Sitting of 26 February 1892

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. SEXTON:This Bill proposes to take down St. Mary's Catholic Church at Belfast, and to this the Bishop and clergy object, unless they have a site for the re-erection of the church secured to them by the promoters of the Bill. To-day I have received a letter from the solicitor to the promoters, to the effect that an arrangement has been arrived at with the engineer of the scheme by which a site shall be provided for another church, supposing it is required to take down the existing church, and upon this undertaking, that, if possible, site No. 1 shall be available, or, if that is not possible, then site No. 2, I offer no opposition to the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

BELFAST CORPORATION (LUNATIC ASYLUMS, &c.) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON:This Bill has two objects, both of which I conceive ought to be dealt with, not by means of a Private Bill, but by the Local Government Bill before the House at the present time. One of these objects relates to the contributions of the City of Belfast for the maintenance of Reformatories and Industrial Schools. The City of Belfast at present contributes in this respect with the Counties of Down and Antrim. By the Local Government Bill the Corporation of Belfast will become an Urban County Council, and will acquire the fiscal powers now exercised by the Grand Juries of the counties. It is evident, therefore, that the purpose intended by this portion of the Bill will be more effectually attained under the general law, and this portion of the Bill ought not to be entertained by the House. But my main objection to the Bill concerns the Lunatic Asylum at Belfast, and the extent of the asylum district. At present the Antrim district is included with the City of Belfast, and the asylum is governed by a Board of Governors, nominated partly by the local contributors and partly by the Lord Lieutenant. Some time ago the Board of Control, a State Department instituted by Parliament for the government of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, agreed to the erection of a second lunatic asylum in the County of Antrim, to meet the requirements for further accommodation; and for convenience and the health of patients it was arranged that transfers should be made from the one to the other. The Board of Governors of the existing asylum at first approved of the project, and the promoters of this Bill have circulated a statement for the information of the House, which I cannot but characterise as extremely misleading, and one which, in my experience, is unprecedented in its recklessness; for they state that the

  1335
  Board of Governors are in favour of this scheme, whereas the fact is, that although the Board of Governors a long time since—I think in 1890—at a small meeting passed what may be described as a snatch resolution in favour of a scheme of which they had not then had a clear view, this statement entirely suppresses the fact that within the last few weeks the existing Board passed a resolution adverse to the scheme. I see no Representative of the Irish Government present, or I should like to ask for an explanation of what effect was produced on the mind of the Lord Lieutenant by this change of mind on the part of the Board of Governors. Does the Lord Lieutenant think, does the Board of Control think, that this is a scheme that ought to be carried out? The intention of Parliament, by the Lunatic Asylums Act, manifestly and indisputably was, that changes of this kind should be carried out, if at all, under the authority of the public law by the constituted Department, and not by means of a Private Bill. What is the proposal? The proposal is, not that there shall be two asylums in one district governed by one Board, but that there shall be two Boards constituted for separate management, although it is intended that patients may be transferred from the one to the other. Upon this I may say at once, that to institute two Boards for the two asylums will mean that both the County of Antrim and the City of Belfast will be heavily mulcted. Two staffs of high officials, two staffs of assistants, two sets of contractors, with the certainty that higher prices will be paid for two sets of supplies purchased in smaller quantities, two sets of advertisements, and two sets of machinery for the transaction of business generally. On its merits, I say the scheme is one that the House ought not to entertain. But I do not lean most upon that. I rely on the principle that Parliament by Public Statute has created a Department for dealing with questions of this class, and if circumstances require that these matters should be revised or reviewed, then that should be done by Public Act, and not by means of a Private Bill. The Lord Lieutenant and the Board of Control have power
  1336
  to separate, extend, contract, or alter any County Lunatic Asylum District, and they have so separated the Counties of Down and Antrim. I am told that the Lord Lieutenant cannot separate a city from a county, and, if so, it is manifest, I think, that if a difficulty present itself in this respect it should not be solved by a Private Bill; and, since we have a Local Government Bill before Parliament, why not insert, as a matter of general law, a provision which shall give the Lord Lieutenant power to separate a city from a county? This Bill proposes that the City of Belfast shall be a district in itself—an unprecedented proposition; there is nothing of the kind in Ireland—and that control shall be vested in the Corporation. Now, I fail to discover any argument why an institution supported in one moiety of the cost by the State should be vested in a Local Body. It is proposed to give the Corporation absolute control of the asylum, and on that I have to make two remarks. In the first place, as I have said before in the House, though it led to no practical result, that although one-third of the population of Belfast is Catholic, some three or four score thousands, such has been the jerrymandering of the wards in past times—some 50 years since, when Belfast was a small place—that Catholics are unable to return a single member to the Corporation. There are 80,000 Catholics in the town, yet out of 40 members of the Corporation there is not a solitary Catholic. Now, the proposal is that in regard to the Governing Body of this asylum, in which Catholics have so much interest, the Corporation shall have the power to nominate 12 of the 18 Governors, giving them simply absolute control, and this is in direct contravention of Clause 15 of the Local Government Bill, which provides that the Lord Lieutenant shall nominate half of the Governing Body, upon the principle that as the funds are provided in moieties the representation shall be equal. But the Corporation of Belfast, ignoring this rule, wish to appropriate two-thirds of the representation. It is evident, I think, that the House cannot for a moment entertain the idea of giving

  1337
  this extension of power to a Local Body by means of a Private Bill, and in contravention of a Bill by which the Government propose to establish a general rule of law in regard to a Government Department. I say, also, that if it be intended that patients should be transferred from the one to the other for the sake of their health, then it is not expedient to have two Boards of Governors subject to the conditions of establishing two asylums in the county. The establishment of two Boards will certainly not contribute to the harmony of management. There are in the Bill elaborate, I may say portentous, provisions for the settlement of disputes between the Board of Guardians in Belfast and in the county, as to the accommodation of patients, and the charges to be made. I must say the institution of two Boards must needs bring with it a conflict of authority. I submit, that if the public law in respect to the administration requires to be amended, as to which no cause has been shown, this should be done by public enactment, and not by a Private Bill for one city. I submit, also, that there are matters of account and arrangements to be adjusted in the relations between the city and the county consequent upon Belfast being constituted an Urban County Council; and, lastly, I submit it is extremely inconvenient and inexpedient that the House of Commons should promote this exceptional, piecemeal legislation in regard to one city on a question concerning as it does the whole nation, which is unquestionably a matter of public law. If the House entertain this proposition and, still more, if it he passed into law, what will be the effect on the Local Government Bill? That Bill will be overloaded with Amendments claiming particular legislation for every part of Ireland. We shall have to present an Amendment in respect to the City of Dublin, vesting the asylum there in the Corporation of that city, and giving the Corporation of that city two-thirds of the representation on the Governing Body, and providing for two asylums; we shall have to present Amendments for the alteration of the various districts in Ireland, and for the increase of the power of the local contributory bodies. On point of principle, and in point of
  1338
  expediency, the House should decline to entertain, in a Private Bill, these proposals touching a matter of public law. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman who now represents the Government (Mr. Ritchie), and in whom I have every confidence, though this is a matter more concerning the Irish Minister, to assent to the proposal I make, that the Bill should either be rejected to-day, or that, at any rate, it should be postponed until the mind of Parliament is ascertained in regard to the principle, and even the details, of the Local Government Bill. If the Bill is now persisted with, we must meet it with determined opposition at every stage.
  SIR EDWARD HARLAND: I quite hoped that the hon. Member for West Belfast would have given us hearty support rather than have put opposition in the way of the Bill, though I am glad he has adopted the latter course in a rather mild, and I may say rather a good-hearted spirit. It is well known in the neighbourhood of Belfast that such has been the rapid and enormous growth of the city that the Lunatic Asylum which has served for all the patients in Belfast and Antrim has become totally unfit for its purposes; and when I had the honour of a seat as one of the Governors, three or four years ago, the question was continually before the Board of Governors, and the point was raised how the Asylum could be enlarged and made suitable for the increasing requirements. Structural enlargement was deemed impossible, and at that time it was determined that the building should be offered for sale to the War Office, to be used as a barrack. This will give an idea of the extent to which the Governors had at that time gone towards the conclusion that the building was quite unfitted for its purpose. Since then Belfast has still more rapidly increased, until at last it has been found impossible to arrange matters so as to accommodate the whole of the patients from Belfast and Antrim, many of whom have had to be sent to Ballymena and other unions in Down and Antrim. The necessity for an extension of the asylum having been shown, very grave consideration was given to the problem, and in the

  1339
  result we have this Bill, which we submit to the House for Second Reading. The objections the hon. Member has raised should be looked upon rather as minor points which can readily be adjusted by a Committee upstairs, should the House give the Bill a Second Reading. Since the Bill was printed we have had before us the Local Government Bill, some of the minor clauses of which would undoubtedly to some extent affect this Bill, but the promoters, the Corporation of Belfast, are perfectly willing on these points to alter the Bill in Committee. But what we broadly urge on the consideration of the House is that, the necessity for some such change being shown, we were bound to carry it through, and with the object of getting authority for the transfer we submit our proposals to the House. Further, I say the Board of Control in Dublin, having had the matter thoroughly laid before them, came to the conclusion that this was the best course to take, expressed regret that they had not the power to carry it through, and urged proceeding with a Private Bill. County Antrim will erect an asylum for county patients, and the present building will be sold to the Corporation.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Has the mind of the Lord Lieutenant and has the opinion of the Board of Control been ascertained since the Board of Governors rescinded their resolution in favour of the scheme?
  SIR E. HARLAND: With reference to that, I may say distinctly that the Board of Governors came to a definite and decisive resolution in the year 1890 to make this transfer; the Grand Jury of County Antrim approved and raised no objection to it, and it is only within the last two or three weeks that the Board of Governors again reviewed the matter, and it seems to me that it is an unbusiness-like proceeding to raise objections at the last moment, when the Bill had been entered upon, and it was ascertained that the Grand Jury of Antrim raised no objection, and when the points of difference can be adjusted after consideration of all interests by the Committee upstairs. All this was shown to the County Authorities; they
  1340
  waived their objections on minor points, and the County Members are here to support the Second Reading of the Bill, if necessary. It can be shown, I think, that the supposed rescinding of the resolution was a momentary thought, and should not stand in the way of a large transaction of this kind, to which serious consideration has been given for years. If at the last moment a momentary change of opinion should be allowed such weight as to change a course of policy deliberately entered upon, what progress can be made in any important public undertaking? The promoters of this Bill are business men; they have come after serious consideration to the opinion that this change is necessary, and I beg the House to view the proposal of the Belfast Corporation in a favourable light by giving the Bill a Second Reading, leaving points of detail to be fairly and fully discussed before a Committee.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: The hon. Baronet has not in the slightest degree removed the main objection—that being, that principle and expediency are opposed to such an attempt to deal piecemeal with Local Government administration in one of its most important details, the management of lunatic asylums. The hon. Member for West Belfast has so forcibly, and lucidly, and so unanswerably stated the objections, that I certainly will not attempt to go over them again. I appeal to the Chief Secretary not to allow this Bill to pass, for it conflicts with certain principles in the Local Government Bill for Ireland introduced by the Leader of the House within the last few days. I shall give my most emphatic opposition to the Bill in the shape in which it now appears, and I am sure that if it passes it will be the cause of many objections and amendments being raised to the Local Government Bill.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I do not think there is any dispute as to the necessity for making provision for lunatics in the district. The hon. Member for West Belfast has objected to details in the Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: The establishment of a second asylum has nothing to do with the Bill, that is determined; the main point is, the division of the governorship of the two asylums.
  MR. MACARTNEY: One of the objections of the hon. Member was on the score of expense; but I think he must see that if two asylums are established it is impossible that the same staff can do duty in both. The Governors are unpaid, so that the establishment of two Boards will add nothing to the expenses imposed on county or city, Then the hon. Member objected to the clause dealing with the transfer of patients. Now, I am not so locally connected with the city as with the county; but I have authority from the promoters to say that this clause was introduced at the direct suggestion of the Board of Control.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member entirely misapprehends me. I do not object to the transfers. I approve of them, they are excellent; but I object to having the control of these transfers of patients under two Boards of Governors.
  MR. MACARTNEYI am dealing with the hon. Member's objections generally, and I wish to explain that this clause did not originate in any deep design or sinister intention of the Corporation of Belfast; but it was introduced at the instigation of the Board of Control. The Board of Control is responsible for this suggestion in the Bill. Then as to the vesting the asylum in the Corporation, where again I think the hon. Member raised an objection. I have authority to say that the promoters will consent to any clause that the Board of Control desire should be introduced. They do not wish to depart from any clause, they will accept anything the Board of Control think it is necessary to insert. On the general question as to the desirability of delaying this Bill until the passing of the Local Government Bill, I think it is hardly reasonable to ask this from the promoters, the necessity for a Bill of that kind being admitted. If I understand the attitude taken up by the hon. Member and his friends, the passing of the Local Government Bill may not possibly become an accomplished fact within the present
  1342
  Session; and the necessity for dealing with this question being admitted, I hardly think the House will object to the Second Reading. But all the objections of the hon. Member go to the clauses, and on these points of objection the promoters are ready and willing to accept suggestions which may be made by the Board of Control before the Committee upstairs.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI did not hear with any satisfaction the declaration from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir. E. Harland) that this Bill has been drawn by business men. Now, if there is anything I abhor in relation to matters of this kind it is an arrangement entered into by business men, for there is almost sure to be some attempt at fraud at the bottom of it, some attempt to take an advantage of somebody. It is part of the system of business men in these business-like arguments on which they plume themselves upon having a superiority over the rest of creation. I have the most profound distrust of the talk about the arrangements of business men. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has taken an attitude which entitles him to the gratitude of the House, and especially of Her Majesty's Government. He has hit the blot in the Bill, and I am amazed that the Irish Secretary should have thought this Bill of so little importance that, until he was urgently sent for by the President of the Local Government Board, he did not think it worth his while to attend this discussion. This business arrangement on the part of the Corporation of Belfast is an attempt to contravene the general law; but contrast the action of Her Majesty's Government with that taken towards the Municipal Franchise Bill which we introduced a week ago. What did the First Lord of the Treasury say no later than Wednesday last week? "We cannot have your Bill," said he, "because it is in contravention of our splendid Local Government scheme," the boon he proposes to cram down our throats. But here, as my hon. Friend has said, is a direct attempt to contravene your Local Government Bill, an attempt by Belfast to secure for itself a specific legislative enactment

  1343
  and facilities above all the rest of that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland. Dublin, Kilkenny, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, all the rest of the Corporations of Ireland, are to be subject to the general law, all but Belfast, because Belfast happens to be a centre of that "loyal" minority where so much harmony exists, except on the 12th July, and is to have special legislation.
  MR. MACARTNEYWill the hon. and learned Member allow me to say that, as I have stated, the Corporation are quite willing to drop the exceptional clauses.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then there remains no necessity for the Bill. The Local Government Bill can be availed of much more cheaply and without the expenses of counsel, who, I understand, get very fine fees for their arguments upstairs. It can be done more cheaply and expeditiously without the expenses of counsel and solicitors, who benefit so largely from this Private Bill legislation. I am amazed that the Chairman of Committees does not interpose with opposition to this Bill. He had hardly been a week in his office when he took part against us for altering the franchise in a Private Bill. In 1885 Sir Charles Dilke put a Franchise Amendment into the Rathmines Bill. We the following year tried to follow that up, but the Chairman of Committees got our proposal rejected, and the borough franchise has remained ever since. What is this but to alter the franchise and derogate from the general law? Here is the general law of Local Government, that the Lord Lieutenant shall have half the power of nomination. Why does not the Chairman of Committees, why does not the Leader of the House, intervene and say, "You must not alter the franchise simply for the erection of another Board of Governors?" What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. From our point of view, why should not the Corporations of Clonmel or Waterford have similar powers? Where is the keen anxiety of the Chairman of Committees with regard to the alteration of the franchise, when this very week we have had before us a scheme of Local Government, in which dealing with this very question of lunatics is included? The
  1344
  Government were willing that this Bill should pass sub silentio, and but for the vigilance of my hon. Friend this might have been done. I do not interest myself with proposals dealing with lunatic asylums, especially when they are contained in Private Bills; but here the Government were willing to acquiesce in a proposal in a Private Bill to derogate from the general law as embodied in their own Bill. Fortunately my hon. Friend read the Bill, and was here to challenge it, while the Irish Secretary stayed out of the House until he was twice urgently sent for.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,That is absolutely incorrect.
  MR. T. M. HEALYDid the right hon. Gentleman hear one word of the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast?
  MR. JACKSONNo; I did not, because I was in attendance upon a deputation, and unable to be present here; but I hurried to my place as soon as I was able to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALYVery good. Accepting that in full, what was the duty of the Representatives of the Government who were present? Why did not the President of the Local Government Board get up and say, on behalf of the Government, that this was an attempt to derogate from the general law, and that it must be postponed until the Chief Secretary could be in his place? Why was not some action of the kind taken? No, but for the vigilance of my hon. Friend, the Bill would have slipped through, because of this arrangement with business men, to whom the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Harland) has alluded. We have business men on this side of the House. The whole question can be dealt with just as well in the Local Government Bill as it can be in the Bill now before us. I say it can be much better dealt with. Of course, we may be asked, "How on earth does the question of Protestant and Catholic come in on the question of the management of lunatic asylums?" We say we are entitled to a fair proportion of the representation on the Local Bodies, and this, owing to your jerrymandering of the wards in past years,

  1345
  we are now unable to obtain. It often happens that some of the unfortunate inmates of these asylums have their reason restored towards the close of their days, and we say at these moments the consolation of religion should be offered to them. We are entitled to have more than a third of the representation, but we have not a single representative on the Board of Control; we have not one representative on the Corporation; we cannot even have a Catholic scavenger in Belfast—there is not a Catholic employé of the Corporation of Belfast, from town clerk to scavenger. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) represents a third of the population of Belfast, and to say that he is not to be heard by the Chief Secretary upon this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman is attending a deputation, and that the Bill cannot be postponed, is a little too much. I think the time has now come for the Government to be heard. They have their own Bill, and if they believe in the virtues of that Bill for healing the woes of Ireland, let it have equal application to Belfast. You may amend that Bill to include all these questions, and certainly the stand you have taken against the Municipal Franchise Bill is one we may fairly ask you to adopt against this Bill.
  MR. JACKSONThe hon. and learned Gentleman might have saved a great deal of his warmth, for there is not the slightest foundation for any of the suggestions and insinuations he has thrown out in regard to my absence from the earlier part of this Debate. It is very gratifying to me, as one of those interested in the Irish Local Government Bill, to find, from expressions the hon. and learned Member has used, that he has a deep conviction that the Local Government Bill is going to pass this Session.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: With your majority and the Closure.
  MR. JACKSON: And, therefore, the provision of this asylum will not be prejudiced or delayed to any great extent, even though this Bill should be rejected. Now, I want just to make clear the position, so far as the organisation of this Bill is concerned. I believe there was, long prior to any
  1346
  knowledge on the part of the Local Authorities of what the Local Government Bill would contain, a general opinion that such proposals as these were necessary. There is no connection between the introduction of this Bill of the City of Belfast and the Local Government Bill, as the hon. Member implies there is. This question has been before the Board of Control on many previous occasions, and it is, I believe, admitted on all hands that there is a necessity for some more adequate accommodation for the insane. That everybody is agreed upon. Then the two Local Bodies have been in consultation and communication, and the question comes before the Government of Ireland in this form, their consent being necessary to enable the Local Authority, the City of Belfast, to promote this Bill. There was, I say, an agreement between the two Bodies—a general agreement—that further accommodation was necessary.
  MR. SEXTONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, am I not right in saying further accommodation has been provided for by order of the Department in Ireland and has nothing to do with this Bill?
  MR. JACKSONThe insane, of course, had to be provided for; but no detailed provision was made in this manner. With regard to the Governing Body, I understand that both the hon. Member for West Belfast and the hon. Member for Longford complain that under the Bill the representation is not fair. As regards the clauses in this Bill which conflict with the Local Government Bill, the Irish Government, in due course, as soon as they saw the Bill, gave notice to the promoters that these clauses would have to be amended or omitted.
  MR. SEXTONWhat clauses?
  MR. JACKSONI am speaking of the clauses in this Private Bill now before us relating to the election of Governors, and to which, I understand, the hon. Member has made objection In the promotion of the Bill the Government take no part; it is purely a local question, but it seems to me to be a reasonable attempt on the part of the City of Belfast to solve the difficulty and make the provision necessary Before a Committee upstairs all objec-

  1347
  tions can be urged, and upon the evidence before them it will be for the Committee to decide. So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to vote against sending the Bill to a Committee to be dealt with.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork): I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is far from being satisfactory. Of course, we learn with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman intends to insist that the clauses relating to the election of Governors are to be withdrawn. That we understand to be definitely settled. I must say that I am surprised that it ever entered into the heads of the promoters to insert these clauses. They appear to think that Belfast is entitled to be placed in a different position to any other community in Ireland. Why, this question of representation on the Board of Control is one upon which there has long been controversy between Irish Members and the Government. What is the position in the City of Cork? The Cork Corporation has not a single member representing it on the Board of Control for Cork Lunatic Asylum. Over and over again the Lord Lieutenant has refused, in a manner calculated to give the greatest offence to the great body of ratepayers in Cork, to permit the Corporation to elect a single member to the Board of Control for Cork Asylum, to the maintenance of which the citizens of Cork largely contribute. Cork being in this position, why is Belfast entitled to this privileged position? In a similar way, four or five years ago a municipal franchise was conferred on Belfast which was refused to the rest of Ireland. The doctrine seems to have gone forth that Belfast is entitled to an exceptional electoral position to which no other town can attain. Now, the right hon. Gentleman assumes that our opposition is based on the idea that the Local Government Bill is certain to pass this Session, but I beg to say that no such absurd hypothesis influences our action. But whether that Bill passes or not, this Bill is equally objectionable. If the Local Government Bill passes, then this Bill confers on Belfast electoral privileges in advance of the Local Government Bill, and it it does not pass the position
  1348
  is worse, for then the City of Belfast, under this Bill, would have the right to elect two-thirds of the Governors of the local lunatic asylum, whereas other communities in Ireland would have no right to elect a single member. I should like to have a frank statement from the promoters; if the clauses relating to the election of Governors are dropped, is there any advantage in their Bill at all? What purpose will it serve? It is admitted that under the existing law provision can be made for the erection of an additional lunatic asylum. The only question, therefore, the Bill deals with, the only clauses which are necessary, the only clauses to change the law, are the clauses regulating the franchise, and if these are dropped, then surely that is the death warrant of the whole Bill, for no advantage will be conferred on Belfast, and no privilege that cannot be gained under the existing law. I presume there are some clauses for rating purposes, but that is all. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. KNOX: I beg to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I object equally to every part of this Bill. I object, in the first place, because I think the interests of the Counties of Down and Antrim have been neglected in the way the Bill has been prepared in favour of the clique who manage the municipal affairs of Belfast. As a ratepayer of County Down I personally object to the Bill. But I do not merely object on that ground, which would not be a sufficient ground for opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, inasmuch as it is a detail which could be treated in Committee. I object to the Bill, because it proposes to set up a religious tyranny over the Catholic minority in the City of Belfast. ("Oh, oh!") The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) expresses his horror at such an accusation being brought

  1349
  against his friends in that city; but I wonder why the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends in Belfast, instead of expressing horror when the accusation is made, do not use their influence with the promoters of this Bill to introduce a certain amount of tolerance towards that minority in regard to the management of the municipal affairs of that city. At the present moment, as I had occasion to remark in discussing another Bill the other night, there is not a single elected Poor Law Guardian, not a single member of the Town Council, not a single Harbour Commissioner in Belfast, who is a Catholic. There are 80,000 Catholics in Belfast who are absolutely refused any representation on the Local Bodies. I ask how, in the face of facts like these, the House can purpose to hand over to a body of this exclusive character the right to control matters which affect in the very closest degree the religion of the people? Of course, hon. Members may say, "What do the lunatics care about religion?" but I think anybody who has any knowledge of the treatment of the insane will admit that though men are in a lunatic asylum they may none the less, but rather the more, require the consolations of religion to soothe them in their terrible disorders. I say a lunatic, just as much as a sane man, can be made the subject of religious tyranny. This is not an imaginary danger. For years the Poor Law Guardians in Belfast persistently refused to increase by one farthing the miserable pittance paid to the Catholic chaplain for his ministrations to the Catholic poor in the workhouse, and out of 60 nurses in the workhouse they have only one who is a Catholic. They refused, I say, to increase the miserable pittance paid to the Catholic chaplain, and the Local Government Board had to interfere, and got his salary doubled. But the Local Government Board cannot interfere in these matters if this Bill passes; the Board will have no power to interfere to insure common and decent fairness in the treatment of the people of Belfast. Not merely does this danger exist in reference to lunatics; there are other clauses in the Bill to which I venture to draw attention. There is a
  1350
  clause which proposes to transfer to the Corporation of Belfast all powers in connection with Industrial Schools and Reformatories. Now, everybody knows that Industrial Schools and Reformatories are religious institutions; they are attached to different denominations and controlled and administered by ministers of different denominations; therefore, in this respect, almost more than in any other department, there is danger of religious tyranny, and this I can show from experience of the county I represent. Cavan is a Catholic county, but the Grand Jury is Protestant. For 16 years in succession, and in spite of continual protests, the Grand Jury of the County of Cavan gave grants to Protestant Industrial Schools and refused to pay a farthing to Catholic Industrial Schools out of the money contributed mainly by Catholic ratepayers. I leave the hon. Member for South Tyrone and others, who abuse the Catholics of Ireland and say they are not fit for self-government on account of their tendencies towards religious persecution, to deal with facts like these. As a Protestant I say, and I deplore it with sincere regret, that the Corporation of Belfast cannot be trusted to give fair play to those members of the Catholic religion who are seeking under unexampled difficulties to bring up young persons of their own faith in Industrial Schools to lead better lives than their fathers did before them. I ask Members of this House, Conservative and Liberal, to pause before they set up an engine of religious persecution, which will be done if this Bill is passed. I hope this Motion of my hon. Friend will have support from both sides of the House. Of course there is one compromise open, if hon. Members who promote this Bill will assent to a redistribution of the wards at Belfast so as to arrive at a fair arrangement by which there may be Catholic representation upon the Town Council. In that way a compromise might be possible. In the Municipal Corporations Act for England there is a provision for the periodical revision of wards, and the Home Secretary, in whose Department the matter is controlled, knows that the power is frequently used in England. In Ireland there is no such power: the

  1351
  wards of Belfast can only be altered by a Public or Private Act of Parliament. It would be possible to make such a compromise in the Bill and prevent the Bill becoming an engine of persecution against the religious minority in Belfast. I ask the House to pause before it sets up an engine of persecution, as would be done by the Bill. It would be in the interests of religion to throw out the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLI regret the opposition of hon. Members below the Gangway. I cannot help thinking that if this Bill had been promoted by any other body than the Corporation of Belfast it would have been treated in an entirely different manner. The complaint is, that under this Bill there will be a chance of the Roman Catholic community of Belfast being unfairly dealt with. This is the head and front of the charge that is made against the Corporation of Belfast in this matter. The complaint is that the Catholics of Belfast have no representation on the Corporation. There is household suffrage in Belfast, and the reason why the Roman Catholics are not represented on the Corporation is that the minority are not strong enough to secure representation. The cumulative vote would have secured Catholic representation on the Corporation, but when the Local Government Bill which sought to confer that privilege was before the House, no one opposed it more strongly than the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  MR. SEXTONThere was a difference proposed to be made between the counties.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLThe hon. Member opposed the cumulative vote. This is a Private Bill promoted by the Corporation of Belfast, and I do not see why it should not receive the same treatment as any English town would receive. The Bill is right in principle, and hon. Members cannot pretend that it is not. Therefore, if it is a right Bill it should be sent to be dealt with by a Committee dealing with Private Bills, where anything that may be wrong can be rectified.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI rise merely to ask one question, and my view of the
  1352
  matter will be determined by the answer to it. I understand that there are certain clauses in the Bill to which objection is taken by hon. Members well acquainted with the locality. I understand that these clauses have been withdrawn, and I hear from hon. Members below the Gangway that if this is so there will be no necessity for the Bill at all. If these clauses are withdrawn, and if the residuum of the Bill is not necessary or operative for any useful purpose, why should not the discussion cease and the Bill be dismissed? Why should we go into the differences that exist between the religious bodies of Belfast? There has been a good deal of time unprofitably spent, but if we can come to some understanding as to what remains in the Bill which makes it worth while to pass it when these clauses have been withdrawn it will be very desirable.
  MR. JACKSONI understand that as to Clause 4, which deals with the appointment of Governors to the asylum, the Corporation have expressed their willingness to either withdraw it or to amend it in Committee in accordance with the wishes of the Committee. When the Bill came before the Irish Office, notice was given to the Corporation that the clause in question could not be allowed to pass in its present form, as it would conflict with the Local Government Bill. The clause merely deals with the nomination of Governors of asylums, and is only a matter of detail to which objection has been taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The clause seems to me to be perfectly capable of being made to deal fairly with the nomination of Governors proposed in the Bill. The other portions of the Bill deal with the main question, which is that of the financial adjustment between the City of Belfast and the county of Antrim, and the removal of patients from one to the other. It is quite open to Dublin or any other city to promote a similar Bill.
  MR. SEXTONI think the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Bill must be very recent. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has looked at Clause 9? That clause proposes to give certain powers to the Corporation in respect of the

  1353
  formation of industrial schools, and the same subject is to be dealt with under the provisions of the Local Government Bill. We desire that Belfast should be treated like the rest of Ireland, but we do not think that it should occupy the time of the House when the House is about to consider a Bill which deals with the whole question. I never expected that the extension of household suffrage would give the Roman Catholics a representation on the Corporation, or that any franchise would be equal. The city was divided into five wards 50 years ago, when the population was 70,000. No alteration has been made since then, although the population at the present time is 280,000. The Roman Catholic population has been deprived of all representation, because they have been crowded into certain parts of the city. I hope the Bill will be withdrawn or postponed until we see what Parliament does with the Local Government Bill. I shall oppose the Bill to the utmost unless the promoters agree to an instruction to the Committee to divide the city so as to give the Roman Catholics some representation on the Corporation. If no such representation is given, and if the Bill is read a second time, I will move that it be referred to a Hybrid Committee, with special powers to divide Belfast in such a manner as will give the Roman Catholics the representation they desire.
  MR. COURTNEYAny appeal based on a wish to procure the better representation of minorities will be received by me with a favourable ear. The question, however, before the House does not turn upon such considerations. The House, I admit, is in rather an awkward position. Belfast is proposing a Private Bill and the Government are proposing a Public Bill, and if the latter becomes law much of the advantages proposed in the Private Bill will become unnecessary. The practical question is, whether Belfast, having presented a Private Bill to the House, shall be hindered from going on because the Government have proposed a Bill which deals with the same subject? There are always uncertainties with regard to Belfast, but I confess I do not see any reason for destroying the
  1354
  ordinary right of Belfast to go on as it proposes to do with a Private Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Longford, in a vein which is common with him, made a speech full of sound and fury, in which he confused two things—the introduction of a Private Bill which is at variance with public law, and the concurrent introduction of a public and private measure which are at variance with one another. The public proposal does not take away the ordinary right of Belfast to go on with their Bill. We have had a good deal of declamation—partly deserved, no doubt—about the bigotry of the Corporation of Belfast, but with respect to the 9th clause it is to be remarked that the commencement runs thus—
  "From and after the passing of this Act the Council of the city shall have the same powers that are conferred upon the Town Councils of the boroughs of Dublin, Cork, and Limerick."
  MR. SEXTONBy Public Acts.
  MR. COURTNEYThat does not affect the question. The real question which deserves consideration at this stage is as to the management of the lunatics. The lunatics of Antrim are going to be separated from those of Belfast. In the interests of the lunatics this may be doubtful equity. This is, however, a question which we cannot decide here, but which may be inquired into by a Select Committee upstairs. The hon. Member for West Belfast wishes that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee, but I see no reason why it should not take its ordinary course of being read a second time and then referred to such a Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman says that I have made a speech full of sound and fury, but I think he has made one of sound and ignorance. The Bill is a departure from the invariable law which Ireland enjoys. The Chairman of Committees has asked us to support the Bill and allow it to proceed in the ordinary way, but I do not see any good reason he has given for us to adopt that course. The fact that the Government are willing to allow special provisions to be passed for Belfast, and different from those contained in the Local Government Bill, shows that they neither expect nor

  1355
  wish their own Bill to pass. If the Local Government Bill is to be proceeded with, why should the Belfast Bill be proceeded with? There is not a clause in this Bill which cannot be put in the Local Government Bill. If the Belfast Bill goes on, I shall move to, insert in it the Assize or "Put-Me-in-the Dock Clause." I move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. SEXTONHave we not a right to claim from the Government the ordinary courtesy of an expression of opinion? I think they should have time to consider my proposal that the Select Committee should be instructed to reconstruct the wards of the City. For that reason I support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. JACKSONThe question of the re-construction of the wards of the City is one for the promoters of the Bill. The Government have taken no part in the matter. I said that, so far as I was concerned, I should vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but that statement bound no one else but myself, and I did not, therefore, think there was any need for me to get up and say any more.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 149.—Div. List, No. 8.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CHANCEOne thing has been noticeable about this Debate, and that is that none of the Gentlemen who support this Bill have offered a single reason why it should be accepted by the House, or shown the slightest acquaintance with any of its clauses. The most interesting portion of the debate, however, was the reason offered by the Chief Secre-
  1356
  tary why the Bill should pass. He stood up and with the greatest frankness said he thought it ought to pass, because, after all, it was doubtful whether the Local Government Bill would or would not pass.
  MR. JACKSONI did not say that.
  MR. CHANCEThe right hon. Gentleman's words distinctly conveyed to the House the impression that he had some doubt in his own mind with regard to the Local Government Bill. It was interesting to note that the Gentleman who first repudiated that suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was the Chairman of Ways and Means, who said the true reason why the Bill should pass was that as a Bill dealing with some of the points had been introduced by the Government, a Private Bill should be brought in pari passu. The position of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be that a change of the general law was improper in a Private Bill, but he distinguished this case because there was a Public Bill before the House. When he was dealing with the Belfast Main Drainage Bill of 1885, he took exception to the introduction of a Franchise Clause in a Private Bill. I am afraid I fail to find what sound and practical ground exists for the exceedingly subtle distinction in the case of the present Bill. The first question is, what case has been made out for the passage of this admittedly exceptional Bill? The right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to support the Bill, and argued that it was necessary to provide the necessary extra accommodation for the lunatics of Belfast, and that in some way such accommodation would not exist unless the Bill were passed. In the Preamble of the Bill, so far from that point being taken, it said that an Order had been duly made authorising the erection of additional asylums in the City. The Bill would not in any way facilitate the provision of such accommodation. The Bill resolves itself into two distinct provisions—the franchise branch and the financial branch. I do not intend to labour the franchise portion of the Bill, as the Chief Secretary admitted that the Franchise Clause is bad in principle, and said that it was to be withdrawn, and then modified that by saying it would be amended.
  MR. JACKSONI said distinctly "or amended.
  MR. CHANCESurely the Government, who properly object to this clause, ought to tell us before they ask us to pass the Bill how they desire or expect the clause to be amended. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman has formed an opinion on the subject himself as yet.
  MR. JACKSONI have done so.
  MR. CHANCEThen I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform the House what that opinion is. As to the other division of the Bill, we are in the position that not a particle of reason has been alleged why the financial relations at present existing in respect to the accommodation of the lunatics of Belfast should be interfered with. The preamble carefully avoids any statement that the present financial relations on that subject are unjust or oppressive, or that any change is necessary or proper. We have not had one iota of information on the reason why the Government has consented to the division of this district into two. I oppose it on the ground that it will increase the public burdens on the people of Belfast. You will have two Asylums Boards and two distinct sets of officers, half of whom might be idle for a great part of their time instead of being transferred to the other asylum. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that as soon as this Bill was published it was repudiated by the Board of Governors of the present asylum, who are best informed in the matter, and they are prepared to undertake the government of the whole district, and did not desire two sets of offices and officials. In spite of that the House is asked by a Private Bill to make an alteration of the general law which the best authorities in Belfast have declared to be unnecessary and extravagant. The Bill proposes to create a body unique in the country, but its sole object appears to be to enable Belfast to escape the Local Government Bill, which its three Members following the Government are pledged by their Party ties to support against their convictions.
  COLONEL WARINGIn my opinion this Debate has gone on long enough, and if hon. Members opposite think so I will sit down. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said there would be two sets of officers. As the two asylums are 20 miles apart it is obvious that there must be.
  MR. CHANCEThat was my argument for having one instead of two asylums.
  COLONEL WARINGBut the ground is purchased and the arrangements made for the erection of the second asylum. Is that money to be thrown away? I hardly think that hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their love for economy, would urge that course being taken. The only body it creates which could possibly be dispensed with is the Board of Management, which, however costs nothing. I cannot see what possible reason there can be against the arrangement proposed. I should not have risen but that I was challenged with having neglected the interests of my constituents. Their interests will be looked after by the Committee upstairs, and it is perfectly unnecessary for the details to be discussed in this House. We have been told that Belfast should not be differently treated from other towns in Ireland, but Belfast has placed itself in a different position, and I cannot imagine that the matter is worthy of long discussion, or that the business of the House should be so delayed for an hour and a-half. These proposals do not throw any responsibility or charge upon the Roman Catholics of Belfast, and I am surprised that those statements should be made, that we desire to do anything exceptional in regard to that class of the community. From the remarks of the hon. Member for Cavan, it would appear that the Roman Catholics were trying to bring up their children in reformatory schools. I have no doubt very many of them are very likely to qualify their children for these reformatory schools, and the words are not mine, but those of the hon. Member for Cavan. I must say that had it not been mentioned, such a question is the last I should have introduced. I do sincerely think that the House will be well advised if it will persist in getting to a Division upon

  1359
  this matter at once, and so allow the House to proceed with the Public Business, which is of considerable importance.
  MR. JOHN DILLONI cannot understand the hon. Member opposite in his suggestion that there has been a too prolonged Debate, or that waste of time could reasonably be charged against us. The facts, it seems to me, are quite the other way, and the last speaker—
  COLONEL WARINGI said that I would sit down if you would take the Division, and as I sat down I asked you to take the Division.
  MR. DILLONI must say, upon my part, and upon the part of those upon these Benches, that we have no desire that a Division should not be taken now, and that I believe the discussion is being carried on for no useful purpose. What seems to me is that the House of Commons is just now engaged in the purest waste of time in carrying on an attempt which ought not to be carried on, and which simply results in nothing but pure waste of Public Business. The Home Secretary seems to be so absolutely indifferent to the convenience of the Members of this House and to the progress of Public Business, that he is just now, I presume, sauntering about some of the rooms of the House; while he saunters into this House and out again, leaving the House unadvised as to its proceedings. We have heard in the course of this Debate no word as to what the course of the Government will be. We are told that the Government are indifferent as to whether this Bill is passed or not. But while that was the statement made by the Minister left to take charge of the conduct of affairs in the House, we have discovered that the two wings were covertly engaged in treating this Division as a Government Division. Are the Government absolutely indifferent to the Business in this House; and, if not, would it not be manifestly for the interest of Public Business, and for the interest of the Government themselves, if they would consent to adjourn this Debate until the general views of the Members on this side of the House and the Members interested in this Bill are more fully ascertained? One thing I think is
  1360
  abundantly manifest, that progress with this Bill will not be facilitated by continued discussion; and therefore I do not propose to occupy the time of the House in replying to the argument of the hon. Member for Down, who complains about the waste of time, as if he would prevent all other Members from taking part in the Debate.
  MR. A. BLANEI would wish to point out, in connection with this Bill, that it relates to the expenditure of public money; money which the taxpayers contribute, and yet that money is left to the control of men who are absolutely devoid of any authority. These Grand Juries have so little authority, and their past performances have been so much defamed, that the Government themselves have condemned them, and let it be in the recollection of the House they are about to take over their fiscal authority. I ask the House to say, are we to hold that these men, to whom fiscal authority cannot be delegated, who are not worthy of it, are to have the uncontrolled expenditure of thousands of pounds? Why, there is not a man in the County Antrim, irrespective of religion, who would not have something to say in objection to it. There are thousands of people in Belfast, and thousands of people in the County Antrim, who have really nothing to say to the Grand Jury system, or to the management of the Grand Jury in the county. Over and over again I have heard County Antrim men and Belfast men complain that they have nothing to do with the Grand Jury system; with the Grand Jury who strike those rates they have no connection. The Grand Juries raise those rates, and expend them as they like, and no ratepayer can interfere; while if any ratepayer would interfere, his interference would be scouted as a piece of impudence. So thoroughly are these people imbued with the idea that they are all-powerful, that a large amount of public jobbery consequently takes place, to the extent of a vast loss to the ratepayers themselves, arising from an expenditure in which the people themselves have no voice. I say it is monstrous to ask the House to enable, under these circumstances, a Grand Jury to expend these thousands of pounds, knowing as I do,

  1361
  and as every ratepayer in the North of Ireland knows, that these men represent nobody; that they represent themselves alone, and that they represent themselves, by-the-way, exceedingly well. In fact, there can be no doubt about this question of accommodation. I myself saw, while in prison, a large number of men brought in from Belfast, who were chargeable to the County of Antrim; I saw them searched, and weighed, and measured; and what I want to know is why you cannot do the same with your lunatics, who can be removed from one county to another with convenience, the county from which they came being debited with their cost. If this matter of removal works so exceedingly well in regard to prisoners, and under the control of the Prisons Board, and the Prisons Board says it works exceedingly well, why should we not put it into effect elsewhere? The fact of it is that this Bill is, in a great measure, like most other Irish Bills that pass through this House—it creates a multiplicity of offices and devours the substance of the people. It reminds me of a Bill passed for appointing Inspectors of Explosives, and in one county the only man who sold explosives was the Inspector himself. Great complaint has been made that Irish Members occupy the time of the House with purely local affairs. In reply to that complaint, I say that you should allow us to manage our local affairs at home. [An hon. MEMBER: In Belfast.] And supposing you do allow us, I have no doubt we could do it a great deal better than you can. I should not have interfered in this Debate but for the fact that I know the feeling of the people, and I should be inclined to say, from some observations made in the course of the Debate, that the objection to this Bill is not purely upon a question between Catholic and Protestant. There are, as I know well, thousands of Protestants in the North of Ireland who have no representation whatever, whom this matter affects deeply, and who yet are entirely excluded from having a voice in the control of these affairs. I say that just as the General Prisons Board can manage their affairs so as to be satisfactory to themselves, so the affairs
  1362
  dealt with under this Bill could be managed, and I think the Bill should, therefore, be withdrawn.
  MR. JACKSONThe hon. Member for Mayo and the hon. Member for West Belfast made a suggestion that this Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee. I would venture to say that there would be no objection to such a Motion if it were made, and I would suggest to hon. Members whether it would not be best to agree to a Second Reading of the Bill at once on the understanding that it will be referred to a Hybrid Committee. That will save the time of the House, and, I think, meet the views of the hon. Members opposite.
  MR. T. M. HEALYSpeaking on behalf of my hon. Friends who sit beside me and for myself, I have to say that we are prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, provided that the Government will undertake that amongst the names suggested on behalf of the Government for the Hybrid Committee the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast should be one.
  MR. JACKSONThe hon. Member must be aware that I have no power whatever to determine what the names on the Committee shall be. The Government do not desire to be responsible in the matter; but so far as I am concerned, I must say that I should be glad to see the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast upon the Committee.
  MR. DILLONI understand that the Government will support the nomination of the hon. Member for West Belfast to the Committee.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; so far as I am concerned myself, I will support his nomination.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed ,
  "That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of seven Members, and that the Committee have power to appoint the hon. Member for West Belfast as one of the Members."—(Mr. Chance.)
  MR. SPEAKERThe proper course is to wait until the Bill is committed. When the Bill is committed, it can then

  1363
  be settled what proportion of Members shall constitute the Hybrid Committee.
  MR. CHANCEVery well, Sir; I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MERSEY AND IRWELL (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR HENRY JAMESI am sorry that I have to interfere in connection with this Bill. It is promoted by the Joint Committee of the County Councils of Lancashire and Cheshire for the purpose of preventing the pollution of the Rivers Mersey and Irwell; but I think it is open to grave objection, inasmuch as the Bill, while conferring powers upon the County Councils for the prevention of pollution of the rivers, also seeks to confer new and extensive powers without taking into account any of the safeguards which are in existence under the Public Act for the Protection of Manufacturers. This Bill seeks not only to enforce powers already existing, but it seeks to enforce new powers for the prevention of the pollution of rivers. That may be right or wrong, and I will not stop to discuss it; but it should not be done by means of a Private Bill. The Bill will throw a very great burden upon both the manufacturers and the ratepayers in the neighbourhood of those rivers, and I feel it due to my constituents to make a protest against the progress of it, believing as I do that, though I should like to carry its objects into effect, this is not the means of doing it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,When the Bill first came under my notice, I thought that the provisions contained in it were of a serious character; so serious that I thought that, so far as I am concerned, it would
  1364
  be quite impossible for me to recommend it to the House for Second Reading. In the first place, the Bill proposes to effect a very sweeping alteration in the law with regard to the pollution of rivers. But while I do not wish to lay down the general principle that in no case ought the law to be altered by means of a Private Bill, it seems to me that the provisions of this Bill are so strong and that the proposed alterations are so great that it goes beyond the proper limits. The main proposal in the Bill, and one to which I think serious objection may be taken, is that it sweeps away the whole protection given to manufacturers and others by the general law. The Central Board takes the best means in its power to prevent the pollution of rivers, and in manufacturing districts such protection as it is possible to give within reasonable limits is given by the Central Department. I informed the promoters of the Bill that if the protection given by the general law to manufacturers was swept away, the Local Government Board would oppose the Bill, but that they would forward its passing if the promoters would consent to retain the protection given under the general law by the provision which prevents proceedings from being taken until the consent of the Local Government Board has been obtained. I received an assurance from the promoters that they would assent to this course, and that a clause would be submitted to the Committee which would restore the protection given by the general law to the manufacturers. Still, even with the insertion of such a clause, I think objection may fairly be taken to the Bill in regard to its other provisions, although possibly not of so serious a nature; so that I should be disposed to recommend the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time in order that it may be put before a Select Committee. There is no doubt that the condition of these rivers is very bad, and I am sure all those interested would be very glad if they could by any means be rendered more pure. For these reasons I think the Bill might be sent to a Select Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHI should like to say a word or two in defence of the action of the Joint Committee of the Counties of Lancashire and Cheshire in promoting this Bill. It should be recollected that the Joint Committee represents some eight or nine county boroughs, and also that they are specially charged, by order of the Local Government Board, to carry out the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876. It has been found perfectly impossible under the general law to carry out that Act with any effect, and they therefore felt it was their duty to come to this House and ask for powers which they believe to be absolutely necessary for the carrying out of the duties imposed upon them. In regard to the manufacturers and others most affected they recognise how desirable it is that action should be taken to carry into effect the Act of 1876, and I believe I am right in saying that no objection on the part of manufacturers is taken, although, no doubt, their interests ought to be, and will be, protected. No doubt some of those who desire that protection will appear before the Committee, and there obtain the protection they are entitled to.
  MR. CHARLES SCHWANNIn regard to the Ship Canal and the sewerage along the route, I believe the health of the people is likely to suffer unless some drastic measure is adopted. I believe this Bill will afford some remedy, and I beg to support the Motion for its Second Reading.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

NEW WRIT.
For Kirkcaldy District of Burghs, v. Sir George Campbell, deceased.—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)
ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN SCHOOLROOMS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNERThe proposition contained in the Resolution I have to move is not novel in this House, and therefore I shall not have to intrude upon the attention of the House at any great length. Since the Parliament of 1886 I have endeavoured to impress this question upon the attention of the House and of the country, and, with the exception of one instance, the Resolution has been opposed on every occasion by the Government and hon. Members opposite. The reasons in favour of this Motion are principally three: first, the scarcity in rural districts of places for holding public meetings, and consequently the necessity of using the schools for the purpose; secondly, that the State has a right to claim the use of schoolrooms for public occasions; and, thirdly, because the use of these rooms has often been granted or withheld upon inconvenient or unfair principles. If I can prove this, perhaps I shall have gone far to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Resolution is as necessary as it is moderate. Before the Franchise Bill of 1885 the constituents of County Members were, generally speaking, well-to-do men, who could drive into the county town to hear the County Member; but under the new electorate there is a majority of poor men, who are labourers or artizans. During the elections of 1885 and 1886, and at many by-elections, many hon. Members have been put to inconvenience in addressing their constituents, and some of us have been obliged to address them in the open air which, in these days of influenza, is inconvenient, and even dangerous. In my constituency, which includes 80 villages, there are only five places which I can hire to speak in. Precedents show that the State has taken upon itself the right of using these schools for public purposes when it pleases. It is not disputed that the use of these schoolrooms is often refused on unfair principles. But what is worse is, that they are often granted to one side of Political Parties, and denied to the other. If that should be
    1404
    contradicted, I can quote the Vice President of the Council who, in 1887, in a reply given to myself, said he had discovered that hon. Members opposite were under special disadvantages as regarded meetings in rural districts. With regard to the Amendments which have been put upon the Paper, I think that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Shropshire will be found to be out of order, and that the Amendment of the Member for Wigan is unnecessary. There is an Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford providing that the use of these rooms shall not be allowed "at the time of an election for a seat on the County Council, or in the Imperial Parliament." I do not see how you can carry out that Amendment, which makes no provision for the Member of Parliament to visit his constituents, and I believe that proposal is practically impossible. Hon. Members have to vote on the point whether a political Party wishes to gain an advantage over its opponents, and whether they will run the risk of it being said that the arguments of the other side are so powerful that they wish them not to be heard by the electors. I do not believe that that is the desire of hon. or right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and holding this opinion I submit with confidence and hope my Resolution to the chivalrous instincts and sense of justice which I believe to be, the common property of every section of the House.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDIt appears to me, Sir, that the managers of voluntary schools are taking this question into serious account, and there are different interpretations being put on the way schools are to be used. There are those who think these schools, receiving enormous sums of money from the State, are private property. The School Guardian says that the National Schools belong to the Church, and the fact that the State contributed to their erection does not affect the question of ownership and control. But the education given in these schools is largely provided for out of Imperial Votes. We say that the distinction you are always trying to make between taxes and rates is unreal. The public are providing

    1405
    from 75 to 80 per cent. of the incomes of these schools, and it is reasonable that this large sum providing for the support of voluntary schools should carry some reasonable principle of local control. The same paper goes on to say—
    "We think it would be wise of school managers to refuse the use of their schools for political meetings altogether."
    That would mean practically the boycotting of all political meetings. The Vice President of the Council told us last year that he often attended political meetings, and had had to bolt from them.
    SIR W. HART DYKERead the words. In large towns. In Erith in 1865.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND"I can assure hon. Members I have often had to bolt from the meeting." The question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, who proposed that village schools should be used for public purposes, when the right hon. Gentleman gave as one of the reasons for refusing his support that at these village meetings some of the audience misbehaved themselves. If the advice of papers like the School Guardian is followed we shall have no meetings at all, because there is no other place for either Party to meet in. Then we come to the stage of the clergyman, who refuses his school because he belongs to the other side. I have here a letter, dated the 27th October last, from Sir Walter Phillimore, in which he says the clergyman of a certain parish said—
    "I and my friends are determined to do all in our power to prevent Gladstone playing ducks and drakes with Ireland. You cannot have it."
    Then we have a much more modern stage. A letter from the Buckrose Division says—
    "I am always willing to allow the use of our schools to candidates of either Party for the purpose of addressing the electors, but beyond this I do not feel disposed to go."
    If that position were maintained in cases where the candidate could not go to the village more than once in four or five years, it would limit the occasions on which politics could be discussed to one single occasion in that
    1406
    period. We can lay down no rule in this case unless we admit the broad principle that reasonable meetings for public and political purposes shall be allowed in these schools. The questions of temperance and labour are involved in the politics of the day, and are we to say that unless a member or candidate is present the villagers are not to have reasonably-conducted opportunities for authorities to address them on these questions? These village schools are being used for evening agricultural classes to help the farmer and allotment holder to get the knowledge how better to use his brain power and labour in the cultivation of the land. Are we not also to allow men to come to the labourer and teach him how best to use his capital—his labour? I think we should in these places have reasonable freedom for the discussion of social and political matters which directly concern the people in their relations to local and Imperial affairs. We shall be asked, Is this to apply to Board Schools? Most certainly. Everybody who knows anything of the North knows how valuable are the working men's co-operative societies in teaching thrift, the value of money, and the power of association. Why should a man be refused the use of the village Board School when he comes down to teach the villagers how to make a shilling go as far as possible by means of a co-operative society? In some cases at the last School Board Election the members were returned pledged to lend the school for such purposes, and now the meetings are held. In the next village the clergyman thinks co-operation is bad, and refuses the use of his school to the present day. That shows that School Boards can be dealt with, and can be dealt with by the villagers themselves in their own interests at least once in three years, and that these other schools, which have quite as large sums of Imperial money at their disposal cannot be dealt with by the villagers. The point about school managers is that many clergymen lend their schools willingly and heartily for every good purpose; they welcome the man who speaks about labour and about co-operation, and for good entertainments, whenever conducted by Non-

    1407
    conformists or others, which will make the lives of the people better. But the point is that in the matter of private schools you have no security for permanence. One clergyman may so lend the school; but the clergyman who follows may take exactly the opposite view. This point should be carefully considered. The schools of this country last year received £3,000,000 from the State, and now receive more than £5,000,000. How, when many of these schools are not contributing 20 per cent. of the whole income of the schools, can you say that the people have no right to demand that their own public interests shall be considered? The Bishop of London said:—
    "Every arrangement which treats the school as the people's own, and encourages the people to take a share in the management, will do at least as much service as the wisest advice and most skilful administration."
    Many of these schools have had money grants, and could not have carried on their work without them, and it is impossible to use the word "private" in the sense in which it is ordinarily used. I hope my hon. Friend's Motion will be taken in a wide sense; but we do not expect the Government to concede the Schools for all the questions to which we have alluded. Politics are of a social character nowadays, and you must permit, by reasonable arrangement, discussion by the villagers of these social questions. There are the questions of friendly societies and old-age pensions, and we should encourage the villagers to meet Members of Parliament and discuss these questions. There should be hardly a night when the schools should not be lighted up, and something interesting going on, instead of being dark and shut up, because people are afraid of these alarming subjects which are placed before the town working-men every day of their lives. Let us do all we can in Parliament—responsible for these grants—to help forward the villagers in every way that lies in our power. Let us give the grants on condition that when the schools are not being used for night-classes they shall be used for every kind of meeting, political or social, which the inhabitants desire to be held in them. These are the very subjects on which we want
    1408
    more light and discussion. Is there not insecurity enough already in the lives of many of our labourers, in the tenure of their cottages and other things to inculcate a fear of speaking out. Can you not give them the security of hearing not only both sides, but all sides, without treating them like children, on every political and social question. We can do much to lighten the hard life of the labourer if we do all we can to brighten, instruct, and improve it. We do not do enough in that direction by the use to which we put our Board schools at present. Let the Government give the concession on a broad basis, and the more generous the concession the more reasonable will be the use to which the schools are put, and the greater the opportunity for the education of the citizens, which opportunity we are bound to do our best not to deny to the inhabitants of our rural districts.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "taking into consideration the scarcity of buildings suitable for holding public meetings in rural districts, and the desirability that the electors of the Country should be enabled to hear both sides of questions affecting Imperial and local interests, this House is of opinion that the schoolrooms in schools in receipt of Parliamentary grants on such occasions as do not interfere with the educational purposes of the schools, and under the condition of payment of all reasonable expenses by the conveners of the meeting, should be at the disposal of the inhabitants of the district in which the school is situated for the purpose of holding public meetings,"—(Mr. Herbert Gardner,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONThe hon. Member for Saffron Walden introduced his Resolution as if it were a Radical Candidates' Relief Bill. It seems that these gentlemen are not able to find places in which to address their constituents, and so the hon. Member suggests that someone else should provide them. I have a certain sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, for I have often had to speak in the open air and on the hillside and

    1409
    other places which are extremely inconvenient, and I should not object that candidates should have nice schools scattered all over their constituency, swept and garnished, in which they and congenial spirits might gather together. Let us put the question on the right lines. It is for the convenience of ourselves that we desire this appropriation, this invasion, so to speak, of the property of other people. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden begins by declaring the scarcity of convenient rooms in rural districts, and ends by claiming the schoolrooms everywhere, in towns as well as country. He declares it would be a great advantage to have political meetings in these rooms, and then, far from confining his Resolution to that, he ends by saying that every school shall be at the disposal of every two inhabitants of every district for the holding of all kinds of public meetings. What kind of public meetings? It is rather difficult to define a public meeting; his resolution would include Socialist, Anarchist, and Fenian meetings, as well as bogus meetings of every description. And I suppose the hon. Member for Rotherham would not be quite happy if it excluded pipes and ale from the schoolroom.
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDSmoking concerts.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONI should be sorry for the schoolmaster if the desire of the hon. Member was carried out, and there was a public meeting every night. How he is to carry on his school work under such circumstances I cannot conceive. Of the schools which the hon. Member desires to take, 9,600 have been built by private individuals by private subscriptions, without one farthing of public money, and £4,000,000 have been spent on them by private individuals. Now, hon. Members desire to get hold of these buildings, on the ground that a public grant is made for education; but I would point out that the grant does not apply to the construction of the schools at all. I have great sympathy with hon. Members; but surely their purpose is not educational. We can never allow that these schools are public property. The hon. Member ignored altogether the managers of the schools.
    1410
    It is rather a strong measure for two inhabitants to override the freely elected representatives of the people—the School Board—to enter the school and put aside the wishes and regulations of the Board. I wish to make a suggestion, which I hope will be acceptable both to the Government and to hon. Members opposite. We are promised that a Bill shall be brought forward to exempt schools from rates, and I think we might add a clause to that Bill, under a proper definition, which will give, under reasonable conditions framed by the Department, the use of these rooms for political meetings.
    MR. HENEAGEI wish to support the Resolution of my hon. Friend in its most generous sense. I have always been a strong advocate for opening the schools for political and social purposes which will elevate the mind of the villagers in any way. I do not understand in moving this Resolution that we are trying to obtain the schools for ourselves as candidates or Members of Parliament. But we are doing it for the purpose of giving the parishioners in their own school district an opportunity of discussing the different sides of all questions. I also controvert the statement that these schools are entirely private schools. If these schools had not been built either by the landlords or private subscriptions, they would have had to been built out of the rates. Amongst those who so subscribed are many Nonconformists as well as many of those of the Church of England. Now that such large contributions are made out of the Imperial funds it is only fair that the schools should be used as far as possible for the benefit of the parishioners. In putting my verbal amendment to the Resolution it was with a view of giving them power which they do not possess under the Resolution as it stands. There will always be found—whatever the subject of the discussion may be—people ready to take the responsibility of calling and conducting the meeting, and this would give them power to hold meetings, and see that the parishioners are not kept out by people brought from other districts, which is often done. Those who ask for the room would have control of the meeting, and it would be in the first

    1411
    instance for the benefit of those whose children attend the schools. I do not wish to restrict the use of the rooms to political and County Council meetings; I desire that they should be open for the discussion of every subject, social or political, Imperial or local, and as far as possible for entertainments which may elevate the minds of the parishioners. I hope the Government will accept this Resolution in the generous sense in which it is put on the Paper, then it will be dealt with by legislation, and we shall be able to discuss the details in the Bill. I cannot see what there is in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire, unless it is that he desires to put in this Preamble to the effect that on behalf of the clergy he grudges giving the schools in these cases, but that, knowing that both sides are in favour of the Bill, he is willing to yield. I also regret the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Oxford University. That comes very badly from the Representative of the rural clergy, who has a quiet seat, and has never to go through the drudgery of Election speeches. If he really speaks the mind of the rural clergy, I am very sorry for it, but I do not believe it. If it is not, I think it very unfortunate that it should come from one who is here as special spokesman of them. I hope the House will not accept any Amendment, but that they will accept the Resolution in a generous sense, and not accept any limitations, but leave all details to be settled in a Bill.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTI do not claim to represent the rural clergy or the rural lawyers any more than the urban clergy or urban lawyers. I wish to explain why, and to what extent, I think it necessary to oppose the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I should like to remark that these school buildings are primarily places for education; and secondly, and by accident, they become places of public meeting. I do not desire to offer a non possumus, but there is a danger in the natural desire to meet what is the very obvious wish on the part of many people, of forgetting what the schools exist chiefly for. In so far as we devote these buildings to other pur-
    1412
    poses we run the risk of unfitting them for the purpose for which they were originally designed. They are to be used for political meetings, and these meetings sometimes degenerate into a certain amount of rowdyism—I do not say more at the meetings of one side than the other—there is a good deal of disturbance, and the furniture gets rather knocked about. That is not a convenient condition for school buildings to be reduced to. One hon. Member suggested that smoking concerts should be permitted. The effects of smoking overnight do not always disappear with the night, and those effects, I suppose, would be an uncomfortable adjunct to education. These buildings are, under present circumstances, often used for evening technical education lectures. Suppose the parishioners claimed the schoolroom for a public meeting, what is to prevent, unless the Bill is very carefully drafted, the lectures being disturbed by the political meeting, which the parishioners have a right to demand? Hon. Members will see that this is a question which cannot be disposed of by an after-dinner discussion, but is one which really needs careful attention, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give to it. The hon. Gentleman who moves this Resolution says—
    "Under the condition of payment of all reasonable expenses by the conveners of the meeting."
    Has the hon. Gentleman thought these words out? They are very nice, but how is he going to carry them out? The conveners of the meeting will be the inhabitants of the village, but how are they going to pay the expenses? The managers have to maintain the schools in a fit state every day to secure the grant. Suppose the room is upset by a rowdy meeting, and some of the chairs and desks are broken; who is going to make good the damage? Who is going to ensure that the room is in a proper state the next morning for its primary use? These points want very careful watching. If these meetings are to go on all night, and every night throughout the year—
    MR. HENEAGENot all night.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTThe speaker's eloquence might be exhaustive and others might want to answer it, and there might be a regular Parliamentary Debate. If that is to be the case I do not know where we shall be led. We must put a limit to their use, and I thought they might be used for Parliamentary and County Council election purposes only, and then my right hon. Friend might rescue them in his wisdom from the dangers I have endeavoured to point out. I am sorry that the occasion has arisen for this Motion at all. Such matters should be arranged by co-operation one with another. I suppose there may be unreasonable clergymen, though I have not often come across them; yet if there are unreasonable people, I suppose the House must do something to meet the difficulty. I do not think there was any large demand made for this; but if we are going to deal with it, I hope it will be carefully done. As it must be done by Bill, I suppose we shall soon have an opportunity of discussing it. We know the Government have a very large programme before them, though how much of it they can fulfil I do not know. I have great confidence in them, but I do not think adding another Bill to that programme will help them through. As we are going to have one Education Bill for exempting school buildings from rates, that affords a good opportunity for adding a clause on this subject, and if the two were dealt with together it might conduce to a saving of public time.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,I hope I have not intervened too soon; but I am anxious, before hon. Members separate, to put my views and the views of the Government before the House with regard to this Resolution. The speeches of both the Mover and Seconder were perfect models of what a speech should be on a Resolution of this kind. There was no evidence of an intention on their part to stir up Party strife. I must be allowed, in the first instance, to say one word on the part of the Department which I have the honour to represent. So far as my own opinion goes, I have
    1414
    always expressed a great regret that there should be any necessity for holding political meetings in our schools. I am not alone in holding that view; it is held, I know, by many hon. Members opposite. Still more do I entertain this regret in view of the changes we have made in regard to our elementary schools. I trust I am not over-sanguine in hoping that the changes we have made and the better position in which we have placed rural schools will induce managers—especially in respect of the newer branches of education in which amusement is mingled with instruction—to adopt the system of evening classes, which is one of the most prominent features of these changes. In 1887 the matter was brought before the House, and the hon. Member for Leicester said that just in proportion as these buildings were well adapted for school purposes, and furnished for that end, just to that extent they were ill-adapted for public meetings. But we have this evening to meet the case which is put before us, and my duty on behalf of the Government is to say that I am prepared to concede this point. We have a great difficulty in regard as to how and where public meetings are to be held in rural districts. I myself have had some lengthened experience of public meetings. The hon. Member for Rotherham has referred to a more unfortunate phase of my experience. What I had in my mind when I spoke happened a long time ago, and hon. Members may congratulate themselves that we have now a more peaceful state of things. Not many years ago I had the painful experience of being invited to attend the meeting of a political opponent in his own hop kiln. Hon. Members will appreciate the dangerous position I occupied when I felt all the while that my opponent might at any time light the fire, and while drying his hops might dry up his opponent. It is perfectly obvious from the speech of all hon. Members that we have a great difficulty in regard to these meetings, and we are all agreed that we should wish all to share alike in regard to these schoolrooms—either that they should not be used at all or else be at the disposal of either Party. Cases have been shown where schools have been

    1415
    lent to one Party and denied to the other. Then we come to the proposal of the hon. Member. Although I know that during last Session I refused to import an Amendment with reference to this matter into the Education Bill then passed, I think I can with some justice—it is scarcely worth while to go into the reasons—press the view that it would have been hazardous for me, considering that the Bill I was dealing with was bristling with contentious matters, to attempt to graft such a proposal on the Bill. Yet I wish to assure hon. Members that I was during that discussion impressed with the fact that this was not a difficulty which was felt on one side of the House only. I found several Members on this side, both during the discussion and afterwards, pressing seriously upon me the fact that a great difficulty—especially in the Eastern Counties—was met in regard to public meetings in schools. Since that time I have gone into the matter, and have come to the conclusion that, owing to the extraordinary growth in the speech-making power of the country, this was a difficulty that must be met. I calculated that for every speech made in 1865 there were now a hundred. Putting all these facts together, and acknowledging as the Government must do that there is a real grievance to meet as regards the supply of places for political meetings, I wish to state, on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared to fully accept the principle embodied in this Resolution. Sir, having said so much, and without going closely into the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of the Resolution, I think it only fair, for many reasons, to urge one or two considerations upon the House with regard to this question. It has been urged by my hon. Friend that this is not an easy question to deal with, and that there are grave difficulties in regard to the matter. But they are difficulties which I believe, with a little give and take on both sides of the House, can be fairly and adequately met. But I should be wrong if I did not mention one or two points for the consideration of hon. Members. In the first place, I should like to urge this point on hon. Members: The Resolution as it stands
    1416
    demands that these schoolrooms shall be at the disposal of the inhabitants of the district where the school is situated. This points to the intention that the demands should come, and ought to come, from the locality. I am of opinion that this demand should come from a certain number of the ratepayers of the locality, or other responsible persons. I think that some such provision as this is necessary in regard to these schools. Much has been made, and I think very fairly made, in previous discussions, of the difficulty of the damage which might be done to schools. Under the circumstances I think it would be perfectly useless for us to discuss that point. All of us who have any experience of these things know that damage may occur. That is a great matter, because it involves this: that security should be given that any damage that was done should at once be put right, and it also raises the difficult point with regard to the description of the meetings held in the schools. I think we ought to have some security that a candidate can only summon a meeting through the ratepayer in the locality; and as regards any damage that may be done, I think that security should also be given, and that such damage should also be made good at once. I think it should also be understood that the right can only be claimed where very considerable pains have been taken to discover a suitable building and where a suitable building cannot be found. I would further point out that it is the interest of the locality that this should be done. There may be cases of schools being taken for a meeting where the building may be filled with people coming from other parishes to the exclusion of the inhabitants of the locality. Well, then, I think the manager should be protected not only as regards the actual hours during which a meeting of the school may be held, but in a case such as this. Supposing a demand is made for the occupation of a school for a public meeting on a certain date, and then following this meeting an inspection of that school is to take place. Here a very great difficulty may arise. The inspection usually takes place in the early morning, and

    1417
    a noisy meeting might place the manager in a very great difficulty as regards the inspection of that school. I think we should, therefore, see that some protection should be given to the manager, and that he should have some right of appeal to the Education Department or some responsible body. I think I need not detain the House further. I think due notice should be given; and I can only conclude these few remarks by saying that I think it would be well that these difficulties should be met in a fair and a generous spirit on both sides of the House, and I hope the concession I have made will be appreciated by hon. Members.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYI am quite sure that the concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman will be received in every quarter of the House in the way it deserves. The right hon. Gentleman could not have taken up a new position with better humour or better grace. I will not go for a moment into the reasons he gave for justifying the attitude he has now taken up. It would be ungracious for me to do that; and I may state that it is enough for us that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are prepared, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own language, "to the full" to accept the principle of this Amendment. The qualifications, if qualifications they may be called, are really not worth quarrelling about. In fact, many of them—the important ones—are already embodied in the Resolution. The proposal that the demand should be made by a certain number—it should be a very small number—of responsible persons, is by no means an unreasonable one; and I have to remind him that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham admitted that the test of the kind of meeting that ought to be held, as regards the character of the meeting, was to be found in the sense of the inhabitants of the districts. As regards this last point, as to the reasonableness of notice being given, of course, in the case of all meetings of this kind, that must be recognized. As for the apprehensions expressed faintly by the right hon. Gentleman, but loudly by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, both of them seemed
    1418
    to forget that schools are used every week of the year for political meetings. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford talked about danger to the furniture, and of the difficulty of the place being put in order early next day, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council observed that the Inspector might arrive next morning and find the room not quite ready, and so forth, all this would apply to schools which all of us who represent boroughs know are open every week of the year. That is to say, we hold our meetings in Board Schools, and the next morning the school work goes on exactly as if these meetings had never been held. All these apprehensions are purely imaginary; and I only regret for the sake of the position of the University of Oxford that the Member for that body, which I, as an humble member of it, of course wish well as much as the hon. Member himself, should come forward to take up this position. But as the Government have not followed him in that very obnoxious line, I shall say nothing more about it, only to point out this that his own Amendment, if accepted by the House, would have left all these dangers for several months previous to an election. The right hon. Gentleman said—and this was almost the only point which I thought he was not reasonable in—he said that the inhabitants should satisfy themselves that they should not come and demand the schools unless they were persuaded that it was the last resort. Well, I do not think that any such necessity should be laid upon the inhabitants. We all know very well what is the place of last resort; that would be the public-house; but does the right hon. Gentleman mean that meetings should be held in a public-house rather than in a school?
    SIR W. HART DYKEWhat I really wished to impress upon the House was that they should only use a school when they could not get a better place, and that every possible pains should be taken by them to get a better place if possible.
    MR. J. MORLEYI quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation; and I am sure that the persons con-

    1419
    cerned will take care to find a better place if they can. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to limit the use of the schools by talking about the Parliamentary candidate as being the only person who could use these schools. I hope that he, and I hope that the Government, will fall in with the wishes expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and that all subjects of political and social interest would be discussed at meetings in these schoolrooms—temperance, friendly societies, co-operation. Persons wishing to discuss all subjects of that kind, if a sufficient number of the inhabitants wish to discuss them, should be allowed to do so, and I hope that all these schools, supported by public money, will be open to the people. It is a very important concession that is made. It will make a great difference in rural life, and after the night now passing I hope we shall never more hear any of the nonsense about these schools being private property.
    COLONEL BLUNDELLSir, whilst I am not opposed to school buildings in rural parishes being used for public meetings and for entertainments, I am, at the same time, most anxious that the Vice President should specially consider the peculiar position in which the Church schools stand. I mean school rooms which are also used as churches. The circumstances of these schools are different from those of the ordinary elementary schools, and it is not at all impossible that if they were thrown open, as is proposed by this Resolution, at the instance of several householders, they may be used for the purpose of entertainments that may justly be held to give offence to the congregation of the Church. Therefore, Sir, I would suggest either that the Church schools should be exempted—perhaps that would be desirable in any case—from the Resolution, or that, in case of objection being taken, power should be given to the managers of referring any application to the Inspectors or to a local Magistrate. The effect of that would be to check any possible abuse.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONI understand that the Government have, in principle, assented to the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden. The object of my rising is, therefore, not to prolong the discussion, but to direct attention to the terms of the Resolution. In the Preamble the Resolution recites that there is a scarcity of conveniences for the holding of public meetings in rural districts, and the Resolution goes on to say that, in the opinion of the House, schoolrooms should be made available for the purpose of public meetings. Sir, taking these two parts of the Resolution it might be suggested that the want of adequate accommodation, and the necessity of supplying it, were alike confined to the rural districts. That is not so. I quite admit the case of the rural districts, but in many of the cities and large towns the case is quite as strong. In my own constituency, for example, namely, North St. Pancras, in Gospel Oak district, the only good room available for public meetings is a Church schoolroom, the use of which, for reasons I will not comment upon, has been denied to myself and to my friends. Some rule has been made that the room is not to be used for political purposes, and, as a consequence, I have not had an opportunity of holding a meeting of my constituents in that particular district. The only large room available in the whole neighbourhood is a room on the border of my constituency, for which a considerable fee is charged. The inconvenience arising from the want of suitable places for the holding of public meetings is felt in many other parts of the Metropolis. Therefore, Sir, I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman considers how to give practical effect to my hon. Friend's proposal he will not confine his attention to the rural districts, but that he will likewise consider the claims of the Metropolis, and of the populous towns throughout the country to similar accommodation.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNESir, although I sympathise very greatly with my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Saffron Walden, I, at

    1421
    the same time, think that a certain amount of sympathy should be extended to the managers of the rural and voluntary schools—sympathy with the sentiment they profess, and with the action they have thought it right to take. For my own part, I think that the managers of the voluntary schools would, on the whole, have acted more wisely if they had agreed that both Political Parties should have practically a free hearing before the constituencies. At the same time, the House should remember the circumstances under which these schools were built. Nearly two-thirds of the whole of the voluntary schools were built without a penny of assistance from the State—built by clergymen and churchmen interested in a particular form of education—namely, the education of the poor in the principles of the Church of England. Now, Sir, although I think the managers have behaved unwisely, I cannot but sympathise with them in their feelings of reluctance to permit the schools which they built to maintain the Church of England being used to destroy it. Take a parallel case—the Volunteers—who are maintained largely by public funds. Supposing it were suggested that the drill halls belonging to the Volunteers, which have been put up by private subscriptions, should be available for public meetings when any six gentlemen of the parish might so desire, and supposing that these meetings might take the form of a denunciation of the Volunteer system and their commanding officers. I think the Volunteers in this House would take care to make themselves effectively heard in opposition to any such proposal. I think they would be wrong. I think it would be better if they allowed the meetings; still, you could not hold them illogical if they said they would not allow buildings erected for the purpose of fostering the Volunteer movement being used to denounce it. Now, Sir, I understand the Government have accepted the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think they are wise in so doing; but they must carefully consider the regulations under which meetings are to be held. Precautions must be taken that
    1422
    those who have the use of the schools can give a substantial guarantee against loss. But, if proper precautions were taken, I do not think any harm would accrue to voluntary schools; but I do not think any Resolution, or Bill consequent upon it, ought to be carried unless such precautions were taken.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI always hear the noble Lord speak upon this subject with great satisfaction, because I look upon him as a Representative of an almost extinct species—I mean the old Tory. In fact, his accents come upon us almost like distant music, and remind us of the Lost Chord. The noble Lord said they had created these schools for the purpose of extending the interest or the Church of England; but ever since the passing of the Elementary Education Bill of 1887 they ought to have perceived that there was no longer a legitimate purpose to which these schools should be appropriated. Although very reasonable views on this subject had been taken in this House, I have no doubt that there would be a great many people outside who would still adhere to the view that the village school is primarily to be used for the maintenance of the views and interests of the Church. But that is not the fact since the Elementary Education Act and those large grants were passed. I think Gentlemen on both sides of the House regard with favour the idea that the rural population shall have opportunities of instruction and interest. The noble Lord speaks of this matter as if it were a question of Party politics. But that is not our view, for we think it is not to be restricted to political meetings by any means, and what we contemplate is that the schoolroom should be the village hall, as the town-hall is the place of meeting in the town. There is generally in a village one building alone—unless you wish people to go to the public-house, which is the last place it is desirable they should use for the purpose—which is available for public meetings, and we contemplate that they should meet there when they have any question to discuss, whether they want allotments, or a Small Holdings Bill, or similar subjects; and where can the village community more

    1423
    properly meet to consider them than in a village school? Take again the question of temperance. There are many questions affecting village life, apart from Party politics, for which I desire there should be a free use of village schools, as the regular meeting place for the discussion of subjects apart from Party affairs. The noble Lord is very much afraid of the damage that may be caused at Party elections; but in the large towns we are perfectly familiar with these meetings for all sorts of purposes, and above all for Party purposes, and nobody hears of those mischiefs arising which give him so much alarm. As for safeguards, the noble Lord belongs to the Party of safeguards; but, generally speaking, when their safeguards come to be examined, they are either very unnecessary or totally inapplicable. The safeguards advocated to-night are mostly superfluous, and everything the noble Lord has been contending for in that respect is contained in the Resolution. Therefore, I hope the Bill will be accepted in a liberal spirit, and not in the narrow view which has been expressed on the opposite side.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURI agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the fact of a large contribution made by the State towards the elementary education carried on in the schools does differentiate them, to a certain extent, from ordinary private schools erected and solely maintained by private enterprise; but at the same time it is perfectly certain, as my noble Friend behind me has said, that these schools, in a large number of cases, have been erected at the cost of a certain section of the community, in order that religious education may be carried on in accordance with their particular creed. That is a fact that should not be lost sight of whenever this Resolution comes to be embodied in a Bill. It fact, I do not think it is possible to describe the discussion of this evening as more than a Second Reading Debate upon the principle of the proposal. We are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that it is in the highest degree desirable that those schools, in districts where no other
    1424
    public places of assembly are to be obtained, should be open to every side of politics to be used for the amelioration of the life of the inhabitants of the district. But I confess that I have an uneasy feeling that when the hon. Gentleman opposite comes to embody this view in his Bill, he will find that he has to take more trouble in devising the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman has derided than he at present supposes. My noble Friend has pointed out that if damage occurs to these schools the cost should be defrayed by the people who engage them, and not by the managers of the schools, and the equity of that proposition, I am sure, will be recognised by Gentlemen opposite. I notice that the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman applies to Ireland as much as to Scotland and England, and it is obvious that it must apply to Ireland, inasmuch as every argument used with regard to England applies with tenfold force to Ireland. But I think hon. Gentlemen should be very careful lest they should give a power to any street lecturer on social or political subjects to make use of convent schools in Ireland—which receive grants very much in excess of the amount given in the English schools—for purposes which those who assist in their management would disapprove of. In the North of Ireland, where the religious sects are equally divided, I can conceive that very considerable security against damage would be required in some cases by the managers of schools. When the hon. Gentleman comes to frame his Bill with safeguards for the managers of schools against all the dangers which have been pointed out his task will be very difficult. I shall be glad when the time comes that he can bring forward his Bill. In the meantime, I trust the result of this discussion, although it can have no obligatory force until its effect is embodied in a Bill, will have some influence in inducing every manager of a school to open it, so far as he can, to the expression of any legitimate opinion on the other side o politics, and I believe that the vast majority of them are now prepared to do so for the purpose of ameliorating the conditions of existence of the people in their locality.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNERPerhaps I may be allowed to acknowledge the acceptance of the Resolution by Her Majesty's Government, but I find that the words of the Leader of the House do not agree with those of the Vice President—
    MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member has no right of reply, as there is no Amendment before the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALYI notice an observation of the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to Ireland. We have not intervened in this Debate because we have waited to see what position would be taken up by Her Majesty's Ministers, but the right hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government has now said it would be the duty of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden to introduce a Bill, whereas we gathered from the previous speech of the Minister of Education that it was the intention of the Government to do so themselves.
    SIR W. HART DYKEI think there must be some misapprehension. I do not think I said anything implying that the Government would bring in a Bill.
    MR. HEALYThe hon. Member for Saffron Walden has no power of carrying a Bill if it were to be opposed or blocked by hon. Members opposite. Of course, we feel in Ireland that this is a matter of some delicacy, and we do not at all wish to say that our minds are made up on the subject. What I would suggest to Her Majesty's 'Government is that the Government should instruct the Irish Education Board to draw up certain rules which, in their opinion, would define the limits of deviation with regard to the subjects to be discussed at meetings in these schools.
    MR. CHANCESo far as Ireland is concerned in this question, I must say it is not to us a very practical one. So much interest is taken with us in political affairs, and the meetings we hold are usually so large, so many people desire to attend them, that it would be practically impossible to use school buildings in rural districts, as they would not be large enough to
    1426
    afford accommodation. Therefore, the question does not interest us much until we see the proposals of the Government; but I feel bound to protest against the suggestion made by the First Lord of the Treasury. The First Lord, after the Resolution was accepted on behalf of the Government, stands up and speaks of a Bill being brought in by the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division to carry that Resolution into effect. Although I am but a comparatively new Member of the House, I am surprised, I confess, at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought it was settled, as one of the established customs of the House that if a Government accepts a Resolution, the acceptance of which would be nothing but a mockery and a form if it were not carried out in substance, it is the duty of the Government to make that Resolution effective by bringing in a Bill upon the subject. I believe it is a fact that every Member of the House accepts that doctrine. The Government having agreed to the Resolution ought themselves to introduce a Bill. All the Wednesdays up to Easter have already been appropriated by private Members, and what chance, I ask, would the hon. Member for Saffron Walden have if he were to introduce a Bill? In fact, it would be practically impossible for him to carry it. We know that a number of Members of this House will not be likely to agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden in all the details of the measure, so that we know the measure will be ruined if the Government refuse to initiate legislation, and that they will be turning their acceptance of the Resolution into a nullity. I appeal to the desire for British fair play, and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not himself aware that he is departing from the customs of the House with regard to this Resolution.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURAs a matter of personal explanation, I wish to say that I accept every word that has fallen from the Vice President of the Council. One very strong reason why the Government cannot undertake to introduce a Bill, is that we think we may have difficulty in passing the measures already introduced, and therefore it would be

    1427
    just as much a mockery if we were to introduce it without a chance of passing it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTAs the right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation, I think we should have one. I certainly understood the Vice President of the Council to say that he would bring in a Bill.
    SIR W. HART DYKEIf the right hon. Gentleman can quote a single sentence in my speech to that effect I shall be glad to hear it.
    MR. F. STEVENSONIt is perfectly clear that there is a discrepancy between the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury and that of the Vice President of the Council. We certainly did understand from the speech of the Vice President of the Council that the Government would bring in a Bill.
    SIR W. HART DYKEI cannot admit anything of the kind.
    MR. F. STEVENSONI think, Mr. Speaker, that where the schools are in receipt of a grant out of the Imperial Exchequer these buildings ought to be serviceable as, town-halls or village-halls, to be used, for the purpose of political meetings. There are only three courses to be pursued. The first is, that the Member for Saffron Walden Division should bring in a Bill himself dealing with the question. That is practically impossible, and I think it would be a shame if the Government, were to accept this Resolution and, leave the matter in its present stage without any legislation on the subject. Considering the number of Bills that are down by private Members, it has little chance of securing a place, and even if it did secure a place there would be no chance of passing it into law. So far, therefore, as the first course is concerned, I believe it to be out of the question, and I think hon. Members will agree with me. The second course is that the Bill should have special precedence given to it, but the third is, I think, a practical one; it is that a clause be introduced into the Rating of Schools Bill, giving the power of holding political meetings in school rooms. I do not see the object of the Government accepting a Resolution that cannot be possibly carried out. There is no meaning in it; and I think
    1428
    the best course would be, as has been suggested, to bring in a clause in the Rating of Schools Bill, adopting the course that has been so generally recommended. Should the Government refuse to adopt that course, it will remain for hon. Members upon this side of the House, when they have a majority in the next Parliament, to put in force the terms of the Resolution.
    MR. CHANNINGI am bound to say that as I left the House a short time ago I was under the distinct impression, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, that the Government undertook to give legislative effect to the Resolution.
    SIR W. HART DYKECan you quote any single sentence in my speech to justify that conclusion? In the interest of fair-play, I ask the hon. Member to quote any sentence from my speech that will bear any such interpretation; that the Government either directly or indirectly pledged itself to bring in a Bill.
    MR. CHANNINGWell, I cannot carry my mind back to the exact words, but the impression left upon my mind was that the Government would bring in a Bill to deal with the question. I think this is a question of great importance in view of the General Election, which cannot be much longer delayed, and I think it is perfectly clear that Her Majesty's Government intends to run away from the opinion they have definitely endorsed in the course of the Debate. It is obvious that since the speech of the Vice President of the Council there has been some consultation in other parts of the House, and it is also evident that the irritation of some noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who sit behind the Treasury Bench, has been assuaged by an assurance that the Government does not intend to be in earnest in this matter; that they have no intention of carrying the Resolution into effect; that the Debate is to be reduced to an ignoble farce, and that the Resolution which they have adopted is to be relegated to the region of pious opinions.
    MR. AMBROSESupposing the Resolution passed it would be necessary to

    1429
    introduce this Bill, and what I understand the Government has done is to pledge itself that if such a Bill were introduced they would support it. But it appears to me to be impossible to contend that that involves a pledge on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to give legislative effect to this Resolution, thereby displacing all the other Business to which it is already committed. I take it that the Government, having accepted this Resolution, will afford every facility to hon. Members to carry it into effect, and that they will give every reasonable facility for the carrying out of their ideas as contained in the Resolution before the House.
    MR. JACOBYI should like to know what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. I have listened to the speeches made on the part of the Government, and to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, but I confess I do not yet know where we are. Is this Resolution to be given effect to, or is it not? The Government has accepted it, and I hold that, according to all precedent, they are bound, having accepted it, to introduce legislation upon the subject.
    COLONEL NOLANI hope if the Government accept this Resolution—and I have no doubt, after the promise of the Government, a Bill will be introduced on the subject—they will have some consideration for the position of convent schools. I hope these schools will be exempted from the scope of this Bill, which I have no doubt the Government will introduce, seeing the way in which they have treated this Resolution. I wish to point out that there was a similar clause in the Ballot Bill, but it was struck out by the House of Lords, and to do the Tory Party justice it should be said that they rose in arms against the action of the Lords upon that occasion. The Government has accepted this Resolution, and I think it would not be creditable if a Bill were not introduced this Session dealing with the question.
    MR. ROBYI understand that
    1430
    the Motion is accepted by the Government, and I, therefore, wish to give notice that upon the Amendment becoming a substantive Resolution, I shall move the addition of the following words:—
    "And that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to this opinion by legislation."
    It seems to me that this is the only proper course to adopt in connection with this matter, and that it is the only way in which the Resolution can be carried into effect.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,I must confess that there never was, to my mind, a more extraordinary course taken than that taken by the hon. Members opposite. The Resolution has been accepted by the Government, and, as a rule, the ordinary course pursued by the Government would have ended the discussion. For my part, I do not believe that after a Resolution of this kind has been proposed and carried with the assent of the Government, that there would be the smallest difficulty in connection with it. It has been suggested that the Government should at once bring in a Bill dealing with the matter, but I see not the slightest difficulty in dealing with the question, now that the Resolution has been accepted. There never was a more complete offer made by any Government. Hon. Members opposite are asked to bring forward a Bill to give effect to their Resolution, and the Government go further by saying that they will give any such Bill their entire support. Such an offer, I think, is a most generous one; but if the House desires to impose upon the Government the responsibility of setting aside some of the most important measures that have been proposed to the House, that is not a responsibility that the Government is prepared to accept. The Session is yet young, and we believe there will be no difficulty with the hon. Gentleman bringing forward a Bill to give effect to his Resolution. If such a Bill is brought forward the Government will support it, and do their utmost to pass it; and I cannot see what more can be

    1431
    desired, unless there is some purpose behind which is not quite apparent to our understanding. In fact, it would really seem as if hon. Members opposite were disappointed at the frankness with which the Government has met this Resolution, and the readiness they have shown to meet the proposals of the hon. Member.
    MR. THOMAS ELLISI think that by accepting this Resolution the Government has taken upon itself a new responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian has again and again laid down the principle that a Government ought not to accept an abstract Resolution unless they saw their way to carry it into effect. I think the Government ought either to have made some definite announcement that they will deal with the matter this Session, or otherwise they should have opposed the Resolution. I believe many Members left the House under this impression before the dinner hour, and that the large majority of Members believe that the Government has pledged itself to carry out the terms of the Resolution.
    MR. WILLIAM GEORGE AINSLIEIt appears to me unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should be asked to bring forward a Bill embodying the Resolution because that Resolution has been adopted by the House. I do not see that this involves the Government in any responsibility in regard to the bringing in of a Bill. If the Government are going to deal with these properties they will surely either have to purchase them or rent them, and in regard to purchase I do not know how it can be done, as there is no one to whom the purchase money could be handed over. As to renting, it rests with Local Authorities, and I believe there is sufficient public spirit in existence to deal with the matter. At the same time, I do say that the managers of these schools should do all they could to facilitate the holding of popular meetings in country districts.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEAn hon. Member has said that the Government has run away from its undertaking in respect to the
    1432
    opening of village schoolrooms for public meetings. Now I do not see how the Government can be charged with running away from its pledges, and I think the hon. Member opposite could be equally charged with absolutely shrinking from the terms of the Resolution which has been proposed. In fact instead of the Government running away from its pledges it is the hon. Member for Saffron Walden who is running away from his. It has plainly been indicated by the Government that they will support a Bill if it were brought in dealing with the subject, and I think, therefore, it rests with the hon. Member to bring forward some proposal for legislation, and that the responsibility does not lie with the Government. There is time at the disposal of private Members, but not of the Government, already over-burdened. Safeguards, too, are needed in a Bill relating to that voluntary system which has done so much for the country.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONI have listened with great interest to the Debate, and I heartily concur in the proposal of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden Division. I beg to thank the Government for having so cordially and rightly accepted the Motion of the hon. Member; but in the last few minutes I have noticed an attempt to play off one of those smart little dodges which has been resorted to once or twice in the present Session. An attempt has been made to force the hand of the Government, and to compel them to undertake a Bill upon this subject. Such a proceeding ought, in my opinion, to be resisted. I am happy to think that the acceptance of the Resolution will in Ireland afford an opportunity to Orangemen of meeting in rural schoolrooms to express their opinions upon the subjects of the day. The sharp practice of the hon. Member for the Eccles Division—
    MR. SPEAKERI do not think that the hon. Member should use such a phrase. Such an expression cannot be permitted.
    MR. JOHNSTONI beg to withdraw the words I have used, Mr. Speaker. But still, I do think that the hon. Member was trying to steal a march

    1433
    upon us, and, under all the circumstances, I feel compelled to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    The Question was not put.
    MR. SCHWANNI beg to move that the Question be now put.
    MR. PHILIPPSI move that the Question be put.
    MR. SPEAKERThe original Question was that I do now leave the Chair.
    MR. WILLIAM LAWRENCEHaving voted in favour of this Motion upon former occasions, I am glad the Government have accepted the Resolution that has been placed before the House. I, therefore, see nothing worth while fighting about. As the manager of a country school, I have to say that I have found no difficulty in allowing opposing Parties to use the school and air their opinions as they think proper. The result of the arrangement has been most beneficial to the village and to the district with which I am connected. It seems to me to be unreasonable to force the Government upon short notice to add to the important measures already in their programme by including a Bill embodying the Resolution now before the House. Why could not the hon. Member bring in a Bill himself? Nobody will block its passage, and I hope that the hon. Member will bring forward the matter. I, for one, shall be heartily glad to support him.
    SIR E. BIRKBECKI have to thank the Government, on behalf of the Eastern Counties, for what they have done in regard to the Resolution of the hon. Member. But is it to be understood that the Government, in adopting it, are to introduce a Bill embodying it, and so to set aside the Small Holdings Bill and other measures that they have undertaken?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTAs the hon. Member has raised the question, I can save some time by saying that the Government were pledged to an Educational Rating Bill of their own, and I should like to know whether the First Lord will insert a clause giving practical effect to this Resolution? No other business would
    1434
    thus be set aside; on the contrary, the Government would be making this Resolution and its fulfilment part of their own business.
    SIR E. BIRKBECKThe right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken if he imagines that I and my hon. Friends are going to allow a Bill like the Small Holdings Bill to be put aside in favour of such a measure as this. We intend to stick firmly to our guns upon this subject. I ask hon. Members opposite to quote some precedent in support of the action which the supporters of the Resolution have taken.
    MR. SAMUEL HOAREI have to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Government has dealt with the Resolution. I have some knowledge of country life and of electioneering, and I have always found it to be a great grievance that the use of schools was allowed to one Party and not to another. It is most desirable that some change should be introduced, and I am, therefore, particularly glad to hear the views of the Vice President of the Council. Since legislation was necessary I should like to see it given effect to without delay. I am, however, not surprised that the Government should hesitate to undertake the responsibility of bringing in another Bill. I had hoped that the hon. Member would have brought in a Bill himself, but as an Educational Rating Bill is about to be brought in by the Government, I wish to know whether it is not possible for the Government to bring in a clause giving effect to this Resolution?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURA number of appeals have been made to Her Majesty's Government from several quarters of the House, and this circumstance will, perhaps, serve as my excuse for asking permission for again interfering in the discussion. Unfortunately the speech which I delivered an hour-and-a-half ago was heard by a comparatively thin House, and I think few hon. Members now present are really aware of the original cause of the present dispute. I expressed my hope on the part of the Government that the Resolution and the Debate which had taken place might have an effect upon every

    1435
    manager of a school throughout the United Kingdom, and induce him to allow the school to be used for every legitimate purpose. And I pointed out that when the Bill, that I thought was going to be introduced by the hon. Gentleman opposite, was brought forward we should have to deal with a considerable number of difficulties which I then enumerated—difficulties partly depending upon such subjects as the necessity for forbidding secularist meetings in schools, partly depending upon the necessity for dealing with the danger of damage to the schools by those who used them for public meetings or other gatherings, and partly depending upon the difficulty in Ireland of dealing with schools under the National Board, which receive larger contributions than schools in England, and partly depending upon the difficulty of dealing with schools under the management of the nuns in Ireland. And I pointed out in the most friendly spirit the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman would have to encounter in introducing his Bill. These remarks of mine gave rise to a discussion, and in the course of this discussion hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be under the impression—honestly and fairly formed, I am sure—that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had made a promise to bring in a Bill. My right hon. Friend is not conscious of having made any such promise at all. However, I now understand for the first time that it is supposed that it is the Government that are going to bring in the Bill, and that it is not the hon. Gentleman opposite who is going to have the well-deserved credit of drafting the measure. Now, I wish simply-to say that the only objection which the Government have to deal with the extraordinary difficulties of this question is the difficulty of time. We are now engaged—if I may venture to enumerate them to the House without breach of Order—we are now engaged upon a very critical Irish Education Bill, a Bill for Distributing the Grant in Scotland, a Small Holdings Bill, an Irish Local Government Bill, and upon a Bill for regulating the procedure of Private Bill Legislation, and some other measures of really first-rate importance
    1436
    —and all I have mentioned are in addition to Supply. Now, everybody knows that the Government have nominally command of a certain portion of the time of the House. But, as a matter of fact, no Government that ever existed has been able to carry more than a certain percentage even of the important measures introduced in any Session. It appears to me, therefore, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, that probably there might be a better chance for his Resolution being embodied in an operative Bill if it were brought in by a private Member than if it were brought in by the Government at the end of a list of measures, none of which could be dropped for the purpose of bringing in a Bill dealing with this question, and this question alone. Everybody will admit that. Now, I understand that a proposal has come, not from an hon. Friend of my own behind me, but from an hon. Gentleman opposite—a right hon. Gentleman opposite—that we should graft upon the Education Rating Bill some provisions dealing with this question. Now, I certainly have gathered, from a faint but significant indication coming from the hon. Gentleman, that the Education Rating Bill was a Bill that was going to be violently opposed. Well, it seems—what shall I say?—most grotesque for the Government to append to a Bill hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to, a measure which they desire to accept; because it would compel them, in order to get what they wanted, to swallow what they did not want. Now, I distinctly and authoritatively understand from what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are prepared to accept the Rating of Schools Bill if we are able to add to it a measure dealing with this particular question. Now that I understand that, I will endeavour, with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, conjointly to frame a Bill which shall carry into effect these two objects; which I understand now to be desired equally by both sides of the House, namely, the relief, to a certain extent, of voluntary schools from rating, and the opening of voluntary schools

    1437
    for all legitimate public meetings and for all the legitimate purposes contemplated by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. On that understanding I am perfectly satisfied for the purpose of finishing the evening with great harmony, to endeavour to frame a Bill which shall, on these lines, meet the desires of everybody in the House.
    SIR W. HARCOURTWith the same desire as the right hon. Gentleman, I ask the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes to just refer to his extremely ingenious proposal. Without desiring to introduce any controversial matter at all, I shall only say that this unfortunate cloud which has arisen in the serene sky was mainly due to the interference of Jupiter himself, because so long as a lesser light ruled the night, and the Vice President of the Council had addressed the House, we were all agreed, and we were perfectly satisfied with the course the Government had taken. It was not until the First Lord of the Treasury made a speech of a highly sceptical character with reference to the Bill, pointing out the difficulties and almost the impossibility, with a certain gusto on his part, with which my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution would be met, that we began—if I may use a vulgar phrase—to smell a rat, and understand exactly the game the Government were playing. They thought they could accept the Resolution and then leave my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden in a position in which they knew very well nothing would come from it. Nobody who knows this House can suppose seriously that my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, would have the smallest chance of passing a Private Bill on that subject. Well, then for the first time after the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury we saw that the Government meant to have as little to do with it as possible; and that is tbe reason my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden desires to have an expression of opinion on the part of the House that the Government ought to take it in hand. Well, the Government have declared their desire to carry out this Resolution, and, therefore, we are assured that they have no objection on principle in carrying it out. The
    1438
    only question with them is the question of time. Very well, so far we are all agreed. Then, coming to the Education Rating Bill of the Government, if the First Lord of the Treasury thinks we are going to enter into a bargain with reference to the remaining clauses of the Bill, he is entirely mistaken—if he thinks we are going to be gambled out of it, and that he will remove all objections with regard to the other clauses of the Bill by introducing a clause with which both sides of the House agree. He has no right to ask from us as a consideration for introducing a clause with which he agrees that we shall support a clause to which we are opposed. If it were true that one side was agreed upon one and opposed to the other and vice versa, there might be some sense in that; but where it is a clause with which both sides of the House agree, it is only reasonable to ask the Government, having possession of the time of the House, that it should introduce into the Bill a clause with which we are assured both sides of the House will concur. Now, upon that basis we can perfectly agree. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was only indulging in a pleasant irony when he attempted to impose upon us the condition of not opposing the other clauses of his Bill if he should introduce this clause into his Bill. If we can understand now that he will introduce a clause into it that should express the general feeling of the House on the subject, I think the House would be satisfied.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI beg to propose the Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Wigan, that the words in "rural districts" be inserted after the word "that" in line 5. As the Resolution now stands it begins by reciting that there is a want of room in rural districts. That would seem to imply that any alteration in the law which is proposed would apply to rural districts and rural districts only, but that is not so, as it appears in the Resolution as it stands. I am sure the hon. Member for Saffron Walden would agree that it is not so if his attention were called to it. I object, for my own part, to the

    1439
    schools being thrown open universally, and for this very good reason, that the grievance only exists in the rural districts. For my own part, I know that in the last Election of 1886 I had the obligation thrown upon me to address several meetings in the open air, but it was balmy summer weather. In the winter, of course, it would be different. It is not often, however, in rural districts, that you have a numerous audience to listen to you. In these country districts perhaps a couple of hundred people gather round the chair where the speaker stands, and he has no difficulty in making his voice heard. The grievance does not, therefore, exist in the rural districts in the summer time, but in the winter time no doubt a difficulty does arise. In the towns a totally different state of circumstances at once appears, but there is no difficulty whatever in finding room. (Cries of "Oh!" and Yes!") I submit there is very little difficulty at all. I venture to say that in the town of Darwen, which is the principal town in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, no person would have a difficulty in finding room to address the electors. But, supposing there is a difficulty, I do not think there is any claim on the voluntary schools of the district; because there is a collection of rich ratepayers who have plenty of money to erect a suitable building if they want it. The difficulty, therefore, applies to rural districts, and to rural districts only, and, therefore, the words should be inserted in the Resolution.
    MR. GARDNERI believe this is an Amendment which we cannot accept. It is perfectly true that the words "in rural districts" as put in the Preamble of my Resolution might convey to the House that it was only intended that the Resolution should apply to rural districts. So far as I am concerned it was my intention that the operation of this Resolution should be confined to the rural districts in which, to my knowledge, there is a very pressing need; but when the Resolution has beer accepted by the Government in a wider sense, and when they have decided that it should extend to the urban districts, I think it is a little
    1440
    hard of the noble Lord to move an Amendment which restricts it to the rural districts. For my part, I cannot accept the Amendment; and after the way in which the Resolution was accepted by them I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment, as it would absolutely conflict with the intention they had in accepting the Resolution.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANI agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. It is on principle we claim this right; and that principle extends to the urban districts quite as much as to the rural districts. There can be no distinction. No doubt in towns there are larger opportunities for finding other places for meetings than in the country. But it is the principle we insist upon; and that principle, as I understand it, has been practically accepted by the Government. I was obliged to use the words "as I understand it," because it so happens that I was not present during the entire Debate; and how was I employed? I was employed in possibly the less important business of addressing a public meeting in a country, district not far from London, as may be inferred by my presence here; and the meeting was held in a large room belonging to a Board school, where we had one of the most comfortable and orderly and convenient meetings that I have ever attended; and I could not help thinking, when I enjoyed that opportunity of saying the best I could for Her Majesty's Government, what a comment my experience was upon the Motion of my hon. Friend behind me, because, if this had not been a Board school—if there had not been a School Board in this locality—perhaps we should have been compelled to hold our meeting in some fusty old room, where we should have suffered the greatest discomfort. I hope the Government will stand by the arrangement they have come to, and that they will not accept the modification the noble Lord has proposed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURI must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the agreeable way in which he has spent the even-

    1441
    ing in addressing a meeting, and upon the admirable accommodation provided for him elsewhere; but I wish he had been here at an earlier part of the Debate, because he would have learned that the real reason of our discussing this question so much longer than anyone expected was this: we were all agreed as to this proposal in substance, but that it was rather difficult to carry it out in detail. That is really what occurred. My noble Friend behind me has moved an Amendment. No doubt he based his argument, and I think rightly, on the fact that there was more necessity for room in rural districts than in urban districts. At the same time, I am quite prepared to admit that there is a want of suitable accommodation in some urban districts, as has been pointed out by one hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, who has told us that in his division there really was not suitable accommodation. Therefore, I am decidedly of opinion that, while it is true that it is in rural districts chiefly that there is a necessity, that necessity is not confined to rural districts; and that we cannot introduce into this Resolution an Amendment confining it to the rural districts. That only illustrates the extraordinary difficulty of dealing with this question. I conceive, however, that if you give an unrestricted right to use the schools in urban districts, you will give the right not only to the politician, but to everyone who wishes to make profit, or trade, or anything else by discussion at a meeting to go to a schoolroom and hold it there, as the cheapest place of the kind to be had. The West End Socialists, and other gentlemen of very extravagant views which are commonly held, there can be no doubt, in the urban districts, will claim the use of the cheapest rooms. In urban districts no doubt the cheapest available rooms would be the schools, if they were placed by Parliament at the disposal of the people for nothing beyond the cost of the expense incurred, but that is probably a thing to which Parliament will not assent without limitation. It would be very difficult for the House to lay down as an absolute principle, to which no exception is to be made, that public schools sub-
    1442
    vented by the State, should be handed over to any persons who desired to hold a meeting, in face of the fact that their principle would apply to the convent schools in Ireland, which receive the largest subventions from the State. That being so, I would advise the right hon. Gentleman not to place his principle too highly. But, Sir, the object with which I rose was to recommend my noble Friend behind me (Viscount Cranborne) and others, who have put down Amendments, to withdraw them, on the distinct understanding that this Resolution is to be allowed to pass without any Amendment, because I believe that it is impossible within the scope of a Resolution to introduce all the safeguards which will be found absolutely necessary when the unfortunate draftsman begins to deal with the complicated problems which will have to be faced and dealt with before the principle of this Resolution can be embodied in an Act of Parliament. In the meanwhile, Sir, whilst it is distinctly understood that we accept this Resolution without addition or amendment, I would strongly recommend my Friends not to press their Amendments on the present occasion.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, we ought most distinctly to understand what the precise position of the Government is in reference to this matter. They will not undertake to do what their own supporters have asked them to do, and what the Member for Norwich (Mr. S. Hoare), particularly pressed them to do, namely, deal with this in the Education (Rating) Bill. If that were done there would be no necessity for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) being pressed. But the unfortunate thing is that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in speech after speech has one sentence in favour of the Resolution and a dozen sentences against it, and it is that fact which accounts for all our difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman has insisted upon the enormous difficulties and has enlarged upon every point, and the almost impossibility of it, and a Resolution accepted in that spirit will certainly never be effective. If the Resolution had been accepted in the

    1443
    spirit manifested by the Vice President of the Council, it would have been a different thing. But while professing frankly to accept the Resolution, the Leader of the House has adopted a disparaging tone and raised every conceivable phantom against carrying it out. Everything he has said to-night is against the Resolution.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, not against the Resolution.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTWell, at any rate, against the possibility of its being carried out. Sir, a man who does not believe in the possibility of a thing never carries it out. The only object of the addition moved by the Member for Eccles is to have some distinct understanding from the Government that they really mean to do what they can to ensure that this Resolution is carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether the Government mean to insert clauses in the Education Rating Bill, and on that point we are entitled to assurances, because upon that we may come to terms. Why have we not had those assurances? Because everybody knows that the object of the Government is to delay, and ultimately to defeat, this Resolution. That will be thoroughly understood inside of this House and out of it. On our part we frankly understand the meaning and object of these manœuvres. But, Sir, even now if the Government will come frankly forward and say, "We will accept this Resolution, and will do our best to carry it out," this Debate ought to come, and would come, to an end.
    MR. RITCHIESir, I do not think that the tone of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman is altogether calculated to bring this discussion to a speedy or an amicable close. The right hon. Gentleman imputed to my hon. Friends beside and behind me a desire to delay and defeat this Resolution by moving Amendments. But, Sir, all these Amendments were on the Paper, whereas the friends of the right hon. Gentleman have got up at the last moment and moved Amendments which are not on the Paper.
    MR. ROBYI have not moved an Amendment; I have only given notice that I would move.
    MR. RITCHIEWell, I will substitute the words "proposes to move" for the word "move"; and I will say that the hon. Gentleman proposes to move a Resolution which is not on the Paper, and as to which we had not the smallest notion a couple of hours ago. And yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby brings against my hon. Friends behind me a charge of obstruction, although he has not addressed one single word of remonstrance to his hon. Friend behind him for moving an Amendment that is not on the Paper.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe Amendment of my hon. Friend arose out of the speech of the Leader of the House. He could not have given notice of it.
    MR. RITCHIEThere was nothing in the Resolution which imposed on any one the duty of carrying it out, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the moment the Government accepted the Resolution, which is as much as is ever done in such cases, put up one of his supporters to move a new and most important Amendment, and that at the eleventh hour. What is the right hon. Gentleman's warrant for so unprecedented a proceeding? It is because my right hon. Friend, in accepting the Resolution, alluded to the many points of difficulty that would attend its enforcement. Would the right hon. Gentleman have wished that my right hon. Friend should have deceived the House by saying the matter was easy to deal with? It never was in the mind of my right hon. Friend not to do everything that could possibly be done to give effect to the Resolution. There was every intention on the part of the Government to give effect to it. There is another point. The Leader of the House, in answer to the appeals made to him from both sides, expressed the willingness of the Government to give effect to those appeals, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, though criticising the terms, expressed entire satisfaction with the conclusion, and everybody thought that there the matter would end.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTLet us understand that. There was a con-

    1445
    dition annexed. Is that condition withdrawn? If so I am satisfied.
    MR. RITCHIEMy right hon. Friend did not impose any condition at all. What he said was that originally there was a strong expression of opinion from the other side against the exemption from rating of elementary schools; that it was likely the Government Bill would lead to a great deal of discussion, and meet with much objection from the other side. He said—"If you. appeal to us to give effect to the Resolution by inserting a clause in our Bill, you must expect that that Bill is going to be carried." That is all he said. He imposed no condition at all. He said that the Government had taken note of the suggestions that had been made; that they would endeavour to give effect to the proposals suggested, and would consider in what way the wishes of the House could be met; and that they would see whether it was possible to frame any clauses which could be inserted in the Bill dealing with the rating of schools. That is what I say now; that is what I fully understood was accepted by the Member for Derby, and accepted on the understanding that there would be no Amendments.
    MR. ROBYIf I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, the Government will endeavour to give effect to the Resolution by legislation during the present Session.
    MR. RITCHIEWhat I said was that the Government would endeavour to give effect to the suggestions made by Members on both sides of the House, and would frame some clauses which might be taken in conjunction with the Bill which they propose to introduce relating to the rating of elementary schools.
    MR. ROBYAs I understand that what I desire will be done by means of a clause to be introduced in a Bill promoted by the Government, I am perfectly willing not to move my Amendment.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTI ventured earlier in the evening to suggest to my hon. Friend beside me what I wish now publicly to express, that it would be well if his Amendments were not pressed. In view of what the Government has said as to
    1446
    the clauses which they will introduce in their Rating Bill, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    MR. JOICEYI am somewhat surprised at the turn this Debate has taken. I had the honour of hearing the very admirable speech of the Vice President of the Couucil, and I left the House on the understanding that this Resolution had been accepted in its entirety by the Government. So far as I now understand, the sympathy of the Government is with the noble Lord behind them who has moved an Amendment. There was no restriction or qualification whatever attaching to the acceptance of the Resolution by the First Lord of the Treasury.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the hon. Gentleman thinks he is representing my views he is entirely mistaken. I said I thought the Resolution should apply to all schools with proper safeguards.
    MR. JOICEYThe Government are now attempting to attach a condition (Cries of "No, no!") Well, if I am in error I must admit it is owing to my not having heard the discussion.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEIn deference to the wishes of the Leader of the House, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. F. S. POWELLI shall not proceed with my Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, taking into consideration the scarcity of buildings suitable for holding public meetings in rural districts, and the desirability that the electors of the country should be enabled to hear both sides of questions affecting Imperial and local interests, this House is of opinion that the school rooms in schools in receipt of Parliamentary Grants, on such occasions as do not interfere with the educational purposes of the schools, and under the condition of payment of all reasonable expenses by the conveners of the meeting, should be at the disposal of the inhabitants of the district in which the school is situated for the purpose of holding public meetings.
    Supply,—Committee upon Monday next.

  EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND).

    LEAVE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th February],
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in regard to the Distribution and Application of sums from time to time paid to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and in regard to the fee grant in Scotland."
    MR. T. M. HEALYI should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not always the practice of the Government on Fridays to set up Supply a second time?
    MR. SPEAKERThat entirely depends upon the Government and the time of night.
    MR. T. M. HEALYThere are Government Bills of great importance on the Paper; it is now 11.20 p.m.; and as it is certainly an unusual course for Her Majesty's Ministers not to set up Supply again, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURI have no desire to stand in the way of the discussion of the other Resolutions on the Paper. But what I proposed to do was to proceed with the Private Bill Procedure Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALYVery well; I am satisfied.
    Order read, and discharged.

  MOTION.
    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE BILL.

      MOTION FOR LEAVE.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,in rising to present a Bill to amend the Procedure with respect to Private Bills in Scotland and Ireland, said: Sir, I will endeavour, in deference to a request made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, to introduce in a very brief statement the proposals which Her Majesty's Government desire to make with regard to the reform of Private Bill Procedure in respect of Scotland and in respect of Ireland. This matter has to be looked at from two entirely different points of view. We have to look at it purely as
      1448
      it relates to suitors in those parts of the United Kingdom, and we have to look at it as a relief to the Members of this House who have to carry on a great deal of heavy and laborious work in connection with Private Bill legislation. Now, Sir, as regards the first point, I do not think it necessary to say much. There is a very generally expressed desire in Scotland—a genuine but not so generally expressed desire in Ireland—that the Private Bill legislation of these two countries should, at all events so far as a good many of these proceedings necessary to coming to a decision upon cases are concerned, be conducted not at Westminster and not before Committees of these Houses, but in Ireland or Scotland, before some other form of tribunal. That much will be admitted by the Scotch and the Irish Members, and I do not propose to waste time in discussing that point. There is, however, another point of view which is, in my mind, at least as important, and that is what I may describe as the national aspect of this problem. The labour thrown upon Members of this House by Private Bill Committees is such, with the greatly increased time required by our Debates, and the greatly increased interest shown by the public in those Debates, that it becomes a burden they are very little able to bear. Sir, very valuable and remarkable evidence was given by the right hon. Gentleman behind me, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Sir John Mowbray), with regard to the extreme difficulty of getting Members of this House to serve on Private Bill Committees, and upon the correlative fact that Committees of the House of Lords were preferred by suitors, not because the House of Lords is better, but because it has more leisure to attend to Committees, and is therefore able to give greater satisfaction to those who go before it. I think it is our bounden duty, as far as we can, to relieve Members of this House of the labour which is thus thrown upon them, and it is also our bounden duty to satisfy the feelings of suitors in Scotland and Ireland by diminishing the cost and relieving them of the necessity of coming in every case to Westminster to try and conduct the

      1449
      litigation in which they are interested. The Bill, therefore, attempts to remedy two evils which have long been felt. But this difficulty has always met those who attempted a remedy—namely, that if you remove the Private Bill legislation relating to Scotland and Ireland to a local tribunal, you will have the same class of cases decided in Scotland and in Ireland upon principles quite different from those obtaining at Westminster. It should also be borne in mind that, whilst the House should be relieved of its semi-judicial labour, it should not be relieved of the responsibility of deciding the principles that should regulate and govern Private Bill legislation in every part of the United Kingdom. Several proposals have been made for mitigating the case of suitors and relieving the labours of this House. One proposal was that all these matters should be tried, not first before a Committee of this House and then before a Committee of Lords, but that they should be tried before a single. Committee partly composed of Peers and partly of Commoners. This was proposed with the view of saving half the expense and half the time; but, as was pointed out by the Committee, there was this great difficulty, this objection to the proposal—that the relief would be far less than the proposers of the plan imagined. Another suggestion is that the system of Provisional Orders carried out by the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board might be largely extended; but we must recollect that a Provisional Order saves trouble only when no Parliamentary opposition is expected. The passing of a Provisional Order is commenced by a local inquiry conducted by an officer delegated by the Department, and if the opposing parties in the locality are satisfied, then the matter passes the House of Commons sub silentio, and the House is not involved in the trouble of examination by Committee or the labour of arriving at a decision. But if the Bill is opposed after the Provisional Order is introduced, practically all the labour incident to an ordinary Private Bill is repeated in the case of a Provisional Order, and therefore no time, labour, or expense is saved by this process. There remains, then, the plan of a Special
      1450
      Commission in Ireland and in Scotland, if the Bill is intended to apply to either of those parts of the United Kingdom. by which the labour of a Private Bill Committee may be delegated to another and a paid tribunal. But it will be observed that almost every scheme hitherto proposed for utilizing a Special Commission of this kind labours under the defect that it either removes the whole of the Private Bill legislation submitted to the Commission from the control of Parliament, or else it so surrounds and hampers the decisions of the Commission with Parliamentary safeguards that practically suitors are as much inconvenienced and Parliament has as much labour thrown upon it as if the Commission had never been asked to intervene in the matter at all. One plan I ought to allude to very briefly has been suggested, the delegation of Parliamentary control altogether to the Commission, a plan which received a certain amount of sanction last year, yet which, in spite of the high authority supporting it, I cannot bring myself to recommend to the House. That plan is to delegate to a certain number of Members of this House the duty of sitting in Scotland or Ireland to assist paid Commissioners in dealing with these questions. It seems to me that plan raises most serious Constitutional issues, and is open to very grave objection from other points of view. Are you going to pay these Members or not? If you are, you will introduce a new and, I think, a very unwholesome precedent, and if you are not, how can you expect Members to absent themselves from their homes, and certainly from their business, for long periods of time, to carry on difficult and exhaustive inquiries in localities with which they are not connected? Again, is it right, is it in accordance with Parliamentary usage, that when a man is sent here by his constituents to discuss and vote upon various questions, we should send him away to take part in other business wholly unconnected with the Debates in this House, business which obviously would prevent him from doing his fair share of the work going on at Westminster, and bearing his proper share of the responsibility which attaches to decisions come to in this House upon

      1451
      questions submitted to it? For these reasons, as the House will readily conceive, on the whole, I do not think the Government ought to take on themselves the responsibility of proposing such a very novel and, as we think, such a very inexpedient measure. Well, the plan we propose, which I venture to propose with great diffidence to the House, for I am well aware of the difficulties which surround this question, turns and centres on the appointment of what I may call a Joint Standing Committee of both Houses of Parliament. This Joint Standing Committee is to consist of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and two Members appointed by each House in addition. The Committee, I may say, will have the right to sit for the purposes of this Bill, for which alone it is called into existence, even though the House may be prorogued—it may sit to carry on its business, if it so desire, at any time of the year. The first duty of this Joint Committee is to see that the promoters of any Bill primâ facie relating to Scotland or Ireland have satisfied the Standing Orders of the House, or that the Standing Orders are suspended in reference to the measure they have introduced. The second point the Committee is to determine is whether the Bill is in the main a Scotch or an Irish Bill, or whether it is not. It will be observed that unless you give a decision on this question to a tribunal having what I may describe as an equitable jurisdiction you will be face to face with many difficulties. You may have a scheme which is in the main Scotch or Irish, but which overflows, as I may say, however little, into England and Wales, and affects those parts of the United Kingdom. If you lay down a hard-and-fast line on the subject, you will preclude such a Bill from reference to the Commission whose duties I will explain presently. I propose to give this Joint Committee a discretion in the matter, allowing it to decide without appeal whether in its opinion the measure is one mainly Scotch or Irish as the case may be. The third point this Joint Committee will have to determine is whether the Bill involves
      1452
      any principle upon which Parliament has not hitherto come to any decision. Notice that most of the Bills that come before us are of a kind upon which Parliament has over and over again expressed a general view and has frequently laid down the general lines upon which a Committee should decide. But now and then it happens—let us take the Channel Tunnel proposal, or electric lighting schemes; and there are others that might be cited—now and then it happens that some new invention or project comes to the front upon which Parliament has never settled what should be the principle of procedure to be adopted by a Private Bill Committee to which it delegates so much of its authority. If in the opinion of the Joint Committee the Bill is one that does involve a new principle, then, in that case, we propose that the present procedure should be maintained. It is only when a Bill belongs to a well-understood class, a class for which precedents and principles are laid down, that the Bill is to be relegated for decision to the Commission. I may notice that one advantage that will be gained by the institution of this Joint Committee is that it will have the assistance of that legal advice from experienced officials which now aids in the conduct of Private Bill legislation. I think nobody acquainted with the inner working of our legislative system will deny that this will be of great advantage to the system of Private Bill legislation for Scotland and Ireland. This, broadly speaking, is the principle of our Bill. The actual constitution of the Commission is a matter of less importance, and of less novelty. It will be sufficient to say that it appears to me we shall be very wrong if we do not utilise the existing Railway Commissioners, highly paid and competent officials, well acquainted with the work to be done, and who comprise among their number a Scotch Judge eminently qualified to assist in Scotch affairs, and an Irish Judge to assist in Irish affairs. But in addition to the Railway Commission thus constituted of Judges and Railway Commissioners there should be, I think, an Assistant Commissioner to deal with Scotch matters, and an Assistant Commissioner to deal with

      1453
      Irish matters. I believe that would be sufficient for all the work of the Commission, but there is power given in the Bill for the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament to appoint additional Commissioners should the Joint Committee represent to them that the number of Bills referred to the Commission is in excess of what the Commissioners are able to deal with. It will be observed that if our plan is carried into effect, the stages of Bills will practically be: The stage before the Joint Committee—at which, of course, counsel will not appear—when the Committee will decide whether the Bill is within the Standing Orders, whether it involve any new principle, on which Parliament has not hitherto given any decision, and whether the Bill be mainly Scotch or Irish; the Bill will then be referred to the Commission; it will be read a first and second time in the two Houses without debate; it will be referred back by the Commission to the Joint Committee, who will be able to suggest formal Amendments to the Commission, the convenience of which all acquainted with Private Bill legislation will understand. The Bill will then come before the House for Third Reading, when it may be debated, may be rejected, or may be referred back to the Commission with instructions to carry out any Amendment which may be decided upon by the House. I hope, and I believe, that the Bill which I have thus briefly expounded to the House, though novel in some of its principles, really carries out many of the objects which have been aimed at by gentlemen who have previously endeavoured to frame schemes of this kind. I think it will retain the control of the Imperial Parliament, not only over the general principles of Private Bill legislation, but also over the details of any Bill on which Parliament desires to express its mind, and while carrying out these objects will enable local inquiries to be made in Scotland or in Ireland, as the case may be, and I think it will considerably diminish the cost of litigation. I believe it will satisfy the demand, the most legitimate demand, over and over again brought before this House by inhabitants of Scotland and Ireland, who have long protested against a system which drags them up
      1454
      to Westminster to deal with affairs which are, in the main, matters of detail, which can be better entered upon by inquiry on the spot.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Procedure with respect to Private Bills in Scotland and Ireland."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThis is a question to which the salutary rule recently laid down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may well be applied—namely, that we should refrain from expressing a strong opinion upon a measure until we have actually seen it in print, for it is obvious that its provisions are of a somewhat complicated nature. But I may say at once of it that it seems to have been much better thought out and to be a better contrived measure than that introduced last year, and the fact of the scope of the measure having being so greatly changed justifies the opposition offered last year. At the same time, I confess that there will be considerable opposition to some parts of the measure, and upon like grounds. The right hon Gentleman bases his scheme to a considerable extent on the supposition that Members of this House are overworked and need relief. I am quite aware of the strong evidence given on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir J. Mowbray), but I have heard other Members of the Committee of Selection decline to bear out that opinion, and for my part I do not believe that a case has been made out to show that Committees cannot be adequately manned for the purpose of dealing with Private Bills. There are many of us who maintain that Railway Bills and other Private Bills are, after all, Bills affecting public interests, and ought to be dealt with by those who are distinctly representative of, and responsible to, public opinion; and unless a clear case were made out of the absolute impossibility—and this is the hypothesis the right hon. Gentleman proceeds upon—of finding among Members of the House of Commons sufficient time and capacity to do this work; unless a reasonable case were made out, I should

      1455
      be strongly opposed to handing over these inquiries in any degree to paid Commissioners or Judges, Railway Commissioners or others. We discussed these matters often last year, and it was often pointed out that the business which makes up the total of our Private Bill legislation consists broadly of two parts, and by far the largest part is that originated by Local Bodies, for the acquisition of gas works, water works, and so on—local legislation required by Municipal or other Local Authorities. I conceive that this part of the business could be largely dealt with by an improved system of Provisional Orders, and by increasing the powers of Local Authorities. But when we come to Bills promoted by great Railway Companies the position is somewhat different. They maintain there would be no saving of expense by local inquiry, and they are the best judges, for they pay the expense. At the same time, I quite recognise the fact that in Scotland there is a strong desire that inquiry should be local, and I am quite willing that it should be local, especially if litigants have no good reason to show why the case should be brought up here. But inquiry, local or not, ought, in the opinion of a good many of us, still to remain in the hands of the representatives of public opinion, and should not be placed in the hands of Judges or paid Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain all the provisions of his Bill, and we shall be curious to know who these Assistant Commissioners are to be, and with whom is their nomination, whether they are to be paid—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes]—where they are to sit, and if an office is to be established. Last year considerable objection was taken to the Government proposal, because it involved the establishment of a new Board in Edinburgh, and I am curious to know if there is any proposal of the kind now. When we consider that the number of disputed Private Bills coming from Scotland average six or seven in the year—I think I am stating an extreme number—and that since last year the two principal belligerent Railway Companies in Scotland—the Caledonian and the North British—have come to an agreement that they will
      1456
      not oppose each other, or encroach on each other's territory, I would ask, Where is the work of the Commissioners in Scotland to come from if their appointment is to be of a more or less permanent character? That is the great difficulty in the way of establishing any local tribunal, or fixed paid tribunal, for Scotland and Ireland alone. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained why the principle of his measure should not apply to England. If it is a good thing in itself I can conceive that the proper course would be, if you quite believe that you cannot get members to undertake the duty and discharge it efficiently, to have a highly paid and responsible tribunal to do the work for the three countries. You would then have work enough to do for the best class of men. But speaking without knowledge of the particulars of the scheme, and unable therefore to speak confidently, I confess I have no great hope of the results that will flow from establishing this half-and-half tribunal for the purpose of accomplishing the really small amount of work arising in Scotland and Ireland.
      MR. T. M. HEALYI listened with attention to the First Lord of the Treasury, though I am not able to agree with him. It is his view, I suppose, that the Government must do something to remove grievances, so far as our country is concerned, but I am bound to say I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with a feeling of deep sadness. I want to know why he cannot let the thing alone if he cannot give us what we want? Why give that which does no good to anybody, and which nobody wants. So far as I am concerned, though I have no great love for the procedure in this House—if I was a promoter of a Bill I would rather come here ten times than go once before such an unfortunate tribunal as the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up. I say nothing for Scotland except for the sake of symmetry. I do not know why this should apply to Scotland as well as Ireland, but I am not prepared to say whether it would be good for Scotland or not. As the Labourers

      1457
      (Ireland) Act originally appeared in 1883 it contained powers to take land compulsorily, and the decision was with the House, with considerable expense to petitioners. We got the Government with enormous difficulty, for it was thought almost an invasion of the sacred privileges of Parliament, to allow the Privy Council to do the business by Commission. A more unfit tribunal than the Irish Privy Council there could not be, all nominees of the party delighted to have the chance of knocking down any scheme a Board of Guardians may propose. Now, what is this proposal? First and foremost, what does it save? Nothing is saved. All the House fees have to be paid. Promoters have to come now with pockets loaded with gold for these fees. Then they have to run the gauntlet of the Standing Orders to the satisfaction of the Examiners. I hear praises given to the officials who have the conduct of Private Bill procedure, but I say a more inelastic set of gentlemen it would be difficult to find; they are bound by rules like the laws of the Medes and Persians, to the very letter of which they attach a sacred character. Plus these, the promoters will have to face a body like the Railway Commission, with Sub-Commissioners added by the Government of the day. There will be all the expenses of the First Reading; the Second and Committee stages are saved, and then the Bill goes through the House of Lords. Now, take the case of the Bill we had before us to-day dealing with the Belfast Lunatic Asylum. This would go before Judges and officials entirely out of sympathy with our point of view, and where our point of view would have no influence. But in the House we have a free arena for debate, and we can here prevent some mischief being done, though we may not beable to do much effective work. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual cynicism, says he has brought forward this Bill to save the extremely heavy labours of Members of Committees. Now I have been in the House for twelve years, and I have never been asked to serve on a Private Bill Committee. I was present when the Chairman of the Committee of Selection gave evidence, in which he said promoters were all anxious to have
      1458
      their Bills taken somewhere about Derby Day. Those who had evidence to give wished to be in town about that time, and so there was a glut of Committee business about that time. I cannot think that Members who do not take a very active part in our proceedings here would not be glad to discharge some function attaching to their position. Is not a Committee of this House a far better tribunal than the tribunal the right hon. Gentleman proposes? Members of this House are men of flesh and blood in touch with public opinion; but when you have a tribunal of officials, you have views and ideas entirely different from those you will find in the House. I say the right hon. Gentleman is trying to solve a problem insoluble except in one direction—namely, Home Rule—and in that alone. Unless you set up in Edinburgh and Dublin competent authorities racy of the soil to exercise their judgment upon these matters, men in whom the people have confidence, and whom they meet with in daily life, you will do no good. We want to deal with men of flesh and blood in whom we have confidence. These are the views we entertain, and we think the Bill unfortunate. It has no chance of passing; there is no demand for it. I am almost sure Scotland has no desire for it. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken expressed no desire for it; it suits nobody. The First Lord of the Treasury has had the opportunity of putting his proposal before the country before the date of the Dissolution, and I am glad he has had that opportunity. He has devoted himself to it in a painstaking manner, and nobody doubts his hard official work, though he has done the Irish people all the mischief he could during his tenure of office. Well, he has had the opportunity, and he has brought forward a Bill which satisfies nobody, not even himself. He does not think it so good as a Coercion Bill, but he thinks if it will do no good it will do no harm. But this will be worse than the present system, which is bad only in the sense that it is expensive and cumbrous; it is not bad in itself, and, therefore, I am opposed to this measure.

      1459
      It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILLBANK PRISON BILL.—(No. 140.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT. CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.)
  Resolutions [25th February] reported. (See pages 1317–1328.)
  SUPPLY—REPORT. CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.)

    CLASS I.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,735, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for improving the Ventilation of the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain."

    CLASS II.
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £498, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Lunacy in Scotland."
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,690, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of public works in Ireland."

    CLASS III.
    6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Costs of Criminal Prosecutions in England."
    7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
    Resolutions agreed to.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ALLOTMENTS BILL.—(No. 94.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 34.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  WORKHOUSE CONSUMPTION OF SPIRITS, &c.
  Address for—
  "Return showing the quantity of spirits, wine, and malt liquors consumed in each Workhouse in England and Wales in the year ending the 31st day of December, 1891, together with the expenditure in each Workhouse for each kind of intoxicating liquor for the same period, and stating the daily average number of in each Workhouse during the same term (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 206, of Session 1886);
  And similar Return for Scotland and Ireland."—(Mr. Albert Bright.)

  FEE GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Fee Grant in Scotland, and of making provision with regard to the distribution and application of sums from time to time paid to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account (Queen's Recommendation signified) upon Monday next.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the evening sitting of the House on Tuesday next, and on all subsequent Tuesdays during the present Session, do commence at half-past Five o'clock, unless the House shall otherwise order.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.