majesty's dominions, and the formation of a fund for certain purposes of Imperial defence."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, my noble Friend has introduced to the House a subject of great interest and importance, and in doing so he has touched upon a still wider field and upon matters of still more imperious urgency. I shall have no temptation to follow or imitate my noble Friend, for I should fail in the eloquence with which he has dwelt upon the more sentimental and emotional portions of this subject, and I am the less inclined to do so because I think the subject is one which rather lacks treatment of the opposite kind. I have observed that all the questions which attach to Imperial federation while they create naturally the greatest interest and call forth speeches of the greatest power, seem to me to lend themselves more readily to peroration than to argument, and it is rather exactitude of expression and of reasoning that we require in dealing with a subject which may readily lead us astray if we allow ourselves to repose upon vague, sonorous
  448
  generalities. My noble Friend asks us to summon a Conference—a Conference of the colonists; and I have to ask myself what are the considerations which should guide us in summoning a Conference. It is not a matter which can be undertaken by the colonial statesmen who join in it without very considerable inconvenience—inconvenience not only personal to themselves, but which, I believe, extends to the political systems which they work. I believe the eminent men who came over here four years ago found when they got home that political matters had by no means prospered during their absence. And we must remember that this Conference, if summoned, is a Conference purely of advice. They are not a Parliament which can pass Resolutions which will have practical effect. They are not even negotiators, a Conference in the diplomatic sense, which can bind the authorities from whom, they came. The votes they give or any view they may have may be entirely repudiated by each colony from which they are deputed. Under these circumstances it seems to me we should be very careful only to make use of that instrument when we have some definite question to ask and some definite proposition to lay before them, which can be canvassed by the colonies which send them forth before they come, so that they may come here with a definite mandate which we know will be respected and upheld. Any other course, I fear, must lead to confusion. My Lords, I appeal to your own experience. You as a body have the power of summoning a Conference—one of the most august Conferences of the realm. You can summon the 12 Judges to give you advice; but suppose instead of laying before the 12 Judges certain definite questions which you desire to solve you were to merely ask them to give their opinions generally upon certain subjects on which you may be engaged, I am afraid the result would not lead to the explanation or illustration of the law. Now, looking at the Conference from that point of view, I confess I do not see what are the definite propositions which we are to submit to so distinguished a body if we invoke its assistance. My noble Friend has indicated two directions in which the Debates which he wishes

  449
  to evoke would go. The first (I will give it in his own words; he has inverted the Order in his Motion) is the formation of a fund for certain purposes of Imperial defence. Now, of course, when you ask people to come together for the formation of a fund, they generally feel that that will end in an appeal to their pockets. No one imagines, when you ask them to come together for the formation of a fund, that it is for the purpose of putting anything into their pockets, and I am afraid the colonists might answer us:—"Imperial defence gets on very well now—the money comes from somewhere, and if you propose that the colonies should pay less than they do now, well, we do not object to it. But it would be very difficult to form any propositions upon that basis. If you propose the colonies should pay more than they do now," (and one alternative or the other is necessary if you are to propose any change at all)—"we should like to consider the matter at-home for some time before we join your deliberations." I do not think the proposal to ask the colonists to come here to be taxed for larger contributions for Imperial defence would excite that enthusiasm throughout the Empire which my noble Friend seems to anticipate. But there is another difficulty in the way. "Colonies," unfortunately, is one of those vague words which cover so many things. The colonies which ought to be summoned to meet together in conference and which will contribute to this new war fund are the self-governing colonies. But when we talk of coaling stations and the protection of trade routes and the establishment of fast cruisers to protect our commerce we are not thinking exclusively of the self-governing colonies. We are thinking of other colonies as well, and I may say in a greater degree. For instance: I do not know of any coaling stations protecting trade routes which can be connected with our great North American colonies. How could we ask them to join in subscribing money to establish coaling stations for the protection of our trade routes? There are one or two, I believe, in respect of which the interests of our Australian colonies may be invoked; but in the main it is not the self-governing colonies, it is the Crown colonies and our great dependency of India whose trade has to be protected
  450
  by these fast cruisers and coaling stations. I join with my noble Friend in all the anathemas he has invoked upon any Government which from motives of economy neglect them; but I do not think that we should advance the matter by asking the great Colonies of Australasia and of North America to join us in contributing to an expenditure for a system of defence in which their interests are, at all events, of a secondary kind. I do not think, therefore, that we have any proposition to lay before the colonies of a sufficiently definite and fruitful character in reference to the creation of a special war fund to justify us at the present moment in summoning a Conference on the subject. I do not, however, wish to enter into any negative engagements in the matter. I can quite imagine a state of things, whether partial or complete, in which a Conference or certain communications with the colonies may be very desirable; but, speaking merely from the present state of things, and from the circumstanes which now surround us, I cannot see that we have any proposition to lay before the colonies. Now I come to the other, far graver and more important portion of my noble Friend's proposal. My noble Friend's proposal practically is that we and the colonies should enter into a tariff arrangement to discriminate in favour of the productions of the Empire as against those of all the rest of the world. I am not going to use any deprecatory language of my noble Friend's proposal. We are surrounded by discriminating tariffs on all sides. Outside these Islands he is the greatest statesman who can propose the most discriminating tariffs. We have no ground for thinking that the Protectionist wave which has been sweeping over civilised opinion has yet reached its crown, and therefore we must needs speak with respect of such opinion, and we cannot dismiss and simply pooh-pooh any suggestions which are made. Even quite recently the French Committee on the Tariff has recommended, I believe, a discriminating Customs' Duty in favour of the French colonies of as much as 50 per cent. It will be an interesting experiment when it comes to work. My noble Friend's argument did not very clearly show in what light he regarded in the abstract such discriminating legislation. I should rather have said—I

  451
  May be wrong—that in the abstract he disapproved it, but that, as retaliation, as defence against fiscal enterprises which are going on all around us, there was a good deal to be said on its behalf. Well, I am not in the least prepared to eater the lists against him on that subject. I know that I shall meet with a severe critic in the noble Earl opposite when I say that I have never yet been able to see the objection to the principle of retaliation as an essential part of the doctrine of Free Trade. We love peace, but that does not prevent us from keeping up an Army and a Navy, and from using them if necessary. We love Free Trade, but that need not prevent us from instituting retaliatory duties, if those duties should seem to us necessary and expedient. But whilst I have not the least desire or intention of meeting my noble Friend on the question of principle or arguing a very difficult economical question, I wish to meet him on the more familiar and easy ground of political possibility. I ask him to look at the state of opinion in this country, especially the state of mercantile opinion, the state of opinion in our commercial, manufacturing, and industrial centres, the state of opinion, above all, among the capitalists and the most educated classes, and say if he sees the slightest chance within any period to which we have a right to look forward of such a modification of opinion in this country as will enable any statesman, whatever his opinion may be, to propose the establishment of retaliatory duties. It seems to me to be absolutely out of the question. If you wish to set up a discriminating system in favour of the colonies as against the rest of the world, just consider what are the goods on which you would have to levy a heavy duty in this country in order to make that discrimination felt. They are grain, wool, meat. What chance have you of inducing the people of this country to accept legislation which would make these essential articles of consumption susceptible of such tariffs? I see no probability whatever of it. That being the case, I think we should be hardly behaving respectfully to the colonies if we asked them to send to a Conference to discuss a question when we know that the answer which many of them, at all events many of their statesmen,
  452
  would give must be met immediately on our part by the intimation that such a thing is absolutely impossible. Whenever such a modification of English opinion takes place—if ever it takes place—so that this idea of discrimination of duties in favour of colonial produce shall be a fiscal possibility, I, at all events, shall not oppose the wish of my noble Friend to have the matter thoroughly discussed between ourselves and the colonies. But I hold that we are bound, if we ask them to attend a Conference, to lay before them propositions which we believe not only to be salutary, but practicable, and to ask them questions to which practical answers can be given. These conditions, are not satisfied by the present state of things, and therefore for the present we think that the summoning of a Conference is not expedient.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Motion; but before doing so, perhaps the House will let me say a few words. As far as I am concerned the noble Marquess attributes to me an intention which I really have not got; that is to say, I do not propose preferential treatment within, the Empire for the purpose of retaliation. I unfortunately differ from the noble Marquess in that respect. I have very little faith indeed in retaliation. I should propose preferential treatment merely for the purpose of encouraging and developing the trade of our own colonies, and for the particular purpose which I mentioned of creating a strong tie for uniting the Empire together. I shall not argue the matter, because the argument would be very lengthy; but so far as I am concerned I wish to enter my protest against the assumption that any duty, or a duty which would be sufficient to give a preference to British goods, would have any appreciative effect whatever in increasing the price of food stuffs in this country. But that would be a large matter to argue. I should have to explain the immense development in the food-producing capacity of the world; I should, also have to explain the great cheapening of practical necessities of life such as tea, coffee, cocoa, and other foods which are colonial products. But I am not going into all that. I simply do not wish it to be supposed that I am a advocating the

  453
  imposition of duties which, could possibly have the effect pf increasing the cost of the necessaries of life to the people of this country.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee.

  L. Privy Seal. (E. Gadogan.)

  L. Balfour.

  L. Foxford. (E. Limerick.)

  E. Cowper.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  L. Kensington.

  The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at half-past Two o'clock.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, at a quarter past Ten o'clock.