Sitting of 20 March 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON WATER COMMISSION BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London Water Commission Bill that they have power to inquire into all matters connected with the nature, price, management, sources, and sufficiency of the water supply of London and its suburbs, and to insert in the Bill such provisions in connection therewith as in their judgment are expedient."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. CAUSTON: Before this Resolution is put to the House I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will add a further Instruction to the effect that the first matter to be inquired into shall be the Metropolitan Water Companies Charges Bill, which has been referred to the same Committee, the principle of which was accepted by the House, and which will be admitted, I think, to be the most pressing question the Committee will be called upon to inquire into? The Instruction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, in which I cordially approve, is a most important one, but there are other questions even more pressing, especially when we have regard to the fact that the quinquennial re-valuation is to come into operation on the 6th of April, and that it may affect the ratepayers to the extent of £40,000 a year. I do not at present propose to move an Instruction as an addition to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will see his way to accept my suggestion voluntarily.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The hon. Gentleman says that the House accepted the principle of the Water Charges Bill. Now, it is quite true that the Bill was read a second time, but the House did not commit itself to the principle of the measure; it simply said that it should go before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman asks that this Bill shall

  1529
  be the first inquired into, and his reason is that the re-valuation is to come into operation on the 6th of April. It is perfectly certain, however, that if the inquiry the hon. Member desires takes place first, no Bill based upon it can become law in time to prevent the revaluation from coming into force. I acknowledge that all of these matters are of the utmost importance, but I think they must be left to the consideration of the Committee itself. I am, therefore, afraid that I cannot assent to the suggestion the hon. Member has made, nor do I think that any Additional Instruction can be proposed without notice.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The right hon. Gentleman is always so courteous that it is difficult to make a complaint in regard to anything he deems right to do, but I think we ought to have had some longer notice of the Instruction he has moved. It only appeared on the Paper to-day, and in a matter of such great importance I think we were entitled to a longer notice, so that we might have been able to consider the terms of the Instruction. As regards the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Southwark (Mr. Causton) I can quite understand the objection to making it an Instruction to the Committee, but it is obvious that it is a matter which presses for immediate decision, if anything effectual is to be done. I trust I may be allowed to express a hope that the Committee will take that part of the inquiry into consideration at an early stage of their proceedings.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: It is quite true that the Committee cannot Report before the 6th of April, but if this question were submitted to them specially I think it would produce a great moral effect. As the right hon. Baronet has pointed out, this Instruction conies upon us with some degree of surprise, and I would suggest that the Resolution should be withdrawn for the present and brought up on a later day.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Instruction appeared on the Paper yesterday, and it appears to embrace everything that can be submitted to the Committee for inquiry. The water supply depends
  1530
  to a large extent upon the sufficiency of the works, and I have no doubt that the inquiry for which the hon. Member for Southwark asks, will come within the terms of the notice.
  MR. CAUSTON: As a point of order, may I ask whether it is competent for me to put down a further Instruction to the Committee at the time of Private Business?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  SAVINGS BANKS CLERKS.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are any candidates, who have passed the Second Division examination, waiting for appointments to the Post Office Savings Banks; and, if so, whether he can state whether temporary clerks who have not passed any Civil Service examination are being employed in the Post Office Savings Banks during ordinary official hours, while duly qualified clerks are waiting for appointment?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): There are a certain number of Second Division clerks who have not yet been assigned by the Civil Service Commissioners to public Departments, but not more than enough to meet the probable vacancies before the next examination is held. Fifteen temporary clerks are being employed at the Savings Bank.

  SALE OF OPIUM IN BURMA.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the authorities in Burma set aside the regulation dated from Mandalay, 19th March, 1886, stating that "no shops whatever will be licensed for the sale of opium?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I have been requested by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India to answer this question. The Order quoted in the question from the Commissioners' Instruction in March, 1886, was modified

  1531
  in 1888 for reasons, and under restrictions, described in the Parliamentary Return No. 338 of the 9th August, 1888.

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. KEAY: Will the First Lord of the Treasury kindly say when the Indian Councils Bill will be taken?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am not in a position at present to say when it will be taken.

  ARMY SERVICE OFFICE CORPS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the two colonelcies now vacant in the Army Service Office Corps are to be filled up by promotion in the ordinary way; and, if not, why this is not to be done?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Certain proposals affecting promotion in the Army Service Corps have for some time been under the consideration of the Treasury. The answer to this question depends on the decision which may be come to.

  COLONIAL INSCRIBED STOCK.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the draft Bill prepared by the Departmental Committee appointed in 1889 on the subject of the Investment of Trust Funds in Colonial Inscribed Stock?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My hon. Friend knows the amount of legislation with which the Government have to contend during the present Session. I do not exclude the idea of proceeding with a Bill on the subject of the Investment of Trust Funds in Colonial Stock, but I am unable to give any definite pledge upon the subject.

  THE SHERIFF SUBSTITUTE OF SUTHERLAND.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Mackenzie, Sheriff Substitute
  1532
  of Sutherland, is an ex officio member of the County Council of Sutherland, and regularly attends its meetings and takes part in its business and deliberations; whether it is the case that in his judicial capacity he is liable to be called upon to give judgment upon matters to which, in his capacity of County Councillor, he is himself a party; whether, as a matter of fact, he has already so adjudicated; and whether he will call upon Mr. Mackenzie to resign one or other of two offices so incompatible?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): Parliament determined that among others the Chairman of County Road Trustees should sit ex officio on the first elected County Councils, and in this capacity Mr. Mackenzie acts in the County of Sutherland. It is quite possible he might be called upon to adjudicate upon matters as to which, as a County Councillor, he is in a certain sense a party; but even if he was not a member of the County Council, he would still, as a ratepayer, be in a certain sense a party to actions in which the County Council was interested. I am not aware if he has already so adjudicated, but I see no cause for interference, his position being precisely the same as before the passing of the Local Government Act, when he, in common with other Sheriff substitutes, was entitled to sit ex-officio as a Commissioner of Supply.

  MAIL SERVICE TO SHETLAND.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the. recommendations relating to Shetland and the Mail Service thereto, contained in the recent Report to the Secretary of State for Scotland made by the Western Highlands and Islands Commissioners, and in particular to the following suggestions therein made, namely, that Her Majesty's Government should grant a guarantee of 2½ per cent. for four years on the capital required to enable the Highland Railway Company to extend their line to Gills Bay; that there should be a mail service to Shetland at least thrice a week in winter and four times a week in summer; that additional lights should be placed on certain

  1533
  dangerous points of the coast of the Shetland Isles; whether he has received a Memorial from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Aberdeen in support of these recommendations; and whether he can hold out a hope that the Treasury will be willing to take steps to give effect to the above recommendations or to some, and which of them?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the recommendations made in the Second Report of the Western Highlands and Islands Commission. We have discussed most of the points raised in the question of my hon. Friend, and certainly I can hold out a hope that the Government will be able to give effect to some of the recommendations of the Commission.

  INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the following advertisement, which appeared in the Times of 3rd January last, had reference to a post in the office of the Inspector General of Bankruptcy:—
  "To Accountants.—Wanted an experienced accountant, with knowledge of Company and Bankruptcy Liquidation. Salary from £200 to £300 per annum; "
  and whether such a system of bringing persons into the Civil Service, without any examination being held or inquiries made by the Civil Service Commissioners, is contrary to the principles of open competition established by Order in Council of June, 1870, and also to the recommendations contained in paragraph 46 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, which was adopted by the Treasury in paragraph 36 of the Treasury Minute of 10th August, 1889, whereby it is provided that such staff posts as those of accountantships shall be reserved for the best clerks of the Second Division?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware of any such advertisement as that referred to. Persons engaged by the Inspector General of Bankruptcy are employed and paid by him out of a lump sum supplied to him for the expenses of
  1534
  his office. They are not in the Civil Service.
  MR. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I do not think it is part of my duty to inquire.

  BRITISH VESSELS AND CHILI.
  SIR T. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British vessels, and notably a ship named the Cape Breton, have been prevented by the Chilian Government from leaving Valparaiso for another port in Chili, for the purpose of loading a nitrate cargo; and if Her Majesty's Government will cause inquiries to be made in reference to this matter, with a view to prevent British vessels from being subjected to unwarrantable interference in pursuit of their trade?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A telegram was received two days ago from Her Majesty's Minister at Santiago, stating that the Chilian Government now refuse clearances to vessels for ports north of Chamaral. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they can interfere with the discretion of the Chilian Authorities in regard to this matter. They have not heard of any attempt to prevent vessels by force from leaving Valparaiso for other ports in Chili, and they cannot doubt that such action, if known to Her Majesty's Legation, or to the British Admiral, would have been reported.

  ACCIDENT AT THE GARTSHERRIE IRONWORKS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident involving the loss of three lives and the serious burning of a number of men, which occurred at Gartshorrie Ironworks, on Tuesday night; whether he has yet come to any decision as to instituting a special public inquiry into the two fatal and mysterious explosions in ironworks in Glasgow, to which his attention was last week called by Questions; and whether he will include the Gartsherrie accident in the scope of the inquiry?
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fatal

  1535
  accident at Gartsherrie Ironworks; and whether he will order a special inquiry into the cause of it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The Secretary of State's attention has been called to the accident at the Gartsherrie Iron Works, and he is now in communication with the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the question, whether a special inquiry shall be held into all or any of these accidents.

  FISH CURING ON THE ISLAND OF BARRA.
  MR. KEAY: The following question stands on the Paper in my name:—To ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Messrs. W. Anderson, George Smith, James Flett and Sons, Murdo Morrison, and others, fish curers, who hold portions of waste and uncultivated land within 100 yards of high-water mark on the foreshore at Castlebay, Island of Barra, under ten years' leases, and have built thereon sea walls, curing stations, and landing stages at great cost, have received from the agent of the landowner notice to quit on 1st May next, no compensation being offered for the disturbance or for the large outlay which they have incurred; whether he is aware that the sole reason for serving the notices is that these persons, while duly tendering the rent of their stations, have refused to pay the fees charged in their leases for net drying done by the fishermen, which fees the lessees had agreed to collect from the fishermen, but which, since signing the leases, they have discovered constitute an illegal demand on the fishermen, which, if made, would subject them to heavy penalties; and whether it is in accordance with the Law of Scotland that a landowner can terminate a ten years' lease at two months' notice under the circumstances stated, without any compensation to the lessees for disturbance and for the loss of all their outlay? I wish to say that the question has been put down on the Paper by mistake. I had intended to put it down for a later date, and will therefore defer it.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put it down for some day after Easter.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. C. DYKE ACLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that certain parts of the 6in. Ordnance Survey, with contour lines, are ready, but are being withheld until the first edition (which, having no contour lines is incomplete) has been sold out; and as the delay so caused may be prolonged indefinitely, whether he will direct the complete edition, which is much desired, to be issued for sale forthwith?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): It is not the case that certain parts of the 6in. Ordnance Survey with contour lines are ready, but are being withheld until the first edition has been sold out. The publication of the second edition of the 6in. map with contours is gradually proceeding, without reference to the fact whether the first edition has been sold out or not. But, owing to the pressure of work in the Ordnance Survey Department, it will be some time, I am afraid, before the publication can be completed.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill which was introduced in the House of Lords by the Government respecting the Colony of Newfoundland has been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland for their observation?
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: Before the question is answered I desire to put one to the First Lord of the Treasury upon the same subject. I have received the following cable message from the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council:—
  "To Staveley Hill, Commons, London.
  "We are directed to transmit to you the following Resolutions unanimously adopted by both branches of the Legislature of this colony:—'Resolved,—That the Newfoundland Legislature have had under consideration the despatches from Her Majesty's Government relative to the French Treaties question, and especially the despatches in which it is intimated that Imperial coercive legislation relative to this colony would be introduced. Resolved,—That the Legislature humbly and earnestly pray that the House of Commons

  1537
  will be graciously pleased to take the necessary steps to delay the legislation referred to, so as to enable the Legislature of this colony to present their views before the British House of Commons, which they will do at the earliest possible moment.' You are respectfully solicited by the Legislature of Newfoundland to urge that the request made be acquiesced in.
  "EDWARD D. SHEA, President, Legislative Council, and
  "GEORGE H. EMERSON, Speaker, House of Assembly, Newfoundland."
  I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is prepared to acquiesce in that request?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The question is one of such grave importance that I am sure the House will not expect me to give a hasty answer to it. I have not had an opportunity of conferring with my Colleagues on the question. The telegram only reached us this morning, and I must take time before replying to it. The question comes from a Legislature which is entitled to the utmost consideration, and if the question is repeated on Monday I shall be able to give an answer.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies I will answer the question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir J. P. Hennessy). The draft of this Bill has not yet been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland. They were requested in November to procure the necessary legislation for empowering Her Majesty's officers to carry out the Treaties with France, and the present Bill is proposed in consequence of their declining to do so, as will be seen by reference to Parliamentary Paper C. 6275, p. 62.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is in contemplation to re-establish sittings for the trial of causes at the Guildhall or elsewhere in Middlesex than at the Royal Courts of Justice; and whether the accommodation at the Royal Courts is insufficient for the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division in the matter of Courts for the trial of causes with a jury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am informed that there have been communications between the Lord Chancellor, the
  1538
  Lord Chief Justice, and the Corporation of London with reference to the possibility of holding two Courts for Special Juries in the London List at the Guildhall at the commencement of each sittings, when the Courts are insufficient to accommodate all the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division available for work. It is the fact that the existing accommodation is not sufficient when all the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division are so available.
  MR. DARLING: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if it is proposed to provide sufficient accommodation in the Royal Courts?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: That is not a question for me to determine, but ought to be addressed to the First Commissioner of Works. That the accommodation in the Courts is insufficient is a fact very well known.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the Government have taken to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons, adopted on 13th February, relating to Government contracts?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have conferred with my Colleagues at the head of the several Departments with whom the responsibility of making contracts rests, and it is arranged that they will take such steps as are practicable to give effect to the Resolution of the House in entering into any contracts for works.

  SUNDAY OPENING OF MUSEUMS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after the refusal of the Lords of the Treasury and the Lord President of the Council, he received the deputation from the Lord's Day Society in his official capacity?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I did receive the deputation in my official capacity, and I should have been equally willing to receive a deputation from the society represented by the hon. Member had a little longer notice been given me.
  In answer to a further question,
  *MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: The Government adhere to the attitude taken up on a former occasion, and will oppose the Resolution.

  KINCARSLEGH PIER.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Memorials frequently presented to the Irish Government for a pier at Kincarslegh, County Donegal, have resulted in the grant of £3,000 for its construction?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no knowledge of the Memorials referred to, or of any grant having been made.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I wish to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he will be able to tell the Welsh Members before the Easter Recess that the Government are prepared to give a favourable consideration to the claim of Wales to representation on the Labour Commission?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe that it will be in my power to satisfy the hon. Gentleman before the Easter Recess.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILLS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government will not postpone the Second Reading of the Public Health (London) Law Amendment Bill and the Public Health (London) Law Consolidation Bill, so as to enable the Local Authorities to consider the measures?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Second Reading will, if possible, be taken today. I understand there is no difference of opinion among the Vestries as to the necessity for amending and consolidating the Law regarding Public Health in London, and that objection is likely to be raised only against certain clauses in the Bills.
  *MR. BARTLEY: Many of the Local Authorities are desirous of considering them before they are read a second time.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the objections entertained by Local Authorities are such as can be most properly considered in Committee.

  TEXTILE TRADES (HOURS AND WAGES OF HALF-TIMERS).
  Address—
  "That the information in the Return relative to Textile Trades (Hours and Wages of Half-Timers), Addressed for upon the 13th day of this instant March, be extended to include similar information as to the County of Chester."—(Mr. Bromley Davenport.)

MOTIONS.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to amend "The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882," ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Stanley Leighton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 254.]

  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Henry Roscoe, Bill to amend the Pharmacy Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Roscoe, Dr. Farqu-harson, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Guyer Hunter, and Mr. King.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 255.]

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER SUPPLY, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to confer powers upon the London County Council with respect to the supply of Water, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Howard Vincent, and Mr. Lawson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 256.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 251.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th March], "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendment, as amended," and which Amendment was—
  Clause B.—(Lands occupied rent free, &c.
  "(B.) Where a receiver appointed under this Act of the rents and profits of any lands satisfies the county court that the lands are let on such terms as not to reserve a rent sufficient to enable the receiver to recover from the owner thereof the sum ordered to be recovered, the court, after such service on the owner and occupier of the lands as may be prescribed, and after hearing such owner and occupier if they appear and desire to be heard, may direct that the order for such recovery shall be executed as if the occupier were the owner of the lands: Provided that any such occupier shall be entitled in addition to any other remedy, unless he would have been liable to pay the tithe rent-charge under any contract

  1541
  made before the passing of this Act, to deduct from any sums at anytime becoming due from him to the landlord under whom he holds, any amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section in respect of tithe rent-charge or costs, with interest thereon at the rate of four per centum per annum: Provided further that such occupier shall be entitled to recover from such landlord by action at law any such amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section as aforesaid as money paid on the account of such landlord."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Amendments were moved in Clause B to confine the operation of the clause to cases of collusion, and to limit the operation of the clause to contracts which might be entered into after the passing of the Act. The Government declined to accept those Amendments, and the question is, whether we are to agree to the novel principle introduced by the House of Lords. Considering the manner in which the clause was incorporated, and the short time allowed for discussing it, I think it would be well for the Government to give a further explanation as to the course they intend to pursue. There was a general consensus of opinion last night that the clause is objectionable; and I want to know whether the Government intend to adhere to it, or to take, in regard to it, the same attitude of compromise which they have taken in regard to other Amendments? We have always been of opinion that the cardinal principle of the Bill was that the tithe should be paid by the owner. By this new clause the principle is evaded. It introduces quite a novel principle into the Bill by throwing the responsibility of the tithe back upon the occupier. In certain cases, where land is let at a very low rent, or at no rent, the receiver appointed by the County Court will, under this clause, be able to recover from the occupier, thus placing the occupier in the position of one who has backed the landlord's bill. If there is collusion, the landlord ought to be alone responsible; and if there is no collusion, the effect of the Amendment will be to interfere with the relations between landlord and tenant, and to largely impede the application of capital to industry. Under these circumstances, before proceeding further with the
  1542
  clause, I think we are entitled to have a clear explanation from the Government as to the course they intend to pursue.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I beg to move that the House do disagree with the clause as amended.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do that. He must vote against the clause.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I hope the House will not agree with the clause. My reasons are these. We have always understood that the cardinal principle of the Bill was that the tithe rent-charge should be recoverable from the landlord, and the landlord only. In accepting this clause from the House of Lords we should be departing from that principle. I admit that the point raised in the clause is a fair one to raise. I think that the interests of the tithowner ought in some way to be protected; no one wishes to defraud him of his legal right. But this clause reverts to a principle which all have condemned, namely, the power of distraint on the tenant-farmer's property. That principle is objectionable, and I hope the House will refuse to listen to any proposal of that sort whatever. I know that there is a difficulty in the matter, but it has not arisen from any fault on the part of those who take an interest in the tithe payers' position. The difficulty has arisen from the drafting of the Bill as it is proposed to amend it by those who take a special interest in the tithe-owner. There may be collusion between a landlord and tenant to so reduce the rent as to escape the tithe; and there may be a perfectly genuine and business arrangement for the payment of a merely nominal rent in consideration of money spent by the tenant on buildings and improvements. Certainly it is not fair in either case that the titheowner should be deprived of his tithe. As the landlords will object to be rendered personally liable for the insufficiency of the rent to pay the tithe, the only way out of the difficulty is to send the Amendment back to the House of Lords to be re-drawn. I would suggest that in the cases provided for under the clause—and there will not be very many of them—the titheowner should allow the tithe which has been sanctioned by the County Court to remain as a debt owing from the landlord until such time

  1543
  as the rent should be sufficient to meet the debt. I would not object if this debt were allowed to carry with it interest, so as to recompense the tithe owner for the delay in receiving his money. Under these circumstances, I do not believe that any landlord would long allow the debt to be outstanding. The only way to settle such a vexed question is in a spirit of compromise—a spirit which, I regret to say, has not yet been shown by the representatives of the Church party. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have an opportunity. They possess immense wealth. [Viscount CRANBORNE (Darwen) dissented]. My noble Friend shakes his head. He knows more about the property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners than I do, but I have always understood that it is very large, and that it is likely to become more and more valuable as the ground rents fall in. I am sure it is quite large enough to cover the point I wish to raise, namely, that if any case of extreme hardship were occasioned by the non-payment of the tithe at the moment they might advance the money which was outstanding, accepting the legal debt as security. I hope the Government will consider favourably this suggestion, as they must be convinced that the Amendment as it comes from the Lords is most unsatisfactory. Practically every speech which has been delivered has been in opposition to the Amendment. Under no circumstances would I consent to again throwing the responsibility of the tithe upon the tenant farmer. I believe that a business arrangement may be entered into by which the tithe owner will obtain his tithe without the tenant farmer having to pay it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to support the appeal of the hon. Member There is one point which I am sure has not been fully appreciated, and which, indeed, has only just been brought to my cognisance. The clause as it stands does very much more than the Government ever intended to do. The Prime Minister has argued that the clause was intended to cover cases of collusion, and it was afterwards declared that it must also embrace those cases where small rents were paid in consideration of sums of money paid down. But, as a matter of fact, the clause affects every case of rack-rent where the tithe is larger
  1544
  than the rent. Suppose land to be let at a rack-rent of £45 a year without any sum paid or any collusion; and suppose the tithe on that land to be £50. In such a case it is perfectly obvious that under this clause the tenant would have to pay the £50.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): No.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is perfectly obvious that that is the condition of things which fulfils the wording of this section. Therefore there would be hundreds of tenant-farmers compelled to advance the tithe which ought to be paid by the landlord. No lawyer in this House can controvert this interpretation of the clause; and such an effect is certainly discordant with the declared intentions of the Government. Another consideration is how this clause would operate on Clause 5. The Bill, under that clause, makes provision for reducing the tithe when it exceeds two-thirds of the annual value of the land; but this clause will conflict with and practically overrule that provision, for by it we should come on the tenant and compel him to pay in advance. The Bill professes to relieve the tenant-farmers of England; that has been urged as its great recommendation; but it will have the effect, with monstrous injustice, of making the tenant advance the money which the landlord ought to pay. It has been said that the clause is to apply to beneficial leases, but nine-tenths of those leases are made by ecclesiastical persons or corporations—by the landowners themselves—who would thus throw on the tenants the burdens they themselves ought to bear. A more gross, unfair, I will almost say wicked, injustice can hardly be conceived. Up to a short time since it has been the persistent policy of landowners to shift upon others the burdens they themselves ought to bear. By this Bill the House thought they had got rid of that policy in regard to tithe at least; but now, at the very last moment, the House of Lords makes again an attempt to throw upon the impoverished tenant-farmers of England a burden which the landowners clearly ought to bear. It is impossible to accede to such a proposal. Besides, we have decided that the man who ought to pay the tithe rent-charge is the landowner; then, having done that, why

  1545
  should not the landowner be made to pay directly? Why should we call upon the poor tenant-farmer to advance the money for him, and leave him simply the remedy of recovering by personal action? I am certain the Government will do well to very seriously re-consider this matter; if they do not, the clause will become the "fly in their pot of ointment." It will show the tenant-farmers that the old taint still prevails on the part of the richer classes, of endeavouring to throw burdens which properly belong to them upon the shoulders of other people less able to bear them than themselves. It is plain that the clause is not merely intended to cover cases of collusion, as has been urged. I do not say it would not cover such cases, but it would apply to other cases, such as those of rack-rent and beneficial leases, which are vastly more numerous; and I hardly think the House of Lords when they passed it had any idea that it would have so wide and unjust an application. If the clause was originally meant to apply to only a few particular cases, let it be sent back, though at the last moment, in order that the words may be altered. That, I contend, would be a wise and prudent course for the Government to pursue. The responsibility for the clause, if it remains part of the Bill, will rest with the majority who support it, and I believe the farmers of the country will be likely to call them to account for doing so. I 'trust the Government will not consent to pass a measure with such a blot upon it. There is no security under this clause that the landlord ever will pay, especially if he be an insolvent landlord; the result will be that the tenant may go on year after year paying sums in excess of his rent with no possible means of recovering the money from the landlord. I would commend that to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly aware that there are a great many on this side of the House who feel this injustice very strongly. If the clause is to be carried in its present shape it will be the Representatives of the tenant farmers of England who will be held responsible, and properly held responsible. It is not the persons who sit here and listen to the arguments, who will be held responsible,
  1546
  but the responsibility will rest upon those who, forming the majority, come in and vote without even having listened to the arguments as to what will be the operation of the clause. I protest against it with all the earnestness I can. I feel there is nothing in the past history of tithe, there has been nothing proposed in this Bill, more unjust in its operation than this clause will prove. It will place the onus upon the man who ought not to bear it. It will place the onus upon the man who at the present time is essentially poor. It will make him advance money for the interest of the richer man, his landlord, and it will be in itself a grievance and injustice which will leave behind it a sense of ill-treatment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I entirely demur to the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the object of this clause. It is not the object of the clause to impose liabilities, which ought to rest upon the landlord, upon another person. As has been stated over and over again, it is to prevent the landlord from practically contracting himself out of the liability by agreeing with his tenants on such terms for the occupation of the land as that it shall be impossible for the law to obtain the tithe rent-charge from the rent due to the landlord. As to the effect of the clause, the right hon. Gentleman has discovered what, with all respect to him, I must describe as a mare's nest. He thinks that this clause can be brought into operation in cases where a rack-rent is charged for the land. I demur to that doctrine altogether. The sum ordered to be recovered under the 5th clause of this Bill can never exceed two-thirds of the annual value of the land as assessed to Schedule B of the Income Tax; it therefore never can exceed two-thirds of the rack-rent. So I think it is clear that the clause could not possibly have the operation which the right hon. Gentleman predicts. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and the Member for Glamorganshire appear to imagine that the clause will prevent those agreements between the landlord and tenant which are often very useful to agriculture, and under which the landlord lets his land either at no rent or a

  1547
  low rent for a certain period at the commencement of the tenancy. This clause would in no way prevent such agreements. What will be the future position of the landlord? Precisely what it is now when he undertakes to pay the tithe rent-charge. Landlords who undertake to pay the tithe rent-charge often enter into such agreements now, and will be just as able to do so in future. But supposing the landlord is so dishonest as not to perform his duty of paying the tithe rent-charge, then how can the liability be enforced except by some such clause as this? My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon suggests a plan which would be infinitely more unfair to the tithe owner than the proposal which the House rejected last night. Last night it was suggested that the tithe owner should have a charge upon the interest of the landlord in the land, which charge might be enforced by sale by the tithe owner after the expiration of 12 months. Such a proposal would not meet the case, because it would be difficult to sell such a charge at all, so that the tithe owner would be kept out of his money; and it would be impossible to sell such a charge where the landlord had shirked his liability to pay tithe on more than one occasion, as he might year after year. But my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon now suggests that the tithe-owner should have a charge upon the landlord's interest in the land, which never would be paid, because he provides no machinery whatever for enforcing the payment of that charge. I venture to submit that a more impracticable or impossible proposal for securing tithe to the person who ought to have it, namely, the tithe owner, has hardly ever been suggested to this House. Is any farmer injured by the provisions of this clause? He has, with his eyes open, made an agreement with the landlord, with regard to which he knows that the landlord has not reserved sufficient rent to meet the tithe rent-charge. This clause proposes that the tenant, who has by such an agreement obtained the beneficial interest in the land which the landlord usually reserves to himself, shall be treated as being in possession of the land to the extent of the sum ordered to be recovered for tithe rent-charge, and that recovery shall in the first place be from him. The clause says he shall be recouped
  1548
  for such payment either by keeping back, with interest, money subsequently due from him to the landlord, or, if the latter refuse to pay, by suing him. It is a personal liability on the part of the landlord, not to the tithe owner, but to the tenant. It is by way of fine on the landlord for not performing the covenant which he ought to have performed. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we do not make the landlord directly liable to the tithe owner. I can assure him he is wrong in believing there is any desire on the part of the House of Lords to sustain the rights of the landlords against the rights of the tenant-farmers. I have said over and over again, in public and in private, that we would not impose any personal liability on the tithepayer to the tithe owner, either for tithe rent-charge or for costs. I could not assent, in accordance with what I have already said, to a proposal which would depart from this, and impose upon the landlord personal liability to the tithe owner for tithe rent-charge. The landlord's personal liability is to the tenant, and it is by way of fine upon the landlord for putting the tenant to inconvenience by not performing a duty which he ought to have performed. I believe the effect of this clause will really be to prevent the evil which is contemplated. I believe that if Parliament accepts this clause the result will be that landlords, in cases where the tenants have this exceptional kind of beneficial interest in the land, will perform their duty by paying the tithe, and that, therefore, the hardship upon the tenant, of which the right hon. Gentleman thinks so much, will practically never arise.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman has met my Friend very fairly. It is very important his argument should be met, because I think it really touches a very important part in this clause. We are not dealing with questions of lands which are let, but with the larger and broader question of depressed agriculture, which I am afraid, after the temporary revival, will be still more depressed. Every one knows that in many cases land, on which the tithe has reached as much as 7s. per acre, has gone out of cultivation, and the wise landlord is anxious to get his land into cultivation, even if he has to

  1549
  take a very small rent indeed—frequently below the amount of the tithe rent-charge. Parliament should endeavour to encourage rather than discourage the efforts of those who wish to put the land into cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman thought he had an answer to my right hon. Friend's reference to Clause 5, under which, when the tithe rent-charge exceeds two-thirds of the annual value, it may be diminished. But he failed to meet the argument of my right hon. Friend that before application can be made to reduce the tithe rent-charge the tithe owner comes upon the tenant and takes the full tithe rent-charge from him.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: He cannot do that; there must first of all be an order.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: But that order is made before the application.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: No.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The main objection, however, is a more serious one. Clause 5 enacts that where the annual value of the land is ascertained to be under the tithe rent-charge, remission shall be made. I maintain that the value of the tithe under Schedule B of the Income Tax is, in many cases, above the rack-rent, and this point, if established, must seriously invalidate the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I know a case in which land which used to let some eight or ten years ago for £1,020 is now rented at £699; and yet the value under Schedule B has never been reduced, in spite of annual applications.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It ought to have been.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes; it ought to have been, but it has not. On what ground has it not been reduced? I can understand their saying to the landlord, "You are willing to let your land to a good farmer for so much below the full value; but we think the value is over what the tenant pays, and we shall go on taxing the land at its full value."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Has there been no appeal?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: There has been no appeal, and, as in many other cases, it was on the ground of the expense that no appeal was made. We know that in other cases appeals have been made again and again, and have failed because the Assessment Authorities
  1550
  would not admit that the land in their district was worth next to nothing. They, therefore, insist on keeping the value at a figure which may represent its future or its past value, but certainly not its present value, or what it will be for a good while to come. Consequently, though the farmers admit that the Bill gives them some relief, they do not admit that that represents the real facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a very simple matter, and that if it is impossible for the tithe owner to recover the tithe from the landowner he must recover it from some quarter. But how is he to get it? We say he ought to get it from the person to whom the tenant pays the rent. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "we cannot under this Bill impose personal liability on the landowner." We reply that that is a mere question of words, and that you do by the words you have already accepted, impose personal liability, but you impose that liability on the tenant, whereas it ought to be imposed on the landowner. The landowner ought to bear all the risk and all that is disagreeable; for I put it to the House, how disagreeable must it be for a farmer, cultivating a miserable piece of land, to have to bring an action against his landlord in order to obtain, not for his own benefit, but for that of the tithe owner the amount of tithe rent-charge the landowner is not willing or is possibly unable to pay. The right hon. Gentleman, says "Are the tenant farmers injured by the clause?" I reply that they are, because the Bill makes them responsible for other people's debts. There is no more reason that they should be made responsible for the tithe rent-charge of the landlord, than that they should be made responsible for any of his other debts. The course the Government might have taken is quite plain. They might have accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway which put upon the tithe owners the duty, and gave them the power, of exacting the tithe rent-charge if it were not paid by the landlord. But not having accepted that, I can imagine no better course for them than to allow the House to disagree with the Amendment, and refer it back to the House of Lords in order that they may introduce words that will really carry

  1551
  out the spirit of the Bill, and do justice to the three parties affected by it.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: It is my intention to vote with the Government on this question, and for this reason: I think that the operation of this clause 'will be very small, and that it has been very much misrepresented—though not intentionally—and very much exaggerated by speakers on the other side of the House. I also think that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray) and his friends have not been quite fair in the description they have given of the Bill. The hon. Member for Maldon has said he looks on the Bill as one founded on compromise, and give and take.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I said I hoped so.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL HUGESSEN: Well, the hon. Gentleman said he hoped so, and he also said the Church Party would not gain anything by this measure. I wish to call attention to the primary operation of the first portion of the Bill, which shifts the onus of the tithe from the occupier to the landowner. That is undoubtedly a gift on the part of the landlords' Party, and justifies me in declining to agree with my hon. Friend in saying that it does not contain a fair measure of compromise. It seems to me that the Opposition are not quite fair in the way in which they regard the property of the tithe owners. They seem to look upon the property in tithe as they would not look on any other kind of property. Why, I should like to ask, is the tithe owner to be placed in a worse position than the owner of any other description of property? These are some of the reasons why it appears to me to be absolutely impossible not to adopt some clause of this kind, whereby the tithe owner is placed in a position enabling him to recover what is his due. At the same time, while saying this, I must also say that I do not regard the clause as, on the whole, a very satisfactory one. I cannot help thinking the Government would suffer no great disadvantage if they adopted the suggestion thrown out by my hon. Friend, and gave the House of Lords the opportunity of further considering this clause, together with the other clause with which we have disagreed. I cannot say that I regard the
  1552
  position of the other House in connection with this matter as being altogether very happy. If the clause should be sent back to them, they may be able to devise some really practical settlement of this question which might present itself to them as offering the means of facilitating the passage of the Bill. I shall support the Government if the Question is pressed to a Division, but, at the same time, I hope they will have-regard to a request which comes from all parts of the House, and be able to see their way to referring the clause back to the House of Lords.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has based his argument against the clause mainly on the provision of Clause 5, whereby a remission is made where the amount of tithe exceeds two-thirds of the value of the land. The right hon. Gentleman doubted whether the rack-rent always represented the value of the land. What I wish to point out is, that it may very often happen that although a remission ought to be granted, the tenant would be unable to obtain the benefit of it in consequence of some default on the part of the landlord. Suppose we take the case of an absentee landlord, against whom tithe is claimed in Court. Judgment in that case would go by default for the entire amount of the tithe, and the tenant on whom it is now sought to impose responsibility would have no opportunity of obtaining the remission allowed under Clause 5. The landlord having neglected to appear, there is no provision that service should be made upon the tenant. In a case of a contract of tenancy made before the passing of the Act, service is compulsory upon the tenant, the tenant may appear, and he may be able to get a remission; but it will be different with contracts entered into after the passing of this Act. I will put a concrete case. Assume a farm on which the tithe amounts to £60 a year; assume that that farm cannot be let at a rack-rent of more than £40; suppose that the landlord is abroad, that proceedings have been taken against him, and he does not appear. What occurs? The tenant is not aware that a possession order has been made, and that the sum of £60 is to be recovered under Section

  1553
  5; he has no opportunity of appearing before the Court to show that the £60 is more than two-thirds of the value under Schedule B; and, consequently, the full amount of the £60 will be recovered for him. The right hon. Gentleman says the Court, in that case, would not make such an order, but I hold that here the word "may" means "must." Take Clause 2, which changes the mode of recovering the tithe. There simply the word "may" is used—the Court may order the tithe to be recovered for the owner of the land; and, clearly, that means the Court must so order. The Court will be bound to see that the money is paid in full by the tenant, notwithstanding that the amount is in excess of the proper sum. I venture to say, therefore, that unless some further alteration is made in this clause cases may occur in which, owing to some oversight or default on the part of the landlord, the tenant will be obliged to pay more than ought legally to be demanded from him.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I am inclined to agree with the Government that as the Church party have already given up something, as those who represent the landlord say, they cannot consent that a personal liability shall be thrown upon him, and as those who represent the tenant avow that, under no conditions, will they make him primarily responsible for the tithe, the present proposal is the best solution of the difficulty. In the case which we are now discussing, the Church has already given way to some extent, and I do not think any further concession can fairly be expected. I therefore hope the Government will abide by this clause.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: After the hon. and gallant Member has made such a candid confession I think we are justified in the position we have from the first taken up, and to insist that it is the duty of the Government, and not of the occupiers, to find a satisfactory solution of this difficulty. The President of the Board of Trade has already been obliged, by these Amendments of the Lords, to extensively change the methods of his Bill, and now he proposes that any person who wishes to follow the honourable
  1554
  occupation of cultivating the soil shall not be entitled to relief——
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was that persons who entered into contracts should take care what bargains they made.
  *MR. STUART RENDEL: At any rate it seems to me to be an unusual extension of the common legal maxim caveat emptor. The leading principle of this Bill is to make the landowner responsible for the tithe, and that is the solitary title it has to our assent. Yet this clause will violate this principle, and shift the responsibility on the occupier's shoulders in certain circumstances, and although he may have in advance paid his rent, either in cash or by erecting buildings, you will, in the default of the landlord, make that tenant liable also for the tithe which has thus already been paid by him as rent. For I challenge contradiction to the assertion that the rent will, in all these cases, cover the tithe. Thus you are making the occupier responsible for tithe exactly in that particular case where it is a necessity of the case that he has already paid it; and you are exempting the landlord from the liability to tithe, which is the cardinal feature of the Bill, exactly in the very case when it is clear that he has already in his pocket the tithe paid as rent by the tenant. I say that this clause is a naked, bare, and monstrous injustice to be inflicted on the occupier in contravention of the whole principle of the Bill. I hope, therefore, the House will refuse to accept this clause, and send it back to the other place to be drafted in a more satisfactory shape.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: I consider that Clause 5 gives all the protection to the tenant farmer which is necessary. I have for many years served upon an Assessment Committee, and in almost all cases we have fixed the assessment at the rent. Such a case as that quoted by the hon. Member opposite is not likely often to arise. I feel it my duty, therefore, to support this proposal.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: It might have been all right if the Bill had not been made retrospective. I always thought that this clause was the worst clause in the Bill, and every speech I

  1555
  listen to confirms that opinion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby pointed out that the clause would not apply merely to eases of collusion or beneficial leases. Take a farm, the tithe on which is £30, and the rent of which is only £20. It is quite possible that the Assessment Committee might fix the rateable value at £30. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that in this clause the liability is fixed not upon the rent but upon the value as ascertained under the 5th section of the Act. Cases may occur with which, through the mistake or absence of the landlord, the tenant would not be able to get relief under the 5th clause. In that case, no matter what the annual value might be, the excess of tithe would fall on the tenant, and how will he be able to get it back? You are not only imposing a personal liability, which you said you would not do, but you are casting an unmerited slur on landlords and tenants by suggesting that they may be guilty of collusion. Really, this clause, to judge from the Debate which has taken place, has no friend whatever, with the exception of the hon. Member for Shropshire and the noble Lord the Member for Darwen. Of course, if the Government are determined to press it, we must be content with making our protest; but I hope that the tenant farmers of England will, at the next election, remember who it was that introduced this clause, and know, therefrom, what favour they may expect from those who in the past have passed as the "farmer's friends."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: It is not necessary for me to say much, as all the arguments which can be used against this proposal have already been advanced. By that I do not mean to suggest that those arguments are in themselves weak. The fact is, we have bad no arguments put forward in its favour. I do not wish to infuse any heat into this Debate, although the manifest injustice of the clause would warrant me in doing so. I am satisfied that if those who intend to vote for the clause would listen to the arguments against it, the Government would be defeated. This is not a case where the tithe owner comes in. It is admitted on all sides that the tithe owner must have his tithe. The question is, how is he to
  1556
  get it; in what manner is he to recover it? The question is one simply between the landlord and the tenant. What was the origin of this clause? It comes to us from the House of Lords, and any proposal from that House on a question arising between landlord and tenant ought to be examined with considerable minuteness if we wish to profit from the experience of the past. The President of the Board of Trade, following the example of the Attorney General, said that in making a bargain with his landlord the tenant must take care of himself. But in the making of any such bargain who has the upper hand? If anyone suggests it is the tenant I shall be very much astonished, because we know that the landlord—as we have seen in the case of Ireland—is able to put the screw on the tenant. Now, we want to make that impossible in this case. Let us bear in mind that hereafter the liability for the payment of the tithe is to rest upon the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in explaining the object of this Amendment, said it was to prevent the landlord contracting himself out of the liability, and to prevent him entering into an arrangement with the tenant so as to avoid the payment of the tithe. But what is it proposed to do by way of preventing a contract of that kind being entered into? You penalise the tenant. Let me remind the House of the origin of the various Tithes Bills we have had to discuss. The object has been to get rid of the irritation caused by distraining upon the tenant for a debt which is not his. We have protested against this clause on the ground of its injustice. But it may also be opposed on the ground of its futility, and of the danger which may attend its enactment. In 1887 the Prime Minister declared that the weak point in the arrangement of 1836 was the introduction of the occupier into the matter at all, for the debt was the debt of the owner in respect of the produce of the land. In that one sentence the noble Lord showed the fundamental vice of the whole system. And in the particular case with which you are now dealing, you are going to perpetuate that fundamental vice. The effect of doing so has been clearly anticipated by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who feel an interest in the tenant farmers.

  1557
  They foresee that you will increase the irritation which already exists, to someextent, in England, and create fresh difficulties between landlord and tenant. In Wales you will perpetuate the state of things which at present exists. The clause, therefore, is not only unjust, but it is also highly dangerous. We are asked to provide some remedy. It is clear there is need for a remedy which shall not penalise the tenant. But it is the duty of the Government to find a remedy. I may, however, point out that the proposal I made last night would satisfactorily meet the difficulty, and that is, that where the landlord does not fulfil his obligations, a charge shall be created on his interest in the land, the charge to be realised by an order for the sale of the land. Let me put this dilemma to the House. Let me point out what the effect of the possibility of the order of sale will be. I propose that the charge shall not be realised for a reasonable term. I am not tied to a year. I will make it, if you like, two years. But the effect will be this: The landlord will take very great care before he allows the prospect to arise of the possibility of the loss of his property, and he will do something to wipe away the charge on the land. Although it is not for me to propose a remedy, I think this of mine is far better than that proposed by the Government. What does the Government proposal do? It has, at last, landed them in the quagmire in which they find themselves by attaching a personal liability to the landlord. I am not sure that that may not be a way out of the difficulty; but supposing this done, supposing we admit the principle of fixing the personal liability on the landlord—and that is what the Government have done in accepting the Amendment I proposed last night, instead of doing that in the first instance—the Government place the occupier or the tenant in the position of a buffer between the landlord and the tithe owner. Is it not better and easier to say that if there is to be this personal liability at all it shall be direct from the landlord to the tithe owner, instead of making it obligatory for the tithe owner to distrain upon the tenant and then allowing the tenant to sue his landlord? Is that a good thing? Do you view with equanimity the prospect? Does it augur well for
  1558
  the relations between landlord and tenant that you enable the tenant, after he has suffered the irritation of a distraint, to put his landlord in the County Court? We have warned the Government again and again. So far as we are concerned, if we wanted an election cry we could not have a better one than will be supplied if this Amendment is adopted. But, of course, that is not the spirit in which we ought to legislate. It is not a question what is best for us, but what is just and fair towards the interests with which we are dealing. But I warn the Government that not only is their proposal unjust towards the occupier, but they are perpetuating a state of things which will provoke increasing irritation, and Session after Session Tithe Bills will be introduced until we have a much fairer proposal.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I agree with the hon. Member that this proposal will give rise to great irritation. It may be that land is let on an improving lease at a nominal rent, on condition that it is brought into cultivation; and it seems to me, when the tithe owner comes for his tithe, it will be an easy thing for him to prove that the rent of the land is insufficient to pay it. A very low rent may be taken for a few years, say a nominal rent of £5 for a farm of 100 acres; and the farmer may contract to bring the farm into a proper state of cultivation. Under the clause it seems to me the landlord will get free, but the tithe owner will come on the land and distrain.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The owner will pay the tithe.
  MR. JEFFREYS: But how will he be made to do this?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As I have endeavoured to explain, there are, under the law as it now stands, a considerable number of cases in which the owners take upon themselves to pay the tithe rent-charge where they have let the farm on precisely the terms the hon. Member speaks of, and this will be the case in future.
  MR. JEFFREYS: If that is the case, that does away with the objection to a great extent; but it will not be always understood in that way, and many will have a very different view of the

  1559
  intention of the clause, and it ought to be made a great deal clearer than it is at present. Then, again, suppose there should be collusion between the landlord and tenant. In that case, although they will both be equally to blame—I hope and believe such a case will never occur—yet if it should occur, then the one to be punished will be the tenant, and that, I confess, seems to me very unfair. I do not, I say, think that such collusion will ever occur; but if it should, then it is unfair that the landlord should get off scot-free, and the tenant be punished. One matter I should like to mention. It was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Trevelyan). He spoke of the rack-rent being above the assessment; but, in such a case, I think the Assessment Committee in his county must be greatly to blame. Although, no doubt, the assessment is frequently above the nominal rent, yet it never should be above the rack-rent, and in all cases of which I have cognisance, the Committee, on appeal, have taken the view of what is the fair rack-rent in the locality. The clause is drawn in rather a vague manner, and, in attempts to interpret it, there seems to be so much difference of opinion that I think it should be sent back to the House of Lords and made more plain.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken upon the course he is about to pursue, for I hope he will be true to his political record, and vote for putting the responsibility for tithe upon the landlord. We have had some interesting speeches from the other side of the House. Whether they have been interesting to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench I do not know. There has been very little support to the clause in those speeches. There was a speech from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. Smith), who declared, as a Representative of tenant farmers, that they would be content with their position under Clause 5; but I observed he did not give the reasons why they should be content; he simply gave it as his ipse dixit that with Clause 5 in it tenant farmers would be satisfied with the Bill. But I doubt if he would go down to his constituents and evoke much
  1560
  assent to that expression of his opinion. Then we had a speech from the hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division, to whom we are always glad to listen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Bethell) said very truly that this clause represented an impossible dilemma, a difficulty that could not be solved unless one of the three parties gave way—the Church, the landowners, or the occupiers—and then he proceeded to suggest that the sacrifice should be made by the occupiers only, and this is the solution the Government bring forward.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The occupiers do not pay the tithe rent-charge. The occupiers will pay in the first instance, but ultimately payment falls upon the landowner.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I can out of his own lips show that the clause is unjustified, because in defending the Bill he has taken the ground that its object is to do away with the responsibility of occupier under the Act of 1836. I do not think that it is sufficient explanation to say that a tenant must enter into his contract with his eyes open. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said the problem was almost impossible of solution, and in that contention he takes the view of the Prime Minister, who said, with this Amendment of Lord Selborne before him, that the question was so surrounded with difficulties on every side that no proposal could be entirely satisfactory, and then the noble Lord went on to say that the proposal in the Amendment was somewhat clumsy. So it comes to this: that this unhappy clause which we have rightly been debating so long, this clause which is the result of the wisdom of the House of Lords, led by the acumen of that infallible lawyer, Lord Selborne, has been 'denounced by the Prime Minister as "clumsy." Then we have had a speech from the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and in that speech we may read the expression of the general opinion outside this House. My hon. Friend spoke with two voices: he spoke against the clause, but then he proceeded to say he should vote with the Government as a faithful follower of his Party. Well, if the Government have still any doubt

  1561
  as to the opinion of tenant-farmers, they will have that doubt set at rest at the next election, when tenant-farmers will not have forgotten this clause. The meaning of the clause is really this: that you lay it down as a principle that every landlord shall be bound to find sufficient rent to meet the claim upon him, and the landlords do not so much object to to that; but then you go further, and lay it down that every tenant, on taking a farm, shall be bound to see that he pays sufficient rent to his landlord to meet the claim of the tithe rent-charge. By this Bill you intended that the responsibility should be upon the landlord, but by this clause you do not carry out that intention. If by this clause you really wish to make the landlord responsible you do not do so. Why not bring forward some proposal imposing upon the landlord the direct responsibility? The President of the Board of Trade says the tenant will not pay, and that the payment ultimately falls on the landlord; but why not make the landlord directly responsible? He has been made personally responsible by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glamorgan. The right hon. Gentlemen contends that this is not a similar case; but with all due respect I must say he is splitting hairs, I might almost say tithes of hairs. It is quite obvious this clause has been introduced in the interest of the tithe owners. Let the Government accept the advice of my hon. Colleague in the representation of Essex (Mr. Gray), and refer back this Amendment to the wisdom of the House of Lords, from which it emanated.
  MAJOR RASCH: I hope the Government will have the courage to cut the knot by withdrawing the clause altogether. From my own experience, I am bound to say I think the clause is most reactionary and retrograde in its tendency, and that it neutralises the best portions of the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Bethell), in defending the clause, put the query, "Where is the money to come from?" I reply, there is no money to come, with land going out of cultivation, and corn at its low price. I do not think the Government will gain much credit from the Church Party by adhering to this proposal, and I would urge them to accept the suggestion tendered
  1562
  by my hon. friend the Member for Maldon Division.
  MR. CHANNING: As a Representative of an agricultural constituency, I oppose the clause, and support the appeal made by several supporters of the Government to withdraw the clause, and thus end our discussion. I feel bound to offer one or two objections to the clause, which I hope may add somewhat to the force of the reasons urged why the President of the Board of Trade should re-consider the position he has adopted. The clause obviously undoes the main merit of the Bill, which is that it relieves the occupier from the burden of the tithe, but my objection goes further. This clause, in the most effectual way, sets up a Land Court for the tithe owner and for the benefit of the clergy. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire says, on behalf of tenant farmers, that they are contented with Clause 5; but I say they want something beyond that. In the Daily News, a day or two ago, there was an important intimation from the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. The hon. Member was examined by the Royal Commission on Redemption of Tithe, and in a very lucid and forcible letter he pointed out that any evidence with regard to revision of the value of the tithe—the burden of tithe—was absolutely excluded from the scope of that Commission. We are, then, in this position: Clause 5 is an inadequate solution of the difficulty agriculture is under, the Commission is not instructed to suggest any remedy in the future for the unfair incidence of tithe, and, now, at the instance of Lord Selborne, the Clerical Party have inserted this provision, which will have the effect of forcing up rents and of imposing a fine upon just those arrangements between landlord and tenant which in the permanent interest of agriculture are essential, and which those who have the interest of agriculture at heart wish to see encouraged to the utmost. In the course of the Debates on the Act of 1836, Sir Robert Peel laid the greatest stress on this point, and urged with force that the Act would put an end to uncertainty in agriculture, and would in the highest degree encourage improvements in the land both by landlords and tenants.

  1563
  Now it has been pointed out that the rateable value is often above the rent, and I should like to point out that, to a very large extent, the rent is still vastly above the economical value of the land. Sir James Caird, in giving evidence before the Depression of Trade Commission some years ago, referred to one point which bears directly on the point at issue. Whereas, he said, the changes in rent when the land passed into the hands of the landlord and was let again were often to the extent of a re-letting at 50 or 60 per cent. reduction on the previous rental, when the occupying tenant remained, he, rather than leave the land, often accepted a remission of only 10 to 20 per cent. The tenant farmers, then, are in many cases in this position: that the better farmers they are the more they fear to lose the value of the improvements they have made in the land, and because they are reluctant to face the cost of removal from their holdings and do not wish to forfeit the goodwill of the business connections they have formed, these reasons so weigh with them that they pay a rent higher than the economic value of the land. I put these facts before the President of the Board of Trade because I know, although he looks at these things from a different point of view to myself, his sympathies are with the agricultural interest. The effect of the clause will be that there will not be that relief to agriculture which was originally contemplated, while you have tenant farmers in the position in which they are practically compelled by the very fact of their having done their duty by the land to pay a rent above the value, you have the House of Lords in the interest of the Church insisting upon the insertion of a clause which not only upsets the main merit of the Bill, which is the relief of the occupier from the burden which has been thrust upon him, you have this additional evil, that a Court is set up to adjudicate matters and practically turned into an engine to work up rents in favour of the Church and the tithe owner. I hope from the many considerations urged from both sides of the House the Government will see the expediency of performing the happy dispatch on this unhappy clause, and then they will pass a Bill which, though it is not what we want, will not further
  1564
  hamper the industry we wish to encourage.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am reluctant to rise, but it is assumed that we all join in the objections because we do not rise to reply in defence of the clause. There is a strong feeling among hon. Members on this side that we ought to persist in agreeing with the Lords' Amendment. I am quite conscious how important the matter is; but the real fact is, hon. Members opposite rise so often and prolong their observations to such inordinate length that we get little chance to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman told us that any lawyer would say he is right in his conception of the clause. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but I have read the clause and the Bill, which I do not know that he has; and as I read it it seems perfectly evident that the rack-rent never could be less than the tithe; for, under the 5th clause, the tithe will never be allowed to be more than two-thirds of the rack rent. The difficulty we have to deal with was first pointed out by the hon. Member for Glamorgan on a former occasion, and he made a proposal which the Government did not see fit to accept, and I think he himself admitted it would scarcely work. Then the Bill went to another place, and we have the conclusion arrived at there for meeting the difficulty. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, not satisfied with the proposal, has gone the length of proposing a remedy of his own.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: Let me explain. I did not make a proposal with any idea of it being accepted; I only suggested that something in that way might be done.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: But nothing in the way my hon. Friend suggests could be done. This is the point I want to place effectually before the House. My hon. Friend proposes that the debt should remain a charge against the landowner. Now let me take an extreme case to show how impossible it is that his Amendment could meet the difficulty. Suppose a landlord let land to a relative at a nominal rent, a penny a year it may be, and suppose the landowner refuses to pay the tithe rent-charge, under the provisions of this. Bill a receiver would be put in and receive the rents and profits of the land

  1565
  but the receiver might sit there till the crack of doom and never get the interest upon the debt, which would mount higher and higher, and would become irrecoverable.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Proceedings may be taken within two years.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am not sure of that. I have good legal authority for saying there is much doubt on the point whether in law he could recover. Another hon. Member said it is a very common practice in England to let land at a nominal rent for one or two years, and maintained that in such cases this clause will act very hardly. Who pays the tithe now? I know the case of property with which I am intimately connected where precisely the same thing was done. The land had got into bad order. The late tenant was bankrupt, and allowed the land to get into a poor condition. The land was let to a new tenant at a nominal rent for the first year, for a little more the second year, and it was not until the fourth year that the full rent was charged. Of course, under the provisions of this Bill, the tithe owner has a remedy against the landlord in the first instance, and if it is shown that the occupier receives benefit from the particular method of letting, which the landowner and the tenant have agreed upon for their own purposes, then the tithe owner loses his money. Surely hon. Members will not say that when the land really produces sufficient to pay the tithe rent-charge the tithe owner should lose his right to tithe simply because of some special arrangement between the landlord and tenant. This matter has been very carefully considered, and of all the proposals made this is found to be the only one which is at all feasible. It is admitted that there is a difficulty to be grappled with, and therefore I earnestly hope the Government will adhere to the clause.
  MR. MORTON: Notwithstanding his speech, I think the noble Lord must see that the general opinion on both sides of the House is that this clause ought not to be passed. I cannot conceive why, under the circumstances, the Government stick to the clause unless they think the Church will derive some benefit. The noble Lord appears to represent both the House of Lords and the
  1566
  Church in this matter, and I trust he will see very shortly, if not at once, the wisdom of allowing the President of the Board of Trade to withdraw the clause. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Hicks Beach) stated just now that there are at present cases in which no rent is paid, but in which the landlord pays the tithe himself. If the landlords will pay, why have a clause which will only cause annoyance to the tenants? It appears that neither the Church nor the House of Lords have any faith whatever in the Tory landlords. One would think the landlord had so much love for the Church that he would pay tithe without even being asked for it, but I gather, the Church does not think so. The right hon. Gentleman also told us that the policy of the Government throughout has been that the tithe should not be a personal liability on the landlord. If that is so why does he want to make it a personal liability on the tenant? Furthermore, we have been told that the Church has already given up something. I cannot see what it has given up. I understood this Bill was introduced for the purpose of benefiting the Church, and the Church alone. It will not benefit the tenant and it will not benefit the Tory Party, except so far that they may get a little more support from the Church. But the Church is boasting that it is getting a great deal out of the Bill already, and it would seem to be true since the market price of tithe has risen. My great objection to the clause is that it is opposed to the public policy of the country. The real effect of the clause will not be to get tithe, but to drive land out of cultivation, and no one will say it is to the interest of anybody that land should be driven out of cultivation. Another fact which affects me is, that you are giving to the Church a power that you do not give to any other person. There may be other charges on land. Are you going to give to all the persons who may have charges on land the means of collecting their interest or principal from people who are not concerned in the matter? Suppose an hon. Member opposite owed me money. What would the President of the Board of Trade say if I had the power to recover the money from himself? He would call it robbery. I

  1567
  trust that even at this, the eleventh hour, the Government will withdraw the clause.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have no right to speak again, and I only rise to make an appeal to the House. I hope that as we have now discussed the clause for six hours we may be permitted to come to a conclusion. The rest of the Amendments will not raise any serious matter of controversy, and in that case we should be able to finish the consideration of the Amendments to-day, which, I think, would be felt to be for the general convenience of hon. Members.
  MR. ROBY: In the interest of the tithe owner, I should like to point out a flaw in the clause. The tithe owner has to wait for three years before there are arrears. Then he goes to the Court, which has the owner before it. It may be discovered that the owner is not the occupier, whereupon the Court may appoint a receiver. The receiver may come to the Court and inform it that there is not sufficient to satisfy the tithe. Then the Court makes an order that the occupier shall be treated as owner. Why, when the owner is before the Court, cannot the Court ascertain whether there is any collusive arrangement? Why put the poor tithe owner to all this trouble? Surely the wisest course would be for the Government to withdraw the clause and see if they cannot simplify the procedure.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I venture to ask the House to consider what were the leading principles of the Bill when it was discussed in Committee. The first principle was to take the liability to pay tithe off the occupier and lay it on the landowner; and the second was that the landowner should not be personally liable for the tithe. When the Bill got to the House of Lords, Lord Selborne said that as the personal liability of the landlord had been withdrawn, he could not see his way to ask the House to take off the 5 per cent. reduction, which had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government more than once in previous Bills during this Parliament. The whole spirit of the former Bills was to put a personal liability on the landowner, and, in consideration of that, 5 per cent. was to be taken off the amount of the tithe as
  1568
  commuted. What has happened? The Government have agreed to put a personal liability upon the occupier in the first instance, and eventually on the landowner. The President of the Board of Trade denies that technically, but the distinction is so microscopic that I am unable to see it. To all intents and purposes, the first charge in some instances, is upon the occupier. I think we are entitled to insist that the Bill should be sent back to the House of Lords for more careful consideration. I am a tithe owner, and there are many others in the House. Have we heard any argument from tithe owners, who are mouth-pieces for the Church, in support of this clause? No; all the arguments in favour of the clause have been advanced by the Church Party.
  (5.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 117.—(Div. List, No. 99.)
  Several Amendments agreed to.
  Several Amendments disagreed to.
  Several Amendments amended, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to several of the said Amendments."—Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Jackson, Mr. William Lowther, and Viscount Cranborne:—To withdraw immediately."
  Ordered, That Throe be the quorum.

  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]. (No. 216.)
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 220.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to propose the verbal Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after "of," insert "a trustee."—(Mr. G. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I understand that the Amendment is not necessary.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. BARTLEY: The Amendment that stands next on the Paper in my name raises an important, point. The present scheme of the Bill is for the House to appoint a Committee, which Committee shall appoint a Committee of Inspection. I think it is just as well that the House should itself appoint the Committee of Inspection and insert the names of the members of that Committee in the Bill. My Amendment is that the names mentioned in the Schedule shall be the Committee of Inspection.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "shall," insert "be the Inspection Committee and."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. My hon. Friend will easily understand that gentlemen who take great interest in this question might find sufficient time to organise the scheme in the first instance but might not be able to devote continued attention to it.
  *MR. BARTLEY: After my right hon. Friend's statement, I am content to have the Amendment negatived.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BARTLEY: There should be some words inserted to empower the Committee, whose names will be mentioned in the Schedule, to appoint the Committee of Inspection. As the Bill stands, the power would only be given by inference. I beg to move to insert the words "appoint the Committee and" after the word "Commissioners."
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 20, after the word "Commissioners" insert "appoint the Committee and."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: It seems to me it would be better to insert the words "for the appointment of the Committee and" after the word "scheme."
  *MR. BARTLEY: Then if the right hon. Gentleman will move that, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 21, after "scheme" insert "for the appointment of the Committee and."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. BARTLEY: The clause does not seem to me sufficiently wide, therefore I have prepared an Amendment, which I will now move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after "unnecessary," insert—
  "And generally whether it is carrying on its business in a satisfactory manner and according to the rules laid down from time to time by the Committee."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have looked carefully into this matter, and I find that the object the hon. Member desires to effect is already covered by the words "and conduct of the business" in line 8.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. BARTLEY: It seems to me that the question involved in this clause is one which may well be left to the Committee of Inspection and the National Debt Commissioners, and that it is a pity to introduce the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the matter. I, therefore, move to omit the latter part of the clause.
  (5.52.) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, to leave out all after "rules," to end of Clause.—(Mr. Bartley.)
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member cannot be aware that the rules at present have to be certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and that, therefore, this is merely applying to the rules the Committee may make, the law applied to

  1571
  the rules made by the banks themselves.
  *MR. BARTLEY: Then I will not press the Amendment.
  (5.53.) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 35, after "1863," insert—
  "Whether involving the withdrawal of any portion of the separate Surplus Fund, in pursuance of Section 29 of the said Act, or not.—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, leave out from "The National," to "1863," in line 40, and insert—
  "No application to the National Debt Commissioners for a payment from the separate Surplus Fund standing at the credit of any Savings Bank shall be entertained unless it have the previous sanction of the Inspection Committee."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not propose to omit—
  "The National Debt Commissioners shall have power to determine what expenses shall be deducted."
  I do not object to the three lines the hon. Member proposes to insert as a separate paragraph, though I do not think they are necessary.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I will not press the words against the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he thinks they are unnecessary. It seemed to me that they would give a further security.
  *MR. BARTLEY: They appear to me to be an improvement, as strengthening the Committee of Inspection.
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member will move the words as a separate sub-section to follow line 36, I will agree to them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to insert the following sub-section:—
  "No application to the National Debt Commissioners for a payment from the separate Surplus Fund standing at the credit
  1572
  of any Savings Bank shall be entertained unless it have the previous sanction of the Inspection Committee."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to move the omission of this clause. There is great objection felt to this clause on the part of trustees of savings banks, because they think it is unfair that they should be over-ridden by the National Debt Commissioners. The clause gives the Commissioners power to examine the accounts of savings banks. A great deal of friction has arisen because the Commissioners have refused to allow the expenses of savings banks. I believe I express the opinion of all savings banks when I say there is no control they dislike so much as that of the National Debt Commissioners. They approve of the Bill, but they think when the Committee of Inspection has been constituted there will be no necessity for the National Debt Commissioners having an imperium in imperio. It is felt that this clause will very much impede the usefulness of savings banks, and I therefore move its omission.
  Amendment proposed, "That Clause 5, as amended, be omitted from the Bill."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HOWELL: I hope the Government will be firm as to this clause. It seems to me that you might as well get rid of the Bill altogether as omit this clause. I would refer the hon. Member for Everton to what took place at Macclesfield—and I could go into a number of other cases. I ask him to take the Blue Book in his hand and to refer to the evidence, and see if it is not absolutely necessary that this clause should remain. It deals with the only authority, at present, who has any power in these matters, and they only have it to a very limited extent. It seems to me that rather than try to take the power away, our anxiety should be to try to extend it. What we ought to do is to legislate for the depositors in such a way as to secure that there shall be perfect safety in the management of the Trustees. What the depositors require is absolute security, and unless the National Debt Commissioners have some controlling power over

  1573
  the expenditure by the Bank Authorities I do not see how we are to prevent in the future such frauds as have happened in the past. We know that if the Act had been carried out to its full extent there would have been no need for this attempt at legislation, but unfortunately the provisions of that Act wore not carried out, and the need of some controlling authority over the bank managers has consequently arisen. If it were needful I could lay before the Committee an enormous mass of facts establishing my position on this point, but I will not weary the House by going into them at this moment. I hope, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to granting some provision increasing the safety of the depositors in these banks.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I am sure we all agree with my hon. Friend in desiring the safety of these banks, but I cannot see that this clause does to any material extent add to the safety of the banks. It refers only to expenses, and surely we might trust that matter to the Inspection Committee. If the Committee cannot be trusted to say what are and what are not necessary expenses, they are not likely to be of any use at all. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised the deputation which waited upon him on the 11th June, 1890, that the question of necessary expenses should be left to the Committee. That being so, I hope the Government will agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: On looking at the whole question, I am disposed to think that the Bill would be better without this clause. The very scope of the Bill is to interpose a new body, so as to avoid, as far as may be possible, the Government being rendered responsible for the working of the Savings Banks. This clause does not appear to me to touch the security or the safety of the Savings Banks. It deals with a comparatively small matter in reference to which, I think, the discretion of the Committee might be trusted, and as to which there is adequate security.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: I may say that the managers of Savings Banks,
  1574
  with whom I have been brought into contact of late, heartily approve of the general principle of this Bill, and fully recognise the attention and consideration paid to the questions involved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, at the same time, I have to state that at a recent meeting, over which I had the honour to preside, and which was attended by the representatives of no less than £27,000,000 of invested funds, the universal feeling then expressed was against the retention of this particular clause, and, beyond this, the deputation which I was the means of introducing to the right hon. Gentleman some months ago, fully understood that this clause was to be materially modified—that some considerable concession would be made. The representatives of the Savings Banks feel very strongly that if there is to be a Committee of Inspection at all it ought to be one that is completely trustworthy and ought to be trusted. As a Representative Body, having many experts upon it, it would be thoroughly competent, without the intervention of the National Debt Commissioners. Feeling that the question here raised should be left entirely to that Committee, I hope this clause will be expunged from the Bill.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I hope the clause will be retained as one that will have a very useful effect, because it will establish a necessary check with regard to these bank expenses. No doubt in the bulk of the Savings Banks of this country these matters are properly looked after; but there are certain cases in which a check is necessary, and that being so I support the retention of this clause.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I certainly did not consider that I had made the promise referred to by the hon. Baronet. In some cases there has been laxity which rendered inquiry necessary, but nine-tenths of the Savings Banks are admirably conducted. The question is how to meet the difficulty. I cannot agree to leave out the clause, but I shall see whether any modification can be made in it. I should like the National Debt Commissioners to have some kind of locus standi.
  MR. WHITLEY: After what has fallen from my right hon. Friend I will not press my Amendment.
  MR. WARMINGTON: Regarding this question from a depositor's point of view, and knowing that the depositors are not fully represented in the management of these banks, I feel that they require the protection that would be afforded by this clause, and, therefore, I trust that the Government will stand firm in maintaining it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  (6.15.) Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 16, after "November," insert—
  "And he has not during that period performed any of the duties imposed on trustees and managers by the paragraph numbered (2) of Section 6 of 'The Savings Banks Act, 1863.' "—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. CLARK: Would this not weaken the clause, and should you not have the word "or" instead of "and?" I thought the object of the clause was to throw over the merely ornamental Trustees, who never attend the meetings.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Amendment does, to some extent, weaken the clause. Yet a Trustee may perform a certain number of duties though he never attends the meetings. I am informed that in some of the smaller towns it is difficult to get the attendance of Trustees, who, nevertheless, render valua-able service outside the meetings. On the whole, I think the clause should be carried with this modification.
  (6.19.) Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 30, after "direct," to add—
  "A similar statement with any other particulars that may be required by the Inspection Committee shall be sent to the Inspection Committee each year at the same time."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I accept the words that
  "A similar statement shall be sent to the Inspection Committee each year at the same time."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  Amendments made.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: The Bill as it stands limits the opening of investment departments of banks to November 1890. These Investment Departments have been attended with excellent results, and have formed one of the most useful features of the banks. Under these circumstances, it seems somewhat hard that the door should be somewhat suddenly, and without notice, closed against the development of this part of the business of the banks. At a representative meeting of the banking interest there was a very general feeling that the period ought to be extended for the formation of these departments.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 36, to leave out "ninety," and insert "ninety-one."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not much inclined to accept this Amendment. This investment business does not really belong to savings banks at all, and I am not prepared to say that it is desirable to extend this class of business. In fact, I think great precautions ought to be taken to separate the two. If we were to prolong the date until 1891 it would give existing savings banks opportunity to engage in investment business. I have endeavoured, as far as possible, not to interfere with the existing business of Trustee Savings Banks. I trust the Committee will not assent to this Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not be desirable to extend the business of the banks in this direction, especially the smaller banks, and I support the Government in their view.
  *MR. BARTLEY: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept my Amendment, for it seems a little hard to shut the door for ever. By my Amendment the Commissioners or Committee of Inspection, where they thought it

  1577
  desirable, might give particular banks facilities to engage in the investment business. I think my Amendment would prevent all danger of anything being done recklessly, and some advantage might arise from it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid that I could not assent to that view, because it would involve the laying down of a guide to the Committee, besides giving permission to some banks, while refusing others. I do not think it is a business which should be carried on.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  An Amendment made.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. E. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to move the omission of Clause 11, and I do so as a protest against the further extension of the limit of deposit in these excellent benevolent institutions bolstered up by Government credit, which compete most unfairly with private and other banks, especially in small towns. I cannot but think that the reason given in the Bill for the change is most inadequate. It is that difficulty has arisen about the due apportionment of principal and interest. If the Trustees of these banks cannot see the difference between principal and interest, they are not fit for their position. It is only due to the enterprise of banks in the country that they should have fair competition, and not to the unlimited competition of the Government for deposits, which are to them their very life-blood.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I think the bankers owe a debt of gratitude to these banks. They have taught thousands the habit of banking, and so largely increased joint-stock banks, which are becoming familiar institutions at so many corners of the streets as almost to be as numerous as public-houses.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: It is quite true that the proposal in the present Bill is but small; still, at the same time, it is another step in the direction of Government interference with private enterprise. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead in expressing my regret that the Government
  1578
  have introduced this proposal. It does not affect the bankers of London, but it does affect many of the banks with branches in small places. The Government can only undertake one side of banking business. There are three branches of a banking business—the receiving deposits, keeping accounts, and the lending out of deposits. The money of the district is lent out, in fact, to small tradesmen. Savings Banks perform most admirably one portion of banking, namely, deposit business; but they cannot carry on the other functions of banking, namely, the keeping accounts, and making advances to those in business. The effect is to drain money from the provinces and bring it up to London. It does not affect London banks, but I do think it is unfair to banks in country districts; and though the proposed change is not large in itself, still I am glad that the hon. Member for Hampstead has protested against it, because it is another case of Government interference with private enterprise.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  New Clause—
  "The Treasury may from time to time, by a minute to be laid before Parliament, fix the date for the presentation to Parliament of any accounts required by the Acts relating to savings banks to be so presented."
  —brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  DR. CLARK: I think we ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what it is intended to do by means of this clause. It practically abolishes all statutory requirements as to presenting accounts, and if it is passed the Postmaster General will not be compelled to send in his Report as hereto-fore. I have heard that the clause is intended to relieve the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Post Office of the difficulty he has been placed in by the recant strike.
  MR. JACKSON: It is sometimes found to be quite impossible to present the accounts by the required date, and the result is that the accounts are presented in dummy—an objectionable practice. The Government think the power of fixing a later date might

  1579
  safely be given to the Treasury if it were found necessary to do so in order to meet the exigencies of the Public Service.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The object of the clause is to relieve the Postmaster General from the serious dilemma in which he was landed by his gross mismanagement of the Savings Banks Department. It was rumoured that a specific Bill was to be introduced for the purpose of extending the time by which the Postmaster General is bound to produce his accounts. So far as the Trustee Savings Banks are concerned, I think that this clause might reasonably be allowed. It is obvious that the relations between the Treasury and the Trustee Savings Banks are not such as to lead the Treasury to extend the date for the presentation of accounts unduly; but we know how singularly intimate are the relations between the Treasury and the Post Office, and therefore we know that this power would be too readily used.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I now move "That this clause do not apply to the Post Office Savings Bank."
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot accept this Amendment. The only dilemma from which the Postmaster General will be relieved will be to save the clerks of the Department some amount of overtime, to which some of them object. It is obvious it is impossible to present the account by the date prescribed, and I therefore ask that the Treasury shall have power to fix a suitable date. I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: If the date now fixed is too early, the proper thing to do is to alter it and fix some other date, but not to vest this general dispensing power in the Treasury. But a better method still would be to increase the staff, so that it should be adequate to the work to be done. I think the difficulty the Postmaster General is in is due not to any unreasonable unwillingness on the part of the Savings Bank clerks to work overtime,
  1580
  but to the enormous demands made upon their time.
  MR. JACKSON: I am quite willing to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member, and will bring up a new clause on Report fixing a date. If the suggestion is, as I believe, thrown out in a friendly spirit, I am quite willing now to withdraw this clause on that understanding.
  DR. CLARK: I think this is a bad system we are falling into of inserting in new Bills clauses modifying provisions of existing Acts without giving the House any indication of what is being done. I think it is only fair to the Committee that when such changes are proposed the official in charge of the Bill should say what is being done. Had it not been for the rumours which were circulated, we might not have known that this clause was intended for the relief of the Postmaster General.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1.
  Question proposed, "That this be the 1st Schedule of the Bill."
  MR. GOSCHEN: On this I may announce the names of those gentlemen who have been chosen to frame the scheme for determining the appointment of the Inspection Committee, and its powers. They are Mr. Lyulph Stanley, Lord E. Hervey, M.P., Sir A. Rollit, M.P., Mr. John Ellis, M.P., Mr. T. C. Wright, of Lincoln's Inn, a Trustee of the Bloomsbury Bank, Mr. John Ure, Dean of Guild, Trustee of the Glasgow Savings Bank, and Mr. Henry Court, late Assistant Comptroller of the National Debt. It will be seen that three of these gentlemen represent savings banks, three are perfectly independent, and one is an expert, who will advise the Committee on technical matters. I will ask the Committee to allow these names to be put in the Schedule, and if there is an objection taken to any of them it can be brought forward on the Report stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next at Two of the clock.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 251.)
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords Amendments, reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.
MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 163.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to explain that its object is to confirm a Convention by which British mail ships will be put on the same footing as foreign ones. The fact of foreign mail ships possessing the privileges of men-of-war has caused great discontent among British shipowners, who are placed in an inferiority to foreign owners, but they will now be on precisely the same footing. There is a provision that, if a warrant is to be executed on board, notice must be given to the Consular officer, and the ship may be detained for an hour if he is absent at the time. Power is also given to enter into a permanent bail bond, that bail bond and damages claimed under it to be enforceable in the country of jurisdiction, so that any claim against a French ship will be recoverable in London. There is one provision which will require shipmasters to receive on board mails in a port of France as in an English port at the same rates as those fixed by the Postal Union of 1874. It is most important that this Bill should be read a second time this evening, in order that the new Convention may be ratified before the end of the month.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to Technical Instruction Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provisions in regard to
  1582
  the Registration of certain Writs in the Divisions of the General Register of Sasines for Scotland." [Registration of Certain Writs (Scotland) Bill. [Lords.]

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 40.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  ASCENSION ISLAND.
  Address for—
  "Return showing the cost of maintaining the Naval Establishments in the Island of Ascension, giving the pay and allowances, separately, of the Officers, and the number, pay, and allowances of the Seamen and Marines, and other men employed there, the cost of victualling, and the charges under other Naval Votes:"
  "And, the average value of coal and other stores issued to Her Majesty's Ships during the last three years, and the average number of men in hospital other than those stationed in the Island."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons on the Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order Bills: Mr. Colman and Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Joseph Bailey and Mr. Dickson.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged Mr. Round from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufacture; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Brooke Robinson.
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, Mr. Roche.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: What will be the business on Monday?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): On Monday the Government

  1583
  propose—first, to ask the House to agree to the Committee on Scotch Private Bill Procedure Bill; after that they propose to take the further stages of one or two small Bills on the Paper, and then to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.

EVENING SITTING.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    CROFTER ACT, 1886.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The Motion which I have placed on the Paper refers to a portion of the group of subjects which are embraced under the head of the crofter difficulty, and I have purposely framed the Motion so as to make it of an entirely non-contentious character. The Motion aims at an object which is quite unpolitical; but the question at issue is one which in the public interest should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. It will be in the recollection of the House that under the Crofter Act, 1886, very considerable rights were given to the occupiers of land in certain districts of the Highlands. The crofters acquired large proprietary rights in their holdings, and tenants in townships became part owners of the grazings. But, at the same time, no legal status was conferred upon the men entitling them to be represented in Court, to sue or to be sued. While the power of control in regard to the management of common outruns has been taken out of the proprietors' hands, nothing has been put in its place, and the consequence is that in many townships something very like chaos reigns, so far as the common interest in the grazings is concerned. Lord Napier's Committee reported in favour of conferring corporate powers upon crofter townships. In the Act of 1886 this portion of the Committee's Report was disregarded. Unless some plan is found under which tenants can exercise some effective control over the management of outruns, we shall have
    1584
    a continual period of strife, and a very large proportion of the benefit the tenants would otherwise enjoy under the Crofter Act will be lost to them. I have had many letters from crofters in different parts of Ross-shire asking for interference such as I propose. Very great difficulty exists in the Highlands to get a number of tenants to agree about the management of a common stock. The Commission, in fixing the rent, allocated the interest in the commonalty, and attached a portion of the commonalty to each separate croft. Some crofters maintain a larger stock upon the outrun than they are entitled to maintain there, and at the same time pay no rent to the landlord or compensation to the other tenants of the outrun. A simple remedy might be found in giving two-thirds of the township the right to appoint managers, who would be able to exercise certain powers; but I think it would be better the Commission should have the power, where the landlord and crofters or the crofters fail to agree on a system of management, to call upon the tenants or the landlord and the crofters to appoint a managing committee for the township. In case of failure on the part of the tenants and landlord the Commission should have power to appoint managers and frame rules and regulations for their guidance. Managers are wanted, because though the Commission might settle the question of stocking and fencing rights for themselves it would be a very lengthy matter: it would take many years to get over the ground. Besides, managers would be useful in many other ways. It might be one of the duties of managers to adjust the stock each crofter was entitled to have, and to fix the grazing rents for horses, cattle and sheep. The managers would exercise control over the township fences, over the repair of the roads, which now are grievously neglected. They would also control the rights of the crofters in regard to sea-ware. The managers would be empowered to cause extra stock to be paid for or else removed, would pay the rents due for overstock to those who had understock, and generally arrange for the management of the stock on the ground. If the rules were broken, the managers should have power to go to the Sheriff and obtain a writ, which would enable them

    1585
    to sell the surplus stock. In that case the first charge on the sale would be the expenses of the proceedings. I think it would be found that this system might lead to the development of the Club Paid System, which is very desirable in the Highlands. I hope I may claim the favourable consideration by the Government of the proposal I have laid before the House. I ask them either to bring in an amending Bill, or else undertake to support a Bill which I should be very glad to bring in. My proposal does not partake of anything of the nature of a suspiciously reforming character. My object is simply to get the full benefit out of the measures which have previously been passed by the House. I have raised this question by itself, as I know very well that if it were mixed up with other matters there would be very little hope of obtaining a speedy remedy. I shall certainly oppose any attempt which is made to alter the scope of my intentions. On this ground I invite general support of this Resolution, which, however modest in appearance, will, I believe, effect real good, promoting, as it will, peace and the good conduct of affairs in the Highlands.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Crofter Act, 1886, should be amended in so far as to confer upon the Commission powers to regulate the conditions and management of Crofters' Common Grazings,"—(Mr. Munro Ferguson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. FRASER - MACKINTOSH: The hon. Member for Leith has done good service in bringing this matter before the attention of the House, though I regret that his Motion is not more comprehensive in its character. One of the most pressing grievances which came before the Crofter Commission of 1883 was that relating to the question of grazing and the stock upon club farms. It was so very pressing that our Chairman, Lord Napier, laid down some very stringent rules with regard to the management of club farms, but the Act of 1886 to a great extent ignored the point. The grievance
    1586
    is this: There may be 20 tenants of one stock farm; the whole of the tenants may not be in the same pecuniary position, the consequence being that the moderately wealthy man puts a larger stock upon the land than he is entitled to do to the detriment of the poorer crofters, who are, however, obliged to pay their proportions of the rent. I do not think the Lord Advocate can for a moment have any objection to the principle involved in this Motion. I am quite aware he and his predecessors have always been indisposed to bring forward Crofter Bills, lest attempts to introduce comprehensive Amendments should be made; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to bring in a Bill, or promise his support to a measure brought in by a private Member, he will do great service, because I can testify that a grievance does here exist which ought to be speedily remedied.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: It is a question open to argument whether the Crofter Act, 1886, requires any Amendment as regards the relation of crofters and landlords, but into that question I do not propose to enter on the present occasion. The Act, however, is deficient in not defending the crofters from each other. In communities of crofters, rights are so thoroughly and completely interlaced that the comfortable conditions and relations of life depend very much on there being some means of determining and loosening these rights from each other. Such matters as over-stocking, bringing down cattle too soon from the hills to the low districts, the cutting of peat, and drainage, are matters which do not concern the landlord in any way, but upon the settlement of which the happiness and the comfort of the crofters depend. In addition to the common grazings, the ground under crop is held in tiny and unenclosed plots. It is in evidence, for example, that on the Torridon Estate the holding of one man consisted of 43 plots—the whole, I suppose, not amounting to an acre. There is no wonder that difficulties of neighbourship arise when rights relating to ground are mixed up in this way. As a crofter expressively put it in a somewhat complex and involved sentence: "We were not understanding one another

    1587
    amongst ourselves in these matters." Public opinion is, no doubt, very strong on such points, but something further is needed in those exceptional cases in which a man does not regard public opinion. In old times, if a man made himself unpleasant to his neighbours, the proprietor had the right of sending him away. This is now altogether changed. The Crofters' Act contemplates the landlord imposing conditions not only in his own individual interest but for the benefit of the crofters at large. That is occasionally done. I hold in my hands the terms of a lease which provides that, constables having been elected by the crofters of the township with the approval of the proprietor, the constables shall report to the proprietor any breach of certain specified regulations made for the common good. This lease has been in existence for four years, on one of the few estates where the crofters did not go into Court, but had their rents settled by agreement. It is so satisfactory to both parties that, at its expiry next Martinmas, it will probably be continued indefinitely by tacit relocation. But I do not know of another lease in Scotland, and certainly not of one where conditions as to the mutual relations of the crofters are inserted. Such conditions imply active personal interest and continuous residence on the part of the landlord. In general, the crofters have gone into Court to get their rents fixed, but they are at arm's length with the proprietor, and any questions which exist between themselves they are left free to fight out in the best way they can, without the intervention or assistance of the proprietor. Very few landlords in the Highlands now interest themselves in the affairs of the crofters. By your Act you have made them to a great extent rent-chargers, and have put them at arm's length with the crofters. There are good reasons, no doubt, for what you have done, but you must carry through the policy you have initiated. You must fill the place made vacant, by the patriarchal power of the landlord being to some extent superseded. You must rely to a considerable extent on what the Napier Commission relied upon—on the feeling in the minds of the crofters for corporate action by townships, and you must supply the place of the landlord's
    1588
    ground officer by constables to be chosen by the crofters. Mr. Carmichael gave Lord Napier's Commission a very interesting account of the assistance the township constables had been in the Western Hebrides. We can see that to a certain extent that account is idealised and somewhat poetical, but it has a considerable, basis of truth. The system of appointing constables on the estate to which I have already referred, has worked thoroughly and effectually, and has made these small matters go smoothly and easily. It would be well to let the crofters have an opportunity, under the law, of appointing such men to look after common interests. But you must have some kind of sanction. Formerly the sanction was obtained by a visit to the big house, or by means of a formidable letter on the most official-looking foolscap that could be obtained. In the final resort you will have to give power to the Sheriff to fine. I do not see that you can put the power of fining into the hands of these constables, but you can give them the power of reporting to the Sheriff, and give him the power of imposing small fines, or, in the last resort, of putting a man out of his holding. That would very likely mean an increase of the number of sheriff-substitutes, which was called for by the Commission in its Report as a desirable and useful-reform in the Highlands. To a certain extent it might be felt that there is an objection to bringing the Sheriff into these matters. But you are passing from the period of the dominion of custom to that of the dominion of law, and it is necessary to acknowledge that you give some authority to the law in these matters. I believe the power of the law would never have to be called in, and that it would be sufficient to have it there in the background.
    DR. McDONALD: The Mover and Seconder of the Resolution said this was a very small matter indeed, and I quite agree with them. I understand the Government are going to accept the Resolution, and I suppose we must be thankful for very small mercies. I, myself, think that in many instances this proposal will be resented by the crofters, who will say they are able to manage their own affairs. In the village in which I was brought up, it was the custom for the

    1589
    inhabitants to meet and appoint two or three men to look after the interests of the village, and everything had to be done as these men ordered.
    (9.32.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    DR. McDONALD: I know this proposal is regarded as necessary in some places, but I am afraid it will not be received with a very good grace by a great many communities in the Highlands. In a great many districts the people have been very dependent on the estate managers, who have done everything for them, and now they are not able to take such good care of themselves as other communities which have not been so dependent on the estate managers in the past. If the Government think proper to pass an Act specially for this small matter I have no objection, only if they do so, I think they will find it wise not to make it obligatory, as the crofters are perfectly capable of appointing men to manage their affairs for them in their own way. I think, also, as some authorities have said, that the Act already gives this power, if it is required.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): It may be advisable at this stage to state the views of the Government on this Motion. The hon. Member who has just spoken has intimated that certain high authorities are of opinion that the existing law is sufficient to meet the specific grievance, clearly and frankly put forward by the hon. Member for Leith. I shall await with interest for the disclosure of their names. What is the grievance which is stated to exist? All who are acquainted with the Highlanders are aware that many of the crofters, in addition to the generally small patch of ground of which they are the sole occupants, have aright of grazing over a common piece of ground. Before the passing of the Crofters' Act the adjustment of the rights inter se of these tenants was determined by the landlord, who assigned to each tenant the degree of use of the common ground to which he should be entitled. Accordingly, by the most direct operation of the contract, any departure from the precise measure of right given to each
    1590
    crofter was certain to be put right by the landlord's power of bringing the contract to an end. I gather, from what has been said in the Debate, that it is one of the consequences of the Crofters Act, that as the power of the landlord in this respect has been taken away, there is no authority now in existence which has power to make regulations as to the number of cattle which each crofter shall be entitled to place upon the common grazing ground, and to prevent abuses of the common right. The question, therefore, is one between the crofters inter se, and does not concern the landlords in any way. The hon. Member for Ross (Dr. McDonald) appeared to think that there was some tribunal that had the power of checking the abuses that have been indicated, but I confess that I do not know of any such tribunal myself. Probably it was an omission from the Crofters Act that no such tribunal was appointed. As far as my knowledge goes, I confirm the statements of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson). It is quite true that there are traces in the Crofters Act of a desire to give the power of regulating common use to the Crofters Commission, but they relate to a more limited class of holdings than are referred to in the Motion. I should advise the House to assume that there are deficiencies of controlling power in this matter. I am bound to say I think a remedy is desirable, and I think also there is nothing in the suggestion that has been made, as to the kind of remedy, which is inconsistent with the principles already recognised by the law. We are here to regulate the inequities and anomalies which may arise through want of agreement among joint possessors, and I cannot see anything which is at all opposed to sound principles, either of law or policy, in assigning the consideration of questions of this kind to some administrative Department. Then the next question is how can that be done? The Government are disposed to assent to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Leith, but he will allow me to point out to him that the mode of proceeding requires some care, following in the direction of simplicity and directness rather than by the use of a complex and cumbrous apparatus. The

    1591
    Motion of the hon. Member is in the following terms—
    "That the Crofters Act, 1886, should be amended in so far as to confer upon the Commission powers to regulate the conditions and management of crofters' common grazings."
    I am prepared to assent to that proposition, and accordingly, when the hon. Member comes, as it will fall to him to do, to offer a Bill on the subject to the House, he will probably start on the assumption that the only call for interference is where there is failure of agreement among those interested. In that I am entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Boss, for I cannot suppose it will be considered desirable that Parliament should thrust upon the Crofters Commission in the first place, and upon Highland communities in the second place, any rigid or Procrustean method, but rather that the proposal should be that the Commission should enter when there is failure of agreement and need of rectification. That will be following practical and useful precedents. In truth, if people were reasonable, there ought to be no need for the intervention of law in the matter; but from the beginning of time joint occupancies have shown a disposition towards discord, and accordingly, as lawyers know, there are rules of common law by which the quarrels of joint possessors are solved in a Court of Law, but only in the case of disagreement is there this intervention. Therefore I trust the suggestion of the hon. Member for Boss will find favour, that there shall be no interference except when there is application to the Commissioners to remedy grievances existing, and which cannot be rectified by common action and in common council. The hon. Member will also probably consider whether it is necessary to set up an elaborate apparatus having some standing and local origin. I gather that the hon. Member for Boss deprecates that, and probably it might be for the House to say whether the setting up of district tribunals with more or less sonorous titles would not draw upon such bodies more envy than respect, and will take into consideration the question whether it is not preferable to adopt the simpler method of making application to the Crofters Commission to lay down regulations on the matter in dispute, and any
    1592
    infringement of the regulation should be matter of application by any one feeling aggrieved to the Judge ordinary of the district. This would be complete, without complexity; and failure to observe those rights could be dealt with in a legal manner, and the remedy would be open to all whose rights were violated. I do not know how far the hon. Member might consider it necessary to go; and this is a matter entirely for the sequel, and not having reference to the Motion itself. The hon. Gentleman will probably consider whether it is desirable to anticipate difficulties, or to deal only with those which are observable. As I understand, the real difficulty arises from the attempt to occupy, by those who have more means or are more powerful than their neighbours, more than their share of the common pasture. There may be other difficulties about, the herdings, but probably it would be wiser, in the meantime, to confine the regulations to the difficulty at hand. I think the House will be well advised in not interfering too much in laying down rules for people in matters they ought to determine for themselves. It would be a very great pity if we were to outstrip the necessities of the time and put these people into leading strings through the Crofter Commission, by means of crofter constables or by other means under any new or oldfangled names. I have said all it behoves me to say in the nature of suggestion, and I trust I have not said anything which at all grates on the feelings of even the most advanced champion of the Crofters Act. We are not now dealing with ulterior views. I understand that the Motion is directed to this specific grievance in connection with the privilege of common grazing. In this spirit I accept the proposition, and I find nothing to take exception to in the Motion, while reserving to the Government full freedom of criticism of any Bill that may be brought in, as to scope, extent, machinery and details. I think I have with sufficient frankness stated the general view with which we accept the Motion.
    DR. CLARK: These may be the grievances of which the hon. Member for Leith complains, but these must arise in connection with the new crofters who have come in without

    1593
    signing the old estate regulations. If the hon. Member will look at Subsection 5 of the 1st section of the Crofters Act, he will find that the estate regulations are to continue, and as all the crofters signed these, and as they lay down the proportions of stock each man can put on the grazing land, the only difficulty must be with those who have come into their crofts since the Act was passed five years ago, and, of course, if these have not signed the regulations they are not bound by them. Under the last paragraph of the 12th section of the Act, power is given to the Commissioners to determine all questions relating to fuel-cutting, and the points raised by the hon. Member for the Particle Division. I think also, the last subsection of the 21st section gives power to the Commissioners to determine questions as to grazing. The grievances the hon. Member has alluded to, can only occur on a few estates, where there are no regulations and where those who have acquired their rights to croft have done so since the passing of the Act. In such cases grievances may exist and the landlords may not put themselves to the trouble of interfering; but I think in most cases the regulations which crofters have signed determine the amount of stock each shall put upon the land and the respective rights of crofters. I do not, however, know that there is any power given to the Commissioners to compel obedience to the regulations, and it seems to me that if anything is required it is an extension of the powers of the Commissioners under the 5th sub-section, in addition to the power they now have to prevent violations of the conditions, both as between the crofters and their neighbours and between the crofters and the landlord. I have no objection at all to my hon. Friend bringing in a Bill of this kind, though I do not think this has been much of a grievance. There are very serious grievances we should like to bring before the House, and several of us have made every effort to do so. We have balloted again and again for an opportunity to bring crofters' grievances before the House, but such is the irony of fate, that while we have been unsuccessful an outside Member secures the opportunity to bring this infinitesimal, this homeopathic
    1594
    grievance under notice. Well, it is the chance of the ballot, and we must not complain, though I think we had a right to complain when the opportunity my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. Sutherland) had obtained, was appropriated for Government business. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leith upon being so fortunate as to find this opportunity for his Motion, and to find the Lord Advocate ready to give it such a friendly reception. There are other and much more urgent matters in relation to the Crofters Act—there is that concession the Government have allowed to Irish tenants, and yet deny to crofters, the bringing leasehold tenants under the Act. It engenders the strongest sense of injustice when a man finds his neighbours on either side of him obtaining reductions in their rent from 40 to 75 per cent., while he is compelled to continue paying his old rent. I do not intend to introduce this subject now, but I hope that during the remainder of the Session we may be more successful in the ballot and bring these much more serious grievances before the House.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I am glad to find the Lord Advocate offers no opposition to this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman seems to express a preference for the Sheriff's Court over the Crofter Commission.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No; what I said was, I thought the duty of laying down regulations might properly, and to a large extent, be left to the Commission; but that violations of these regulations should be dealt with by the ordinary tribunals as breaches of contract.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Yes, that there should be an appeal from the order of the Commission to the Sheriff's Court. Bat I should prefer to see any such power left with the Commission entirely rather than to have the power vested in the Sheriff's Court. I also wish to say in regard to the difficulties expressed by the hon. Member for the Partick Division, that, although I have had considerable experience of these matters in the Highlands, these difficulties between individual crofters are entirely new to me. I support with pleasure the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith. I have no exception to take to

    1595
    the manner in which the Lord Advocate has expressed his view, and I hope that When legislative proposals are made they will find acceptance in an equally kindly spirit.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: This has been the most carefully circumscribed Debate we have had for a long time. The issue is so narrow that the most fertile imaginations have not carried speakers beyond it, and every hon. Member who has spoken has kept well within the limit the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson) laid down in his Bill for the limitation of the duration of speeches. There is not a word in the speech of the Lord Advocate to which I can take exception, and I think he suggested a very good Amendment to the proposal when he recommended that the services of the Commissioners should only be called in when wanted. That is a condition of legislation I should like to see more of in the House. I have read the section upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Ross seemed to rely for his suggestion that the Commissioners already have this power, and as to which the Lord Advocate does not take a similar view. It appears to me that the section applies to grazing in connection with enlargement of holdings under the Act, and we know, therefore, that the section will not have a very wide application at present. My hon. Friend brought forward this Motion with the hope that, being accepted by the Government, it would be met by a Bill from the Government Bench. That, it seems, is not to be the case, but we are far from complaining of the suggestion of the Lord Advocate that the difficulty should be met by a Bill from this side of the House. This Debate has been limited because the Resolution is limited in its terms; but when a Bill is brought forward from this side of the House, I know from private conversations with my hon. Friends on this subject, that the Bill will not be so limited; it will be of a very different nature, and I earnestly trust that our legislative proposals will be accepted in as amicable, reasonable, and statesmanlike a manner as this Resolution has to-night been received.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say—for I do not wish him to be
    1596
    under misapprehension—that my offer of friendly consideration had reference solely to a Bill exclusively directed to the definite subject alluded to in the Resolution.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I understand that entirely.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House the Crofter Act, 1886, should be amended in so far as to confer upon the Commission powers to regulate the conditions and management of Crofters' Common Grazings.
    Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Sidney Herbert.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (OPENING ON SUNDAY).
    MR. LAWSON: In the Motion which I have placed on the Paper the House will renew its acquaintance with an old friend. I have, however, varied the terms adopted in former Resolutions of the kind. I ask the House to say it is expedient to open those national museums and galleries that are now shut in London on Sunday for certain hours and under special regulations. By "certain hours" I mean on Sunday afternoon from 1 to 6, and by "special regulations" I mean that no man shall be obliged to work more than six days a week. Sir J. Walmesley and Mr. Peter Taylor often introduced Motions on this subject over a long period of years. They laid the foundations of the work of religious emancipation, I am going to ask this House to complete to-night. In 1863 this He use refused, to pass though Lord Palmerston, who was then Prime Minister, supported, a Motion to open on Sundays the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Only two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) opened those gardens on Sunday amid general applause, and in answer to a question I put to him he said that conspicuous success had attended his action. The murmur of intolerance that proceeded from a small section has died away, and

    1597
    I am happy to say that the churches of Scotland still flourish exceedingly. The hon. Member opposite (Sir R. Fowler), who has set down an Amendment that he will be unable to move, has every year been in the habit of voting sums of money on the Estimates in order to keep open on Sunday the National Collection in Dublin, Kew Gardens, Hampton Court Palace, and Greenwich Hospital. Greenwich Hospital is just as much in the County of London as Bethnal Green Museum. If the people of Bethnal Green take a ticket to Greenwich on Sunday they can visit the Hospital there, and yet you shut the doors of their own Museum in their faces. That Museum was built and opened in the midst of a crowded and industrial population in order to relieve the monotony of their lives and to give them opportunity of enjoyment and education. The late Sir R. Wallace, who lent his splendid collection to inaugurate that Museum, wished it to be opened on Sundays just as on other days of the week, but his request was refused. Since that time the Rector of Bethnal Green, and every man of influence in the place, have been of one mind on the subject, and only to-day I presented a Petition from 86,000 people ill the neighbourhood of Bethnal Green asking for admission to the museum on Sundays. The late Mr. W. E. Forster said—
    "If the people who wanted to go to the museums and picture galleries liked to take a railway ticket to Hampton Court they found they were at liberty to look at the pictures there, but they could not look at the pictures close by their own doors—it might be at Bethnal Green."
    To the vast majority of the people Sunday is the only day when they have an opportunity of visiting these collections. South Kensington is closed in the same way as Bethnal Green, and actually the Raphael cartoons were to be seen by the public at Hampton Court Palace on Sundays until a very recent date; but when they were moved back to South Kensington, it became impossible to get a glance at them. The South Kensington Museum contains another collection called the Sheepshanks Collection. The gentleman who made that splendid donation to the country believed it might be seen, and wished it to be seen, on Sunday, but no notice was taken of his wish on the subject. In the old Debates
    1598
    which took place from time to time in this House on the subject, it was the custom always to throw the fathers and theologians from one side to the other. In those days hon. Gentlemen quoted Luther and Paley to show that Sunday ought not to be observed for mere observance's sake. Happily, to-day we can base our contention on more solid grounds. Evening opening used always to be proposed as an alternative, but there was little evidence to be produced on one side or the other. Now we have proved results respecting both Sunday opening and evening opening in nearly every big town in England, and in the Metropolis itself. Last year the Financial Secretary (Mr. Jackson) did, I believe, provide for the evening opening of the British Museum. In answer to a question I put to him the other night he gave the results. He said—
    "From February, 1890, to December, 1890, there was an almost unbroken decline from an average per evening of 635 to an average of 90. The average for January and February this year has been 120 and 160 respectively."
    Earlier in the year the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that it was not the intention of the Government to devote any more money to the purpose. The officials say it is impossible to open the National Gallery in the evening because of the difference made by artificial light. They say, also, that evening opening simply converts the museums into middle-class lounges, that you do not get the working class to go there in the evening, and cannot get them to go. A working man after a hard day's labour does not feel inclined to trudge all over London to spend the evening in a museum. He is like some of us who, of an evening, like to present ourselves more or less garnished before those with whom we associate. They are like the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Fowler), who would always prefer to change his dress before presenting himself at a civic banquet. They do not like, when taking recreation, to show themselves in their working clothes, and that is the reason they do not attend the museum of an evening. In 1872, when this question was debated, Colonel Marcus Beresford—a Metropolitan Member—told the House that if museums were opened on Sundays there would be a repetition of the French Commune,

    1599
    while a quarter of a century before other hon. Gentlemen said that Sunday opening would involve an English edition of the Reign of Terror. It was the custom then to draw distorted pictures of the Continental Sunday, and to represent it as one long debauch of drink and atheism. I had hoped that this sort of talk had died, out, but I have received a memorandum from those representing the opponents of the Motion in which it is gravely stated that crime in Continental cities springs directly from the opening of museums on Sundays. They say—
    "Paris, Berlin, Vienna. Florence, and many other cities of the Continent, capitals of varying nationalities, and representing both the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions, have had museums open and the provision of State-supplied and other recreations for many years, with the result of almost unbroken toil for immense numbers of working men, and with a state of morality so much darker than that of London, that infanticide, illegitimacy, suicide, and murder attain a far higher proportion in relation to population in ell those cities than in this Metropolis."
    What a ludicrous misunderstanding of cause and effect! Why, the crime of Continental Cities has no more to do with the opening of museums than the charges at Westminster Police Court have to do with the presence of strangers in this House, or the Whitechapel murders have to do with the present representation of the Metropolis in Parliament. The facts are due entirely to other conditions, and I am bound to say I hardly feel inclined to occupy the time of the House by attacking the antiquated bogey of the Continental Sunday. In nearly all the great towns of England—in about 20—the museums, galleries, or libraries are opened on Sunday, Liverpool being the sole notable exception, and the statistics show that the opening has been a complete success. The list includes Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, and Halifax. From Manchester the Report for 1890 shows that the total number of visitors to the libraries and reading-rooms on Sunday was 248,840, or an average of 5,585 each Sunday. On the last of the free Sundays 9,179 persons visited the City Art Gallery, and on the four there was a total of 19,459. In Birmingham Sunday opening has been adopted since 1864, when the Sunday attendances at the Aston Hall
    1600
    Museum was 50,000; last year it was 139,500; at the Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum the average Sunday attendance was, in 1889, 23,100, and at the Reference Library the issues amounted to 23,728. At Sheffield the Report says—
    "There can be no doubt that the Sunday opening is greatly appreciated, and it is a very striking fact that the number of visitors in three hours on Sunday is more than double the average on a week day, when the Museum and Art Gallery are open nine and a half hours per day."
    There is no one in the great towns who has done better service in the cause than Mr. Whitworth Wallis, Curator of the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, and he says—
    "At Birmingham the Sunday opening of the Art Gallery has become quite a recognised institution—even the severest Sabbatarians in our midst no longer think it worth while offering the mildest protest against the plan. They philosophically bow to the logically inevitable—thousands visit the Gallery on Sunday afternoons; they are orderly in their manners, and appreciative in their remarks; no damage has ever been done, and little trouble is given to the staff."
    There is a curious fact about the Birmingham Art Gallery. Objection was made to employing Christians in a museum on the Sunday, and the difficulty was overcome by the employment of Jews. That reminds me of a cynical remark attributed to Mr. Spurgeon. When asked how he came to oppose Sunday opening on the ground that it involved Sunday labour, when he himself worked his horse on that day, Mr. Spurgeon replied, "Oh yes; but my horse is a Jew." In most of the medium-sized towns the step which I advocate has been taken. In Leicester, for instance, the art gallery was opened only this year, and the success has far surpassed the expectations of even its most sanguine promoters. On January 15th, between the hours of 2 and 5 o'clock, over 3,000 working men and their wives visited the Gallery; and it is rather a curious think that the Member for Leicester is opposing Sunday opening in London when in the town he represents that step has been attended with conspicuous success. In our movement, happily, there are no steps backward. Those who have signed this memorandum are not very correct. They say:—

    1601
    "The Galleries at Worcester, Chester, Maidstone, Wolverhampton, and Stoke-on-Trent, opened on Sunday in recent years, have all been closed, an evidence of inutility or of evils attending them on that day."
    I have had time to test this statement, in one case, and I find that it is absolutely untrue. I have a letter here from Mr. Quick, Secretary to the Municipal Art Gallery and Museum, Wolverhampton, and he says:—
    "In answer to your letter of the 13th inst., the opening of the above on Sunday afternoons has proved a success. It was first tried as an experiment in June, 1888. The total attendance for the 21 occasions during which the building was opened was 8,512, or an average of 405 per Sunday afternoon from 2 to 5. Last year the Gallery was open 51 Sundays (from 2 to 5) with an attendance of 16,372, showing an average of 321. The daily average attendance being 346 (open from 10 to 4; 5, 6, 7, and 8, according to the season). The Gallery is now open every Sunday afternoon. Winter months, 2 to 4, October to March; Summer months, 2 to 5."
    So much for the statement of the gentlemen who have issued this memorandum. The "only instance I have been able to find of a Local Authority retracing its steps after once adopting the principle for which I am pleading is that of West Bromwich where the public bath was closed for a season because one councillor—
    "Considered that Sunday bathing interfered with the sanctity of the Sabbath and was exceedingly improper and unwise."
    I do not know whether the hon. Baronet would go so far as to say that washing on the Sabbath is a violation of the sanctity of that day. There are 18 free public libraries in London, which are subject to a popular vote, and 12 out of the 18 are now opened on Sunday, the last being that of Clerkenwell. At Chelsea the number of people visiting the Public Library in 1890 was 19,944, whereas in 1889 the number was 14,390. I attended a meeting in Chelsea on the subject quite lately, and the rector moved the first resolution in favour of Sunday opening. An attempt has been made to get up an agitation against the liberal policy of the trustees in opening the People's Palace on the Sunday, but it has ignominiously failed, and the Palace is kept open. An author with whose writings we are all familiar, and who has done so much for the people in this matter, Mr. Walter Besant, says—
    1602
    "There is no more beautiful, no more religious sight in London than that of the 2,000 earnest man and women who gather together on the! Sunday morning, between Church and dinner, if they have gone to Church to hear the Organ Recital. There is nothing which more vexes the soul of the publican than to think of these men kept away from his drinking bar by sweet and holy music. Yes! There is one sight more beautiful still. It is the sight of the 2,000 people who throng the library on Sunday evening. They are quiet; they enjoy warmth and light; they are in the best of company; they are filling their minds with noble thoughts. Instead of this, those who do not blush to sign a document against Sunday opening in the name of what they call religion, would send them out—what to do? To tramp the streets, to find in crowded bars shelter from rain and cold, to swell the ranks of the fallen, and to subject the young men to temptation. In the sacred name of Religion! Is it possible?"
    These are the words of a man who speaks from experience of London, and who knows what he is talking about. Then, there is no clergyman who has done more for the working classes of the East End than the Rev. S. A. Barnett, Vicar of St. Jude's, Whitechapel. He says—
    "We have opened a picture gallery every Easter on Sundays; we have now a Free Library which is always open on that day. My experience is that those who come on Sundays come with a more serious intention; they wear their best clothes and they have more leisure. As a consequence, they look at pictures to learn, and they take up books to study. There has never been any difficulty about order, and the number of people who use the place, is much greater than on other days."
    I believe that in the whole of London there is only one Art Gallery which is open all the year round, and that is the London Art Gallery. Mr. Rossiter who for many years managed that says—
    "Our attendance on Sundays has always been very much greater than on any other day, often as large as the other days of the week put together."
    The National Sunday League has been the means of securing to the working classes admission to many of the best private collections. The Duke of Westminster has been kind enough to open Grosvenor House on Sunday afternoons to the League, and last year there were no fewer than 10,000 applicants for admission. On one day 5,000 were taken through in four hours, and the Staff employed to keep them in order consisted of four persons,

    1603
    while only two are found necessary to keep watch and ward over the rooms of the Royal Society of British Artists, which 2,500 visitors passed through. The Trustees and officers of our Museums and Picture Galleries are on our side. My right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) will speak for the British Museum, and the majority of the Trustees are anxious to throw it open on the Sunday. The Trustees of the South Kensington Museum take exactly the same view. But it is not only the Trustees, the officers are ready to do the work for nothing, because they have their heart in it. Only a few nights ago two officers of the South Kensington Museum assured me that the whole of their Staff were most anxious to have the Museum opened on the Sunday, and would volunteer to attend. Professor Flower speaking for the Natural History Museum says—
    "I am glad to say that the majority of the Trustees are in favour of opening it on Sunday afternoons, and three-fourths, at least, of the Staff are also in favour of such opening. Many of them are so enthusiastic as to say that they are willing to come and take their turn at attending, even without remuneration. I do not think we should act on that principle, but even if we did, the work would be extremely light. But these men would not be expected to sweep and clean, to stuff birds, to arrange tablets, or write labels, or do any of the real work we expect of them on week days; they would only have to walk the Museum; walk or stand about there a few hours, and then walk back again. Probably if they were not doing this, they would be taking a walk somewhere else, so that they would not be working any harder than usual. And out of our whole Staff only a few need come, so that the turn would only fall upon each man perhaps once in every six or eight Sundays, and we should never ask anyone to come if he had any conscientious objections to do so. We have calculated that the cost of opening every Sunday in the year would probably amount to something under £300 a year, a trifle compared with the cost of the whole Museum, and even as compared with what the evening opening would come to. I therefore, think that Sunday opening would be, on the whole, a greater advantage even than the evening opening, because instead of being tired with their day's work, people would be in a fitter frame of mind and body to look at the beautiful instructing and elevating objects to be seen in a place like the Natural History Museum."
    I cannot help thinking that much of the outcry against Sunday labour is but a pretence, and the cloak of prejudice. Hon. Gentlemen who raised it know very well that they enjoy very good
    1604
    dinners on Sunday, which are cooked by Sunday labour, and that they look upon the Monday edition of their morning paper as a necessity of their daily life. Knowing something about the domestic economy of a newspaper office, I may tell the House that there is far more Sunday labour required to produce Monday's paper than would be required if all the national collections in London were open on Sunday. There is even Sunday labour required in every church and chapel that is open for religious service. I do not say that that labour is not well spent, but every one knows that it is employed, and yet our opponents say that no one should work more than six days a week. If necessary I can produce volunteers who on Sundays throughout the whole year will do the work of the regular enstodians of these institutions and museums and art galleries. One of the vice-presidents of the National Sunday League has offered a large sum of money in order that the experiment may be tried throughout the year. Of course, whatever you do in this matter you will be accused of introducing the thin end of the wedge of Sunday desecration. It is said that the opening of factories and workshops will be the result of opening museums on Sundays. In Manchester and Birmingham the museums have been open for twenty years, and where is the factory or the workshop found going on a Sunday. It is quite true that in France there is a certain amount of Sunday labour, but I am happy to think that it is diminishing year by year, and no doubt a very excellent result will be experienced from the Berlin Conference. M. Yves Guyot, the French Minister of Public Works, in writing the other day, said—
    "The desire for rest from ordinary work on Sunday is increasing in France, but there is not a single Frenchman, so far as I know, who desires to close the museums and galleries on Sunday."
    We are all in favour of shorter hours of labour. Some think that object can only be obtained by legislation, others by voluntary effort. But if the working classes are to have shorter hours, what we ought to do is to teach them how to use their leisure properly, and to the best advantage. It is said that Sunday opening will lead to Sunday drinking. Will the hon. Baronet answer me whether

    1605
    that is the case in Dublin. Sunday closing, one distinguished author says, is a result of the infamous alliance between the puritan and the publican. There can be no question that on a wet and foggy Sunday in London a man or woman, if without the warmth of a good home, has to shiver at the street corner, or seek the shelter of the public house. There is another alternative, and it is that which has been afforded to working men in Dublin and various large towns in the United Kingdom. It is the Metropolis which, by some inconsistency I cannot understand, is discarded. The last argument is, that this movement would lead to the opening of theatres. I will read what is said by the most eminent of English actors—my friend Mr. Henry Irving—
    "I fear that want of due consideration of this mechanical aspect leads some persons to believe—and many more to pretend, for other purposes, that they believe—that if museums and picture galleries were to be opened on Sunday, the next step would be to open the theatres. If anyone is so foolish as to believe or to argue any such point, you can easily show that there is no analogy whatever between theatres and museums, &c. A theatre is a workshop on a large scale—why, in the Lyceum we employ daily some hundreds of people, varying between 300 and 500 with the play. These people are all workers, and six days work is quite enough for them, as it is for anyone. It is not possible to vary the workers, except, perhaps, here and there, in the merest labouring department. The same work, to be properly done, must be done by the same people, and it could not be practically possible to employ fresh hands. Besides, the actors themselves would be the first to resent any encroachment on their day of rest—in fact, six performances a week are quite enough for all, and where excessive work is attempted, there is very often a lamentable result. For many reasons there is no fear of any system of opening theatres on Sundays creeping in or obtaining a footing here. In Western America, where it is sometimes practised, it is rapidly coming to an end. If I had any power with those in high places, I would say: 'For God's sake, let a little life and a little light into the dead and dark places of our cities, and give our toilers a chance of learning and enjoying something beyond and above the sordid routine of their lives.' "
    Mr. Bancroft writes similarly—
    "I am thoroughly in favour of the opening of picture galleries and museums on Sundays, that those whose work allows them no other chance, may see their treasures; but it is altogether a different case, in my humble opinion, with regard to theatres, and I do not
    1606
    think I know a single English actor who would like to see them open on Sundays."
    Only this evening Mr. H. A. Jones, the playwright, wrote that it is an impossibility. The clergy are taking a very different view about Sunday opening from what they did formerly. They see that men cannot be taken by the scruff of the neck and pitched into church or chapel, and rather than see them in the public house they would see them in the museums and art galleries. The Bishop of Chester is prominent among those who have lately spoken—
    "But the Lord's Day, in its proper nature, is a day of holy mirth and refreshment, of gladsome worship and honest enjoyment, of family reunion and sober hospitality. The day of rest and refreshment, as well as of worship and religious instruction, has for multitudes become a day of sluggish and wearisome inactivity, and those 'filthy tippling",' which the famous Book of Sports anticipated as one of the results of Sabbatarianism, have become scandalously and perniciously common. At the root of sound practice there must always be sound theory. Let us frankly recognise and utilise whatever germs of right there are in the present movement."
    Not only the Bishop of Chester, but the Archbishop of York, too, has spoken in a very liberal way. Throughout the Metropolis, the best and most enlightened of the clergy—the Vicar of Bethnal Green, the Vicar of Chelsea, and others, known for their devotion to the ministry of the Church—are in favour of the movement. It is a libel on religion to say that places of worship would suffer by the opening of the museums and art galleries on Sunday. I would observe that the hon. Baronet, if he pushed his argument to a logical conclusion, would adopt the Scotch idea of Sabbatarianism, which formerly prevented any form of recreation on Sunday—
    "In 1647 punishment was ordered, according to the Minutes of the Fife Synod, of 'whoever was guilty of sitting or walking idle upon the streets or fieldes on Sunday.' In 1742, according to an old book, 'sitting idle at their doors was profane.'"
    Buckle says—
    "It was a sin to visit your friends on Sunday; it was sinful either to have your garden watered or your beard shaved. No one, on Sunday, should pay attention to his health or think of his body at all."
    Better it would seem that a man should

    1607
    steal on Saturday than that he should smile on Sunday. I heard of a curious case not very long ago. An English traveller in Scotland on the Sunday morning sat at the "window of his lodging smoking his pipe. A policeman, after passing several times, was so struck by what to him was the gross indecency of smoking on the Sabbath that he said, "Man, I'm sorry that a' canna' lock ye up." But that is consistent, and topical Sabbatarianism. I cannot appreciate that unequal and partial Sabbatarianism which closes the museums and libraries and opens the public houses. I cannot even give credit for honesty of purpose to those who open Hampton Court and close the gallery at Bethnal Green. It seems to me on a par with the selfishness of congregations in the North and West of England, who, with the museums and galleries open in their own large towns, are unwilling to allow to others the advantages which they themselves are incapable of enjoying. It is time that London should think and speak for itself. We claim the right of local option, and nobody can deny that London has spoken out its mind. The London County Council has voted almost unanimously in favour of Sunday opening, and has petitioned the House accordingly. The London Trades Council are unanimous to a man. A canvass of the trades shows a majority of two to one in the same sense. The stonemasons, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham belongs, decided by an immense majority in favour of Sunday opening. Nearly every one of the free libraries is open on Sunday. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord what further evidence he requires as to London opinion? I do not see why we need to be protected from ourselves, "our blood be on our own head." If London is to be made the hot-bed of vice and crime, to be demoralised by Sunday opening, we are quite willing to take the responsibility. Life in London is sufficiently mean and monotonous—not in the West-end, of Church parade and Show Sundays, but in Bethnal Green and Whitechapel; and I think it would be a very great thing if this House could, by a small exercise of its power, do something to brighten the homes and
    1608
    refine the tastes of working men by lifting their minds to higher and nobler things than the sordid realities of their everyday experience. I do not know why this House should teach the working men that the Sunday is to be one interminable round of intolerable dulness. Charles Dickens wrote a very eloquent preface to one of his books, in which the refrain of the story was that in London on Sunday a man had nothing to turn to but "streets, streets, streets." The Parks are open on Sundays, but what are they but playgrounds? Why should we shut against the working men and trading classes the covered playgrounds or public resorts to be found in the museums, libraries, and art galleries? We ask in our foggy weather and dismal surroundings for "light and yet more light," and I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will do something to grant our petition, and to free itself from the reproach of favouritism and inconsistency, in that it gives Sunday opening where the need is small, and refuses it where the need is great, in face of what has now become the united opinion of the Metropolis.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to open those National Museums and Galleries that are now closed in London to the public on Sunday for certain hours and under special regulations."—(Mr. Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR R. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a very eloquent speech in favour of his Motion, and has stated that the, City Council is unanimously in favour of Sunday opening?
    *MR. LAWSON: Practically unanimous—60 to 7.
    *SIR R. FOWLER: 60 to 7?
    *MR. LAWSON: Something like that.
    *SIR R. FOWLER: At all events, I do not admit that the County Council is returned to deal with this question, and this is an illustration of the circumstance that the County Council is disposed to interfere with everything except its own business. But what is the opinion of Metropolitan Members who are returned

    1609
    with reference to this subject? I shall be very much surprised if the hon. Member takes the majority of them into the Lobby with him. The hon. Member referred to the hon. Member for Whitechapel, who, however, I do not see in his place.
    *MR. LAWSON: I did not refer to the hon. Gentleman at all. From his religion he has thought it better to remain neuter, though in favour of the Motion.
    *SIR R. FOWLER: The hon. Member's reference indicated that the hon. Gentleman generally assented. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Montagu) belongs to a community that has been distinguished by the observance of their own Sabbath, in which respect they set us a great example, and can scarcely ignore in this case the principle on which that observance is founded. The hon. Member began his speech by telling us that the House has become more enlightened. Well, for my own part, I do not wish to be enlightened in this respect. I think the Sabbath is a great blessing to the people of the world. I believe it is an institution which God, in His wisdom and mercy, gave to man, and as such I defend it. I, for one, will enter my humble protest against any attempt to desecrate the Sabbath.
    MR. M'ARTHUR: I rise to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite, and to oppose the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, believing, as I do, that the policy recommended for our adoption would be injurious to the public interest, would be especially injurious to the interest of artisans, the working classes, and the poor. Sir, I give the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Resolution full credit for pure motives and good intentions. I doubt not they honestly believe that to open our national museums, picture galleries, and other institutions on Sunday would be an advantage, and that it would not injuriously affect the proper observance of our English Sunday, which I regard as one of the greatest blessings and safeguards of the nation, and the loss of which I would deprecate as one of the greatest calamities that could befal us as a people. Sir, I am
    1610
    aware there are many well-meaning Christian men who are in favour of the Motion, because they imagine that the opening of such places on Sunday would lessen the evil of intemperance and help to wean men from the public houses. But I confess I fear the great majority of the public, who agitate for the opening of our national institutions on Sunday, are either men who have no sympathy with the Christian duties, privileges, or moral and religious advantages of the day, or men who ignore or deny the moral obligation of Sunday, and would sooner abolish it altogether. I recollect some time ago reading of a clergyman travelling by rail, who, when stopping at one of the stations, observed a man distributing infidel publications, and ventured to remonstrate with him for doing so. "I shall never forget," said the clergyman, "the expression of the man's countenance, the tone of his reply, and the vehemence of his manner when, clenching one hand and striking the other violently against the railway carriage, he exclaimed, 'There is no revolutionising this country so long as it is guarded by Christianity.'" Sir, I believe the statement is perfectly correct, and I wish to remind the House that, with all our faults and failings, we are a Christian nation, that Christianity has made us what we are, that Sunday and Christianity are inseparably connected, and that if we destroy the one we shall soon have little of the other left that is worthy of the name. Much might be said on this aspect of the question, and I am far from regarding it as unimportant; but I do not wish to originate a theological discussion, or to argue the question from a purely religious standpoint. Sir, those who support this Motion profess to be pre-eminently the friends of the working classes, to whom they think the change advocated would be a great boon. Well, Sir, it is true that the proper observance of Sunday is important to all classes; but this is undoubtedly a working man's question, for any change that takes place in the direction recommended to us by the supporters of the Motion will affect working men more directly, more seriously, and more injuriously than any other class, and it is because I believe the change proposed would not be beneficial to the working classes, but would

    1611
    be highly injurious to their truest and best interests, that I oppose the Motion. Sir, one of the most frequently-adopted arguments in favour of opening our national institutions on Sunday is that it would promote temperance, and that many who now go to public houses would be induced to forsake them and spend their time in our museums and picture galleries. This I do not believe would be the case, nor do I believe it would be the means of reclaiming a single drunkard, or of preventing a single man from becoming a drunkard. Indeed, my strong conviction is it would be more likely to have the contrary effect, and would greatly increase the consumption of alcoholic drinks, for we would be compelled to establish numerous refreshment bars, where even women and children would be exposed to greater temptation than in public houses, which many of them would not enter. You would also largely increase the number and the labour of those whose life is one weary round of incessant toil, and lessen the number of those who can now "smile when the Sunday appears," because they know that that is their day, on which they can call their time their own, and have some social and domestic enjoyment. We hold, therefore, that everything which unnecessarily increases Sunday labour is a direct injury to those who have to toil for their daily bread. Sir, I am aware we are told that the increased work rendered necessary by opening national institutions in London would be infinitesimally small. We may reply that, compared with the vast population of this great Metropolis, the number of those who could or would attend such places would also be infinitesimally small. It must also be evident to all who take an interest in the question that there never was a period when it was less necessary to open our Stats-supported museums than at present. The majority of working men, or at all events a very large number of them, now take Saturday as a holiday, many of them take Monday also, and they are now agitating for an Eight Hours Bill. The parks are open where they can breathe pure air and enjoy healthful exercise; the British Museum, the South Kensington Museum, and the Bethnal Green Museum are now lighted
    1612
    by electricity and open to a reasonable hour at night. It is, therefore, futile to argue that men who wish to visit these places cannot find time to do so except on Sunday. I am disposed to fear, however, that many of those who advocate opening State-supported institutions on Sunday do not care very much whether the number visiting them would be large or small. What they chiefly want is to obtain the sanction of Parliament to break down this Sunday barrier which has so long stood in their way. Sir, we all know there is nothing at present to prevent museums and picture galleries from being opened in all the large towns and cities in the Kingdom if the people and the Corporations wish to have them open. In the Borough of Leicester, of which I have had the honour of being one of its Representatives for nearly 20 years past, there has been great diversity of opinion upon this question. They have at length decided, by the small majority of one, to open their institutions during a portion of Sunday. Whether the experiment will be successful or not is yet to be ascertained. I am informed, however, that after the rush and excitement of the first few Sundays there has been a great falling off in the number of visitors, amounting in some cases to from 50 to 100 per cent. I am also informed that a memorial to the Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Leicester, signed by a large number of clergymen, ministers, professional men, manufacturers, and others, has been presented to the Council, stating that a very strong feeling of opposition to Sunday opening exists, and expressing an opinion that the resolution recently passed should be rescinded. But what is the fact with regard to the country at large? Why, that out of 357 museums, public libraries, and art galleries, only 24 or 25 of them are open on Sunday, and at Worcester, Keswick, Stoke-on-Trent, Chester, Maidstone, have been closed after a fair trial, because the effect of having them open was found to be injurious rather than beneficial. But it is doubtless felt by our opponents that if they could only point to London, and say that all our national institutions there are open on Sunday, it would be a powerful argument in favour of opening similar institutions everywhere. It

    1613
    would also encourage the demand for opening other places of amusement when a charge for entrance would be made, which would still further secularise the Sunday and make it a day of both pleasure and business. We are told, however, of the great success that has attended the opening of the Painted Hall at Greenwich, museums at Kew, Hampton Court, and Dublin, and we are asked to express the opinion of this House, that, we presume, in consequence of this success, the time has arrived for extending the policy of Sunday opening to the national institutions in the Metropolis. Well, Sir, if this is to be used as an argument we have only to open billiard rooms, music halls, and dancing saloons on Sunday. It is pretty certain they would be largely attended, and then, after a few years, some hon. Member might move that, seeing the success that has attended the experiment, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived to open our theatres, and indulge in the noble sport of horse racing on Sunday as they do in some continental countries. But, Sir, I think we can prove that opening some of our public institutions on week-day evenings has also proved a great success. We find that at South Kensington Museum, open three days in the week from 10 till 10, the evening attendance during the past year has been upwards of 132,500, and that on Monday evenings especially a large proportion of the visitors belonged to the working classes. And that at Bethnal Green there have been admitted on week - day evenings upwards of 175,600 on week - day evenings. At the British Museum the attendance has not been so satisfactory, but this is easily accounted for. It would seem as if the authorities there had been trying how not to do it. We understand the museum is now open from 8 p.m. to 10. The result is that workingmen, clerks, and others who live at some distance when they go home after work will not turn out again and return at 8. But if the museum were open from 6 to 8 or from 6 to 10 that would be much more convenient and would ensure a much larger attendance than there is or can be under the existing arrangement. Now, Sir, I think, considering these
    1614
    facts, we are fairly entitled to argue that the time has arrived when the other national institutions should be opened at least two or three evenings during the week, and we believe if this were done that it would enable a far larger number of the working classes to visit them than would be at all likely to visit them on Sunday, while it would not be open to the objection of largely increasing Sunday labour, Sunday traffic, and the increased consumption of alchoholic liquors. Sir, the Continental Sunday has frequently been referred to during our Debates on this question. I am aware the Sunday League, or I should rather say the anti-Sunday League, do not relish allusions to it, and I should probably not refer to it again, but I find they give it prominence in one of their printed documents, in which they say—
    "The continental Sunday need claim our attention but briefly. It is pointed to by opponents of Sunday opening as an institution of the worst kind, and it is said that if museums are opened here all the vice, work, and other evils of the continental Sunday will follow. But it must be remembered—firstly, that while no Englishman would care to have the continental Sunday here in its entirety, yet it is by no means so black as it has been painted, and its evils are in many points being remedied. Secondly, its evils are not in any way the result of museums and art galleries being open. Sunday work, Sunday theatres, Sunday drinking, dancing, and pleasures existed long before the museums and art galleries were built."
    Sir, the League do not care to have the continental Sunday in its entirety, but as it is "by no means so black as it has been painted" we are disposed to think they would not object to much of it. The evils referred to do exist however, and have existed, we are told, long before museums and art galleries were built. The wonder is, that these valuable institutions have not long since eradicated the evils complained of. They have not done so in France; but if we will only consent to open them in London, they are certain to effect a moral revolution, empty the public houses, and purify society. Will the House permit me to read a short extract from a German paper to show what a purifying influence the Continental Sunday exerts there? The writer, after referring to our English Sunday, observes—

    1615
    "We Germans and Schleswig-Holsteiners, not the least, are to a great extent far removed from such a celebration of Sunday. The day of rest and of the most elevated joy is too often robbed of its honour. The forenoon of Sunday is given up to work, and the afternoon to pleasure. That which can elevate man is often despised; but that which degrades him is sought after. On Sunday children cause the greatest anxiety, and servants the greatest annoyance. On Sunday evenings, above all other days, does the wife anticipate the return of her husband with a fore-boding heart. Drunkenness and riotousness celebrate their triumphs on Sunday; and most of the misdemeanours are committed on that day, or are intimately connected with the misuse of it. We turn, therefore, to our own people with the urgent request that they would, in their various spheres, endeavour to procure for the Sunday a more honourable observance in our land. If the Sunday acquires a different character, the national life will rest upon surer basis. Wilhelm von Humboldt justly said that the future of our nation depended upon the observance of Sunday. The Sunday question is not that of a party, but the common cause of all who have the good of the people at heart. Not merely the Church, but the State and the family as well, must demand and promote a right observance of Sunday."
    Again, Sir, the Sunday League informs us that, although the continental Sunday is "by no means so black as it is painted," its evils are in many points being remedied. Sir, we rejoice to know this is happily true, but we think it will be found the argument tells against the Sunday League. The writer I have just quoted seems not to be aware of the fact that thoughtful men of all continental Churches have been so deeply impressed with the great evil and danger of Sunday desecration, that Lord's Day Rest Associations have been formed and Conferences have been held, at which delegates from almost every country in Europe have attended. Resolutions have been passed in favour of a better observance of Sunday, and in many places there is a marked improvement, or, in the words of the League, "its evils are in many points being remedied." Speaking at a Sunday observance meeting in Geneva some time ago Father Hyacinth, of Paris, concluding a powerful address, is reported to have said—
    "And yet this is the day which certain friends of the people wish to extort from them, false friends that cheat them with the name of liberty, thinking only of their bodily needs, and not wisely even of these."
    1616
    Allow me to give you one other illustration of the truth of what I have stated respecting the reaction in France in favour of Sunday observance. I had a letter some time ago from a friend who was visiting Cherbourg, in which he writes—
    "Let me tell you a fact which may be interesting to you. On entering the principal church, the Church of the Holy Trinity, we were surprised to find a placard just at the entrance announcing that a Mass was celebrated there every Saturday to deprecate the Divine vengeance on France for the desecration of the Sabbath."
    Sir, we think it is much to be regretted that while good men on the Continent are anxious to remedy the evils from which they are suffering, by endeavouring to bring about a better observance of Sunday, there are those in this country who try to persuade us that what has been injurious in France would benefit the working men of London. May we not also reasonably ask what great benefit the working men of Paris have derived from all the Sunday Exhibitions open to them? Is it not a fact that they are hard at work on Sundays and cannot see those exhibitions, even if inclined to see thorn? Can they compare favourably with the working men of London in any respect? And is it not a fact that the incessant toil which most of them undergo, in consequence of having no day of rest, has exerted an injurious influence upon them mentally and physically, reduced the stamina of the nation and the increase of the population? Is it, then, wise for us to imitate such an example? Sir, as I have already said, members of the Sunday League profess great sympathy with working men and an earnest desire to befriend them. Well, Sir, we have it on the highest authority that "By their fruits you shall know them." And, judged by this rule, I fear many of them, if weighed in the balance, would be found wanting, and that working men may well pray to be saved from their so-called friends whose sympathies frequently extend very little beyond—
    "Be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body."
    Of course, there are many honourable exceptions. As I have already intimated, there are Christian men who, under

    1617
    what I regard as a mistaken idea, are in favour of Sunday opening, who generously support our various charities. But we have upwards of 1,000 charitable and benevolent institutions in London; and if we take the trouble to look at their Reports, I believe it will be found that an overwhelming majority of their subscribers are men who not only enjoy the rest of Sunday themselves, but who wish to preserve it to the working classes as one of the greatest boons and blessings they enjoy. Again, if we endeavour to ascertain who are the men who devote most time and energy to promote the best interests of the poor, and of the working classes, I do not think we shall find it is those who clamour most for Sunday opening of museums, picture galleries, and places of amusement. Was there ever a man in this or any other country who, during a long and active life, did more for suffering humanity, or who succeeded in securing so much useful legislation for the relief of the toiling millions of our factory women and children, for our ragged-school children, for coster-mongers, and for the poor generally than that truly noble, great, and good man the Earl of Shaftesbury, whose name is still a household word, and who, to the last day of his life, strongly opposed Sunday opening of museums and similar places, on the ground that such a step would be highly injurious to the best interests of those for whom he had, for upwards of half a century, laboured so faithfully and so successfully. Speaking on the Sunday opening question, at a large meeting in Exeter Hall, not long before his death, Lord Shaftesbury said—
    "The Lord's Day is one of the greatest boons ever given by God to man. It is absolutely necessary to enable him to bear the wear and tear of six days' work. In these times of pressure and hurry, it is only through the institution and observance of the Sabbath that the mass of the people can enter into the full enjoyment of that great and blessed gift of God to man—domestic happiness."
    The late Lord Beaconsfield, who invariably voted against Sunday opening said during one of the Debates on the question—
    "Of all divine institutions, the most divine is that which secures a day of rest for man—for is the corner-stone of civilisation, and its
    1618
    removal might oven affect the health of the people. The opening of museums on Sunday asked for is a great change, and those who suppose for a moment that it could be limited to the proposal of the noble Baron will find they are mistaken."
    Mr. Speaker, I might give scores of quotations of a similar character from both dead and living statesmen, including your illustrious father, but I am unwilling to trespass too long on the time and patience of the House. I hope, however, hon. Members will bear with me for a few minutes longer, and allow me to give one or two short extracts from speeches and letters by working men. One of them, after referring to opening institutions on Sunday, observes—
    "Speaking now as a working man, I think it safer to remain as we are. I do not find the restrictions of the Sunday so very rigorous. I can do much as I please; I can stay at home or go abroad; keep sober or get drunk; dig my garden or range the fields; attend a place of worship or go a ratting; study the sciences or read my Bible; and if Done of these will satisfy I can, for sixpence, buy all the news of the week. But, say my opponents, the museums are closed, and we cannot enjoy ourselves unless they are open, not on six days only but on the seventh also. I hold the Sabbath as a Divine ordinance—not subject to any abrogation by any human authority. On this day, as now kept, I feel myself a man; during it I can enjoy quiet hours, not subject, so far as trade is concerned, to the commands of any one."
    and he concludes by saying—
    "If ever our present Sunday and its form of observance be done away with, it will be to old England a day of mourning, lamentation, and woe. In conclusion, let me say I love museums as much as any of their warmest advocates, but rather than give up my Sunday, let them sink into those primary rocks from which some portion of them came."
    Another writes—
    "Asa toiler during six days of the week, I feel the relaxation of Sunday simply life itself, therefore if anyone infringes upon my privileges let him be assured of my earnest hostility. But if my liberty in this respect can only be obtained by robbing someone else of the same right, I scorn, to seek it at such a price. Relaxation I must have, but I do not think I could best accomplish my purpose by exchanging the din of the workshop for the crush of the excursion train. The question is one for the working classes. If the thin end of the wedge only tickles the fancy and gives pleasure, let us beware lest workshop and factories follow in the wake, and we get seven days' work for six days' wages. On these grounds alone, I believe the man who encourages Sunday labour is the foe of the toiling multitude."
    Sir, these are striking testimonies from

    1619
    working men, who, in my opinion, take a perfectly correct view of the question, and I believe they are the views entertained by the vast majority of working men who seriously reflect upon the subject. Allow me to say, in conclusion, that while I give those who are in favour of the Motion credit for pure motives, I believe if they would allow their sympathies to go out in a different direction towards those who now labour 14 to 16 hours a day, and who seldom have a Sunday's rest; if they would endeavour to ameliorate the condition of the enormous number of men who toil incessantly seven days a week, instead of trying to largely increase the number; if they would help to break off the heavy bur-dens and bid the oppressed go free; I believe they might with greater propriety claim to be the friends of the working classes, and I am quite certain they would best promote the good order, peace, comfort, prosperity, and happiness of the masses of our fellow-countrymen who have to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.
    MR. NORRIS: This is a very important and difficult subject to deal with; but, so far as I know it, I believe the feeling of the people of London to be decidedly against the opening of museums and galleries on Sundays. It was stated just now that consent had been given to the opening of the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh—but these gardens scarcely come within the category of museums and galleries.
    *MR. LAWSON: There is a museum in the gardens.
    *MR. NORRIS: It appears to me that the better class of working men like to spend their Sundays in the open air, and, as it were, to receive sermons in stones. The hon. Member for St. Pancras referred to the fact that the People's Palace, of which I am a Trustee, is open on Sundays, and I believe I was the only man who protested against it being open except for the performance of sacred music. It appears to me that the consensus of opinion is against Sunday opening. Let me quote some opinions which have been uttered on the subject. Lord Beaconsfield, in 1879, voted against Sunday opening, and in his speech he said—
    1620
    "Of all divine institutions the most divine is that which secures a day of rest for man. I hold it to be the most valuable blessing ever conceded to man. It is the cornerstone of civilization, and its removal might even affect the health of the people. It (the opening of museums on Sundays) is a great change, and those who suppose for a moment it could be limited to the proposal of the noble Baron to open museums will find they are mistaken."
    I will venture next to quote an opinion which will weigh perhaps more than any other with hon. Members opposite. In 1869, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said—
    "The religious observance of Sunday is a main prop of the religious character of the country… From a moral, social and physical point of view the observance of Sunday is a duty of absolute consequence."
    In a letter dated the 13th January, 1876, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Believing in the authority of the Lord's Day as a religious institution, I must, as a matter of course, desire the recognition of it by others. But over and above this I have myself, in the course of a laborious life, signally experienced both its mental and its physical benefits—I can hardly overstate its value in this view—and for the interest of the working men of this country, alike in these and in other yet higher respects, there is nothing I more anxiously desire than that they should more and more highly appreciate the Christian day of rest."
    I myself prefer to take these higher and nobler views as to the sanctity of the day—our day of rest, our English Sunday, and these are views which I believe are shared by working men, and, therefore, it is that I had proposed to move an Amendment setting forth that—
    "It is inexpedient to impose labour upon those who must necessarily be employed if museums and galleries were opened on Sundays, and who are at present exempt from work upon that day."
    But by the Rules of the House I am precluded from moving the Amendment. In the Tower Hamlets, a Division of which I represent, there is a great preponderance of opinion against the proposal to open museums and galleries on Sunday. No fewer than 20,240 of the working classes there signed protests against Sunday opening of the library and news rooms of the People's Palace. The opinion of the House to the same effect has been expressed on several occasions by very large majorities. In 1855, 48 were for and 237 against

    1621
    Sunday closing; in 1856, the figures were 48 for, 376 against; in 1874, 70 for, 273 against; in 1877, 87 for, 229 against; and in 1882, 83 for, and 208 against. No doubt Sunday opening would lead to an increase of the Sunday labour. It is not only those actually employed in the care of these institutions who would suffer if they are opened as proposed, but railway servants, men in charge of omnibuses and tram-cars, and others will suffer also. I hope the House will come to the conclusion and show by a large majority that the Motion of my hon. Friend opposite is not for the public good or the welfare of the people, and one the adoption of which is not desired by the working classes. I shall give it my most unqualified opposition.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I think that the House will perhaps expect me to say a few words with reference to this Motion, as a Trustee of the British Museum, With reference to the results of the evening opening of the Museum, I do not take quite so gloomy a view as the hon. Member for St. Pancras. The number of people attending is now slightly on the increase, and we hope will continue to increase. Undoubtedly, however the figures are very disappointing. The hon. Member for Leicester seems to think that is the fault of the Trustees; he says we are showing how best not to do it; he suggests the best hours for the evening would be from 6 to 8. We, however, have tried opening as he suggests, but we found that from 7 to 8 scarcely any one was present. With regard to Sundays, a large majority of the Trustees of the British Museum are anxious to open the Museum on Sunday. We cordially sympathise with everything that has been said as to the proper observance of Sunday, but we wish to open the museums because we believe that to do so will promote the object we all have at heart. What is the object of a museum? Why does the House annually vote large supplies for the support of the British Museum? Partly, no doubt,
    1622
    to promote scientific study, but it is also largely to raise and improve the mental condition of the people. If the British Museum is an ennobling institution for six days in the week, why should it have a desecrating influence on the seventh? The 'hon. Member who has just sat down, said he was in favour of the people finding sermons in stones; but where will this be better done than in the British Museum? The hon. Member for Leicester is a strong Home Ruler, and wishes to give weight to local opinion; nevertheless, the hon. Member wishes to deny the people of London a privilege which his own people have. I maintain there are much stronger reasons for opening the Metropolitan museums on Sunday than those of provincial towns, because in London it is so much more difficult for our people to get into the country and enjoy the fields and woods. It is quite-true the parks are open on Sunday, and we have been told this evening they are themselves a kind of museum. The parks may, no doubt, be regarded as museums of living plants. How inconsistent it is, then, to express delight at. the idea of people looking at the living plants, and to regard it as wicked for them to look at the same plants when they are dry. If there is a greater inconsistency than this it is that those who oppose the opening of the London museums are in favour of opening Hampton Court and the museums at Kew on Sunday, though a railway journey has to be undertaken to reach them. The Church shows what is its opinion of the best mode of keeping the Sunday by appointing two services, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. It is obvious that it would be impossible for any one to keep fixed their attention on a service which was carried on continuously during the day. The question then is, what are the people to do during the time when service is not proceeding? You tell us it is quite right to keep the public houses open, that the people should have an opportunity of going to the public house; but yet my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Norris) says if you open museums and the people go there they will get drunk. What an extraordinary argument that is. Surely if they get

    1623
    drunk at all it will be in the public houses, and not in the museums. One word as to the question of money payment. It is very easy to draw the line between places which are kept open for the purposes of profit and those maintained by the nation for the improvement of the people, which are now open during the six days when people are working and closed during the only day of the week on which they have holiday. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester says we have a half-holiday on Saturday in London. If he knew as much about London as he does of Leicester he would know very well that in the poorer districts of London Saturday is no half-holiday at all; but, on the contrary, many shopkeepers and their assistants have on Saturday to do two days work rolled into one. I do not wish to do anything to encourage Sunday labour; but I think that by opening the museums Sunday labour will be actually diminished. As to the superintendence of the museums, thousands of persons may pass through them and only demand the presence of a mere handful of officials. The few police required in the museums would set free a larger number now employed elsewhere. Because I believe that this step will tend to improve and raise the character of the people of London, to brighten their lives, and to promote the better observance of Sunday, I shall vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    ADMIRAL MAYNE: I wish to give support from this side of the House to the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson). "We have been told by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir R. Fowler) he wishes to prevent the desecration of the Sabbath. So do I, and so, I presume, do all hon. Members. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Norris), who told us he was on the Trust of the People's Palace, said he wished to have sacred music only played on Sunday, but we have found there has been great benefit to the poor people from music, whether sacred or otherwise, which has been played in the
    1624
    parks. No case has been made out against the Motion, so far as I can see. The hon. Member for Leicester said that we who are opposed to him have little sympathy for the Sabbath, that there was no time when such a change was less necessary than the present, that we live in a Christian country, and he added that the stamina of the French, and the decrease of the population in that country, is due to having galleries open on Sunday. But the hon. Gentleman offered us no proofs. This question ought to be lifted out of a disputation about mere petty details as to railway journeys, and the employment of officials, to the higher ground of consideration whether the change will do good to those less fortunately situated than ourselves. Hon. Gentlemen do not propose to shut up their clubs on the Sunday, or to put an end to Sunday visits to the studios—an ordinary Sunday afternoon occupation during the season. What have poor people to do on Sunday? I look in vain for an answer from those Gentlemen who sit opposite, and who claim to represent the majority in the Principality. They are, no doubt, exhausted by their labours on the Tithes and Sunday Closing Bills, for to-night they are conspicuous by their absence. Are they afraid to speak? They wish to close public houses on Sunday. Where do they wish the poor people to go on Sunday? Will they provide no relaxation and no enlightenment of any kind for those who have not the opportunities they have themselves? I think this Motion is a most natural and evident corollary to the Bill which was read a second time the other day, through the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite from Wales, for closing public houses on the Sunday. If the public houses to which the people have been in the habit of going on Sunday are to be closed, some other places must in reason be opened to them; and where can they go better than to places where they will see the highest efforts of the art and genius of all countries in the world? The mere question of a few people being employed in looking after these places on Sunday is nothing to the advantage the hardworking man will gain. Men who work amongst the poor, know that the great difficulty is to get

    1625
    the poor some places to go to on the Sunday, to draw them away from the public house, to find them something that will lift them above the ordinary every-day level, and out of the misery in which they live. Surely it is not too much to ask hon. Members of this House, who have not the trials and temptations the poor have, to give them a chance of improving themselves. I will not enter into the question of the particular hours during which these places should be opened. Let the hours be adapted to Church hours. Let the hours be from 2 to 5 o'clock; but, at all events, let the experiment be tried. I believe it will be found that there is the greatest desire on the part of the people to see these places open on Sunday. I know I shall be told by Members from the Principality that this is the small end of the wedge. The action of Welsh Liberal Members on the present occasion convinces me that they have received letters similar to those I have received, which are to the effect—"You must not admit the small end of the wedge." But, Sir, as we listen to those hon. Members, upon most of the subjects on which they enlighten us, we find very generally that it is not the small end of the wedge they wish to insert, but the wedge itself, and often another on top of it. I trust the House will not deny to the people of London what has proved of such great advantage in Birmingham, Edinburgh, and other places. Let us ascertain whether the people want Sunday opening by giving it a fair trial.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS,who was greeted with cheers,* said: I suppose that general cheering augurs well for my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, and he and my Friends around me are no doubt heartily glad to hear it and appreciate all it means. There is no doubt a very strong feeling against the proposal contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson)—a feeling founded upon the religious view of the question, and consequently a feeling very difficult
    * The result of the election for Aston Manor had just become known to the House.
    1626
    to deal with. It must be dealt with, not with any roughness, but with a great deal of patient consideration. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. A. McArthur) that in the Australian colonies the course the House is now asked to adopt has been adopted for some time without any great calamity resulting. My hon. Friend said that the advocates of this proposal have no sympathy with the Sunday; but I think that the opposite is the case. The desire of those who advocate the proposal is that the Sunday should be spent in a sober, rational, and, I would add, religious manner. It must be borne in mind that no one is required to go to the places which are open; those who object can stay away. I would draw what, in my opinion, is an important distinction between public institutions and places for which a money entrance is charged. Hon. Members who have picture galleries and libraries of their own enjoy those possessions on Sundays. Public libraries belong to no one person, but to the people of the locality or to the nation, and the people are as much co-proprietors of those institutions as hon. Members are of their own libraries and picture galleries. The man who goes to a municipal art gallery is entering his own gallery, for he is rated for it, and it is as much his own as any man's. I do not think, therefore, that we have a right to deprive him of the enjoyment of that institution. No working man can possess a picture gallery or library of his own; he can only hope to obtain them in his corporate capacity, and he is equally entitled to enjoy them. I believe that in this principle of corporate ownership lies the solution of many of the problems that exist between the rich and the poor. But perhaps experience is better than speculation as to what might happen if these institutions were opened on Sundays. I was for many years chairman of the Birmingham Art Galleries, and I was struck when I revisited the city on Sundays, especially in winter, with the depressing aspect of the place. Almost the only place about which there was any light and cheerfulness was the window of the public house. I was so impressed with the desolate appearance of the city on Sunday that I

    1627
    moved a Resolution that our institutions should be opened on Sunday. That Resolution was carried, after much opposition, and for 16 years the people of Birmingham have enjoyed those institutions on Sundays. There is, belonging to the Corporation of Birmingham, a great museum and hall at Aston. The Aston people are reasonable people; they know what they are about and what is good for them. They are not led away by specious arguments, nor do they allow the real issue to be obscured, and, therefore, they have for all these years had the enjoyment of these institutions and have justified their enjoyment of them by a rational use of them. There was, as I have indicated, a great deal of opposition—sincere opposition—to the movement for Sunday opening, but I believe that most of those who opposed the movement would refrain at the present moment from lifting their hand to close these institutions on Sunday. I used frequently to visit the places when they were open. They were crowded, but the people were orderly, and, in my opinion, they were gaining new ideas and new thoughts, and great good generally. Men and women came with their families, and I have no doubt that each visit would afford rational talk to the family for the whole week. I do not think that the question of labour is a difficult one. In Birmingham we said to each member of the staff that if he volunteered for duty from 2 o'clock on Sunday till the closing time he would have one day's holiday during the week at his choice, and we have never had any difficulty in securing attendants. At first it was thought necessary to have police and others to look after property, but that has been found to be absolutely unnecessary, and to this day, though millions have visited the library and galleries, there has not been a single scratch or any damage done to the whole institution. It has been said that opening these places in the evenings was equivalent to opening them on Sunday afternoons, but I do not think anyone who knows the life of the working man can hold that opinion. The hon. Member for Leicester has asked whether a single drunkard has been reclaimed by this practice of Sunday opening. For my own part, I do not base my claim upon
    1628
    the reclamation of drunkards, but on the common rights of owners of property to have a free and reasonable use of it. I know, however, for a fact that many men who had been habitual frequenters of the public house on Sunday have become frequenters of these institutions since they have been opened on Sundays, and women have come to me and expressed their gratitude on the grounds that their husbands were naturally sober men, but not knowing what to do on Sundays, had gone to the public house, whereas from the time of the opening of the library and galleries on Sunday they had become sober and respectable men. I would ask hon. Members who oppose this Motion in the interest of Sunday, a question with regard to newspapers, which of course mean Sunday labour. We cannot help that, but every man who buys a newspaper on Monday morning becomes to the extent of what he gives for it an encourager of Sunday labour, and to be consistent he should condemn, the practice of the Monday morning publication of newspapers. I am afraid we are all a little lenient towards the observance of a principle when it affects our own comfort, but staunch in adherence to a principle when the actions of other people are concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock) has spoken of the use of these art galleries and literary and scientific institutions, but as a matter of fact these are as a closed book to the mass of the working classes in this country, and only when men are free, only when they are quite at leisure, can these places be of use to them. It is of no use to say that men can give attention to the study of these matters at the close of a day of hard work, but give them the opportunity on a day of leisure, and there is no knowing what value the opportunity will have, and how it may be followed up at home. I will not detain the House longer, but I thought it would be of advantage that I should give the House the benefit of our experience in Birmingham, where the experiment has been so successful that everybody has ceased to raise any question about these institutions being open on Sunday. Those who do not care to go stay away, but the places are well frequented, and likely to remain so. I

    1629
    believe that any hint of a proposal to close these institutions in Birmingham on Sunday would be regarded as one of the most foolish and wicked suggestions that could possibly be made, in the interest of sobriety, morality, and of religion. I am sure that if hon. Members who now feel some apprehension as to the effect of this Sunday opening in London, would try the experiment, they would find their fears were groundless, and that it would tend greatly to the benefit of the people for whose benefit these galleries are maintained. I do not wish to ram this matter down the throats of those who have a different view, but rather, I would, by argument, and almost by entreaty, induce them to give effect to this, which they will admit is the desire of the great majority of the people, and I am sure the experiment will show that none of the anticipated evils which have been alluded to will follow. Our proposal is founded on reason and common sense, and I ask hon. Members to put aside their prejudices and let the people have the means of enjoying privileges which they themselves would not like to be deprived of upon the Sunday.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I interpose in this Debate for a short time to explain why, although on a former occasion I was one of those who in the ardour of political youth supported this Motion, I do not feel I can do so on the present occasion. Nine years ago when this Motion was discussed in the House I supported it and expressed my conviction that among the working classes, or among a considerable number of them at all events, there was a strong demand for enlightened, and even for artistic recreation on the Sabbath day. In voting against this Motion to-night I by no means abandon that conviction. With regard to the opening of art galleries and museums on Sundays, we ought to pay regard almost solely to the wishes of the working classes in the matter. We have not to please ourselves but the
    1630
    persons who will ultimately feel the effect for good or evil of such a step—I mean our constituents among the humbler classes throughout the great centres of population. It is because the effects will be felt by them that it behoves us to take the greatest care how we use the power that for the time happens to be in, our hands. I am aware that the position I take logically amounts to the advocacy of the principle of local option applied to such matters. An appeal has been made to logic and I confess it was. most successfully made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lubbock) who is a master in that line of argument, and if the appeal is made solely to logic, I take a firm stand on that ground as an advocate of local option in these things. But the Motion is not made on that ground. The proposal is that the State should set the example, should lead and not follow, and give an indication of a policy which could not but be interpreted as putting a pressure upon Local Authorities.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: Does the hon. Gentleman extend that principle to the Trustees of the British Museum?
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: I cannot regard the Trustees of the British Museum as being entirely independent of the Government of the country. Their action could not but be interpreted as setting an example to be followed by Trustees and other Public Bodies. In supporting the Motion on a previous occasion, I received no sign of approval from those whose virtues we are bound to respect, but rather the contrary; and so far as one can judge in the light of subsequent experience, the opinion of the working-classes, if it sets in any direction, is rather against the proposal. In these days the demand is for a restriction of the hours of labour, and we who think that these proposals for restriction are in themselves most disputable, must, on our part, do nothing which can be construed into an unnecessary extension of those hours of labour. In these days of continually increasing pressure upon the mental

    1631
    and physical resources of the human frame, we ought to be very careful how we act in any direction that may increase that pressure. Because this Motion is not a Motion for local option, but practically one for giving a State direction to Municipalities and Local Authorities——
    An hon. MEMBER: Only two institutions.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: Really hon. Members must allow me to place my own interpretation on the Motion which, being placed before the House, is public property. On the grounds I have stated, I cannot vote for the Motion.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I have listened with more astonishment than I can express to the speech we have just heard, and pity the hon. Gentleman for the position in which he has foundered himself. He evidently desires—from conscientious reasons no doubt—to go into a different Lobby to that he entered nine years ago and thinks it necessary to give some reasons for the change in his opinions. But let me in a few moments analyse these reasons. The hon. Gentleman believes this is a question for local option, and so he thinks it is wrong for the State to take the lead. Now, that would be a very fine position for the hon. Gentleman to take up if the State had always refrained from taking any action in this direction; but I ask the hon. Gentleman how can he square his theory with the 'action the State has in many instances adopted? Already there are several public institutions which are not local property, but State property, which are supported out of funds voted by this House, and which are by the consent of the Government open on Sundays. The State has, then, taken the lead, and if my memory serves me rightly the State took the lead before any of these local institutions. The State has taken the lead in the case of public institutions in Dublin, in the case of Hampton Court Palace, Greenwich Hospital, and Kew Gardens. What, then, becomes of the
    1632
    argument of the hon. Gentleman upon which he refuses to support the Motion of my hon. Friend to-night? He says this is a matter for local option and the State must not lead, but the State has taken the lead in reference to these institutions I have mentioned. I hope that unless he can find some other argument he will reconsider his position once more and vote as he has previously voted in favour of the Resolution. Very pertinent was the question put to him by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) whether the Trustees of the British Museum would be allowed to exercise their judgment without State interference. The majority of the Museum Trustees are prepared to take action, but they desire to have an expression of public opinion upon the subject. But how shall the Trustees get an expression of public opinion if not from this House? Why, if public opinion is to govern these matters, does the Government intervene to oppose this Motion? Then, says the hon. Gentleman, there is a strong feeling in favour of shortening hours of labour, and, therefore, he is not prepared to do anything that would tend to extend the hours of labour in any direction. But I ask him does he know anything of the life of the working classes in big towns? Where is the largest amount of Sunday labour? Is it not in those towns and in those trades where there are not healthy recreations and healthy amusements to draw the people from their homes? I have a very fair knowledge of working life in London, not in all trades, but especially in connection with one industry. I am not speaking of large factories, which, of course, are closed on Sundays, I mean work carried on at home, and I say the closing on Sunday of places of enlightened recreation and useful amusement leads to an increase in the hours of labour, for there is no inducement to a man to leave his work, Where you have given greater facilities for enlightened recreation there has been a tendency to shorten the hours of labour. When the right hon. Baronet obtained from Parliament the Bank Holiday Act, that Act applied only to banking establishments, and did not apply to ordinary trades, but see what the result has been.

    1633
    I remember when that Act first came into force there was a reluctance in all the workshops to make a holiday because the banks did, but go now among the watch-making trades in Clerkenwell, and you will not find one workshop that does not keep St. Lubbock's Day. Indeed, you will find most places of business next week closed from Thursday evening until Tuesday morning. Where is there the increase of labour from giving working men the means of intellectual recreation when they have the leisure for it? The hon. Member for Bordesley has shown how the case of the few attendants on duty on Sunday in Birmingham is met. I do not for a moment think that the opening of museums, art galleries, and libraries will tend to increase hours of labour, but will rather have the contrary effect. I speak from the experience of one who has been through the workshop and knows the wants of men who have worked long hours during the week, and I know we did not thank those who prevented us from going to those places we desired to visit on the only day we could find time to do so. I know what a dismal day a wet winter Sunday in London may be, and why not allow the opportunity of utilising time which cannot be always spent in walking in the parks? I think it is a most lame and impotent reason the Under Secretary has given for his change of view. Is he, are the Government, prepared to give London the same means of deciding by public opinion as the people of Sheffield, Birmingham, Leicester, and other towns have? We have shown how local option is exercised, and I think if we had the opportunity in London we should soon have the opinion of the industrial classes expressed in favour of using these public institutions on Sundays. What have we seen in reference to this Motion today? I have followed the presentation of Petitions, and it will be found that those which are against the Resolution are signed by people living in the provinces, away from London, who do not know what London life is among the working classes, who have no interest in the opening of these places on Sunday. On the other hand, there is no mistaking the opinion of those who have signed Petitions in
    1634
    favour of the Resolution. I need only mention the Petition presented by my hon. Friend to-day, which has the signatures of 66,000 inhabitants, most interested in the opening of Bethnal Green Museum on Sunday. I know the gentleman who moved the resolution in the County Council, and if the hon. Baronet opposite desires to know what manner of man Councillor Branch is, he may obtain convincing evidence of his earnest religious character and opinions from any Congregational Minister ill Bethnal Green. We have been told of the dire effects that will follow from the opening of these institutions on Sundays, but still the case made out by my hon. Friend in his opening speech remains unanswered. Old arguments have been repeated once again, but not one of the hon. Gentlemen who has spoken against the Motion has attempted to prove that public opinion is not growing in favour of this proposal. Have evil effects resulted from the opening of such places as Hampton Court, Greenwich Hospital, Kew Gardens, and the Botanical Gardens at Edinburgh? I do not think that a proposal to close the public galleries in Dublin would meet with much favour from those who have the religious and intellectual welfare of the people at heart. Are the Government prepared to say that during the coming summer season Hampton Court and Kew Gardens shall be closed on Sundays? Let the Government make the attempt to close these places and see what a hornet's nest they will have about their ears. I speak as knowing the conditions of working class life in the poorer districts of London; and I must say it is rather selfish for hon. Gentlemen who have all the advantages that wealth commands, and who hurry away from the Metropolis on Saturday morning and return here again on Monday, it is selfish for them to deny to the artisan living with his family in two or three rooms the opportunity of breaking the barren monotony of his life by visiting places from which he can derive such artistic and intellectual enjoyment as he is capable of. I understand we are to be outvoted to-night; but everything that has been done to make the life of the working classes brighter and happier has had to be done against such opposi-

    1635
    tion as we have to encounter to-night; and in time I hope the House will take a broader view of this question, and follow the example of another place in which this Motion has been carried on a former occasion. I am sure that in the near future this Resolution will be carried, and if there is no stronger case than that advanced by the Under Secretary for the Home Office, I do not see how it can be resisted.
    LORD ELCHO: I desire to say one word in favour of this Motion. An eloquent passage from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has been quoted against this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman was in the House at 11 o'clock, but he is not now to be seen. I trust he did not receive any bad news which took him away. It is important that we should know his opinion. The speech quoted was made in 1869 and, judging from experience, we may presume that the opinion stated by the right hon. Gentleman in 1869 is the exact opposite of that held by him in 1891. The hon. Member for the City (Sir R. Fowler) told us that the Sabbath was a divine institution, and I think he took a rather narrow and somewhat bigoted view of the manner in which we are bound to keep the Sabbath according to the Scriptures. I think the only question we have to consider is that of labour, and certainly, if it were proved that any large amount of labour would be entailed by this Sunday opening of museums, I should vote against it. Bat I think this point has been much exaggerated, and that no more Sunday labour would be required by the opening of museums than is at present required to prepare the Sunday dinners of a few hon. Gentlemen.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I wish to occupy but a very short period. I am sure everyone will give full credit to those who support this Motion, whether on this side of the House or on the other, for a sincere
    1636
    desire to raise the people by enabling them to pass their Sunday in the best possible way. But, Sir, we have to consider whether in carrying out this desire we, as a Government, are to take upon ourselves the responsibility of directing a number of men to work on Sundays, for what, after all, is not an absolutely necessary object. Mea are to be forced to work on Sundays, whether they like it or not, in order, it is said, that the people may obtain recreation. But is this a work of necessity?
    *MR. LAWSON: Hampton Court is open on Sundays.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman says that because Hampton Court is open on Sundays all public servants in these institutions are to be compelled to work on Sundays. I do not see that we are compelled to adopt the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, and I do not propose to act upon his recommendation. Hampton Court has been opened on Sunday for a great many years. It may not be desirable that it should be closed, but it does not follow because it is open that we should call upon public servants in every museum and picture gallery to work on Sunday. It may or may not be thought desirable by the public authorities in various localities to open such buildings on Sundays. That is a matter they have to determine for themselves. We are the Representatives of the people of the United Kingdom; we have to lay down rules for the guidance of public servants in different parts of the Kingdom; and we are asked, under these circumstances, to say it is our desire that public servants should not have that rest on Sundays to which I certainly think they are entitled. A great deal has been said with regard to the views of the working men. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is nothing that working men are more jealous about than their Sunday's rest, and they would certainly regard this as an infringement of their right to Sunday rest after their six days' labour.

    1637
    I do not believe that they desire these institutions to be opened on Sundays. Reference has been made to theatres, and to the fact that Mr. Henry Irving has expressed himself against the Sunday opening of theatres, because it would involve Sunday labour on the part of hundreds of persons, theatres being great workshops; but I have often heard it stated by those who advocate the theatre and drama that they minister to the instruction and education as well as the amusement of the people, and if museums are to be opened on this ground the cry would next follow that theatres ought. In every Continental capital where the picture galleries and museums are open, there also the theatres are open. If this Motion were to be passed it would be a breaking down of the barrier which now prevents hundreds of persons having to work on Sundays in London and provincial theatres. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not, I think, represented the real opinion of the working classes on this subject and in the interest of the public servants and also of the people themselves, Her Majesty's Government feel bound to oppose this Motion.
    MR. CREMER: I should not have interposed in this Debate, especially at this late hour, but for the extraordinary statement that has just been made by the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, so far as he is aware (and I am convinced he has only said what he believes to be true) the working-men have a great regard for the Sabbath. I share that opinion. Working men do not fear—and that is the point of difference between them and the right hon. Gentleman—that the opening of museums on Sunday will jeopardise in any way the sacred character of the Sabbath. Let me supply a proof. The right hon. Gentleman made an assertion, but gave us no proof. I am going to supply him with information which I think it is very necessary should be at the disposal of the House,
    1638
    and which may, perhaps, assist some hon. Members in making up their minds. I do not say the Trade Union Congress represents the entire body of the working classes of the United Kingdom; but every Member of the House will admit that it is about the most representative gathering that takes place from January to December. Well, the Trade Union Congress on three, if not four, different occasions has pronounced a deliberate verdict in favour of the Sunday opening of these institutions. Such an expression of opinion ought to have greater weight with the House than the vague assertions of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the feeling of the working classes. The bogey of the Continental Sunday has as usual been trotted out to scare us. I have frequently observed that Members of this House who are at home so careful not to make any inroad upon the Sabbath, and who pose before their constituents as having a very sincere and profound regard for sacred institutions, when on the Continent forget their professions, attend places of amusement on Sunday, and visit St. Cloud, Versailles, the Louvre, and such like places. I cannot understand how they square the professions they make at home with their practice abroad. It seems to me that the opposition to this Motion is not a sincere opposition. It smacks somewhat—I was going to say of hypocrisy, but I will not indulge in that phrase, as it might be considered offensive. Supposing the opening of museums and picture galleries on the Continent has produced the Sabbath that has been described, how is it that the people who have to work so long on the Sabbath do not put an end to it? If there is one country outside Switzerland in which the people are masters of the situation it is France; and I undertake to say, from a knowledge of that country extending over 20 years, that there is nothing which would be more likely to bring about a revolution or cause the people to rise en masse than an attempt on the part of their Government, Republican and Liberal as it is, to close the museums and art galleries and other places of amusement on Sundays. I do not think the working classes in France can be suffering from a grievous wrong in this matter, for they not only tolerate

    1639
    but enjoy, and would not allow anybody to deprive them of their privileges on the Sabbath. So much, then, for the bogey of the Continental Sunday. I do not pretend to be an exponent of the opinions of the working classes generally. I only claim to speak for those I know and represent; but it is quite clear that if the opinions of Representatives who are known in this House as the Labour Representatives, are to be accepted as any evidence of the feelings of the working classes on the subject, the large preponderance of the working classes are in favour of the Motion. I am right in saying that the only Member of our group opposed to the Motion is the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Broadhurst), and if he is absent to-night from the Division I think we may conclude that his opposition is not very pronounced. As far as my own constituents are concerned, 95 per cent. of them are in favour of the Motion. Throughout the whole of the East End, if we polled it, we should have a large majority in favour of the Motion. Whether the Motion is accepted or rejected, I am sure that the day is not far distant—and I am strengthened in that view by the feeble opposition offered by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—when this Motion will be carried.
    MR. M. STEWART: I only wish to say one word before the House goes to a Division. It is said that we on this side contend that the working men of London are not so much in favour of Sunday opening as bon. Gentlemen opposite say they are-Well, I hold in my hand a paper which states that since January over 20,000 working men living in the neighbourhood of the People's Palace have expressed the opinion that that institution ought not to be opened on Sunday. It is clear, therefore, that hon. Members opposite are not entitled to say that all working men are supporters of the Motion before the House.
    MR. DE LISLE: I had come to the House intending to vote against the Motion but I have been converted to the view
    1640
    that the practical objections to the proposal are not well-founded in fact. In principle, this Motion is entirely in accordance with the ancient canon law, which is the historic basis for the observation of the Christian Sunday. If time allowed, I should be prepared to show that the work entailed is not of a different kind from that which is done by ordinary gentlemen on the Sunday. To lounge about a gallery and criticise works of art or antiquity is the leisure of those who live a life of ease. [An hon. MEMBER: Taking care of umbrellas.] It is not the kind of work which can be properly called labour. I am aware that many of the leaders of the most respectable Religious Bodies of this country are opposed, because they fear it will tend in the direction of inducing a general desecration of the Sunday; but, being of opinion that every gentleman who possesses an art gallery and library of his own uses it for his own recreation on the Sunday, and recognising that these galleries are the people's galleries, I see no objection to the Motion. If I thought the proposal would lead to the opening of theatres or concert halls I would as strenuously oppose the Motion as the right hon. Leader of the House; but I trust the time is at length coming when the English people will be able to take a view of the due observance of the Sunday which is at once rational and religious, and I therefore feel constrained to support this reasonable Motion.
    (12.54.) The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 39.—(Div. List, No. 100.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.
    It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Earl of Milltown—Petition of Henry Earl of Milltown in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Lord Dunsany—Petition of John William Plunkett, Baron Dunsany in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

BERKELEY PEERAGE.
Petition of Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley, claiming to be Earl of Berkeley, for leave, on the consideration of his Petition to Her Majesty, to use the evidence adduced in the case of the claim of William Fitzhardinge Berkeley to the Earldom of Berkeley in 1811, and in the case of the claim of the Right Hon. Sir Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley to the Barony of Berkeley in 1859, and that he may be relieved from the expense of reprinting such evidence; read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges.
THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I desire to put a question to the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, of which I have given him private notice. It has reference to an announcement by the Council of the Royal Academy, which has appeared in the usual channels of information, that the days for the taking in of pictures would be Good Friday, Saturday, and Easter Monday. It can hardly be said that these are convenient days. Some exception might be taken to putting Good Friday to such a use, and on that point it might be interesting to hear what the Chaplain to the Council, the Archbishop of York, might have to say. But there are secular reasons why
  1518
  the proposed days are objectionable—convenient, if not obnoxious. In the first place, the days chosen are extremely inconvenient for communication and delivery of packages, owing to the general holiday traffic. The proposal interferes very much with the Easter holiday making, which is general for all classes, and especially there are large numbers of parcel porters and others, especially frame - makers, of whom there are very many, and amongst whom there is very great dissatisfaction. It will, undoubtedly, I am told, cause a great deal of work to be done on Sunday. I am informed, also, that the work of taking in will not be over before 1 a.m. on Tuesday, and there is great danger of damage to valuable works of art. The proposal also causes great inconvenience and dissatisfaction amongst a very large number of the artists themselves, because in a great many cases they will be unable to get their works into the Academy until very late. I therefore ask, seeing that the Royal Academy derives its privileges from the Crown, whether Her Majesty's Government would make a protest as to these proposed taking-in days, which are obnoxious to those most concerned, and on many grounds inexpedient, with the view of seeing whether any alteration can be made in them?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am afraid, my Lords, the Government can hardly admit themselves to be responsible for all the acts of those who have the direction of affairs at the Royal Academy or other institutions which may derive their privileges from the Crown. It would add very seriously to our responsibilities. But, at the same time, the question of which the noble Lord has given me private notice seems, if I may say so, an extremely reasonable question; and if I had been able to do so I should have been very glad to have done what he wishes, namely, to have asked from the Council of the Royal Academy some reason to give to the House for the course they have taken in this matter. But the time was too short, and I have not been able to do so. I feel, however, that the statement of the noble Lord will carry conviction, at all events, to the minds of the Council

  1519
  that there is primâ facie a considerable difficulty in the particular arrangement they have adopted. We all know that the interval between next Thursday and the Tuesday following is, in addition to its sacred character, a very popular holiday, and a popular holiday is not the best of times in which to get work of this kind done. I believe that representations from the noble Lord will be quite as effective as any made by the Government, and I can only trust that the Council of the Royal Academy will pay attention to the very just considerations the noble Lord has adduced, and will apply what remedy they can. If the period of the Session had permitted, I should have been glad to have given the noble Lord another answer.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: As the noble Lord has mentioned my brother the Archbishop of York, whose office as Chaplain to the Royal Academy has always been highly esteemed, I think, in his absence, I ought to say that I am quite sure what his view of the subject would be. There are a very large number, indeed, both of Church people, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists whose religious feelings would be much injured by the setting apart, as the Council of the Royal Academy seems to have done, Good Friday for such hard work as the delivery of the pictures, and who would feel that numbers of their people were being hindered from taking part in the religious observance of the day. The observance of Good Friday has greatly increased in the last few years, I think, with great satisfaction to people at large. I must thank the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in the name of my brother and myself, and also of a large proportion of the population, for having stated that he trusts the Council of the Royal Academy will pay attention to the representations of the noble Lord. I hope the noble Lord will persevere in them, and that he will receive from the President a satisfactory reply.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order): Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 75.)
  Read 2a (according to order): Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 17.)
  Read 3a (according to order); amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]-(No. 68.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before proceeding to move the Third Reading of this Bill, I would ask your Lordships' permission to make a short statement for the purpose of removing a misapprehension which I believe exists in some quarters that a new principle is introduced in this Bill by its enacting the deprivation of a clergyman upon conviction of treason, felony, or grave misdemeanour. It is supposed by some that the sentence of a Civil Court has not hitherto taken effect in that way, and that this is, therefore, a new principle introduced into ecclesiastical legislation. With your Lordships' permission I desire to say a few words-merely in order to remove that entirely erroneous opinion. The state of the case really is this: that down to the year 1870 a conviction for felony involved forfeiture of the felon's property, and consequently a clergyman convicted of felony forfeited his benefice. In 1870 the Felony Act which is chap. 23 of the 33 & 34 Vict, was passed abolishing the old forfeiture; but it provided that a person convicted of felony should forfeit public offices which are mentioned in the Schedule. Amongst others an ecclesiastical benefice is forfeited ipso facto upon a conviction. The section expressly declared that the benefice held by a clergyman convicted of felony should forthwith become vacant, unless the convict received a free pardon within two months of his conviction, and before the living had been filled up. It was further provided that a clergyman so

  1521
  convicted should remain incapable of holding an ecclesiastical benefice afterwards. The present Act repeals the earlier Act, but it re-enacts the provisions as to forfeiture in the cases specified. What it does is simply to extend them to certain very grave and gross misdemeanours, of so bad a character that the person convicted is sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. Now, hard labour can only be given for certain classes of offences defined by Statute, and cannot be given for any trivial offence upon indictment. Then the Bill contains a similar provision in reference to any clergyman upon whom a bastardy order has been made, or who has been found guilty in the Divorce Court of adultery. It will only carry out the general conviction and belief that a man who has incurred either of those consequences is not a fit person to go on holding a benefice and administering to the spiritual wants of the people. I wish to point out that in other respects the Bill relaxes the stringency of the Act of 1870, because it prevents a conviction from operating until the time mentioned has passed, and then by Clause 16 the incapacity for holding future preferment is not absolute, but is made conditional on the assent of the Bishop of the diocese and Archbishop of the Province being obtained to holding another preferment; that is in cases where a free pardon is not given by the Crown within two months after conviction. The provision in Clause 3 of the Bill by which a conviction in a Temporal Court is made conclusive in the Ecclesiastical Court is little more than re-enacting the existing law; and in some cases Clause 3 relaxes the existing law if it is a summary conviction which cannot be appealed against. With this explanation, trusting that it will remove any misconception upon those points, I beg leave to move the Third Beading of the Bill.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 69.)
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause 2.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: I have to propose an Amendment after the word "section," to add the words "unless and until the Council shall otherwise direct." The object of this Amendment is——
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must point out to the noble Lord that he is not in Order, as he has not given notice of the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that to be the Rule which we ordinarily adhere to, and I think it is rather a valuable Rule. It is not, of course, an absolute one, but it is very generally adhered to; and it is rather dangerous that the House should allow it to be broken, to avoid matters being sprung upon us at the last moment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Still, as the discussion upon this Bill was not pursued in the ordinary way in regard to opportunity being afforded of bringing forward Amendments at an earlier stage, and the Bill has been rather rushed through, it appears to me that, as it has not been quite proceeded with in the ordinary course, the Amendment might be allowed now to be brought forward.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If that is the feeling of the House, I will not oppose its going forward, but I earnestly hope that a Rule will not be readily disregarded which is part of the usage of this House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the only reason that can be urged for it is that which has been pointed out by the noble Lord the Earl of Camperdown, that the Bill was allowed to pass through Committee without Amendments being put in, upon the understanding that they were to be allowed to be brought forward upon this occasion. But I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and hope that it will not be regarded as a precedent.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: Then by the courtesy of the House I shall ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment

  1523
  which gives the County Councils a somewhat freer hand. The members of the London County Council, I may say, so far as I have been able to consult them, are desirous that these words should be inserted. The Amendment is after the word "section," at the end of line 3, to insert "and unless and until the Council otherwise direct." This Amendment will enable the County Councils, if they like when they appoint a Committee, or at any time afterwards, to say that the appointment of that Committee shall not be held under the section to be an appropriation of the fund. As I have said, it only proposes to give the County Councils a somewhat freer hand, and I hope the noble Lord will not refuse to accept it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I merely wish to suggest that the Committee act at the pleasure of the Council, and that it is entirely open to the Council to cancel the Committee altogether. If so, the words are certainly not required. I hold that the Council has full power over the Committee to deal with it they please. If I am wrong I daresay I shall be corrected by noble Lords who are well aware of the construction of the Act, but that is certainly my impression—that they may revoke the appointment of the Committee.
  *LORD LINGEN: I beg to point out that the words can, at all events, do no harm. I think the Councils ought certainly to have a freer hand.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The worst of it is that the Judges, when words are put in merely because they can do no harm, will imagine that they have been put in for some reason, and then they endeavour to find the reason, which is often very unfortunate.
  *LORD LINGEN: The words would, I think, remove any ambiguity.
  *LORD HOBHOUSE: I think I can point out how the words will do good. Suppose a case in which a Council have referred it to a Committee to advise whether part of the fund, or the whole of it, shall be applied for the purposes of technical education or not, and to inquire and report upon the question. That, I may say, is in point of fact an actual case; a reference of that kind having been made by the London County Council to a Committee.
  1524
  As this clause stands, as I ventured to point out yesterday, such a reference as that would make the first part of Section 2 attach upon the fund, and the reference to a Committee in those terms will be taken as an appropriation until the Committee shall have made their Report, and the Council shall have arrived at a decision, or the Committee shall have been superseded. That puts the Council to make a fresh order, perhaps to supersede altogether the Committee, whom they want to be advised by, in order to prevent that operating as an appropriation which they never intended should operate as an appropriation. But if the words proposed by Lord Monks-well were put in, then the Councils will have it in their power to say—"We desire to make this general reference to a Committee, but we do not desire that that general reference shall act as an appropriation, but the question of appropriation shall be reserved," as I humbly think it ought to be, until the Committee have reported and the Council have considered that Report. That would be the effect of it.
  LORD HENNIKER: If the Amendment which is proposed by my noble Friend opposite to-day is passed with regard to rescinding the appointment of a Committee, it appears to me this Amendment is almost surplusage, and personally I think it is rather a mistake to make Acts of Parliament, one may say, almost too explanatory in some ways. But if noble Lords opposite wish that this Amendment should be inserted, I have no objection to offer on the part of the Government.
  LORD HERSCHELL: As I understand the matter, it acts in this way. Practically all that my noble Friend desires could be done under the Bill as it now stands; but it would involve this: that if the Council wanted this money not to be hung up for this purpose, and at the same time desired that there should be a reference to a Committee notwithstanding that, for the purpose of considering the question of the application of the money to technical education, it could be carried out under the Bill only in this way: that they could rescind the appointment of the Committee, which would set free the money, and then I apprehend they might re-appoint the Committee upon terms which would prevent the

  1525
  money being in that way held in suspense. This proposal of the noble Lord would—and I understand that to be the object of it—do away with the necessity of rescinding the appointment of the Committee, because it would enable them to expedite the appointment, and to say, "We do not want in these particular cases that the fund shall be tied up." It would give the necessary power to the Council, though it might be worked out in another way.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: But is it not rather absurd to refer the question of appropriating the whole or any part of the money to a Committee, and yet not to take care to tie the money up while the Committee is deliberating?
  LORD HENNIKER: As I said before, I can only say that I think the words are surplusage, but, if your Lordships wish, I do not object to their being put in. The other point would be this: that if you rescind the appointment of the Committee by the Council which has had these funds left in their hands, the money which is given to them would fall into the general fund.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not quite sure that I have not made a mistake, if the House will indulge me for a moment. I am not quite sure that if they did rescind the appointment of the Committee, they could re-appoint the Committee without hanging up the funds. Therefore, I think that the words are necessary, if you want to enable the Council to appoint a Committee to consider the appropriation without unnecessarily hanging up the funds.
  *LORD BASING: I apprehend this provision may be necessary as far as London is concerned, which, of course, is a peculiar case, involving special circumstances, though, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, it might be rather inconvenient. But what I apprehend is this: supposing the Committee to have made its Report, the whole thing will be done; whereas, as I understand, the question referred to the Committee regarding technical education will be the subject of a series of Reports, and until they have furnished such Reports, and the County Council has determined the matter, it is not intended that the money should be merged; but I apprehend the object is to make the Council responsible for merging the
  1526
  money whenever they think the time has arrived for so doing.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, line 3, after the word "section," at the end of the line, to insert the words "and unless and until the Council otherwise direct."—(Lord Monkswell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  *LORD LINGEN: I hope your Lordships will excuse me, at this late stage of the proceedings upon this Bill, for saying a few words more in regard to a clause of it which I cannot help thinking is of great importance. On the Second Reading it so happened that no opportunity was taken of discussing this Bill on its general merits as a public measure, and this is, indeed, the only occasion upon which I shall be able to make some few statements that seem to me to be deserving of your Lordships' attention. I have had, I may say, considerable experience in dealing with matters of this kind, and therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me upon this occasion. In reference to the 2nd sub-section of Section 1, I scarcely think that urgency can be pleaded. That sub-section raises questions of very great general importance, which require, I think, for their full elucidation more time than we have had at present afforded us for the consideration of the subject. The Amendment which has been made to that clause provides that the words which occur in the Technical Education Act, 1889, shall be modified in their application under the provisions of the present Bill. The words in the Act of 1889 are to the effect that the Councils shall be bound in distributing the amount of provision to be made, to do so exclusively in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical or manual instruction supplied by the schools or institutions. The Amendment that is proposed to that clause, in the present Bill, is that they shall not be so bound; and how very effective an Amendment the insertion of that monosyllable will constitute, your Lordships will readily be convinced. I would point out to the House that, in the first place, the Act of 1889 is a rating Act. Under that Act the ratepayers, if they determined to promote technical education, must rate themselves. If, therefore, any precau-

  1527
  tion under that Act was needed to be taken, surely some precaution is not less needed under an Act which is not one of rating, but of making public grants. Now, I have been familiar with the system of making public grants for considerably more than 40 years; and I can state to your Lordships from my own knowledge that the principle adopted by successive Governments in making such grants as these has been that a certain modicum of efficiency should be secured before grants are made at all. Such grants have been emphatically grants made for improvement. I do not think that, under this Bill, which so far conforms to the policy of past times, that it is a Bill of grants and not a Bill of rates, the conditions should be made more easy than the Rating Act of 1889. That, I think, is a point to which attention should have been directed; and though I am aware that my observations can bear no practical fruit at this time, yet I have thought it desirable to make them to your Lordships.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [H.L.] (No. 31.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 70.)
  Returned from the Commons, with several of the amendments made by the Lords agreed to; several amendments agreed to, with amendments; and several other amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said amendments and reasons to be printed; and to be taken into consideration on Monday next. (No. 78.)

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.