Sitting of 22 June 1893

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
William Williams, esquire, for the Swansea Division of Boroughs.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON, DEPTFORD, AND GREENWICH TRAMWAYS BILL.

    CONSIDERATION.
    Dr. FARQUHARSONmoved—
    "That, in the case of the London, Deptford, and Greenwich Tramways Bill, Standing; Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not know whether he ought to object to the Standing Orders; but he was going to object to the consideration of the Bill.
    DR. FARQUHARSONintimated that he would defer the consideration of the Bill till to-morrow.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned until Tomorrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.—(No 376.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. BALLANTINEsaid, one part of this Bill related to a sewage scheme for the City of Coventry, and the other part to some scheme for the water supply of a Lancashire town. Since the Second Reading the Bill had been entirely transformed, by the omission from it of the Coventry Scheme, in accordance with a pledge given by the President of the Local Government Board. In face of that pledge it was useless for him to do what he had desired to do—namely, to move the re-committal of the Bill; but, at all events, he was in a position to do this: protest very earnestly against the course that had been taken. This matter was most important to every town in England, for it showed conclusively that the Local Government Board had no power whatever to give effect to its own Provisional Order, and that a Provisional Order could only acquire validity by the fact that it was unopposed. Coventry had been placed in a most impossible position by the action of the Local Government Board. In August, 1892, an injunction was obtained against the Corporation for polluting a river in the neigbourhood by its sewage, prohibiting them from using that system of sewage for the future, and an order of sequestration was made against the Corporation upon that injunction. This order of sequestration was suspended for a year, until August, 1893, in order to give the town an opportunity of framing a now system of drainage. The Corporation immediately instructed the best engineer they could secure to frame a scheme, and this scheme was submitted to the Local Government Board, and a Provisional Order applied for. The Local Government Board sent down an Inspector to hold an inquiry at Coventry. This inquiry extended over nine days; it involved the Corporation in enormous ex-

    1637
    pense, and at it were represented the opponents to the Bill, the chief of whom was Lord Leigh, whose property was in the neighbourhood of the proposed irrigation farms. Every conceivable argument was used by the able counsel whom his Lordship retained to point out every possible objection to the scheme; but, in the result, the Local Government Board gave their sanction to it, and brought in a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to it. This Bill was backed by the President and the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and the town supposed that the fight would be conducted by the Local Government Board; and, therefore, took no part in it whatever. The Second Reading came on; and the unusual course was taken of moving an Amendment to the Second Reading. The President of the Local Government Board, observing on that occasion that there was opposition to the Bill, did not make any very serious resistance, and began his speech by assuring the opponents of the Bill that if there was an adverse vote to the Coventry Scheme he should not consider it any reflection upon himself or his Department; and he concluded by offering to the opponents of the measure a very easy way out of their dilemma. He pointed out that as the Bill comprised two Provisional Orders a vote against the Coventry Scheme would wreck them; and he consequently suggested to the Mover of the Amendment that he should move the Adjournment of the Debate, stating that if that Motion were agreed to be would accept it as the sense of the House adverse to the Coventry Scheme. The Mover of the Amendment eagerly accepted this way out of the difficulty, made his Motion; and the President of the Local Government Board—although it was his own Bill to give effect to a Provisional Order, granted after an exhaustive inquiry of nine days—did not challenge a Division. As Member for the Division, he (Mr. Ballantine) might have challenged a Division; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had taken the fight entirely to himself, he and his Colleagues had no notice that they were expected to fight it, and if he had challenged a Division, what purpose would it have served in face of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had deserted him, and the Division would
    1638
    have been, in these circumstances, an utterly unfair one. What now was the position of the town of Coventry? It certainly had not been encouraged to ask for another Provisional Order or Scheme in face of this experience; and it was quite obvious that in any scheme that it did propose it was a condition that lands should be obtainable for the scheme without opposition, and that no influential person should reside in the neighbourhood. He considered it was a monstrous position that this city, after trusting its interests to the Local Government Board and implicitly following the directions of that Board for a year, at the end of that period should find itself without a scheme at all after the expenditure of several thousand pounds, and with a sequestration order hanging over their heads to come into operation in August. He would ask the President of the Local Government Board to point out some mode by which the town might be indemnified for the expenditure it had incurred, not through any failure of its own, but of the Local Government Board, and that it would be offered some safeguard or protection against the action of the law.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The hon. Member has taken the rather unusual course of making an attack upon the Local Government Board with reference to the procedure of this Bill upon the Third Reading instead of making it upon the Second Reading. He has, I think, quite unintentionally, made several serious misrepresentations, and I think it necessary in the interests of Coventry that I should explain exactly what is the position of the Local Government Board, and what the powders and duties of the Coventry Urban Sanitary Authority are. So far as I can make out, they do not themselves understand them. The position of the Bill is not owing to a pledge I gave. I gave no pledge whatever in any way involving the Local Government Board; but I indicated to the House of Commons a mode of expressing their opinion on one part of the Bill as to which they felt strongly without expressing their opinion on another part in which they took no interest whatever; and I think I was only carrying out my duty to the House and to the Department

    1639
    in pointing out that mode of procedure. I would remind my hon. Friend that the House of Commons is supreme over the Local Government Board as well as supreme over the Corporation of Coventry. He says that a Provisional Order is absolutely worthless if it is opposed. I venture to toll him precisely the contrary. There have been several Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board opposed this Session; they have been discussed before the proper tribunal—namely, a Committee of the House of Commons upstairs; and the Committee have supported the decision of the Local Government Board after hearing the evidence, and have made the Provisional Orders. This is a case in which the House chose to take the matter into its own hands. I remember—as those who were present will recollect—that I strongly protested against the House so doing; and I went so far, when I suggested the course I did with reference to the adjournment, as to say that if the House went to a Division I should vote against it, and yet the hon. Member now says I deserted the Bill. It was his duty to have taken a Division on the Adjournment, and not that of the Local Government Board. The little experience I have had of this House enables me, to some extent, to fairly gather its opinion; and observing from different quarters of the House, and from every section in it, that if the promoters of the Provisional Order challenged a Division they were sure to be ignominously defeated, I thought my hon. Friend had exercised a wise discretion in not putting the House to the trouble of a Division. No doubt the town of Coventry is in a difficult position, and they wish for the assistance of the Local Government Board in extricating them from that position. They have had two alternative schemes before them. It was, as I told the House, with the greatest reluctance and considerable doubt that I made the Provisional Order approving of this scheme. On the whole, I thought it the best; and when the House of Commons see fit to think otherwise, it is not my business to comment on the decision of the House, in saying that on public grounds—and not upon the private grounds to which the hon. Member alluded—they will not approve of it. Under these circumstances, I think the
    1640
    City of Coventry will now have recourse to the alternative scheme, on behalf of which some very valuable evidence has been adduced, and which has a great deal to recommend it. Strongly as I am attached to these Provisional Orders, and anxious as I am to see them extended, believing they afford the true solution of the difficulty that is coming fast upon us in consequence of the pressure of Private Business, I must protest against the attempt to bring the Department having charge of these Provisional Orders into conflict with the House of Commons. If the Provisional Order system has any value, and is to be uphold and maintained, it must be subject to the supremacy of the House; and the House itself will never part with that power, and hand it over to any Department. I think last year we passed 90 Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board, of which only three were disputed, so that the House will see this is a very valuable and cheap mode of procedure. It is not the duty of the Local Government Board to spend public money in defending what are called their own Provisional Orders. They make the Provisional Order for the benefit of the Local Authority; the Local Authority has been saved all the expense, delay, and trouble of the preliminary procedure of a Private Bill; and the moment the Provisional Order becomes a disputed Order then the promoters, be they a Corporation or any other Local Authority, are put in precisely the same position as if they had introduced the Bill and they have got to defend the Provisional Order and to pay the costs of defending it. Under those circumstances, I think no blame attaches to the Local Government Board. We have done our best in the circumstances of the case; and it is not for me, as President of that Department, to challenge the decision of the House of Commons.
    SIR C. W.DILKEsaid, he could not but think the right hon. Gentleman did, quite unwittingly, deal somewhat of a blow to the Provisional Order system by suggesting to the House of Commons that they should accept a Motion for Adjournment as a defeat of one of the clauses contained in the Bill. The House of Commons was so inclined to accept Motions for the Adjournment of Private Business, so few

    1641
    hon. Members had a real interest in Private Business, and they were so anxious to get to questions that in the buzz of conversation which always took place during Private Business, Motions for Adjournment were jumped at by the House.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the Motion had not been carried, and the House of Commons had rejected the Bill, a most valuable Provisional Order respecting the water supply of a largo district in Lancashire would have been rejected.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he quite understood the effect of taking the course which was taken. He would point out that nothing but the very stoutest resistance by the Department concerned would ever save a Bill when the great private influences were brought to bear which were brought to bear on the occasion when this Bill was previously before the House. It was notorious that on that occasion the Government Whips were practically whipping against what was a Government Bill.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I know nothing about that.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he was aware the right hon. Gentleman did not know of it; but that was the case. The hon. Member for Coventry had on this occasion a real grievance. One point made against the hon. Member was that he did not divide the House, as he ought to have done. That certainly was a fatal mistake on the part of the hon. Member. He (Sir Charles Dilke) happened to be the only Member of the House who challenged a Division. The Government Whips were anxious he should not do so a second time; and as the hon. Member for Coventry did not challenge a Division, he (Sir C. W. Dilke) did not do so the second time. If whenever a Private Bill was opposed which contained two or three Provisional Orders, a Motion for the Adjournment was to be made so lightly after a strong and excellent defence of the scheme such as the right hon. Gentleman had made in his first speech on this Bill, he was bound to say the result would afterwards be that the Provisional Order would be defeated, and it would make Corporations chary of resorting to the Provisional Order system on occasions of this kind.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed

QUESTIONS.

  THE VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he has noticed some remarks made by Sir Douglas Galton at a recent meeting of the Society of Arts with regard to the ventilation of the House of Commons, in which he says that they take great pains, and incur great expense, to purify their air. They then pass that air through a perforated floor, which Members take very good care to cover with manure and dirt from the streets brought in by their boots, and then they breathe this re-polluted air, and they complain of lassitude after they have been occupying the place for a certain number of hours; and whether the facts as stated are correct; and, if so, if the Authorities of the House can devise some means of saving the purified air from being re-polluted?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): The question raised by Sir Douglas Galton, which does not appear to have occurred to him when he was the professional adviser of the Office of Works, is not, I think, of much practical importance. When the distance of the House of Commons from the public streets, and the number of mats for the use of Members are taken into consideration, it may fairly be assumed that but little "manure and dirt" reaches the perforated floor covering of the Chamber. In any case, the floor covering is taken up and thoroughly cleaned, and steamed once a week, and the ventilating chamber immediately under the House is thoroughly dusted every day. It will, therefore, be seen that the chance of the air which passes through the perforated floor being polluted in its passage is but very small indeed. If hon. Members after long hours of sitting in this House suffer from lassitude, it is not, I think, due to the cause referred to by Sir Douglas Galton.

  THE BENGAL GANJA COMMISSION.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  1643
  India if he is now able to state the composition of the Bengal Ganja Commission?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. Russell,): I told my hon. Friend on the 12th instant that we hoped this matter would be settled by the end of the month. If we have not received the information by that time it will be telegraphed for.

  THE MAHARAJA OF GWALIOR.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when it is intended to confer full powers of Government on His Highness the Maharaja of Gwalior State?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the intentions of the Government of India in this matter; and, as His Highness is only 16 years old, considers it premature to communicate with the Government of India on the subject at present.

  THE MILITARY CONTRIBUTION OF THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  SIR T. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, since the imposition of a military contribution of £100,000 per annum on the Straits Settlements, the annual Revenue of the colony has seriously declined, there being a deficit in 1891 of 772,375 dollars, equivalent to £110,300 sterling, and in 1892 of 627,297 dollars, while the estimates for 1893 show a deficit of over £700,000 dollars; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will consider the advisability of reducing the said military contribution?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The matter is under considertion.

  THE VERDERERS OF THE NEW FOREST.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Correspondence between the Commissioners of Woods and the Verderers of the New Forest with reference to the Forest Clauses in the Crown Lands Bill?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,):
  1644
  I shall be pleased to give the Return asked for by my right hon. Friend.

  INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. COBB): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in June, 1890, in consequence of representations made by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division, the Board of Inland Revenue gave instructions that the additional Commissioners for Income Tax at Rugby (who were tradesmen in that town) should not be summoned to any meeting relating to Income Tax assessments, and thus practically put an end to their appointment; whether it is, a fact that there are similar additional Commissioners, all of whom are tradesmen at Warwick, who now have access to all the private Income Tax Returns of the taxpayers at Kineton; and whether the Board of Inland Revenue will in this case give similar instructions to those which were given at Rugby, and so put an end to this practice of allowing tradesmen to look into the private affairs of fellow tradesmen with whom they are in competition?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Board of Inland Revenue have no power to give such instructions, and they gave no instructions in the Rugby case. The hon. Member should communicate with the General Commissioners of Income Tax for the district. I would refer him to an answer given to him by my predecessor on the 24th of June, 1889. The real truth is that these Income Tax questions are not in the hands of the Government, but are under the control of the Income Tax Commissioners.
  MR. COBB: But was not this instruction given long after 1889?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am informed that the Board of Inland Revenue never gave any such instructions at all.

  THE LANCASHIRE MINERS' FEDERATION.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a Circular issued to the miners in St. Helen's district by Mr. Thomas Glover, J.P., miners' agent, in which he says that, having received

  1645
  power from the Lancashire Miners' Federation to force all non-union men into the Union, the power being granted two mouths ago, and all the men not having yet joined, the St. Helen's district has decided to give those men who are still out of the Union until the 24th day of June to join; and if all have not joined by that date notice will be given to all the collieries where non-union men are employed for the purpose of stopping against them; that all those who are in the Union and belong to any other district must bring their cards of membership, as there will be men appointed to look at the cards once a mouth, and if any member is found going bad he will be warned of the same, and have to pay up at once; whether he is advised that such threatening notices are legal; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any, and what, action in the matter; and whether he is aware that these threatening notices are signed by Mr. Glover with the initials J.P. after his name, he having been recently appointed a Borough Magistrate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): My attention has been called to the Circular. I am advised that there is nothing illegal in its terms, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter. The Circular in question is signed by Mr. Glover, but not with the initials J.P. after his name. It appears, however, that in a previous Circular Mr. Glover did append these letters to his name. I cannot suppose that any reader of the Circular would imagine that Mr. Glover was purporting to act in a magisterial capacity; but Mr. Glover informs me that he thinks—and I agree with him—that in affixing designation to such a document he made a mistake, which he assures me will not occur again.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Then am I to understand that the Circular was not illegal, and that the Magistrate was warranted in issuing it with the addition to his name of the letters "J.P."?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am advised that there was nothing illegal in the Circular. As a fact, the Magistrate did not append to his name the letters "J.P."
  BARON H. DE WORMS: But it is admitted that he did do so in the case
  1646
  of a previous letter which was exactly in the same terms?
  MR. ASQUITH: It was not in the same terms.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have seen the Circular.
  MR. LEGH: May I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Mr. Glover is one of the Magistrates recently appointed by him?
  [The question was not answered.]

  WELSH COUNTY COURT JUDGES.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, at a County Court held last Saturday at Aberystwith, at the commencement of business, Judge Beresford allowed a solicitor, who constantly practises before him, to make a speech of some length, in which he protested against the removal of Judge Beresford from that Circuit on account of his ignorance of Welsh, testified to the admirable qualities of the Judge who was listening to him, and trusted that the Judge would make strong representations to the Lord Chancellor to prevent his removal; that, at the conclusion of the speech, another solicitor, also practising at the same Court, made a speech, in which he endorsed the remarks of the previous speaker, and testified to the universal popularity of the presiding Judge; whether he is also aware that, afterwards, an English gentleman, named Gibson, totally ignorant of Welsh, rose and, alleging that he represented the public, made a speech in further protest against the removal of the Judge; and that, finally, the Judge himself made a speech in which he briefly thanked the speakers, and said that he would make the representations asked, and that he should be glad if the proposed change were not persisted in; and whether the Welsh gentlemen, representing the Welsh-speaking public, will be permitted to attend at subsequent Courts on Judge Beresford's Circuit to express their views as to the desirability of his removal?
  MAJOR JONES, &c.): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him if it is not a fact that at least 80 per cent.

  1647
  of the population in this Judge's Circuit is a Welsh-speaking population, and would it not be in the interest of justice that the Judge should be acquainted with the language?
  MR. ASQUITH: I believe the fact is as stated by my hon. Friend. As to the question on the Paper, I have written to Judge Beresford with reference to the statements contained in this question; but I have not at present received an answer. I would remind my hon. Friend that I have no control over, or authority to interfere with, the conduct of a County Court Judge, or to say what gentlemen should be allowed to address him while sitting as a Judge. Any complaint of the conduct of a Judge should be made to the Lord Chancellor, and when I receive an answer from Judge Beresford it will be my duty to lay it before the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what would have been the result had this taken place in Ireland?
  [The question was not answered.]

  PATENT FEES.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Register of Patent Agents is a register kept under "The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883," as amended by Section 27 of "The Patents Act, 1888;" if so, why the recent Report of the Controller General of Patents does not contain an account of the fees received upon that register, in accordance with Section 102 of the Act of 1883; and, if not, why the Report contains a paragraph on the subject of the register?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Register of Patent Agents is kept under the provisions of Section 1 of the Patents Act, 1888. This Act is incorporated with the Patent Acts, 1883. The Report of the Comptroller General of Patents does not contain an account of the fees received upon the register, because be has no control over their receipts or expenditure. The paragraph referred to was inserted in his Report because, under Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the Act of 1888, the Board
  1648
  of Trade are charged with the duty of deciding upon the claims of persons to registration.

  MORTON NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department will take steps to prosecute any of the surviving parties to the frauds discovered in connection with the accounts of the Morton National Schools?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The Department is making further inquiries into this case. If it should appear that there are grounds for placing the matter in the hands of the Public Prosecutor for his investigation, I will lay the matter before him.

  THE AGRICULTURAL LABOUR MARKET.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the lack of information concerning the agricultural labour market in the last number of The Labour Gazette, what steps, if any, he proposes to take to obtain information on that point similar to that given about other trades, with a view to publication in the next and succeeding issues of the paper?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The importance of obtaining information as to agricultural labour has not been overlooked by the Labour Department. They are collecting material for trustworthy reports on the subject which will appear in future issues of The Labour Gazette.
  SIR J. GORST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is taking any steps to secure information on this subject from persons other than political agitators?
  [The question was not answered.]

  THE CASE OF ALEXANDER FRASER.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Alexander Fraser, who has been for upwards of 53 years road foreman in the service of the County of Aberdeen at Peter Culter, and performed his duties with conscientious

  1649
  fidelity on a weekly wage of a little under £1 a week; whether he is aware that Fraser has now been compelled, at the age of 83, to retire on account of serious illness, which renders him unable to support himself and his wife, and that, after repeated applications, he has been refused any assistance in the shape of grant or pension by the County Authorities; and whether anything can be done to save this old couple from ending their days in the workhouse?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): My attention was directed to the case referred to by a private gentleman, and I informed my correspondent that upon his statement of the facts it would seem a suitable case for any assistance that could properly be granted. The matter is one for the County Council to decide, and I have no power of interfering; but I have written to communicate with them on the matter and ask whether they have any remarks to make.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MAURITIUS AND ZANZIBAR.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is true that the Secretary of State for India has placed upon the Indian Revenues a charge of £10,000 a year for 20 years, as a contribution towards a telegraph cable between the Mauritius and Zanzibar; and if he is aware that the entire export and import trade between India and the Mauritius is steadily decreasing, and only amounted last year to a total of about £110,000; if so, upon what ground is India to be called on to contribute this heavy subsidy for the working of a telegraph cable which will be of no direct commercial value to India, and from an island which has no dependence, for any purpose of military or naval administration, upon the Indian Government?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: The answer to the first question is, Yes. (2) The statistics of trade do not show a steady decrease. The exports and imports in 1891–2 amounted to a total of 2,870,000 tens of rupees, not to about £110,000. The construction of the cable was recommended in the interests of India, and mainly on strategic grounds, by a De-
  1650
  partmental Committee of Inquiry which reported in March, 1891, after full consideration.

  THE CASE OF MRS. G. SAUNDERS.
  MR. A.C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any Correspondence has passed between the Government of Madras and Her Majesty's Government relating to the Memorial of Mrs. G. Saunders, who claims a sum of money for professional services rendered by her late husband, H. B. Saunders, to the first Prince of Arcot; and whether such Memorial and Correspondence can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: The answer to the first question is, Yes. The Secretary of State has no objection to the Papers being laid on the Table if moved for.

  OFFICERS' TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES FOR INDIA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to make any revision of the scale of allowances hitherto made to officers of the Army for passage money to England on public duty, in consequence of the continued depreciation of silver; whether the allowance is now 100 rupees below the lowest sum for which the journey can he made by steamship; and whether meanwhile officers travelling on public business are out of pocket to this amount?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: An officer proceeding to England on duty is entitled to a free contract passage, and if he draws the passage allowance instead he does so of his own free will. The Secretary of State will consult the Government of India as to the financial results of the present rates; but be cannot undertake to make any revision which will increase the annual charge for the conveyance of these officers.

  THE COST OF THE "BONAVENTURE."
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it costs more to build similar vessels at one Government Dockyard than another; whether it is the fact that the Bonaventure, built at Devonport, has cost more than the sister ship the Fox, constructed at Portsmouth; whether this is due to the absence of proper plant at

  1651
  Devonport, or to what other cause; and whether steps are being taken to remove the causes of this difference?
  MR. GOURLEY: At the same time, may I ask whether the Bonaventure, recently built at Devon-port, cost £6,000 more than a sister ship, the Fox, constructed at Portsmouth; if so, can he state who is responsible for so large a difference—the Board of Admiralty, Naval Constructor, or the superintending Director of Dockyards?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The Bonaventure and Fox are both in an incomplete state. The former was launched on 2nd December, 1892, and the latter on the 15th instant. Consequently, more money has been expended on the former up to the present time. When complete the Bonaventure should cost more than the Fox, owing to the former being fitted as a flag ship, whereas the latter is not to be so fitted. There is no absence of proper plant at Devonport, and no cause exists why vessels should not be produced as cheaply there as at any other Dockyard, although, from various causes, there is sometimes a difference in the cost of similar vessels built at different yards.

  RURAL POSTMEN'S JOURNEYS.
  MR. BUCKNILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that rural postmen have frequently to carry bags weighing with their contents as much as 35lbs, for distances equal to four miles out and four miles home, and to make other daily journeys with letters; and whether, considering the heavy weights and distances mentioned, he is prepared to give some measure of relief to these hard-worked public servants, particularly during the summer months?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I am aware that there are cases such as those referred to by the hon. Member. 35lbs. was fixed as the maximum to be carried by rural postmen. It is well understood that whenever the weight carried exceeds that amount assistance is to be provided; and any application for relief receives immediate attention. I shall be glad to know of any particular cases which the hon. Member may have in mind.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps were taken in placing with foreign manufacturers and workmen the Government orders referred to in Return 206 (Contracts with Foreigners, 1892–3)—namely, for £19,520 worth of armour-piercing projectiles; £886 worth of chairs; and £8,928 worth of preserved provisions; as also the recent order for £19,000 worth of Sheffield shells, to insure that such wages were paid by the contractors as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen, in accordance with the Resolution of the late Administration; and if, in calculating the nominal saving by sending such orders to foreigners while Englishmen are without employment and are reported by the official correspondents in many places to be suffering greatly, the cost to the relief funds of Public Bodies and Trades Unions, as also to individual moans of artisan existence, imposed by the Government displacement of home labour, was taken into account?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Only one order (not two orders) for armour-piercing projectiles has been given to a foreign manufacturer this year—namely, that dated February 28, 1893, amounting to £19,520, which is included in the Return No. 206. The question as to regulating wages paid abroad was dealt with in the Debate of the 14th March last (see Parliamentary Debates, Vol. X., No. 1, p. 70) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards the last part of the question (as to steps being taken in the interest of certain individuals and Trade Unions to prevent the purchase of goods abroad), I cannot do better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which the First Lord of the Treasury gave on the 3rd February, 1893—namely,
  "The Legislature has by a series of Acts made careful provision that the whole of the community shall have free access upon equal terms to all products whatever, in whatever country produced; and it appears to me that those Acts of the Legislature are presumably a guide for the Executive Government. It would be a singular step for an Executive Government, on its own discretion, to allow the course of legislative precedents to be infringed."
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask if the principles which are set forth in that statement are those which guide the Government in those matters?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I read that statement in answer to the last paragraph of the question. Admiralty action is based on general considerations.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: But those are the principles which guide the Admiralty in placing contracts?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Certainly, Sir.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I take it, then, that the Admiralty place the contracts at the cheapest place, be it English or foreign?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Preference is given, if possible, to the English manufacturer. But it was not possible sometimes, on account of the large difference in price, and it then became necessary to employ foreign manufacturers.
  MR. MUNTZ: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the difference in price in this case—between the tender accepted, and the lowest English tender?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Considerably over 30 per cent.
  MR. JACKS: When the right hon. Gentleman says preference is given to the English manufacturer, does he mean also the Scotch manufacturer?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Perhaps I ought to have substituted the word "British."

  JUDGE KELLY AND THE STATE OF CLARE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made by His Honour Judge Kelly, and by Mr. J. F. Cullinan, Crown Solicitor, at the Ennis Quarterly Sessions, on the 12th instant, reported in The Daily Express of the 14th instant, from which it appears that Judge Kelly, referring to the state of Clare, said that he did not believe that in any other country in the world such a state of things existed; there were only two cases of
  1654
  assault to go before the jury, and His Honour decided to send the defendants for trial to the Assizes; trial by jury there was a farce; the jurors were canvassed in Court, and when they went out or went home they drank with the prisoners; they would have a jury, but would get no verdict; that he would try no case by jury; it was perfect nonsense to do so there; it was a disgrace to the County Clare; and whether, in view of these statements, it is proposed to send Clare prisoners for trial by Clare juries at the Clare Assizes?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that at the last Quarter Sessions at Ennis there were only three cases which were sent to the Assizes in the ordinary way; that no jury was empannelled to try any case before Judge Kelly, and that, consequently, there is no foundation for these statements?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I have seen the newspaper report referred to. The language of His Honour Judge Kelly was not founded upon anything convoyed to him officially, and the police are unaware of the facts upon which the Judge's remarks were based. It appears that there were three cases for trial at the Sessions in question. Two of these were sent on to the Assizes at the instance of the prosecuting Crown Solicitor exclusively on the ground of the absence of material witnesses. The third ease was one of assault committed in the course of a dispute respecting the right of turbary. The Crown Solicitor informs me that when he was about to proceed with the trial in this third case, and when the jury was about being called, the Judge remarked that there was no use in proceeding with the trial, and that it would only be a waste of time, as the jury would not agree. This case was thereupon also sent for trial to the Assizes. It will be seen, therefore, that the learned Judge's observations were not based upon anything that actually took place on the occasion, nor, as I have already stated, upon any facts communicated to him by the police. I will only add that if in England a judicial person permitted himself to deliver opinions of this kind under the circumstances, I do not think that

  1655
  his conduct would be regarded as very becoming.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last paragraph of the question; and is it not a fact that the Crown Solicitor stated that he entirely concurred in the opinion of the learned Judge?
  MR. J. MORLEY: After what I have stated, I should have thought that the last paragraph did not require an answer. It is quite true that the Crown Solicitor did make some such remark; but I beg the hon. Member to observe that no jury had been empannelled, and no case had been heard. What I understand the Crown Solicitor to have done is to have concurred—after hearing the Judge's observations—in the view that the case should go to the Assizes.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is there any foundation for the allegation that the juries were canvassed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: What juries? Is the hon. Member referring to a jury that was never empannelled?
  MR. SEXTON: May I inquire whether, having regard to the great age of the learned Judge, it would not be well to consider if the ease is not one for an Address from both Houses to the Crown?
  MR. BARTON: I wish to know whether the observations of the learned Judge were not made upon an application for the adjournment of the case; whether the remarks of the Judge were not spoken in such a low tone that it was difficult for the reporters to catch them; and whether the Judge does not deny that he said he would try no case by jury; whether the learned Judge is not a Roman Catholic, appointed by a Liberal Government; and whether there is any foundation for saying that he has ever been accused of partiality? Is he not the most respected County Court Judge in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not deny the propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the learned Judge to express an opinion. I confess I never heard of the learned Judge until this case was mentioned. I believe that what the hon. Member says as to the remarks being extra-judicial, and uttered, therefore, in a low tone, may probably be true. But, however that may be, the remarks
  1656
  did not properly apply, and that, after all, is the gravamen of the charge.
  MR. JACKSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the learned Judge?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not, but I have had a full account of what took place from the Crown Solicitor, who was present, and who has no animus whatever against the Judge. He has no desire to disparage anything the learned Judge said or did. I am not aware that I have said anything to which the learned Judge can object.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it in accordance with the Rules of the House that an hon. Member should put a question imputing words to a learned Judge without first finding out whether the Judge used them?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that as the statement has been denied, on the authority of the Minister, the matter might rest here.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to make a statement concerning the learned Judge without first communicating with him?
  [No reply.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  MR. EGERTON ALLEN, &c.): I beg to ask the Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee whether he is aware that the number of signatures marked on the Petition against the Established Church (Wales) Bill from inhabitants of Tenby (No. 20,156) was 1,672, whereas the number counted was 1,546; whether he is aware that the rector of Tenby, and three curates, and Dr. D. A. Reid, churchwarden, signed the Petition (No. 20,148) from the clergy and laity of the rural deanery of Narberth as well as the Petition from the inhabitants of Tenby; that the rectors of Begelly, Yerbeston, Crunwere, Jeffreston, and Lawrenny, and the vicars of Martletwy and St. Issell's, signed the Petition from the rural deanery of Narberth as well as the Petitions from their own parishes respectively; and whether he will advise the Committee en Public Petitions to call the attention of the House to all eases where the same people sign more than one Petition with respect to the same Bill?
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: The Committee take no cognisance of the number of signatures endorsed upon a Petition by the petitioners themselves, but report to the House the number officially counted in accordance with their Order of Reference. It is a fact that the persons mentioned in the second part of the question signed more than one Petition; but the Committee hold that it is permissible for a person to sign in an official capacity, even though he may have signed as a resident in the district from which a Petition emanates. In reply to the third part of the question, the difficulty of giving effect to the suggestion would be very great; but the Committee will report to the House any case that may be brought to their notice that does not come within the exception to which I have referred.
  MR. EGERTON ALLEN: In what official capacity can a rector sign a Petition?
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: As belonging to the Rural Deanery.
  MR. EGERTON ALLEN: Is every member of a Rural Deanery, clergyman or layman, entitled to sign in an official capacity?
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: The case is one that rarely occurs. We hold that the petitioners who signed the second Petition were within their rights.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is it not a fact that one Petition was for inhabitants of various districts, and the other for the clergy of the Rural Deanery?
  MR. EGERTON ALLEN: I may say it is not a fact. [Cries of "Order!"] I did not intend to cast any reflection on the hon. Member. I am sorry I chose my words so badly, and I withdraw them. Of course, I only meant to say that the Petition on the face of it was from the clergy and laity.

  A LANCASHIRE BURIAL DISPUTE.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen in The Congregationalist Visitor for June a statement that a parishioner of the parish of Downall Green, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Lancashire, having lost his wife, applied to the rector for a grave in the parish churchyard.
  1658
  "Before entertaining the application, the rector wanted to know whether it was intended to use the Church of England Burial Service. On being told that the Burial Service would take place with Nonconformist rites, he declared that he would only let the applicant have a common grave; protest and remonstrance being useless, the interment accordingly took place in a common grave."
  And whether he will inquire into the facts of the case; and, if the statement is found to be correct, take steps to prevent the parishioners of Downall Green being deterred from availing themselves of the right secured to them by the Burial Act of 1880?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have applied to the rector of the parish in question for an explanation of the circumstances referred to. He informs me that in all cases the rights and privileges secured to Nonconformists by the Burial Act of 1880 are willingly granted. That, with regard to the particular interment referred to, he was properly served with notice under the Act of the intended funeral, to which he assented. That there are no common graves in the churchyard, as meaning inferior, either in position, quality, or costs, but that all are alike. He further states that the Act of 1880 reserved all the existing rights of incumbents, and, amongst others, his right to select the part of the churchyard in which any corpse is to be interred. This is the statement made to me by the incumbent, and assented to by the churchwardens. I have no means of ascertaining authoritatively which view of the facts is correct; and the question of law between the complainant and the incumbent is one which I have no jurisdiction to determine.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rector has publicly announced that he has a right to refuse private graves to all but members of his own congregation; and, if so, is he acting in accordance with the law?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of the fact; and it is a question over which I have no jurisdiction; but anyone aggrieved by the conduct of the rector may take legal proceedings and have the question decided.
  MR. LEGH: Is it not a fact that the parishioner

  1659
  in question refused to pay any fees whatsoever?
  MR. ASQUITH: That has nothing whatever to do with the matter.

  SKIBBEREEN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a copy of a resolution, passed on the 14th instant, at a large and influential meeting of the inhabitants of Skibbereen and surrounding districts, South Cork, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the inadequate postal arrangements of the district, and pointing out the necessity for the establishment of a mid-day mail service between Skibbereen and Cork; and whether he will enter into communication with the Railway Companies concerned with a view to establish the extra mail service demanded?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question practically identical to that on the Paper on Tuesday last.

  NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT TAXES.
  MR. MOWBRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company in New Zealand deducts from the half-yearly interest coupons of its debentures a tax of more than 15 per cent., imposed upon them by the New Zealand Government; whether the laws of the New Zealand Government imposing such a tax have received the sanction of the Home Government; and whether the Railway Company is justified in making such a deduction before paying the rate of interest contracted to be paid to its debenture holders in England?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): By the Land and Income Assessment Act of 1891 taxation is leviable upon all income derived or received in New Zealand from business employment or emolument in the manner provided in the Schedules to the Act. By Schedule C, any Company which has borrowed money on debentures is deemed to be the agent of every debenture holder, whether resident or not; it is required to pay the tax for him, and is specifically authorised to
  1660
  deduct the amount of tax so paid from any instalment of interest upon the debentures. The Company have been advised that this power must be exercised by them, and that they cannot charge it to corporate funds. This Act was sanctioned, as was a later Act called the Land Tax and Income Tax Act, 1892. Debentures secured on lands are regarded as mortgages, and by the last-mentioned Act the annual tax on mortgages is fixed at 1d. for each £1 of capital—that is 8s. 4d. per £100 debenture. The tax amounts, therefore, not to 15 per cent, as stated by my hon. Friend, but 8⅓ per cent. But I understand that the whole of the year's deduction on the £5 interest on each debenture has been taken off the one coupon for the whole year. It is true that the Company has deducted this tax from the debenture interest; but I am informed that the attention of the Government of the Colony has been called to the action of the Company, and the New Zealand Government has now under consideration the propriety of amending the law, should it be found that its interpretation is such as to make it obligatory on the Company to deduct the tax in question.

  ALDBOROUGH BARRACKS, DUBLIN.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the Dublin Corporation have put the Technical Instruction Act into operation, and are desirous of acquiring the Aldborough Barracks as premises for technical schools as soon as they shall have been surrendered by the War Office, he will state when the Department proposes to vacate these barracks?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): It is not proposed to vacate the Aldborough Barracks, which are required for the Remount Establishment.

  SHOOTING OUTRAGE AT RUAN.
  Captain NAYLOR-LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that, on the 17th instant, a herdsman, named Quin, who was about to take an evicted farm, was fired at by several parties concealed behind the hedge on the roadside as he

  1661
  was going to the fair at Ruan, about six miles from Ennis, in County Clare: and has the Chief Secretary has any hopes that the criminals will be made amenable to justice?
  MR. THEOBALD: I have a question which I intended to put on a previous occasion, but which, no doubt, will do just as well here. It is, when and where the five men now in custody at Ennis, County Clare, and charged with complicity in the murderous attack upon Mr. Weldon Moloney, will be tried?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper. The shots referred to in the question were fired at, or to intimidate, Patrick Lynch (not Quin), who holds a farm which the former tenant was in the habit of letting in meadowing and grazing. I am informed that in August, 1890, and again in July, 1891, shots were fired at Lyuch's son in this locality, the motive for the outrage in each case being the same as that assigned for the recent outrage of which his father was the object. No person was made amenable for either of these outrages, and it may prove that there will be no more successful issue on the present occasion; but nothing will be left undone by the police to load to the detection and arrest of the guilty parties.

  SKIBBEREEN RAILWAY SERVICE.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen a copy of a resolution, adopted at an influential meeting held on the 14th instant, of the inhabitants of Skibbereen and surrounding district, South Cork, expressive of the strong dissatisfaction caused by the insufficiency of the railway service between Cork and the Skibbereen district, and complaining of the inconvenience to the public arising from the restrictions as to the hours during which the trains are run; and whether, inasmuch as at least one of the Railway Companies concerned is a guaranteed railway, he will cause communications to be addressed to the Railway Companies concerned, with a view to inducing them to remove or lessen the grievances complained of?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have seen the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. If the inhabitants of Skibbereen and district will give the Board of Trade
  1662
  some specific statement of the increased facilities they require, I shall be happy to use my good offices with the company on their behalf.

  RUM RATIONS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the fact that on board H.M.S. Victory, No. 1, lying at Portsmouth, the sailors are compelled to take up their daily allowance of rum; if there is an Order extant to the effect that temperance men have certain allowances instead of their rum ration; and, if so, why is this Order set aside on board the Victory; if he is aware that this Order was made not only to encourage total abstinence among the men, but to prevent those who did not consume the rum ration giving it away to others who did, with much consequent drunkenness; and is it true that men on board the Victory have been punished for drunkenness thus produced?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: (1.) The Admiralty Regulations are carried out, and no one is compelled to take up his daily allowance of rum, either on board the Victory or on any other of Her Majesty's ships. (2.) Certain substituted rations are allowed instead of rum, and 798 of these were issued on the Victory, No. 1, in the first quarter of 1893, while savings for rum not taken up were also paid to the extent of 10,384 rations, exclusive of savings paid to officers. (3.) This Order was made with a view to encouraging temperance; but, under another and older Regulation, the sale, loan, transfer, gift, or barter of spirit or other intoxicating drink to or with any of the ship's company, by any person whatsoever, is prohibited, and savings for rum rations not taken up are allowed. (4.) Men are punished for drunkenness on board, however caused; but the cases are very few, only four having been so punished since the 1st January. In each case inquiry was made as to where the liquor traffic came from, and there is no evidence that it came from the mess.

  RAILWAY RATES FROM LONDON TO BALLYMOTE.
  MR. COLLERY: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that £4 2s. 6d. per ton is charged for certain goods from Broad Street Station, London, to Bally-

  1663
  mote, County Sligo, Ireland; if he can say how that amount is proportionately charged on the English and Irish lines over which it passed, and if it is in accordance with the revised rates lately adopted by the Railway Companies; and whether he could devise any remedy by which small traders would be protected from such charges?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have communicated with the Railway Company, and learn that the rate for boots and shoes is as stated by the hon. Member, and that this rate was not altered at the revision, but has been in operation for years. The Company have not informed me how the amount is proportionately charged on the English and Irish lines; but they say that the rate is under the maximum powers, and that the maximum charge for this traffic between North Wall and Ballymote is 31s. 3d. per ton. In cases in which a legal charge is made I am, of course, powerless to interfere.

  THE RIVAL NEW YORK MAIL ROUTES.
  MR. F. H. EVANS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General is he aware that on the 11th March Her Majesty's mails were taken by the steamship Aurania from Liverpool; that on the same day the steamship New York left Southampton without Her Majesty's mails, and arrived at New York 29 hours before the steamer carrying Her Majesty's mails; on the 15th March the Trave, from Southampton, without mails, arrived at New York 17¾ hours before the Britannic, from Liverpool same day with mails; on the 25th March the Paris from Southampton, without mails, arrived at New York 53 hours ahead of the Servia, from Liverpool same day with mails; on the 29th March the Havel, from Southampton, without mails, arrived at New York 52 hours ahead of the Germanic, from Liverpool same day with mails; on 8th April the New York, from Southampton, without mails, arrived at New York 34 hours ahead of the Aurania, from Liverpool same day with mails; on 26th April the Havel, from Southampton, without mails, arrived at New York 54 hours ahead of the Germanic, from Liverpool same day with mails; on 6th May, the New York, from Southampton, without mails, arrived at New York 46 hours ahead of the Aurania, from Liverpool same day with mails; on 10th May the
  1664
  Britannic left Liverpool with mails, and arrived at New York 14 hours behind the Spree, without mails, although the latter vessel left Southampton on 11th May, a day later; and would he be willing to receive and favourably consider suggestions from the Postmaster General of the United States that would insure important correspondence between Great Britain and America being sent by steamers that would insure its earliest delivery?
  MR. A. MORLEY: In the cases mentioned in the question, which are selected as specially favourable to Southampton, the departures and arrivals officially recorded do not differ very widely from those stated in the question; but, while the steamers from Southampton proceed directly to New York, it was necessary for those from Liverpool to call at Queenstown for mails, so as to give the advantage of a later posting. Mails containing specially addressed correspondence were, in fact, carried by all the steamers from Southampton. These mails, leaving London early in the morning, consisted chiefly of letters posted the previous evening—that is to say, 24 hours earlier than the letters sent in the corresponding mails from Queenstown. Persons preferring the Southampton route for their correspondence have only to superscribe their letters accordingly to secure their transmission by that route. The Department has no means of distinguishing important correspondence, and regards all mails as equally important.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that the vessels named as sailing from Southampton are much faster than those by the Queenstown route, and that, given steamers of equal speed, the advantage would be greatly in favour of Queenstown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I mentioned that they were specially selected as favourable for the Southampton route.
  MR. F. H. EVANS: But, even after deducting the 24 hours, which I do not admit to be fair, is there not an advantage in favour of the Southampton route of something like 20 hours?
  MR. FLYNN: No, no!
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is it a fact that by the slower route parcels are charged 3s. a pound,

  1665
  whereas the rate by the fast vessels is only 1s. 8d. per pound?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot speak to the fact as to the exact number of hours' advantage possessed by one route over another; but the hon. Member has certainly selected vessels which, after allowing the 24 hours, give a considerable advantage to the Southampton route.
  MR. FORWOOD: Are the times taken from Loudon?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Yes.

  MISSIONS IN UGANDA.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a telegram from Rome, that appeared in The Globe of the 16th instant, with regard to negotiations said to be proceeding between the Vatican and the British Government in regard to missions in Uganda; and if care will be taken that no undue precedence will be given to Roman Catholic missions on the ground of the alleged numerical superiority of their adherents?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): There is no foundation whatever for the statement made in the telegram referred to. No such negotiations have taken place. It would be premature to give any undertaking regarding the Settlement of Uganda before the receipt of Sir Gerald Portal's Report, and I can assure the hon. Baronet that the question of giving any precedence to any Missions in Uganda has not been under consideration by the Government at all.

  CHARITY SCHEMES.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire whether any, and, if so, what, schemes for charities have been, during the fortnight ending 17th June, sent to the districts concerned by the Charity Commissioners; and to what newspapers each has been sent?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): Eight schemes under the Charitable Trusts Acts and two under the Endowed Schools Acts. The cost of advertising schemes
  1666
  under the Charitable Trusts Acts being borne, not as in the case of the Endowed Schools Act by the Parliamentary Vote, but by the charities concerned, the instructions for advertising these schemes are given, not by the Commissioners, but by the Trustees.
  MR. STOREY: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Member; but I do not want the information for myself alone. A number of hon. Members desire it, and I must ask him to be good enough to read it.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The hon. Member wishes that these schemes, which are very numerous, should be laid in the Library of the House; but that, I take it, should only be done by the direction of the House itself. In order that the House may know something of the work which is undertaken, I desire to say that the number of Orders made by the Commissioners last year was 2,914. Of these, 553 related to the appointment and removal of Trustees, and 209 to the establishment of schemes. As the schemes under consideration are altered from time to time, it would require the services of an extra clerk or two in order to keep them altered up to date if they were exhibited in the Library. This shall be clone if the House desires it, but otherwise I think the Charity Commissioners are not justified in incurring this trouble and expense.
  MR. STOREY: I am really sorry to trouble my hon. Friend. My question is not as to the number of Orders for the appointment of Trustees, but as to the promulgation of new Schemes, of which he said there were 209 in a year. He tells us eight have been issued in the last fortnight. Will he be good enough to tell us what those eight are?
  MR.T. E. ELLIS: I will supply the list.
  MR. STOREY: I apologise to my hon. Friend for giving him so much trouble, but I venture to ask him this supplementary question—whether, in order to prevent my having to ask a similar question week by week and his having to reply to it, he will consider some method by which this information can be placed, if not in the Library, at any rate somewhere where Members who are interested can see it?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I have already told my hon. Friend that, in accordance with a desire expressed in this House in 1886, these schemes were carefully indexed and placed in the Office of the

  1667
  Charity Commissioners for inspection. Since then one hon. Member, in 1886, asked to see a scheme, and the brother of another hon. Member a few weeks ago made a similar application. I have considered this question carefully. I am anxious that hon. Members should have every opportunity of scrutinising these schemes; but I do not think I should be justified in doing as the hon. Member for Sunderland suggests except by direction of the House itself.

  DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES AND THEIR WINE FUND.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the gentlemen recently appointed to the Derby County Bench received the official intimation of their appointment, accompanied by a postscript informing them that it is the practice in this county for the Magistrates on qualifying to pay seven guineas out of which the County Magistrates' Wine Fund benefits to the extent of five guineas, and the remaining two guineas are retained by the Clerk of the Peace; and whether there is any legal warrant for such a demand?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Clerk of the Peace that the five guineas to the Magistrates' Wine Fund is a donation, not recurrent, of which a separate account is kept; and this provides a fund for the luncheons of the Magistrates from time to time during their period of office, at Assizes and Quarter Sessions. The donation is clearly not obligatory, and there is no legal warrant for requiring it. A portion of the two guineas is paid over to the County Fund in respect of the fees payable on taking oaths of office, and the balance is retained by the Clerk of the Peace for his services outside his official duties. In answer to a question from the Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee, I expressed the opinion on February 21 last that any payment to the Clerk of the Peace in excess of the 10s. which is authorised by the table of fees is in the nature of an honorarium. I am not aware of any legal ground upon which it can be demanded from Magistrates.

  HEAVY RATES IN LAMBETH.
  MR. TRITTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local
  1668
  Government Board whether his attention has been called to the great increase that has lately taken place in the rates in the Metropolis, the increase in the parish of Lambeth being from 5s. 6d. in the £1 in 1892–3, to a levy at the rate of 6s. 8d. per annum for the current half-year; and whether he will put himself in communication with the Local Authorities in that parish, in order to obtain from them particulars of the circumstances which have led to such an increase?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The expenditure and rating of the Metropolis is not controlled by the Local Government Board; but for the convenience of the hon. Member I have made inquiries on this subject. The churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Lambeth inform me that the rates levied in the parish in the year 1892 were at the rate of 5s. 6d. in the £1. The rate in that year would, however, have been nearly 1d. in the £1 higher had it not been that at Lady Day, 1892, the overseers had a balance in hand on account of the poor rate of nearly £19,000, which was applied in reduction of the rates levied. The rate for the current half-year is 3s. 4d. in the £1, and there is some reason to expect that the rate for the second part of the year will be less, so that it is not to be assumed that 6s. 8d. will necessarily be the rate for the year. The items which appear to show an increase in the first half of the present year, as compared with a moiety of the total amount under the several heads in the previous year, are mainly lighting and general purposes and poor rate.

  THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE LOAD LINE.
  MR. FORWOOD: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for India have the Indian Government suspended the operation of their recent Orders as to the load line of vessels sailing from India; and will ample notice be given to ship-owners in this country of any intention to put the Order in force, and an opportunity afforded to them to state their objections to the proposals?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1) The operation of the Indian Load Line Rules is temporarily suspended while the Rules are being revised. (2) A draft of the new

  1669
  Rules will be published at the principal Indian ports, and in The Board of Trade Journal. Shipowners in this country will thus have an opportunity of making any representations which they may think necessary to the Government of India.

  FEVER AND SMALL-POX HOSPITALS IN LONDON.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Asylums Board on the 10th instant, to the effect that at the present time, on the average, about 50 per cent, only of the persons requiring admission could be dealt with; and whether he can state the reason for this inability, seeing that the number of persons under treatment for fever and small-pox was only 2,929 and 479 respectively, as compared with the 4,389 cases of fever and diphtheria only which were received at one time in 1892, whilst the accommodation for fever and diphtheria patients at the disposal of the Managers was increased in 1892 to 4,663 beds?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have been in communication with the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, and am informed that the statement made by the Chairman had reference only to scarlet fever and diphtheria patients. The number of beds available for these patients is less than in 1892. Last year the small-pox hospital at Gore Farm, which was intended for convalescent small-pox patients, was free for use for fever patients, and furnished 836 beds. There are now, however, 260 small-pox patients in this hospital, and consequently it is not now available for fever cases. There has also been a reduction in the accommodation in consequence of certain old temporary wards having been demolished to make way for permanent buildings, which are now in course of erection; and there are others where works of repair, &c, which were postponed last year, have been carried out, but are not yet quite finished. I understand also that it has not been thought by the several medical superintendents expedient or safe to place so many patients in some of the wards as was done for a short
  1670
  time in 1892. It may, perhaps, be found possible before long to again admit convalescent cases to Gore Farm.

  INSPECTORS OF MESSENGERS AT LIVERPOOL.
  MR. STOCK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there are vacancies for Assistant Inspectors of Messengers at Liverpool, but that, owing to the inadequate scale of pay, it is impossible to obtain suitable candidates; and, if so, will he take immediate steps to have the position of Assistant Inspectors of Messengers at Liverpool improved; and whether these officers have been petitioning during the past three years to have their grievances redressed, and why nothing has been done by the General Post Office, although they have been urgently recommended to improve the pay of these officers?
  MR. A. MORLEY: There has recently been some difficulty in getting suitable candidates from among the senior postmen to fill vacancies in the class of Assistant Inspectors of Telegraph Messengers at Liverpool. A proposal is now under examination for somewhat improving the scale of wages for the Assistant Inspectors, and it is hoped that in this way the difficulty will be removed.

  DISMISSALS FROM WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether dismissals of workmen are still taking place at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich; and, if so, whether there is a corresponding number of dismissals among the higher grade of officials, such as foremen viewers, examiners, and clerical staff; whether it is possible, in cases of slackness, to transfer the men to other departments, or to put all grades of workmen on short time; whether it is true that contracts have been given to English and French firms for the manufacture of goods that could have been made at the Royal Arsenal; and whether he will undertake that in future no such contracts be made while there is not sufficient work for the men at the Arsenal?
  MR. WOODALL: Reductions, though not to any large extent, are still taking place at Woolwich Arsenal as a result of

  1671
  reduced demands. The higher grades will be reduced as the lessened numbers in the lower grades appear to justify reduction. Apart from the difficulty of transferring workmen to a factory with the work of which they are not familiar, the reductions at present taking place are in all the factories, so that there is little room for transfers. Government factories are maintained for the purpose of providing a check on the quality and cost of the work of the private trade, but by no means with the intention of abolishing the latter, which may be of the first importance in times of emergency. Under this system it would be impolitic when a reduction has to take place to throw the whole of it on the private trade. I may add that no order for any article producible at the Arsenal has at all recently been placed with a foreign firm.
  MR. LOUGH: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question as to avoiding dismissals by putting all men on short time.
  MR. WOODALL: We are considering the possibility of adopting a plan of working short time. But up to the present the number of dismissals has been much less than is commonly supposed.

  NATIONALIST MEETINGS IN CLARE.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received information if any, and, if any, how many, Nationalist political meetings were held in the towns of Ruan and Ennis, in the County of Clare, during the week ending 16th June; and whether the police were instructed to or did attend those meetings?
  MR. THEOBALD: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if at any of these meetings, political or otherwise, resolutions have been passed denouncing gentlemen who in Ireland are politely called "land-grabbers?"
  MR. J. MORLEY: No meetings, political or otherwise, were held within the period mentioned in cither Ennis or Ruan.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask whether, during the same period, there have been any political meetings in Colchester?
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any meeting of any kind was held at any time in the town of Ruan at which a man named Lynch was denounced?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My information is that no meetings were held at either of the two places named, and within the period named, either political or otherwise.

  POST OFFICE EXPENDITURE.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will grant a Return showing the percentage of Expenditure to Gross Revenue of the Post Office and Packet Service and of the Telegraphs; and a comparison of Working Expenses and Revenue, in continuation of the Papers presented to the Select Committee of 1888 on Revenue Departments Estimates?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): If the right hon. Gentleman will put notice down I shall be pleased to grant the Return.

  SCOTCH PRISON OFFICIALS' PENSIONS.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that a former Governor of Lanark Prison received on retiring a pension calculated on the whole of his service, although he had served under more than one Local Authority; if so will he admit the claims of the five Scotch prison officers who ask that their pensions may be calculated in the same way?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the officer referred to by the hon. Member had 15 years' service under the Perthshire Prison Authority and 17 years under the Lanarkshire Authority, or 32 years in all. He received from the Lanarkshire Authority, when he retired in 1874, a pension representing a service of 40 years. The Prison Commissioners cannot say by what sanction pension was granted at this rate, and do not know of any other Local Authority having granted similar terms. The Prisons (Scotland) Act of 1877 took a different view of the powers of Local Prison Authorities, which has been consistently followed for 16 years; and I am not prepared to admit claims based upon an

  1673
  isolated precedent three years before the passing of the Act which lays down the law clearly.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that police officers count their whole service? Is there any reason why they should be treated differently from prison officials?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member had better apply to the Financial Secretary of the late Government, who strongly decided in the sense in which the present Government are acting.
  MR. JACKSON: To which of my decisions does the right hon. Gentleman refer?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It may not have been the right hon. Gentleman; it was probably his successor to whom I was referring.

  THE ANGORA TRIALS.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate to the House a telegraphic summary of Mr. Newton's Report relating to the Angora trials?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I will also ask whether it is not a fact that before the sentences imposed in these trials can be executed the matter must come before the Court of Cassation, and that that will occupy a period of at least several weeks?
  SIR E. GREY: The Vice Consul's full Report has not vet been received; but we have heard the following particulars from him:—The trial began on the 20th of May. The Court consisted of the President, two other Turks, one Armenian Catholic, and one Greek. The prisoners were defended by seven lawyers. The trial was public, and each of the prisoners was examined separately in the presence of the others, excepting in the case of Mr. Thoumaïan, when Mr. Kayayan was ordered out of Court. We are anxiously waiting to know on what evidence the sentences were founded, and till we have heard this I would earnestly deprecate any public discussion. It is a general provision of Turkish law that such sentences must come before the Court of Cassation, and I can give the hon. Member an assurance that we have definite and authoritative information as regards this particular case that this course must be followed,
  1674
  that the sentences will be subjected to close examination and carefully reviewed by the Court of Cassation; and that there is no question of carrying them out at present.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to state that in the circumstances it will not be necessary for me to move the Adjournment of the House, as I had intended doing. I may, however, have to do so on a future occasion.

  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a holiday, with pay, will be given to the employés at the Royal Small Arms Factory, at Enfield, on 6th July?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): As it is not intended to proclaim a public holiday on July 6th, the Ordnance Factories will not be closed.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the minimum rate of wage paid to the workmen at the Royal Small Arms Factory will be less than 6d. an hour?
  MR. WOODALL: It is not intended to raise the minimum wages of labourers to the rate referred to.

  THE CASE OF MR MURZBAN.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has received a Memorial, dated 18th August, 1890, from Mr. M. M. Murzban, late Assistant Traffic Superintendent, State Railways, complaining that, after eight years' service, he was discharged from the Service with three mouths' notice on the sole ground of reduction of establishment, although there were eight officers (Europeans) junior to him in the grade, and four probationers, of whom three were appointed within one month prior to the notice; whether the Secretary of State is aware that Mr. Murzban was one of the only two native officers appointed to the Traffic Department since 1879, as against 22 European officers; whether the Secretary of State is aware that about the time of Mr. Murzban's discharge, he had been strongly and repeatedly recommended for promotion by

  1675
  his immediate superiors, and that the only two European traffic managers under whom he served can now bear witness to his efficiency; whether it is the fact that, before his discharge, Mr. Murzban had no opportunity of being heard in his own defence; whether, if there are any charges against him of misconduct or inefficiency, the Secretary of State will direct that he be given an opportunity of making his defence; and whether, if there are no such charges, the Secretary of State will be pleased, in view of the hardship of the case, to direct that he be employed in some suitable appointment under the Government of India?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1) A Memorial from Mr. Murzban, appealing against his discharge from the Service on the ground stated in the question, was forwarded by the Government of India in 1890, and considered by the Secretary of State in Council; (2) the Secretary of State has not the means of verifying the figures; (3) the Secretary of State has not received the Reports referred to from Mr. Murzban's immediate superiors and the two Traffic Superintendents; (4) on receiving the notice of discharge, Mr. Murzban had the opportunity of representing the facts of his case, which have been fully considered by the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council; (5) Mr. Murzban was not dismissed for misconduct or inefficiency. The terms under which he was employed did not entitle him to serve for pension, but gave the Government the right to discharge him in the event of his services being no longer required. In 1888 it was decided in the public interest to reduce the establishment of the Traffic Department, and it became necessary to select officers for discharge. As the Reports on Mr. Murzban had not been favourable, he was selected for discharge in accordance with the terms under which he had accepted employment. The Secretary of State sees no reason for re-opening the question in the manner suggested, or for directing the re-employment of Mr. Murzban by the Government of India.

  "MURPHY V. HUGHES."
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention
  1676
  has been called to the case of "Murphy v. Hughes," tried at the recent Monaghan Quarter Sessions, and reported in The Monaghan Standard of the 17th inst., in which evidence was given of the proceedings of a League Court, presided over by the Rev. J. M'Phillips, C.C., and constituted of men whom His Honour, Judge Orr, described as a "gang of scoundrels;" whether he has read the statement of Judge Orr, that to say that men will be prevented from discharging their honest debts, and that it is tolerated in a civilised country, is a perfect disgrace to the Government. It is now fully disclosed in the presence of the police and the properly constituted authorities, and if they did not take notice of it he thought it most monstrous; and whether the authorities have been instructed to put an end to these illegal proceedings?
  MR. DIAMOND: May I ask the Chief Secretary if it is a fact that the case was not tried in a League Court, but in a properly constituted Arbitration before two duly appointed arbitrators. Does he think the language of the learned Judge, in referring to the arbitrators as a gang of scoundrels, was justified by the facts?
  MR. RENTOUL: By whom were the arbitrators appointed? Was it by the League?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is impossible for me to answer these questions, as the proceedings were private and of a practically secret character, so that the police could have no information as to them. I have seen a report of this case and the observations of the County Court Judge thereon as referred to in the question of the hon. and learned Member for East Down. The matter is now under the consideration of the Law Officers. With regard to the condition of the County Monaghan, from the point of view of crime, I find that so recently as March last Mr. Justice Madden, Attorney General to the late Government, in his address to the Grand Jury at the opening of the Monaghan Spring Assizes, expressed his pleasure at the very satisfactory state of the county, and remarked that the cases for trial were very few in number and of the most ordinary character. The county continues, I am glad to say, in a thoroughly satisfactory state in this respect.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hughes has sworn in his evidence he was taken before a League meeting which was presided over by the Rev. Mr. M'Phillips?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That matter is being inquired into.
  MR. SEXTON: In view of the extraordinary language of the Judge in calling the arbitrators a gang of scoundrels, will the right hon. Gentleman direct the police to inquire whether the Arbitration Court was not legally constituted?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, that also is being inquired into.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I hope the police will also be instructed to inquire if there is a branch of the National League at this place.

  ONE DAY'S WAGE EARNINGS.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the estimated amount of a day's wages of the industrial classes of the United Kingdom?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The annual earnings of the classes usually called working classes or manual labour classes (including the estimated value of the board and lodgings of domestic servants, soldiers, sailors, and others) have been recently estimated by MR. Giffen at about £600,000,000, and dividing this sum by the number of working days in the year would give an average daily earning of about £2,000,000; but the sum actually paid in money as daily wages, owing to the board and lodgings included in many cases and the numbers paid by salary and not by daily wages or by piece work, would probably be much less than the average amount of daily earnings reckoned in the way described.

  THE TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Papers relative to the inquiries into the management of the Tralee and Dingle Railway will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether he would have any objection to the official Report of the evidence given at Major Marindin's inquiry being also laid upon the Table?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Major General Hutchinson's Report on the inquiry into the management of the line can be laid upon the Table at once. With regard to Major Marindin's inquiry into the accident, the evidence is in the hands of the printers, and I expect that the Report will be ready in the course of about a week. I think both Reports should be laid at the same time.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Lord Kimberley's Despatch, forwarding the Resolution of this House in favour of simultaneous examinations for the Indian Civil Service, has been sent to the Government of India; and when it will be laid upon the Table in accordance with the promise of the Prime Minister?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: A Despatch is about to be sent, and, in accordance with usage, will be laid on the Table as soon as it has been received by the Government of India.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state when the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee on the Currency of India will be published?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot state the exact day; but I expect very soon.

  THE IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a Commission of Inquiry has recently taken evidence on the subject of the herring and other fisheries off the coast of Ireland; and, if so, when it last took evidence, and when the Report will be published?
  MR. J. MORLEY: An Inquiry—to which apparently the question of the hon. Member refers—was recently held respecting the mackerel and herring fisheries at Kinsale, in the South of Ireland, and the Report of such Inquiry has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant. The recommendations contained in the Report are now under consideration; but inasmuch as the carrying out

  1679
  of these recommendations would involve legislation, and as the points at issue have reference to the early season which has passed over, no object would be gained by the publication of the Report and evidence at present.
  MR. HANBURY: I asked the question in view of the sub-section we are going to discuss. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to publish it in any form before the discussion takes place?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As I hope the discussion will take place to-night, that will be impossible. But I do not think the findings of the Commissioners will raise any point on the sub-section.

  THE BANKS AND THE ROYAL WEDDING.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the express terms of the 4th section of the Bank Holiday Act (34 & 35 Vict,, c. 17), authorising the proclamation of a close holiday in all banks in any particular county, city, borough, or district of the United Kingdom, without reference to any other part of the country in which such holiday is not desired; and if the Government can be induced to re-consider its refusal to take the steps necessary to secure freedom from ordinary work for the bank clerks and other officials in places like Sheffield, wherein, by popular desire and civic authority, the Royal Wedding Day is to be observed by all other classes of the community, and not least of all by working men, as a day of general rejoicing?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. W. E. Gladstone,): I believe, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his reference to the Bank Holiday Act. In cases of local holidays we have had no representation whatever from the Local Authorities that it would be, in their judgment, desirable to arrest the action of the banks on those days, and we certainly could not deem it to be our duty to consider that question except on the motion of the Local Authorities.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: If the Local Authorities make a representation will the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary action?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We must wait and see what their action is.

  THE TREES IN PALACE YARD.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the fact that the trees in Palace Yard are suffering very much from want of water, and what steps he proposes to take?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the Financial Secretary to the War Office say what Army Votes are to be taken next week, and in what order?
  MR. WOODALL: The Government propose to ask the House for Votes 2, 9, and 10—that is to say, for the Medical Establishments, Works, and Warlike Stores.

  THE LORD LIEUTENANT IN SLIGO.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to a placard which has been largely circulated in the County of Sligo headed "Visit of the Lord Lieutenant to Sligo?" It goes on to say that
  "His Excellency Lord Houghton, the Home Rule Lord Lieutenant,"
  will pay a visit to Sligo, and will arrive by train from Dublin, and that
  "addresses are intended to mark the visit of the friend and representative of MR. W. E. Gladstone and his Home Rule Government."
  I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether this visit has taken place; and whether, on this and similar occasions, the Lord Lieutenant is divested of his character as the Representative of Her Majesty the Queen?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant was to arrive at Sligo this afternoon, there to join the Enchantress, in which he intends to take a cruise. I am quite sure that the Lord Lieutenant will not do anything inconsistent with the high character of his office.
  MR. COLLERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether the Lord Lieutenant will carry out his intended visit, as the people of Sligo intend to give him a right Royal reception?
  MR. J. MORLEY: By this time, no doubt, the visit is over.

  THE BRITISH EMBASSY IN PARIS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give notice that to-morrow I will ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the statement in the French newspapers that certain documents have been stolen from the British Embassy.

  HOME RULE FINANCE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I gave an intimation to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government would be prepared to lay the Financial Amendments to the Irish Government Bill on the Table, as we hope before the close of the week. I trust that they will be printed and circulated to-morrow morning; but as the changes are considerable, I think it may be for the convenience of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that I should, with the indulgence of the House, take a few minutes of their time in order to make the leading proposals as easy and as clear as possible for them to be followed. The intention which I expressed a considerable time back of asking for the postponement of the Financial Clauses as a whole was expressed under the belief that the rule prevailed which has, I think, been usual of allowing the Government, when proposing an important measure, to choose the order in which the clauses of that measure were presented. Having seen from experience that that view is not taken in the present case, I do not propose to move the postponement of the Financial Clauses as a whole, unless it is made known to me by sufficient authority that such is the general wish of the House. I assume for the present that that will not be done. The first thing I have to do is, of course, to present to the House a balance sheet of Irish finance, as it now stands, after the discovery of the error in regard to Excise. That balance sheet will be moved for by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and the House will have it in its hands to-morrow morning with a few notes and explanations. The changes in the balance sheet would not, I think, have entailed any large changes in the Financial Clauses, but the situation of the Bill has led the Government to observe in what manner they could
  1682
  reduce and simplify the number and character of the financial questions to be submitted to the House for its consideration; and we have, therefore, remodelled the Financial Clauses, if I may use that expression, with the view of presenting to the House for its sanction a simple plan raising few points of debate. If it is the pleasure of the Committee I will describe in very few words and in a popular manner the effect of the plan; but, of course, the Committee will observe that I do not profess to represent in these few words the effect of the whole of the matter contained in clauses which, although materially shortened, will extend over two or three pages at least—perhaps more—of the Irish Government Bill. The plan as it will stand, if accepted by the Committee, will, I think, be fairly represented by these words, and, of course, I shall not enter into a single word of justification or defence of it. The conveying of information is the only object which I have in making these few remarks. In the first place, the considerable term for which it was proposed that the financial arrangements should endure, is, in our view, to be materially changed. We propose to establish what I may call a provisional term of six years for the financial arrangements, instead of the longer term of 15 years, to be capable of extension until interfered with. During these six years—and this is what I am anxious the Committee at once should understand—the plan will be materially different. In the first place, there will be no change proposed by us in fixing the management and collecting any of the taxes included in the present system of taxation. Secondly, there will be a power given to Ireland to establish new taxes for herself. Thirdly, Ireland's contribution, according to our proposal, will be one-third of her ascertained Revenue; and, fourthly, any tax which may be imposed on her by Parliament expressly for war or special defence. At the close of the six years the contributions and the financial particulars would be revised, and Ireland would collect and manage her own taxes except the Customs and fix her taxes except Customs, Excise, and Posts. This is a very brief summary. Gentlemen who have been kind enough to follow me with the Bill in their hands will, I think, understand it. It is proposed that three of the clauses should

  1683
  drop altogether. They are No. 11, No. 18, and No. 21. Two of the Financial Clauses are clauses in which we do not propose any change affecting finance. They are No. 18 and No. 19.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You mentioned 18 as one of those that would be dropped.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes, I have misread my notes. It is my defective vision, I am sorry to say. The clauses that will be dropped are No. 11, No. 13, and No. 21. Those in which we do not propose to make any change are Nos. 18 and 19. Therefore, we shall propose to take five clauses in their order as they stand. There remain seven clauses. Four of them are clauses which will be supplanted by the new financial provision—namely, Clauses 10, 12, 17, and 20. We shall propose to negative those clauses in order to bring up now clauses with the view of introducing our simpler plan. There still remain throe clauses, and those we propose to postpone until after the new clauses mainly upon the ground of form, because they refer to the Irish Consolidated Fund, and the Irish Consolidated Fund will not have been created by the Bill until the new clauses are introduced. They are Clauses 14, 15, and 16. To summarise, five clauses will be dealt with in their order, and four we propose to negative and to bring up in their places new clauses after we have gone through the clauses in the regular form, and three will be postponed until after the new clauses.
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask my right hon. Friend to say when he will be likely to take the Committee which will be necessary to set up before the Financial Clauses can be discussed? I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the lucidity with which he has put this matter before the House. It is extremely convenient that he should give us these general lines before the paper appears, and personally I feel very much indebted to him for the trouble he has taken. I am sure my right hon. Friend rightly appreciates the desire of the House that the Financial Clauses shall not be postponed as a whole, but that we shall be able to discuss the whole finance of the Bill when we come to the Financial Clauses in their order. If some of the
  1684
  clauses are postponed to the end we still may discuss the policy of the clauses in the place where the original proposals appear, as, I think, my right hon. Friend has suggested. I trust I am right in that conjecture, but, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will tell us when he proposes to take the Committee on those clauses.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No doubt the Government will propose that certain clauses now standing in the Bill be negatived for the purpose of introducing these, and it will be for the Committee to consider how far it may be convenient to make that an opportunity for discussing the whole of the financial proposals. Upon that, however, I shall not venture to give an opinion until the matter has been considered in connection with the Forms of the Committee. With regard to the preliminary Committee, my impression is that the usual course in such cases is to so frame the Resolution as to get in general terms the necessary authority for the Committee of the whole House, but not to obtain the judgment of the House upon the proposals. The usual and most convenient course will be to move the preliminary Committee a short time before the clauses themselves are actually reached.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, as soon as possible, allow the House to have the terms of the Resolutions to be submitted to the Financial Committee, so that we may be able to judge of their general shape. May I ask whether it is not usual to discuss the general principles of the financial proposals on setting up the Financial Committee? Let me explain. The Speaker ruled out of Order at the beginning of our Committee stage an Instruction dealing with the financial portion of the Bill; and, if my memory serves me rightly, that question could have been raised on the setting up of the Financial Committee stage. If that is so, it would be competent to take a general debate on the financial proposals when we come to discuss them in the Financial Committee.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think it very doubtful whether the Financial Committee would afford any opportunity for pronouncing a definitive judgment on the whole scheme. As to the debate on

  1685
  the clauses, the Chair will determine what can be done.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The operative part of the Government's financial plan, I presume, will have to be discussed at the end of the clauses. That is to say, we can only discuss the plan which has been dropped on the Motion to negative the existing Financial Clauses? I presume we shall not be able to discuss the operative part of the new plan practically until we reach the end of the Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had it not in their power to place the clauses in closer juxtaposition than they had proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has present to his mind the fact that on the Second Reading we could not discuss the general and collective aspect of the financial proposals, because they were not before us; and, therefore, it may be necessary for us to take every legitimate opportunity on the Financial Committee to regard these proposals as a whole.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether questions of Order on matters which might arise in Committee were not for the Chairman to determine?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that any question of Order was put to me. Of course, the matter would have to be decided when the financial alterations came before the House in Committee.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: As I understand the brief statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it is his intention to propose a clause which would deprive the Irish Parliament of any power over the collection, management, or control of any existing Irish tax whatever for a period of six years, and I beg to give notice that when that clause comes up for discussion I shall oppose it as unjust and humiliating to Ireland.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (FINANCE).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement illustrating the effect of the amended Financial Proposals in the Government of Ireland Bill."—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to be upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 21st June.]
    [TWENTY-SIXTH NIGHT.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 4 (Restrictions on powers of Irish Legislature).
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he had an Amendment, in page 2, line 34, leave out "(6)," but he would not move it. It was the desire of the House that they should proceed, and he would reserve his observations for the next Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the next Amendment in Order was that in the name of the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Wolff).
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he understood the next Amendment to be moved was that of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace).
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Wolff.
    MR. WOLFFsaid, he rose to move in page 2, line 35, to leave out from "Parliament" to "may" in line 37. He would draw the attention of the House to Sub-section 6, which read—
    "Whereby any existing Corporation, incorporated by Royal Charter or by any local or general Act of Parliament (not being a Corporation raising for public purposes taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, or administering funds so raised) may, unless it consents, or the leave of Her Majesty is first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature, be deprived of its rights, privileges, or property without due process of law."
    Now, they would see that the Amendment applied to Corporations, such as Municipal Boards, Harbour Boards, and Water Boards. These Boards had considerable incomes derived from rates and tolls, and many of them had borrowed vast amounts from English and other Societies. He was afraid, unless this Amendment was accepted, that the confidence reposed in such Bodies would be done away with if the Irish Legislature were entrusted with the power which it was proposed to give to it. The various Corporations, he feared, would in that case be no longer

    1687
    in a position to raise the loans that were necessary to their carrying on the business which they had in hand. He would take the case of Belfast, with which he was himself connected. That City had three Bodies—the Corporation, the Harbour Board, and the Water Board. The Corporation of Belfast was not a favourite with the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who, when he represented one of the Divisions of Belfast, did everything he could to prevent the Corporation bringing forward Bills that were considered necessary for the improvement of the City, even going the length, he would remind the House, of stopping the progress of the Main Drainage Bill—a Bill which was much required at the time. Well, he fancied the hon. Member's opposition to the Corporation was political rather than anything else. He was opposed to the present political constitution of that Body. The Corporation, however, was an important Body. It had an enormous investment in improvements, and it had large financial relations with England. If the Home Rule Bill passed, might not the Irish Parliament interfere with that? At all events, they could understand that, in such circumstances, those who had advanced money in the past would be unwilling to do so again in the case of a Corporation which would be subject to the law as laid down by the Irish Legislature. The Harbour Board had £1,096,000 invested. They also feared the advent of the Irish Legislature. The Water Board had also great investments, amounting to many thousands of pounds, and they had at present a scheme before the House of Lords proposing a vast expenditure for a further water supply to meet the growing needs of the City. These Corporations, like the others, feared that under Home Rule they would not be able to carry out those improvements which were necessary for the welfare of the citizens. For these and other reasons, he thought it was very desirable that they should exclude these words from the clause. He did not say that the Irish Parliament would, immediately on its being appointed, proceed right away to do the things that were apprehended. But he felt perfectly convinced that they would try to do them as soon as opportunity offered to permit them; and the security which such
    1688
    Bodies now enjoyed would be endangered. They had the words "due process of law," but they did not know what they meant, and in the North of Ireland they had no confidence in the interpretation that would be put upon the clause as it stood by the Irish Legislature. If this were an ordinary Bill they might have confidence, but it was not ordinary. They wore satisfied that the administration of the law by the Irish Legislature would not be equal in fairness to that which prevailed under the Imperial Parliament. They accordingly hoped the Government would accept an Amendment which would give them greater security than had yet been provided for in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 35, to leave out from the word "Parliament," to the word "may," in line 37.—(Mr. Wolff.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member himself confessed that no one would think of proposing such an Amendment in any ordinary scheme of local self-government, where there was any confidence in the proposed Governing Body; in other words, the Amendment meant there was no trust to be placed in the Body proposed to be constituted. The Government did not share that view. Besides, the Amendment would have the effect of depriving the Irish Legislature of what he might call an elementary right with respect to local government. The Amendment was like that brought forward regarding Dublin University, and it would be impossible for them to agree to it.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would call attention to the wording of the clause and the general effect of the omission. This was an exception from what? It was an exception from a law being passed by which Corporations would be deprived of their rights, privileges, or property without due process of law. Some alteration was needed in the drafting of the clause.
    MR. RENTOUL: It is grammar.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was a question of drafting, and he thought

    1689
    the Attorney General would see that there must be an alteration made in the wording of the clause.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman was well founded. The clause needed some alteration, and the Government would consider what alteration should be made, and bring it up altered on Report. They would introduce words which he hoped would be satisfactory to the House.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, this was a rather embarrassing decision. It was extremely difficult for them to move an Amendment until they knew what was to be done—what alteration in the wording was intended to be made. He would point out to the Government, with reference to the phraseology of the clause, that the exclusion referred to a Corporation
    "raising for public purposes taxes, cess, dues, or administering funds so raised."
    He was afraid it might be held that a University was a Corporation raising dues in the form of fees for public purposes, on the ground that education might be considered a public purpose. Was there any question or doubt as to Dublin University being included in the exception by reason of its raising fees for a public purpose?
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that the words would not apply in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CARSONsaid, the Attorney General was probably acquainted with the case of the Louisville University, America; and, that being so, he thought he would acknowledge that, if there was to be any alteration in the wording of the clause, it should be of a nature and character that would strictly draw the line between public and private purposes. He hoped the words would not be left open to application in the case of the Dublin University.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the distinction was drawn in the matter of taxing powers.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, as the clause was wrongly drafted, he thought they were entitled to ask the Government to leave out the words altogether and bring up a new sub-section. It was not business-like to pass from the point in that way. It would be very much easier,
    1690
    and more convenient, to bring in a new sub-section, so that the meaning in the mind of the Government would be properly understood.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it must be obvious that if the words were left out it would not improve the case. In his opinion the words in parenthesis clearly expressed the meaning.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Government agreed that the words were doubtful, and it was reasonable to ask that they should be rendered clearer.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that was in order that the Opposition might have a battle royal upon the question. He did not think they could assent to that.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was curious to observe the attitude of the hon. Member for North Kerry after the admission of the Attorney General—
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he supposed he had the same right as any other Member to state his views on the question before the Committee.
    An hon. Member: More.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, every Member had a right to be heard in a discussion of that kind.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the proposal before them was that the Government should introduce words which would enable them to understand something which they could not at present understand.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to make the wording of the clause clearer he could propose an Amendment. For his part, he thought there was no necessity for waiting till the Report stage.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, as he understood the matter, some Corporations would be exempted from the operation of the clause. The question was whether the restricted powers of the Legislature should also be made to apply to any Body
    "Not being a Corporation raising for public purposes taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, or administering funds so raised."
    He confessed that if they were to establish an Irish Legislature in Dublin, they ought to give it unrestricted powers over Burial Boards, Water Works Boards, and Boards of that kind; and therefore, much as he objected to an Irish Parliament, he thought these words ought to be retained.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 302; Noes 254.—(Division List, No. 162.)
    MR. TOMLINSON*MR. TOMLINSON (Preston) rose to move that the words
    "Unless it consents, or the leave of Her Majesty is first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature"
    be omitted from the section. He said that existing Corporations were by the clause as it stood to be handed over to the Irish Parliament absolutely; in case these conditions were satisfied it was the duty of the Committee to consider whether these restrictions were sufficient for the protection of these Corporations. It should be remembered that it was proposed, subject to the words he moved to leave out, to restrict the powers of the Irish Parliament to confiscate the property of those Corporations. On that point, he ought, perhaps, to speak with some reserve, for it was not at all certain that the words as they stood carried out the real intentions of the Government; but what he submitted to the Committee was that, whatever qualification ought to be introduced into the words, the words themselves only apparently restricted the power of the Irish Parliament, whilst it left the Irish Parliament with really effective control over these Corporations. The sub-section enacted that no Corporation was to be deprived of its rights, privileges, or property,
    "Unless it consents, or the leave of Her Majesty is first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature."
    He did not propose to dwell at any length on "unless it consents"; but the words were ambiguous, and he would like to know in what process was the Corporation to give its consent? Was it by calling a meeting of the Body for the consideration of the subject; and, if so, what was the majority by which the consent was to be given? He asked the Committee to consider the other alternative, providing for the leave of Her Majesty being first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. The question of an "Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature" was discussed during the Debates on the previous day, and he did not intend to say much about it. But it was quite obvious that if the Irish Legislature wished to
    1692
    deprive a Corporation of its property without due process of law, there would be no more difficulty in obtaining an Address of the two Houses of Parliament for that purpose than in obtaining an Act of Parliament with the same object. Then it was said the leave of Her Majesty must be obtained. That point also had been clearly stated on the previous day, and he would only say in regard to it that, in the opinion of hon. Members on that side of the House at least, the Government had made no effective reply to the arguments by which it was supported addressed to it. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "may," to the word "be," in line 39.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: We do not accept this Amendment. It will be observed that the whole of the clause is a restriction upon the legislative authority of the Irish Legislative Body. It sets out certain restrictions within the bounds of which the Irish Legislative Body cannot pass any Act. My hon. Friend does not raise any serious objection to the words "unless it consents." But I will put a case the words are intended to meet. An existing Corporate Body, if it has a Charter, is, of course, limited in its aims and purposes and in the appropriation of its funds within the terms of the Charter. It may itself be perfectly willing to devote some portion of its funds to other purposes which do not legally come under the Charter; and it is intended, if the Corporation consents, that the Irish Legislative Body shall be able to legislate so as to allow the Corporation to devote some portion of its funds to these other purposes. Then, as to the leave of Her Majesty. That is intended to meet a case in which a Corporation ought to consent to the appropriation of some of its funds for some purpose not contemplated by its Charter, but refuses to consent to any such appropriation. In that case the provision of the leave of Her Majesty must be complied with before the Irish Legislature can act at all. My hon. Friend will observe that in this context the leave of Her Majesty means

    1693
    not that Her Majesty is to veto the proposal, but that an affirmative leave is to be given. The context also means that leave is to be on the advice of the Imperial Executive whether there ought to be an appropriation of funds of a Chartered Body to purposes other than they are enabled to make such appropriation for under their existing authority. In that case, where an Address is presented by the two Houses, and the leave of Her Majesty on the advice of the Imperial Executive is given to it, then the road is clear for the Irish Legislative Body.
    SIR H. JAMESsubmitted that it would save a great deal of trouble if words were put in which should clearly distinguish between Her Majesty acting on the advice of Her Privy Council at Westminster and Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Irish Ministry. He understood the Chief Secretary had intimated that this distinction should be made by the introduction of words in the Bill.
    SIR C. RUSSELLassented to this.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, what the Government mean is not Her Majesty in Council; they mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the English Ministry, which is a different thing. "Her Majesty in Council" is an ambiguous phrase. What my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir H. James) desires, and what we desire, is a distinction between Her Majesty acting on the advice of an Irish Ministry, and acting on the advice of an Imperial Ministry. I am not sure that putting in the words "in Council" really carry out that view, because Her Majesty in Council may mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the particular Privy Councillors who happen to constitute the Cabinet. We understand the Government are pledged to bring forward an Interpretation Clause in which the matter is made clear. I earnestly press that that clause be put upon the Paper as soon as possible, and that some words should be introduced in each place when you mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Imperial Ministers to distinguish it from those occasions where she is acting on the advice of Irish Ministers. What words does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest? An Interpretation Clause
    1694
    alone will not do. My point is this: You cannot, in a series of clauses in the Bill in which Her Majesty's name is introduced and it is stated that certain things can only be done with the consent of Her Majesty, leave it ambiguous in the clause whether yon mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Irish or English Ministry, and you cannot clear that up by the help of your Interpretation Clause. You must show in each clause whether you are dealing with the Imperial or with the Irish Ministers. What words does the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to introduce?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: It will need some consideration. One would have to go through the clauses and see the connection in which the phrase "Her Majesty" occurs. The Chief Secretary has promised that Avoids shall be introduced which shall indicate the cases in which we mean the leave of Her Majesty is not to be given except upon the advice of the Imperial Executive.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to ask that the Government should as soon as possible tell us what form of words they mean to introduce, not in the Interpretation Clause, but in the clauses that are to be interpreted, so that we may be able to place on record our decision that it is the Irish or the British Administration that is intended. Such a course will greatly shorten the discussions on subsequent Amendments. As to the particular Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Tomlinson), I would suggest that it is not of importance, for really we are in such a muddle on this clause, and the clause is so nonsensical as it stands, and is admitted by the Government to be nonseuical—
    SIR C. RUSSELL: No, no!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, very nearly nonsenical. The clause as it is drafted means this: that any Corporation, the consent or leave of Her Majesty having been obtained, may then, without any process of law, be deprived of their property. That is what the clause means, though not what the Government mean; therefore the clause is nonsense as it stands, and no form of words we can introduce now will make it sense. I have endeavoured to think what Amendments would reduce this chaos to order, and I have totally failed. I also

    1695
    gather that the Government have found some great difficulty in dealing with them, or they would have been prepared to come forward with words to carry out the intention which they avow. This being the state of the case, I am not sure the Amendment will be any great improvement; and, on the whole, I would advise my hon. Friend to leave it to the Government to introduce order where they find chaos, and to bring up words to carry out the meaning they avow, at some later stage.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that though he did not wish to press the matter to a Division, he was bound to refer to the remarks of the Attorney General. He had stated that the object of the Government was to enable a Corporation to extend its powers to purposes not within its charter, in the first place with its consent, and, in the second place, where it did not consent, in a case where it ought to consent, to do so under this process. He must point out, however, that those were not the words in the clause, which were "be deprived of its rights, privileges, and property." That was not an extension of its objects, and it was clear that in all fairness the Government must admit that the whole of the sub-section required casting.
    MR. SEXTONwished to say that, with regard to the leave of Her Majesty, it was quite clear that in the case before them the leave of Her Majesty was not the leave of Her Majesty exercised by the Lord Lieutenant upon the advice of the Irish Cabinet, because the two Houses of the Irish Legislature had first to concur in the Address; and as one of these would govern the Irish Cabinet, it was obvious that the further leave to be given must be leave of another kind. That was quite clear. Then came the question of the Interpretation Clause. It would be a dangerous thing to deal by one Interpretation Clause with the various mentions of the name of Her Majesty, because whilst in one case the leave to be given might be the leave of Her Majesty acting on the advice of British Ministers or some analogous process, in another case, it might be, the operation of the power of Her Majesty would be on the advice of the Irish Cabinet, so that one Interpretation Clause would not apply to all the cases. The safest plan, therefore,
    1696
    was where they meant Her Majesty in Council to say so on the spot and not in an Interpretation Clause.
    SIR H. JAMESdid not understand that Her Majesty would ever act on the advice of the Irish Executive, but her Lord Lieutenant would. Her Majesty would herself never be guided by the Irish Ministers; but when she delegated her authority, of course the authorised agent would act on her behalf. He suggested that whenever it was intended the Imperial Ministry should act, they should put in the words "Her Majesty in Council," and whenever it was intended the Irish Executive should act, they should put in that the Lord Lieutenant should act. Then when they put in the words "Her Majesty in Council," they should make it clear by one Interpretation Clause that Her Majesty would act on the advice of her Privy Council of Great Britain.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was apparently contemplated by the clause that a legislative act should take effect not by means of legislation through the ordinary forms of the proceedings of Parliament, but by means of Addresses of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament. [Sir C. Russell: No, no!] Then the words were absolutely unintelligible to anybody.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, it seemed to him that time had been lost by the Government not agreeing to a previous suggestion that the clause should be withdrawn and re-cast; it was so crudely worded. To take these words out would be almost a mistake, and yet the clause meant nothing as it stood. He hoped the Government would withdraw the subsection and put in ordinary words which could be understood.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BARTLEYmoved the following Amendment:—
    Page 2, line 38, leave out "it consents," and insert; "nine-tenths of its Members, duly convened for the purpose, consent."
    He did not wish to press the number of Members or the proportion who agreed to it, but they ought to put in words distinctly to show what was meant by "consent." Great pressure would be put upon some Corporations to consent, and no doubt every conceivable means would be taken to bring that consent with some majority. In some

    1697
    Corporations it was decided what majority should do certain acts. It was a very grave step to give these Corporations, if they granted their consent, absolute power to be deprived of their Tights, privileges, and property without due process of law. That was to say, if they consented they could be handed over bodily in any way that was thought proper, and the whole of their privileges, rights, and property might be taken without duo process of law; therefore, this matter ought to be safeguarded in a proper way so as to secure that this consent should not be got at like a highwayman with a pistol at the Corporation's head. He thought the Government ought to put in words showing that this consent should be by an overwhelming majority of the Corporation, and not an accidental or snatched consent.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 38, to leave out the words "it consents," and insert the words "nine-tenths of its Members, duly convened for the purpose, consent."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That 'it consents' stand part of the Clause."
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLANDconsidered they were entitled to an answer from the Attorney General as to whether the Government would accept this Amendment.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I have not had an opportunity of rising.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: Then I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: No, we cannot accept the Amendment. The consent of the Corporation is expressed in the ordinary way by the majority of those who have been present at the meeting and who declare the will of the Corporation. I do not see what justification there is for the Amendment.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, this was really a very important matter, and he was rather surprised it was passed over so lightly in connection with the last Amendment. This was put in presumably as another safeguard providing that unless the Corporation consented they could not be deprived of their rights, privileges, and property. The Attorney General with regard to the last Amendment confined the matter to a small point—namely, the case where a
    1698
    Corporation wished to make some change in the disposal of portion of its own property. That was a small matter, but this referred to a very broad question. How was the consent of the people to be signified? The present Members of a Corporation, or even the present electors, were not absolutely the owners, but in a popular sense were the trustees of the lights, privileges, and properties which they were to hand over to their successors; and they would like to know how the consent, for example, was to be signified giving up the right, privileges, and properties, not of a Corporation, but of private individuals themselves? Might not the same pressure be easily brought to hear to give up properties, rights, and privileges in the case of a Corporation which was brought on the inhabitants of Tipperary, making them give up their own private rights, privileges, and property? Therefore, he thought there was a great deal of force in the Amendment in its desire that there should be a very full expression of opinion upon it, and that there should be nine-tenths, or some other large portion of people, whose voice would be heard in this matter, and not a mere scratch majority acting on the compulsion of a political Party.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsuggested that it was necessary that, in some form, it should be defined how the consent was to be given, because otherwise consent would have to be given in each particular case according to Charter or Articles of Association, or whatever the governing constitution might be. He doubted very much, however, whether the constitution of any Corporation provided for its being deprived of its rights, privileges, or property; and if there was no provision for dealing with the matter, it would be almost impossible to ascertain how this consent was to be given. It would be almost like a winding-up, and, as special provision was frequently made as to the way in which winding-up should be carried out, so they ought in this case to insert a special provision, though he did not quite agree that so large a proportion as nine-tenths of the shareholders should be required for the consent.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrecommended his hon. Friend not to divide, because he was not at all certain that this Amend-

    1699
    ment, if introduced, would not weaken the effect of the present restrictions—in other words, if certain Corporations would not be in a stronger position without the Amendment than with it. The Attorney General had implied that the universal method by which a Corporation signified assent to any proceeding was by a majority of voices; but, in many cases, he believed an absolutely unanimous decision was required; therefore, the positions of these latter Corporations would be weakened by the introduction of the words "nine-tenths."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I did not state that it was the universal rule. If the constitution of a Corporation points out a particular way by which consent alone can be given that must be followed.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, his object had been to secure that the consent should be the bonâ fide action of the Corporation as a whole, and perhaps it would be safer to leave it on the understanding that that was the case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PLUNKETmoved the following Amendment:—
    Page 2, line 39, after "Legislature," insert "and after a copy of the proposed law has lain for not less than forty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament."
    He said: I hope the Government will have no difficulty whatever in assenting to these words being introduced. I have put them down in consequence punctually of what was said by the Prime Minister in resisting the Amendment I proposed yesterday. The Prime Minister said the effect of this clause would be to give the British Parliament a distinct locus standi with respect to proposals that might be made affecting the Charter of Trinity College, and, of course, it would apply equally to other Corporations mentioned in this clause, and would, no doubt, also include the rights, privileges, and property which the Corporation enjoyed under its charter. But it is obvious there could be no such locus standi for the British Parliament in any effective sense, unless that Parliament had a full opportunity of knowing what the proposals were. I reminded the Committee yesterday with what difficulty Trinity College escaped in 1873, when we had a full opportunity of debating a Bill printed and laid before the House,
    1700
    and I can understand the difficulty there would be for any friends of Trinity College or any other threatened Corporation to bring such influence to bear as might prevent the British Ministry from advising Her Majesty to give the consent that was asked for. I will only further say that there would be this difficulty: that it might involve a conflict between the majority in the Imperial Parliament and the Legislature in Ireland whose addresses were to be dealt with, and that, too, on a point which by the very terms of this clause had apparently been conceded to it for its discussion and for the purpose of expressing its opinion thereon. All I have to ask is this: that either by the words I propose—and which are words introduced into very many Acts of Parliament—or by some other moans the Imperial Parliament should have an opportunity of fully considering the law which it is proposed to carry in the Irish Legislature in order that effective force may be given to what the Prime Minister described yesterday as the locus standi he wished the Imperial Parliament should have for dealing with such legislative proposals referred to in this case, and which he said would bean effectual protection supposing that the defence he referred to previously were not sufficient. What I desire by these words is that the Imperial Parliament should have ample opportunity for considering what the proposals are before it is called upon to interfere in the matter.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 39, after the word "Legislature," to insert the words "and after a copy of the proposed law has lain for not less than forty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Plunket.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I think my right hon. and learned Friend must have misapprehended what the Prime Minister said yesterday. [Cries of "Speak up!"] The Prime Minister must have been referring to the power which resides in the Imperial Parliament.
    MR. PLUNKET: I will read the words of the Prime Minister as they are reported. The Prime Minister had said that a threefold defence was provided in this clause for such Institutions as Trinity College, if there were any such danger, and what he said was this—

    1701
    "First of all, the Irish Legislature could not be moved except with the consent of Trinity College. Beyond that there was another security—namely, the joint Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. And there was a security which went beyond that still, because the language of the clause was that there must be the leave of Her Majesty upon an Address of the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. The effect of that must be to give to the British Parliament a distinct locus standi with respect to proposals that might be made affecting the charter of Trinity College."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Undoubtedly. [Cries of "Speak up!"]
    SIR H. JAMES: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would speak up we should be glad, as we are very anxious to hear what he has got to say.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I cannot doubt that this House would be in a position to be informed from day to day, or, if necessary, from hour to hour, of what the proposed legislation is upon which the Irish Parliament may be disposed to enter. My only fear is that they may be disposed to try and meddle too much with it, which I should deprecate. I therefore do not see what object could be secured by the provision enacting that a copy of the proposed law should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 40 days.
    SIR H. JAMES: The Irish Legislature might act while this Parliament is not sitting. The Amendment provides that copies of the proposed legislation shall lie on the Table for 40 days, and that must be while Parliament is sitting, which would give 40 days in which Parliament could act.
    MR. PLUNKET: I must say it is extremely inconvenient that a Member of the Government should endeavour to explain away and minimise the assurances that were given, upon the faith of which the Amendment was rejected. We were told distinctly we were to have a threefold protection—first, the consent of the Corporation, though afterwards the Prime Minister put that as an alternative. He said it was one way in which it might be done, but then there were left these two protections: First, you must get the consent of the Irish Legislature; in the second place, you have the protection that the Imperial Parliament is to have a locus standi to interfere, and how can it interfere except, by influencing the Minister who has to advise the Crown to
    1702
    consent, and how can it interfere in that way unless seised of the knowledge of what is going to be done? Either this Amendment, or some Amendment on the same lines giving the protection required, should be inserted in the clause.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): It is very unfortunate that in the absence of the Prime Minister an assurance given by him should be brought forward, but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that he did not suggest he would amend this clause. He said nothing about amending; he was saying what the clause, according to his understanding of it, now is. There was to be the leave of Her Majesty, which would involve the advice of the Ministry of the United Kingdom, and by reason of that advice, and not by reason of the matter being brought up for discussion hero, Parliament would get that control it has over all Ministries to prevent, if it has the power, or to censure if too late to prevent what has occurred.
    MR. CARSONfeared they must come to the opinion that they might have any amount of declarations of safeguards, but no method for enforcing them; and it was a most extraordinary construction to put on the deliberate words of the Prime Minister. Yesterday, when he declared they were to have the full power of taking the sense of this House as to the consent of Her Majesty to tell them now they were to be satisfied with the mere declaration of the Prime Minister, but that nothing was to be put in the Bill to enable that declaration to be carried out. That was hardly a serious way of progressing with the business of this Bill. What they wanted to know was, how was Parliament to exercise control over that consent? and, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), if Parliament was not sitting, they would have no means of approaching the Government or the Executive in advising Her Majesty. The Government must see that they ought to have in this safeguard a real safeguard and a real power of Parliament interfering as to the giving or withholding of that consent. And he might suggest this to the Committee: that cases might arise where Her Majesty's Government might find dif-

    1703
    ficulty in themselves ascertaining what was the real view of Parliament as to the proposed legislation of the Irish Government, and surely in such a case as that nothing could be more reasonable than that Government should have the power, under the arrangement proposed by his right hon. Colleague, to take the sense of Parliament upon the proposed legislation. He hoped that the declarations that had been made would be carried out by the introduction of appropriate words in this section.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are the Government not going to make any reply on this subject? There has been a double appeal made to them; an appeal on the importance of the case and an appeal upon the—I will not call them the pledges of the Government, but on the statements of the Government; both of these appear to me to be unanswered. On the merits of the case it is evident it is a safeguard inoperative so far as Ireland is concerned, but it is one in conformity with our practice and habits, and would enable this House and the other House to express their decision on the subject and give the direct guidance of public opinion to the Ministry of the day; and if that power be not granted, what hold has this House on these matters? It has the hold of a Vote of Censure on the Ministry; its power of stopping injustice is this: Some time in September the two Houses of the Irish Legislature pass a Resolution praying that Trinity College be disestablished; that comes before the Ministry in October; they give their consent, and in November it is disestablished. This House meets in February, and its remedy is to pass a Vote of Censure and turn the Government out of Office and appeal to the country. That kind of safeguard is a farce. Therefore, on the merits of the case—which, I suppose, may have some weight with gentlemen opposite—it appears to me it would be advisable, expedient, and perfectly safe from the Irish point of view that these words should be added. What is said about the second line of attack? We had a Debate yesterday, admittedly of the first importance, on the future of this great Educational Body. The Government assured us there was no danger. The Prime Minister explained what he regarded as the safeguards
    1704
    under which Trinity College might flourish. If the Government do not like the Amendment let them, at all events, suggest words of their own by which their own object may be adequately accomplished. I quite agree with the Solicitor General that the Prime Minister did not promise any Amendment, but he dealt with the Amendment before the Committee on the ground that certain safeguards were to be applied, and my right hon. and learned Friend showed it was necessary to adopt this or some Amendment like it. I will not say the honour of the Government is involved, but they are throwing some discredit on their own assurance if they prevent us relying with absolute confidence on the statements made by the Prime Minister. I am sure the Government would be consulting their own credit if they turn a favourable ear to the not unreasonable request of my right hon. and learned Friend.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I should not have intervened upon this Amendment, which, I confess, is an important one, if it were not that the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to challenge the good faith of the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I did not go that length.
    MR. ASQUITH: At any rate, the Member for the University of Dublin stated that the Committee voted yesterday on the faith of the assurance given by the Prime Minister. I call that a charge of bad faith; and that charge having been made, I think it incumbent upon us to meet it.
    MR. PLUNKET: I never said the Prime Minister promised any Amendment, but I said that he obtained a vote on the assurance that such a thing should be done, and I now ask that practical effect should be given to that assurance.
    MR. ASQUITH: So should I if that were what the Prime Minister said. What he said was that the security existed, not that it would be provided; and what was the security he said existed? He said it was that this Imperial Parliament would have a locus standi in the matter. That has been construed by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin as

    1705
    amounting, in effect, to a declaration on the part of the Prime Minister that something that did not exist in the Bill ought to be introduced. When the Prime Minister said that Parliament had a locus standi, what did he mean? He meant that this Imperial Parliament, in a matter which would depend on advice given by the Imperial Ministry to the Crown, would have the same power of checking, controlling, and censuring their action that it has in relation to any other action of the Executive. The right hon. Gentleman has put the case in which advice might be given to the Crown during the Recess. Is that the only case under the Constitution in which the same thing might happen? I will give a much more serious case. Parliament might not be sitting, and the Executive Ministers of the Crown might declare war, and what control have you except that of censure and dismissal. You may say that is an imperfect and ineffective control, but it is the control known to the Constitution, and is what the Prime Minister meant, and, I venture to say, was so understood by the Committee. ["No, no!"] Well, they ought to have so understood it. I say, therefore, the Imperial Parliament having that power could exercise it just as effectively in this case as in any other, and it would have, what has not hitherto been adverted to, the additional power of not only censuring the Ministry that has assented to an improvident exercise by the Irish Government of the power given, but of undoing by an Act of this Parliament that which ought not to have been done. A more complete security than that could not be required.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has now plainly shown us this control we are supposed to have is practically a nugatory control. What we meant was that we should have an effective control. My right hon. Friend has shown how, if Parliament is not sitting, that control would be entirely lost and nugatory, and the Home Secretary replies that in case of war Parliament would not have the authority to stop it. Wars cannot wait for the action of the Imperial Parliament, and if matters of danger should occur to the nation the Executive must act; it is necessary that some expedition in repelling an invasion should take place, but
    1706
    in passing an Act for the disestablishment of Trinity College, what hurry is there? Take the case stated by my right hon. Friend—the matter has been dealt with by the Irish Parliament in September; Trinity College has been disestablished; new regulations have been made, and it is suggested that this Parliament can undo all that and put matters back to their former position. It is trifling with the Committee to quote such an argument as that. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the University of Oxford. I would like to know what he would say of giving power to Scotland and Ireland to deal with the University of Oxford, and then six months afterwards put matters back in their former place, and repeal the Acts that have been passed.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that before the Irish Legislature could interfere with any Corporation they would first have to address the Crown by both Irish Legislative Houses. These Addresses having been obtained the Crown would have to give leave, and when that leave was given that would only be the beginning of the legislative process. After that, there would have to be a Bill which would have to pass both Houses, and receive the Royal Assent. If, after leave of the Crown had been given, it appeared that the Bill was in direct opposition to the will of the House of Commons, it was perfectly clear it could be vetoed. The safeguards already existing were amply sufficient, and the Amendment and the speeches that had been made by the Opposition was trifling with the patience of the Committee.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would recall to the memory of some Members what appeared to him a complete illustration of the question at issue. In the year 1866 there existed a University in Ireland, with certain privileges and rights. The Government were on the eve of defeat, if they were not defeated, when they advised the issue of a Supplementary Charter, altering the rights and privileges of that University. The Government went out; the tiling was done; the mischief was complete.
    MR. SEXTON: Did that require a subsequent law?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that happily the thing came to nothing, because the Vice Chancellor held on appeal that the Charter was void in point of law. But what did Parliament do? It passed a Statute requiring that, in future, before a Charter of a University was issued it should lie on the Table of the two Houses. That was a precise illustration of what was now demanded, and he was ready to leave the argument there.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 261; Noes 307.—(Division List, No. 163.)
    MR. PARKER SMITHrose to move in page 2, line 40, leave out "without due process of law." He said, hon. Members would see his object by reading the sub-section dealing with Corporations. The sub-section was already very complicated, and the Amendment would have the effect of rendering it simpler. He might assume that the Government would be willing to accept the words used in the previous subsection, "in accordance with settled principles and precedents."
    SIR C. RUSSELLnodded assent.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he was glad to find that that was so, as it would strengthen the clause to have those words used. The Corporations would not have sufficient protection if the words were not included. The case of the Corporations was different from that of persons whose lives, liberty, and property would be affected, for that case could remain under consideration; the Corporations being few, there would be time to submit the whole case to the Government, and to settle it by the appeal to Her Majesty. He was not going to repeat what had been said, or to go over the same ground again in regard to the words "due process of law;" but he would impress upon the House that the vagueness of the phrase was much more serious where the Corporations were concerned than it was in the other case. He would like also to put a question to the Attorney General. "Due process of law" covered procedure, and procedure only. But in this case they wanted to deal with the substance of the law, and to make sure that the substance of any general law passed in Ireland by the new Legislature would not work injustice to any of these
    1708
    Corporations. The Irish Legislature might alter the law generally, and then two or three years afterwards declare that by the law thus altered Trinity College had lost its Charter. If they believed that the clause at present allowed the Irish Legislature to pass Acts upon questions of this kind, they would acknowledge that a very special check was required. There might be an Address to the Queen, or they might use the power of veto, a weapon which would cause much greater irritation than the method now proposed. He thought they would see the advantage of his Amendment, which he now begged to propose.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, to leave out the words "without due process of law."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBT,)said, the Government felt bound to insert the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents;" but that was the extent to which they could go. When they could not assent in the case of Trinity College, how could they assent in the case of the other Corporations? The words "due process of law" had been discussed ad nauseam, and he thought the House would see that it was necessary to give some control to the Irish Legislature where these Corporations were concerned.
    MR. CARSONsaid, there was one matter that might be cleared up, and which might show that the difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment was not so great after all. He would like to know was it the intention of the Government that where a Corporation consented, or the leave of Her Majesty was concerned, there was to be no "due process of law"? He thought they were to have "due process of law" in all cases; bat now they found that that was not so, because by reason of the Resolutions for which provision was made they would dispense with "due process of law." An Act of Parliament would be required to give that process; but the Resolutions would not give it. By that he gathered that they would be really in a worse position

    1709
    than they were in before, for by the Act they would have a safeguard of "due process of law." He thought they ought to have some method for dealing with rights under the clause. The House could not contemplate giving a power to the Irish Legislature to carry out without "due process of law." If the due process was to be applicable, he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment, for then they would have an additional security. He hoped they would hear from the Government whether that was to be the construction of the section. If they had not due process, as he had said, they would be in a worse position.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, he might put the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman in another form—were there three ways by which Corporations could be deprived of their rights—namely, by consent, by address, and by due process of law?
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would ask what there was left for "due process of law" to operate upon in this sub-section? The words of the previous sub-section were wide enough to include Corporations, and his understanding of the present sub-section was that it was intended to allow of arbitrary dealing with Corporations.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought the Solicitor General should reply to the questions addressed to the Government.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I have already replied on the Amendment.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was not aware of that.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I cannot hold out any hope that the Government would apply the words "due process of law" in the manner that has been suggested. It was felt that Corporations, if they were to be dealt with, were not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Why should a Corporation be better off than a private individual in that respect? It was intended to secure the rights of Corporations, but it may be that they are less secured than they were meant to be. The words used, we admit, are not quite an accurate definition of our meaning; but we felt there might be a number of cases in which legislation might take place by consent, because it might be considered
    1710
    desirable to change the constitution of a Corporation by giving up certain rights or adopting others. There may be cases in which the Corporation would not consent, and to deal with those we substitute the leave of Her Majesty. If we did not do that we should leave in "due process of law." We are ready to modify the clause, and to put in the words added to the preceding section.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether my hon. Friend desires to go to a Division. My own feeling is that the sub-section is in such a state of hopeless confusion that it is impossible to make out what the Government mean to do or have done. The Solicitor General says it is the business of the Court of Law always to make sense of an Act of Parliament. Well, Courts of Law will have a very admirable field for their efforts if this sub-section over comes before them. Though I have devoted such powers of mind as I possess, first, to understanding the sub-section, and then the gloss the Government have put on it, and, again, the gloss they have put on the gloss, I have been unable to succeed. Therefore, I do not think we shall be doing any good to the Corporations we desire to protect by leaving out the words, especially as, when the matter is cleared up, we may find "due process of law" a safeguard. I do not know whether it will be or not. I think it will; at any rate, I feel some reluctance to vote against words which, when the dawn breaks in upon us and we know what the meaning is, and the sub-section is presented to us in grammatical and lucid English, we may find very useful. Under the circumstances, I doubt the desirability of asking the Committee to determine the Amendment by a Division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, he had a proposal down to amend the clause by inserting in line 41, after the word "Law," the words—
    "According to the settled principles and precedents from time to time existing in England."
    It might not, however, be necessary to move it, as the Government, he thought, intended to propose words to carry out the object in view.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that doubtless some alteration of the sub-section had been rendered necessary by the Amendment the Government had accepted in the case of Sub-section 3, by agreeing to the insertion of the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents." They were now willing that those words should be inserted in this sub-section.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 41, after the word "law," to insert the words "according to the settled principles and precedents from time to time existing in England."—(Sir C. Russell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. REDMONDsaid, he did not wish to renew the controversy that took place the other night on these words; but it must be remembered that a strong feeling was entertained by a large number of Irish Members as to the insertion of the words, that a Division was taken, and that a large number of English Members agreed with them. Objectionable as the words were in the previous sub-section they were more so now. He was not sure what the exact effect of them would be; but if the effect should be to prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with the property of Corporations in Ireland, such as the London Companies, on the principle, say, of compulsory purchase, which it might be held was not in accordance with "settled principles and precedents," the insertion of the words would be extremely objectionable.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES[Cries of "Divide!"]said, it had been rendered quite clear by what the Solicitor General had told them that whatever else might be the effect of the clause, one effect would be to enable Her Majesty's Government to dispense with "due process of law." The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that either in case of the consent of the Corporation or of the Queen following on an Address being obtained "due process of law" would not have to be observed. The object of the provision in the American Constitution was precisely the reverse. In this Bill the words would enable the Legislature to dispense with due process of law; but in the American Constitution their effect m the only place in which they were present was to pre-
    1712
    vent the Executive from interfering with due process of law. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Question!"] He hoped the Committee would appreciate the extraordinary muddle the Government had got themselves into by dragging in these words from the American Constitution.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he only wished to say that he did not think the insertion of the words here added anything material to the great harm already done by their insertion in Sub-section 5, because he believed that the insertion of the words in Sub-section 5, so far as the land was concerned, would prevent the application of the principle of compulsory sale upon any reasonable terms either to the lands of the London Companies or of any other landlord in Ireland.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he wished to amend the clause by inserting—
    "Provided always that in the case of Corporations constituted for the purpose of holding property of any Church or religious denomination, or the ministers of the same, the said Irish Legislature shall not he at liberty to make any law affecting or otherwise to interfere with such Corporation or the property vested in the same."
    This Amendment had been put down with a view to excepting from the powers of the Irish Legislature the Representative Church Body of the Church in Ireland. Of course, he had not framed the Amendment in those terms, because he was willing that the same exception should be given to all other Corporations who held property for any Church, for any creed, or for any religious denomination, or for the ministers of the same. Having regard to the discussion which had taken place on the previous portions of the section, he hardly thought that the Government had any intention otherwise than to exclude from the Irish Legislature any power whatsoever over the Protestant Church in Ireland. He did not know what they intended to do in regard to the Amendment; but he hardly thought for a moment that the Committee would sanction the Irish Legislature—which had been already prevented from making any law respecting the establishment or endowment of religion whether directly or indirectly, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    1713
    —interfering either with the constitution of the Representative Church Body or their mode of dealing with their own endowments. This Representative Church Body was formed at the time the Irish Church was disestablished as a Corporation for the purpose of holding the funds given as compensation, and other funds received from private donors. All he asked was that this Body should be allowed to continue unimpaired; and if the concessions the Government had made on the third sub-section had covered the point he should not have moved the Amendment. No doubt it would prevent the property being put to any other than religious uses; but whether those uses need be the same as those to which it was at present applied he could not say. The Government, he thought, would admit that that was their intention; but that did not sufficiently effect the protection he desired to see effected, and without his Amendment it would be possible for the Irish Legislature to interfere with the Representative Church Body in a way which would make the position of that Body absolutely intolerable. They might make a law dealing with the constitution of that Body in many ways, and interfering with its discipline and regulations.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 41, after "law," insert the words—"Provided always that in the case of corporations constituted for the purpose of holding property of any Church or religious denomination, or the ministers of the same, the said Irish Legislature shall not be at liberty to make any law affecting or otherwise to interfere with such Corporation or the property vested in the same."—(Mr. Carson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that every word the hon. and learned Gentleman had said about the Church Representative Body applied to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. That Body also held property for the benefit of the Presbyterians of Ireland. He cordially joined in the Amendment proposed as safeguarding the rights of that Body.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Amendment, as it stands, is obviously too wide, and I think the hon. and learned Member will perceive this when I point out that
    1714
    under the Amendment it would not be competent for the Irish Legislature to enact any land legislation affecting, for instance, the Church of Ireland. More than that, the Irish Legislature would not be able to make any law affecting Railway Stock; for, as I am informed, that Church possesses investments in such Stock. The Irish Legislature, under the Amendment, would, therefore, have to make a special exemption of Railway Stock held by the Church of Ireland or any other Church Body. Such a prohibition as that can hardly be seriously defended. I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that his object is more than partly met by the words which have been introduced into the 3rd sub-section. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the word "divert" is probably not the most felicitous word that the draftsman could have chosen. So much for property. As to the remark of the hon. and learned Member that the Government have not used words affecting the constitution of the Church Body, I would only say I do not conceive it to be possible that the Irish Legislature would be at all likely to even try to pass any law prejudicially affecting the constitution or organisation of the Church of Ireland, or of any other Religious Denomination. That is the intention of the Government, and I believe it is the intention of all sections of the Committee; but I am inclined to think, and I am advised by legal authorities, that the possibility of making any law so affecting the constitution or organisation of the Church against the will of that Church is provided for under the clause as it stands. The Government, however, will not be disposed to refuse the insertion in the sub-section, after the word "diverting," of the words "or prejudicially affecting the constitution." That addition would probably meet the object of the hon. and learned Member. It would carry out the intentions of the Government, and it would not, I believe, be unwelcome—certainly not repugnant—to the wishes of any section of the House. Therefore, when the proper time comes, I shall be prepared to insert the words I have mentioned.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he did not quite agree that the making of a Land Law

    1715
    would be subject to the provision he proposed; but as his only object was to secure protection for the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland, he would suggest that the word "prejudicially" should be withdrawn, and that the words "diverting the property or affecting the constitution" be inserted. He would also propose that the words "without consent" should be included.
    MR. J. MORLEYthought they ought to adhere to the word "prejudicially," which had been used in the Bill in two other instances.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDwished to know if it would be possible to add after "constitution" "and rights "? There were at the time of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church in many parts of Ireland burial grounds adjacent to the churches, in respect of which certain fees and tolls were levied. It seemed to him that under the clause, even as proposed to be amended, the Representative Church Body would be out of court in regard to those fees.
    MR. SEXTON: The Governing Bodies of Churches are Corporations, and their rights are protected under the clause as far as they need be. At any rate, I should greatly object to so vague a term as "rights" in a paragraph which proposes that the Irish Legislature shall not, under any circumstances, deal with these matters. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) goes far beyond the scope of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, who has never yet erred in being too limited in his proposals. The hon. and learned Gentleman points out that we have really agreed that legislation as to the property of any Religious Bodies should be shut out, and he desires that the Governing Bodies of the different Protestant communities in Ireland should be free to continue to discharge their functions as such Governing Bodies without any intervention by the Irish Legislature. I am certain that neither the Irish Legislature nor the Catholic people of Ireland would ever desire to interfere in the slightest way with the government of Protestant Religious Bodies in Ireland. The only doubt I have is whether cither of the words proposed accomplish what is desired and do nothing more. We all know that the
    1716
    individuals composing the Governing Body are subject to the ordinary law, and that the Governing Bodies, except in the discharge of their functions as such, are subject to the ordinary law. I would suggest that the words which should be put in are that "the Governing Bodies as such Governing Bodies" should be excluded.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the words "prejudicially affecting" were certain to give rise to legal proceedings which would be costly, whereas the words "with the consent of the Body" could not be misunderstood by anybody. He was not quite sure that the Presbyterian Church was in the same legal position as the Representative Church Body; but, at any rate, it held a great deal of property.
    MR. J. MORLEY: As the hon. Member for North Kerry has said, we are all agreed as to the object in view, and I will promise to consider the point between now and the Report stage, and to see whether the words "without consent" can be inserted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I trust that that statement will be accepted. I hope that in considering the words to be inserted the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it would be inexpedient to entrust the Irish Legislature with power to affect the constitution of these Bodies, leaving it to the Courts afterwards to determine whether or not the Bodies were prejudicially affected. The majority in the Irish Parliament very naturally and properly will be Roman Catholics, and they should not have power to deal with those Bodies prejudicially or beneficially.
    MR. KNOXmoved the insertion in line 41, after "law," of the words "or, in the case of property, just compensation." He said, that after studying the sub-section for a long time, and referring to, he supposed, several hundred American decisions, he had come to the conclusion that as the subsection now stood it would be impossible under it for the Irish Legislature to take the land of a Corporation even for a railway. He felt convinced that if they wanted to make a railway, say through the property of Trinity College, Dublin, they would have to obtain permission from the Imperial law.
    MR. CARSON: So you ought.
    MR. KNOXsaid, whatever was the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion, he thought the majority of the Committee was of opinion that the Irish Legislature should be authorised to take land for railways in Ireland. The words he proposed could do no harm, and he earnestly hoped the Government would accept them, as the sub-section as it stood might otherwise give rise to great trouble.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, after the word "law," to insert the words "or, in the case of property, just compensation."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONexpressed a hope that the Government would, if they could not accept the words now, consider them before Report.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that should be done. He was not prepared to say that the words would be adopted, because there might be cases to which they would not apply. But if any form of words or any modification of the Amendment could be put into the clause on Report, he would communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I make no objection to the course; proposed by the Government, but I would point out that if the words are accepted as proposed, there would be power on the part of the Irish Legislature to kick Trinity College out of its present buildings and to take St. Patrick's Cathedral from the Church of Ireland—of course, after giving just compensation. I hope the Government will take this point into view in considering the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid, he begged to move, in page 2, after line 41, to insert—
    "Whereby any undue preference, benefit, or advantage is given to or conferred, directly or indirectly, upon any person, body of persons, class, body corporate, or institution; or."
    In an earlier Debate be had moved to delete the word "prejudicially" as applied to Sub-sections 3 and 4 in the sense referred to a few moments ago.
    1718
    His object had been to prevent the Irish Legislature from interfering with the right to establish or maintain any place of denominational education, or prejudicially affecting any Denominational Institution or Charity, or from affecting the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at that school. His Amendment had not been accepted, though there had been indications of assent on the part of the Prime Minister. Well, the Irish Legislature could not legislate "prejudicially" affecting these Institutions; but it was still open to them to legislate beneficially for certain schools or scholars or Denominational Institutions. Obviously, great injustice might be done by a preferential use of this power. In the Debate on his earlier Amendment the First Lord of the Treasury had indicated his willingness to accept some comprehensive Amendment dealing clearly and unequivocally with the subject of preference. The right hon. Gentleman saw the injustice of undue preference, as also did the Chancellor of of the Duchy of Lancaster, judging from what he had said in the book which had been so extensively quoted in these Debates, and which he (Mr. Cochrane) himself had read and re-read, and which he took every opportunity of advertising in the interests of the Unionist Party. In the chapter on Social Institutions the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Religions persecution, even in its milder forms, such as disqualifying the members of a particular sect for public office, is, it conceives, inconsistent with the conception of individual freedom, and the respect due to the primordial rights of the citizen which modern thought has embraced. Even if State action stops short of the imposition of disabilities, and confines itself to favouring a particular Church, whether by grants of money or by giving special immunities to its clergy, this is an infringement on equality, putting one man at a disadvantage compared with others in respect of matters which are not fit subjects for State cognisance."
    That showed clearly how, if the Irish Legislature had power to grant preferences, and beneficially affect certain schools or scholars or trades or industries, they would thereby be imposing a hardship and an injustice on other schools and scholars, and other trades and industries. Therefore it was that he (MR. Cochrane) brought forward his present Amendment. The Prime Minister on the previous occasion had said—

    1719
    "We ought to legislate clearly and unequivocally against preference."
    He went on to say—
    "And what we do think is that it is much better to legislate against preference by one comprehensive provision than to do it piecemeal and in fragments."
    He (Mr. Cochrane) ventured to submit that his Amendment was a comprehensive one, embracing all cases that were likely to arise; therefore, it exactly chimed in with the view of the Prime Minister. He should have been gratified if the small Amendment he had brought forward on the previous occasion had been accepted, but he could quite understand the Prime Minister with his superior knowledge and experience taking a broader view of the subject and desiring to see it dealt with in a more comprehensive and businesslike way. Speaking in the Debate to which he had already referred and following the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said—
    "Even if the word" (that was "prejudicially") "were struck out it would be possible, indirectly, to give preference to one denomination over another."
    And it was to avoid this indirect preference that the First Lord of the Treasury subsequently added in explanation of what he had said—
    "What I said was that the most effective manner of proceeding was to deal with the question of preference in one enactment and not in several; and that the Government were not so attached to their own language as to refuse, if that language required enlargement, to give a favourable consideration to an Amendment having that object."
    These words of the Prime Minister led him to hope that the Amendment would meet the right hon. Gentleman's views. He believed that it would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen who supported the Government. They would note that he used the words "undue preference," and he had no doubt they would sympathise with his desire to prevent unfair and unjust advantage being conferred either on individuals or Institutions by premiums or grants or other methods. He was not asking the Committee to assent to anything which was not to be found in our own laws. The words he had adopted occurred constantly in some of the most salutary Statutes that existed in this country. For instance, in the Ele-
    1720
    mentary Education Act, c. 75, sec. 97, dealing with religious instruction, they found the words—
    "Shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board."
    And very striking words were also contained in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict., c. 31, namely—
    "No such company shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage."
    So that the words he proposed were words which were directly present in their own legislation, and the adoption of them could not be putting an insult on the Irish Legislature. The Amendment was proposed merely for the purpose of making the measure more effective, and in bringing it forward he was dealing with the Irish Members as men of common sense and with the Irish Legislature as an Institution which should be restrained as the British public were themselves restrained. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London had given an illustration of undue preference which would be apposite in this instance. He had said that premiums might be put upon whisky in Ireland which would increase the consumption, the Excise Duty would be receivable in Ireland, and the Customs of the Imperial Parliament would suffer. The statement they had heard to-day as to the Financial Clauses would upset anything of that kind; that it would be possible for undue preference to be given to certain districts in the form of Poor Law relief. Scandals of this kind, it would be remembered, had been exposed by the Inquiry Commission in 1886, when it was shown that in the Turlough Electoral Division more persons had been relieved than the gross population. Finally, he would give an American illustration of preference. The Report of the New York Commissioners of 1876 stated—
    "Cities were compelled by legislation to buy lands for parks and places because the owners wished to sell them; compelled to grade, pare and sewer, streets without inhabitants, and for no other purpose than to award corrupt contracts for the work.… Laws were enacted abolishing one office and creating another with the same duties in order to transfer official emoluments from one man to another, and laws to change the functions of officers with a view only to a new distribution of patronage."

    1721
    He would not accuse the Irish Members of having any desires in the direction pointed to in that extract, but it was clear that abuses which had arisen under the American Constitution might arise in Ireland unless sufficient precautious were adopted. He moved the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after line 41, to insert the words "whereby any undue preference, benefit, or advantage is given to or conferred, directly or indirectly, upon any person, body of persons, class, body corporate, or institution; or."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman has given, on the whole, an accurate account of the circumstances which no doubt led him to move this Amendment. What happened was this: We were discussing under Sub-section 2 the question of excluding from the competency of the Irish Parliament preference on account of religious belief. We are agreed that preference of that kind was not one which the Irish Parliament would be likely to exercise, or, at all events, ought to be allowed to exercise. Thereupon, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham pointed out that the preference on account of civil matters ought to be excluded from the legislative field of the Irish Parliament as well as preference on account of religious belief. The Prime Minister accepted that as a perfectly just criticism, and as one which was not at all absent from our own minds, and my right hon. Friend agreed that we ought to adopt some sub-section which would carry out that intention—namely, that we should extend to preference in civil matters the same prohibition which we had already applied to religious beliefs. But my right hon. Friend's words do not carry so much as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said they do carry. They did not go beyond what I have said, and I do not think I have diminished their meaning or extent in any degree. Sub-section 2 of the clause as it now stands enacts that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law
    "imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, advantage, or benefit on account of religious belief."
    1722
    But I think, instead of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member, we would be carrying out the undertaking of the Head of the Government by moving to add to Sub-section 2, or if it should seem better, to insert between Sub-sections 4 and 5, some such words as these:—
    "Or imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, benefit, or advantage on any subject of the Crown, on account of parentage or place of birth, or upon any corporation or institution carrying on its operations in Ireland on account of the persons by whom or in whose favour such operations are carried."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In the first place, I have to recognise the spirit in which the Government have met the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to say that they have endeavoured very fully to carry out the understanding which was arrived at when we were discussing this question of preference under Sub-section 2. I am speaking of intention only; but I believe there is no difference between the two sides of the House on the two points which are raised by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. First, on the minor point as to the place the Amendment should go, I would remind my hon. Friend that Sub-sections 1, 2, and 3 deal with religious or denominational preference, and the object of the Committee and the Government is to deal with preference generally. Therefore, it would be extremely inconvenient and incorrect as a matter of drafting to insert a general provision between two particular provisions. It would be much better if the Amendment came as a separate sub-section after those dealing with religion and before the one dealing with Corporations. But that, as I have said, is not a matter of importance. We can deal with it easily if we are entirely agreed as to the meaning of the Amendment itself. I must remind my right hon. Friend of the intention of the Government as expressed by the Prime Minister. I think my right hon. Friend intended, in the first place, to prohibit legislation showing undue preference generally—not undue preference on religious or denominational grounds alone; but undue preference between persons, parties, classes, sects, Corporations, and Institutions; and, in the second place, my right hon. Friend thought there might be undue preference

    1723
    of an indirect kind, and against that he expressed himself desirous of legislating. I will read what I said on June 14, when we were discussing this question before. I said—
    "Indirect preference was to be feared not merely in the case of different sects, but also in questions affecting persons and parties and trade. It was possible to give undue preference to a particular trade, and he took it that the Government would desire to prevent that. There was a parallel case in our railway legislation, which raised one of the most difficult questions of preference that could be considered. His right hon. Friend was doubtless aware that in the Railway Acts there was a clause providing against undue preference, and the definition of what was undue preference was left to the decision of the tribunal. It was well that they should not deal with the question ad invidiam as against possible sectarian preference, but should have regard also to other forms of preference in other matters."
    This view was assented to by the Government, and thereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire withdrew the Amendment he had moved. At a later period of the same Debate the Prime Minister, referring to my remarks, said—
    "The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had referred to the question of indirect preference as well as direct preference. There was considerable force in the contention of his right hon. Friend, and indirect preference was not an improper object for the consideration of the Committee. But whether indirect preference or not, there ought to be the means of bringing under the consideration of a public tribunal the question whether that indirect preference existed or not. There might be instances where interference with indirect preference would be most, vexatious; but if it were real, and could be established before a tribunal under proper conditions, there was no reason why it should not be considered."
    Later on my right hon. Friend said—
    "The faces of the Government are set against preference on behalf of any section."
    And he also said—
    "It was better to legislate against preference by one comprehensive provision than to do it piecemeal."
    I think I have made it clear from these quotations what were the intentions of the Government, and what were the promises made to my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment. I wish now to call attention to the words proposed by the Chief Secretary. I do not think they go so far as even he himself intends. It will be observed that there are two limitations in these words. In the first place, the words "undue pre-
    1724
    ference" are not used. It would be well, I think, to retain the words "undue preference." But the chief limitation in the words proposed by the Government is contained in the words "on account of parentage or birth." Accordingly, so far as persons are concerned, we would be dealing with undue preference, whether it was directly made in consequence of parentage or birth or not; and the person aggrieved would have to show that the preference was on account of parentage or birth, which in many cases it would be difficult for him to do. What the Government have in view is undue preference to Irish as distinct from British citizens; but, of course, the Irish Parliament would not put it on the face of an Act of Parliament that it was on account of a man being British that they proposed to use undue preference against him. Therefore, it will be impossible for the aggrieved person to show that there was undue preference against him on account of birth or parentage. It is the same with regard to Institutions and Corporations. The words of the proposal dealing with Institutions and Corporations are wide enough; but when the undue preference is limited to preference conferred on account of persons or place the Institution aggrieved would have to show that the preference was distinctly given on account of their personality or the place where the Institution is carried on, which would also be a difficult matter. In Sub-sections 2 and 3 the Government dealt with direct preference; and that the Committee have still to deal with indirect preference. Indirect preference, such as to one denomination over another, cannot be proved, because it would be given, not on account of the persons or the locality of an Institution, but on account of their creed or religious opinions. I have shown that the understanding arrived at cannot be carried out by the words moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire. There is one objection that might be taken to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, which otherwise seems to cover everything and not to go too far. It might be said that it would cover cases of foreigners; but a little alteration would limit its operation to subjects of the Crown and Institutions carried on in the United Kingdom. With that exception

    1725
    I do not think the Amendment of my hon. Friend too wide; but I see clearly that, under the words proposed by the Government, undue preference could be exercised in a large number of cases.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had supported the Amendment in a very temperate speech; but in his first speech on the subject—which he remembered very well—the right hon. Gentleman used very strong language indeed. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the manufacture of boots and clothing in Ireland.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. I remember well the speech to which he refers. It was not on this question it was made, but on the question of bounties.
    COLONEL NOLANapologised for the mistake he had made. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, he thought it most objectionable. The hon. Member said a great deal of money had been abused by Irish Poor Law Boards. That was so; but one reason why the money was squandered was that the Imperial Parliament was unable to look closely after these Boards, a matter which the Irish Parliament would be able to do much better. These Poor Law Boards were voted large sums of money because there was great scarcity, amounting almost to famine, in some of the Western districts of Ireland. Periods of exceptional distress might occur again, and was the Irish Parliament to be debarred from taking measures to cope with the distress? But he looked upon the Amendment suggested by the Government as much more dangerous. He had no objection to raise to the first part of the Amendment. He thought it perfectly right that every Englishman or Scotchman who lived long enough in Ireland to qualify himself for the franchise should have all the privileges of an Irishman; and that the Irish Parliament should not be able to pass any law which would do him injury of any kind or description. But he should like to know clearly the effect of the second part of the Amendment, which referred to Corporations or Institutions. Would it prevent the Irish Parliament establishing a fishery school in the West of Ireland, or opening agri-
    1726
    cultural schools throughout the country for the purpose of showing the peasantry how to make the most of their land, or of teaching them how to make peat in competition with the Dutch production of that article? If the Amendment would prevent the Irish Parliament doing these things he would object to its insertion in the Bill. He did not think the Irish Parliament would have a large amount of money to spare under the financial proposals, but they would try to the extent of their abilities to improve the industrial productions of the country.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway always addressed the House in a fair and conciliatory spirit. He did not think the matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be touched in the slightest degree by the Amendment. He did not think that any tribunal could possibly hold that the establishment of a fishery school at Galway, where fishing was a great industry, to the exclusion of an inland county like Armagh, would be undue preference. It was the same with regard to schools for the teaching of agriculture. The establishment of an agricultural school in an agricultural district would not be a case of undue preference; but suppose there were a dozen of such schools established in a Nationalist county and not a single one opened in a Unionist county, that would decidedly be a case of undue preference, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would prevent the Irish Legislature from taking such a course.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I would vote against it in Dublin if I had a seat.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, he was perfectly certain the hon. and gallant Gentleman would vote against it, and in voting against it he would be restrained by feelings of morality. Why not restrain the Irish Parliament by law? With reference to the necessity for the Amendment, he would remind the Chief Secretary that there was more danger of undue preference being shown on account of political opinions than on account of religious belief; and yet, when an Amendment had been moved to prevent undue preference on account of political opinions, it was negatived by the Government. There might be a tendency amongst some people in Ireland to prosecute a man on account of his

    1727
    religious belief; but unfortunately there could be no denying that there were a large number of persons in that country who were inclined to prosecute a man on account of his political opinions. Speeches by Irish Members had been quoted in the House over and over again to prove that. In one case a Nationalist Member had said—
    "When we come out of the struggle we will remember who have been the people's friends, and who have been the people's enemies."
    That most certainly referred to political opinions, and not to religious belief; and, therefore, it was necessary to have a clause in the Bill covering political opinions as well as religious beliefs. It had been frequently said that the Roman Catholics had been subjected to many disabilities and grievances in the past. If that were so, surely there was all the more reason why the Irish Parliament should be restrained from passing, while smarting under the memory of those grievances—if they had ever existed—laws of retaliation against persons whom they might think accountable for the grievances. He could well imagine that if any of them, rightly or wrongly, thought they were suffering from past injuries, they would need to be safeguarded with regard to the future. Reference had been made by the Mover of the Amendment to the matter of outdoor relief. A few nights ago, while talking to a Nationalist Member, he happened to remark on the strange figures with regard to Poor Law relief in Ireland—only 1 in 98 receiving such relief in Ulster, as compared with 1 in 24 in Leinster, and 1 in 28 in Minister. His reply was that Ulster had not done its duty in that matter; and that, when the Nationalists got the power, they would make Ulster pay a vast deal more for outdoor relief than it did at present. Surely, when such opinions were held, it was well to have such an Amendment as this introduced into the Bill, which would prevent any undue preference being afforded to persons on account of political opinions.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that those who represented British constituencies were grateful to the Government for the concession which they had made, and which went at least three-fourths of the way to meet the necessities of the case. With the ad-
    1728
    dition of a few words, he thought it would probably satisfy their legitimate demands for the safety and prosperity of British trade and industry. He thought the words "undue preference" would be an important addition to the Government's clause. Nobody could wish to interfere with the relief of distress in any part of Ireland; what they wished to prevent was any undue preference being given to any particular Institution or trade, and which would violate economic principles now recognised in this Imperial Parliament. It could hardly be doubted that an Irish Legislature would wish to foster certain industries in Ireland. He had noticed remarkable instances of the way in which the Irish Parliament of 120 years ago fostered special industries. At that time, in 1770, they wore spending no less than £14,000 a year in fostering the linen industry. But a still more remarkable instance was that they spent no less than £60,000 a year on the internal carriage of corn. One of their first acts might possibly be to repeal the "undue preference" clause in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, and allow or encourage the railways to give special and undue facilities for the carriage of goods. He thought the agriculturists of this country might have some reason to view with alarm the possibility of special facilities being given to Cork butter. They had legitimate reason for viewing with alarm the action of the Irish Parliament in many respects; and if the clause the Government proposed were extended not only to Corporations and Institutions carrying on their operations in Ireland, but also to trades and industries carrying on business in Ireland, their fears would be greatly lessened, and almost entirely removed.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he wished to speak with regard to an industry with which he had been connected for the last 12 years—the fishing industry. The Amendment as drawn by the Government would not meet their case at all, and he regretted that the Government had not accepted the words. "undue preference," and "class and body of persons." If the Government had done that they would not only have carried out the spirit of the promise given by them on a former occasion, but they would have saved a good deal of time.

    1729
    When the 7th sub-section came to be considered, it would be shown that there was absolute necessity for protecting the fishermen of Great Britain against regulations which might be laid down by the Irish Government. What was the object of the Government in objecting to the words proposed? He hoped the Government would re-consider this question, as they had not gone far enough. If they did not, he and other Members representing fishing towns would have to discuss the 7th sub-section when it came on. The question of territorial waters would arise; that was a very large subject, and the discussion could be got rid of if words were inserted in the Amendment dealing with the question now.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he thought that the Irish Nationalists were generally agreed that all the restrictions in Clause 4 were absolutely unjustifiable in principle; but they recognised now, as they had always recognised, that some portion of the Protestants of Ireland held extraordinary ideas and unfounded fears as to the intentions of the Nationalists with regard to them, and every Nationalist was willing to go a long way towards allaying and, if possible, banishing those fears and to submit to some restrictions in religious matters to prevent an undue preference from being shown to persons of one religious denomination, or any privilege being conferred on any other denomination. Beyond that they were, however, not inclined to go, being of opinion that the Irish Legislature ought, in every other respect, to be allowed to do as it liked. If it was not to be entrusted with that power, the Irish people ought not to be trusted with the privilege of self-government at all. The addition now proposed by the Government went further than the Nationalists had ever been prepared to concede, and, if adopted, it would go a long way towards crippling the Irish Legislature in matters concerning which it ought to be loft perfectly free. Therefore, when the time came, they should oppose it, unless they saw better reason than they now bad for giving it their favourable consideration.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, that, after the concession of the Government, they ought to be gentle in their criticism; but he thought, nevertheless,
    1730
    that the Government would do well to adopt the general words "undue preference," as the simpler method of achieving the object in view. The words "parentage and place of birth" were very limited, and would apply to the burning question between Irish and Scotch fishermen. Further, the words proposed by the Government would not touch the great English and Scotch Assurance Companies, which, though registered in England, carried on business in Ireland. The Irish Legislature might object to those companies on account of their being formed and registered in Great Britain. All these objections, though comparatively small, pointed in the direction of the desirability of adopting the more general words "undue preference," which he hoped the Government would accede to.
    MR. TOMLINSONconsidered it very important that they should have before them in black and white what the actual intentions of the Government were, and suggested that the proposed words should be at once inserted, leaving for Report merely the question whether they were in the most appropriate part of the clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that in the observations which have just fallen from my hon. Friend there is something well worthy the attention of the Committee. Let it be noted that the drafting of this clause has by common consent been shown to be hopeless. We wish to produce sense in it before it is remodelled prior to Report. In the first place, I would point out that the Amendment which the Government desired to introduce falls very short of the promises or, at all events, the indications of intention, given by the Prime Minister; and, in the second place, it falls very far short of the real necessities of the ease. I would remind the Prime Minister that when the matter first came on for discussion he expressed his absolute concurrence with the views of the Member for West Birmingham on the subject of "undue preference." he said that "undue preference" was a difficult subject, and perhaps the most difficult branch of that subject was in the direction of railway rates. The right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee to understand that he was prepared to accept or propose words by which "undue preference," not limited to this or any particular subject, but

    1731
    generally, should be excluded from the powers and purview of the Irish Parliament.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said we would go as far as we could in that direction.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not dissent from the account I have just given of the view which the right hon. Gentleman expressed that he would limit all forms of undue preference. What is the actual suggestion of the Government with regard to undue preference? Does it cover the wide field indicated by the right hon. Gentleman? Does it attempt to cover the whole ground indicated by the Prime Minister? On the contrary, it is strictly limited, so far as I understand the words, to undue preference arising out of parentage or place of birth; so far as individuals are concerned, one of the narrowest points in relation to which undue preference may be shown. Neither do I think that the danger does reside principally with birth or parentage, nor is that the danger we anticipate. It is possible that the Irish Legislature, in their unwisdom, may say that persons of English or Scottish birth are not to be eligible to hold office in Ireland; but I think they will take the more convenient course, in exercising their Executive authority, never to select persons of English or Scotch birth for employment, and it would not be in the least necessary to advertise their intention and determination that nobody who is not an Irishman will occupy any office in Ireland. Therefore, though quite possibly there may be undue preference in an Executive point of view in the selection of Irish officers, I do not think the danger we have to apprehend is undue preference that will be embodied in a Statute. But there are other forms of undue preference not based upon birth or parentage from which I think we ought to guard ourselves. It is quite possible, though I hope it is not probable, that divergence from the religion of the majority may be made a bar by legislation to holding office. [An hon. MEMBER: Look at Section 2.] That, I think, will be very likely to be avoided by Section 2. But take the case of the absentee landords. The absentee landlord has been the object of denunciation for generations, though I am bound to say that if by
    1732
    absentee landlord you mean the landlord who does not spend the greater part of his time in Ireland my personal experience in Ireland has taught me that some of the most liberal, generous, and enlightened landlords that Ireland or any other country has ever known have been men who might be attacked by an Act which imposed some special disability on those who resided out of Ireland—men like the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Leconfield and others I can mention, who have lavished upon their Irish estates, though they are not habitually resident there, money which the most liberal of English and Scotch landlords, might be inclined to grudge. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will deny the truth of the statement I have made; but, at all events, whether it be just or unjust to impose special disabilities so far as concerns the Irish landlords who do not reside upon their estates, whether it be just or unjust to treat holders of that, kind of property as you treat the holders of no other kind of property in the world, those disabilities should be imposed not by the Irish, but by the Imperial Parliament. If you are going to indulge in exceptional legislation of this kind—which I should deprecate to the utmost of my power and ability—at all events, let those disabilities be imposed by men who do not represent any of the personal interests concerned, but let it be the impartial judgment of an impartial tribunal; not the partial action of a Legislature elected entirely at the bidding of one particular section of the community. It you wish to exclude this special and partial legislation at the cost of one particular class of the community, that is not covered by the Amendment which you propose to introduce after Sub-section 3; but it is covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, and I fail to see why the Government decline that Amendment with the principle of which they agree. They must themselves admit that the words they propose to substitute are narrower even than their own promises, and than the necessities of the case demand. Under these circumstances, I think it would be impossible for this Committee to concur in the rejection of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, having

    1733
    nothing to look forward to but the introduction on Report, possibly, of words objected to by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, words which will not be assented to unanimously by this Committee, which do not cover the ground, which do not enable us to feel that the Government have done all that they promised to do, and which certainly do not protect those individuals in Ireland who have most to fear from the exercise of that partial legislation, which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayrshire is intended to protect us against. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will hesitate before they give up the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayrshire for the very inadequate proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, they began the discussion of this Amendment upon the question of undue preference to be shown to fishermen; but, before the Amendment was finally disposed of, the invariable landlord came up. The question was, could the Irish give preference in employment in their own country to Irishmen? Had they (the English) not done that in this country? ["No, no!"] He had, with his own eyes, seen advertisements in the newspapers of that city, at the, bottom of which was the statement, "No Irish need apply." He had seen a good many Irish newspapers, but he had never seen any advertisement which contained the statement that no English or Scotch need apply. He only rose to point out that wherever a discussion began it invariably ended with the landlords.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINrising—
    MR. T. M. Healyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINwas received with loud cries of "Divide!" followed by cries of "Order!"
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must beg hon. Members not to interrupt. If they do so it will be impossible to carry on the discussion.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be sorry that a Debate which began very quietly, and in a most amicable spirit, should end in any contentious way, and I do not intend to refer to what I conceive to be matters of contention between the two sides of the House. The Chief Sectetary, when he introduced the words of the Government, did so tentatively, fully intending they should carry out the understanding at which the Committee arrived. He has not asserted that they did so, but he rather left to us to criticise them and show they were in any way insufficient. In some respects, at any rate, the Amendment does not go far enough. The Government desire to stop undue preference as much as it is within their power. Of course, there are many kinds of undue preference. There is conceivable undue preference on the ground of religious bigotry or prejudice. I am not going into that to-night. There is conceivable undue preference on account of political opinions. That, again, is a serious form of undue preference, but neither will I go into that to-night. What I want to show is that in much loss contentious matters, especially in matters of trade, the words of the Government will not cover the various forms of undue preference which might easily be conceived of. The Government limit undue preference to undue preference on account of parentage and birth. The hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) who has just spoken seems to think that would be unfair, because he believes that on account of birth undue preference has been shown against Irishmen in this country—not so far as the State is concerned, at any rate, because I undertake to say that in proportion to population a vastly larger number of Irishmen are employed in Great Britain than Englishmen and Scotchmen in Ireland: and if there is to be legislation of this kind in Ireland against Britons, and it were to be followed by vindictive legislation on this side, there is no doubt Irishmen would be heavy losers. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member below me that it is not particularly necessary we should legislate against undue preference on account of birth. I do not believe it would be in the interests of the Irish Parliament to make such legislation, and if they did I think we have the matter in our own

    1735
    hands. But, looking at other cases of undue preference, take the case of fishermen, and especially the case of fisheries. If we cannot cover that question, and if the promise of the Government does not cover fisheries, we shall have to discuss it as a separate subject; whereas, if the words do cover it, a good deal of time will be saved and a good many of the Amendments may at once be withdrawn. Take one case. What is to prevent the Irish Legislature from imposing landing dues on fish brought in Scotch and English bottoms? That will not be on account of the birth or parentage of the fishermen; but still a distinct preference would be created for Irish against British fisheries, and no doubt, as the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce) has said, this is a burning question in Scotland, and Scotch Members will bear me out when I say that their constituents are extremely sensitive as to what may happen under Home Rule to the detriment of Scotch fishermen. Take another case, and that a case not as between Ireland and Great Britain, but as between the different classes of persons in Ireland. There is a constant feud between the line fishermen and the trawlers. What is to prevent the Irish Legislature from taking the side of the trawlers against the line fishermen, or vice versâ? [An hon. MEMBER: Not very likely]. No; it is much more likely they will take the side of the linesmen against the trawlers. But in case they take the side of one or the other, there is no doubt that undue preference will be set up, and it is very desirable that some impartial law should do justice as between the two parties. Again, take the case of separate ports. There was an Amendment on the Paper on this question which has been taken off in view of the understanding that the Government wore going to deal with undue preference generally; but I do not think that question is met by the words which the Government propose. What is to prevent preference being given to one port in Ireland as against another, either by means of special grants to one port and not to another, or by a difference in dues allowed to be taken, or, if you please, by special rates from that port for conveyance of goods upon a particular railway? In that and other ways you may practically create a port by undue preference given to it over
    1736
    others. It is perfectly well-known in England that the prosperity of certain ports and towns depend upon the preference given by railways in their rates. I am not saying they constitute an undue preference, and preference may be given to a port or place which is not undue. All I say is, that very serious injury might be done to one port in Ireland against another by preference which any impartial Court would declare undue, and you could not touch it by the words which the Government have proposed. There is one other class of questions that I will only broadly allude to, and that is the questions arising out of a desire to protect or give advantage to any particular industry. If it be desired to give an advantage to an industry in Ireland as against any industry in England or Scotland, or an industry in one part of Ireland as against a similar industry in another part, all preferences of that kind might be created, and the words of the Government would not touch them. I think I have said enough, at all events, to induce the Government again to consider the words which they have proposed. I do not know whether they would be prepared to make any change in them at the present time, or whether the Debate has gone far enough to bring conviction to their mind. If not, I do not think it wise to deal with words which involve a difficult question of drafting, at a moment's notice, and all I would ask from them is some assurance that before the matter conies up for Report they will impartially consider the matter in the light of the information and the arguments we have put before them, and we are not to consider they are pledged to the language which they put forward, as I said, tentatively.
    MR. J. MORLEY: It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend said, that this proposal of ours, with the view to carrying out the understanding given to the Committee by the Head of the Government, is, to a certain extent, a tentative proposal. But I am bound to say to him—and I was not surprised to hear him admit it—that it is not an easy matter to draw up a clause which shall, while excluding really undue preference, not be so wide as to leave the door open to cases which no sensible man of the Committee would desire to see included. The word "undue" in the Amendment is one

    1737
    of the most uncertain and one of the most dangerous words that can be used. If the hon. Member had said plainly that no preference should be given, then the Committee could readily understand it; but I should like to know by what standard we are to go in fixing as "undue" the preference which is given? But it is said that there are many kinds of preference not dealt with by the words of the clause. The case of religion has been mentioned as an illustration. The Government, however, have excluded religious preferences in the most formal way in the 2nd sub-section. Then the right hon. Gentleman gave an illustration of various trade preferences which might possibly be enacted by the Irish Legislature, and he instanced the case of discriminating and preferential landing dues. Take the case, be mentioned, of dues upon boats bringing fish from certain ports. I would point out to him that that is an undoubted evasion of the prohibition which prevents the Irish Legislature from making laws affecting trades outside of Ireland. That is our construction of the clause. I will not go further into the matter, for perhaps we have been long enough on this subject. The Debate, on the whole, has been conducted with great good humour. I am sorry I cannot include the speech of the Leader of the Opposition—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Was I not good-humoured?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am bound to say I think not. The Debate has been conducted with a desire to arrive at a reasonable solution of what, undoubtedly, is an extremely difficult matter. We shall not go beyond the exclusions in the words which we have already accepted; but the words are not very satisfactory, and we shall do our best, before the Report stage, to bring them up in a more complete form.
    MR. COCHRANEwould certainly have preferred the words of his own Amendment to those suggested by the Government. With reference to the objection that had been taken to the word "undue," the same objection might be to the words "due process of law" which were certainly as vague and indeterminate as the word "undue." He might suggest one simple solution of all difficulty as to the latter word. The Solicitor General bad told them that
    1738
    whatever meaning there might be in a Statute, or whatever meaning might not exist in it, the Judges were to find some meaning for them. He had no doubt that, acting on the same principle, they would also he able to find some meaning for the word "undue." He would, however, take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that the Chief Secretary would consider the words of the Amendment between this and the Report stage.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn." ["No, no!"]
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Aves 218; Noes 260.—(Division List, No. 164)
    MR. COCHRANEsaid, he had the permission of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), who was unavoidably prevented from being in his place, to move the Amendment which stood in his name—
    Page 2, line 4, after 1; "sub-section (6)," insert "Whereby any voluntary institution, association, or society, lawfully constituted according to the laws of the United Kingdom in force for the time being is prejudicially affected."
    He would explain that the Amendment was designed for the protection of the Freemasons—a Body for which he might claim to speak, as he was a member of one of the most influential Lodges. The Freemasons were less able than the Orange Body or other Societies to take care of themselves in the event of the Irish Legislature wishing to do them injury. The Freemasons existed entirely for benevolent and charitable purposes, and they were precluded by their rules from taking part in political or religious matters. In Ireland they numbered between 9,000 and 10,000, and they feared that under a Home Rule Parliament they would not have justice or fair play. They had there several excellent Institutions—Institutions of a purely benevolent character—a Boys' School, a Female Orphanage, and other Institutions. In these large sums of money—many thousands of pounds, indeed—had been expended, and a great deal of good was accomplished by the work which the various Institutions performed. He

    1739
    would show the House the kind of treatment that had been meted out to the Freemasons in Ireland—treatment which they would agree was scandalous and disgraceful. Some time ago a bazaar was organised in Dublin in connection with the Masonic Female Orphan Asylum. Archbishop Walsh, who had shown the greatest hostility to Freemasons, issued a Pastoral which, according to The Daily Express of May 2, 1892, was read in the chapels throughout Ireland. In this Pastoral the Archbishop said several questions had been addressed to him as to the duty of Catholics in reference to this Masonic celebration. The Holy See, he said, in its repeated condemnation of Freemasonry, had forbidden to Catholics not only membership of the Society of Freemasons, but everything that could in any way tend to the furtherance of the interests of the Society. He admitted that the object in view was one naturally calculated to appeal to the charitable sympathies of Catholics; but he added that, faithful to their duty as Catholics, they would respect the stringent obligation under which they were placed—an obligation binding them, under the penalty of incurring the severest strictures of the Church, to abstain, not merely from membership of the Freemasons' Society, but from everything that could in any way tend to the advancement or the promotion of any of its objects. That was exceedingly strong if the Archbishop had said nothing further. But that did not satisfy him. A lady interested in the bazaar wrote—not knowing of the attitude which the Archbishop had assumed—asking him for his portrait, to be exhibited with 400 others, including one of His Holiness the Pope, which, she informed him, had been presented by a Roman Catholic gentleman. That was a very innocent request, to which the Archbishop replied that—
    "Any Catholic who may act in disregard of the law of the Church in this particular matter of encouraging in any way a Masonic proceeding is, by the very fact, excommunicated from the Catholic Church."
    These were not idle words. They bore a peculiar significance, and showed the spirit in which the Roman Catholic Church would act towards the Masonic Body under an Irish Parliament. They had, indeed, already carried their threats
    1740
    to extremity in some cases, even recently. He had a letter which had been written by a gentleman—written for the purpose of this Debate—complaining that the rites of burial had been refused by that Church to his father, only because he had long been and had died a Freemason. [Cries of "Name!" from the Irish Benches.] He would give the name and full particulars. The letter stated that not only were the rites of burial refused by the parish priest, but that he prevented the chapel bell being rung during the procession, as was usual on such occasions, and prohibited some nuns from sending a wreath, as they wished to. That he regarded as boycotting of the cruellest kind. An appeal was made to the Bishop of Elphin to allow the service to be held for the sake of the widow and her daughter; but the Bishop refused, sending a telegram stating that "the law forbade Catholic rites and attendance of the clergy." [Cries of "Name!" and "Question!" from the Irish Benches.] The letter was signed "Lawrence Burke," and was dated "The Abbey, Roscommon, 6th June, 1893." Surely these facts afforded sufficient reason why the Committee should enact some effective safeguard in the Bill for the protection of the property, rights, and liberties of Freemasons in Ireland before they were placed under the domination of Archbishop Walsh? He could quote other cases of the same kind, but would only trouble the Committee with one more. It occurred in Belfast, in the centre of Protestant Ulster. A local solicitor named Michael Buckley, who was a Roman Catholic and a Freemason, was refused the Sacrament, and all the rites of the Church were denied him until he withdrew from the Society. He refused at first to do so, and then the priest threatened to extend the displeasure of the Church to his wife and daughters, and, for their sake, he had to yield. Most hon. Members of that House were unable to appreciate the terrible consequences of a Roman Catholic's being denied the rites of his Church. This man and his family were thrown into a condition of the most painful distress, and it was entirely for the sake of his family that he consented to withdraw from the Freemasons. Such a condition of things in a free country was simply monstrous. It was a gross

    1741
    violation of the liberty of the subject, and he hoped the Radical Members of the House would take note of the facts. These facts, let them remember, were not things of the past. They had occurred only recently. Again, a Catholic newspaper, The Catholic, published an article on the 3rd of June, 1893, in which it said—
    "The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to Fremasonry is once more made manifest by a recent decision of the Holy Office, published in reply to questions submitted to that august tribunal by the Bishop of Bayonne.…The reply of the Sacred Congregation has been clear, distinct, and unequivocal. Between the Prelates of God's Church and Masonry there can never be either peace or pact. No circumstances can secure the Secret Society toleration at the hands of a Christian Bishop. No law of any Parliament, no usage, can relieve Masonry from the censures so often fulminated against it by so many Pontiffs, and which no Bishop can alter or suppress."
    And the article concluded—
    "To the Church Freemasonry remains, as it has ever been, anathema."
    That being so, would the Committee give no special protection to the Freemasons? Here they had a paper representing the Catholics of Ireland stating their opinion on the subject not later than the 6th of the present mouth. Could the Committee submit to that? Could they say there was any justification for this attitude towards a Body that did no harm, but, on the contrary, did much good? He thought the Committee would take the view he had put before them, and he, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 41, after the word "or," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words, "(7) Whereby any voluntary institution, association, or society, lawfully constituted according to the laws of the United Kingdom in force for the time being is prejudicially affected."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. W. E. Gladstone,): I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member, and understood it to be a speech addressed to the Committee in regard to the character of the Society calling themselves Freemasons. When I look at the Amendment, however, I see that it takes no notice of Freemasonry, but lays down
    1742
    a proposition of enormous breadth—that no Society whatever of a private and voluntary character, which is not in itself illegal, shall ever be subject, whatever be its errors, its defects, or its offences, to any description of interference by the Irish Legislature. Well, in the first place, hon. Members will see that the Amendment is a hundred times too wide for its object. Societies legally constituted may, nevertheless, fall into great and gross abuse. There are, for instance, Societies connected with insurance and with the pecuniary transactions of the working classes which may have been legally constituted. [Turning round to his Colleagues]: What is the name of the Society which recently failed?
    Several hon. MEMBERS: The Liberator.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: For all I know, the Liberator Society was quite legally constituted. But under the Amendment, if some of the transactions of that Society had been brought to light and it had been proposed to correct or prevent them by legislation, it would have been impossible. I cannot conceive any justification for an Amendment of such enormous scope, interfering with an important branch and duty of any Legislature in the direction either of prevention or reform. So much for the Amendment, and I really hope that that is a conclusive reason against its adoption; but I will not pass without notice the speech of the hon. Member. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that we are discussing an Amendment really in conformity with the speech—though the two are as distant as the poles. What is the case of the Freemasons, supposing we were really discussing it? The hon. Gentleman says that the Society of Freemasons has been denounced in the most vehemently condemnatory terms by the Papal authorities. For my own part, though I have been accustomed to hear of Freemasons all my life, there is not a man who is in a state, I will not say of more sublime, but of more complete, impartiality about them. I have never known their constitution or proceedings, and, having been amply occupied, I have never felt any vivid curiosity in the matter. Therefore I can speak on the

    1743
    subject with impartiality. What is the state of the case? The Freemasons have been denounced vehemently—I imagine with unlimited vehemence. I presume, and I am bound to presume, that those who have denounced them have acted under the most conscientious motives and beliefs. They may be right or wrong. I have not the slightest knowledge whether there is ground for the denunciation or not. [Cries of "Oh!"] I suspect not. Now, I imagine that 99 out of 100 or, at any rate, that 19 out of 20 Members of the House are in the same condition of blissful ignorance as myself. [Cries of "No!"] An enormous proportion are without knowledge of this Society. [Cries of "No!"] But what I want to point out is that the question before the Committee is not the rectitude or error, the propriety or impropriety, of these denunciations. They are strictly spiritual and ecclesiastical, and they are exclusively the affair of those who think fit to submit to them. What have we to do with them as such? Nothing whatever. "But then," says the hon. Gentleman, "I am dreadfully afraid lest the Irish Legislature should convert these spiritual denunciations into temporal instruments of oppression. Without that allegation the Amendment has no foundation whatever. Is that a just or proper supposition? I have sat in the House of Commons for 60 years, and for 60 years I have known nobody of the Members of the House more uniformly opposed to the use of temporal penalties for spiritual purposes than the Roman Catholic Members from Ireland. [Cries of "Oh!"] The Government conscientiously and emphatically refuse to cast in their teeth or to charge upon them the probability of their committing a form of offence most gross in itself, and contradicted by all that they have said or done in my whole knowledge and experience of them ever since they first found their way within the walls of Parliament. Therefore I oppose this Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I will pass over in silence. I hardly think it worth while to raise the point suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's interesting com-
    1744
    parison of the Liberator Society with the Society of Freemasons. I am not a Freemason myself, and I am as impartial as the right hon. Gentleman in his judgment of that Society. But though I have only the ordinary means that all have of judging its worth, this, at all events, I know—that the body of Freemasons in these islands, whatever they may be on the Continent, is a Society which has devoted itself to good works, for mutual assistance, and I think it outrageous to compare the Freemasons to a fraudulent Society like the Liberator.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has charged me with something which he knew, or ought to have known, is unjust. That portion of my remarks which referred to the Liberator Society had no connection whatever with the Freemasons. Reference to the Liberator Society was introduced in that portion of my remarks in which I was commenting on the Amendment which I said had nothing specifically to do with the Freemasons, but covered all these voluntary Societies. The connection between the two Societies existed only in the right hon. Gentleman's imagination.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR—[cries of "Withdraw!" "Shame!" "Dishonest!" and other interruption]: I accept with the utmost satisfaction the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman, and if it was my fault that I misunderstood him I apologise.
    An hon. MEMBER: If it was.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I come now to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was, at all events, more pertinent to the Amendment, in which he referred to the action of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to Freemasons. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave us a series of illustrations of the view taken by the Roman Catholic Church upon the subject.
    An hon. MEMBER: Are you going to legislate for it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman showed beyond doubt or question—and the right hon. Gentleman in no sense challenged the statement—that the Roman Catholic Church has consistently declared that the Freemasons

    1745
    are a body altogether outside the pale of the Church, which refuses her sacraments to the members of all Societies which are called secret. Now, the question is whether this is a purely spiritual matter, or whether it is likely to be translated into practice when we hand over to the Irish Legislature the conduct of affairs purely Irish. We are agreed as to the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the Resolution on that question. The States in the world in which the Roman Catholic hierarchy have the control of temporal matters are very few indeed. Certainly in the Roman Catholic States on the Continent the Roman Catholic hierarchy only count in political matters like the heads of any other Ecclesiastical Body. The question is, would the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland be able to impress upon the Irish Legislature their own policy or not? ["No, no!"] Well, I have to consider the methods by which they have returned Members to Parliament. I know the history of Ireland during the last few years, and I call to memory the action in secular matters taken in every district in Ireland by the parish priest and his curate. I recollect how the Catholic hierarchy—and I make no attack on them—are not merely a spiritual body engaged in spiritual affairs and anxious to advance the spiritual welfare of their flocks, but also a political committee. They wield powers of the most tremendous character through the length and breadth of Irish Society, in every town, village, and country district, and I ask myself whether this House is going to intrust men with the power of legislating upon subjects as to which their spiritual guides have committed themselves to extreme opinions; and in which their political position gives them the power and, with the power, the right and duty to carry out and embody in legislation the duties and principles their spiritual allegiance requires. If I have not misinterpreted the present condition of Irish Society—and who will say I have?—but have honestly considered the facts of the last 12 or 15 years in Ireland, will any one, looking at these facts in the dry light of historical research, deny that the danger which my hon. Friend desires to avoid by the Amendment is a real and substantial
    1746
    danger? I speak to a body of Englishmen not prejudiced, I believe, in favour of the Roman Catholic religion or of Freemasons, who will look at this matter from outside as judges of the case to which they are not parties; and I ask them, as men of common sense and of political honesty, whether, if they really believe what the Prime Minister says—that interference by political means with the freedom of Freemasons will be an act of infamous political tyranny—they are not bound to vote for an Amendment which takes away from an Ecclesiastical Body which will undoubtedly be dominant in Ireland the power to deal according to the declared views and morals of their Church in a manner which cannot be approved with a body known to be worthy of the respect of all connected with philanthropic undertakings.
    MR. MACARTNEY and Mr. TOMLINSONrose.
    MR. J. Morleyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 277; Noes 243.—(Division List, No. 165.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Aves 243; Noes 278.—(Division List, No. 166.)
    MR. RENTOUL: I beg to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, namely, to insert after "or," in line 41, the words—
    "Whereby the Society known as Freemasons might be prejudicially affected."
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is clearly out of Order.
    MR. RENTOUL: Then might I be permitted—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"] On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor! I was under the impression—[Renewed cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have explained to the hon. Member that his Amendment is out of Order. The reasons are obvious, and I cannot allow an argument on the point.
    COLONEL WARING: I move, Sir, that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. T. M. HEALYwas understood to rise to a question of Order, but his remarks were drowned by cries of "Order!" and "Progress!"
    It being Midnight the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [PAYMENTS.]

    COMMITTEE.
    MR. BRODRICK: On what day is it proposed to take Committee on this?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): The First Lord of the Treasury has already stated that ample notice will be given.
    MR. BRODRICK: It is very inconvenient, putting it down for days on which there is no intention to take it.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: The hon. Member knows very well that it is usual to keep Government Orders down on Mondays and Thursdays.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: It is most inconvenient. Why not put it down at once for the day on which it is to be taken?
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: Monday.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  CHIMNEY-SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 399.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee).
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to explain that the Committee is only pro forma, in order that certain Amendments may be introduced. I therefore move to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That this Bill be reported to the House with Amendments."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Would the House object to my taking the Third Reading now?
    Objection being taken
    Bill to be printed, as amended [Bill 399]; re-committed for Thursday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 373.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 291.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.—(No. 329.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 17) BILL (by Order).—(No. 376.)
  As amended, considered; read the hird time and passed.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to be upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 284.]
  Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 397.]

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 338.)
  Reported [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Hibbert, Bill to remove certain doubts as to the application of Part III. of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890," to certain authorities in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Hibbert and MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 398.]

  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 9.)
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Winton (E. Eglintoun), after the death of his brother.
TOOK THE OATH.
The Viscount Bolingbroke and St. John.

MESSAGE FROM THE THRONE.
THE LORD STEWARD (The Marquess of BREADALBANE): My Lords, I have the honour to bear the Queen's gracious reply to the Address presented to Her Majesty by your Lordships praying that consent may be withheld from the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland relating to secondary education, dated May 1st, 1889. In her reply, Her Majesty informs your Lordships that
"I have received your Address praying that consent may be withheld from the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland relating to secondary education, dated May 1st, 1893. The matter on which you have expressed a wish has been duly considered by My Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, and the provisions of the Minute have had their further careful attention. The Committee are of opinion that it is expedient that action should be taken in accordance with the Minute in its present form. If they should come to the conclusion that, in the due discharge of the duty intrusted to them by Parliament, they can hereafter propose any alterations in its provisions which would conduce to the greater benefit of secondary education in Scotland, such alterations will be duly laid before you."

RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 146.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I am afraid I troubled your Lordships with a short statement upon this Bill when I asked for a First Reading for it some little time ago. That being so, I do not think it necessary that I should occupy your Lordships' time on the present occasion unless I am required to give an
  1630
  answer to any observations which noble Lords may make.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cross.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 139.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN, in moving the Second Reading, said this Bill had passed the other House. Its object was that when Rules were made under the authority of Statute relating to any Court or procedure, they should at first be published in draft in order that they might be fully considered before they were settled.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I understand that some question was raised in the other House upon certain points; and as Amendments will no doubt be proposed, I would suggest to the noble Lord that an opportunity should be given for Amendments to be brought forward before the Bill is really considered.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I have read the Bill, and I do not dissent from or oppose the Second Reading at all; but I am glad to bear that it is under consideration to make some amendments, for I am sure great complications will arise unless arrangements are made for the Rules to come into operation without delay. I am not prepared to give any notice of amendment at present, but I think some amendment will be required.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.

  SECOND READING,
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to make

  1631
  certain amendments in the Prisons Act in reference to the pensions of retiring prison officials. The main purpose I can describe to your Lordships in a moment. Under the Prisons Act any existing officer of a prison who retained his office after the passing of that Act was entitled to his pension upon the basis on which he was then entitled to it. I can gave an instance—the case, indeed, which first called attention to the defect in the Act. Admiral Fairfax had been for a number of years Governor of Prisons. On the passing of the Prisons Act he was promoted to be Inspector of Prisons, and he has served in that capacity for many years—ever since the passing of that Act. But, because he has not been an officer of a prison, having been promoted to be Inspector of Prisons, he is not entitled to the same pension as he would have been had he retired immediately on the passing of the Act when he ceased to be Prison Governor. He is in a worse position, after all these years of service, because he has been promoted. It is obvious that was not the intention of the Statute, and this Bill is to remedy the oversight. There are one or two minor Amendments to which your Lordships' attention need not specially be called which will really only put the matter in the position it was intended to be.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: As the author of the existing Act, I may say that I most heartily approve of the Bill now introduced. It was never intended that such a thing as this should happen, and it is quite clear an anomaly of that kind should be done away with. But there is one matter which I think requires the consent of the Government. One of the main objects of the Act was to make the whole prison service one under it. Formerly, of course, a Governor might have been employed in one county for a number of years, and then, if he was appointed in another county, that was counted as absolutely a fresh service, and he had no claim for the first period in the other county. So that one of the main purposes of the Act was to make it one continued service—that it should make no difference where the official served, but that he should count for his pension the number of years he
  1632
  had served under the Government. I believe that by some construction of the Act by the Treasury this has happened: that a man has been employed as an assistant prison officer, not as Governor but as Assistant Governor, in a large gaol where two officers were necessary. But when he was promoted to the rank of actual Governor he could not count his time as Assistant Governor, because he had entered into a new service. That is a matter into which it is, I think, necessary some inquiry should be made, because I am sure that was never intended. I am quite sure the noble Lord opposite in drawing the Act never contemplated such a result. It seems to me very hard that, because a man gets promotion in his service from Assistant Governor to Governor of a prison, he should lose the advantage of his former period of service, in counting pension.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly the point shall receive my attention.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 126.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord de Ros be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the places of the Lord Fingall (E. Fingall); read, and agreed to.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 94.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord de Ros be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Fingall (E. Fingall); read, and agreed to.
APPEALS (FORMÂ PAUPERIS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 124.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4.) BILL.—(No. 115.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 78.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 116.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 129.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT, &C.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 84.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &C.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 85.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 140.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 141.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL. (No. 113.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 136.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 148.)
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 73.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 112.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL.—(No. 145.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 168.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 169.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 170.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 171.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 172.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 173.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 17) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 174.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.