Sitting of 23 March 1893

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

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 166A read.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR,): I beg to move the following Amendment:—
  "Line 1, leave out 'Every Bill by which a Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company is incorporated, shall contain a clause to the following effect,' and insert,' In the case of every Bill for incorporating a Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company, or for giving any powers to an existing Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company to which no Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act expressly applies, the Committee on the Bill shall fix the rates and charges for merchandise traffic (including small parcels of a perishable nature conveyed by passenger train) by reference to the Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act of some other Company which, in the opinion of the Committee, will properly and conveniently apply; and the Committee shall, in the case of an existing Company, provide that the rates and charges for merchandise traffic, and such small parcels as aforesaid so fixed, shall be in substitution for the rates and charges for similar traffic authorised to be taken by the Company under their existing Acts.
  If the Committee shall be of opinion that no such Act as aforesaid will properly and conveniently apply they shall insert a clause to the following effect.'"
  I may explain that this Amendment practically carries out what has been the practice of the House for the last two or three years. The Board of Trade had been in the habit of requiring a clause of this nature to be put in Bills, and it was thought desirable that there should be a conference between the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means here, the President of the Board of Trade, and the President of the Local Government Board. That conference was held, and as a result this Amendment was arrived at to secure uniformity of practice between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
  Amendment proposed,—
  In line 1, to leave out the words "Every Bill by which a Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company is incorporated shall contain a clause to the following effect," and insert the words, "In the case of every Bill for incorporating a Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company, or for giving any powers to an existing Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company, to which no Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act expressly applies, the Committee on the Bill shall fix the rates and charges for merchandise traffic (including small parcels of a perishable nature conveyed by passenger train) by reference to the Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act of some other Company, which, in the opinion of the Committee, will properly and conveniently apply; and the Committee shall in the case of an existing Company provide that the rates and charges for merchandise traffic, and such small parcels as aforesaid so fixed, shall be in substitution for the rates and charges for similar traffic authorised to be taken by the Company under their existing Acts.
  If the Committee shall be of opinion that no such Act as aforesaid will properly and conveniently apply they shall insert a clause to the following effect."—(Chairman of Mays and Means.')
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid he had Amendments to the proposal on the Paper, but he had no wish to press them if they were considered unnecessary.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Amendments are unnecessary.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid the Amendments applied to canals as well as to railways, therefore the word "tolls" should be inserted as well as "rates and charges," for the reason that the bulk of the traffic on the canals was carried by toll. Private owners ran their barges along the canals, paying so much by way of toll, and it seemed to him that unless the alteration he proposed was effected, great difficulty would be experienced in working the Standing Order.
  MR. MUNDELLAassured the hon. Member that the object he had in view would be effected by the Amendment as it stood.
  SIR, M. HICKS BEACHsaid the whole object of the Legislation of 1888, in the 24th Section of the Act of that year, and the proceedings that had taken place under it,

  857
  was to ensure that the classifications under which traffic was carried should be uniform throughout the country, and that the rates also should be uniform. That was fairly met by the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proposed. He doubted, however, whether it was worth while to continue the power of a Committee on a Bill to insert some entirely different classification, and conditions and rates, subject to revision three years afterwards by the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that in so far as that would lead to a further number of private Acts differing from the Provisional Orders already passed it would not be a public benefit. Why should a Committee have power to insert a scale of rates and charges in a Bill that might be much higher than anything that Parliament had sanctioned? He should like to see the omission of the second part of the proposed Standing Order, which he believed was only proposed two years ago as a temporary arrangement. He, therefore, moved the omission of the last three lines of the Amendment by which that temporary arrangement was to be retained.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Acts," in line 15, to the end of the proposed Amendment.—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid the Standing Order had already been passed by the House of Lords, and agreement in the matter had been come to by the officials of that House, of the House of Commons, of the Board of Trade, and of the Local Government Board.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that was not a sufficient answer to the point he had raised. It was desirable that the rates and charges should be uniform, but under the latter part of the Standing Order, they might be varied by a Select Committee. He should be sorry to agree to the continuance of this alternative Standing Order if it were possible to do without it. If the point were placed before the House of Lords,
  858
  probably they would reconsider the matter.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Perhaps it would be as well to put off the Standing Order until Monday to allow time for a conference with the House of Lords.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he would withdraw his Amendment with that view and move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate arising.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday, 13th April.

QUESTIONS.

  THE COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY.
  MR. JESSE COLLLNGS: In the absence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what steps to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Forestry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): As was stated by my predecessor, in reply to the similar question put by the right hon. Baronet on the 6th March, 1891, the statutory powers of the Board of Agriculture are strictly limited, and we have no means and no power of giving effect directly to the recommendations of the Select Committee, either as regards the establishment of a School or Schools of Forestry, or the creation of a Board of Forestry. I am, however, in full sympathy with the desire to promote the development of education in Forestry, and we are, I think, doing all that we can in that direction. We have continued to make a substantial grant towards the cost of lectures in the University of Edinburgh under the auspices of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society, and towards the cost of the chair which has been established in the Durham College of Science, to include the teaching of Forestry. A course of free instruction to practical foresters and gardeners in connection with the Royal Botanic Gardens at

  859
  Edinburgh, to which we have devoted the sum of £150, is now in progress; and in view of the fact that a course of lectures in Forestry has been started in connection with the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College we have increased our grant to that Institution. We also propose to continue to give the statistical information as to woods and plantations which was supplied for the first time in 1891. I shall always be glad to receive and to consider any suggestions for the increase of sound technical knowledge on this subject.

  THE MANUFACTURING COST OF RIFLES.
  MR. BRODRICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost per rifle of the reduced number of rifles proposed to be manufactured in 1893-4 at Enfield and Sparkbrook factories, and what increase per rifle will be incurred as compared with the present cost?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The actual present cost cannot be stated until the balance-sheet for 1892–3 is completed; but it is estimated that the present cost per rifle is £3 15s., and that the reduction of output for 1893–4 will bring the cost per arm to about £4.

  HIGHLAND PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is a fact that under existing arrangements money expended by High-laud Parochial Boards on erecting houses for parochial medical officers has to be repaid in one year; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to allow the payments to be spread over a term of years so as to enable poor districts to provide suitable accommodation for their medical officer?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TUEVELYAN,): By the Poor Law Act of 1845 which decides such questions in Scotland, Parochial Boards are forbidden to borrow money for the erection of any buildings except poor-houses? I am not prepared to promise the hon. Member that the Government will during the
  860
  present Season take up such a large question as the amendment of this important law.

  SECOND DIVISION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CLERKS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has received from the Education Department any recommendations for the exceptional promotion of specially meritorious clerks of the Second Division to the higher grade of their Division; and, if so, how many such recommendations have been received, at what dates, and with what result?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): A recommendation was made by the Education Office on 24th December, 1891, for the special promotion of 2 Second Division clerks to the higher grade of the Division, and the Treasury on the 14th of the following month replied that, they did not consider that the circumstances constituted "a very exceptional case," within the meaning of Clause 6 of the Order in Council. This application was renewed in December last, and has been considered together with those from other Departments, but, as at present advised, the Treasury does not consider that a case has been made out for the exercise of the powers specially reserved to the Treasury by the clause in question.

  WEFRE ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, FLINT.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department have warned the Wefre St. Mark's National School, Flint, that the fixed grant will be reduced to 7s., en the ground that the accommodation is insufficient, although the accommodation was admitted to be sufficient by the Education Department some years ago, when the average attendance was larger than at present; whether he is aware that the overcrowding of the infants' department noticed on the occasion of Her Majesty's Inspector's visit was caused by special and temporary arrangements made for the convenience of the Inspector, and that the Annual Reports

  861
  show that the work of the school is good, and the average of passes 96 to 98; and whether, under these circumstances, he will withdraw the warning?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. R. AOLAND,): Warning has been given to the managers of this school that the grant to the infant class will be reduced from 9s. to 7s., in accordance with the Code, unless the very serious overcrowding is promptly remedied. The infant room in the school has accommodation for 68 children only, but during the last school year the average attendance was 90, and there were no less than 125 infants on the books at the end of the school year. The work of the school is reported as being generally satisfactory. Since 1891 there has, of course, been no percentage of passes for older children, and there never was a system of individual passes for infants. In the circumstances, I see no reason for withdrawing the warning.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to give notice that at the proper time I shall call attention to this matter.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN FLINTSHIRE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire, as Charity Commissioner, whether the Charity Commissioners have submitted a scheme for intermediate education in Flintshire to the Education Department?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): The Flintshire Scheme was published on January 26. The statutory period during which objections can be lodged will elapse in three days. These will be considered and the scheme then submitted to the Education Department.

  SCOTCH VOLUNTEER FORTRESS ENGINEERS.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether application has been quite recently made for leave to form a corps of Volunteer Fortress Engineers, not for Leith especially, but for the Edinburgh district; and why the
  862
  General Officer Commanding in Scotland declined to forward the application to the War Office; and whether, if the application is renewed in the autumn, he will undertake to give the proposal his careful consideration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The General Officer Commanding the Scottish District reports that his predecessor did not consider it necessary to refer the question of the formation of another Volunteer corps for either Edinburgh or Leith to the War Office, because the corps already established there were greatly below their establishment. Until this difficulty is removed I cannot undertake to consider any proposal in the direction indicated by the noble Lord.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: Is it not the fact that the officers commanding other Volunteer corps did object?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe so; but, as I said the other day, the objection was withdrawn. This is, however, an objection on the part of the War Office. So long as the other corps are so far below their establishment we cannot contemplate the creation of a new corps.

  THE WAR OFFICE AND THE TREASURY.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the relations between the War Office and the Treasury, and to report whether any changes in those relations have become necessary?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am fully alive to the importance of this question, but there is no intention at present of instituting such an inquiry as is indicated by the noble Lord.

  THE ELLIS-DAVIES CHARITY, DENBIGHSHIRE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he can state how many of the names proposed as new Trustees of the Ellis-Davies Charity at Cerrig-y-druidion, Denbighshire, are residents of the parish, and how many are from other and distant parishes; whether these names were

  863
  suggested by the existing Trustees; if so, whether he can state what are their names; whether he is aware that other names of persons qualified to act as Trustees have been submitted to the Commissioners by the ratepayers of the parish, and that these nominations were supported by a Petition largely signed by residents in the neighbourhood; and whether he can state the decision of the Commissioners as to the lists submitted respectively by the Trustees and ratepayers of the parish?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: It is gathered from the addresses given in the application that of the 11 proposed new Trustees two are resident in the parish of Cerrig-y-druidion, and that nine are resident in parishes more or less distant from that parish. The names of the proposed Trustees were suggested by the ex-officio Trustees of the Charity, the Bishop and Dean of St. Asaph, and the Rector of the Parish. The unofficial Trustee, Mr. Howel Lloyd, did not concur in the nomination. A Petition suggesting different names, with one exception, and signed by about 200 persons purporting to be landowners, ratepayers, or otherwise connected with the parish, has been received by the Commissioners, who are awaiting a communication from the Joint Education Committee of Denbighshire before coming to a decision as to the appointment of Trustees for the Charity.

  COASTGUARDS IN IRELAND.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of coastguards at present stationed in Ireland?
  THE CIVIL LORD of THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. By latest Returns there are 1,188 coastguard officers and men stationed in Ireland.

  ANESTHETICS AT HASLAR HOSPITAL.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that medical officers at Haslar Hospital are not permitted to administer anæsthetics without leave from head-quarters in London; and whether the medical staff of the Navy is short of its full compliment of officers,
  864
  and why, if that be so, there was no examination for new candidates in February?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON; The medical officers at Haslar, as at all other naval hospitals, are permitted to administer anæsthetics whenever they consider it is necessary they should do so, and they are under no obligation to refer to the Medical Department in London, nor is there any record of such an application ever having been made. The Medical Staff of the Navy is only three short of the full number for which provision has been made in the Estimates. Examinations are not now held in February, but in May and November as required.

  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  Mr. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what Departments are considered by the Treasury as being exempt from the rule applicable to the rest of the Civil Service requiring compulsory retirement at the age of 65 years; and on what special grounds such exemption is allowed in each of these Departments?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury considers that the Order in Council extends to all permanent officers of the Civil Service, above the Second Division, whatever the Department in which they are serving. Whether officers of the Supreme Courts of the three countries are technically within this definition is open to some doubt, but the Lord Chancellor of England accepts the general principles of the Order, and is considering means by which effect can best be given to them in the Legal Departments. The Presidents and Professors of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland have submitted reasons for holding that they are not affected by the Order, but the Treasury as at present advised is unable to accept the contention. No other claims to exemption remain unsettled so far as I am aware.
  MR. HANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman include all the Departments included in the Civil Service Estimates?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, except those indicated in my answer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:

  865
  Does it include the case of the Irish Fishery Inspectors?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: They are in the same position as other Civil servants.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the 65 years' Rule apply to the Treasury Bench?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It applies to the Treasury, but I need hardly say not to the Treasury Bench.

  REGIMENTAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that warrant officers have recently been disallowed the right to deposit in the regimental savings banks; and, if so, on what special grounds; whether the rate of interest allowed to private soldiers and (until recently) warrant officers is 3¾ per cent.; and, if so, how the War Office maintains these banks except at a loss; and whether any portion of such loss is only made good by the fact that the War Office retains for considerable periods sums deposited by deceased soldiers before distributing them amongst the next of kin, and also draws upon the balances standing in the name of deceased or discharged soldiers to meet regimental claims, such as barrack hospital clothing and other stoppages.
  MR. WOODALL: Under the Military Savings Bank Act, warrant officers are not allowed the advantages of the system, although, when the number of warrant officers was largely increased a few years ago, some, by inadvertence, were permitted to continue their accounts. This was stopped when it was detected. The rate of interest allowed is 3¾ per cent., which, of course, can only be granted at a cost to the State. For some years after the institution of those banks, Votes were taken for the interest. It was subsequently discovered that the sums voted had been in excess of the sums required, and the Votes ceased. The funds accumulated, however, have sufficed for the present to meet the extra charge. The additional charge is not in any way met in the manner suggested.

  SPECIAL ALLOWANCES IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary
  866
  of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the recommendation of the Roya Commission of 1890, that the allowance of £100 a year granted to Third Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service for a knowledge of International Law should be discontinued, and that as a compensating advantage, £100 a year should be paid to them immediately on joining the Service instead of remaining two years unpaid, whether, although the allowance for knowledge of law has been withdrawn, they still remain two years without pay, thus inclining an approximate loss of £500 before attaining the rank of Second Secretaries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland,): The facts are as stated. No arrangement has yet been come to for giving effect to the revision of salaries recommended by the Royal Commission.

  MILK RATES ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great Western Railway Company have yet signified their intention of returning to their old milk rates pending further inquiry; and, if they have not done so, whether he will urge upon the company to follow the example of the other great companies who have for the present returned to their old milk rates, if the new rates are in excess of the old rates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MTNDELI.A,: The General Manager of the Great Western Railway Company states that although (in order to establish uniformity of charge) the milk rates have been slightly raised in some few instances, the general effect of the revision undertaken by the company is that in almost every case there is either a reduction or the rate does not exceed that in operation prior to the 1st January last. The company, he adds, will suffer a substantial loss of revenue from their milk traffic. I shall be willing to receive any specific complaints, and to call upon the company for an explanation.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: Arising out of the answer given by the right, hon. Gentleman, I would like

  867
  to ask him if he has observed that no promises to return to old rates have been made by any railway company without qualification or without reservation.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I hardly think that is so. On the whole revision, we are told in this case the rates will be considerably lower, and that statement is made without qualification.

  THE REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, after the Second Reading of the Registration Amendment Bill, he intends to move that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, or to any other Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): Yes, Sir; it is my intention.

  THE NEW FRENCH TARIFF.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact stated that the Returns received by the Foreign Office show that the new French Tariff has caused losses to English trade of 800,000,000 francs on woollens; 4,500,000 francs on cottons; 400,000,000 francs on silks; 14,000,000 francs on raw wool; 3,000,000 francs on raw skins; 3,000,000 francs on cotton yarn; and 6,000,000 francs on jute, and that French exports to this country have increased during the past 12 months at the rate of 48 per cent.; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to counteract this result to British trade.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The figures stated are correctly quoted from Sir J. Crowe's Report, and from the French Official Returns as regards the imports into France from the United Kingdom. The ton. Member, however, has omitted to mention increases enumerated by Sir J. Crowe, amounting to 26,000,000 francs. As to the exports from France to the United Kingdom, the increase has not been, as stated by the hon. Member, 48 per cent., but 48,000,000 francs, which equals 4.7 per cent. How far these changes are the result of the application of the new French Tariff is, of course, a matter for discussion.

  STEAM TRAWLING IN CLEW BAY.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the crews of the strange trawling steamers in Clew Bay openly defied the Coastguards when overhauled for their late depredations on the native fishermen's nets and skillets; whether a gunboat will be sent to these waters for the enforcement of the Law, as has been often done for the carrying out of evictions; who is bearing the expense of defending before the Privy Council the bye-law passed by the Inspectors of Fisheries, prohibiting trawling within Clew Bay in the early months of the year; and whether he will advise the Inspectors of Fisheries to appear before the Privy Council themselves in support of the bye-law which they deemed necessary to frame for the protection of these important Fisheries?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. J. MORLEY,): The Inspectors of Fisheries state they have been informed by the Coastguard Officer that the crews of the steam trawlers referred to did not act as alleged. When the bye-law has received the approval of the Privy Council it will no doubt be desirable that a gunboat should be employed, if necessary, to enforce the provisions of the law during the early months of the year. The Inspectors inform me that they have no funds at their disposal out of which to defray the expenses of witnesses who may be examined before the Privy Council in such cases. The Inspectors never produce witnesses before the Council in support of a bye-law, but one of their number will attend the hearing of the Appeal in the present ease with that object.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these "strange" trawlers are not Scotch trawlers?
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to understand when the Inspectors of Fisheries make a bye-law acting under their statutory authority, and it is appealed against to the Privy Council, there are no funds out of which the Inspectors can defend their bye-law. Is that absurd condition of things to continue?
  MR. J. MORLEY: What their powers may be I cannot say, but I will inquire.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire whether the prevention of steam trawling on the Scotch coasts is not the cause of the Scotch trawlers coming into Irish waters. Why should we be allowed to have the backwash of the Scotch trawlers?
  MR. SEXTON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to defend the bye-law before the Privy Council?
  MR. MORLEY: I can only repeat that I think this is a proper thing to be inquired into.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR FOREIGN PRODUCE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether amongst the matters now being considered by the Railway Companies are included the practical protection of imports by means of favourable through rates calculated at a much lower ratio per mile than is levied upon native produce in all parts of the Three Kingdoms; whether foreign Railway Companies are equally liberal in their dealings with exports from Great Britain and Ireland; and whether it is Intended to adopt a minimum mileage speed in the transit of live stock, and to restore free passes to the drovers thereof?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir, I am not aware that the Railway Companies have any such policy under their consideration. Their action as regards foreign merchandise is controlled by the 27th section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, which provides—
  "That no Railway Company shall make nor shall the Court, or the Commissioners, sanction any difference in the tolls, rates of charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of home and foreign merchandise in respect of the came or similar services."
  I have no reason to believe that a minimum mileage speed for the transit of live stock or any other merchandise is in contemplation or indeed would be useful. I trust that the concession of free passes to drovers accompanying live stock, which has been restored by some Companies will be restored by all.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many out of the 1,448 eases which came before the Irish Board of Works for increases of rent in respect of the Lough Erne drainage, were in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents were not fixed; how many in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents have been fixed; what were the reasons in the 291 cases in which the Board declined jurisdiction that it did so; is there any objection on the part of the Board to lay upon the Table of the House the details of the expenditure of £210,000, £106,000 of which is in excess of the Estimate, and what is the reason why the accounts of this import ant work have not been published as by law prescribed; and whether, having regard to the expenditure of £106,000 over the Estimates, and the fact that no detailed accounts as prescribed by the statute have been published, the Treasury will consent to a sworn inquiry respecting the expenditure in excess?
  SIR. J. T. HIBBERT: Judicial rents had been fixed for 703 of the 1,448 holdings mentioned. The Board of Works declined jurisdiction (1) where judicial rents were fixed after the completion of the works, February 1887; (2) where cases were still under the consideration of the Laud Commission for fixing judicial rents; (3) in cases withdrawn he the proprietors at the time of hearing. The Board of Works is in no way bound or required to keep or publish any detailed accounts of expenditure; but the accounts have, as a matter of fact, been published by the Local Drainage Board, and I consider that no useful end would be served by laying the detailed accounts on the Table or by a sworn inquiry.

  ROSCOMMON POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Memorial has been received from the inhabitants of the Four Mile House (County Roscommon) postal district, pointing out the inconvenience they experience from the present system of delivery and collection of letters; and whether he will make arrangements to

  871
  insure a more frequent delivery in the district?
  THE POSTMASTEE GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): A Memorial on this subject has been received within the last few days, and is now being inquired into. I will communicate the result of the inquiries by letter to the hon. Member.

  SEIZURES ON THE BODYKE ESTATE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the scene at Bodyke on Friday last, when a large force of police were engaged in carrying out seizures for rent on the estate of Colonel O'Callaghan; whether, in view of the fact that there is great difficulty in meeting the landlords' demands in this district, the Government will appoint a Commission to inquire into the relations between the landlord and tenants, with a view to ascertaining whether it would be advisable to bring about some reduction in the judicial rents; whether he is aware, on the occasion of the seizures at Bodyke, the emergency men presented loaded rifles at the faces of several people, and entered the premises of Pat Halloran, of Kilnoe, and shot his dog, and also broke into the house of Michael Doherty, National School teacher, and broke windows and doors, although his place was not on the O'Callaghan estate at all; whether he is also aware that the emergency men seized, aided by the police, 32 sheep belonging to John Malone, and not on Colonel O'Callaghan's estate; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent these acts of provocation by men engaged in the interests of the landlords at Bodyke?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that no seizures were made or attempted on Friday, the 17th inst.; but that on the following day a force of 30 men was assembled to protect the special bailiffs in executing Civil Bill processes on the estate mentioned for non-payment of rent. It appears that when the agent and bailiffs had made a seizure a knife was drawn upon the agent, and the latter to protect himself presented his rifle at his assailant. It is true that a dog belonging to Patrick Halloran was fired at by a bailiff, though I am informed this
  872
  was done after the dog had been set on the cattle to prevent their being driven off. The seizing party visited the house of Michael Doherty, school teacher, who is reported to be a tenant on the estate, though not actually residing on it, and one of the bailiffs entered his house through an open window without doing any damage. It is a fact that the bailiffs seized a number of sheep belonging to John Malone. As regards the second paragraph, I am afraid I can add nothing to what I have slated in reply to previous inquiries on the general question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to answer that portion of the question in which I ask if the Government will take steps to prevent these acts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already answered a similar question. We do not propose to appoint a Commission. Whatever action may be necessary we shall take upon inquiries made by ourselves.
  MR. W. REDMOND: That is not the question. I want to know if the Government will take any steps to prevent acts of provocation by emergency men such as entering the house of the man Doherty, where they had no earthly right to go?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say whether they had a right to go there or not. I rather understand that they consider they had. As to the steps we may take to prevent acts of provocation by emergency men we must judge the circumstances as they present themselves.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman information as to the conduct of the emergency men? Do I gather that he has obtained it from the Police Authorities?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of any other source from which I could obtain it, and on which I could rely.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the answer I have received I shall consider it my duty at the proper time on the Estimates to call the attention of the House to the sending of large forces of Police to try and collect rents—which right hon. Gentlemen have admitted the tenants cannot pay.

  DISTRESS IN ROSSCAEBERY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  873
  aware that great distress prevails in Rosscarbery, County Cork; and, if so, whether the Government will make a grant in order to carry out the Rosscarbery and Clonakilty Railway, so that employment may be given and a useful public work carried out? On the same subject I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the following resolution passed the other day by the Clonakilty Board of Guardians, calling on the Government to take immediate action and open up some reproductive works in the Rosscarbery District, as, owing to the almost complete failure of the potato crop last year and the closing of the Benduff quarries, the people are in extreme poverty verging on starvation; and whether, in view of the very serious distress in Rosscarbery District, the Government will consider the necessity for taking some steps to protect the people?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to these questions I have to say that I am informed by the Local Government Board that their Inspector, having made careful inquiry into the condition of the Rosscarbery District, is of opinion that there is no exceptional distress at present in this locality. The Inspector also states that the amount expended in out-door relief in the district during the past week-was considerably less than that expended in the corresponding week last year. It is true that some of the men thrown out of employment by the closing of the Benduff quarries are still unemployed, but the Inspector reports that there is a demand for labour in other parts of the union. With regard to the question of a railway between Rossearbery and Clonakilty, I have no doubt that such a work would be of great benefit to the district. I regret, however, there are no funds available out of which to undertake the line.
  MR. W. REDMOND: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the Report of the Inspector with the unanimous Resolution of the Board of Guardians calling on the Government to do something to meet the existing exceptional distress?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There is evidently a difference of opinion; but the Inspector has made a very full Report, and I accept what he says.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is the right
  874
  hon. Gentleman in a position to say from whom the Inspector obtained his information, and upon what he bases his statement that there is no exceptional distress?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot say that. I understand he made very diligent inquiry.
  MR. W. REDMOND: With reference to the last question as to the Bodyke seizures, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph, which, no doubt, he overlooked?
  THE SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think we can go back.

  INDIAN LOAN.
  MR. Y1CARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it was stated in Renter's telegram of the 20th March that the Indian Government was about to issue a loan for three crores of rupees to be raised in India, and that the amount of the Council bills for the financial year 1893–4 would be £18,700,000; whether he is aware that there was no quotation for bar silver in the London bullion market on the day on which the aforesaid telegram appeared; and whether he will call the attention of the Indian Government to the above coincidence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. W. RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir; but it should be added that the Budget contemplates a loan in England of £ 1,300,000 in order to discharge railway debentures falling-due in 1893–4; and that the increase of £1,700,000 in the Council bills to be sold in 1893–4 is caused by the fact that the net withdrawals from the cash balance by guaranteed Railway Companies are expected to exceed by £1,726,300 the net amount withdrawn by them in the current year. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is "Yes." The Secretary of State has no doubt that the Government of India are aware of the facts referred to.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee is likely to be before the House?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: I continue to make inquiries, but receive no intimation as to the probable date.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Did I understand aright that the Indian Government propose to raise a loan of three crores of rupees?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: And is the loan to be applied to what is considered capital expenditure, or will any part be applied to payments usually paid out of current taxation, during the present or coming financial year?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will give notice of that question.

  INCOME TAX ON CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that under 5 & 6 Viet. c. 35, Schedule A, Section 61, power is taken to assess for Income Tax the premises occupied by bon¢ fide officials and servants of hospitals and other charitable institutions, even where such premises form part of the main building, and the salaries of such officials and servants, when exceeding £150 per annum, are separately assessed for Income Tax; whether, in fact, it has been the practice to assess on such premises; and whether he will consider the expediency of providing for their exemption?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Act referred to by the hon. Baronet grants allowance of the duties charged, under Schedule A of the Income Tax, on any hospital, &c, in respect of the public buildings and premises belonging to it, and not occupied by any individual officer whose whole assessable income, however arising, amounts to £150. It has been, and is, the practice to limit the charge to the annual value of the premises so occupied, and to let the rest go free, and I do not see any ground for altering that practice.

  A DISSATISFIED TRADER.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication from Mr. J. Keith with
  876
  respect to the railway rates between Scotland and London; and whether Mr. Keith has expressed himself satisfied with the small reduction promised?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received a letter from Mr. Keith, from which it seems that he is not satisfied. His case has been fully heard under Section 31, and the Board of Trade has secured for him a reduction from 41s. 8d. per ton to 35s., or over 16 per cent. below the rate of last year. This brings the rate down to 3s. 4d. per ton per mile in consequence. The Conciliation Clause cannot be administered on the principle that the complainant must always be satisfied with the result, whatever the circumstances may be.

  LAND APPEALS AT STRABANE.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the laud cases from the Carrick and the Killybegs districts of Donegal have been fixed by the Chief Commissioners for hearing at Strabane in April; and whether, having regard to the poverty of the tenants in the Canuck and Killybegs districts, whose cases are set down for hearing at Strabane, and the great expense and hardship entailed on those tenants by being compelled to travel a long distance from their homes, arrangements can be made for the sitting of the Land Commission Court at Carrick or Killybegs for the hearing of land cases arising in these districts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact that cases from the districts of Carrick and Killybegs have been fixed for hearing at Strabane next month, and I understand from the Land Commissioners that as the fair rent appeals have now become very scattered, it would be impossible to hold sittings in every district. The Commissioners state, however, that although in the present instance it would not be practicable to hold a sitting in either Carrick or Killybegs, yet they hope to be able to arrange to have the cases from these districts heard at Donegal on a special day in April to be fixed for the purpose. This will materially diminish the distances the tenants will be compelled to travel, and will obviate their being detained away from their homes.

  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD.
  MR. FIELD; I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dublin Port and Docks Board under their Rules admit the importation of manufactured articles free, especially a great quantity of foreign joinery, whilst the raw material is heavily taxed; and whether, in view of the discontent engendered amongst Irish workmen, who state they have previously complained of this bounty system to importers, he can hold out hopes that some remedy will be found for the present state of things?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am inquiring into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday.

  THE M'CARTNEY ESTATE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the applications under the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act made by the 10 tenants on the M'Cartney Estate, near Belfast, whether he will give the gross valuation of the farms as reported by the Court Valuer, Mr. Hume Babington, and also the gross valuation of same as afterwards reported by the Court Valuer, Mr. Adamson, and, as these applications came before the late Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy, will he state why they wore taken up by Mr. Commissioner Lynch, instead of by Mr. M'Carthy's successor; what is the date of the transfer of the proceedings to Mr. Lynch's Court; and on whose application was the transfer made?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commissioners report that as the applications under the Redemption of Rent Act, on this estate are still sub judice, it would be irregular to give the information asked for in reference to the contents of the Reports made by the Assistant Commissioners. The cases were transferred to Mr. Commissioner Lynch on the 23rd December last, upon the fiat of the Judicial Commissioner made pursuant to the 4th of the General Rules of 23rd April, 1892, under the Act mentioned. The transfer was not made upon the application of any person.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask why it was that the first Valuer sent down by
  878
  the Commissioners gave notice of the object of his visit, while the second did not, but in some cases stated that he was merely checking the figures of the former Valuer?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will call attention to the fact.

  POLICE AT UNIONIST MEETINGS.
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was by the orders or with the knowledge of the County Inspector or the Executive that some members of the Constabulary attended the Unionist meeting at Seaforde, County Down, the week before last, and the Unionist meeting at Dunmore, in the same county, on 13th March?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Constabulary have no special orders to attend these meetings. If they went to this one it was because patrol duty took them there.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Are not these meetings got up by a few landlords with the object of intimidating this House by way of threats?
  MR. RENTOUL: If the police say they had orders to attend the meeting it is not correct?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have said no orders were given.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there any reason why the police should not attend?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I repeat no orders have been given.

  IRISH LIGHTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has read the letter of the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association, representing the Cunard, White Star, and other great ocean lines, which appears at page 21 of the recently issued Return on Lighthouse Illuminants, and the Report of Captain Bragg to which they refer, respecting the performance of Mr. Wigham's new lighthouse gas light and giant lens, wherein it is stated that the adoption of such a light as the Giant Lens Lighthouse Light and a powerful fog syren on the Old Head of Kinsale would materially increase the safety of the navigation to the mail steamers and other vessels which

  879
  have to make Queenstown a port of call; and whether he will direct the attention of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to it, and to the large amount of corroborative testimony which the Return contains, with the view of their carrying out the request of the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association, and others, that the Giant Lens Lighthouse Light may be placed upon the Old Head of Kinsale?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; I have read the letter referred to in the first paragraph, and a copy of the correspondence has been sent to the Irish Lights Commissioners. It is not the province of the Board of Trade to initiate expenditure out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, or to favour the claims of one inventor in preference to those of others. If the Commissioners make a proposal to me, in the statutory manner, I will take care that it is fully considered.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the improvements in the light at the Old Head of Kinsale, being the substitution of a ten-wick burner in lieu of a four-wick, and the fog signal which the Board of Trade, in their letter of the 2nd November last (Parliamentary Paper No. 92, 1893, page 24), informed the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association they had sanctioned, are to be considered as an adequate satisfaction of the requirements of such Association, as stated in their letter to the Board of the 24th October, 1892; and whether the Board of Trade will move the Commissioners of Irish Lights to take stops to remedy the still existing defects of which the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association complain, by the adoption of the suggestions of their adviser, Captain Bragg?
  MR. MUNDELLA: This is a matter for the discretion of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. As I have already stated, in my answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, if the Commissioners make a proposal in the statutory manner I will take care that it is fully considered.

  ALLEGED BOYCOTTING OF A PROTESTANT RECTOR IN KERRY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the treatment of
  880
  the Rev. Mr. Eagar, Protestant Rector of Killorglin, County Kerry; whether he is aware that a man residing close to the Rectory laid claim to and took possession of a field belonging to the Rector, on the ground that his grandfather occupied it 40 years ago, and that, on being remonstrated with by Mr. Eagar, he threatened to shoot him; that, after this man's conviction at the Killorglin Petty Sessions, threatening notices were posted on Mr. Eagar's gate and hall door; that the men employed to plough up the field were threatened and forced to leave; and that Mr. Eagar, an old man of 80 years of age, is now boycotted; and what steps the police are taking in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As regards this question and that of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for South Antrim for Monday next on the same subject, I am informed that it is a fact that a man named Russell has laid claim to a field belonging to the Killorglin Rectory on the ground that it had been rented by his father 40 years ago; he has not, however, obtained possession of it. Notices were posted in January tolling Mr. Eagar not to sow Russell's field, and warning one of Mr. Eagar's workmen not to work for him. It is not a fact that Russell threatened to shoot Mr. Eagar when remonstrating with him, but some children of Russell's appear to have threatened Mrs. Eagar, who, however, did not proceed against them. The conviction at Killorglin Petty Sessions was on the 3rd inst., and was subsequent to all the notices. It was for trespass of cattle belonging to Russell in another field of Mr. Eagar's. One man usually employed by Mr. Eagar has refused to sow the field in dispute, but the work has been done by others, and to this extent only is Mr. Eagar boycotted. No one has yet been made amenable for the threatening notices.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is not Mr. Eagar actually under police protection?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, but I understand he is carefully watched; constant personal protection is not deemed necessary. The feeling is not so embittered as the question indicates, because a cow of Russell's having been seized in default of the payment of the fine, Mrs. Eagar magnanimously paid the amount of

  881
  the fine and returned the animal to Russell.
  MR. CARSON: Will these facts appear on the official record?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If they come within the proper category they will so appear. No change whatever has been made in procedure in these matters.

  COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of compassionate allowances or special pensions which will be granted to soldiers who served in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny Campaigns and are now infirm; and whether it will be sufficient if they are in necessitous circumstances, although not in such destitution as to require parish relief?
  MR. HANBURY: What steps are being taken to make known the fact of these pensions being available for soldiers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Judging from the number of applications received they are pretty well known. The number of additional pensions of this class to be awarded is at present under consideration. As regards the degree of destitution which will qualify for a pension I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I made to one of his questions on February 9—namely, that though the word scarcely admitted of a general definition, it would be interpreted in a humane spirit by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital according to the merits of each case.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the word "destitute," which is in itself offensive?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Certainly, if the hon. Member will give me a better term.
  MR. LENG: Why not substitute the words "in necessitous circumstances."

  REPORTS ON COLLIERY ACCIDENTS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines on the colliery accident at Ravens-lodge Colliery, Dewsbury, was presented
  882
  to Parliament; and whether he is aware that the annual Reports of all Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines are presented to Parliament; and, that being so, will he reconsider his decision as to the Report of the Inspector on the accident at New Battle Collieries, Midlothian?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQITITH,): The Report to which my hon. Friend refers in the first paragraph was a Report made by the Inspector upon the public inquest which was held after the accident. The Reports referred to in the second paragraph are public Reports prepared for the information of Parliament. It would, in my opinion, be undesirable and greatly hamper the freedom of the Inspectors, if the Secretary of State were unable to receive a Report from the Inspectors on any individual case, without it being in, his discretion to say whether it should be communicated to Parliament or not. I must adhere to my decision with regard to the accident at New Battle Collieries.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to give notice I shall call attention to this matter on the Vote on Account.

  THE MALTESE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  MR. PIER POINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any precedent, and, if so, what, for the appointment of a paid Vice President of the Legislative Council of Malta, and" for the payment of his salary out of the Maltese Civil List?
  MR. S. BUXTON: There is no precedent for the appointment. It is a newly created office. Her Majesty's Government have been fortunate enough to secure the services of Sir Adrian Dingli, and his selection for the post has been generally approved in Malta.

  THE CYPRUS TRIBUTE.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies under what agreement with the French Government part of the Cyprus Tribute is assigned or paid to Turkish bondholders in France?
  MR. S. BUXTON: There is no "agreement" with the French Government; but the money in question is paid

  883
  to them in accordance with the legal principle that, if this country appropriates the surplus revenue of Cyprus to meet the liabilities of the Porte, France should be allowed to participate in the appropriation, as being one of the parties in whose favour the charge was made upon the general revenues of the Porte in case of default.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government that in future the Fishery Board for Scotland shall only receive an annual grant of fixed amount instead of its annual expenses being borne \ on the Estimates as hitherto; whether frequent complaints have been made that the Board's executive functions, particularly as regards sea police, are inadequately discharged owing to want of funds; whether these executive functions, especially as regards the regulation of trawling, have recently been extended; and whether, in view of the fact that a fixing of the grant will prevent the proper exercise of these extended powers and stop any future extension of these and other powers, he will reconsider his decision to limit the grant?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Fishery Board, under the Bill of the Government, will receive a fixed grant and the Brand Fees, which, as I will explain when I introduce the Bill, will place the Board in a better financial position than at present. There are, and always have been, complaints of insufficient protection to the fisheries. The increase in that protection has in past years come from the Admiralty, and the claim of the Scottish Fisheries on the Admiralty will not be affected by the Bill. When the hon. Member has heard my statement I think it possible, and indeed probable, that he will approve the financial proposals of the Bill.

  THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  SIR T. ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will take steps to secure the allocation of a small portion of the grant for the Chicago Exhibition to the representation there of Irish cottage industries;
  884
  and if he is in a position to state how much of the total grant has been devoted to Irish industries?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Royal Commission having received the grant under the condition that they were to have the sole control of the expenditure, I am afraid that I am not in a position to supply information as to details; but I have no reason to believe that the announcement made by the late Attorney General on May 26, 1892, respecting the representation of Irish industries at the Exhibition is not being fully acted upon.

  FORGED TRANSFERS.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether persons registered in the books of the Bank of England as holders of British Government Stocks enjoy the same right to compensation, in case of loss arising through a forged transfer or forged power of attorney, as investors in the stocks of companies which have adopted the provisions of the Forged Transfers Acts, 1891–2?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): On the question itself, the rights to compensation are not the same. One class of persons has statutable rights under the provisions of the Forged Transfers Acts, the other has well-known rights defined by Common Law and a series of cases. The liability of the Bank of England towards a purchaser of Consols is not defined by Statute, and with Stocks transferable in books, such losses as occurred to purchasers of Railway Stocks in the well-known Barton Case are practically impossible. As a matter of fact, no purchaser of Consols has ever had to complain that what was delivered to him was anything else than what he bought, nor has he ever had to defend his right to the Stock which a broker has caused a dealer to transfer into his—the purchaser's—name.

  THE MISUSE OF REVOLVERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has caused inquiries to be made among the Coroners of Great Britain as to the number of deaths caused

  885
  by revolvers; and if so, whether he will communicate the result of those inquiries to the House?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, I have caused such inquiries to be made, and have received a good deal of useful information from Coroners in England and Wales to whom application was made. I hope that all the replies to my Circular will be in shortly, and then, the information being complete, the question of laying it on the Table of the House will be fully considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information, not only as to the deaths, but as to the injuries inflicted?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is much more difficult to get authentic information as to the injuries.
  MR. WHARTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get the Returns of cases tried in Court in which injuries were inflicted with revolvers?
  MR. ASQUITH: I will consider that.
  MR. WEBB: Can similar Returns be obtained for Ireland?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a question for the Chief Secretary to answer.

  HONOLULU POLITICS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement of the Samoan correspondent of The Sydney Morning Herald, 11th February, that the British man-of-war Daphne put in at Apia on 25th January, having on board a person deported from Honolulu for having caused political trouble there; that an attempt was made to land this person, but was abandoned owing to the opposition of the British and United States Consuls, and that thereupon the Daphne left for Fiji with the intention of lauding her prisoner there; whether any official intelligence of these events has reached the Admiralty; and, whether the captain of a British man-of-war is justified in conveying on his ship a political prisoner from Hawaii into exile.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Admiralty has not received any such information, and
  886
  nothing is known about the statement at the Foreign Office, where inqury has been made.

  THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SAMOA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received any official confirmation of the statement of the Samoan correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, 11th February, that Baron Cederkranz, Chief Justice of Samoa, had petitioned the King of Sweden, by whom he had been appointed under the provisions of the Berlin Treaty, for permission to return to Sweden, as he was convinced that the aforesaid Treaty was utterly unworkable.
  SIR E. GREY: Baron Cederkranz is understood to have intimated to the Swedish Government his intention of resigning his post, but we have no information of his having addressed a Petition to the King.

  THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the New Education Code was laid upon the Table on 27th February, but was not issued to Members till 22nd March, and that the month during which the Code has to lie upon the Table before becoming law runs from 27th February with the result that Members have only five days instead of a month to challenge the provisions of the Code; what steps he proposes to take in the matter; and whether he will take care in future that the Code shall not be laid upon the Table in dummy before it is actually ready for distribution.
  MR. ACLAND: I regret the delay which has taken place under the distribution of the New Code. As in former years, full time will be given for its consideration, and no action will be taken on it by the Department until ample and reasonable time has elapsed from the date of its being issued to Members. Every effort will be made, as has been done in the past, that the Code shall be distributed as soon as possible after it is laid on the Table.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Has not a similar failure to present the printed copy occurred in reference to the County Carnarvon Scheme?
  MR. ACLAND: I do not see what that has to do with the question on the Paper. I told the hon. Gentleman the delay was due to the printers, and I am in no way responsible for it.

  NEW SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education how many now School Boards have been formed since the present Government came into office; and how many of such Boards have been created by the Education Department, acting under Section 12 of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," without application by the electors of the district?
  MR. ACLAND: Thirty-one School Boards have been formed since the present Government came into Office. Ten of these have been created under Section 12, Sub-section 2, of the Act of 1870.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in giving a general approval to the principle of a National Pension Scheme for teachers in Public parliamentary Schools, he contemplates the existence of an independent scheme for teachers under the London School Board; and, if so, whether he would regard the London scheme as competitive with or supplemental to the National scheme?
  MR. ACLAND: In giving a general approval to the principle of a National Pension Scheme for teachers in Public Elementary Schools, the Government had not in contemplation any independent partial schemes for teachers under individual School Boards, especially as the Select Committee of the House, appointed in 1891 to examine this question in connection with the Bill promoted by the School Board for London, recommended that that Bill should not be proceeded with.

  IMPROPER ARREST FOR DESERTION.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Francis Hitchcock, a distinguished graduate and ex-scholar of the University of Dublin, who was arrested by Sergeant Dempsey, 4th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, on Friday last, on the ground of being a deserter from the Army; upon what grounds and by what authority Sergeant Dempsey arrested Mr. Hitchcock; whether Mr. Hitchcock was discharged by a magistrate on the grounds that there was no evidence to support the charge; whether an inquiry will be held into the conduct of Sergeant Dempsey in effecting this arrest; and whether any compensation can and will be awarded to Mr. Hitchcock?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: On the same subject may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the Report, appealing in The Times of 21st March, of a prosecution of an alleged deserter, before the Chief Police Magistrate of the City of Dublin, dismissed on the ground of a complete mistake as to the identity of the person charged; and whether for the purpose of preventing such mistakes in future he will consider the desirability of recording the identity of recruits by means of the system of mensuration known and practised in France as anthropometry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts stated appear to be correct. The regrettable incident is attributable apparently to mistaken zeal on the part of the sergeant in question, as to whose conduct an inquiry will be held under the Order of the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. I am not aware that there is any means of compensation in such a case. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, I do not think that the system of measurements which may be useful in the case of criminals is at all applicable to soldiers.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask whether, before the arrest in a case of this kind, the sergeant acts upon a warrant and sworn statement?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware, Sir. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will be good enough to give notice of the question.
  MR. CARSON: What is the authority on which a sergeant arrests a civilian?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not able to answer the question. I do not know whether a general authority is sufficient or whether he requires a special authority. If the hon. and learned Member will put the question on the Paper I will answer it.
  MR. CARSON: Then I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what he means by a "general" authority?
  [The question was not answered.]

  THE BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the statement in The Times telegram of 21st instant, with regard to the Behring Sea Fisheries; and whether he can state what are the present demands of Russia in the matter?
  SIR E. GREY: The statement made in the telegram referred to is in many particulars incorrect. The seizures of British vessels by Russian cruisers last year are still under examination, and the reply of the Russian Government has not yet been received. In reply to the inquiries made by Her Majesty's Government as to the course which the Russian Government intended to pursue in the coming season, the latter have stated that they had no desire to dispute the generally recognised rules as to territorial waters, but in view of the special circumstances caused by the modus vivendi already concluded between Great Britain and the United States, and pending a general International arrangement for the regulation of the seal fishery, they have proposed certain special and provisional measures for the protection of Russian sealing interests which are now under discussion between the two Governments.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it a fact that whatever the claims of Russia may be in her portion of the sea, they will be left entirely unaffected by the result of the arbitration now going on in Paris?
  SIR E. GREY: That is entirely another question of which I must have notice. I have nothing to add to the
  890
  answer I have given to the question on the Paper.

  LIGHTHOUSE IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are unable to carry out important improvements to lighthouses in consequence of the fund available for the purpose—namely, the Mercantile Marine Fund, having been exhausted by the repayment of a loan to Greenwich Hospital; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the necessary money reborrowed, or to otherwise provide funds so that these improvements may be carried out?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Mercantile Marine Fund is not in a prosperous condition, and it is impossible to accede to the demands made upon it by the General Lighthouse Authorities. The demands for new works have increased from £53,000 in 1891 to £109,000 in 1892–93, and £150,000 in 1893–94. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the revenue of the Fund is derived mainly from Light Duos. In the present state of the shipping trade we are anxious, if possible, to avoid the raising of the Light Dues. The Fund is still indebted to Greenwich Hospital to the extent of £150,000, and we cannot increase the loan.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Cannot Parliament supplement the amount?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Parliament already votes £40,000 a year for it.

  SALARIES OF SCOTCH LAW OFFICERS
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in 1875 a Departmental Committee was, appointed by the Treasury to inqui into the system upon which the leg business of the Government was cducted; whether he is aware that first three Reports of the communicate dealing with the English Departments were published, and the salaries of the English Law Officers fixed, in accordance with the recommendations therein contained, but that the Fourth Report, which dealt with the Scotch Department, and recommended the raising of the salary of the Lord Advocate, was not

  891
  published, and no action taken thereon; and whether, in view of the fact that the emoluments of the English Law Officers have been recently increased, he will take into consideration the inadequacy of the salaries of the Scotch Law Officers, as compared with the English and Irish Law Officers?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I believe there was such a Report some 18 years ago upon this subject, but the Government do not contemplate any change in the arrangements with reference to the Scotch Law Officers, which stand upon an entirely different footing to the question of the English Law Officers.

  THE CLASSIFICATION OF RATEPAYERS.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the reason of the delay in delivering the Scotch Return on the classification and distribution of ratepayers?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The body of the Return is complete. A Summary is now being printed, of which the final portion is promised by the Crown Agent at the end of this week. There will remain an abstract of counties, which will complete the Return.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact that the newly-elected Armenian Katholicos Khrimian is still detained at Jerusalem, and is prevented by the Turkish Authorities from prosecuting his journey from there to Etchmiadzin; whether such detention constitutes a violation of those portions of the 62nd Article of the Berlin Treaty, which provides that the freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship are assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organisation of the various communions or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs, and that ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities travelling in Turkey hi Europe or in Turkey in Asia, shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges; and whether the continued imprisonment of the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoun constitutes a violation both of the 61st and
  892
  of the 62nd Articles of the Berlin Treaty?
  SIR E. GREY: No such information has reached the Foreign Office. The Archbishops were tried on charges of sedition. Irregularities are stated to have taken place in the conduct of the trial. Whether the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin have been infringed thereby, and in what measure, can only be ascertained by a strict inquiry on the spot as to the mode in which the trial was carried on, and Her Majesty's Government trust that the Sultan will of his own initiative order such inquiry to be instituted.

  CATTLE DISEASE REGULATIONS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the restrictions on the movement of cattle have been relaxed, and that in future cattle from Dublin dairy yards can be moved for sale into Thursday's market, and that country cattle can be moved into Dublin dairy yards without licence; whether cattle can be moved from Dublin dairy yards into the country; if he is able to say that he has satisfied himself that it is safe to relax these restrictions; and how long the Dublin district has been free from any outbreak of pleuropneumonia.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The restrictions on the movement of cattle have been relaxed, and fat cattle from the Dublin dairy-yards can now be moved for sale to Thursday's market for slaughter within the Dublin scheduled districts only. The movement of the cattle to and from the market must take place on license from the veterinary department and by a specified route; and they can only be brought to a separate portion of the market set apart for their reception. Country cattle can be moved into Dublin dairy-yards without license, but written notice of each such movement must be given to the police. Cattle cannot be moved from Dublin dairy-yards into the country—the restrictions on such movement have not been modified; but if no further outbreak occurs they probably will be relaxed about the 1st May. The veterinary department is satisfied that it is safe to relax the restrictions as above described. The Dublin district has been

  893
  free from any outbreak of pleuropneumonia since the 26th September, 1892.

  THE TAILORS' STRIKE.
  MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with respect to the arrest of three men (William Howell, William Bird, and Robert Burns) in Albemarle Street on Friday, 17th March, their being marched through the streets to Vine Street Police Station by three policemen and there charged with obstructing the footpath, then marched to Marlborough Street Police Court, where the magistrate dismissed them without any fine, was it legal to so arrest the men; is he aware that one of them (at least) was in the road when arrested; had the fact that they were carrying boards headed "Tailors' Strike" anything to do with the arrest; was there any ground for the statement made by one of the men before the magistrate that the arrest was prompted by some tailoring establishment in the locality; and can he state how long since were any sandwich-board men previously so arrested in that locality for obstructing the footpath, and what boards were they carrying?
  MR. ASQUITH: The men were legally arrested (5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 50, s. 79) for wilfully obstructing the footway after being twice cautioned by the police. They were taken on foot in the usual way to be charged at Vine Street, and the police van having left earlier in the day they were then taken on foot to Marlborough Street Police Court, the rule being that when the police courts are open charges received during the day are to be at once referred to the police court of the district. Advertising boards are not allowed to be carried on the footway at all. After being arrested one of the men stepped on to the roadway. The arrest would, however, have been perfectly legal under the Act if made in the roadway. I have satisfied myself that there is no foundation for the suggestions contained in the third and fourth paragraphs. During the last four years 56 persons have been arrested under the Act in that locality (which includes the whole of the C Division). There were 44 convictions, the latest being in May, 1892.
  MR. BURNIE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any conference with the men themselves?
  MR. ASQUITH: I had no conference with the men themselves, but most careful inquiries have been made on the part of the police, and the statements may be absolutely relied on.
  MR. BURNIE: Then I respectfully ask the Home Secretary whether he will be willing to have a conference with the men, and whether he will allow the hon. Member for Durham and myself, who witnessed what took place, to be present at that conference?
  MR. ASQUITH: It would not be a good precedent to have a conference with the men themselves, but I shall be glad to see the hon. Members and hear what facts they have to state on the subject.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask whether, inasmuch as the decision of the magistrates was against the police, it was desirable that the inquiry should be made by them?
  MR. ASQUITH: The question put to me was by what authority the police arrested these men, and for what offence. They are questions that must be within the knowledge of the police. It is obvious that the police must know whether the arrests were prompted or suggested. However, if any further fact can be urged, I shall be glad to have it communicated to me.

  THE LAMBETH CHARITIES.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire whether, in view of the fact that the inquiry instituted in 1891, in consequence of Mr. Henry Dann's Report upon the Lambeth Charities, revealed the necessity for an amalgamation of the Charities and the constitution of a publicly elected Board of Trustees, the Charity Commissioners have taken any steps to bring about the amalgamation as urged by the Vestry of Lambeth; and, if so, what causes the delay in the completion of the scheme; does the proposed scheme, if any, include the Hayles and Walcot estates; and, if not, why not; and, when may the publication of the scheme be expected, and will the local Governing Body (the Vestry) be permitted to offer any amendment to it?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: For some time prior to the year 1891 the Charity

  895
  Commissioners had promoted an amalgamation of the Lambeth Charities, with a view to their management by a representative body of Trustees. It was not, however, until 1891 that the necessary applications from the Trustees of certain of the Parochial Charities were received. In January, 1892, a draft scheme was published amalgamating all the minor eleemosynary Charities founded for the benefit of the whole parish. A draft scheme was published in January, 1892, and objections and suggestions thereon were received from the Vestry of Lambeth, which have been fully considered by the Commissioners. The scheme is now on the point of being established, after a careful revision in connexion with the representations made by the Vestry and others. The proposed scheme does not include the Hayle and Walcot Charities, because the Commissioners have not received the application from the Trustees of those Charities, upon which alone proceedings for their inclusion in the scheme can be taken. As has been already stated, the proposed scheme was published in the course of last year, and the Vestry of Lambeth have had full opportunities, of which it has largely availed itself, of offering suggestions for its amendment.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Lambeth Vestry objected to the scheme by deputation, and that they have received no reply to their objections?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: The scheme has been duly published after careful consideration of the objections of the Vestry.

  HYTHE SCHOOL OF MUSKETRY.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say on what grounds he has made the statement as to the results of an inquiry into the management of the School of Musketry at Hythe, that the Commandant had been reprimanded; and, whether an official Report has been received from Hythe as to the following charges, which appeared in Truth of 3rd November, 1892, and what that Report stated as to the truth of them, namely, that the value of certain refuse was not credited to the men; that barrack damages were charged against the sergeants at the rate of 6d. per man
  896
  per month; that large profits were being sweated out of the men; that the adjutant managed the canteen and audited his own accounts; and that pork was substituted for Government meat ration several days a week?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In my reply to the hon. Member for Northampton I inadvertently used a term which is technically incorrect. The commandant has not been reprimanded, but he has been censured. It seems hardly necessary to go into the detailed allegations contained in the article in Truth, some of which were exaggerated or unfounded; but the grave irregularities disclosed by the inquiry amply justify the action which has been taken.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: By whom was the commanding officer censured?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: By the Military Authorities.

  SCOTCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Parish and District Councils Bill for Scotland before the Easter Recess?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Not before Easter.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Why not extend the principles of the excellent English Bill to Scotland?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: If we have a Local Government Bill for Scotland it will be essentially Scotch.

  LADY GUARDIANS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the returning officer for the election of Guardians has the power to reject the nomination of a married woman who in respect of qualification is the same as though she were a widow?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The practice of the Local Government Board where the question has been raised as to the right of married women to be elected as guardians has been to decline to interfere with the decision of the returning officer. The question is one of law, and is of such importance that if there is to be any decision on the point the Board consider that it should be a decision of

  897
  the High Court. If the Bill which I had the honour of introducing to the House on Tuesday is passed into law, the question will be finally settled, as by one of the provisions of that Bill married women will be qualified to be elected as Guardians.

  IRISH TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. BARTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the final Report of the actuaries appointed to investigate the condition of the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund will be presented; what is the amount of the deficit; by what means it is proposed to restore the solvency of the scheme; and whether it is intended to hand over the administration of the fund to the proposed Irish Government?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Treasury have the Report on the National Teachers' Pension Fund under consideration, and they expect shortly to be able to lay their decision upon it before the House. I am unable in the meantime to anticipate the decision or to state the exact amount of the deficiency. Eventually, of course, the Fund will be administered by the proposed Irish Government.

  BOYCOTTING IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention was called to a meeting held on 25th September 1892, at Brade, near Myrosswood, in the County of Cork, for the purpose of denouncing Captain Townshend, of Myrosswood, for evicting a tenant, at which meeting the Rev. J. Lyons, Administrator, said that he expected the people of that locality had been sufficiently educated to know what their duty was on that occasion, and, knowing it, to act up to it; whether he is aware that, since the delivery of that Speech, Captain Townshend and his family have been subjected to constant annoyance, and that the women belonging to the family of the evicted tenant were recently bound over to keep the peace for molesting Captain Townshend and his mother and sister while going to church; whether he is also aware that letters and notices have been received by the blacksmiths who work for Captain Town-
  898
  shend, and by a neighbouring shopkeeper who has supplied his servants with provisions, threatening them with death; and whether he is taking any steps to put a stop to this system of persecution?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As this question only appeared on the Paper to-day, I must ask for notice in order that I may make inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: And as it attacks individuals, I hope the notice will be sufficient to enable us to make full inquiry.

  THE CASE OF CAPTAIN CHATTERTON.
  COLONEL PALMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what steps were taken at the India Office in the case of Captain Balsir Chatterton before acting on it to ascertain whether the Report of 5th January, 1869, that this officer was malingering, was true before placing him upon half-pay; and whether, under the provisions of Act 21 and 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 56, Her Majesty's royal prerogative could be properly exercised by the Secretary of State without inquiry upon the face of such Report?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Captain Chatterton was not placed on half-pay for malingering, but in the Despatch of 5th January, 1869, the Commander-in-Chief in India and the Government of India recommended his removal to the half-pay list as an officer whose retention on the effective list was in every way most undesirable. The case was fully considered by the Secretary of State for India, who, after consulting H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief, concurred in this recommendation, and placed Captain Chatterton on half-pay accordingly.

  THE RELEASE OF JOHN FOLEY.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state upon what grounds the release has been ordered of John Foley, who was convicted at the Cork Spring Assizes, 1891, under the Explosives Act, of having in his possession an explosive for an unlawful purpose, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude; and whether, before his release, the Judge who tried the case was consulted and recommended such release; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Foley was convicted of having in his possession an explosive under suspicious circumstances, and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, the sentence taking effect from March 21, 1891. In October, 1892, a Memorial was submitted to the Lord Lieutenant praying for Foley's pardon. The learned Judge who tried the case was consulted in due course. He recommended that the sentence should be altered from a period of seven years to five years upon the ground of the comparative youth of the prisoner at the time of the offence; upon the circumstance that he was stated to be the support of his mother; and on the further ground of the peaceful and orderly state of Tipperary. As the conduct of the prisoner has been officially reported to be very good, his detention on the five years' sentence proposed by the Lord Chief Justice would, by prison Rules, have come to an end in December, 1894. On the Lord Chief Justice's Report, it appeared to me, on a survey of all the circumstances, that the three convictions which induced the Judge to suggest mitigation of sentence, pointed to a somewhat longer mitigation, and it was decided that a completed term of two years would meet the justice of the case. Foley was accordingly released on March 21, on licence.
  MR. CARSON: What were the grounds stated by the Lord Chief Justice for recommending that the number of years should be reduced from seven to five?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Surely that is what I have stated.
  MR. CARSON: What are the mitigating circumstances which induced the Chief Secretary to reduce the five years to two?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is not a reduction from five years to two. If the advice of the Lord Chief Justice had been taken, Foley would have been out at the end of 1894; he would, therefore, have served three years and nine months. He has served two completed years. On reviewing all the circumstances, we felt that the Lord Chief Justice had not carried mitigation so far as we should have done; the considerations which led him to propose a partial mitigation led us to carry it one year and nine months
  900
  further. That is the full extent of the mitigation we have made.

  LOCAL LABOUR CORRESPONDENTS.
  MR. SAMUEL HOARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. J. Robinson, recently appointed Local Labour Correspondent for the Norfolk and Suffolk District, has any personal or local knowledge of the important labour questions in the City of Norwich; whether any, and, if so, what, labour organisations in the City of Norwich are associated with the Eastern Counties Labour Federation, of which, it is stated, Mr. Robinson is General Secretary; and whether there has been any communication from labour organisations, or others in Norwich or Norfolk, on the subject of Mr. Robinson's appointment?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is impossible to employ Local Correspondents in every city and town in the United Kingdom, and it is not intended that these shall be the sole channels of information for the Labour Department. We shall endeavour to arrange for communications from Trade Organisations in Norwich and elsewhere.

  THE SCOTCH PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what class or classes of persons Her Majesty's Government expect to enfranchise in Scotland by the abolition of the disqualification from non-payment of rates; and whether he has considered that it may be more difficult to secure the payment of rates when the motive for paying, as a condition of exercising the franchise, has been removed.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Parliament has enacted that the payment of rates should not be a condition of the Franchise with regard to owners, and the Government, holding that to be a right decision, desire to place occupiers in the same position as owners. As to the class who will be enfranchised, occupiers who have been exempted by the Parochial Board from the payment of rates, and occupiers who have failed to pay their rates by the 20th June will enjoy the Franchise, just as owners enjoy it now. As to the last part of the question,

  901
  there is no reason for employing the Franchise as a motive for inducing men to pay their rates, which ought to be enforced by the ordinary legal process.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: My question has not been answered at all. I do not gather what class is to be enfranchised.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Broadly speaking, the occupiers who have been exempted by Parochial Boards from payment of rates, and those who have not paid their rates by a given day. Now under this Bill these occupiers will be placed in the same position as owners.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government will delay taking the Second Reading of the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Amendment Bill until the Return ordered by the House on 28th February has been presented and circulated.
  SIR G. TREVEYLAN: No, Sir. In the opinion of the Government, the question of the payment of rates ought to have no connection with the Franchise.

  ILLEGAL SEIZURES.
  MR. BARTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state how many, if any, statutable misdemeanours were aided and abetted by the police in Ireland under the late administration, in contravention of 14 & 15 Vic., c. 57, s. 148.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already stated that in a certain number of cases, primâ facie, and upon the reports submitted to me, seizures were made or attempted in contravention of the Statute. Of course, the information sought as to statutable misdemeanours definitely committed could only be given after a trial by Judge and Jury competent to deal with conflicting evidence.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has declined to give the Sheriffs any chance of testing these cases lest it should lead to an action at law, will he give a list to the several Sheriffs charged with the breaches of the law so that they may offer explanation upon them.
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir. I have already said no good result would be gained, as the dispute is solely between
  902
  the police and the sheriffs, and I am not prepared to give access to confidential Reports.

  THE HOWARD DE WALDEN CASE.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he has yet decided upon the expediency of taking proceedings against the witness for the respondent or other persons for perjury, subornation of perjury, or conspiracy in connection with the case of Howard de Walden v. Howard de Walden.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have been asked to answer this question. The matter has been submitted to the Public Prosecutor, who having carefully considered all the circumstances does not feel himself justified in undertaking a prosecution.

  THE TREASURY MINUTE AS TO LAW OFFICERS' FEES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the increased scale of fees payable to the Law Officers under the new Treasury Minute will entail any increased costs to unsuccessful private litigants in cases in which the Crown is plaintiff or defendant; and whether there is any class of business (other than that done for special Departments of the State) in which the Attorney or Solicitor General is engaged virtute officii.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that this will be a matter for the Taxing Master.
  MR. HANBURY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the question in the first paragraph.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think the Taxing Master would be governed by any scale fixed by the Treasury for the remuneration of its own Law Officers.

  THE WELSH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the terms of the Welsh Land Commission will direct or empower the Commissioners to allow counsel or solicitors to attend and be heard on behalf of any parties whose interests may be affected, and cross examine any witnesses whose evidence may be given before the Commission.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, ): The question appears to me to fall within the scope of an answer which I gave on Tuesday last. It is strictly a matter of procedure, and all those matters must be determined by the Commissioners themselves.

  SATURDAY SITTINGS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that owing to the Sitting of the House on Saturday 11th March, the employés in the printing office were obliged to spend a great part of Sunday in preparing the Votes and Parliamentary Papers for distribution to Members on Monday morning; and, if so, whether he will, in future, arrange the business of the Government in such a way as to allow, at least, one day's rest in the week to the officers engaged in the service of the House of Commons.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If I understand the question aright, it refers to Saturday Sittings which may interfere with the Sabbath rest of the printers. My answer is that we have no control over the proceedings of the printers; but at the same time I admit that it is conceivable that Saturday Sittings, especially if they are prolonged to a late hour, may make it very difficult to regulate the business so as to avoid Sunday labour. Such a consideration should make us extremely reluctant to have Saturday Sittings if we can avoid them.

  THE WELSH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether all appointments in private patronage are excluded from the operation of the Welsh Suspensory Bill; and, if so, whether he can inform the House of the number of such preferments in Wales and Monmouthshire?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: They will be excluded from the scope of the Bill, and no doubt the numbers can be given in the form of a Return.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: Is the great living of Hawarden within the operation of the Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is within the operation of the Bill geographically, but it will be in the same category as all other private advowsons.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: And therefore is not affected by the Bill.

  THE UNIFICATION OF LONDON.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the proposed inquiry with regard to the Unification of London, and of the importance of retaining all the Trust Funds for the benefit of Londoners, the Government will give facilities for the passing of the Corporate Associations Property Bill, now before the House, or whether the Government will undertake to legislate upon this subject, with the view of preventing the alienation of any portion of the Corporation or City Companies?
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: May I ask whether the alienation of any portion of the Corporation or City Companies can be effected without an Act of Parliament?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is beyond the power of the Government to do any thing further until they have considered the proposed legislation on the subject.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consent to grant the Return as to the Income and Expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London, the Irish Society, and the Commissioners of Sewers, as mentioned in the Notice on the Paper for this day?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will answer that question. The Corporation of London have issued, in accordance with their practice for many years, a Report showing in great detail the Receipts and Expenditure of the Corporation, including those of the Commissioners of Sewers, for 1891. The Report, which is a volume of nearly 300 pages, has been freely distributed. The accounts of the Irish Society for the same year have also been published. Looking to the full information which is thus given, I see no sufficient reason for assenting to the Return proposed.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make any statement as to the Royal Commission on the Unification of London?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The names of the Commissioners have already been published in the newspapers, but I may say that the Commission will be presided

  905
  over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), and consists of Sir Thomas Farrer, Mr. Crawford, City Solicitor, the Mayor of Liverpool, and the Town Clerk of Birmingham.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: What will be the scope of the inquiry?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: When the Commission is issued its scope will appear from the Paper to be laid on the Table.

  THE BALLOT FOR PRECEDENCE.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the desirability of providing some method for obtaining the signatures of Members to those Bills and Motions which excite the most general interest, and for doing away with the ballot, which often prevent the most important questions from coming on at all?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Member gives to myself and my colleagues credit for more power to deal with difficulties of procedure than, perhaps, we actually possess. This is one of the most difficult questions in relation to procedure that could possibly be raised. I do not myself pretend to see my way through it. I admit that there are very strong arguments to be made in favour of some proposal of this sort; but, so far as I have yet seen, I am not sure that the arguments in the other direction are not stronger still. At any rate, I think the subject will be be thoroughly investigated when the attention of the House is directed to it.

  COMMISSION ON LAND TENURE IN WALES.
  MR. RAN DELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the interest of labour, he will be pleased to make provision for the direct representation of the farm labourers on the Royal Commission on Tenure of Land in Wales?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I would remind the hon. Member that the inquiry by the Welsh Land Commission is not properly or primarily, or otherwise than incidentally, connected with the condition of the labourer. The condition of the labourer has quite recently been
  906
  made the subject of a separate inquiry. The object of the Commission is to examine and inquire into the conditions and circumstances under which land in Wales and Monmouthshire is held, occupied, and cultivated. It is, in fact, speaking briefly and summarily, a Property Tenancy Commission. Still, I admit that the question of the condition of the labourer is connected with it, and that circumstance has not been overlooked. A Welsh barrister was recently appointed, by the Labour Commission as an Assistant Commissioner to inquire into the condition of the agricultural labourer in Wales. His Report will shortly be in circulation; and thus, I think, provision has been made for bringing the condition of the agricultural labourer in Wales within the purview of a body appointed to deal with such questions.
  MAJOR JONES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the preponderating importance of sheep farming in four or more Welsh counties, he will consider the advisability of giving representation to this branch of agriculture on the Welsh Land Commission?
  MR. KENYON: May I ask whether the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me the other day does not apply to this question—namely, that the matters are practically under the control of the Commissioners?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The question is as to the constitution of the Commission itself, and is not unreasonable. The answer is that we have appointed two practical and experienced Welsh tenant farmers on the Commission, and there is also on it a gentleman conversant with the varied tenure under which sheep-walks in Wales are held and used. Our belief is that the provision we have thus made is adequate.

  PAPER CURRENCY IN IRELAND.
  SIR T. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the authorised note circulation of the banks of issue in Ulster, and also of the banks in the other three Provinces; what is the average additional circulation of those banks against coin held; and if such circulation, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland

  907
  Bill, would be under the control of the Irish Parliament, to tax or supersede in favour of a paper currency monopoly by a State bank.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have applied for the information asked for in this question, and it is as follows: The banks having their head offices in Ulster have an authorised note circulation of £836,130. Their average actual circulation during the mouth of January last exceeded their authorised issue by £928,551. The banks having their head offices in other parts of Ireland have an authorised issue of £5,518,364. Their average actual circulation during the same month fell short of their authorised issue by £1,196,146. The Irish Legislature is prohibited under the Irish Government Act from passing any law with respect to legal tender, that being a matter which is held to be of Imperial concern. Subject to this restriction, and subject also to the provisions of Clause 4 for the protection of property, my impression is that the Irish Parliament would have authority to deal with the question of the issue of bank notes.
  SIR T. LEA: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to place any limitation on the issue of paper currency by any future Irish Government, or upon their power to constitute such issue a legal tender in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The important part of that question depends upon the question of what constitutes legal tender. That is already completely settled and disposed of by the provision in the Bill which would prevent an Irish Parliament dealing with the question of legal tender.

  THE VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware Votes on Account were brought forward in 1892 on 17th, 18th, and 21st March; in 1891 on 16th and 17th March, besides dates in May, 25th, 26th, and 28th; in 1890 on 28th February, and on 20th and 21st March; in 1889 on 21st, 22nd, and 25th March, besides two dates in May, 28th and 29th; and whether, in reference to the above, he will so arrange as to allow similar time for the Vote on Account this year?
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is able to state now for what period the sum of money to be obtained by this Vote on Account will suffice, whether for two or three months?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That will appear when the Vote is presented to the House. I have not heard what arrangement has been made, nor does it, properly speaking, belong to my Department. As to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston, I am not quite agreed with him in his recital. Before the end of May it is certain that another Vote on Account must be asked for. The question of the hon. Member seems to assume that the Vote on Account is a process so large as to require several days for discussion. Independently of the Report, which is generally treated as a matter of form, it is quite true that three days were expended in 1889 and two in 1890 on the Vote on Account, but that was due mainly to a special arrangement for the discussion of questions of great importance—one relating to the Parnell Commission in 1889, and one relating to another matter in 1890. In 1891, when no such questions were raised, the Vote on Account took one day, and in 1892 a day and a half. My answer to the general question is that there is quite sufficient time in the coming week for the House to deal with this subject.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Is it not a fact that on the 21st of March, 1892, there were divisions and debates on the Report stage, and were there not, therefore, three days devoted to the Vote on Account in 1892?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Report is of course taken on a separate day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With reference to the answer just given, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any case in which the Vote on Account was attempted to be taken at so late a date as the week before Easter Sunday, and whether he, at all events, will give us a Pledge that it shall be taken as the first Order on Monday?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In answer to the question of right hon. Gentleman, I may say that I have stated before that our taking the Vote on

  909
  Monday must depend entirely upon the progress of business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he has himself considered that the existence of important questions that may be raised on the Vote on Account is an adequate reason for taking three days for the discussion—and that at a time when the House was in full Session, and all the Members could easily be present—he does not consider it a very serious violation, I will not say of our privilege, but of our ordinary practice, that a discussion on a Vote on Account should be deferred to so late and inconvenient a, day as Tuesday, and that on that day even we are not promised an adequate time for discussion?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: So far as I am acquainted with the circumstances, there is ample time at the disposal of the House for discussion. I consider the comparison with 1889 is a comparison, though I pass no censure on the right hon. Gentleman, totally out of place. In my deliberate judgment, and I think in the judgment of those who sit on this side of the House, the question of the Parnell Commission was one of the greatest questions recently raised in this House from a constitutional point of view, and the arrangement made in regard to that was an arrangement that was come to with the general consent of the House. So far as we know, there is this year no special subject connected with the Vote on Account, while in other ways the circumstances of the year are not exceptional. Under these circumstances we believe we are justified in the course we are taking, which arises out of the emergency of the Public Service.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that there are certain broad issues connected with the Government of Ire-laud which cannot be raised in any other way except on the Vote on Account, and that other Gentlemen sitting on this Bench in previous Parliaments have thought themselves justified, in cases certainly not more grave, in asking that a special day should be given for a Vote of Censure on the Government?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It seems to me that the House has had very considerable opportunities for the dis-
  910
  cussion of questions dealing specially with the circumstances of Ireland. The House may recollect that we have had a discussion of very considerable length upon the condition of a County in Ireland, a condition which had been allowed to slumber until the present Government came into office. There are no broad issues before us. If there had been such broad issues we believe they would have been made known to us, and arrangements would have been made for dealing with them long ago.
  DR. CAMERON: May I ask the Prime Minister, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to a Vote of Censure, whether, if he chooses to move one, the Government will not give him a day for it?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to indicate assent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to imply that the Government would prefer that the discussion on the question of the Irish Government should take place on Monday next on a Vote of Censure?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make a Motion of that kind, when he conveys it we shall be prepared to deal with it.
  MR. BALFOUR: Very well, Sir; as I am challenged by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to request that he will give us Monday next for the discussion of a Vote of Censure.
  Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be ignorant that while it is the prerogative and fair right of the Opposition to request a special day when they intend to move a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government, it is not at all usual for the Opposition to take into its own hands, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, the appointment of a particular day. The choice of the day must depend upon those who have the chief responsibility for the arrangement of public business, namely, the Government of the day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely accept the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but I may remind him in the way of personal explanation that I only made a suggestion in reference to what I considered as a challenge from the right hon. Gentleman. May I then

  911
  modify my request, so as to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, by asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will give us a convenient day before the Easter holidays, and before hon. Gentlemen are taken away from their duties in the House?
  An HON. MEMBER: Thursday.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Good Friday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (continuing): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us a convenient day before Easter?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What I shall do is this—I shall adhere in this important matter to the usual fixed and well-known course of procedure. When the right hon. Gentleman declares his intention of putting down the Motion he proposes to move, we shall be prepared to deal with it and to consider what day we will give him.

  THE WELSH CHURCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. WILSON-TODD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the Second Reading of the Welsh Church Suspensory Bill, whether he would undertake to give a list of the endowments attached to all Nonconformist places of worship in Wales?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE;I quite admit that this is a question of very considerable interest, but we have no power of complying with the terms of the question. I may be permitted, however, to mention that Mr. Cubitt, when a Member of this House, took upon himself the pains and responsibility of making a good deal of inquiry about Nonconformist endowments, and was able to deliver a speech upon the subject of very great historical interest in this House. Perhaps I may be allowed to recommend the hon. Member to follow the example of Mr. Cubitt.

  GRAND COMMITTEES AND THE CLOSURE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Sir G. Osborne Morgan), as Chairman of the Grand Committee on Law, by what authority under the Rules of the House relating to Grand Committees he had that day put the
  912
  Closure on a discussion upon an Amendment to the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill?
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: My reply is that I put forward no claim to exercise the power of Closure possessed by the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. I acted under Rule 271 of the Standing Orders, which provides that the proceedings of Grand Committees are to be the same as those of Select Committees. I have probably attended as many Select Committees as most Members in the House, and I know it is not an uncommon thing for the Chairman of a Select Committee, when a subject has been thoroughly exhausted, to say that the time has arrived when the question ought to be put, and to put it. This was exactly what I did. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had been under discussion for three-quarters of an hour on Monday and over half an hour to-day, and I am bound to say that the discussion was of a rather discursive character. It appeared to me that if no limit were put to the Debate there was no reason why it should not go on for ever. I, therefore, put the Question, acting on the precedent created by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of War (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) last year in the Standing Committee on the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill. I may be permitted to say that unless some power of shortening discussion were vested in the Chair it would be perfectly impossible to carry on the proceedings of Grand Committees, and I myself should most humbly and respectfully decline the honour of acting as Chairman.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONthen asked Mr. Speaker whether the Chairman of a Grand Committee had the right to put the Question when the discussion of an Amendment was proceeding?
  MR. T. M. HEALYinquired whether that course was not adopted when the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill of the late Government was under discussion?
  DR. CAMERONasked Mr. Speaker whether it was in order to question him as to the order of proceedings on Grand Committees?
  MR. SPEAKER: I can only interpret the Standing Orders of the House. The

  913
  Standing Orders do not authorise the Closure as practised in the House to be put in force in Standing Committees or in Select Committees; but, of course, there is an inherent right in the Chairman of a Select Committee or a Standing Committee, if he see that the transaction of business is becoming impossible, to shorten a discussion. It might not be technically right to make the Motion, "That the Question be now put," but I understand that the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) in the former case was generally sanctioned. I believe in that case the right hon. Gentleman did allow discussion of an Amendment for a limited time, and that the Committee agreed to that course. No doubt there is no such thing as Closure in a Standing Committee.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire whether he contended that when he put the Question the state of things was such that the transaction of business was becoming impossible?
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not state that that was the case on this Committee, but that the matter was entirely in the discretion of the Chairman.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he was merely adopting Mr. Speaker's test, and he wished to know from the Member for Denbighshire whether that test could be said to have been fairly applied to what took place on the Grand Committee.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Yes, Sir, I think it could.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYinquired whether it was not the fact that the contention of those who were at the time criticising the clause under discussion was almost immediately afterwards admitted by the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith).
  MR. ASQUITH: I would like to answer that question at once by saving that such was not the case.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked Mr. Speaker what course could be adopted by hon. Members in the case of a Bill which had been irregularly dealt with in its passage through a Grand Committee in consequence of inattention to the Rules of the House on the part of the Chairman?
  MR. SPEAKER: It will be enough to put that question when the case arises. I cannot undertake to answer prospective or hypothetical questions.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Then, Sir, how can the matter be brought to your attention or under the notice of the House? An irregularity has, according to your ruling, been committed, the Closure not being possible to be put in a Grand Committee. But the Closure has been put, and I want to know how we can bring this irregularity forward.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not stated that any irregularity has occurred, but if the hon. Member thinks the Bill has passed through the Grand Committee under the shadow of an irregularity, and that some impropriety has taken place, it will be competent for him to raise the question by Motion in this House.
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir, I beg to give notice that on the Report of the Bill I shall move that it be recommitted to the Grand Committee.

  THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Suspensory Bill for Scotland, which is down for to-day, is to be proceeded with or definitely dropped?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is not to be proceeded with to-day. I will take care to announce beforehand when it is to be taken.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

  RELEASE OF JOHN FOLEY.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I beg to ask for permission to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a matter of definite public importance,—namely, the danger to public peace, security, and property in Ireland caused by the condonation of serious crime by the Executive Government.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask you, as the interpreter of the Standing Orders of the House, a question of Order arising out of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. You have now occupied the Chair during nearly the whole of the period in which this Rule has been in operation, and you have reasonably claimed to exercise a discretion when you should or should not

  915
  put the Question. You have sometimes barred the way. [Cries of "Order!"] I am quite in Order. You have sometimes, Sir, barred the way on the ground that the matter was not a definite one, and at other times that the matter was not one of urgent public importance. Now, Sir, I submit to you that the only matter raised to-day to justify a Motion of this kind is the question of the exercise of the clemency of the Crown in an individual case, as between two years' imprisonment which the Crown thinks enough, and 3¾ years to which he was sentenced by the Judge. If that be not the ground of the Motion, I should like to ask whether the Motion in its original terms declares such a matter of urgent public importance—I submit that it is wholly indefinite—as to justify the hon. Member in interrupting the ordinary course of business.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman admits that it is in my discretion to permit or refuse a question, but, at the same time, he seems rather to impose upon me a particular course. I am not complaining of that. If I held that the question was wanting either in definiteness or public importance, I should have taken the extreme course which, as the hon. Gentleman says, I have taken on other occasions. But I do not think that in this case I can do otherwise than leave it to the judgment of the House whether the matter is really of sufficient urgency and importance to justify a Motion for Adjournment. The hon. and learned Member proposes to move the Adjournment for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent pubilc importance, namely—
  "The release, by the Executive Government in Ireland, of John Foley, a convict, sentenced to seven years' penal servitude under the 'Explosives Act, 1883.'"
  MR. SEXTON: He did not read that.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Foley's name was never mentioned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Gentleman has altered the Motion which he read, as it is competent for him to do. The House will recollect that the late Mr. Parnell did the same thing.
  *The pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less
  916
  than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  MR. BARTONsaid if any apology were necessary for the Motion he was about to make it would be furnished by a reference to the conversation which took place across the Table a few minutes ago. Many Members believed that there was a desire on the part of the Government to escape from criticism on these urgent Irish questions, and this belief had been confirmed by the promptitude with which the challenge given by the Prime Minister had been accepted by the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. T. M. HEALYrising to Order, asked whether the hon. Gentleman was entitled to discuss the question—whether time for the discussion of a Vote of Censure should have been granted by the Government?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has obtained leave to move the Adjournment of the House on the understanding that he confines himself strictly to the question.
  MR. BARTONsaid the release of John Foley had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, to be exceptional. He (Mr. Barton) ventured to say that it was almost unprecedented. He would not say it was quite unprecedented, because the Government themselves had supplied a precedent in the release of the Gweedore prisoners. [Loud Cries of " Order!" from the Nationalist Members.]
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLrising to Order, asked Mr. Speaker whether free discussion was not one of the principles of Parliament?
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will leave it to me to see that the Rules are not broken. Of course it is allowable to make allusions, but the hon. Gentleman, as I have already said, must keep himself strictly to the terms of his Notice.
  MR. BARTONwent on to say that except for the precedents created by the Government themselves, there were, he believed, no precedents whatever for the proceedings which were the subject of his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had accepted the humane reasons given by the Judge for the conclusion at which he had arrived, but had objected to the advice and the decision of the Judge.

  917
  The decision of the Government was a political decision. This was not the first time, however, that the Executive Government had tried to shelter themselves behind the ermine of the Judge. The right hon. Gentleman had said the prisoner had hitherto conducted himself well in prison, and if his good conduct had continued, he would have been entitled to have his sentence shortened. Surely such a reason had never before been given for the release of a prisoner. The right hon. Gentleman in giving that reason, had assumed that the prisoner's good conduct would be continued for two years. What were the circumstances of the case? He (Mr. Barton) had obtained them from a report published in The Cork Daily Herald, which was the newspaper of the Majority of the Irish Nationalist Members. The prosecution was conducted in the first instance by Mr. Wright, one of the most distinguished members of the Irish Bar, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Redmond Barry, one of the ablest members at the Bar. The Judge who tried the case, Chief Justice O'Brien, most fairly reminded the jury, in summing up the case, that they ought to put aside every consideration in regard to the serious state of affairs that prevailed in Tipperary, and the prejudice that the state of affairs might arouse in their minds, and to remember that the only question for them to consider was the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. There could not, therefore, be any suggestion against the fair conduct of the trial, and this was further confirmed by the fact that the prisoner did not use all the challenges of the jury which he had at his disposal. He had 20, but used only 17. What better indication could there be that the prisoner was satisfied with the jury, when he did not avail himself of his full right of challenge. He did not think there could be any question of the guilt of the prisoner, though it had sometimes happened when such matters were discussed in the House that some hon. Member had raised doubts on the point, simply, he ventured to think, in order to draw away attention from the true nature of the case. Moreover, the nature of the defence was rather an appeal to the jury on account of the youth of the prisoner than a really
  918
  serious contest as to his guilt. The jury took only a quarter of an hour to come to a conclusion, and the Judge, in passing sentence said, that no man could doubt the guilt of the prisoner. Now, as to the nature of the offence with which the prisoner was charged. He was indicted under the Explosives Act, 1883,—a Statute of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the parent—for having an explosive in his possession. The evidence of the police, who had been long watching him, showed that the prisoner had been for months in the neighbourhood, that he attended every market there, and that during this time he took a very active part in the work of boycotting. He was described by the police as a member of the Vigilance Committee in Tipperary, and was seen frequently in the company of two men, one of whom afterwards pleaded guilty to a charge of printing and publishing a boycotting notice of a a serious kind, and the other was convicted of a similar offence connected with boycotting in Tipperary. On the day of his arrest the prisoner was watching a boycotted shop, and when asked to explain his conduct he could not do so. He was accordingly arrested by Sergeant Stacy on the charge of boycotting, and taken on the way to the police barracks. Fortunately in the interest of Justice they were followed by another constable at some distance. The first thing the prisoner was observed to do by the constable behind was to take from his pocket a large number of papers which he threw upon the ground. He then took a dark substance from his pocket and threw it on the ground when it made a loud noise. The constable at once ran up and shouted to Sergeant Stacey to stop, and they both examined the object to see what it was. While they were doing so the prisoner, in a derisive way said, "I'll give you a match," showing how completely and absolutely he was aware of the nature of the object, and how little he was ashamed of his guilt. The explosive consisted of a pipe made of lead and loaded with gunpowder. It might be said that this after all was not a very serious form of explosive, and he admitted that it was of rude charater, and that it lacked the artistic finish of the dynamite machine constructed in

  919
  America on modern principles. But it was proved at the trial that it was by means of such explosives that the various explosions in Tipperary had been committed. The constables swore that one man was laid up for three weeks through injuries caused to him by such an explosive; that a servant of Mr. Smith-Barry was injured by another such explosive and laid up for six weeks, and that Mr. Smith-Barry's rent-office was nearly burnt down by another such explosive.
  MR. DIAMOND: This has nothing to do with Foley's guilt.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid that might be so, but it would have very much to do with the explanation which he asked from the Chief Secretary. Why were those explosives used? When boycotting failed to do its purpose, the explosive was resorted to as the ultimate form of pressure. It was proved, for instance, in the case of a man named Duggan, that after he had courageously resisted boycotting for a long time, and this form of pressure had failed, an explosive was thrown into his shop, and the man joined the Plan of Campaign the following day. That incident explained the object of the explosions; and, if anyone desired to minimise their seriousness he would reply, that it had often been said in extenuation of the dynamite outrages in London that they were more calculated to injure property than persons; but in this case injury was actually done to both persons and property, and therefore the outrages, though perpetrated with gunpowder and not dynamite, were of a serious character. What were the reasons why clemency was exercised in the case? He thought it was very unfortunate that the Chief Secretary should himself have gone to Tipperary when this disorderly state of things existed. It was a matter which he thought the right hon. Gentleman must now view with considerable regret. The right hon. Gentleman, with his full knowledge of the present condition of Ireland and his free knowledge of some of the effects of the visit, must have regretted ever having made it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know whether the Chief Secretary's visit to
  920
  Tipperary has anything to do with the question of the reduction of the sentence on Foley to two years' imprisonment?
  MR. SPEAKERdid not reply.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid he regretted to say there were persons who thought they had grounds for believing that the visit of the Chief Secretary to Tipperary might have had something to do with the mitigation of the sentence on the prisoner. And, for his own part, he did not think that the view was altogether unworthy of belief; because the fact of the right hon. Gentleman going there, and, in a manner, identifying himself with the conspiracy, must at least have rendered his task very difficult, when afterwards he had to discharge the important duty of advising Her Majesty with reference to the prerogative of mercy in the cases of men who were mixed up in the lower phases of that conspiracy with the chief leaders of which he had identified himself. Shortly after this time there was held in Tipperary a meeting of the local branch of the Federation which was the organization of that part of the Nationalist Party which was more closely associated with the Party of the Chief Secretary, at which the Rev. Mr. Humphreys, who was in the chair, referred to the sentence on Foley.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether what Father Humphreys said has any bearing on the condonation of crime by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. SPEAKER: We had better hear the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid he had omitted to explain that if it were not for the circumstances that surrounded this case he would never have thought of rising to call attention to the matter; if this were an ordinary exercise of clemency in the ordinary way the business of the House would never have been interrupted, but it was in consequence of the surrounding circumstances that led up to it that made them think it was a matter deserving the attention of the House and the country, and he felt bound to say the continuous interruptions of hon. Gentlemen near him induced him to believe that his observations had, in the eyes of those hon. Gentlemen, only too much bearing on the question, and he would therefore proceed as he had

  921
  intended. ["Oh."] He thought hon. Gentlemen would do well if they did not emphasise the serious points of the case by those interruptions. The chairman at that meeting, in the course of his speech, which was mainly taken up with attacks upon two hon. Members, said:—
  "If you want further proof of the strength of our position, look to the savage sentences inflicted upon three young men by ' Peter the Packer.' "
  Of the Judge he would only say the reason why he had incurred the anger and brought down upon himself the abuse of hon. Members near him was that in a difficult moment in the history of his country he faithfully discharged his duty. And as he had previously pointed out, it was directly relevant to this charge because "Peter the Packer" was the name used by a supporter of Her Majesty's Government in connection with these trials. As he had pointed out, before the very same course was pursued in regard to juries by Mr. Justice O'Brien and by the Solicitor General since the Government had come into office.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I rise to Order, Sir. What has the subject of jury-packing to do with the sentences?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is deviating from the point.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid his excuse must be that in defending other cases the question of jury packing was used by the Government as a reason for departing from the general rule. But now he would ask what reasons were the Government to give for the course they had pursued—would they follow the reasons which were given in the former case of the Gweedore prisoners? He did not know what the reason would be, but he thought the matter called for serious explanation. Nobody could deny the seriousness of the offence or the fairness of the trial. Nobody could say that the prisoner was innocent. The right hon. Gentleman would therefore have to explain his departure from the invariable rule in such cases.
  MR. J. MORLEY: What rule?
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: The ordinary rules for exercising the prerogative mercy. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should ask him what they were, as he had
  922
  shown himself singularly wanting in his appreciation of them.
  MR. J. MORLET: The hon. and learned Gentleman charges me with departing from rules. I want to know what rules he charges me with departing from?
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was departing from the practice which he believed had always been followed in these cases, of exercising the prerogative of mercy on the advice of the Judge upon principles of public justice, and not for, as he believed, political and Party reasons. He would not further pursue the subject which called for explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, and he ventured to think the right hon. Gentleman would find it difficult to prove that he had not used the law in Ireland in the manner suggested. He was not at liberty in discussing this Motion to refer to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had relaxed some of the rules; but in this case he did suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had seriously injured the character of the administration of the law in Ireland and in the country at largo. Had the right hon. Gentleman in this case gone to the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain for advice, or to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? From whom had he obtained the advice upon which he acted? The right hon. Gentleman had certainly not followed the advice of the learned Judge who presided at the trial. [Interruption, and cries of "Order!"]
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: I rise to Order, Sir, and ask that my hon. and learned Friend be protected from the constant and unmannerly interruptions he has been subjected to.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not heard any observations that were improper.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid this case merely illustrated how the right hon. Gentleman had used the opinions of Judges when it suited him, and departed from them when it served some political purpose, and in that and other respects he had not merely in the immediate present injured the cause of order in that country, but had done what was worse—left a permanent stain upon the character of the Judicial Bench, and perverted, for Party purposes, the prerogative of mercy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Dunbar Barton.)
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER MR. ARNOLD FORSTER, on a point of Order, said the observations to which he had referred had not been, and were not intended to be, brought to the attention of the Speaker; but he had heard them, and it was impossible for hon. Members to do their duty properly when subjected to remarks made for the purpose and object of interrupting Members in the course of their speeches. When he rose to Order the Speaker told him that he was not aware of the interruptions to which reference had been made. The hon. Member and his friend near him, however, were aware of them, and it was difficult, if not impossible, for hon. Members belonging to the minority of the Irish Representatives to address the House properly if they were to be subjected to constant interruptions of the character he referred to.
  MR. DIAMOND: After the hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark, I said, "Fancy an hon. Member who has made an untrue statement about the Chief Secretary, and declining to apologise for it, speaking in this way."
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course interruptions do not always reach my ear, but I trust that hon. Members will abstain from interruptions, and allow the Debate to be continued.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I really do not think I need detain the House for more than two or three minutes in answering the case the hon. and learned Member attempted to make. In my ten years' experience in this House I have seen a good many Motions for Adjournment moved, but I have never heard such Motions moved, without offence to the hon. and learned Gentleman, upon such a beggarly ground. The hon. Gentleman has not gone for a moment into the merits of the only matter before the House, viz., the decision of the Irish Government. He has travelled over an enormous number of questions, but into the merits of the Motion he has not attempted to go. He laboured through a long account of what happened at Tipperary, but that has not the least to do with the particular question which he interrupted
  924
  the business of the House in order to put before the House, which was whether this man ought to have had one year and nine months' imprisonment or not. That is the whole question, and when the hon. and learned Member begs the House to excuse him for his irrelevance, I think that the House knew very well why his speech was irrelevant. It was because he had nothing whatever to say in support of his case—that he talked of the surrounding circumstances of his Motion. We knew very well what the surrounding circumstances of his Motion are. They have the same surrounding circumstances that attended a previous Motion for the adjournment of the House, and which marked the proceedings of hon. Gentlemen opposite on matters far more important than the case they are now feigning to discuss; the surrounding circumstances are the fear lest the business of the House should progress. The hon. and learned Member implied, I do not believe that he could really have meant it, that my action and advice that I gave to the Lord Lieutenant in this case was in some way connected with a visit I paid to Tipperary—a visit I am very glad of. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by that; did he suppose I went to Tipperary with a gas-pipe and gunpowder in my pocket? If not, what did he mean? Did he suppose I should sit down and judge a case of this kind, serious as it is, with a view only of obtaining some political or Party advantage? What political or Party object could be gained by taking this man out 18 months earlier than otherwise would be the ease? The hon. and learned Gentleman said his Motion was justified by the fact that my conduct was unprecedented. In what sense unprecedented? Does he mean there is no precedent for the Executive Government advising the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, that there is no precedent for the Chief Secretary advising the Lord Lieutenant to mitigate a sentence? If so, a more absurd proposition could not be made. I should like to bring a figure before him. The late Government were in Office six years; in those six years there were 170 prisoners released on early licence and 31 prisoners absolutely discharged—that is at the rate of 33 a year. We

  925
  have been in Office seven months, and 13 convicts only have had their sentences mitigated; therefore if we proceed at the same unprecedented rate our figures at the end of the year will he 28, or a third nearly less than the figures of his own Government. What can he mean then by the word "unprecedented." The hon. Gentleman showed how little fit he was to make a Motion of this kind, and how entirely ignorant he is both of the principle and the practice of the exercise of the clemency of the Crown. He said this clemency was due to the action of the Executive, not of the Judge. That is the very object of the prerogative of mercy; it is the very function of the Executive Government, in order that you should have an independent judgment outside the opinion of the Judge. I am next to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Home Secretary for six years, and I am next to another Home Secretary, and I appeal to both whether it is not constantly done to ignore the Report of the Judge. I appeal to both and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, though he has fewer cases of clemency than my right hon. Friends. But it is perfectly clear, there is not a shadow of doubt about it, that the very object of an Executive officer advising the Lord Lieutenant of the Crown, the very object is to take into account temporary circumstances of all kinds. The power of the Secretary of State and the power of the Chief Secretary in advising that clemency should be exercised, is a discretionary power bound by no rules except justice, common sense, and policy. [Opposition Cheers.] Gentlemen opposite seem to think that policy can mean nothing but a petty and low-minded policy. I allude to a policy in its highest sense. I mean all the objects for which Governments exist; that is what I call policy, and the Chief Secretary, or the Home Secretary advising the Crown, are bound by no rules but those ascribed to him by justice, by common sense, of policy and mercy. I repeat now what I said over the Gweedore prisoners, clemency is one of the ends of good government, and if one thing more than another has alienated the feelings of the Irish people from the administration of the law, it has been what I will not hesitate to say are the
  926
  barbarous sentences that have been inflicted upon persons in Ireland during the last 90 years, and which have not been tempered, unfortunately, by mercy. The object of the use of this prerogative of the Crown is that the Executive Government should take into account the considerations which the Judge might fairly exclude. Now in this case the dominating consideration, in my mind, of the three reasons given by the learned Judge for partial mitigation of the sentence, was the fact that complete peace and tranquility reigned in Tipperary. I can quite imagine that in circumstances of great turbulence and alarm a Judge might think it his duty to pass a severe sentence, and if the hon. Member will refer to the proceedings of this very day he would see there were three cases in which the prisoners were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. With the sentence of seven years on this man Foley the House is already familiar, but to show the sense of danger and alarm which the Judge had in his mind—and as to whom I am offering no criticism—on that day he sentenced one man, for posting a boycotting notice, to 18 mouths' imprisonment with hard labour, and another man to 12 mouths' imprisonment with hard labour for another offence. It is not my object to discuss those sentences, or to say that they were not justified, but I am saying these severe sentences were only justified, and it was plain from the Judge's Report that they could only be justified, on the ground of the greatly perturbed condition of Tipperary. That was the predominating consideration in his mind when he passed the sentence. Now it is for the Executive Government to decide when, taking everything into their consideration, the circumstances have ceased to require these strong penal measures, and in my judgment there was such a complete restoration of order in Tipperary, the offence itself, apart from the condition of society, was so amply punished by two years and three months imprisonment, that I considered that I was absolutely justified in regard to the circumstances of Tipperary and the particular nature of the offence in doing as I did. I have not said a word to minimise the offence, I have lessened none of the circumstances the hon. and learned Member (Mr.

  927
  Dunbar Barton) dwelt upon, I have simply stated to the House the considerations working on my mind when I decided that the Judge's sentence should, for the very reasons given for a partial mitigation, be carried somewhat further, and that the prisoner should be let out after completing his two years. I do not believe on either side of the House is it sincerely felt that one word more of explanation, or apology, or defence, is required.
  MR. CARSONsaid he did not intend—[Cries of "Divide."] He hoped at the outset that hon. Gentleman below the Gangway would not think he was to be silenced by interruptions during the few observations he had to make. He did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman into many of the matters he had introduced with some heat into this important question. The right hon. Gentleman had, as usual, accused them on that side of the House, of want of sincerity in raising this question. That was an accusation to which they were becoming so accustomed that he should think it would have very little effect either on the House or the country. He could conceive no more important matter to bring before the House than what he conceived to be the prostitution of the prerogative of mercy for purposes that were suitable to the right hon. Gentleman in his present position as Chief Secretary for Ireland. Upon the Debate on the Address they were anxious to know whether the fact of certain other prisoners having been released was to be taken as an indication of policy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, or whether they were to assume that the Gweedore cases were to be taken simply as isolated cases, and that question the right hon. Gentleman never answered. This case he felt could not be regarded as a purely isolated one, and he and his Friends were determined to prevent, if possible, the policy of amnesty being fed by quietly letting prisoners detained for heinous offences out one after the other to take their places amongst the public, and thereby to endanger the security of life and property in Ireland. What was the difference between the case of this particular prisoner and those about whom the Home Secretary spoke in such elo-
  928
  quent language, and with the approval of all parties in the House in the Debate on the Address? It was all very well to say that the condition of Tipperary at the time was not to be considered. What were the facts? The facts were that day after day in Tipperary by means of explosives, one house after another was blown up. ["No, no!"] Was not the rent office of the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) blown up? ["No!"] It was. ["No!"] Every single stick and stone might not have been blown up, but a considerable portion of the interior of the house was. The same thing happened in the case of an unfortunate man of the name of Godfrey, who attempted to hold out against the intimidation of boycotting to compel him to join the Plan of Campaign. The same thing happened again in the case of a man named Duggan, who attempted to hold out and was brought to his knees, or as hon. members from Ireland preferred to put it, "brought into line," by having another explosive thrown into his house and having his house partly blown up. He wished to know when Foley was arrested by the police with the machine found upon him, was the crime to be considered as a heinous crime or not? He would also like to know who was to be the judge as to what was the proper sentence to be inflicted upon the prisoner when convicted. Would any one say that the sentence passed by the learned Judge, having regard to the fact that all the evidence was proved before him, was excessive? Would any one say that a sentence of seven years' penal servitude was excessive in the case of a man dealing with such terrible articles of death and destruction? He was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk about barbarous sentences in Ireland. ["Hear, hear"!] The right hon. Gentleman cheered his observations. He had adopted a system, since he became Chief Secretary, of trying in every way he could to detract from the dignity and position of Irish Judges who, he ventured to think, performed more arduous duties than any other judicial officers in any part of the United Kingdom, and whose only crime, in the eyes of certain hon. Members below the Gangway, was that they had not been "brought into line." But what, after

  929
  all, were now the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had given for the exercise of the clemency, of the prerogative of mercy? He failed to see any. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt said that Tipperary was now in a peaceful condition. Was that to be a reason why five years out of seven were to be taken off the sentence inflicted by the Judge who tried the case, after careful investigation before a jury? If this was to be taken into consideration he should like to know what ground the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) had for keeping Daly and the other prisoners in prison. The arguments put forward about the peace of the district, and the general matters the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, were matters that could be put forward in relation to every serious crime and would enable every prisoner convicted of serious crime to be released a short time afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman said he was hound by no rules except justice, common sense, mercy and policy. Yes, but these were general terms applicable to every case, and he wanted to know what was the justice—which was the very thing the right hon. Gentleman had not explained—what was the common sense, and what was the policy? The right hon. Gentlemen asked what reasons could he have for releasing this man, save and except in the exercise of the judicial functions which he took upon himself. He had just the same reasons as he had for releasing the Gweedore prisoners—namely, that his policy was in pursuance of the "plan of campaign" of which he over and over again availed himself while in Opposition, to excite the people of the country and bring himself into power. When the right hon. Gentleman said they had only exercised that prerogative in 13 cases since they came into power, as against the much larger numbers during the regime of the late Government, it was a very curious fact that both cases they had challenged—and the right hon. Gentleman had been unable to give any substantial reason for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy—were connected with that organisation, the Plan of Campaign, which was started wholly and carried on by hon. Members below the gangway who were now the allies of the right hon. Gentleman. The
  930
  right hon. Gentleman had given no reason for his conduct in this case, and certainly it was difficult to say this was not a matter that should be brought before the House and fully discussed; unless that were done they would be giving to the right hon. Gentleman as an Executive officer in Ireland a power the House had never conceded to him,, and which Unionist Members from Ireland would do their best to have withheld from him. The attempted explanation here was no explanation at all, and so far as he (Mr. Carson) was concerned, he should certainly press upon his hon. and learned Friend the advisability of taking the sense of the House, by a Division on this question, as to whether the prerogative of mercy was to be exercised in cases where the commission of outrageous crimes tended entirely to the advancement of the Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. ASQUITH,): I am glad to hear the concluding observation of the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to take the judgment of the House on this question, and I trust he will allow us to take the judgment without further delay. I cannot help thinking that the House will consider that this "definite matter of urgent public importance" has been sufficiently threshed out. The hon. Gentleman resents the imputation, most properly made by my right hon. Friend, upon the sincerity of this proceeding, but it is curious to note with what opportuneness these Motions for Adjournment of the House follow the outward and visible evidence of dissatisfaction with the vigour and vigilance of the Opposition by their own supporters. What did I read in their own leading organ only this morning? The Standard newspaper says—
  "The Opposition are getting a little lax in their watchfulness. They scored a distinct success in compelling the postponement of the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill, but since then they have permitted Ministers to recover much lost: ground. They have been resting on their laurels too soon, and, in view of the tactics of the Government, it is time they bestirred themselves again."
  and in another organ of equal respectability and similar views I find the statement
  "It is not improbable that Mr. Carson "

  931
  the hon. and learned Gentleman to whose exuberant zeal for the maintenance unimpaired of the prerogative of mercy we have been listening just now—
  "will precede the motion for the Second Reading of the Registration Bill to-day with an important Irish discussion."
  Well, Sir, I ask the House, is it really worth while to waste any more time over this when, from the best possible quarter, we know the reason for this Motion? So far as the merits are concerned, I will content myself with expressing my opinion in two or three sentences. I say a Minister is not bound to give any reason for the exercise of the clemency of the Crown; that is a duty of a most confidential and most solemn character, which he is bound to discharge upon his conscience, which, from the very nature of the case, it is in many instances impossible for him consistently with the public interest to explain publicly to this House and the country. My right hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to say, "I acted in this case as I have always acted, and," as every Member knows perfectly well, "from nothing but conscientious motives in the discharge of my duties." If you are not satisfied with the manner in which the clemency of the Crown is exercised, the constitutional way of questioning it is not to try and drag out of the Minister the reasons that influenced his judgment, but to come down here and move a Vote of Censure upon him. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that, I have no doubt the Leader of the House will be very glad to give him a day on some fitting occasion. I will only make one other observation, and I do so because it is one that it is incumbent upon us to place on record. It has been suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Motion that in some way or other it is the duty of the Minister responsible for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to be bound by the opinion of the Judge.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I never laid down that proposition.
  MR. ASQUITH: Then what were the rules, the departure from which he cast against my right hon. Friend, if not that the opinion of the Judge was always acted upon in the matter? ["No, no!"] Then perhaps he or some
  932
  other hon. Member will inform the House what rules he referred to. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, in 99 out of every 100 cases in which the Minister has to exercise the prerogative of the Crown, he is compelled, if not to differ from the Judge, at any rate to introduce into the consideration of the case reasons, it may be of policy, it may be of humanity, reasons that are necessarily excluded from the narrow and restricted scope of a purely judicial investigation. For my part, I, and everyone who has held the office I hold, have to differ every day from the opinions given by Judges. But still the question for the House to consider in this case is this: Has the prerogative in this particular case been exercised in such a way as is inconsistent with a right-minded, conscientious, and fair discharge of a responsible duty? The hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately charged my right hon. Friend with prostituting the clemency of the Crown for party and for political purposes. I think we are entitled, in the interests of the decency of debate, and of the settled usages and traditional amenities of Parliamentary life, to demand that imputations of that, kind should not be freely and recklessly hurled across the Table without one shadow or tittle of foundation, but simply for the purpose of the prolongation for a few moments longer of a Debate initiated under the circumstances I have mentioned.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not appear to me to have taken the best course to bring this discussion to a close. I cannot myself conceive language more calculated to inflame, or more calculated to prolong the discussion and to provoke heated speeches in answer, or language more calculated to produce the results which the right hon. Gentleman pretends to regret. Sir, he accuses the Opposition, or Members on this Bench, of making personal charges against the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland accused the Opposition of being unable to understand any political motives except one that is mean, low, and petty. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Those were the words, and if charges of that

  933
  nature are to be flung across the floor are we to sit perfectly silent? To quote the celebrated expression of a French romance writer, "Let the other party commence." Let them refrain from violent charges which have no basis in truth. I will draw the Homo Secretary's attention to the fact, and ask him to give some explanation of it, that his attitude on questions of English justice and his attitude on questions of the administration of justice in Ireland appears to differ widely. If I wanted to impute motives it would be easy for me to show that Parliamentary considerations which are raised by English votes are not so important as Parliamentary considerations raised by Irish votes; and it would be difficult for any hon. Member to say that for that statement I should not have a strong foundation. Now, I do not see how it can be argued, with any probability of convincing a reasonable mind, that there is any sense of difference between the use of explosives in Ireland and the use of explosives in England, and that I understand to be entirely the practical position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. Well, Sir, it is a mere question of very refined dialectics to draw a distinction between the men convicted of the possession of explosive instruments with the view to using them, not caring how life and property might be destroyed—what is the difference between those men and the men whom the right hon. Gentleman has under his supervision in Portland Gaol? You cannot found any practical argument upon the difference; and you cannot reconcile the very rigid line the right hon. Gentleman adopts with regard to dynamite prisoners in England with the very lax and opportunist line he has taken up with regard to dynamite prisoners in Ireland. What did he say in the House of Commons? He said——
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the noble Lord is in Order in referring to a previous Debate of this Session?
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the noble Lord was in Order.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: The description which the right hon. Gentleman then used, and which I am about to quote, will apply to the case with which we are dealing. He describes the men who made use of dynamite explosives as
  934
  men who for mouths had occupied themselves in devising machines by means of which property should be destroyed and life would, in all probability, be taken without any regard whatever to the innocence or guilt, the responsibility or absence of responsibility, of those who had been the victims of their proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I say these men, in my opinion, are guilty of one of the worst and most criminal offences against the State."
  Now, the right hon. Gentleman used stronger language still, which shows the irreconcilable inconsistency between the attitude of the Home Secretary to-night, when, certainly, other considerations come in, and his attitude on a former occasion, when no such considerations came in. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "So long as I hold the position I do."
  It is less than a month since he made this statement, and certainly the tenacity of opinion he displayed has not been very long, and he still holds the position—
  "So long as I hold the position I do; so long as I am responsible for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, there is not one of them who shall receive any different treatment or whose sentence shall be any sooner interfered with than that of any other criminal now lying in Her Majesty's jails. For my part, and this is the last word I will say to the House on the subject, I say it both in reference to the past and, if need be, in reference to the future, persons who resort to this mode of warfare against society, who use terror as their instrument, who proceed in their methods with reckless disregard of the life and safety of the weak, the innocent and the helpless, are persons who have deserved and will receive no consideration or indulgence from any British Government."
  How can it be argued that the Opposition are not justified in bringing before Parliament without delay a different course of procedure towards a prisoner convicted of using dynamite ["No, no!"]—of the possession of dynamite with a view to using it ["No, no!"]—well, then, an explosive, if you like it better, and are to be charged with low, mean, and petty motives, and with a desire to obstruct the business of Parliament? Are these the only motives which animate a responsible representative of the late Irish Government in criticising this act of clemency exercised by the Chief

  935
  Secretary? Are we to be absolutely debarred from any claim whatever to a sense of public duty and responsibility in asking that such a matter shall be brought under the consideration of Parliament without delay? The Prime Minister challenged us to move a Vote of Censure. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the sort.] I have heard many challenges to Votes of Censure thrown out in this House, and I state, in spite of the difference of opinion the right hon. gentleman has, that I never knew a more direct challenge thrown out by the Leader of any Party than that which emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, it is quite possible, either after the Easter holidays or before them, to raise the question of the Irish administration of the Chief Secretary, and to discuss it generally and in great detail on a Vote of Censure; and that would be nothing new to the right hon. Gentleman, because from 1882 to 1885 the House was continually occupied with criticism of Irish administration. I strongly hold the opinion, which I find widely shared, that a series of acts of what the right hon. Gentleman calls clemency, exercised from motives of justice, policy, and mercy, and the method in which that clemency has been exercised—in the case of the dynamite prisoners, in the cases of the rioters at Gweedore, and in this case—indicates a tendency to go in the direction of a general amnesty to all crimes which have been committed, and the committal of which not only dishonours Great Britain, but inflicts an indelible stain on the honour of Ireland. What we are apprehensive of is this: the right hon. Gentleman has indicated rather clearly a tendency to act on very large and wide and insufficiently-examined grounds. We are about to separate for the Easter Recess, and we do not know who will have been released when we come back; we do not know how many of these men coming under the description of dynamiters may have been again let loose upon society. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that Tipperary is peaceful, but does he think that he will be taking a step calculated to keep the peace by letting loose such people? Why should the right hon. Gentleman, by adopting the course he has done, run the risk of giving the Opposition reasonable grounds
  936
  for thinking that there is to be any further release of these criminals? I hold with him that sentences should be reviewed from time to time, but such review ought to be exercised with great care and with the assent of the Judicial Authorities. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman has not exercised that care in this instance, and he has ignored altogether the opinion of the learned Judge who sentenced this man to seven pears' penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman has shown a determination in all these matters to disregard the opinion of the Judicial Authorities and to make an entirely new departure with regard to them. With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, all I can say is, by all means let the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House give us facilities for discussing the course which the Government are taking in the matter of the government of Ireland, because I do not think that the time of the House could be more profitably spent than in discussing that subject, in view of the fact that there has been a terrible relaxation of the safeguards which were established during the last six years for life and property in Ireland during the few months that the present Government have held office. I do not think that the action of Her Majesty's Government is calculated to bring about tranquility and permanent peace in that country, and I deny that it is consistent with either justice, common sense, or good policy. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly justified in bringing this subject before the House as a matter of urgent public importance, and I think that we were fully justified in supporting him in taking that course. We shall not be deterred from doing our duty in matters of this kind either by sarcastic speeches from Ministers or by ironical interruptions from hon. Members below the Gangway when we think it incumbent upon us to bring under the notice of Parliament matters which, in our opinion, may amount to scandalous maladministration in the government of Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 262.—(Division List, No. 35.)

NOTICE OF A VOTE OF CENSURE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to give Notice that in consequence of the challenge thrown out to me by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, I shall to-night put down a Resolution on the Paper, to be moved by my learned Friend or myself, in the following terms:—
"To call attention to recent events in Ireland, and to move that the action of the Executive in condoning serious offences, and their failure to support and enforce the law, are calculated to resuscitate the system of terrorism and intimidation which formerly prevailed in that country, and to bring the administration of the law into contempt."

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 215.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. FARQUHARSONrose to a point of Order. He wished to ask the Speaker whether the Hill was not improperly drawn, and ought not to be therefore withdrawn from the consideration of the House. The title of the Bill read, "to enable persons to be registered for the purposes of Parliamentary, county, and municipal elections." But the first clause contained provisions for reducing the residential qualifications of electors, and for abolishing the rating qualification altogether. Sir Erskine May laid down this rule:—
  "That with all Bills care must be taken that; they do not contain provisions not authorised by the Order of Leave: that their titles correspond with the Order of Leave; and that they are prepared pursuant to the Order of Leave and in proper form. If it should appear in any Bill that these rules have not been observed, the House will order it to be withdrawn."
  A clause relating to the qualification of Members was held to be unauthorised in a Bill regulating the expenses of elections. That was a case parallel to the present. There were many precedents for the withdrawal of a Bill improperly drawn; and, judging by the title of the Bill now in question, the House was not led to expect that there were to be extensive alterations in the franchise. He submitted that the effect of including questions of an extension of franchise in such a Bill might, and probably would, postpone the passage of
  938
  the Bill, which, according to its title, ought to be only for a more speedy registration of electors.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish also, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the second clause of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The question has already been fully raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I understand the hon. Member's point to be that, whereas the title of the Bill is "to enable people to be registered for the purposes of Parliamentary, municipal, and county elections," there is in the second sub-section of Clause 1 a provision in the sense of doing away with the lilting qualification; and the hon. Member asks whether that provision comes within the Order of Leave given to bring in the Bill. I have considered the matter very carefully, and I have referred to all the precedents since I have been in the Chair. I have come to the conclusion that all Registration Bills have been invariably very loosely drawn. They have almost uniformly included some enfranchisement clauses; and under those circumstances it is very difficult for me to say that this Bill would be out of Order, as it would be ordinarily, if its provisions were not in accordance with the title. There was a remarkable instance in 1877 afforded by a Registration of Borough Voters Bill, the title of which described it as a Bill to amend the law with regard to the registration of borough voters in England and Wales. That Bill included several conditions preceding registration, and it also included clauses relating to the qualification of lodgers which were of the widest character, and provided that successive occupation of different lodgings should have the same effect as continuous occupation of the same lodgings. So much was this the case that in the course of the Debate objection was taken by a right hon. Gentleman now in the House that the Bill was a Franchise Bill in disguise. I have reason to know that the point was raised before the then Speaker, and was considered by him; and it was held that that Bill was correctly described as a Registration Bill, though it had clauses with a distinctly enfranchising property about them. Although I admit the necessity of keeping within the strict rules of Parliament

  939
  tary procedure, and of giving the House and the Committee to understand by the title of a Bill what the Bill is, and what is to be done by it, I am clearly of opinion that, under the circumstances, this Bill is in Order and may be proceeded with.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: On a point of Order, arising out of what you have just said, Sir, may I ask whether the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Stretford Division (Mr. J. W. Maclure) is in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must apply the same rule to every subject. If the Bill is in Order, an Amendment of that kind must be in Order.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  MR. B. L. COHENsaid, in approaching the discussion of the measure now before the House, the first question which must have occurred to many hon. Members was why had this Bill been pushed forward with such great, if not, indeed, with such indecent haste? The Government had already introduced many important measures to the House, more, he imagined, than had ever been introduced in the same time within the memory of the oldest Member of the House. He was speaking of measures of first class importance, involving, if not a vast amount of controversial matter, at any rate, creating as to details, immense and very wide difference of opinion. He was aware that the Government assumed Office after having contracted an unprecedented number of engagements, recorded in countless promises given at Newcastle and elsewhere, and perhaps they felt themselves bound, even sometimes embarrassed, by those promises. But did they imagine that promises of legislation were redeemed by the introduction of Bills which could not, and which they must know could not, pass into law. Did not Her Majesty's Ministers themselves feel, and do not they feel themselves, that the multiplying of these Bills furnished of itself the greatest, the most insurmountable barrier, to their passing into law. But at least one would have thought that this great variety of legislative proposals would have facilitated
  940
  their choice in selecting which should have precedence, and if they were sincere in their desire to have an industrious as well as a creditable man at the head of the Service, one would have thought that at least a leven of non-controversial measures might have been admitted to soften the aspirations which they must know had been created by at least three of the great Government measures now before the House. This seemed to him so transparent that he is driven to believe this Registration Bill was pressed on because Her Majesty's Ministers thought some such measure was indispensable to secure the passage into law of the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Suspensory Bill, and shall he say the Liquor Bill. If that was their belief, he thought they were deceiving themselves. He did not know how far this Registration Bill would favour the prospects of the Party opposite, but he believed the Nation, to whom the Government possibly felt an appeal must be made before they could pass the Home Rule Bill, would be even more moved than it was at present, to right that ill-fated measure if they suspect that in order to promote its acceptance an attempt was made, he would not say to manipulate, but to annex the register for Party purposes. He said he was forced to the conclusion he had indicated because he could discover no other grounds for this extreme urgency. They were all agreed that the Registration Laws required amending, so that if only a Registration Bill were drawn on reasonable and impartial lines, he was sure the Government could rely on the co-operation of all parties in the House to pass it into law. It might, therefore, well have been left till after some provision had been made, say with the Liquor Bill, or with the Welsh Suspensory Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Liquor Bill, said the measure was not only necessary, but urgent. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to act up to his declaration. The Petitions presented to the House had probably convinced the Government that neither the necessity nor the urgency of the Bill was admitted by the people of this country, and they sought to provide by this Registration Bill the votes they had discovered they would lose by the Liquor

  941
  Bill. At any rate, for the Registration Bill, urgency could not be pleaded. If they expected shortly an appeal to the people, the Opposition would welcome the announcement of such expectation. If they did not anticipate that appeal in the near future, where was the urgency. The people could not vote until they gave them an election. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other evening that the Government heard a great deal in that House of impartiality, but they saw-very little of it. He threw back this reproach to the Treasury Bench and said that they saw nothing of impartiality in this Registration Bill. Again, the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, in introducing the present Bill, said, he desired to protect the Executive Government from the charge of being influenced by political motives. Was the right hon. Gentleman's own contribution towards that much to be desired end, the visiting of the appointment of registrars in the County Councils? Had the two London County Councillors elected since 1888—had the present London County Council shown itself so entirely free from political bias as to be qualified to exercise the patronage of the appointment of Registrars, a duty which the right hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged should be vested in a body possessing as nearly as possible the quality of judicial impartiality. But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was not the only member of the Cabinet who preached and did not practice impartiality. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in speaking at Liverpool on 20th January, said,
  "The great metropolis of London has also urgent demands to which no Liberal Government can normally be deaf. For the Kingdom as a whole—I hope it may long continue as a whole and that the Liberal Government will at least not be deaf to this demand—there are certain turns the performance of which has been clearly laid upon us by the Constituencies at the last Election."
  They were not told which were the Constituencies, but undoubtedly Stock-port, and Huddersfield, and Grimsby, were amongst them, and very clearly, by certain duties in them, to which the Liberal Government might be disinclined to be deaf. And then these duties
  942
  were explained in the same speech as follows:—
  "We have to make representative Gentlemen a reality, but not a sham, by shortening the period of qualification."
  So that it appeared this curtailment of the period of qualification was in reality prompted by the exigencies of a Liberal Government, as laid on them by certain constituencies. He entirely concurred in the necessity of shortening the period of qualification. The present law was unjust, almost oppressive, but in his judgment far greater mischief might and would ensue from making the period too short than too long. As it was, they knew many voters did not avail themselves of their right to vote. The House might be sure this would not be the case with those who possessed the qualification by an insufficient tenure. It was a well-known answer in ethics that a sin of omission was far more pardonable and far less mischevious than a sin of commission. And in fixing their period of qualification they ought to take care, at all hazards, to prevent the fabrication of fagot votes, to ensure that those who had a voice in the choice of a representative should possess by a sufficient, and he would add by an abiding interest in the locality, a knowledge of, and a conversance with, the requirements of the district in which they lived. Could the first be obtained by a period of three months? And was not the second likely to be frustated by the possible removal of the elector the very day after the return of the representative whose election he had been brought in to promote? There were other points besides the period of qualification, and the appointment of registrars and district registrars which seemed to him open to serious objection. But they were matters into which it would be, perhaps, premature to enter at this stage. He objected to this Bill because it was drawn on party lines, because it attempted to deal in a contentious spirit with an important, and a vital organisation necessary to the freedom and purity, of elections, and because he regarded it as an ill-advised effort on the part of the Government to attempt to force on the nation measures which they had already introduced into Parliament, but which they knew they could not pass into law without the artificial and objectionable

  943
  expedients contained in several of the clauses of this Bill.
  MR. BILLSONsaid he should like to say a few words on this subject, because, during the last 25 years, he had paid a great deal of attention to the subject of registration, and had seen a great deal of the conduct of elections. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that if the Bill had not borne a Party complexion it would have been supported on the other side of the House. Well, judging from the reception the Measure had received on the Ministerial side, he (Mr. Billson) thought the Measure might fairly be considered as of a non-party character. The Bill affected the country as a whole. It was one of the first duties of Parliament to see that the whole of the electors were fairly placed upon the register, so that when the House was constituted it would be found to properly reflect the opinion of the constituences. This had not been the case hitherto, and he therefore thought the Government were amply justified in treating the matter as one of urgency, and in seizing the earliest opportunity for bringing forward a Bill of this kind. He had heard considerable doubt expressed as to whether the Lodger Clause in the Bill was a reasonable and wise one. It had been said that if they allowed the lodgers to register and remain on the register without requiring them to prove their claim, they would have the register stuffed full of fagot votes. It was said the squire, and the parson, and the rich farmer, would endeavour to manufacture those votes. In his opinion, however, the Bill might be improved by requiring that, in the first instance, a lodger should have to prove his claim. It might be said that the present occupying householder was not obliged to prove his claim, but the occupying householder was better known to the community around him, and was, in a sense, a public man, whilst the lodger hid behind the householder. He thought it was not unreasonable that the lodger should be called upon to clearly make out his claim, but when he had once done that there was no reason why in succeeding years he should be called upon to go through the same process. If they were told that the result of the Bill would be to admit to the register a number of men
  944
  who otherwise would not get on, he would say he was in favour of every capable person above the age of 21 years who lived in a house being on the register. He was not going to complain of the Bill, because it might enfranchise a number of voters who would vote against his Party. What they wanted to do was to get as many persons on the register as possible, and leave the issue as to which side they would vote for to settle itself. Lord Salisbury had raised a curious bogey to the effect that if they had a three months' qualification they would have many cases of personation. His long experience as election agent showed him there were very few cases of personation, and he had noticed that it did not occur with persons who had just come to reside in the district, but in respect of persons who had left a constituency in which the register was old, and who were only dimly remembered in the places they had left. It was on the fag end of an old register rather than the commencement of a new register that personation occurred. Somebody talked about people not getting enough interest in a place in which he had resided for only three months, but, under the new system of registering, a voter would have to be at least nine months in the constituency, and might be 15 months before he could get a vote. With regard to the appointment of Registrars by County Councils, no doubt there were County Councils and County Councils, but he did not see how the Government could doubt a great institution of this kind. The County Councils were formed with the consent of all parties in the House, and if they were to go in a County Division or into a borough to a body representing public opinion—if they wished to select wisely and fairly a body to be entrusted with the discharge of this important duty—they would not go behind the County Council. He was not insensible of the fact that sometimes these bodies were governed by political motives, but their business was transacted in the light of day, and he had no doubt their appointments would be fair and judicious. There was one improvement he should like to see made in this Bill. He would like the appointments to be somewhat more localised, for there were County Divisions which were a long way off from the place where the

  945
  Council met. This localisation could be secured by leaving the appointment to the County Councillors in each Division. In this way they would get publicity and an immediate opportunity of finding out who were the best men. On the whole, he cordially approved the Bill. In Committee it might be in some respects altered, but it was deserving the support of all who desired that the nation should be represented by those who appeared on the electoral.
  MR. R. G. C. MOWBRAY: If the Bill before them had only borne out the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board introduced it, there would have been very little opposition to it from that side of the House. What opposition there would be extended to it would result from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had drawn this Bill with a considerable amount of looseness, and had mixed up the questions of franchise and registration. He did not wish himself to oppose the Bill generally, and, therefore, he guarded himself by these remarks. There were several points to which he thought they might take exception. He did not now wish to labour the point with regard to the three mouths' qualification, though he thought the hon. Member opposite, who said that it would be necessary for a man to be nine months' in occupation before he could secure a vote, was in error in the statement. If he would look into the matter carefully he would see that a man would get the vote after seven months' occupation, for if he was in residence on the 25th March he would have had three months' occupation by the 24th June, and would be enabled to vote by the 1st November. The hon. Member opposite had not satisfied him that there was no danger of personation from the three months' qualification. Whatever might be done in the matter of registration, the great thing was to keep the register pure, or, in other words, care should be taken to provide that the people who went to the polling booth were the people who had votes to record. He was most anxious that they should guard against the possibility of personation, which was not so easy an offence to detect and prove as some hon. Members thought. The personation agent ran such great risks in
  946
  attempting to arrest any one for personation in a polling-booth that the penalties for personation were hardly ever enforced. He must say he hoped that before the Debate closed they would have from the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) some assurance that either the penalties for personation would be increased, or that the method of preventing the offence would be improved. Another point to which he wished to allude was the one he had had most in his mind when he had said that the right hon. Gentleman had mixed up franchise and registration, and that was the abolition of the payment of rates as a qualification. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had abolished this rating qualification, because the fact of a name appearing on the rate book as occupier was a very valuable protection to the register. He admitted that the payment of rates and assessed taxes was a less valuable test than it used to be, but the rating qualification was, in his opinion, a perfectly legitimate one, and he regretted to see it abolished. It was said that by the maintenance of it many persons were disfranchised, inasmuch as if the rates were not paid by the landlords the tenants' names were not added to the voters' lists. He admitted that this ought not to be the case, but it was not a reason why the rating qualification should be blamed. He did not think the cure lay in the abolition of the rating qualification. What was needed was that the penalty should fall upon the right persons, and that if the landlords did not pay the rates they should be struck off the lists as voters, and not the occupiers of the houses. They heard a great deal in these days about capable citizens, but surely there was no greater proof of a capable citizen than that he was able to discharge the rates and taxes imposed upon him. When a man came and claimed to be put on the register it was not too much to ask that he should fulfil the elementary duty of citizenship in paying rates and taxes. This was his idea of the particular part of the Bill which, as he had said, dealt rather with the franchise than with registration. The other points in the Bill seemed to him to be matters of detail more to be determined when they got into Committee. He was glad the Government had introduced the Bill, and regretted

  947
  the late Government had not taken the opportunity of dealing with the question when they were in office. It was a crying shame and scandal that enormous sums of money should be paid by candidates in order to do that which was a public duty, and which ought to be done by the nation. He should be glad, so far as that went, to heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill, though he hoped to see several modifications and Amendments introduced when it reached the committee stage.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONwas glad to be able to contrast the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with that of the hon. Member who had preceded him on the Opposition side of the House (Mr. Cohen). He (Mr. Bolton) could not understand the speech of the hon. Member for Islington. He had always believed that hon. Gentleman opposite were quite as willing as Members on the Ministerial side of the House to deal in a practical and sensible way with the admitted defects of the Registration Law. He had had the honour of bringing in a Bill last Session dealing with some of the matters in the present Measure, and on the back of that Bill were the names of some of the most distinguished Members of the Party opposite, as well as Members of the Ministerial side. He had been under the impression that the improvement of registration was in no sense a party political matter, but a matter which Conservative Members were as anxious as any one else to see properly settled. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill and shadowed its outlines he (Mr. Bolton) at once cordially accepted it, and he was pleased to say that the text of the Measure bore out the right hon. Gentleman's description. In the main it dealt with the difficulties of registration in a satisfactory way, and removed many of the evils connected with the present registration system. With regard to the suggestion that lodgers should be required to claim to be put on the register, he could only express his surprise that the suggestion should have come from the Ministerial Benches. Why a lodger should be required to claim he could not for the life of him understand. The only difference between the lodger and the tenement
  948
  occupier was that the lodger lived in a house where the landlord resided on the premises, and the other lived in a house the landlord of which lived off the premises. There was the condition that a man could not be a lodger voter unless he occupied premises of a certain value, and why that man, who was, if anything, a more respectable man than the other, judging from the character of the dwelling he lived in, should be put to the trouble of signing a highly technical form and having it witnessed and attested and having to go before the Revising Barrister he could not understand. The circumstances attending the lodger franchise were sometimes extremely grotesque. He happened to know of a ease in which a man signed a lodger claim. The claim was properly attested and sent in. Some one in court raised an objection, and the Revising Barrister adjourned the consideration of the case for the attendance of the claimant. This man was engaged at an hospital night and day, being obliged to get certain necessary work done, and he could not attend to support his claim. One of the Registration Agents in attendance applied to the Revising Barrister for an order for the attendance of the man, and he was ordered to attend. As he could not go he wrote a letter, but the Revising Barrister considered that that was not treating the Court with proper respect, and the claim was not only disallowed, but the claimant was fined 40s. The claimant applied to him (Mr. Bolton) and asked what he was to do under the circumstances, but they found that the revision being finished, the Court was shut, and the man had to pay the 40s. He (Mr. Bolton) knew that there was a certain amount of anxiety on the part of county Liberal Members. They were afraid that the result of this Bill would be that the sons of the squires and the parsons and the farmers would get put upon the Register. But if these persons were qualified to be on the Register let them be put on by all means. He had no grudging feeling in the matter. As to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that the lodger should in the first instance claim, he assured his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that the Bill would be comparatively worthless in London unless they put the lodgers on the same footing with

  949
  tenement occupiers, and saved them from the necessity of making a claim. With regard to the provision for the repeal of the rating qualification, he had understood that hon. Members opposite quite accepted it. They had got beyond the rating qualification nowadays, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) had pointed out when leave was given to introduce the Bill. But if rating was to be the qualification, why was it not the case in regard to the lodger; why was it not required in connection with the tenement occupier personally; but why was it necessary to have rating at all associated with the householder class? The lodger got on the Register without any proof as to the payment of rates, and the tenement occupier got on, but if the landlord did not pay the rates he was disqualified—though that did not often happen. Why they wished to retain the rating qualification he could not understand. A clause he should like to see omitted was that with reference to transfers from one constituency to another. A person who had been three months in a constituency might, 21 days after the 25th of December, claim to be transferred from the constituency he had left to that he had gone into. This would apply to only a limited class. It would apply only to the people who moved between Juno 24th and September 29th, and fewer people, probably, moved then than in any other quarter. Even supposing that the Bill applied to its full effect, it would only affect one-fourth of the removals during the year. What would happen? Why, in a constituency where there was a close majority, there would be an active canvass in the month of December in order to find out the voters who had recently come into the constituency, and if they were of the right colour they would be asked to transfer their votes. The rich candidates, therefore, would have the advantage. His own constituency, for instance, was surrounded by three constituencies, where there were Conservative majorities of between 600 and 1,000. People moved backwards and forwards from his constituency into these constituencies, and there would be an active canvass to find out what voters had come into his district of a different complexion to his own politics—more than that,
  950
  there would be an attempt made to get such voters to transfer their votes from the districts where they were not wanted in order to secure a vote in his district, where the vote might be of great value. In this way constituencies like his own might be gerrymandered by rich candidates who could afford to spend money on proceedings of this kind. Another point was that where a vote was transferred into a constituency in this way there would frequently be a voter on the list for the house into which the new voter went, consequently there would be two votes for one house. There would be the man who had left the constituency who would be an out-voter; if he was of the right colour he would be left on the Register by the agents of the wealthy candidate, but if he was of the wrong colour every effort would be made to strike him off, and there would be also the new voter whose vote was brought in. The clause did not enfranchise largely. It affected only a limited class, and would, as he said, be worked to the disadvantage of candidates who could not afford to spend a large amount of money on the work of registration. Then, the Bill proposed to establish an entirely new body of registration officials. He had expressed the opinion more than once that he believed, on the whole, the vestry clerks and overseers and assistant overseers had discharged their duties fairly well. The reason they had not put more people on the Register had been twofold—first, because hitherto it had not been their duty to find out all the people entitled to vote, the voter himself having been left to claim the franchise, and in the second place because they had not had the funds to enable them to make the necessary inquiries. There was no reason why they should not continue to fulfil their duties in connection with registration in the future, if it was made obligatory on them to put all voters on the Register, and they were provided with the funds to meet the necessary expenses. As to Superintendent Registrars, though it might be desirable to have them in the counties, so far as London was concerned the provision in the Bill should be reconsidered and recast. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure that he should leave the London boroughs as they were, as electoral units, and that he should

  951
  make the senior vestry clerks, who were frequently professional men, and above suspicion, the registration officers. The St. Pancras' Vestry clerk was a gentleman, who some time ago was a Member of this House. In Islington there was an equally eminent and efficient vestry clerk, and throughout London it would be found that the vestry clerks of the great parishes were gentlemen who would be able to do the work most satisfactorily. By appointing them they would get rid of the objection which hon. Gentlemen opposite, not unreasonably, entertained to leaving this patronage in the hands of the London County Council. But whether the London County Council, and the County Councils throughout England had this patronage or not was not of great consequence. He would suggest that in the country the assistant overseers should be made registrars for election purposes, and nothing further would be necessary except the appointment of the Chief Superintendent Registrars to superintend the work. In London the senior vestry clerks should be ex officio the Superintendent Registrars, and they should be able to employ the parish officers, who had hitherto done the work very well. In the country the town clerks and the clerks to the County Councils might be ex officio the Superintendent Registrars. In this way they would get an independent body of men, free from anything like partizanship. In order to carry out his proposal some alteration would be required in the details of the Bill. He threw out the suggestion for the consideration of the President of the Local Government Board. He did not press the point. The Bill was so good that he (Mr. Bolton) would not take any course with regard to it that would embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. For 20 years he (Mr. Bolton) had had the management of political affairs in a London Constituency of over 40,000 electors, therefore he was not without experience in these matters. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not screwed his courage up to the point of having a six months' register, and perhaps it was almost too late to ask him to recast the measure in that particular. If he could see his way to having two registers made up by the proper officials it would be more satisfactory. He knew the right
  952
  hon. Gentleman was anxious to avoid expense to Candidates and Members by having several registrations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to suggestions which had been made to have Supplemented Lists prepared at intervals of three months, or of one month. Apart from the question of the rating qualification, which was a legitimate question to raise on the Bill, there was nothing in the measure of a contentious character, and when they got into Committee the Bill would be amended where necessary, and that they would bring out a measure which would be thoroughly efficient, and put everybody on the Register who was entitled to vote. The right hon. Gentleman was wise in adhering to the main lines of his Bill, and he would no doubt carry through a measure which would be creditable to him, and useful to the country.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid he did not deny that this Bill contained some provisions of a very beneficial character, provisions which some of the hon. Members on the Opposition side were quite willing to support, but there were other provisions of a very objectionable character. In the first place, he objected to the title of the Bill—"The Registration of Electors Bill"—for the reason that there was more in the Bill than its title conveyed. Looking at the longer title of the Bill, he found it described as "A Bill to enable persons to be registered for purposes of Parliamentary, County, and Municipal Elections with more speed and accuracy." He would alter that into "more speed than accuracy," considering the short residential qualifying period. Members of the Conservative Party did not object to the Government making the franchise more democratic. They admitted that as education spread more people should be allowed to exercise the franchise, but they should very carefully consider whether those who exercised the franchise were really the people who were entitled to do so. They did not object to the franchise being extended to every one who had any stake, however small or however large, in the country, but at the same time they thought it undesirable that it should be in the power of an election agent to import outsiders into a constituency, and thereby

  953
  to elect Members who did not represent the principles and the feelings of that constituency. The first clause of the Bill did away altogether with the rating qualification. They objected to that on the old principle, that representation and taxation should go hand in hand; they objected to it because they thought that the people who were entitled to elect Members of Parliament should have some stake in the constituency and some interest in seeing that the taxes of the country were properly spent by Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it was a great hardship under the present law that a tenement householder should lose his vote because the landlord did not pay the rates and taxes of that tenement. He thought a clause might be drafted under which, if the landlord failed to pay the rates, the occupier could have the opportunity of paying his share in time to prevent his losing the vote. He looked upon the qualifying period of three months' residence previous to the 24th of June, in any year, as being altogether too short, particularly in London. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had made inquiries of the great changes that occurred in London constituencies even under the present registration system. The changes were estimated at from 20 to 25 per cent. per annum, and in some East End constituencies, 30 per cent. of the voters at least changed every year. Under the system proposed in the Bill, the changes would amount to about 40 or 50 per cent in the year, and if would be difficult to identify the persons who turned up at the polling booths to exercise the franchise as the persons on the voters lists, seeing that a voter who resided every three months in a constituency before the 24th of June and then left, could return and vote in any election 12 months after the following 1st of November. He asked the House to consider the qualification of a tenement householder. A tenement householder might be paying only 1s. 6d. a week, and that for the thirteen weeks of the qualifying period amounted only to £1, so that they would be incurring the great danger of putting it into the power of election agents to import 200 or 300 voters into a constituency, where the Political Parties were evenly balanced,
  954
  for three mouths prior to the 24th of June, and carry the constituency for their Party at a cost of about £300. That was an aspect of the question he asked the House to consider carefully. With respect to the second clause, so far from putting more names on the register, it was a retrogressive clause, and would prevent people from having a qualification if they left one part of a borough and went to reside in another. But it allowed persons, who had been lodgers, but afterwards became householders, to remain on the register, and to that extent he did not object to the clause. He admitted that anybody conversant with the present system of registration would be willing to admit that the lodger franchise was a very complicated franchise, and that it gave a needless amount of trouble to the lodger in claiming his vote. He thought it would be wise to simplify the matter, but at the same time it was desirable that the lodger himself should claim. He believed that unless that was done they would have at each revision of the lodger list a vast number of bogus claims put forward by either Political Party. The returns of lodgers which the landlords were obliged to submit to the registration officials were most unreliable. In his constituency, in 1891, the landlords returned 20 people as qualifying in one small street, 13 of whom were knocked off as being unqualified. That would show that it was desirable that the claims for the Vote should be made by the lodgers themselves. In America, in many States, and certainly in New York, every individual before he had a right to exorcise the franchise had to claim it himself. He thought that was a system it would be well to adopt in this country. There was one important matter he thought should be provided for in the Bill. It was a common thing in elections that not only those who were willing and had a right to the Vote came to the polling booth, but electors who had long since passed away were found somewhere or another, and came forward to exercise the franchise. They had to a great extent laid these ghosts in many parts of the country, and especially in North London. But deceptions of that kind would be prevented if they had a longer qualifying period, and if the

  955
  registrar of births, deaths, and marriages was obliged to send every three months to the Superintendent Registrar a return of the people who died in each district; and similarly it should he the duty of the vestry clerk, or town clerk, or magistrate's clerk to send in a return of the people who left the district; that would prevent personation to some extent. He found in Clause 5 a very remarkable provision. The clause set forth that the Superintendent Registrar should correct every misdirection, omission, or technical error in the lists brought to his notice, and should, in an administrative manner, without holding a Court, consider claims and objections, whether formal or informal. He thought that a bad provision. All this should be done in open court. The Superintendent Registrar should not have the power of altering the lists in private.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: He will not have the power of altering the lists.
  MR. WEBSTERventured to say that the powers of the Superintendent Registrar would be much larger than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. Turning to the appointment of Superintendent Registrars, he found that the proposed mode of appointment was not-popular with the Liberal Members who represented County constituencies, who imagined there might be favouritism shown, while Liberal Members who represented borough constituencies were in favour of the appointment as provided by the clause. The only suggestion he could make was that it might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Local Government Board) to bring in two Bills, one carrying out the wishes in this respect of his county supporters, and the other carrying out the wishes of his borough supporters. But rightly or wrongly—and he thought rightly—he believed that all the London Conservative Members objected to the County Council as the body who should appoint the Superintendent Registrars in London. They believed that the appointments of Superintendent Registrars would not be judicial if left to the County Council. Why should not these appointments be left to the Judges of the land who appointed the Revising Barristers. In the counties the appointment of these Superintendent Registrars was given to the real Local Authorities of
  956
  the county, and in the towns it was given to the real Local Authorities of the town, but in London they could not call the County Council the Local Authority. London was as large a place as Ireland as far as population was concerned, for it had a population of 5,000,000. The County Council might nominate five or six agents to make these appointments; two of these gentlemen might be down with influenza, and the appointments might be made for all London by four gentlemen. Speaking for himself and for many of his friends, he would say that that was one of the very strongest objections of the Bill, and he hoped that in the Committee Stage the appointment of the Registration Superintendent in London would be transferred to somebody in whom they would have absolute trust.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that he had for some years past endeavoured to push through the House a Registration Bill similar in many of its provisions to the Bill under consideration. But he found himself in some difficulty in dealing with the present Bill because there were in it two distinct portions, of one of which he should express in general terms his most distinct approval; while in the other he found much that he was bound to criticise adversely. The portions of the Bill to which he referred were the franchise provisions and the registration provisions. The Speaker had ruled that it was customary to introduce franchise provisions into Registration Bills, but whether it was in order to do so or not he contended that it was not inconvenient that they should be asked to discuss within the provision of a measure questions that vitally affected the franchise of the country—questions that were of the largest enfranchising character, and at the same time questions which they are agreed contained improvements of the technical machinery for the registration of voters. The very first clause of the Bill set out the conditions under which householders were qualified to vote. It was not a mere registration machinery. It was an amendment of the provisions of the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1885. In 1885 there were two separate Bills—a Reform Bill and a Registration Bill. The Reform Bill was the subject of

  957
  great Party conflict, and it was only carried into law after a severe struggle. The Registration Bill, on the other hand, was a measure that was adopted with satisfaction by both Parties, for it was never regarded as being of a Party character. The franchise provisions of the present Bill were of immense importance. The President of the Local Government Board had admitted that the provisions of the Bill would enfranchise not less than 700,000 new electors in England and Wales, and if the Bill were ex-tended to Ireland—as he heard it would be extended in Committee—it would be impossible to tell how many more electors it would put on the lists.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I made no such calculation as that 700,000 or 800,000 additional votes would be created. What I said was that if every properly qualified householder were placed upon the register, the number would not be more than 700,000 in addition. But I did not admit that the effect would be to add the number to the franchise.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid the effect produced on the mind of the House by the statement made by the right hon. gentlemen in answer to a question put by the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James), was that there were 700,000 householders disfranchised——
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Houses.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: By the existing Registration system—that chief amongst the causes of their disfranchisement was the length of the qualifying period of residence and the payment of rates; and that the effect of the present Bill would be to place at any rate the greater number of those 700,000 electors on the register. He thought the House should have a further explanation from the right hon. gentlemen on that subject. The right hon. gentlemen should give them some estimate of the number of electors that were likely to be placed on the register by this Bill, for the House ought not to be asked to legislate in the dark on such an important matter. They did not want to pass under the guise of a Registration Bill what was really a great meaure of Reform. With regard to the proposed period of residence, he should say that he was in favour of a
  958
  substantial period of residence for qualification—whether twelve months or six months, he did not care—but three months were altogether insufficient. Under such a short residence qualification they would run great danger of having electors actually imported into constituencies where parties were equally balanced; and they would have considerable personation, which was already common enough in all large towns where the difficulties of identification were great. If the clause were passed in that form, further provisions would have to add to the Corrupt Practices Act; and the presiding officer at elections would have to be provided with a return of the electors who had removed from the locality, and the electors who had died, up to the very day of the poll. He did not think it was wise to shorten the period of residence to three mouths. Let them have a fair and substantial period of residence, and then put on the register every bonâ fide elector with as little delay as possible. Then as to the removal of the rate-paying qualification—that again was not a registration matter, but an important change of principle in the matter of the franchise. Let the House remember that the Bill not only affected the Parliamentary franchise but all the franchises on which Local Government elections were conducted. There was another Bill before the House which conferred very large powers of spending rates on the Local Government electors of the country, and he asked was it wise to couple with this increase in the rate-spending powers of the electors provisions exempting the electors from the ratepaying qualification?—was it wise to say to the electors, "You shall, on the one hand, have large powers to spend the rates your neighbours pay; and, on the other hand, you shall not be under the obligation to pay rates—even though you are able to pay—in order to qualify yourselves for the vote." That he thought was a most dangerous principle to adopt. It was not a question of Party. Indeed, none of these questions if properly regarded were questions of Party, but were questions for putting the Local Government of the country on a sound and satisfactory basis. The Secretary for Scotland seemed to justify

  959
  the non-payment of the rates by the occupiers on the ground that the rates were paid by the owners. But it was an unsound argument. There was a vast difference between the owner and the occupier. If the owner did not pay the rates, there was property of his that might be seized; but the occupier might be a man of straw, a mere casual visitor to the locality, who might go away without having paid rates or rents and yet under the Bill he might come back at elections twelve months after he had left, and swamp, with the aid of his fellows, the votes of the bonâ fide residents. It was, indeed, an extraordinary thing that the Party who objected to the votes of non-residents when they belonged to the upper classes, when they were qualified by property to vote in the locality, should introduce legislation which tended to enfranchise a large class of non-residents who had no stake, and might never have had a stake, in the locality in which they exercised the vote. If there was any shred left of the old Liberal principle that taxation and representation should go hand in hand, lot the House not pass this non-ratepaying clause. He thought they would do wisely to stick to the old principle that they who voted away the rates should pay the rates. He thought the Successive Occupation Clause very desirable. He should be prepared to carry the clause further, because he thought great hardships were suffered by persons who removed, not merely from one part of a constituency to another, but from one part of a county to another; but if they were going to shorten the qualifying period of residence, the clause did not appear to him to be so necessary. The effect of Clauses 1 and 2 taken together, which were the Franchise Clauses, as differing from the Registration Clauses of the Bill, would be that many casual residents, who paid no rates, and who shifted from one place to another, would be qualified as full citizens. Would it not be better, he asked, to at once establish universal suffrage? Turning to the registration provisions of the Bill, he confessed that the Bill was a great improvement on all the Bills dealing with the matter which he had seen introduced into the House. The provisions dealing with lodgers were,
  960
  however, open to some discussion. It was obviously right that the old lodger who was on the register should not be obliged to send in a new claim year after year; but it was open to doubt whether it was reasonably possible for the registration officer to collect the names of all lodgers without the lodgers having made personal claims for the vote. Then, as to the Superintendent Registrar, the Bill provided that there should be, as a rule, a separate Superintendent Registrar for every Parliamentary constituency. That would involve the appointment of 23 Superintendent Registrars in Lancashire alone.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: A Superintendent Registrar may act for more than one constituency.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that anyway the Superintendent Registrar would be a highly important officer, and if anything like the powers proposed by Clause 5 were given to him, it would be of the most importance to appoint men who were absolutely above all suspicion of partizanship. He did not think the Government could have placed the appointment of these officers in better hands than in the hands of the County Councils. But he did not think that the County Councils should have power to remove these officers without the consent of some central authority. He suggested that the Superintendent Registrar should be placed in the same position as clerks of unions appointed by the local bodies with the consent of a central department, and not removable except with the consent of the central department. That would secure for the Superintendent Registrars permanent appointments, and would place them above the failings of the ordinary temporary official. He also thought these superintendents should be as far as possible diminished in number. Only one, and in large counties, not more than two or three, should be appointed, for the greater the responsibility and the larger the salary, the better the chance of obtaining good men for the positions. He thought the Government must reconsider Clause 5, because under it these Superintendent Registrars would have power to alter and manipulate the voter's lists in private without any check until they came up for revision before the Revising Barrister. That was a very dangerous power to put into the

  961
  hands of any officer. Any alteration made by the superintendent ought to be made in public committee in such a way that it could be checked by the agents of the Political Parties or by any elector. Such a course would prevent a large number of appeals, not on points of law, but on mere questions of fact, to the Revising Barristers. Indeed, if the change he suggested were made, they might dispense altogether with the lie-vising Barrister—though he hardly thought the Government would adopt such a destructive policy—and leave the legal questions that might arise to the County Court Judges. He also thought a person ought to be permitted to make a claim for a vote at any time. Under the existing law, which was adopted by the Bill, there were only three months in the year in which claims could be sent in, and it often happened that people forgot the period, or found it inconvenient or impossible to send in their claims during the time allowed. Then there was the question of supplementary registrations. He had been bold enough to propose in his Bill that there should be three supplementary registrations in the year; but if such a system would be too expensive they should certainly have one supplementary period of registration, for under the present system seven or eight months might elapse from the end of the period of qualification until the voter was placed on the register again. The transfer system of the Government would be very unsafe, for no provision was made for the proper revision of the transfers, and the system would make the introduction of bogus votes into a constituency quite possible. The provision for preparing the register between 6th October and 31st October could not, he was told, be carried out with the necessary care and accuracy in large constituencies. When lists had been prepared at great expense they ought to be available for all local elections, especially School Board elections. It was obvious that there were a great many defective points in the registration which would require most careful consideration in the Bill. He should have thought that the precedent of 1885 might very well have been followed in respect of the registration part of the measure, and that it might have been considered by a Select Committee, who could, if necessary, take
  962
  the evidence of experts. There was a clear distinction to be drawn between the franchise and the registration parts of the Bill. For instance, it was one thing to add hundreds of thousands of electors to the register, and another thing to merely register voters. He hoped that the several parts of the Bill might be treated differently and according to their respective merits. Though they were discussing a Registration Bill, they should bear in mind that it was a Reform Bill as well as a Registration Bill.
  MR. W. AMBROSEwas sure that the House would feel very much indebted to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the very able speech he had delivered, and the extent of information with which his speech had been filled. It was to be hoped the Government would give attention to some of the suggestions he had made. They must all recognise the spirit of friendliness which characterised the hon. Gentleman's observations. He must confess that he (Mr. Ambrose) approached this, Bill with a considerable feeling of disappointment. No one could be other than conscious of the necessity for improvement in the registration system. At present, if one desired to inform himself on any question affecting the registration law he did not know what to appeal to. The law was so complicated that even very few lawyers understood it. Registration agents pretended to understand it, but he did not think they did. The law was involved in so many Acts of Parliament that it was difficult to find out at any time what its exact state was. He had thought that the object of the Bill was to simplify the law, so that Parliamentary candidates and their constituencies would have less difficulty in understanding it. He was afraid, however, that the Bill would do very little in that direction. The law at present was contained in a series of statutes—he did not know how far they went back. Some of them, he thought, went back as far as the time of Elizabeth. Those statutes were collected together into a volume known as Rogers on Elections. This was a big volume, and if anybody wished to know anything about the registration law he would have to shut himself up for 12 months and study that book. At the end of the

  963
  12 months he would have something like a glimmering of a notion as to what the law was, but even then he would understand but very little about it. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had induced him (Mr. Ambrose) to expect more from the measure than he had found in it, and the right hon. Gentleman was evidently conscious that he. had not grappled with the subject as he should have done. The measure should have consolidated the various statutes, so as to have presented them in one Act, in order that electors and Registration Superintendents could find all they wanted within the covers of one statute without going to section so-and-so to find that section so-and-so had been repealed, and to another section to find that section so-and-so had been amended. It was understood that the object of the Bill was to simplify the law, but if hon. Members would turn to the schedules they would find columns of matter relating to Acts of Parliament which were in part repealed, and the effect of this upon the mind of the inquirer was excessively confusing. All the existing statutes were more or less altered in the Bill. How the superintendents would be able to apply themselves to the keeping of the register and be able to deal with the various points which would be presented under this measure he really did not know. Though he had every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill would give a careful reply by-and-by, he rather doubted the right hon. Gentleman's capacity to point out how the registrars could be instructed in their work, or how anybody would be able to acquire a knowledge of the Registration Laws on this measure. As to the registrars, he had great doubts as to their ability to discharge the duty which would be cast upon them, and he had also great doubts as to the fitness of the voters who were entitled to be put upon the register, while in regard to candidates he did not think the measure would afford them any relief whatever. Instead of the anxieties connected with registration being confined to a specific period of the year—viz., July, August, and September—under this measure we should have them all the year round. The registrars were to have the duty cast upon them of
  964
  altering the register all the year round—it might be behind the backs of the people interested. At present they had the overseers' lists to guide them, a man who was entitled to a vote being put on the register automatically; but under the new scheme registration would be continually going on, causing great expense to candidates, Parliamentary and otherwise. He was very much afraid that, instead of effecting all that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill contemplated, the scheme would prove an absolute failure. He (Mr. Ambrose) hardly knew what to do with regard to the Bill. If he thought it could be improved in Committee he should be glad to support the Second Reading, but there were one or two questions of principle involved. The measure went beyond its title, and introduced questions of franchise rather than of mere registration. In the first place there was the proposed reduction to three months of the period of qualification. That he was bound to say he should have to oppose, although he did not know that it would be necessary for him to oppose the Bill in order to oppose that point, as they would be able to deal with it in Committee. In his view the shortest time to which they should reduce the period of qualification was six months. He did not quite understand the object of hon. Members opposite in their struggle to obtain a reduction of the period of qualification. As the House was aware, there were people who never settled anywhere—who were migratory in their character—who went into houses and left them, after a short period of residence, without paying their rent. The landlords knew this class of people perfectly well, especially landlords of small houses. They occupied a house long enough to get it into a dirty state and out of repair and then left it. These were the people hon. Members opposite were anxious to get on the register—the people who dirtied their houses, made them unfit for the tenants who succeeded them, and left without paying their rents. Hon. Members opposite seemed to have a strong desire to give people of this class a vote, and to swamp the votes of intelligent, educated electors. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, that seemed to him to be at the bottom of this Bill. These, no doubt, would be the

  965
  sort of people who would be led away by election cries, and upon whom such statements as that a Member had neglected his duty by absenting himself from divisions which involved no point of principle whatever, would be likely to produce an effect. The question was were the votes of the people of the highest intelligence and the greatest responsibility to be overborne by people of this kind—people who dirtied their houses so that they could not remain in them long, and left without paying their rates and taxes. If that was the object of hon. Members opposite let them say so. He would then agree that they were properly reducing the period to three months; but unless that were their object, he could see no reason whatever for their intense anxiety to get upon the register these people whom Mr. John Bright had described as the residuum of the population. The Government did not realise the principle that in this country electors not only voted for themselves, but also for people who were not voters. Even after the great additions which would be made by this Bill to the lists of voters had been effected, there would be a greater number outside who were not on the register than there were upon it. It was therefore all the more necessary to take care in putting people upon the register that those who were added were people likely to consider, not only the interest of their own class, but also the interest of other members of the community. The Parliament of Great Britain controlled not only the affairs of Great Britain and Ireland, but the whole Empire, and the struggle in connection with this Bill seemed to be, not to secure the highest intelligence and responsibility in the representation of the constituencies, but to secure a majority. [Cheers and counter Cheers and interruption.] He would put before the Government the enormous responsibility which rested upon those who commanded a majority in that House. It involved not only the affairs of Great Britain, but the affairs of India, of the Colonies, and, in fact, of the whole Empire. He would ask hon. Members whether these people who moved about—this migratory population—were the people to whom the decision of Imperial questions should be entrusted. Were these people better
  966
  fitted to deal with such matters than permanent residents who paid their rates and taxes and discharged all their obligations. If that was the opinion of hon. Members opposite well and good, but at any rate he did not think it would be the opinion of the country. As to the second part of the Bill that dealt with the question of rating. He was aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) was of opinion that rating was an evidence of ownership and occupation rather than a qualification for the vote. With all respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman he could not accept his argument. He had always understood it to be a principle of the British Government that representation and taxation should go together. That principle had been accepted from time immemorial—from the days of the scot and lot system. When Mr. Disraeli introduced his Bill on Household Suffrage the matter was put upon the old scot and lot principle. The vote was given to the householder because he necessarily bore his part in the payment of the rates and taxes of the country. As a householder he was get-at-able. No doubt shortly after that the Compound Householders Act was passed, but the effect of that was only to make the landlord the agent of the tenant in the matter of payment of rates, and they ought still to adhere to the old principle. He agreed that when the duty of paying the rates' fell upon the landlord and he neglected to pay them that was no ground for depriving the tenant of his vote. He should be prepared to accept the principle of allowing the tenant to retain his vote under such circumstances. It was too late to refuse to accept such a principle now; and he would still maintain in the Bill the principle that taxation and representation should go together. Clause 2 professed to give a remedy in regard to successive occupation, but really when properly construed it did no more than let in the lodger. It did not. extend in any way to the person who would be entitled to vote through occupation in one Parliamentary area the right to vote in another by virtue of that qualification. On the borders of his constituency were the constituencies of Paddington, Marylebone, Chelsea, and a portion of Hampstead. The result was

  967
  that on one side of the street voters were in his division, and on the other side in another division. In the event of a person moving from one side of the street to the other the effect of this clause would not be at once to remove the voter from the list of one division to that of the other. He thought, therefore, the clause would fail.
  MR. STOREYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had made a very dull speech, and had only waxed eloquent and grown warm when he had directed his high and mighty scorn against the "dirty" people whom he said the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed to put on the register. Without being offensive he (Mr. Storey) should like to tell the hon. Member that the "high falutin" stuff he had been addressing to the House——
  MR. AMBROSErose to Order. He desired to ask whether the hon. Member was justified in applying the word "stuff" to his speech.
  MR. STOREYsaid he had no objection to withdraw the word "stuff" and to substitute any Parliamentary word which would be admitted. He would only say that if the "high falutin" speech of the hon. and learned Member was the kind of speech which went down amongst the people of Harrow the sooner they had introduced into that constituency a large number of the "dirty" people to whom the hon. and learned Member had referred the better it would be for its representation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made one practical suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had proposed that instead of putting before the House the modest Bill the House of Commons was now invited to consider he should undertake the herculean task of consolidating the whole of the Registration Acts. The reply to that was that not a portion of a Session but a whole Session would have to be employed in securing that result. He (Mr. Storey) had not gathered whether the hon. and learned Member was for or against the Bill, but if he (Mr. Storey) entertained the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinions he should be in favour of the Bill. If he were a Tory and this measure were presented to him as a settlement of
  968
  registration difficulties he should be perfectly willing to accept it. Speaking as a Radical Member, he thought the Bill would be not to the advantage of the Radical Party but to the advantage of the Conservative Party. He agreed that the complexities and difficulties of our registration system were very great indeed. So long as they had different classes of electors and different lists of electors they could expect nothing but complexity. They had owners, they had limited owners, they had occupiers, they had Parliamentary voters, they had School Board voters, and they had Local Board voters. Common-sense would teach them that if they wanted to escape complexity some Minister must rise in the House of Commons, like Mr. Disraeli, who would take the bull by the horns and once for all put an end to complexity by making a single register, and giving every man in the country a vote. He complimented the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, on the Bill he had brought in. He had known the right hon. Gentleman for years as a man who had interested himself in this matter, and when he had understood that the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in the preparation of a Bill, he was sure that, subject to the exigencies of time, the right hon. Gentleman would produce a measure which the country would regard with satisfaction. He was justified in believing that in the Bill before them his expectations were fulfilled. To his mind the object of any Bill dealing with registration should be twofold. First of all, the object of a Registration Bill rising to the height of perfection, should be to give a vote to every man in the country who was 21 years of age. His right hon. Friend did not of course attempt that, but, at any-rate, he had tried to make it as easy to get on the register as it was to get on the rate-book, and as hard to get off the register as it was to get off the rate-book. He could not say that the right hon. Gentleman had quite achieved that ideal result, but he had gone a very considerable way beyond the present law in aiming at and attaining to it. The second object of a Registration Bill should be to save Political Parties the enormous sums they now expended upon registration. In his (Mr. Storey's)

  969
  judgment the Bill had not been successful in that effort. He believed the effect of the Bill in its present shape would be, so far from diminishing the cost of registration, to increase it. But more of that by and bye. He was altogether in sympathy with his right hon. Friend in proposing that the period of qualification should be diminished to three months. The right hon. Gentleman would not have offended him (Mr. Storey) if he had gone a great deal further in that direction. And he was more in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman when he boldly put an end to the rate-paying qualification and laid down the principle that the householder of the country, because he was a man, and a householder, and not because of some paltry consideration of money, had a right to take part in the election of Members of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had implied that a six months' qualification would be more effectual than a three months'. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that a six months' qualification would keep out more of the "dirty" men than three months' would. He (Mr. Storey) hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be no party either here or elsewhere to increasing the period of qualification in the Bill. He (Mr. Storey) had a special right to make this request to the House, because he came from a part of the country far from London, and inhabited by a people not quite the same as the clever people in the South—a dull plodding race, and very old-fashioned and conservative. [Laughter.] Yes, conservative. Every one who knew them knew that they would be the greatest Conservatives in the country if all the remedial measures they desired were passed. They had a special claim upon the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that the claim to be put on the register should be made on the three months ending the 24th June, and he proposed that because that marked a legal term over the greater part of the South of England. In the North, however, as he had said, they were old-fashioned, and they did not believe in the 24th June. A large portion of the people in the North wore quarterly tenants, and their tenancies ended in May,
  970
  August, November, and February. In the South, because the tenancies ended in June, all the tenants who had gone in and ended their occupation in June, would come, by the operation of the Bill, without any effort on their part, on the Register; but, taking the case of the people in the North, where they had moved in May, they would on the 24th June have had six weeks' occupation, and under the Bill every one of these men would have to claim. If the period of qualification was six months instead of three, the number of men who would have to claim in the North would be exactly doubled. All the February and all the May changes would have to claim, and the burden thrown on the officials or the Political Parties would be very severe indeed, and, moreover, the men themselves would be put to considerable trouble. It was for that reason, although hon. Members might think it a selfish reason, for the sake of "dirty" people in the North, that he pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman to alter his proposal from three months to six weeks, in order to meet a decided objection and difficulty in the case of the North. And now he wished to make a complaint. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to realise the matter of successive occupation with which he dealt in Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman proposed only to deal with it so far as different occupations in the same electoral area were concerned. He would put the case of Sunderland, which was not the least among the thousands of Israel. Sunderland was a borough containing parishes, some parts of which were within the borough and some without. On the one side of a certain line were the borough voters of Sunderland, and on the other side the county voters of Houghton-le-Spring. If a man moved from the top of the street to the bottom, Clause 2 would deal with him, but if he moved from one side of the street to the other—from the county into the borough, or vice versâ,out of the borough into the county—Clause 2 would provide no method by which a simple transfer could be made. That was a serious matter, and one which affected a large number of residents. He put it to the President of the Local Government Board whether the aim of a Liberal Government ought not

  971
  to be that a Bill of this kind should apply to every bonâ fide householder or lodger who had lived in any part of the country for the qualifying period of three months. He gave the right hon. Gentleman notice that in Committee he would bring forward a series of clauses to the effect that where a man moved from one electoral area to another he should be able to get from the Registration Officer of the district out of which he had moved a certificate of transfer to the new Registration Officer, and that the two occupations should count as one, and the man be put on the Register. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed in Clause 3 that lodgers should no more claim. He would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that upon that clause alone he might do well to accept the Bill, for he would frankly admit that the clause would be of enormous advantage to others rather than the Radical Party. He would, however, venture to put it to the hon. Members opposite that on the ground of common fairness they should not require the clause to stand as it was. The Lodger Franchise was an exceptional franchise. Every householder had a vote, but every lodger had not a vote. For his part, he could not understand why, if every householder had a vote, every lodger should not have a vote. He really thought when they were about the business they had better cut the Gordian knot. This Lodger Franchise was the creation of Mr. Disraeli, and was adopted by the Conservative Party, and he would invite the Leader of the Opposition to complete the work of his distinguished Predecessor; let them round off things, and when they had done with that Bill let them have every householder and every lodger in the country in possession of a vote. The proposal in the Bill was that the lodger should, not claim as he claimed now. At present the lodger had to claim every year, and he had to come before the Revising Barrister and to be subjected to cross-examination. He (Mr. Storey) had been a great deal at Registration Courts, and he must say that anything like the objection which many gentlemen felt to cross-examination about lodger claims he had never seen in his life. He had known 600 claims made, and then they could only get 60 to stand the racket in
  972
  Court. Why? Because cross-examination established the fact that there was nothing easier than to make bogus lodger claims, and the only remedy for it was to have publicity. What was the proposal in the present Bill. The Registrar was to go about inquiring curiously who was a lodger and who was not, and he alone was to put a lodger on the list. He would thus be put on without being subjected to cross-examination. If an agent objected to a claim it would be at his own peril, and he would have to go into a Court to prove a negative. This was a monstrous proposition, and they ought to retain the provision that the lodger should go into Court to establish his claim. Only in this way would it be possible to prevent bogus claims. The Bill made an enormous administrative change in the preparation of the registers. At present the registers were prepared by the overseers and assistant overseers, and speaking from twenty-five years' experience of Registration and Registration Courts, he was of opinion these officials did their work remarkably well and with great fairness. There was one weakness about the present system, and that was there was nobody to supervise the overseers until they got before the Revising Barrister, and therefore when it was proposed to add the Superintendent Registrar of each electoral area he entirely agreed with the proposal, but he was of opinion the assistant overseers and the overseers should continue to act, the Superintendent Registrar going about among them, and then without any great administrative change he ventured to say they would not have much to complain of. They did not want to increase the present cost of registration either in the county or urban districts. He believed the popular notion was that the bulk of the cost of registration was now borne by the two Political Parties. That was not the case, and in the County of Durham alone the cost of registration to the public was £5,000 a year. They certainly did not want to increase the cost. But in the Bill it was not specified who were to be the district registrars. The County Council might appoint the present overseers and assistant overseers, or on the other hand, might make a clear sweep on the business and appoint entirely new registrars, and in that case the additional expense would

  973
  be enormous and they would have a great army of officials created throughout the country. He would respectfully suggest that, for the purpose of avoiding a very contentious point, his right hon. Friend, at any rate, for the present, should drop the whole question of district registrars, confine himself simply to the appointment of Superintendent Registrars, and try how that would work for two or three years. He believed the effect of that would be to prevent a large administrative change; it would have a tendency to diminish the cost, and in his judgment if the Superintendent Registrars were appointed the registration work would be effectually carried on. He was afraid he had detained the House too long. ["No, no!"] The present state of registration was admittedly bad; the Bill might not be all that they desired, but if it tended to the advantage of either Party he invited the House in the public interest, and in the desire to get on the register as many of their fellow citizens as they could, to pass the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down apologised quite unnecessarily, as I venture to think, for the length of his speech, for, although with much that fell from him I do not agree, the speech itself was not only an able speech, but a very concise speech, full of matter well deserving the consideration of the promoters of the Bill and those who are to be its critics. The hon. Gentleman and I both appear to have approached this Bill certainly with no desire to find fault with it, but to recognise, as I believe every man, in whatever part of the House he sits, recognises that the existing law with regard to registration prevents certain classes of people who, under a better law, would be voters, from being voters. This is the effect of the existing law, and any amendment of that law deserves the favourable and impartial consideration of the House. At the same time, while the hon. Gentleman and I approach this subject in this favourable frame of mind, we both appear to have come, independently and from different reasons and points of view, to
  974
  the conclusion that the actual proposals of the Government, however good their intentions, however estimable their objects, are not, in their present shape, at least, likely—or that they have any hope—to meet with general acceptance from Parliament. The hon. Gentleman puts in one sense a much larger construction on the objects of the Bill than I do. He asked what are the objects of a Registration Bill, and he says the object of a Registration Bill is to put on the Register the name of every man over 21 years of age.
  MR. STOREY: I said that should be the object of an ideal Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought so—that the ideal scheme should be one which would put every man over 21 years of ago on the register. In other words, the object of the Government should be to bring in a Reform Bill of great magnitude. I do not dispute that; but if you put on the register every man over 21 years of age, let us hear something about women over 21 years of age.
  MR. STOREYexpressed himself in favour of including women.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware of that with regard to the hon. Gentleman, and I observe with satisfaction that if this question is raised—and I gather that it is not improbable it may be raised—that he and I shall find ourselves in the same Lobby. This, then, is a great Reform Bill, not merely a great Registration Bill. It is a Bill as much modifying the constitution of the electorate as it is a Bill modifying the method in which the elector shall make good his claim. The Bill, therefore, is one of immense magnitude. I cannot claim to go over the whole ground on which discussion must be raised, but naturally criticism must proceed on the machinery of the Bill—the machinery of registration—and criticism of the reform proposals of the Bill. I shall take these two great subjects in their order, and I am bound to say that I find in studying the machinery of the Bill apart from its

  975
  enfranchising clauses the greatest objection to substituting this elaborate and costly machinery for the present system, whatever faults it may contain. The President of the Local Government Board has based the whole of his measure upon a particular expression in the Report of the Committee upon Registration, over which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer presided—the statement that it is the business of the State to frame the register, and not the business of a Political Party. That is a very plausible sentence, which I do not propose to quarrel with, but a sentence which is not the basis of this Bill, for this Bill does not leave it to the State. It leaves it to the locality, and not to the State. On the locality the Bill throws the responsibility, on the locality it throws the cost. I am not prepared to anticipate the discussion which will be raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me with regard to the sources from which the cost of this new machinery is to come. I leave that on one side; but it does appear to me that the Government which holds that the preparation of the register is the business of the State has no right to throw the cost, not on the State, but on the locality. But, as I have said, leaving that on one side, what are the three things which we require from any machinery for registration? We require, in the first place, that it shall be cheap; in the second place, that it shall be easy; and, in the third place, that it shall be not only fair, but that it shall be thought to be fair. In the first place, is the machinery likely to be cheap? I think not. At present there are two stages, and two stages only, in the preparation of the register—leaving out of account, of course, an appeal from the Revising Barrister on a point of law to the High Court. For these two stages you substitute three. There is, first, the preparation of the list by the registrar; there is then the preparation of the list by the Superintendent Registrar; and there is, thirdly, the appeal from the Superintendent Registrar to the Revising Barrister. Does anybody with experience of what legal or quasi-legal proceedings are, or what administrative or quasi-administrative proceedings are, for one moment suppose that a method of preparing the register,
  976
  which requires three stages, is likely to be less costly than the existing system, which requires only two? But apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government appear to think that by their scheme, or by some scheme analogous to it, you can get rid of the registration agent. In my belief the registration agent is essential. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not otherwise. As things are in this country, the only people who will take sufficient trouble to go through the necessarily laborious and necessarily exhaustive process of examining the register vote by vote and man by man are the Political Parties who hope to profit by the process; and the idea that by any modification of the machinery you can provide people who will take all that trouble without anybody to criticise them and without any of the ordinary inducements by which men are spurred on to undertake difficult and ungrateful toil—that supposition is itself a mark of the sanguine spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has entered into the discussion of this difficult question. In what respect is the present system costly? It is not costly in respect of counsel's fees, because counsel are not allowed to appear before the Revising Barrister. Why is the present system costly? It is costly because the machinery for investigating the case of each elector is costly. It is costly because the duty of bringing the case of each doubtful elector before the proper tribunal is costly. Yon never can escape that cost merely by substituting a Superintendent Registrar paid by the locality for a Revising Barrister paid by the State. If the new system is likely, therefore, to be—as I am sure it is likely to be—as costly as the old system—I believe it will be more costly; at all events he would be a hardy prophet who would say it would be less costly—if it is to be as costly, or probably more costly, let us come to ask whether the new system comes to satisfy the second test which I have ventured to lay down. Is it likely to be more easy to the voter? Under the present system the claim of the voter is finally decided by the Revising Barrister, who goes on circuit in the constituency, who goes, or who ought to go, so to speak, to the door of every elector, who holds his court in every

  977
  village where a disputed claim is to be decided.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: He goes to the county town.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the contrary—the right hon. Gentleman is in error—the Revising Barrister does not confine his sittings to the county town. He makes it his business, or ought to make it his business, to go to the place where the voter whose claim is being investigated can conveniently come to him to have his case heard. What is to be your system under the new Bill? You are going to have an office and clerks—first division clerks, I suppose, and second division clerks, and writers—you are going to have an office paid by the unfortunate county, situated, I presume, in the county town. A voter who wishes to bring his claim before the official who sits in that office, in that county town, may have to walk 40 or 50 or 60 miles.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, no.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. You will find many constituencies in which the voter will have to go 40, 50, or 60 miles to make his claim before this official.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: There is no electoral area that extends to 40 or 50 miles.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly there is. I will mention two which come to my mind—one in which there was a recent bye-election in which we lost the Cirencester Division—that fact is naturally imprinted on my mind; and the other the county of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the county town. I believe it will be found that the measurements of these two are not less than those which I have described; and, recollect, that it constantly happens that the principal town of a constituency—the place where you must have your office, where you must have your clerks—first and second division—is at one end of the constituency, and that the county voter
  978
  far removed from that town will necessarily have to travel the whole of that distance in order that his rights as a citizen of this Empire may be established. But that is not all. I observe that in the Bill the voter or the agent of the political party acting for the voter who is dissatisfied with the decision—the Star Chamber decision—of this paid county official in the county town has seven days, and seven days only, in which to make up his mind whether he will appeal or whether he will not appeal to the Revising Barrister, and that seven days falls in the country districts in the very middle of harvest, and consequently in his busiest time in the whole year, you expect the county voter, living 40 or 50 miles from the county town, to get his information as to his vote being allowed, to make up his mind—under the penalty of costs if he fails—whether he will go to the Revising Barrister or not. It appears to me to be perfectly monstrous. And if I may compare in this respect—in respect of the comparative convenience to the voter, the system which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up with the system which now exists—I say without doubt—and I believe the House, after having heard the argument which I have laid before it, will agree with me—that the existing system is incomparably better and incomparably more likely to give that great desideratum justice, and easy justice. So much for my first and second qualifications of the machinery, cheapness, and facility. How about the third? How about the fairness of the new system? How about the power which the now system will have of inspiring the confidence of those whose political fortunes are to be decided by it? I confess that I cannot conceive how you are going to man this new tribunal which you are going to set up. At present the final authority in most cases is the Revising Barrister, and you have a very large field from which to choose competent and efficient men, because you are not confined to a locality. Under this Bill you must depend absolutely upon local talent. [An hon. MEMBER: "No."] I am sure the hon. Member opposite who said "No"—and who, I suppose, would sooner not have local talent to depend

  979
  upon—although I doubt if in his own county he wishes to see an adequately paid office of this kind filled by a stranger instead of by a local man—will be driven to the conclusion I have been driven to—namely, that this Superintendent Registrar who is to be our governor and the determiner of our destinies in the future will be a local man. Now where are you going in a large number of rural constituencies to get this efficient local man? By your Bill he is not to be an agent, his partner is not to be an agent, his clerks are not to be agents, of either Political Party. He is, I presume, not intended to be a partisan. You will find it extremely difficult to find such a man, for I am glad to say that in this country every man who is worth anything is a partisan. Every man who is worth anything has in Imperial and local politics made up his mind to give his support to one of the two Parties, a friend of their friends and an enemy of their enemies. I will defy you—do what you will—to find in many districts an impartial and competent man without any tie of this character. How will you find a man in any district competent impartially to carry on the work which by this Bill you will impose upon him? But that is not all. Who is going to appoint him? The Revising Barristers are appointed by the Judges on circuit; the Judges on circuit change every year. They appoint men wholly unconnected with the locality, and Parliament has provided that the man so appointed shall not be a candidate in his district for 18 months. Will any human being be audacious enough to get up and say that every appointment by every County Council in this Kingdom is likely to be an impartial one? There are a very large number of County Councils in which I believe politics do not enter in the least degree. But there are County Councils where politics do enter and where they form the dominant consideration, in which Party organisation is as highly developed as it is in this House, in which men are elected because they belong to this or that Party, and for no other reason, and in which there are Whips. I am the last person to object to that. In this House we could not do our work without Party organisation. But
  980
  can it be said that bodies in which Party organisation is in full force are competent to deal fairly with electoral matters? A long and painful discipline has proved to us that we are not a fit tribunal to decide whether such and such a man is or is not a duly-elected member; and it appears to me that to call upon a County Council to decide whether a man is properly elected, is at least as dangerous an experiment as has ever been tried in the whole history of electoral institutions. There is a very able gentleman in this House who made an admirable speech the other day on a private Bill. I notice it is stated in his book that he is a Whip of the London County Council—I mean the Member for the Tower Hamlets. There is nothing in this Bill which would prevent the London County Council from appointing him to be Superintendent Registrar for half the London constituencies.
  MR. BENN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentlemen. He puts upon me an honour which does not belong to me. Some time ago I did occupy the distinguished position to which he has referred, but at present it is occupied by Dr. Collins, who, I believe, has no political pretensions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think better of the London County Council than to suppose they would appoint a gentleman of no political pretensions. I use the term most respectfully, and, of course, I accept the repudiation of the hon. Gentleman. I only used his name to illustrate and enforce by a concrete example the absurdity of the machinery proposed for our acceptance. It shows that the Whip of the County Council, whoever he may be, whether he be a man of strong political leaning like the hon. Member or that negative substitute who, we are told, has succeeded him, could be appointed by the County Council to-morrow to superintend and determine the registers on which the whole of the 67 members for London are to be elected.
  MR. BENN: I am very sorry to have to interrupt again, but I beg to call attention to the fact that many notable offices have been filled by the London County Council, quite irrespective of politics. I can point to several cases.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think so badly of the London County Council as to suppose that never in their whole experience have they appointed a man to an office except from political motives. All I have ventured to point out to the House is that under the Bill it would be in the power of the County Council to appoint officers in London to manage—I will not say mauipulate—the register whom they could trust, at all events, to have a gentle bias towards one Party in the State rather than towards the other. And these County Councils do not merely appoint these officers. The language of the Bill, and the language of the Bill as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, is explicit upon that subject. They appoint, they pay, and they superintend. They are to exist at the mere beck and call of those politically-elected bodies; they are to be paid by them, and it is on their favour, and their favour alone, that their continuance in office is to depend. They are "removable" in the strictest sense of the word. Now, Sir, we all know, though we may not have all considered it in this connection, the extraordinarily narrow majorities by which the fate of Governments at present is determined—I do not mean in this House, but in the constituencies. Contrive, by a little judicious manipulation, to turn a few hundred votes from one side to the other, and you decide who shall sit upon this Bench and who upon that, and that power you actually mean under this Bill to place in the hands of assemblies many of which are, and all of which may be, elected on political grounds alone. As I have already indicated, I am no enemy of Party Government. I believe that, with all its defects and absurdities, it is the one possible system on which we can
  982
  manage free institutions. That I accept; but do not let us introduce party elements, if we can avoid it, at the very root of our Constitution. Do not let us feel not merely that we are organised as Parties in this House and in the country, but that officials paid by us in the localities can determine, first, who is to be on the register; secondly, who is to be returned by the registrar; and, thirdly, who is to govern the country. It is too large a responsibility to place on Local Authorities. If they do not abuse it they will be suspected of abusing it, and to be suspected of abusing a power of that kind is as bad almost as to be actually guilty. The Bill abolishes for the first time in our electoral history since 1832 the qualification of rating. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) said, Why should you deprive a man of his vote for a paltry question of money? I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I quite admit that in our existing electoral system there are large classes introduced, and rightly introduced, who are not personally responsible for the payment of rates. I admit, therefore, that we cannot pretend that the rating qualification is one that is co-extensive with the whole of our electoral machinery. Do not let us destroy that. I should like to see, if I had my ideal, a franchise as extensive as you can make it, but combined from one end to the other with the duty of paying something towards the objects in which every citizen is interested. I do not ask the House to substitute a rating franchise for the franchise under which we now exist, but I hope the House will not rashly give its assent to the doctrine that the nonpayment of rates is not a disqualification for the full rights of citizenship. I do not wish to dwell at length upon a subject which in my own country excites the greatest interest—I mean the fact that if you pass the Bill in its present shape you will strike a blow at the collection of rates itself, which must hamper all the Local Authorities throughout Scotland. That is a very important question, but I leave it to be developed by others in relation to the Scotch Bill. I only say now that the Bill of the Government will have a bad effect in that direction. But my objection is far deeper rooted than that. Recollect that the payment

  983
  of rates is under our existing system the only direct taxation which vast masses of our fellow-subjects pay at all. There are an enormous number of electors who determine the constitution of this House, and who are to be Ministers, who determine, therefore, indirectly what the Budget is to be, but who pay not one farthing in direct taxation from year's end to year's end. Do not let us do anything to induce these people to think that the responsibility of paying this direct taxation is a small matter. And recollect that, though the rates are called local, they are largely not local but Imperial. The education rate, the road rate, the police rate, even the sanitary rate—unless a great many of the speeches I hear in this House are pure humbug—are Imperial questions. Let the ratepayer understand by your legislation that contribution to those burdens is an Imperial duty, and that unless that duty is performed he cannot expect his share in Imperial franchises. Do not be so rash as to shatter the remains, the more than remains—the large part—of that ancient system which we still have. The next two points connected with the reform part of this plan to which I wish to allude relate to transfers from constituency to constituency, and to the right of successive occupation. Let me say at once that, with regard to both of those, I sympathise absolutely with the wishes of the Government. My objection is not to the object, but to the machinery by which the object is to be carried out. The transfer from constituency to constituency, as the House knows, is to be effected in this wise. If a man has a qualification in constituency A before the 25th of June he can then come to constituency B, if he resides there three months before the 25th of December, and by collusion between the superintendents of the two constituencies he can be lifted out of one and be deposited in the other. Now, so far as I can read the Bill, there is not a single provision in it which puts any safeguard on the process, obviously dangerous and open to abuse, by which many elections in this country can be determined. I have already said I believe the machinery for framing the original register is defective, but if I thought that defective, what are we to say of the machinery for framing the supplementary register, which con-
  984

  tains not one safeguard, so far as I can see, although it involves questions of greater difficulty than those which arise under the first. Here is offered the most fruitful opportunity of gerrymandering a constituency which the ingenuity of the most dexterous wire-puller could devise. The same observation will apply to the question of successive occupation, but I will not deal with it in that connection now. There are still one or two other questions of transcendent importance to mention. I have yet to refer to the point of the three months' qualifying residence. The Government have adopted the three months' term in order to shorten the time required to be on the register, and I entirely agree with the object they have in view. It is a perfect outrage that under certain circumstances it will take a man two years and a half before he can vote in a constituency, though he may have every other qualification. We agree, then, so far, but no further. The first result of this three months' register is that you will give votes to an unfortunate class, a class to which you wish to entrust your destinies, that floating class of labour—against whom I wish to say nothing—who habitually, year after year, get poor relief in the winter months, but who can get on the register in the spring. None of those persons can get votes now; all of them can get it under your new system. Do the Government—do the House—desire that? At all events, let us argue it out. Do you deliberately wish to add to your register the whole of that class of the population who, not by occasional accident but habitually, and, as it were, by necessity, come upon the poor rates in the winter months, and get upon the register in the summer months. I think, Sir, nobody can desire that. The question of personation I pass by, because there are others more qualified to speak of it than I am. I will only point out that any man who devotes his common sense to the subject will admit that a voter who resides in a district only three months and desires to exercise the franchise is not likely to be identified easily, and this will only be done by closely watching him in the interval in other constituencies. But there is another point which appears to me to be very important. From time immemorial local interests have been supposed to be an important

  985
  part of our system; but it must be evident that by this Bill those interests would be reduced to a vanishing point. There is another point, more controversial, I am afraid, than any I have yet touched upon, though I should hope it is also more transitory. This Government, the first among Governments to do so, have taught us that we are not merely to look upon the legislation that comes before this House from the point of view of the general interests of Great Britain and Ireland, but that we must consider the relative claims of England as against Ireland and of Ireland as against England. It is manifest, whether you like it or not, that legislation has been proposed in this House of which the whole point, if it ever becomes law, will be—Is England giving too much or too little? Is Ireland asking for too much or getting too little? It is deplorable that we should have to look at legislative questions from a Separatist point of view. Whether we like it or not, that is being forced upon us, and we men of common sense cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the result of this extraordinary shortening of the time of residence will and must be an enormous addition to what is universally known in electoral circles as the Irish vote. An hon. Gentleman says that in 1885 the Irish vote was given to the Tories. I do not agree with him, but will not dispute it. What does that mean? It means that at the bidding of a wirepuller in Dublin a section of every constituency, or, at any rate, every urban constituency, is transferred from the Tories to the Radicals, or from the Radicals to the Tories, not according to the exigencies of local politics in England, but according to the exigencies of Irish politics. The result of that action is, that though these people who give their votes are absolutely qualified for British citizenship—I am not saying a word against that—they appear, or their representatives in this House appear, as the spokesmen of English opinion, whereas, as a matter of fact, they are not spokesmen of English opinion at all, but of Irish opinion. I say that when a Government, especially a Home Rule Government, chooses this particular epoch for bringing this proposal forward, they are pursuing a course not only singularly inopportune, but a course
  986
  which casts some not undeserved suspicion on their motives. I hope and believe that this House will always, irrespective of Party, entertain any timely proposals for dealing with registration reform; but I do not think that when Pier Majesty's Government brings forward what is a Reform Bill framed on a very great scale—a Reform Bill which will introduce many hundreds of thousands of voters, a large proportion of whom will belong to what is known as the Irish vote, voters not belonging to an English organisation, but to an Irish organisation; when they bring forward a Reform Bill of that kind at the very moment when we are called upon to decide the great claims between England and Ireland, the moment chosen is singularly inopportune. I hope the considerations are transitory. I hope the time will come when we can consider in a calmer state of mind whether it is or is not desirable to make such a modification in our electoral law, that the power which now rests with that portion of our labouring population who do not habitually and periodically change their residences should be given to those who do. I have detained the House far longer than I intended. I hope I have in a purely argumentative strain, without rhetoric and without exaggeration, explained why I, while accepting the objects of the Bill, cannot agree with its methods. It is well intentioned, but not, I think, well devised. I can only conclude by putting in my request to the Government that they will endeavour to lick it into some sort of shape before a Select Committee, which could deal with the peculiarities of the different localities, which will not be, like a Grand Committee, confined to the mere discussion of principles. I believe the President of the Local Government Board announced it as his intention to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee. Let me assure him that such a course would be unfortunate. It would be unfortunate to the Bill, and not less unfortunate to the Grand Committee. Grand Committees, as has been abundantly proved, are not instruments which can deal effectively with these highly-controversial questions. By endeavouring to put them to a use for which they were never intended you will shatter them in your hand. If the right hon.

  987
  Gentleman will consent to the view expressed in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) and refer this Bill to a Select Committee, I will do my best to carry out the objects, which are, I believe, common to that side of the House as well as to this, and to turn this Bill into a measure which will destroy the hardships incidental to our present system without introducing any disastrous change.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned?"—(Mr. James Parker Smith).
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Mondey next.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL (No. 266).

  SECOND HEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HANBURYsaid he hoped the Secretary of State for War did not really intend to take this important Bill at so late an hour as 12 o'clock. It was a Bill dealing with the whole of Her Majesty's Forces on land and sea alike. There were many reasons why the Bill should be brought forward at an hour when it could be properly and thoroughly discussed. The Bill was not the same Bill as had been introduced in other years, for it contained a large number of new proposals, such as establishing a special jurisdiction for special offences, and in justice to the soldiers and marines affected by the Bill, it should be brought on at a time when it could be properly considered. Then, again, in every other year there had always been an officer responsible to the House who saw that courts martial were properly conducted. They had had recently a remarkable, and to some extent an alarming, speech from the late Judge Advocate General. The right hon. Gentleman had said that
  988
  in 1880 there were 250 cases of courts martial, in which he had to set aside the judgment, and the right hon. Gentleman added that he was strongly of opinion that many innocent men were wrongly convicted on hearsay evidence. For the first time this year there was no officer of the kind to look after the interests of the soldier, and to see that he was properly tried by court martial. The weight of the work of revising the judgments of courts martial was thrown on a man who had no connection with the Army; whose work as Judge of the Divorce Court was already great; who could not have time to attend to the judgments of courts martial, and who was not responsible to the House, as his salary came out of the Consolidated Fund. He therefore appealed to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who had shown an interest in the private soldier, not to ask the House to do the injustice of hurrying the Bill through at such a late hour of the night (ten minutes past 12), but to bring it on at a time when its provisions could be properly discussed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I do not think the hon. Gentleman is aware of what he is doing. To endeavour on the Second Reading to postpone the Army (Annual) Bill is a proposal of an extremely revolutionary character.
  MR. HANBURY: I am doing nothing of the kind. There is no need for this Bill to be passed before the end of April, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that. Therefore what the right hon. Gentleman has said is totally irrelevant. All I want is fair discussion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Evidently the hon. Gentleman would like to make another speech. The responsibility must rest on the hon. Gentleman, and on those who sit around him, for the consequences of the step they are about to take. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the office of Judge Advocate

  989
  General. The proper course to take in regard to that question is to raise it on the Military Vote, and not on this Bill. Remember that this is the Bill on which the discipline of the Army depends. I want to know whether the organization to delay the business of the House will operate on the Mutiny Bill too? I want to know are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to go the length of obstructing the Mutiny Bill, the object of which is as well understood outside the House as in the House? I should have thought that if there is one Bill which hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have attempted to use as an instrument of obstruction it is the Mutiny Bill. But if that is what they intend to do it should be understood by the Country.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid that in former years the Bill had always been the subject of debate. [Cries of "No"!] Well, since he had been in the House it had been debated at considerable length. There were many important points which hon. Members wished to raise on the Bill in the interest of the soldiers, which could not be properly raised at such an hour of the night, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I cannot put that Motion. The Bill is exempt from the Standing Order which prevents Opposed Business being taken at this hour; there is nothing to prevent the Second Reading being taken now, and I therefore put the question—that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BrLL—(No. 78.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Mr. ACLAND,): I am entirely in favour of the encouragement of agriculture, but I cannot go so far as this Bill, which involves the principle of State grants for the acquisition of land for buildings, &c, and I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone it.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 132.]
Bill, as amended, to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 277.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Amendments to—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the transfer of the undertaking of the Todmorden Gas Company and other Gas undertakings to the Todmorden Local Board; and for other purposes."

991
[Todmorden Local Board Gas Purchase Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Canal Navigations; to amend the Acts relating thereto; and for other purposes." [Birmingham Canal Bill [Lords.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 166.)
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 3) BILL. (No. 273.)
Read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 9.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 14th June.

POLICE DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL. (No. 212.)
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 25.)
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND).
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Law of Scotland relating to Feus and Leases for Building, including the casualties payable to the superior and the conditions frequently inserted in Feu Charters and Leases for Building, and to consider whether any, and if any, what amendment of the Law is required.—(The Lord Advocate.)
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES (FOREIGN STATES AND BRITISH COLONIES).
Return [presented 22nd March] to be printed. (No. 131.)
NAVAL DEFENCE ACT, 1889.
Account presented,—showing the amount of Money provided, the mode in which it was provided, and the amount expended for the purposes of the Act, &c, for the year ended 31st March, 1892, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CONTEMPT OF COURT (PERSONS DETAINED).
Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 28th February; Mr. Hop-wood]; to lie upon the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 35).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I need not detain the House many moments in asking you to read this Bill a Second time. It consists of only one clause, and is of a wholly uncontroversial character. The sole effect of it, if passed, will be to change the majority required for initiating proceedings in a Town Council, or changing the number or boundaries of the wards, from the two-thirds majority of that body at present required into a simple majority of the whole number. As Burghs increase, the population increasing and spreading over a wider area, it is very often necessary and only right that alterations should be made in the divisions of the wards into which the burgh is divided. Difficulty has been found in many cases in getting the requisite two-thirds majority because there are always some persons interested in keeping up the existing state of affairs; and the more the existing state of affairs gives reason for complaint the more unlikely it is that the requisite two-thirds majority will be got. I believe this inconvenience has been found in many towns, and that its removal will be heartily welcomed. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Heading, and I may mention that it has passed through all its stages in the other House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Balfour).
  LORD VERNON: My Lords, Mr. Asquith approved the principles of the Bill, and consequently it passed through all its stages, as the noble Lord has said, in the House of Commons. But it seems that the Privy Council has raised one or two objections to the Bill as it now stands, and the Home Office think some time ought to be allowed to elapse before the Committee Stage. I shall say nothing more about it now, but I hope
  834
  the noble, Lord will consent to that course.
  LORD BALFOUR: I will put it down for Friday, the 21st April.
  LORD VERNON: I do not exactly know what date they will be content to have it put off to, but if the noble Lord will put it down for that date, I suppose it will be pro forma?
  LORD BALFOUR: Yes.
  Motion agreed to; Read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday the 21st of April next.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 18.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, there are one or two Amendments which will have to be made in this Bill, but from the nature of them it will be necessary to communicate with the Scotch Office. I am not in a position to put them down to-day, but I hope to be able to insert them before the next stage.
  Bill reported without Amendment—Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

NAVY (OFFICERS' LEAVE).

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD SUDELEYcalled attention to the small amount of leave granted to Naval officers, especially on returning from Foreign service; and moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the regulations respecting the amount of leave granted to officers of the Royal Navy should be extended so as to apply to all officers, including admirals, captains, and commanders, and should be equalised as far as possible for those who have served on Foreign Stations as well as for those who have been on Home Service."
  He hoped to persuade their Lordships to pass a Resolution expressing their view that as far as possible leave should be assimilated when officers were on Foreign Service to that which they obtained on Home Service, and that all officers should be included under that rule. He was sure he might claim their Lordship's

  835
  sympathy and kindly feeling in this matter. Regulations were made in 1867 that, as far as possible, officers on the Home Station were to have six weeks' leave every year, and that officers on Foreign Service were only to be allowed to count two weeks for every year they were away; so that an officer away on Foreign Service for three years would only get six weeks' leave. That regulation not only applied with great hardship to a large number of officers, but it actually left out, for no reason that he could understand, all the senior officers. Admirals, captains, and commanders did not come under it. On the Home Station officers would get six weeks' leave, but if they went away on Foreign Service immediately they returned they were not granted any leave, but were at once relegated to half-pay. In many pamphlets and journals during the last few years it had been claimed that leave ought to be granted to naval officers when on Foreign Service as a right; hut he would not argue the matter for a moment on that basis. If leave were granted, it must only be according to the exigencies of the Service, and if the officers could be spared; though if duty prevented an officer obtaining his leave, it was to be hoped the Admiralty would give it him when those duties had been fulfilled. The matter might be put on two grounds: first, because leave was necessary in the interests of the Navy, and secondly, that it was desirable for the welfare of the officers themselves. Surely it was to the true interests of the Service that officers should at times be enabled to mix with their relatives, friends, and equals on shore. It made him a far better officer in point of general knowledge and attainment, beyond being a good disciplinarian, not to be kept constantly on duty with a stereotyped code of limited ideas and feelings. On broad national grounds, therefore, if our officers were to be trained to command the magnificent ships now being built, if they were to be fitted to meet foreign officers of the same position, and not only to be able commanders, but also at times diplomatists, they should have opportunities of seeing home life and acquiring general information, so as to become good all-round men in every respect. Naval officers should be the very best men it was possible to get—
  836
  thoroughly able and efficient; and what chance had a man of acquiring necessary general knowledge if he was to be kept perpetually at sea in the round of duty. It was an injustice to keep officers away on Foreign Stations for long periods of three, four, or five years, and then to grant them the smallest possible modicum of leave when they returned home. Formerly this want of leave was not so much felt, but with our increased Navy the officers were more required, and the leave now granted was very small indeed. It was our proud boast that our naval officers were the best and most efficient men it was possible to obtain, and it was a great honour to them that, notwithstanding the small chance they had of acquiring general knowledge, they were such good officers. They could be thoroughly relied upon in time of danger, and absolutely trusted at all times; but still this question of leave was a burning grievance with them. It was a cancer eating into the hearts of many officers throughout the Service. No one acquainted with the inner life on board ship would deny that that feeling of discontent had grown very much of late, and it was to the interest of the country that it should be remedied. Those of their Lordships who had relatives and connections in the Navy would bear him out in saying that officers spoke upon this question with extraordinary intensity. Life on board ship must always be hard, dangerous, and monotonous in the constant round of duty day by day; but only those who had been on Foreign Stations year after year knew what it was to be in the same ship, often in unhealthy climates, longing for the home life and family joys, without which men become more or less uncivilised. He spoke on the subject with some personal feeling, having at one time been for many years on Foreign Stations, and remembered well his feelings on learning, after all he had looked forward to, over a period of five years, on returning home, that six weeks' leave was all he could possibly obtain. He acknowledged that three years' commissions were now the order of the day, but his experience had given him an overwhelming pity for poor officers who only got that short amount of leave. It was

  837
  a pitiable reward for officers who had served long on Foreign Stations, while their brother officers on Home Stations had been in the constant enjoyment of family life. Sometimes it was urged that the Navy should be compared with the Army in this matter, and that Naval officers should have equal leave granted them. That was a wrong and a foolish argument. The Army stood on a totally different basis, as there were naturally more officers in a regiment than were actually required except on service, and it was right they should be allowed long leave. Besides, they were always on shore. They knew nothing of night-watches or the delights of "a good night in" when it could be obtained. The Navy in this matter must stand on its own footing. The profession was a splendid one, but it involved a hard and dangerous life, and deprived those belonging to it to a great extent of home life. But it was equally true that it should be softened as much as possible, and, as far as the interests of the Service would allow, a fair modicum of leave should be granted in it. As regarded married men, of course, the question was difficult. Lord St. Vincent used to say that "a man in the Navy married was a man marred." He would not go so far as that. No doubt the married life of a naval officer had its difficulties, and was ever full of hardships, but the troubles attending it should be softened as much as possible. Think of the poor married man coming home after being away for three or four years, and then being told he could only be allowed to stop for six weeks! The alteration he suggested was very simple. For every year a man was away he should be able to count one month's leave, and that should be cumulative. It was often urged that six weeks should be given for every year, but the Service at present could hardly spare such long leave, and it was not in the interests of the Service that officers should be too long on shore. A very good precedent for this existed. Thanks to the courtesy of Commander Cowles, Naval Attaché to the United States Legation, he had been furnished with the regulations of the United States Navy. In that Service officers on Foreign Service were allowed one month for every year they were away. It was true that they were put on what was called
  838
  "furlough pay," but in the American Navy captains and lieutenants received nearly double the pay given in the English Naval Service, and, therefore, the question of "furlough pay" did not arise. A very good plan existed, too, in the United States Navy which might well be adopted by ourselves. When officers were in foreign parts they were encouraged to go on long trips on shore through the countries they were visiting, and provided they made a report to their admiral or commanding officer they received full pay, because it was considered their knowledge was thereby extended, and that they were better enabled to do good all-round work. In civil life officers could not be retained if they were not allowed one month in the year from their employments. In all public offices and civil employments a fair amount of leave had to be given. Three arguments were urged against this in the Navy. First came the expense with the bugbear of the Treasury; secondly, that the number of Naval officers was so limited that until it was greatly increased this extra leave was absolutely impossible without serious detriment to the service; and thirdly, that the Navy was so popular that officers could be obtained as required, and, therefore, no extra leave or indulgences need be given. The first objection need hardly be considered. We were now building ships at a cost of £800,000 and £1,000,000 a-piece, and this extra leave would only entail am expense of £12,000 a year at the very outside. As that was the case, it was the least they could do to have the officers serving on those ships not only thoroughly competent, but happy and contented. The noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty had done good service this year in not allowing the Estimates to be cut down, and he had no fear that the noble Earl on considering this question would see his way to overcoming any obstacle the Chancellor of the Exchequer might present in reference to it. In former days, this grievance was not so much felt, promotion was far more rapid; but now, especially in the rank of lieutenants, it was stagnant. That, of course, made officers discontented, and inclined to grumble and feel unhappy on finding they only got this short leave. The second objection of limited numbers was hardly a sound one

  839
  either. It was true that the officers were few, but arrangements should be made to increase their number. To a certain extent that was being done, for the list of naval cadets had been increased, and in seven or eight years they would furnish a sufficient number of officers for the Service. But this great unkindness could not with justice be allowed to continue any longer. If this increased amount of leave could not at once be given to officers on returning from Foreign Service, surely it would be better to curtail the six weeks for every year on the Home Stations and extend the leave given to those officers when they have performed their duty in distant seas, instead of actually inflicting punishment upon them for having done so, in favour of others who had remained at home. That applied, however, only to the officers under the rank of Commander. Admirals, Captains and Commanders were relegated at once to half-pay, and, therefore, no such reason existed. There was nothing equal to it in any foreign service. Some years ago, when Mr. Childers brought in his great Naval Retirement Scheme, one of his intentions was to do away altogether with half-pay as being an entire mistake, because officers should be given as much employment as possible, and that they should be allowed on shore a fair modicum of pay so that they might devote themselves to acquiring knowledge, either in this country or abroad. Unfortunately, although that retiring scheme had worked well in many ways, it still required much to be done for its completion. The last objection, he felt sure a very wrong and unkind one, that officers can be easily obtained, would not be urged by the noble Earl. A young man on entering the Navy became rivetted to the Service, and very few indeed were able to leave it for another profession. They were bound to remain in it, and, therefore, it was unfair to urge that argument. As he had once argued in that House, if the age for entering the Navy were increased to 18, the difficulty of keeping officers in the Navy would be enormous, and the present system would soon have to be reverted to. Undoubtedly, grave discontent existed in this matter throughout the Service. Naval officers were not of course going to act foolishly—he did
  840
  not mean that; but every one who knew anything of the matter would agree that as this was an evil which must be remedied, it should not be allowed to continue a day longer than necessary. One other point was sick-leave. Plenty of sick-leave was granted to Army officers coming home invalided. Unfortunately, Naval officers did not get that amount of consideration which they thought themselves justly entitled to in that matter, and he sincerely hoped the noble Earl would look into that matter. The general question of leave, he assured their Lordships, was a question of absorbing interest, and the grievance was felt very much. He trusted the noble Earl would be able to see his way to do something to remedy it, and at any rate that he would give the matter his grave consideration. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Resolution he had the honour to move.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the regulations respecting the amount of leave granted to officers of the Royal Navy should be extended so as to apply to all officers, including admirals, captains, and commanders, and should be equalised as far as possible for those who have served on foreign stations as well as for those who have been on home service."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, but few Members of their Lordships' House possessed practical experience on the subject, and he was not among them; but this was not a question requiring naval knowledge, it was one of simple justice and common sense. No one could fail to be struck by the different measure meted out to the two Services in respect of leave. Military officers, especially above the rank of field officers were able to have their families with them at home or abroad, unless on active service; and when they returned home they got a reasonable amount of leave without being exposed to deduction of pay. But the case was very different indeed with naval officers. No naval officer on sea-service could enjoy the society of his family, and if he were above the rank of staff-commander, he was placed on half-pay immediately on his return home from Foreign Service, although he might have been serving for several years without any regular leave. A naval officer at home could not expect the

  841
  table and other allowances which he received on board ship, but for a limited period of leave he might be granted the full pay of his rank. Among the lieutenants and junior officers the case was harder still. For some incomprehensible reason, it was always found necessary to keep the number of lieutenants low, while the ranks above were unusually full. Lieutenants were consequently always very much in request, and a lieutenant was by no means certain that he would not be called away on service before even his six weeks' leave had expired. Such a state of things could not really conduce to the efficiency of the Navy. It was a penny-wise-and-pound-foolish policy, and if there were a few more lieutenants on the list the Service would be no worse while the country would be the better for it. The amount of money involved in this question was not large, and value for any extra expenditure would be received in the increased zeal and energy fostered in the officers of the Naval Service, who had never been wanting in either. That there was very wide-spread discontent among all ranks on the subject required no naval experience to be fully aware, and if with due regard to the requirements of the Service, the cause of this grievance could be removed, it would be a good work done. The question was not a new one, but it was brought forward and discussed under difficulties, because any one closely connected with the Navy who spoke on the subject was supposed to be not altogether uninspired by some one with whom he was connected in the Navy. He was not open to that charge. He would be sincerely thankful to the noble Karl if he could see his way to investigate the matter and to give some hope of more liberal treatment being accorded to those who felt, they were not quite fairly used at present.
  LOUD BRASSEYwould before the noble Earl replied say a few words in support of the Resolution. He desired particularly to support what had been said by his noble Friend as to the unnecessary length of time during which ships were kept in commission on Foreign stations. He was satisfied that the liability to be called upon to serve for terms of three or four years abroad had a prejudicial effect upon the Navy,
  842
  for it induced many officers who had been trained at very considerable expense for the efficient discharge of their professional duties to take their retirement at an early age, and it also induced many seamen to retire at the end of their first engagement instead of continuing in the Service. The general regulations on the subject were the remnant of other days, when communications with foreign stations were not what they now were and when there were no steam vessels, and he earnestly hoped the subject of undue length of time for ships being kept on commission would be considered. It was certainly a matter which demanded reconsideration and revision.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALDsaid that, speaking from personal experience on the subject of leave, he considered Naval officers had great grievances as compared with the officers of the Army, for when the latter had done their duty they could go and see their friends, whereas with the former, on sea service, of course it was otherwise. Even officers in the Army, in India, could run home and see their friends nearly every year if they wished to do so, although formerly that was not the case, and officers had to remain out there for years. In fact, officers of the Navy said that the times had changed, but that the Navy had not changed with the times. He trusted the First Lord of the Admiralty would see his WHY to meet the views of the officers of the Naval Service.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, my noble Friend has introduced a very interesting subject, and I will begin by assuring him that in my reply I wish to show complete sympathy with the officers whose interests he has taken up. My noble Friend has stated that he made his appeal for increased leave not as a question of right. No doubt, as one trained in the Navy, my noble Friend is aware that this question has always been rather a question of indulgence than of right, and I therefore rejoice at the tone he has adopted in bringing forward the matter. Another point I noticed was that my noble Friend has admitted that it is not necessary—in fact, that it is almost impossible to compare the two services in various par-

  843
  ticulars. I must also support that view. We often hear of comparisons between the Army and the Navy, but it must be recollected that the conditions of the two Services are absolutely different, and that those who enter the Navy enter it with a full understanding of what they will have to do, and that the Service is much more confined than that of the Army in consequence of their having to serve on board ship. At the same time I fully admit that we ought to do what is just and fair to the officers on whom we rely so much for the efficiency and discipline of the Navy. The question concerns two classes of officers. Flag officers—namely, Admirals, Captains, Commanders, and I will add those whom my noble Friend has not referred to, Paymasters, who are secretaries on flag ships—form one class. The other class is formed of all the other officers. But the two classes stand with regard to leave on a different footing. My noble Friend has alluded to that, and he pleaded in favour of both classes. As to the first class, the great distinction between them and other officers is that they are appointed for particular purposes, a particular command, and a particular time, and they do not serve continuously. Therefore one of the reasons which my noble Friend has urged on behalf of either class falls to the ground. One of his reasons for asking for more leave is that it is very important that officers in the Navy should be brought in contact with men and manners and institutions at home in order that they may be equal to the highly responsible diplomatic and other duties they have often to perform abroad. I quite agree. The noble Lord also said they had a claim to go to their families. I certainly concur in that, but these higher officers who have not continuous service when they come home can easily go to their families and mix in public life. Therefore on that ground there is no real argument in favour of giving these officers an extension of leave when they come home. They have to a certain extent more latitude, for when they take up a command they have full pay before the full responsibilities of command are on their shoulders, and therefore they have less duty than other officers. With regard to this class of officers it is entirely a question of in-
  844
  crease of pay. I am quite aware that these officers would not parade any grievances, but that they feel from the position they hold they are bound to accept the situation without bringing forward any grievances. I admit that is no reason for not remedying any injustice, but I hardly think there is any very serious grievance among them. There is always the grievance, which is not confined to naval officers, that they have not as much income as they would like, and they would like higher pay than they now have. A distinction may be made between Commanders who have not taken up the commands of ships and those who have independent commands. Their case has from time to time been before the various Boards, and the decision has invariably been that it is impossible to grant full-pay leave to those officers. As to the other class of officers they have something like continuous service. I quite admit the complaint that we have not at present a sufficient number of these officers, and we are, as my noble Friend has pointed out, endeavouring to increase the number by passing more cadets through the Britannia. But with the present number of officers there is considerable difficulty in even carrying out the pressing duties of the Navy, and the pressing exigencies of the Service are such that it would be impossible to give them the full amount of leave my noble Friend has asked for. These officers come home, have their leave, and, as a rule, they are on half-pay for a very short time, as they are appointed to Home services in preference to being sent abroad again. There are some patriotic and energetic officers who will do everything they can to learn their duties, and who the moment they come home are most anxious to go abroad again. All honour to them, but they do so purely on their own account; and as I say the almost invariable rule is that officers of this class have their six weeks' leave and have the advantage of obtaining Home appointments on full pay, and of getting the benefit of the leave which officers at home get. Therefore I do not think that is a very serious grievance. The noble Viscount opposite wonders why there were so many more lieutenants than captains. The reason is, that in every ship there is a considerable number of

  845
  lieutenants, whereas in no ship is there more than one captain. As to sick-leave, I have had that question very prominently before me, and I understand that officers on full pay are granted one month in addition to any leave due on account of foreign service. I will inquire whether there is any hardship in regard to such leave, but so far as I know it is not a subject of particular grievance. I admit that if there are real and serious grievances to be redressed, the question of finance ought not to stop the way; but I am not quite sure that my noble Friend has rightly estimated what the expense would be. My noble Friend has estimated it at £12,000 a year, but I should hesitate to adopt that estimate. At the present moment the full-pay leave in the Navy, at the six weeks' rate, is reckoned at £7,500 a year. My noble Friend proposes to double that sum, which makes £15,000 a year. I am not quite sure whether, if the noble Lord has taken the whole of the full-pay leave, he has not rather under-estimated the amount. If he only takes the additional six weeks I think my noble Friend has somewhat under-estimated the sum. This question of expense is not wholly contained in the figures that my noble Friend has given, or that I have submitted in regard to it. If there is an increase in the amount of full-pay leave to those officers who now receive it, we must very considerably increase the number of officers in the Navy, and beyond the number that the Admiralty would hope to bring them up to with the cadets who are now going through the Britannia. This involves a serious undertaking, because we should have to increase the number of officers receiving pay, and then we would have all the contingent expenses of pensions, which would amount to a very large sum indeed. Again, if we increase the number of those officers, promotion in the ranks will be oven slower than it now is. Noble Lords forget that one of the grievances in the old days was that there was a great deal too much half-pay, and if we increase the number of officers and the amount of leave there would probably be eventually some increase of half-pay, which I do not think is at all desired in the Navy. Reference has been made to the United States Navy. I am not familiar with
  846
  the rules which exist there, but the United States have a small navy compared with that of this country; and I scarcely think that what could be done in America is always feasible in our Navy, considering all the requirements of the Service. Then there is the question as to the length of commission of ships. The time for the commission of ships has been somewhat decreased. In old days a ship was commissioned for four or five years; now the time is almost invariably under three and a- half years. I do not think it would be for the convenience and the exigencies of the Service to bind the Admiralty down to a particular time. The present term of service is not, I think, too long for complete efficiency and working together, and there are other considerations connected with the subject which would make it a question of serious difficulty if we tried to reduce the commission of ships to a shorter time than at present. I repeat what I said at the opening of my speech, that I regard this subject with complete sympathy, but I cannot help thinking that the best time for reviewing this question will be when we have a larger number of officers, which will happen in a few years. I will undertake to carefully consider this matter, but I cannot lead my noble Friends to think that the Board of Admiralty are in a position to grant what is asked. The Government cannot accept the Resolution which has been placed before your Lordships.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I am sure none of your Lordships will grudge the time which had been spent upon this most interesting discussion. It seems to me the tone of the noble Lord who brought it forward was eminently conciliatory, eminently calculated to put the case of the officers which he has taken up in the best possible light, and that he did so in a way of which no one could possibly complain. I do not think any one who has listened to the speech of the noble Earl can be otherwise than convinced that he has given a difficult matter most careful consideration, with the desire to arrive at a satisfactory solution if one can possibly be found; but at the same time it did seem to mo that the last sentences of his speech were calculated to administer rather cold comfort to those whose posi-

  847
  tion he had been considering, and there were one or two points made by the noble Lord opposite the importance of which it does not seem to me the noble Earl fully appreciated. I am satisfied from the communications which had reached me that there is upon this subject a very strong feeling indeed, more especially among the junior ranks of officers in the Navy. They are not a class who can, even if it was right that they should do so, take overt means of expressing their grievances. They are necessarily, by discipline, and from their own natural feelings, not desirous of parading their own grievances in an undue spirit, and that being so, I think we should pay all the more attention to them when they are brought before us in a constitutional and proper manner. I am bound to say that I thought as between the senior and junior ranks of the Navy the noble Earl's reply, as regards the senior officers, had a great deal of force in it. As regards the junior ranks, if I may venture to say so, I do not think he made out quite so good a case. I cannot see why a similar indulgence should not be granted to officers of the Navy who served abroad as to those who are serving upon the Home stations. Something was said by one or two of the noble Lords who have spoken, making a comparison between the conditions of service in the Army and in the Navy, and the privileges given in the one Service and the other. As far as making an absolute comparison is concerned, it does not seem to mo that is a fair and wise line of argument to take. The conditions of the Services are essentially different; but what we ought to do as regards the officers of the Navy is not to encourage them to think that they can be put on a similar footing to the officers of the Army, but to convince them that as much as possible is being done under the conditions necessary to their service to make it as easy as it is right in the public interest it should be made. On that point I think there is some room for believing, even after listening to the Speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the conditions of leave granted to officers on Foreign Service might be made more satisfactory to them than at the present time. I am bound to say that the question of money was
  848
  treated in a very proper spirit, both by the noble Lord who brought the subject forward and by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but the impression left upon my mind, knowing absolutely nothing about it except what has been said in the course of this discussion, is that taking it even at the extreme amount at which the First Lord put it, there is nothing in the question of money which ought to stand in the way of the reform asked for. I think, probably, the best thing for those who have taken up the cause of the officers of the Navy would be to rest satisfied for the present with the assurance given by the First Lord that he will reconsider what has been said on this occasion, and to entertain the hope that some arrangements will be made whereby the undoubted grievances which exist will as far as possible be remedied.
  LORD SUDELEYwas sure the First Lord's words of sympathy and feeling would have a good effect in the Navy, but hoped he would not think the question could be put off in the interests of the country until the Service had more officers. To a certain extent it was true that the higher officers could not be placed in the same category as the junior grades, but there could be no possible reason for saying that while Captains and Commanders on the Home station wore to get six weeks' leave every year, officers returning from Foreign Service were to have no leave, but to be at once put on half-pay. No reason existed why they should not be treated like the other officers. Half-pay must always be spoken of as something to be deplored. However right it might be as regarded the finances of the country, officers should not be kept on half-pay doing nothing more than necessary. There must be some on shore, but, if possible those officers should be employed in acquiring information which they could not do if kept on half-pay. Four-fifths of the Navy in the junior ranks were on Foreign Service, excluding those in the Home ports. The noble Earl asked how he made out the £12,000 a year. He had gone carefully into the matter and thought that was about the right amount. The first thing to be done beyond everything was to make the Navy contented, and he assured the House there was much greater feeling on the matter than the noble Earl thought. He thanked the noble Earl, however, for

  849
  the way he had spoken in the matter, and for his promise that he would take it into his serious consideration. He did not know whether the noble Earl thought his hands would be strengthened by the Motion being put to the House.
  EARL SPENCER: I said I was opposed to it.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid in that case he would, after the kindly speech made by the noble Earl, ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE WELSH LAND COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Royal Land Commission for Wales would allow cross-examination by counsel? He said he had been requested to ask the question on the Notice Paper, which, otherwise, would not have occurred to him. He should not have thought it was necessary to put it, because many things were done in the Sister Kingdom which no one would think of doing in Great Britain, where less exuberance of spirits prevailed; and, indeed, the opinions elicited in this country with respect to the procedure of the Morley Commission were not such as to encourage a repetition of such procedure. But, on the other hand, this Commission had been granted because a certain number of Welsh Members of the House of Commons had asked for it, and in order to secure their votes, they in their turn having asked for it in order to retain the votes of their constituents. Accordingly many extravagant accusations had been made. Mr. Ellis had charged some landowners in Wales with political evictions, and, as that would be an offence under the Corrupt Practices Act, it was absolutely necessary that there should be cross-examination of witnesses in the case of that or similar accusations. Moreover, the extreme Radical Party had Mr. Brynmor Jones in the Commission, who, as an ex-County Court, Judge and a Queen's Counsel, must be an expert at cross-examination, while the landlords had only two members who could in any way be considered as representing their views, and who presumably would not
  850
  have the same talent for cross-examination as Mr. Brynmor Jones would necessarily have.
  LOUD PENRHYNsaid he felt it his duty to point out the risk which would be incurred by Her Majesty's Government as well as the landlords if a recent precedent were followed, and if the employment of Counsel on this Commission were not sanctioned. There was far more in the question than met the eye at first sight. The question was whether justice was to be done. If justice were done, and the whole truth elicited, the landowners of North Wales, on behalf of whom he spoke, had nothing to fear. But they feared that there might be a miscarriage of justice if cross-examinations by competent Counsel was not allowed, so as to enable the proper value of assertions made concerning individual cases to be placed before the Commission. He was not expressing any loosely-formed opinion, but making a deliberate statement founded upon what bad come to his knowledge through his connection with the North Wales Property Defence Association, which was conducted on strictly non-political lines, and had been in existence for some years. By its means he had been able to find out something of what had been going on on the part of those who had been loudest in the Land Tenure agitation in Wales. He referred, as a starting point, to the Prime Minister's speech at the foot of Snowdon on the 13th September, 1892. One would naturally infer from that speech that the whole country was seething with discontent, and that the farmers would be eager to ventilate their grievances on the first opportunity. But that had not been the case, and the whole agitation was got up by the advanced section of a political party which, following the example of Ireland, had seen that just now agitation was by far the most paying game. In a newspaper published in Welsh the property of a Company comprising Mr. T. Ellis, M.P. for Merioneth, and Mr. Lloyd George, M.P. for the Carnarvon Burghs, flaming opinions had been published on the subject, and it was prudent and necessary to notice such utterances occasionally. On January 31st four and a-half months after Mr. Gladstone's speech, an article appeared in the paper headed "The Welsh

  851
  Farmers' Day of Trial. Who will help them? The Land Commission Coming," and stating—
  "To-day Parliament meets. It is now known that one of its first Acts will be the appointment of a Land Commission for Wales. On the results of the inquiry of this Commission will rest the future of Agriculture in Wales. The landlords, like the children of this world in general, have been wise in their generation. Seeing the evil day approaching, they have prepared to meet it. They have formed a Secret Union amongst themselves, and for some time they have been diligently engaged in the work of preparing evidence to lay before the Commission when it comes.
  And the farmers? What of them? They stand unmoved or as if paralysed, leaving the wheel of fortune to turn as it will, breaking them and pounding them into dust. With a few worthy exceptions, the great body of Welsh Agriculturists are quite unprepared to meet the Commission."
  It went on to say that the Commission could not make a Report except on the facts placed before them—
  "Who then will place such facts before them? We know that the landlords will—but only their own side of the story will they tell. And we know, and the farmers know, what kind of story that will be. And if the cause of the farmers—their side of the story—is not fairly, completely and effectively stated before the Commission, it may be said of the Welsh farmers: They are damned already."
  After speaking of other matters it went on to say—
  "It is not too much therefore to say that the salvation of the farmers of Wales depends upon setting the truth before the Commission. But what can be done! Much may be done in every way. It is true that the time has gone far for perfecting an organisation throughout the country. But it is not yet too late to save the farmers from the jaws of disaster. What is wanted is to collect facts in the district, and to place them on record in writing."
  Then came the most important part:
  "How to utilise these facts.—The next question, after collecting the facts, is, how may they be utilised? The best way would be for the Committee to appoint some fit person to lay the facts from the district before the Commission. But the farmers may ask, Who will go for us? Well, let it be granted that John Jones is a tenant on Lord So-and-So's estate, and that Robert Roberts holds a farm on the estate of Squire This-or-that; John Jones might give evidence concerning the squire's estate, and Robert Roberts concerning the lord's. Or it might be possible to obtain the services of a freeholder with plenty of back-bone, or one whose sympathy with the surrounding tenant farmers is sufficiently profound to give the necessary evidence. Or some tradesman may be found, or some other neighbour who need not fear the frown of any steward, to act as spokesman, and to give
  852
  evidence on behalf of the farmers. It will not be necessary for the witness to know English. He shall give his evidence in Welsh. For the matter of that, in connection with this Commission especially, care ought to be taken in every Welsh district to see that the evidence is given in Welsh."
  Then in case no Committee could be got—
  "If things have gone to the ditch so that there be no hope that even so few as two or three may be got to co-operate together, then collect thou, kind reader, as many facts as thou art able in a quiet way, put them in writing, giving the names and the figures, and the dates, as completely as possible, and send them to the Editor of the Genedl. No names whatever shall be published and care shall be taken to guard that no 'one but the Editor himself shall know who supplies him with the particulars. But he ought to receive the private name and address of those who write to him, that he may be able to correspond further with them if need be. For the matter of that the Editor will be grateful for the facts, whether a Committee is formed or not. Care shall be taken to utilise such facts in the best way to secure the desired end."
  That followed a few months after Mr. Gladstone's statement that the condition of things in Wales was perfectly awful. If anything were needed to show the apathy of the fanners in this agitation, it would be the list of 43 questions addressed by the Secretary to the Welsh Liberal Federation, trying to stir up some interest in this Land Question. Those questions ranged over every conceivable subject, not only relating to land tenure, but whether anybody had lost a dog or a cat, and what he considered its value, and further whether any clergyman had done or said anything which would raise any ill-feeling between landlord and tenant. This was very like holding out a red flag to a bull in the present state of feeling in North Wales regarding the Church. He heartily wished that the task of drawing the attention of the House to this important subject had fallen into better hands.
  LORD HARLECHwould not enter upon the invidious task of objecting to any Member of the Commission. It was legitimate, however, to analyse it generally and to criticise its general composition especially if Counsel were not to be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Of its nine members only two could be considered as representing the interests of the landlords. Was that fair?

  853
  Neither of them either spoke Welsh or was accustomed to cross-examine witnesses, one of them being only 28 years of ago. How was so young and inexperienced a man competent to meet Mr. Brynmor Jones, an able advocate, versed in all the subtleties of cross-examination and speaking Welsh? Had there been any pretence of fair play in the appointment of this Committee, somebody on the other side capable of meeting Mr. Brynmor Jones on equal terms would have been selected. He proposed, therefore, to add to Lord Stanley of Alderley's question, "Whether, supposing cross-examination by Counsel should not be allowed, the Government would accept suggestions for adding further names to the Commission?" If neither of these alternatives was accepted, be protested emphatically against the fairness of this Commission.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who spoke last but one will not think me uncourteous if I do not follow him through the remarks be made. A very simple question has been asked to which I will give an answer, but I do not think it convenient, or that I am called upon to enter into a defence of the appointment of that Commission. No notice was given me that the names of Members of this Commission would be criticised. I have no reason to suppose that the Commission has not been fairly appointed. More than that I cannot possibly say. It had never been the practice of Her Majesty's Government to interfere as to the course which Commissions may think right to take, and they have no intention of interfering on the present occasion. It will be for the Commission to determine in what way they will conduct the inquiry, and I have not the slightest doubt that they will endeavour to observe perfect fairness in the discharge of the duty intrusted to them, which is to obtain all the information necessary, in order to make a Report which will give the Government the opportunity of judging what legislation, if any, may be necessary. All the arguments used to-day will be placed before the Commission, and will, I am sure, receive their careful considera-
  854
  tion. As I have not received notice, I am unable to give any answer to the noble Lord's question regarding additional names.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to what Lord Harlech has said. He has assumed that a particular Member of the Commission, who was for some time a County Court Judge, will as a member of the Commission act simply and solely as a partisan, and that the powers he possesses will not be exercised for the purpose of eliciting the truth. I am quite sure that the noble Lord in entertaining that opinion is very much mistaken. Any one who becomes a member of a Commission of this description joins it, and whatever may be his own opinions, with a desire to get out all the facts whichever way they may go, and I am sure the noble Lord will find that in carrying out the duties entrusted to the Commission, any examination which takes place by the particular member of the Commission referred to will not be directed to obtaining facts merely to support a preconceived view, but as far as possible towards obtaining the truth.
  LORD HARLECHrepudiated entirely any wish to insinuate that Mr. Brynmor Jones would not do ample justice. The distinction he had gained at the Bar would be sufficient to do away with all imputations against him. At the same time every one in Wales or elsewhere forms opinions, and a more equal composition of the Commission ought to have been made.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 1.) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills with amendments; and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered to-morrow in order to its being dispensed with for that day's sitting (The Lord President).
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past four o'clock.