Sitting of 5 May 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  NEW SOUTH WALES CURRENCY.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has any information with regard to the alleged intended legislation by the New South Wales Government for the issue of inconvertible paper money in the shape of bank notes based on other

  191
  security than coin; and whether the said notes are to have a forced circulation as legal tender for debts in the Colony?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): We have no information, except that which has been recently reported from time to time in the Press.

  PENSIONS AND SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount annually paid from public sources in the United Kingdom for pensions and superannuation allowances, distinguishing between payments by or on behalf of the various Departments of the Government and payments by Local Authorities, and the estimated number of persons so pensioned?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I have no information as to the amount paid for pensions by Local Authorities. As regards pensions paid from Public Funds, I may say that a Return ordered on a Return of the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of South-West Lancashire is now in preparation, which will give complete information on the subject.

  SCOTCH RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in spite of the Railway Companies' statement that they were revising their rates so that the increase should in no case exceed 5 per cent., the rates on potatoes from Cockburnspath to Dunbar, a distance of seven and a-half miles, has been raised from 1s. 8d. per ton to 2s. 11d. per ton, or 75 per cent.; whether he is aware that the farmers in that district depend chiefly on their potatoes to pay their rent, and that this increases of rates equals 10s. per acre increase in their rents; whether he is aware that the Railway Companies give preferential rates to foreign potato growers; and whether, considering the disastrous results of these two factors, he can see his way to enforce a return to the old rates, and to prevent the Railway Companies giving any preference to foreign as against the Scottish grower?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am informed that the rate of 2s. 11d. per ton for the carriage of potatoes from Cockburnspath to Dunbar has been reduced to 2s. 6d. The company assure me that they do not give preferential rates to foreign potato growers.

  THE BOARD OF TRADE AND THE RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to his declaration a few weeks before Easter, that if the Railway Companies did not arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with the traders before Easter, he would take prompt and stringent measures against them, and to the disastrous effects upon trade of the present increases, he can see his way to bring in some measure or take some more effective step than the appointment of a Committee to prevent the charging of any increase over the old rate until the new Schedules have been arranged and approved of?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think it is better that the subject should be considered by the Committee of the House, and that any action which it may be hereafter necessary to take should be taken on their recommendation and Report.

  SCHOOL SANITATION.
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the matter of lighting, warming, cleaning, ventilating, and office accommodation, the increased requirements of Schedule VII. are being insisted upon in schools where the arrangements in these respects have been hitherto passed by the Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I assume that reference is made to the Circular to Inspectors, which asks for information as to the condition of school buildings and apparatus. If the Department admitted that because school buildings were once approved by it they might, therefore, remain in the same condition for the rest of time, it would cut at the root of all progress in improving

  193
  the surroundings of the children so as to make them as healthy as possible. We do not admit this, and intend to bring the condition of our schools, in matters of lighting, ventilation, furniture, office accommodation, and the like, up to the standard of modern requirements within a reasonable limit of time.

  FEVER IN THE LEWIS.
  MR.. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty failed to go to the fever-stricken township of Cromore, when on his recent professional visit to the Island of Lewis; and whether steps will be taken forthwith to ascertain the condition of health and sanitary matters in that and other remote townships in the island?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): In reply to the hon. Member I find that on his recent visit to the Lews the Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty went as far as Keose intending to visit Cromore, but, learning from the District Medical Officer that the outbreak of fever had ceased, did not consider it necessary to proceed further. I may add that the District Medical Officer made regular visits and Reports, and that the County Sanitary Inspector also visited Cromore and reported to the District Committee, and I accordingly see no cause for any special inquiry.

  THE CONDITION OF INDIA.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in order to enable this House to form a correct judgment of the progress, if any, in the condition of India, he will give to the House information about the condition of India in past years to compare with the present condition: and whether for that purpose he will reconsider his decision, and lay before Parliament the Note of Sir David Barbour upon which Lord Cromer, as Finance Minister, based a statement, and also another similar one to date?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE. RUSSELL,): A Report, on the Moral and Material Progress of India is annually given to Parliament; and the Report, which is now in course of
  194
  preparation, will, according to custom, contain a review of the last 10 years. For the reasons given on the 27th April, the Secretary of State is unable to lay on the Table the confidential Note to which my hon. Friend refers.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Lord Lytton's Note, being specifically referred to in the Despatch of the Government of India dated 2nd May, 1878, [C. 2376] of 1879, and being therefore necessary to be also returned, in order to understand fully the significance of paragraph 14 of the Despatch, the Secretary of State for India will reconsider his decision, obtain a copy from the Government of India, and lay it before Parliament?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: In reply to my hon. Friend's question, which is really a repetition of that which he put to me on the 27th April, I am afraid I can add nothing to what I said on that occasion.

  MOONLIGHTING IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR:. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 15th April a gang of moonlighters entered the house of a farmer named Quirke, near Barnagh, County Limerick, and beat him severely, and that they then went to the house of his son and shot him and his brother in the legs: that on Sunday the 16th a gang of moonlighters fired into the house of Mrs. O'Brien, of Templeglantine, in the same county, the fire being returned by the inmates; and that on Wednesday the 19th a gang of moonlighters visited the house of Dame Brenahan, at Knocktoosh, Drumcolloghcr, in the same county, fired into it, and then broke in, injuring Brenahan severely; whether anyone has been made amenable for these offences; and if he can state how many cases of moonlighting, agrarian and non-agrarian, have taken place in County Limerick from 22nd August 1892 to 30th April 1893, and how many took place in the corresponding period from 22nd August 1891 to 30th" April 1892?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The statements in the first paragraph of the question are, in the main, correct. The case of firing into the

  195
  dwelling of Mrs. Breen not O'Brien, occurred on April 10th. No person has been made amenable up to the present for these outrages; and though it is strongly suspected that some of the injured persons are in a position to identify their assailants, yet they refuse to give the police any assistance. The number of moonlighting outrages committed in Limerick between August 22, 1892, and April 30 is 17, of which nine were agrarian and eight non-agrarian. In the corresponding months of 1891–2 there was one case of moonlighting in the county. It was recorded agrarian. During the period August 22, 1890, to April 30, 1891, the number of such outrages was six, all non-agrarian.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not a fact there have been 15 cases of outrage in the neighbourhood of Newcastle West during the last few months?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There have been a number of cases.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In view of the recrudesence of outrage in the district, may I ask if the Government are taking adequate steps to cope with disorder and lawlessness?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; every step that can be taken is being taken to suppress disorder.

  REFRIGERATED MEAT FOR THE TROOPS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the regulations with regard to the supply of refrigerated meat to the troops at home stations; what proportion of the whole supply at any station during the year may consist of such meat; whether he can state the average cost per pound during last year of home-fed and refrigerated meat respectively; and what were the respective quantities of each supplied to the troops?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): Refrigerated beef is accepted during the period from the 1st of October to the 31st of May for the troops at home stations; frozen mutton during the whole year. The quality must be the same as in the case of home-killed meat. During the period referred to, the refrigerated beef and frozen mutton together may amount to 60 per cent. of
  196
  the total issue. The average cost of refrigerated beef and home-killed meat respectively cannot be stated, as separate contracts are not made. The quantities of each are not known. Refrigerated meat is not issued at all stations; and where it is issued it must be within the limit already stated—namely, 60 per cent.

  ROMAN CATHOLICS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the only Naval chaplain provided for Roman Catholics in the Mediterranean Fleet is a Maltese with a very limited knowledge of English; and whether it is intended to make more adequate provision in this respect?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The Roman Catholic chaplain appointed to minister to the men of the Fleet at Malta is a Maltese, but there is no ground for the allegation that he has only a very limited knowledge of English. The Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station had personal communication with this gentleman prior to his appointment, and satisfied himself that, in respect of fluency and familiarity with the English language, he was sufficiently qualified for the post of Naval chaplain at Malta. It is not proposed to make any change in the appointment at present.

  LORD TEMPLEMORE AND HIS TENANTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on Lord Templemore's estate have refused to pay their rents; whether the amount, less 25 per cent., has been lodged in the hands of trustees, and if there is any truth in the report in the newspapers that a contribution of 6d. in the pound has been levied on the Poor Law Valuations as a fighting fund; and if the police authorities have made any report concerning this revival of the Plan of Campaign?
  MR. THOMAS HEALY: Arising out of the question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the tenants had more than

  197
  once denied that they had any intention of entering into the Plan of Campaign?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member opposite, because there appears to be foundation for the statements contained in the hon. Member's question. The police have made full reports regarding the operations on this estate—whaterer is the proper name to give those operations —and I will keep the matter under close observation.

  THE SHOOTING OF P. BARRY AT MALTA.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the answer given by his Predecessor in Office on the 31st May last, respecting the case of P. Barry, leading stoker of H.M.S. Hibernia, who was shot dead by a Maltese at Malta on the 4th February 1892, whether anyone was made amenable in connection with this crime; and whether any provision will be made for the widow and orphans of the deceased?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Since the reply referred to was given by the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire, the following Report has been received through our Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean:—
  "I am directed to state for the information of Sir George Tryon that the Crown Advocate has reported that no evidence in the matter sufficient to support an indictment was produced at the magisterial inquiry; that, therefore, no steps could be taken to initiate any prosecution of the individual concerned."
  As Barry was on leave at the time of his death, our Regulations do not admit of any provision being made for his willow and children.

  THIS IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. FLYNN: In the absence of the hon. Member for SouthEast Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the inquiries recently held respecting the mackerel and herring fisheries off the south coast of Ireland has been made and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, will the Local Authorities at Kinsale be supplied with copies of such Report?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries respecting the herring and mackerel fisheries at Kinsale has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant. The recommendations contained in the Report are under consideration; but, inasmuch as the carrying out of these recommendations would involve legislation, and as the points at issue have reference to the early season, which has almost passed over, no object would, I am advised, be gained by communicating the Report to the Local Authorities.

  DISTURBANCES IN DOMINICA.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received from Dominica a letter, dated 17th April, 1893, signed by Messrs. Davies, Pemberton, Bellot, and others, giving a detailed statement of the occurences at that island when the peasantry were fired upon by a force of police from Antigua and seamen from H.M.S. Mohawk, in the presence of the Governor, Sir W. H. Smith, and four men killed and two women wounded; and whether steps will be taken to make a full and independent inquiry into the circumstances, and also into the present system of administration in the West Indies?
  MR. BUXTOX: The Secretary of State has received a letter from the person named, and also a full Report from the Governor of the Colony respecting the lamentable occurrence in Dominica referred to in the question. The full Despatches have only just been received, and there has not been time to examine them sufficiently to enable a decision to be come to on the question of whether a furl her inquiry is necessary; but the matter will certainly receive the most anxious consideration.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE PUBLICATIONS.
  MR.LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is the case that fanners' clubs, agricultural societies, and other similar bodies can now be supplied with the publications of the Board at cheap rates for gratuitous distribution to their members?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. II.GARDNER,): I am glad to say that the Treasury have authorised the Board of Agriculture to supply Chambers of Agriculture, Agricultural Societies, Farmers' Clubs, Village Institutes, and other similar bodies, with certain of our Departmental Publications at half price, provided that not less than 20 copies are taken, and that they are intended for gratuitous distribution to members. I propose to issue a Circular Letter to the institutions concerned in the course of a few days, and I hope that the arrangement will result in a much wider dissemination than at present of the publications in question.

  THE SHIP EOCKET APPARATUS.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the directions on the ship rocket apparatus are only in English and French; and, if this be the case, whether he will provide for the inclusion of directions in German and Spanish?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The directions are only in English and French. The question of adding directions in other languages has boon considered, and experimental tally boards have been made; but the Board of Trade were advised that the necessary addition to the size of the tally board would more than counterbalance the advantage, as the board has to be hauled through the sea and has to meet with all kinds of obstructions from rocks, wreckage, &c. Germans and Spaniards are not the only foreign seamen besides French wrecked upon the coast of Great Britain.

  SCOTCH PRISONS.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITE LAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the information supplied by the Fourteenth Report of the Scotch Prison Commissioners in regard to over-crowding in Scotch prisons, he will grant a Return showing the number of prisoners in the 11 largest. Scotch prisons for each week, from 1st April, 1891, to 31st March, 1893?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will put his question to me again on an early day next week I shall be in a position to answer him.

  CHAPEL TRUST DEEDS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are a number of places of public religious worship, certified as such and exempted by statute from liability to rates, the trust deeds of which are not enrolled in Chancery; and whether there are any means whereby such trust deeds may be inspected by the public or by members of the congregation using such places of worship; and, if not, whether the Government will take into their consideration the expediency of providing the public with an opportunity of inspecting such trust deeds at, reasonable hours?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): By Section 7 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, enrolment is not necessary, but optional with the trustees, in the case of assurances of land for religious purposes of the class there described. No doubt a considerable number of places of worship come within this exemption. How many it is impossible to say. I am not aware of any means by which the inspection of deeds not enrolled can be compelled, nor does it appear to me to be either practicable or expedient that such inspection shall be made compulsory.

  THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBQRNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a Circular issued by the National Education Association, urging parents to demand free education, and stating that parents whose children are paying no fee in their present standard may demand a free school if fees are charged in the higher standards; the school must be free from top to bottom, or the Department will not recognise it as a free school; whether, under the Act of 1891, parents are entitled to anything more than free education for their own children; and whether, as a matter of fact, it is the practice of the Department upon a single such demand to insist upon the provision of a school "free from top to bottom"?
  MR. ACLAND: My attention has not been called to this Circular till now. I am afraid the noble Lord has misunderstood the meaning of the words "from top to bottom." You can have a school free from top to bottom for a single child, and that is evidently what is meant. It is most necessary to insist on this, for the Department have actually had cases before them in which managers have practically said to a parent—"There are free places in this school, but only in the first standard. The child can have free education, but as long as you do not pay fees the child shall stay in the first standard." This is a mere evasion of the Act, hence the need for insisting on freedom from top to bottom.

  THE HULL STRIKE.
  MR. DARLING: In the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Bristol, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen the official Report of Super intendent Elliott, Chief of the Hull Police Fire Brigade, respecting the recent fire at the Citadel Estate in that city; and, if so, whether he will communicate to the House the purport of the information therein contained; and whether he is aware that a man has recently died in the workhouse at Duffield in consequence of alleged ill-treatment at the hands of the pickets in Hull?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have seen Superintendent Elliott's Report in the newspapers, but it is a Report made to the Corporation, and I have no official knowledge of it, nor do I see any reason why it should be communicated. I have no knowledge as to the allegations in the second paragraph, but I have sent to the Chief Constable asking for information.

  THE COMMITTEE ON RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ascertained that the Railway Directors, being paid servants of the companies, are eligible to serve on the Committee on Railway Rates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am not aware of any reason why Railway Directors should not serve on the Committee in question. The Committee is not appointed to fix rates.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great importance of the subject, he will have the Resolutions to be moved in the Government of Ireland [Payments] Committee printed and circulated at once?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I agree that the House ought to have full notice of our intentions in the Parliamentary Committee with regard to the Financial Clauses of the Bill, the principles of which have been clearly announced, but the details of which are still a matter for consideration. I take this opportunity of giving notice that it is our intention, when we come to the Financial Clauses of the Bill, to move that they be postponed until the other clauses of the Bill have been dealt, with. I will give the reasons for the proposal when we come to it. We will take care that full information is in possession of the House before any proposals are submitted.
  *MR. JACKSON: Will the Monetary Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill be taken before going into Committee on the Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Oh, no; certainly not. I think that the Financial Clauses ought not to be dealt with before going into Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that that proceeding is strictly in Order, but it is very unusual to defer the Monetary Committee until particular clauses are dealt with; and I would ask whether it is not the more usual course to take the Monetary Committee before the main Bill goes into Committee at all?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It very often happens that Monetary Clauses are found in a Bill, the great mass of which refer to matter which is not monetary, and the usual practice is to have the Parliamentary Committee before the Definitive Clauses are brought under consideration, and we shall take care that that is done. It is a question connected with the Forms of the House, and I am not yet aware, but I will inform myself, how far the Parliamentary Committee will carry us towards fixing all the details, and we will take care that

  203
  the House is in no way misled or inconvenienced.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We did not quite catch in this part of the House the effect of the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. Do I understand him to say that the Government contemplate changes in the Financial Clauses of the Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; I have nothing new to announce on that at present. It will be borne in mind that when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, I did state, with regard to that portion of the Financial Clauses which is prospective and pre-supposes augmentation in the direct taxation of this country, it would be necessary to enter into further details, and to give a more specific explanation of our intention.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: May I understand, with regard to the clauses on the Paper, that the Government adhere to them, or is it only with regard to additional clauses which have been promised by my right hon. Friend that he reserves his discretion?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I doubt very much whether the knowledge of the House will be much advanced by that mode of treating the subject. It will be recollected that there is now a provision in the Bill which refers to a possible future increase in the Excise Duties, and I said that provision was to be regarded rather as the assertion of a principle—namely, the liability of Ireland for additional charges which may hereafter come into view—than as expressing the precise form in which we might find it expedient to bring it finally to the judgment of the House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish unduly to press my right hon. Friend; but may I ask whether I am entitled to understand that, so far as regards the revision of the Customs Duties, the Government adhere to their original proposal?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly. We have not seen any reason, as at present, to depart from that intention; but my right hon. Friend will recollect that, in explaining that portion of the Bill, I dwelt strongly upon the principle of contribution, and pointed out that there wore various forms in which that principle might be applied,
  204
  such as the quota and the fund plans; hut that, on the whole, we were inclined to the fund plan. At the same time, I never treated the question of the particular form as one which appertains to the essence of the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: I assume that every financial question raised in the Bill remains open for consideration in Committee.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Unquestionably.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the intention he has announced will apply to all the financial proposals in the Bill, including those affecting the Irish Church Fund and the collection of Treasury loans outstanding?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My impression is that they all hang together. It might be a question whether the Church Fund, which is a separate matter, is involved with the rest; but I think probably it will be found convenient if the whole of the financial proposals, including that dealing with the Church Fund, should be postponed.
  MR. DARLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will postpone not only the Financial Clauses, but the whole Bill, until they have made up their minds what they will do with the Financial Clauses?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to take the Committee on the Bill on Monday, and to continue it de die in diem?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is the intention. Of course, I cannot pledge myself very far into the future; but the whole of next week, and probably the beginning of the following week, will be devoted to the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a great convenience to the House if, as the Committee stage of the Bill is to be taken on Monday, you would inform the House of your views as to the various Instructions that have been placed upon the Paper. The subject, as everybody knows, is of very great difficulty, and one on which your ruling would, I think,

  205
  be of great service to those Members of the House who are interested in the Instructions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to give my opinion as to the Instructions on the Government of Ireland Bill, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I explain the decision which I have come to on the 13 Instructions on the Paper. I have felt great responsibility in this case, especially as I have come to the conclusion, for reasons I will explain shortly, that the great majority of them are not in Order. I should like to say that the principles which guide and limit the system of Instructions on going into Committee may be thus stated:—First, an Instruction must empower the Committee to do something which the Committee is not otherwise empowered to do; secondly, the purpose of the Instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the Bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the Bill; thirdly, it is irregular to introduce into the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct Statutes for distinct branches of law. Having these general principles and limitations in view, I come to consider the 13 Instructions on the Paper, and, if the House will follow me, I will go through them seriatim. The first Instruction (that of the hon. Member for Wandsworth), I think, would properly form the subject of a separate measure so far as relates to the representation of Great Britain, and as regards that of Ireland no Instruction is necessary. The second (that of the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanark) deals with the ad referendum principle, and this I need not say is the Instruction which has given me the most anxiety; but I have come to the conclusion that an ad referendum is a matter of such transcendent importance that it could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee. I know that the ad referendum has been included in the provisions of some Private Bills, enabling the
  206
  ratepayers to decide by a vote whether or not they should adopt a particular Act which imposed a charge upon them. But this Instruction is a proposal to enable the electors to override the decision of this House, to go over the heads of the elected Representatives of the people, and to submit to the electors generally whether a Bill of this great magnitude should come into force or not. That, I think, is quite beyond the scope of the Bill, and could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by au Instruction. The object sought to be obtained in No. 3 (the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Hackney) may, I think, be done in Committee without the necessity of an Instruction. Nos. 4 and 5 (standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford), which deal with the Army and Militia, are, I think, beyond the scope of the Bill. The Militia is a part of the Military Force, and, like the Army, is under the control of the Military Authorities; and it seems to me that it would be an improper dictation to the Executive and to the authorities of the Army to interfere with the movement of troops from one portion of the Kingdom to another. That cannot be properly considered as ancillary to the Bill. It is beyond the scope of the Bill, and cannot be brought within its scope by means of an Instruction. No. 6 (that in the name of the hon. Member for the Whit by Division of Yorkshire) is a modified ad referendum. I have alluded generally to the ad referendum, and I may say that in speaking of it, while I do hold that a Bill such as this cannot be overridden by an appeal to the electors, I am far from saying that in particular localities the ad referendum principle cannot be adopted; and in the case of No. 6 the House will observe that what is there proposed is that Ulster may be empowered to exclude itself from the Bill. Ulster, of course, might be excepted from the Bill, as any other portion of the United Kingdom may be excepted from a Bill of general application; but this may always be done without an Instruction. This local referendum, it will be seen, is a very different thing from saying that the whole Bill can be overridden by an appeal to the electors over the heads of the Representatives of the electors in this House. The alteration suggested in No. 7 (the In-

  207
  struction of the hon. Member for Bolton) can be proposed in Committee without an Instruction. No. 8 (that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey) is so indefinite that I cannot hold that it is in Order; but, so far as I can understand it, its object can be effected in Committee without an Instruction. No. 9 (that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone) is a Land Bill of the widest scope. It forms a distinct subject of legislation. Following the principles which I have ventured to lay down to the House, it cannot, I think, be brought within the scope of the framework of the Bill before the House. No. 10 (that of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby) also falls within the same category. It is a Reform Bill for the United Kingdom. No. 11 (that of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis), which proposes to divide the Bill into two parts, is, according to all precedents, distinctly in Order. Referring to No. 12 (that of the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham), I have already said that Ulster or any definite portion of Ireland can be excluded, or be empowered to exclude itself, from the operation of the Bill by Amendments proposed in Committee without an Instruction. No. 13 (that of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh) can also be carried into effect under the Bill without an Instruction. To summarise what I have said, therefore, to the House, part of No. 1, No. 2, Nos. 9 and 10 would require separate Bills, Nos. 3, 7, 12, and 13 can be dealt with in Committee, Nos. 4 and 5 are beyond the scope of the Bill, No. 8 is not sufficiently definite, and No. 11 is in Order. The House, I hope, will see that I have tried to deal with each case on its separate merits, and without having had any preconceived opinion on the subject.

  THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
  SIR T. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the State function proposed to be held next Wednesday, it is intended that the House should sit on that day?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have not formed any intention of making any proposal to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL. (No. 118.)

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April], "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that when on a previous night he desired to say a few words on this subject, he was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in a manner of which, as a Member of the House of much longer standing than the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, if he desired to be critical, he might well complain. But he would not introduce controversial matter calculated to prolong the discussion. He was desirous that the Bill, in an amended form, should pass this Session. He objected to discussing this Bill before a Standing Committee. His experience of Standing Committees and also of Committees of the whole House convinced him that, although a Standing Committee might be fitting for the discussion of the details or of the points of law, it was not the proper tribunal for dealing with the broad principles that were involved in this Bill. He felt that he was entitled to refer to the fragmentary character of the Second Reading Debate, which had extended over four evenings, and in the course of which only 17 Members had spoken.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!The Question before the House is as to what Committee the Bill shall be referred.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I was going to argue that point, Sir. I want this Bill to pass, but I think I have a duty to my constituents to point out what has occurred in these Debates.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!The question of how many speeches were delivered on the Second Reading cannot be discussed on a Resolution for referring a Bill to the Grand Committee.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he would entirely accept the ruling of the Chair,

    209
    although he had a strong desire to explain his reasons for the complaint that the Second Reading Debate was a very disjointed one. Hon. Members felt that they had not had the opportunity they were entitled to enjoy of rebutting the accusation which had been made against employers of labour. They desired to do so before the full House, and not before a Standing Committee. Another reason why the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the full House was that the 3rd clause, as it now stood, was of a somewhat nebulous character. A clause of such great importance ought to he debated before a Committee of the whole House, instead of being discussed in the imperfect manner and under the difficult circumstances which attended consideration by a Standing Committee. The 5th clause also dealt with a matter of a very large character in reference to compensation, and was certainly worthy of being considered by the whole House.
    MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick) moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, instead of to the Standing Committee on Law. He said he did not think that in making this proposition he was doing anything hostile to the progress of the Bill. There was, he believed, a universal desire that the measure should pass; but, at the same time, a strong feeling existed that the proposals of the Government wore inadequate. There was also a considerable divergence of opinion amongst various sections of the community as to the matters of principle involved in the Bill, and it was evident that there must be a very long and animated discussion upon those points. He did not think that Members who were not Members of the Standing Committee would be satisfied to leave those questions of principle to the consideration of the Committee. It must also be borne in mind that the Standing Committee would sit concurrently with the Committee of the House on the Government of Ireland Bill. The consideration of the Government of Ireland Bill in Committee would be a very great strain upon those who took an active part in it, and a great many of those who were especially interested in the Government of Ireland Bill would be unable to attend at the Sittings of the Standing
    210
    Committee. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would be much more advantageous to send the Bill to a Select Committee than to refer it to the Standing Committee. One advantage of referring the measure to a Select Committee would be that it would be possible to hear evidence which might throw a most valuable light upon the proposal of the Government, and might greatly increase the usefulness and success of the Bill. The obvious objection to a Select Committee was that it did not avoid the Committee stage in the House; but it seemed to him that the measure was eminently one for compromises and arrangements which could be carried out infinitely better in a Select Committee than in the House itself or in a Standing Committee.f
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "the Standing Committee on Law, &c," and insert the words "a Select Committee."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish, in the first place, to recognise the kindness and promptness with which the First Lord of the Treasury met my appeal yesterday, and acceded to the advice of many Members to say a few words on this measure, and I hope I shall not abuse his kindness. I feel that in this matter we are entirely in the hands of the Government. They are the masters, and, if I may be allowed to do so, I would advise my hon. Friend not to trouble the House with a Division on the Amendment if it be not accepted. I wish, however, to put before the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) the reasons why I believe it will be to the interests of the Government and, above all, to the interests of this Bill, that he should reconsider his decision to send the Bill to a Grand Committee. May I, in one sentence, protest against the charges which have been made in the organ of the Government against my hon. Friends and myself on account of our action on the Bill. IT was said that I brought forward a sham Amendment. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not concur in that view. The Amendment gave rise to a most serious

    211
    and instructive Debate, and, though it was not carried to a Division, it was only because, had it been carried, the Bill would have been destroyed. I intend, however, to raise the question later on, when it can be decided without danger to the Bill itself. As regards my hon. Friends who were accused of obstruction on Tuesday, of course it is difficult to convince those who believe that every!Liberal Unionist has a double dose of original sin; but that was not their intention. We believe that this is a non-Party question. We believe that the Government have a great opportunity of settling a very vexed and difficult question to the great advantage of all classes concerned; and if they will take the opportunity we offer them our most cordial and hearty assistance in the task. I do not blame the Government for bringing in the Bill in its present form, because it would naturally appear to them to be the simplest and most practical way of dealing with the question to embody in a measure the proposals of an important body of Trade Unionists. The Government might well have thought that that was as far as public opinion would allow them to go. But the Debate has shown that on both sides of the House there was an inclination to go further; that public opinion has greatly developed; and that there is an inclination once for all to find a settlement for this question. There can be no doubt that there are two great defects in the Bill. The first is that it only deals with less than one-half of the accidents for which we want it to provide. It is necessarily, therefore, an incomplete measure. In the second place, it has the serious and fatal defect of interfering with the present system of arrangements between employers and employed by which workmen are secured against all kinds of accidents. The right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary has said that he has no desire to interfere in any way with these most advantageous arrangements, although he refused to receive a deputation representing some 12,000 miners on the subject. I would say, without intending to be unduly critical, that I never knew a Government which had such a horror of deputations. My right hon. Friend was, I believe, in favour of the view taken by that deputation, because he has expressed himself in writing, and also in
    212
    the House, to the effect that the Government do not desire to prevent or in any way discourage these arrangements. It must, however, have been proved to my right hon. Friend beyond dispute that if the Bill is carried in its present condition it will probably destroy these arrangements. [Mr. ASQUITH dissented.] I know more about it, if I may say so, than my right hon. Friend does. I know the question from a commercial point of view; I have conversed both with the employers who make these arrangements and the workmen; who accept them, and I say there is a feeling of great alarm that this Bill will prevent arrangements of the kind being entered into in the future. It stands to reason that the object of the employers in making large contributions to funds of the kind is to prevent litigation and quarrels with their workmen. Is it likely that they will continue to-make contributions if, under the provisions of this Bill, they are to continue liable to be involved in litigation? These are the two important points on which I say it has been proved, in the course of the Debate, that the Bill is defective. There has been evidence on all sides of the House of a desire to carry the measure much further than it goes at present, and to apply its provisions to all classes of accidents. That would, of course, entail practical transformation of the Bill, and I submit to my right hon. Friend that it is impossible, even with the greatest good-will on the part of everybody, to carry out such a transformation in a Grand Committee. Such a Committee, in the first place, is too numerous; and, in the second place, it cannot do that which is essential to a proper arrangement—take some evidence. In order that a proper scheme should be formulated, it is desirable that any Committee before which the Bill is sent should hear the evidence of at least one Representative of each of the great trades, and so obtain the views of the employers in the shipbuilding, the railway, and the mining interests on the subject, while the workmen's interests should be put forward by a representative of the Trades Unions. I believe that would be enough, and that a small Committee would be able to come to a more satisfactory conclusion in respect of this question than a large

    213
    Committee could. Such a Committee would be able to act as a council of advice to my right hon. Friend, and enable him to produce ft Bill which would meet with the general assent of the House. In the event of my right hon. Friend accepting this proposal, I entertain no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would join me in giving an assurance that every assistance would he given to enable the Government to carry the Bill through its future stages, with only such reasonable discussion of its provisions as my right hon. Friend himself would not object to. My view is that my right hon. Friend, by accepting this proposal, would save time, would make the Bill a better one, and would connect his own name and the name of his Government with a really useful and valuable measure. It may be that my right hon. Friend is not touched by my arguments. He may say that he does not believe he will save time, or that he is not prepared to accept any considerable changes. In that case, my second point is that the Bill ought to go to a Committee of the Whole House. On this point I would refer my right hon. Friend to the speeches made by the Prime Minister when these Grand Committees were first constituted; and he will find that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated a reference to them of special Bills, which interested only a portion of the House; and of course he meant, comparatively speaking, not a very large portion of the House, for when it was proposed by the other side to add agriculture to the subjects that were to be dealt with by the Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman at once objected. He said that agriculture was such an extensive subject, and interested so many hon. Members of the House, that it was not a fit subject to be sent before a Grand Committee. Well, this Bill has reference to a subject that interests almost everybody in the House, It interests every hon. Member who employs a servant, or has a constituent who employs a servant. It applies to all who are interested in agriculture, and all who are interested in manufactures, and all who are interested in commerce. I do not believe a single person can say that his interests are not affected more or less by this Bill. Under these circumstances, it is not
    214
    fair to take it to a Grand Committee, and it is not for such purposes that Grand Committees were appointed. If my right hon. Friend still insists that it must go there I warn him that he will not save time. This is not only not a proper Bill, but this is not a proper Session for a Grand Committee. We have such a collection of Bills of very vast importance before the House as the House has probably never known in its history, and consequently every Member interested in them is simply bound to give daily and constant attention. It is, therefore, simply impossible and unfair to call on us to take part in complicated discussions in Grand Committees; and, for myself, I can say it will be absolutely impossible for me to serve. If that course is adopted, the in-evitable result will be that we shall have to reserve the whole discussion for the Report stage, and thereby one of the great objects of the Grand Committee will be lost. The right hon. Gentleman will find that he has not advanced his object in the slightest degree. Now, I said when I began that this is not in any sense a Party measure. If I regarded it from a Party point of view and considered only Party interests, I should wish that it would pass as at present framed. There has been an agitation got up in its favour, which is always the case with a new proposal; but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, from my knowledge of what is going on, that if the measure passes it will be unpopular with a large number of those who are now the supporters of the Government. I do not believe it is necessary to treat it as a Party measure. It is the general desire that some Bill shall be passed which will prove a permanent settlement, and I do not hesitate to say that!if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the suggestion I have made to him, there is not the least doubt that such a Bill would be passed during the present Session.
    *MR. CRAWFORDsincerely hoped that the Government would adhere to their own proposal, and not allow their plans to be upset by the appeal made to them. In the first place, he would remind the House that when this subject was dealt with by the late Government in 1888 they referred the Bill —the Employers' Liability Bill —to the Grand Committee on Law,

    215
    although they now stigmatised that Committee as an unsuitable place for the consideration of such a measure, and notwithstanding that the Debate on the Second Beading had been shorter than it had been on the present Bill. Many hon. Members would corroborate what he said when he stated that the discussion of the Bill in the Grand Committee in 1888 was thoroughly satisfactory, much more so than it would have been either in Select Committee or Committee of the Whole House. What was the alternative that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham proposed? He did not say that if his proposal were accepted he would help them to pass the Bill through. He said the Bill was a bad one, and would become an unpopular one, and he suggested as an alternative for it a scheme of industrial assurance which had little or no connection with the Bill, and with regard to which, for his part, as at present advised, if incorporated in the measure when it came up for Third Beading, he should vote against it. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been thoroughly considered by the House, and the House had given a decision against it, and if it were brought forward again it would only be as an engine of obstruction. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would pursue the same course in regard to it as that adopted by the late Government.
    MR. LAWBENCEsaid, he did not in the least desire to introduce Party considerations into the Debate. He thought the House was determined to carry the Bill to a successful issue; but he wished to support the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Glasgow (Mr. Parker Smith) in his desire to have it referred to a Select Committee, so that the case of employment at sea should be thoroughly thrashed out. The Home Secretary had introduced a most important principle into the Bill, of including seamen in the same way as those who were employed on land, and he thought it was only appropriate that this matter should be fully considered in a Select Committee. He thought they ought to be clear on the facts before they proceeded to legislate. Employment at sea was of a very special
    216
    character, and what they wanted to know before the Bill went into Committee was the extent and nature of negligence which the Home Secretary intended to include in his Bill, and what were the acts he intended to exclude. Before the Select Committee in 1886, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough stated that all his wants were expressed in the formula which he laid before the Committee; but the Home Secretary had introduced a formula of liability which was probably about as imperfect as any Home Secretary ever introduced.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now discussing the tribunal before which the Bill should be sent, which is the Question before the House.
    MR. LAWRENCE, said he was showing the difference between the formula of liability of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. J. Havelock Wilson) and that of the Home Secretary. They wanted a clearer definition of the claims of accident for which owners were to be rendered liable before they went into Committee on this Bill, and the only way to find out the facts was to send the Bill to a Select Committee. There seemed to be such a hopeless disparity——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the question.
    MR. LAWBENCE: I was endeavouring to show why the Bill should go before a Select Committee, and not to the Standing Committee. [Cries of " Order, order!"]
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot agree that the course now recommended to the Government is inconsistent with that pursued by the late Government on the Bill which they introduced. The Bill of the late Government was actually framed on the recommendations of a Select Committee. The peculiarity of the present Bill is that, not only is it not based on the recommendations of a Select Committee, but it directly traverses the recommendations of the Select Committee, which dealt with the question of employers' liability to seamen. Therefore, there is perfect harmony between the course which the late Government pursued and that which is now recommended. I rise to make only this further observation. It would be perfectly impossible for Members of the Opposition to attend both Grand Committee and

    217
    Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill. I am, therefore, obliged to advise any hon. Friends —so far as they will take my advice —to devote their attention to the more important subject, the Government of Ireland Bill, and to leave the Grand Committee on the Employers' Liability Bill —concentrating their attention on the latter measure when it reaches the Report stage.
    *MR. ASQUITH: The Government will adhere to their proposal. I have listened with considerable astonishment to some of the arguments used on both sides of the House in opposition to our proposal. The late Government introduced an Employers' Liability Bill in 1888, and that proposal was discussed at very much shorter length on the Second Reading than the present Bill, though, of course, the Bill of 1888 was, as we think, less adequate and less complete than the measure now under consideration. Though discussed at much shorter length, the Bill of 1888 was referred, with the general consent of the House, to the Grand Committee on Law. I confess I cannot see what change there has been in circumstances to lead the right hon. Gentleman opposite to his altered view.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot have done me the honour to listen to my observations, in which I pointed out that the Bill of 1888 was framed on the recommendations of a Select Committee, whereas the present measure traverses the recommendations of that Select Committee.
    MR. ASQUITH: I do not at all admit the justice of the right hon. Gentleman's description, and, if I did, it is wholly irrelevant to the point I am discussing —namely, as to what tribunal the Bill should be referred to. It is quite true that the Bill of 1888 followed the recommendations of the Select Committee as to the inclusion of seamen, while the present Bill does not do so; but what possible bearing has that on the question of the tribunal to which this Bill shall be referred? If the Bill went to a Select Committee evidence would be taken, and a largo amount of time would be spent; and then when the Bill has been transformed to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) desires —for that is the real object —the right hon. Gentleman does not want the
    218
    present Bill carried at all; he wants an entirely different Bill, of which he may claim the authorship —then the Bill will have to go through the ordeal of a Committee of the Whole House. It is very curious that the Bill should be smothered by the attentions of those who are anxious to see it passed. It is suggested that hon. Members cannot attend both Grand Committee and Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill. But I would point out that the Grand Committee only sits two days a week, meeting at 12 o'clock and adjourning at half-past 2 or 3 o'clock. There is no reason why it should sit after the House meets.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Grand Committee often sits after the House has met.
    *MR. ASQUITH: That is not my experience. My object, and the object of the Government, is to get the Bill through. We desire the fullest and freest possible discussion of every one of its details. We are perfectly prepared to consider in a non-Party and friendly spirit every suggestion for its improvement, honestly believing that we can best and most effectually attain that end by referring the Bill to a Grand Committee, and leaving the House the fullest opportunity on Report to revise the decisions of the Grand Committee. We adhere to the proposition we have made.
    SIR J. GORST: I should like to ask what opportunities the House will have for expressing its decision on the important point as to whether Government employés shall be brought within the scope of the Bill? A Select Committee could have taken evidence on this subject; they had before them the heads of the Admiralty and War Office. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester has put an Instruction upon the Paper which Mr. Speaker has ruled out of Order. Any Amendment in Committee or on the Report would be equally out of Order; and unless the right hon. Gentleman will afford some opportunity, the Bill will go through without any opportunity for hon. Members to raise, or for the House to decide, this question. I took some pains when the Bill of 1880 was under consideration to get a decision of the House upon this point; and I have

    219
    no hesitation in saying that, had the House at that time been able to express an opinion, the Government would have been made liable to the provisions of the Act in force. But, owing to the Forms of the House, it is not competent for a private Member to bring forward any Motion which directly or indirectly imposes a charge upon the Public Revenue; and hence I was precluded getting a decision on that occasion. I am, therefore, anxious that we shall not now be placed in the same position.
    MR. ASQUITH: By the indulgence of the House I will reply to this. The request of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly reasonable. I wish to state that the Government intend, when the Bill gets to Committee, to propose clauses dealing with this matter. The proposal will be that workmen in the employ of the Government, as, for instance, in the Dockyards and Arsenals, shall be put on the same footing —in principle upon the same footing —[Cries of "Oh!"] —as men in private employment. Hon. Members say "Oh!" but the point is one which requires a considerable amount of adjustment in its details.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I should like to say a few words as to the position in which we have been placed by the Government, who have, apparently, decided to force this Bill on to the Standing Committee on Law. In adopting this course, is not the First Lord of the Treasury deliberately breaking down the only foundation upon which Standing Committees can possibly be carried on? Bills coming back from ordinary Select Committees have to go before the Committee of the Whole House; but when a Bill comes back from the Standing Committee the Committee stage is avoided, and it immediately comes before the House on Report. To avoid the inconvenience which formerly arose, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister with much wisdom proposed the system of Standing Committees, in which Parties were to be fairly represented, and before whom Bills were to be much more thoroughly discussed than before a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman admitted at the time —and he will no doubt admit now —that as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham pointed out, Bills which concern large and universal interests are not entirely
    220
    suited to go before a Grand Committee. What will happen if the right hon. Gentleman presses this proposal? He will break down the operation of Standing Committees. A new practice will be introduced —the Opposition will have to introduce it, and I say this with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition —the practice of refusing, as an Opposition, to take part in the proceedings of the Committee. That is a serious step to announce; and what becomes of Standing Committees if that, course is taken by a large Opposition in the House of Commons? What becomes of the system if, in order to emphasise a great difference of opinion, nearly half the House of Commons refuses to take part in a Standing Committee? How shall we ever get a Standing Committee formed again? We shall take this course on what we hold to be solid ground; we think this Bill ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. The Leader of the Opposition is in agreement with me, and authorises me to say that we do not press that the Bill should go before a Select Committee; but we must insist, by the use of all the legitimate Parliamentary weapons we can bring to bear, that a Bill of this magnitude and importance shall be kept within the cognisance of the House during the Committee stage. I do appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury —have we not got enough subjects of difference at this time? Why add this to them? It must effect most unfortunately a great reform of procedure that the Prime Minister carried with great advantage to this House. The right hon. Gentleman is straining his own form of procedure by trying to force a very large Opposition against their will to go before a Standing Committee and forego the discussion of a great measure in Committee of the Whole House; he is adding a most bitter controversy to the many which now, unfortunately, exist. From what I know of the opinion of hon. Gentlemen behind me and from the knowledge I have of the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, I believe it is their determination to disregard most of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. Certainly to send the Bill there must lead to a tremendous addition to the labours of Parliament as a whole, for it must lengthen the proceedings on the Report,

    221
    and by so doing destroy one of the greatest implements of usefulness which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into the procedure of the House.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not want to prolong the Debate more than a very few minutes. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham will join with me in melancholy reflection on the fate of the promise which he made. I must say he had a better reason for that promise, if it was founded upon a fair consideration of the exigencies and merits of the case, than there has been for the remarkable speech we have just had from the noble Lord.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I stated that if the Bill remained in Committee of the Whole House we would not press for its reference to a Select Committee at all.
    MR. W.E. GLADSTONE: The case is before us. I am not going to impute to the noble Lord or to anyone who has spoken the smallest evil intention. Let that be understood. He has formed his opinion as to the best mode of pushing forward the Bill, and we have formed ours. I am bound to say that the Government have arrived at the conclusion that the mode recommended by the noble Lord —and now, as I understand, by the right hon. Gentleman sitting near him, the Leader of the Opposition —is a mode which, in our view, would render it totally impossible to pass the Bill into law during the present Session, and would lead unnecessarily to the postponement of a most valuable reform. The noble Lord has spoken with great solemnity of tone, bearing evidence to his deep sincerity, of the use, on this particular occasion, of all the means of Constitutional opposition which the Forms of the House provide in the event of our persevering with our proposal. Well, Sir, that is a threat which I admit is, under extraordinary circumstances, however inconvenient, yet possibly justifiable; but what are the circumstances under which the threat is made? In a matter admitted to be one not of Party contention and one of deep interest to the working men of this country, working under those who are described as employers, we are to be met with this resort to the extremest method of Parliamentary opposition. For what? For adopting exactly the same method of proceeding
    222
    which the late Government adopted in 1888. I appeal to the fairness of the noble Lord. Is this a suitable occasion? I do not want to compel the noble Lord to make another speech; I leave it to the internal operations of his own mind, which are always conducted in a spirit of candour and with a desire for the public good. Is it a fair proceeding, with respect to the immediate proposition before the House, to resort to the menace of the use of this extreme weapon, when we are going to refer the Bill to a Committee in exactly the same manner as the late Government referred their Bill upon the same subject? I am convinced that the Opposition will not decline in a body to serve upon a Grand Committee under the circumstances in which the Grand Committee is proposed —precisely the same as it was proposed upon a Bill on the same subject by the Government which they supported a few years ago.
    MR. MACINNESsaid, he desired to point out that this question had already been considered by a Select Committee which sat in the year 1886, and he was bound to remark that very little use had been made of the evidence given before that Select Committee by hon. Gentlemen who were now anxious to relegate this question once more to a Select Committee. Many hon. Members regretted that they would not be able to take part in the discussion of the Bill by a Grand Committee; but they hoped that those who might be nominated to sit on the Committee would not justify the noble Lord's outburst. Let them remember that this was not a Party question; that it was a matter which every class of the community wished to see settled, and in regard to which a vast amount of information was stored in Blue Books in the evidence taken by the Select Committee, upon which the late Mr. Brad-laugh took such a conspicuous and useful part.
    *MR. FENWICKsaid, that some who, like himself, had the honour of sitting in the last Parliament, must have listened with surprise to the arguments which had been urged by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and by Members of the Opposition. It would be well within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the last Parliament Mr. Broad-

    223
    hurst, standing at the Front Opposition Bench, made a passionate appeal to the Leader of the Conservative Party, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, considering the importance of the Bill of the late Government, and the wide interests affected by it, that the Bill should not be sent to a Grand Committee, but should be considered in Committee of the Whole House. The Government at that time refused to listen to the appeal which was made by Mr. Broadhurst, and supported by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition had let them into the secret why the Opposition was so anxious that this Bill should not be considered by a Grand Committee, but that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The effect of sending such a Bill to a Select Committee would be to defeat the progress and the passing of the Bill this Session.
    MR. A., T. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that my noble Friend said he was prepared to accept as a compromise that the Bill should not go to a Select Committee, but that it should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.
    *MR. FENWICKsaid, he was pleased to have that assurance, because it marked a wonderful change of opinion since 1888, when the Government absolutely refused to lend an ear to the appeal, although the Debate on the Second Reading had occupied less than five hours, whereas this Bill had been debated 12 hours on the Second Reading. What was the opinion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in 1880, when a similar Motion was made by Mr. Knowles, who was then Member for Wigan? The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, said —
    "A Select Committee is the natural resource of a Government that does not want to legislate and of a Parliament that does not want to legislate. This Government and this Parliament is not yet tired of legislating."
    The suggestion to send a Bill like that to a Select Committee was the natural resource of individuals, as well as of Governments, that did not wish to legislate, because the effect of such a course would be to prevent the passage of the Bill through this Parliament. He did not say that to prevent the progress of
    224
    the measure was the object with which the Motion had been moved; but that, undoubtedly, would be its effect if it was accepted by the Government. ["No!"] He had given the law and testimony as delivered by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was becoming less and less pleasant to the people with whom he came in contact. He did not know the people with whom the right hon. Gentleman came in contact, and who were less and less enamoured of the Bill. Did he know the opinion of the working men of Birmingham?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I do.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he had received a Memorial from the Trades Council of Birmingham in favour of the Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: They do not represent one tithe of the workmen of Birmingham.
    MR. FENWICK: I can only say that the Memorial signed——
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The opinion of the Trades Council of Birmingham has nothing to do with the question whether the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
    *MR. FENWICKapologised for being led from the strict line of the Debate by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to hear from the Home Secretary that it was the intention of the Government to adhere to their proposal to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee. All the questions raised by the Bill could be considered fully before the Grand Committee, and there would be a reasonable hope that the Bill would be carried through this Session, thereby realising the desire of: numbers of working men who were deeply interested in the measure.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he had served, young Member though he was, on four Grand Committees, and he found that they were not at all suitable for discussing any Bill on which there were great differences of opinion. The Rules and Procedure of Grand Committees were very unsettled. There was no Closure, but there was an arbitrary power in the bauds of the Chairman to put an end to a discussion. That would not be a satisfactory way of discussing a Bill of this importance, and he thought it should be left to the Committee of the Whole House.
    SIR EDWARD HILLhoped the Government would give way, and submit the Bill to a Select Committee, or to the Committee of the whole House, in order that the important questions involved in it might be fully thrashed out. He was not opposed to employers' liability. On the contrary, he thought that employers should be held liable for accidents to the workmen and servants, and all those over whom they had actual moral and legal control; but there were circumstances that required to be fully gone into, and he thought that in the interest of the Bill, and in order to save time, the course suggested in the Amendment should be adopted.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on' stand part of the Question."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, that after the observations of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, who had also expressed the opinion held by the Leader of the Opposition that the Bill ought not to go to a Standing Committee at all, he did not intend to move his Amendment that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
    MR. TOMLLNSONsaid, the only Bills referred to the Standing Committee on Law were Bills dealing with questions of law and procedure. The Bill before the House came strictly under the Rule regulating the referring of Bills to the Standing Committee on Trade. But he did not mean to move any Amendment, and would content himself with entering a protest against the action of the Government.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

SUPPLY —CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CLASS I.
(1.) £31,745, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.
(2.) £76,064, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
MR. A. C. MORTONthanked the Secretary to the Treasury for the very clear and useful Memorandum he had issued dealing with these Votes. With regard to Bushey Park, which came under the Vote before the Committee, he wished to mention that complaints had been made of damage done in the Park by shooting parties. He thought those shooting parties should be stopped, and that the Park, which belonged to the people, should be given to the people, instead of to some members of the Royal Family.
*SIR RICHARD TEMPLEhoped his right lion. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would take that opportunity of explaining the arrangements he had made for the admission of the public of Kingston and Surbiton to the Home Park at Hampton Court under certain reservations. In the interview which the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to give to a deputation which he had had the honour of introducing, the right hon. Gentleman gave, in general terms, a very kindly reply to the request of the deputation; and, no doubt, he had been able since then to bring the arrangements for the opening of the Home Park to a satisfactory conclusion. He also desired to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the opening of Kew Gardens at an earlier hour than noon to the general public. The only persons admitted to the Gardens between 10 o'clock and 12 were members of artistic and scientific associations, who received special tickets from the Director. He was as alive to artistic and scientific considerations as any man, and he did not think that scientific research or artistic research in the Gardens would be interfered with by the admission of the public at an earlier hour than at present. The objection that it would entail additional expense might be raised. He would be sorry to make any recommendation which would involve additional cost; but he could not help thinking that if there was any real desire on the part of the authorities to admit the public to the Gardens between 10 and 12, no means would be found to carry it out without any appreciable extra expenditure.
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I have great pleasure in

227
being able to take this opportunity of informing the Committee that I have the permission of the Queen to say that Her Majesty has given her approval to the throwing open of Hampton Court Park to the public. I think that this will be recognised as a great boon, not only by the inhabitants of Kingston and Surbiton and the surrounding neighbourhood, but also by the public of London generally, who visit Hampton Court in large numbers, especially on Sundays. The Park consists of about 500 acres, and has some magnificent avenues planted by Charles H. Hitherto the public has been excluded from the Park, but now, with the exception of two or three meadows by the river side, which are not suitable, the whole will be thrown open to the public. As there are no roads at present, the Park will be open only to pedestrians. An additional expense will be entailed for park-keepers and in making access to the Park; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has willingly assented to this addition to the public cost. It will not be necessary, however, to apply for a Supplementary Estimate during the present Session. I may say that Her Majesty opened the Hampton Court Gardens to the public early in her reign, and she opened Kew Gardens about the same time, so that in now opening the Park at Hampton Court Her Majesty is only carrying out the policy she has pursued all through her reign. As to Kew Gardens, I am afraid that I cannot give an answer which will be thought to be so satisfactory. The earlier opening of these Gardens would be attended with additional expense, and I think that the hon. Baronet ought to be satisfied with the intimation I have just made as to Hampton Court Park, and not expect the Government to incur additional expenditure at Kew. To the question asked by the hon. Member for Peterborough I hope to be able to give a satisfactory reply. The sporting rights in Bushey Park are vested in the Queen, and I have no more right to interfere with them than I would have to interfere with the rights of any private individual with respect to private property. Her Majesty gives the sporting rights to her friends, and of late years the right of shooting has been granted to Baron Pawel Rammingen.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Who is he?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: He is the husband of the Princess Frederica, a near relation to the Queen. In the course of last winter a member of a shooting party authorised by the Baron unfortunately shot a young man in the park. When the incident came to my notice, and having regard to the use made by the public of the Park I thought it desirable that the preservation of game should be discontinued, I brought the subject to the attention of the Queen. With that consideration for the public which she always shows, Her Majesty took the same view of the matter. Her Majesty has withdrawn the permission to shoot from the Baron, and the preservation of game in the Park for shooting purposes has come to an end.
MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his decision not to open Kew Gardens earlier. There was absolutely no necessity for the early opening of the Gardens. The Gardens contained the finest botanical collection in the world. Scientists visited it from all parts for the purposes of study, and it would be impossible for that state of things to continue if the Gardens were opened two hours earlier simply for the benefit of the children and the nursemaids. Besides, it would be a more costly arrangement than at first sight appeared, and if any additional expense was to be incurred on this head it should be borne by the ratepayers of the district, and not by the general rates.
Vote agreed to.
3. £33,095, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, that under this Vote the question of the accommodation of Members within the House had been often discussed; but the subject of the alteration of the House had never been closely considered. In 1867–8 a strong Committee was appointed by the House to investigate this matter, and among other recommendations that Committee received was one from Mr. Edward Barry, who stated that the House could be rebuilt during the Recess for a sum of about £120,000 so as to give accommodation for 569 Members, whereas now they were only able to seat 430 Members. They were told that the House was not always full

229
—for instance, during the discusiion of the Estimates and other matters; but whenever an important discussion took place the House was not near large enough to afford accommodation for the Members, many of whom had to stand below the Bar and behind the Speaker's Chair. Again, the acoustic properties of that building were not very good, one reason for that being that beneath the House there was a Chamber six feet in depth, and the voices of speakers descended to that cavernous region. By the alterations suggested by Mr. Barry, this cavernous region would be done away with, and the ventilation would be greatly improved. At the present time the air of the House was not so pure as it might; be; but the alterations which Mr. Barry recommended would remedy this. The Report of the Committee went on to show that the present House could be Utilised as a new Lobby for the use of Members only, and outside this Lobby a number of rooms could be provided for the officers of the House. This in itself would be a desirable improvement, because, at the present time, the offices were very much scattered and consequently inconvenient. Again, the proposed alterations would give 12 or 14 more seats for the Press, and would give increased accommodation —which was much required —in the Ladies' Gallery, the ventilation of which would also be improved. The inconvenience caused to hon. Members by the inadequacy of the accommodation would be amply illustrated during the discussion which would take place in the ensuing mouth; and he thought that, instead of the question being relegated to the next Session, it should be at once dealt with. In no proposal which was made to the Committee was it ever suggested that there should be a tribune; but it was always understood that Members should address the House from their places. It was found that a building could be erected with sufficiently good acoustic properties as to enable Members to be heard from their places as easily as now, whilst, giving accommodation to between 500 and 600 Members. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in some way or other before the meeting of Parliament next year, some steps could not be taken to do away with the
230
present serious inconvenience to which hon. Members were subject?
MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDcalled attention to the scarcity of lockers in the House, and stated that accommodation in this respect was very much needed by hon. Members.
MR. JEFFREYS, alluding to the lighting of the Library and the Reading Room, expressed the opinion that the electric lighting required shading. Nothing hurt the eyes more than electric lighting which was not properly shaded. In the Library, although the light was very good, and one could see in any part of the room, there was no shading whatever, so that the light was very hurtful to the eyes. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would order some shading to be put up, and then the light would be exceedingly good. There was another matter which he wished to mention. He could not understand why, after a Division, Members were allowed to go into the outer Lobby, but were then not allowed to go outside. He failed to see why the outer door should not be opened, because after Members had gone through a Division no harm could possibly be done, whilst it would be a great convenience to hon. Members if they were then allowed to go out.
MR. WILLIAM SIDEBOTTOMcomplained of the insufficiency of the accommodation provided in the Newspaper and Tea Rooms. In either room one could not sit in any place without being in a draught, and the rooms were far too small, one being merely a passage. He suggested that some other room of a more commodious character should be obtained for the convenience of Members who desired to read the newspapers.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the wishes of the hon. Member could easily be met if the First Commissioner of Works would agree to place the newspapers in the present Smoking Room, and give the smokers the Tea Room and the present Newspaper Room. This very proposal was agreed to at one time; but, after it was agreed to, the late Mr. Beresford Hope got up a sort of memorial on the subject, and it was stated that the smoke might penetrate into the House itself if the smokers were allowed to use those rooms. Un-

231
doubtedly the present Smoking Room was a great deal too small; and while there was generally plenty of room in the Reading Room, it very often happened that there was not even standing accommodation in the Smoking Room. When the present room was granted to the smokers it was recognised that it was too small, and it was arranged that they should also have a Committee Room of the House of Lords. He did not know why the latter room had been taken from them, but they had lost it. It was suggested that there was a little room downstairs which they could use. But the poor smokers did not want to be put in cells downstairs like criminals, nor did they want to go on reading newspapers all day; but they wanted to go on smoking, and they ought to have sufficient accommodation for that purpose.
MR. JOHNSTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He confessed himself to be a heretic —that was, he was a non-smoker —and he wanted to read the newspapers. When reading the newspapers they were sometimes interfered with by the talk of hon. Members from Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would provide them with a Talking Room instead of a Smoking Room it would be better.
*MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that one of the best solutions for getting rid of the difficulty of the overcrowding in the House was to increase the attractions of other parts of the House; and if he could increase the attractions of the Smoking Room or of the Reading Room he should be glad to do so. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had called attention to the fact that some years ago, when the present Smoking Room was given, another room close by was conceded. He did not know how it was that this room had been taken away; but he would make inquiries, and endeavour to have it restored to hon. Members. As regarded the Reading Room, he could not promise that that should be given up to the smokers. Some years ago a proposition to that effect was made, but so much opposition arose that it was found impossible to carry it out. He did not, therefore, think he could undertake to
232
put his hand to the matter again. With regard to the question of lockers, he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that attention would be given to that subject, and also to the question of lights in the Reading Room and Library. With regard to the accommodation generally in the Reading Room, he entirely agreed it was insufficient; but hon. Members would recognise that the accommodation of the House was very limited in all directions. It would be desirable to increase it in many ways, and he had often called attention to the large space under the roof now occupied by private residences. He thought they might look forward to an increase in the accommodation of the House. He hoped the hon. Member for St. Pancras would not expect him to go through the question of the accommodation of the House now, the more especially as the hon. Member for Northampton had threatened to raise the question on the Vote for his (the First Commissioner's) salary. His hon. Friend seemed to think it rested with him whether there should be a Committee or not; but he would point out that any single Member of the House could object to the discussion going on otherwise than before 12 o'clock, and he was sure hon. Members had no intention of allowing him to have that Committee without discussion or objection. The matter, therefore, did not rest wholly with him, but he did not propose to lose sight of the subject. He had already had plans prepared in the Office of Works for increasing the accommodation of the House to some extent, without injuring the large plans of the hon. Member for Northampton, which were the subject of the observations made the previous night. He should, at some future time, submit them to the consideration of the House. He still thought it desirable to wait some little time and see what the result of the next few weeks might be, and they would have an extremely good test of the real wants of the House in the course of the Committee on the Home Rule Bill.
*GENERAL SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsuggested the advisability of the width of the troughs at the back of the Benches being decreased, so that Members would be able to pass along the seats without causing that inconvenience to other Mem-

233
bers which they were obliged to do at present.
MR. HERBERTcalled attention to the light in the Clock Tower. A considerable sum of money had recently been spent on this light, without effecting much improvement. He suggested the employment of an electric light in the nature of a search light throwing up a column in the air which could be seen all over London. Such a light might, at any rate, be tried, as a matter of experiment, for a few weeks; and he ventured to say it would be found much more convenient than the present light, which —-especially in the case of a fog —could not be seen at a greater distance away than about half-a-mile.
MR. TOMLINSONremarked that the light from the roof of the House was not constant in quality, and this was a matter which might very well receive consideration.
*MR. PERCY ALLSOPPsuggested that if the yard outside the Members' Cloak Room were converted into a covered space, it would make an admirable Smoking Room.
MR. MACFARLAXEasked were they to understand that if the hon. Member for Northampton moved for a Committee to consider the question of the accommodation in the House there would be no objection on the part of the Government? He himself was in favour of a moderate enlargement, but he should be sorry to see it enlarged to such an extent that there would be a fixed seat for each Member.
THE MARQUESS OK CARMARTHENurged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible to open the outer doors of the Lobby before the Division was over, in order that hon. Members who had recorded their votes might at once return to other parts of the House. It would be easy to prevent hon. Members who had not taken part in the Division from entering the Division Lobbies, and if the course he suggested were adopted it would be a great convenience to hon. Members.
MR. HOWELLasked if it was not possible to make further provision for a Conference Room, as the present room was occupied by the private secretaries of Members? He was not complaining of that at all —
234
he recognised there was a necessity for it —but he thought some arrangement ought to be made so that Members might have some place in which to receive small deputations or in which to hold meetings among themselves.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREquite agreed that the present Conference Room was not adequate for its purpose. He had been endeavouring to negotiate the transfer to the House of Commons of the three rooms now allotted to the Railway Commissioners. The consent of the House of Lords, to whom the rooms technically belonged, and of the Railway Commissioners would be necessary before the transference could take place. But if these rooms could be obtained, a very tine Conference Room could he provided. They were just opposite the present Conference Room and would be quite as convenient. With regard to the question of the noble Marquess, he would consult the authorities to see if there was any real reason for preventing Members going out of the Lobby. He quite agreed it would be a great convenience if Members could be allowed to leave the House as soon as they had voted, and he would consult the authorities of the House as to what was the real reason for keeping the outer doors shut. He would also communicate with hon. Members on the other questions which had been raised. As to the question of the hon. Member for Argyll, he thought that hon. Member would recollect that he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) merely stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton as to whether there should be a Committee on he accommodation of the House, that the question did not rest only with him, but with private Members.
*MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, that with regard to the detention of hon. Members taking part in Divisions, until a comparatively recent period the Lobby door was not opened until after a Division was completed, and therefore it was a comparatively recent concession that, the Hall immediately convenient to the House had been made available for the accommodation during Divisions. If some facilities could be afforded for hon. Members being relieved from the detention complained of it would be very desirable, though, no doubt, the possibility of a recount being called

235
for had to be borne in mind. As to the question of accommodation in the House, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given up the non possumus position he had taken up last Session, when the subject was last under discussion, and was now willing to admit that something ought to be done to increase the accommodation in that House and in the various rooms provided for the convenience of hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he intended to be guided in the matter by the experience which he would obtain during the next few weeks whilst the Home Rule Bill was being discussed in Committee. But he was, afraid that when that Committee came to an end the right hon. Gentleman would say that that was the first time within his Parliamentary experience that there had been so large an attendance for so great a time consecutively; that the circumstances were wholly abnormal, and that they were never likely to have again such a continuous and close an attendance of Members. That, he suspected, was what the right hon. Gentleman would tell them after the experience of the next few weeks. He wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman, both as regarded the accommodation in the House and in the Writing Rooms, Smoking Rooms, and so on, that he must bring his mind to this fact—that the average attendance in the discharge of Parliamentary duties had increased very much during the last quarter of a century, and the present scanty accommodation for hon. Members was wholly inadequate. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman desiring to consult experts as regarded the extent to which the accommodation should be increased, but that they should be content much longer to remain with the miserable accommodation now provided was entirely out of the question. The hon. Member who had raised this question had drawn their attention to the fact that because of the insufficiency of the accommodation a Member was unable efficiently to discharge his Parliamentary duties, and certainly such a condition of things ought not to be allowed to continue. The hon. Member for Northampton had brought forward the claims of the smokers. He (Mr. Lowther), like the hon. Member for
236
South Belfast, was a non-smoker; nevertheless, he thought the claims of smokers, should be clearly and distinctly recognised in the matter of accommodation. The hon. Member had suggested, in the shape of a Bill, means whereby additional accommodation in all its branches, through the withdrawal from their present uses of the whole of the chambers on the other side of the Central Hall, could be provided. He did not, of course, endorse the proposals by which the hon. Member attained the end sought for; but he thought some portion of the accommodation now appropriated, not to the House of Lords as a deliberative Assembly, but to officers of that House, and even to Railway Commissioners—a body which had no claim whatsoever for accommodation in the Palace at Westminster — that these opened out avenues through which additional accommodation could be provided for those who had legitimate claims to that accommodation. Of course, the officers of the House of Commons, who were in constant daily attendance, ought to have provision made within its walls for their personal accommodation; but there were many persons housed within the limits of the Palace at, Westminster who would very much prefer that the public should provide that accommodation in a more suitable locality, and the places now set apart for that purpose could be more judiciously appropriated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow his good resolves in this respect to be set aside, but would carry out reform in this direction. He did not intend now to enter into the question of the enlargement of the present Chamber, upon which he had recently expressed very decided opinions as to its utter inadequacy, but he thought the accommodation of Members in the Writing Room, Smoking Room, and so forth, could not brook much longer delay. He agreed with what had been said as to making further provision for a Conference Room, and urged that something should at once be done in this matter.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREagreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his observations with regard to the accommodation of the House, and especially as to the direction in which it should be sought. The officers of that House required every

237
accommodation, having regard to the great length of time they were often compelled to be on duty. There were officers of the other House, however— for such, instance, as the Black Rod—whose duties were not very arduous, and in regard to whom it was not necessary to have houses under that building. He believed it was contemplated by the House of Lords making considerable changes in that officer's department, and in that rise it would not be necessary to have so magnificent a house provided for him. Again, the Librarian of the House of Lords was a gentleman who received a salary of £800 a year. That seemed altogether inadequate to enable him to live in the house provided for him in the House of Lords. The gentleman himself did not live in the house provided for him, but he only occupied one room in it, living elsewhere. If that house was thrown into the accommodation of the building generally, it would enable them to make fresh arrangements to increase the accommodation. Without saying anything discourteous to the House of Lords, he thought facilities might be given by that House for increasing the accommodation of the House of Commons, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that his political friends might have much greater influence than he himself could hope to have in that quarter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to use it in that direction.
*SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the answer the right hon. Gentleman had given with regard to the accommodation of the House had not satisfied hon. Members who felt strongly that the accommodation was insufficient. Whilst there were 670 Members, there was only space on the floor of the House for 306, or far less than one-half. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, who had a seat provided for him on all occasions, to be satisfied with the accommodation afforded; but it was not reasonable that hon. Members who had been returned to the House should, first of all, on occasions have to scramble at the door to get in, and then have regularly to rush to obtain a seat. Hon. Members obtained little sympathy from either Front Bench, be-
238
cause the occupants of the Front Benches were looked after carefully in the arrangements of the House. Ordinary Members found it a great inconvenience to be obliged to sacrifice much time in order to obtain a seat. He knew some hon. Members who came there and sacrificed six or seven hours in order to obtain a seat on the occasion of the Home Rule Debate. He contended that a Member of that House, who was returned to discharge his Parliamentary duties, ought to be able to obtain a seat in it whenever there was important business just as easily as in his own house. He knew of no other Parliament in any country where every Member was not provided with a seat. The Resolution which was passed in 1868, set forth that the accommodation was insufficient; and if it was insufficient in 1868, when the number of Members was smaller than now, it was certainly insufficient in 1893. It was time some better arrangement was made by which more than 306 Members could obtain seats on the floor of the House so as to be able to take part in the proceedings. In order to show the absurdity of the arrangements for the accommodation of hon. Members, Mr. Mitchell Henry, on one occasion, addressed the Speaker from the Gallery, and he was ordered to come down on to the floor of the House. It was absurd there should not be more accommodation, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to deal with the matter with more seriousness than he appeared to have brought to bear upon it.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he could assure hon. Members that those who sat on the Front Benches were not destitute of human sympathy, and, moreover, he could assure the House that the Front Bench was often a very congested district. They might hereafter decide about enlarging the House, but the question which they had now to deal with was how hon. Gentlemen were to be decently accommodated at the present time. They were likely to have some interesting Sittings shortly when the scenes which had been described with so much pathos might be repeated. Certainly, it was not decent that a gentleman of mature age and serious appearance should be obliged to take part in an unseemly

239
rush in order to secure a place in which he could conveniently hear the Debate, and possibly address the House. It was not even decent that hon. Members should have to come down hours before the House sat in order to take their seats. He would beg leave to suggest that upon days when there was likely to be a crowd hon. Members should come down to the House a little while before Prayers and place cards in a box with their respective names, which should then be drawn out, one by one, and each Member should enter the House and take his seat as soon as his name was drawn. This would, at all events, be more seemly than the present system, and, certainly, something should be done to relieve Members from the necessity of taking part in an unseemly struggle.
Vote agreed to.
4. £41,200, to complete the sum for Admiralty, Extension of Buildings.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERrose to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he correctly apprehended his observations on the Vote on Account —that the extension of the Admiralty buildings would occupy a period of seven years? He made this inquiry of his right hon. Friend, mainly because a really great Metropolitan improvement— namely, the opening of St. James's Park to Trafalgar Square, would thus be delayed for so long a period, because the Admiralty clerks occupied a house required for the making of the new road, which could not be vacated until the now Admiralty buildings were fit for occupation. Neither could he understand how the expenditure of £180,000 which was estimated for to complete the Admiralty buildings could take so long a time, if £50,000 was to be spent in this year. At the same average of expenditure, the time for the completion of the buildings would be nearer three and a-half than seven years. He hoped his right hon. Friend would do all in his power to hasten the completion of the buildings, and so facilitate a great Metropolitan improvement.
MR. FORWOODwould like to know whether the sum proposed to be expended on the Admiralty buildings was regulated by the exigencies of the Chancellor of the
240
Exchequer, or by the amount of work that the contractors could undertake in the course of the present year? Already they had this building land acquired some five, six, or seven years, and the public had been charged at the rate of £16,000 a year, which was practically dead money—money absolutely lost so far as it extended to the reasonable and necessary time for completing the building. Of course, he did not say this was in any sense a Party question. He thought in times past too little money had been taken for it, and there could be no greater waste of public money than taking only a small amount for a great building in the course of a year. He thought a sufficient sum ought to be taken for these large buildings, as much as the contractor could possibly spend, and in that way only could they get the buildings finished within a reasonable period. By this delay they were losing not only £16,000 a year on the cost of the land, but they were paying a large sum for the rent of other buildings such as the hon. Member had just alluded to, and which were occupied by clerks of the Admiralty. But the Admiralty, further than that, was placed at great inconvenience and the utmost difficulty in doing its work by reason of the various Departments being scattered over various houses. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was furnishing the contractor with so large a sum of money in the coming year as he possibly could spend in pushing on these buildings. It would be far better to get one set of buildings completed than to fritter away comparatively small sums on different buildings and spread over a number of years.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREquite agreed with the remarks of the last speaker as to the delay in the progress of works like this through not voting sufficient money, and he had not fallen into that mistake. On the contrary, he was quite prepared to spend any amount of money within the present year to hasten the completion of the works. But there was something worse than not voting sufficient money to be spent within the year, and that was delaying the work altogether, and not undertaking it; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forwood) would recollect that it was his own Government which

241
delayed the commencement, of the work on account of unwillingness to insert the necessary item in the Estimates. These works were recommended by the Committee of 1887, and that Committee in its Report stated as a reason for throwing over the wider scheme which had been propounded to the House previously, and recommending that an extension only of the Admiralty buildings should be carried out, that they thought that extension could be completed in two, or at the most three, years. But since 1887 six years had already elapsed. Some delay took place in consequence of the plans not having been completed by the architect. The arrangements between the Admiralty aud the architect were not completed for a year, and a delay of 12 months subsequently occurred in consequence of the Treasury refusing to vote money. Some further delay was caused by difficulty as to the foundations, nearly seven years more would be required for this work, making in all 12 years from 1887 instead of two or, at the most, three. What was the reason for seven more years being required for the completion of the work? The reason was this: The building was being erected in two blocks instead of one. That course was rendered necessary by the fact that some houses occupied by the Admiralty were on the site of one portion of these buildings. It was found that difficulty and expense arose in removing the clerks from that building and finding temporary buildings for them pending the erection of the permanent structure; and, in consequence of that, objection was raised by the Treasury of the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected, and it was determined to erect the buildings in two blocks instead of one. So far as he had been able to ascertain, it would take two years more for the completion of the first block. It would then be necessary to spend some little time in removing the clerks in the Admiralty from the buildings in which they were now placed into that new block, and then some further time in pulling down those buildings. The foundations of the new block would then be commenced, and assuming that the same time would be occupied on them and on the new block of buildings as on the first block, a total length of six or seven
242
years would elapse before the completion of the work, or 12 years from 1887. During the whole of that period they were losing at the rate of £16,000 in the interest of money for the value of the laud; losing the rents of the various houses hired for the accommodation of the clerks of the Admiralty, and also losing the interest on the value of the lease on the other side of Whitehall, which the late Government determined should be ultimately used for the War Office, and which they would not commence until the Admiralty was completed. The value of that site was no less than £400,000, and therefore they were losing the interest of that £400,000, which might be released by devoting it to building purposes—and they were losing the interest on that site for the 12 years from the commencement of this building until they commence the War Office part of it.
MR. PLUNKETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a rather gloomy forecast as to the time required to complete the Admiralty buildings according to the plans which were being carried out; and he had also criticised severely the action of the late Government in rejecting the plans he himself (Mr. Lefevre) had proposed. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that rejection was not the action of the late Government, but was a result in pursuance of the finding of a Committee which, by a large majority, rejected his plan and recommended the plan which was being carried out. Therefore, his criticism and condemnation of what was being done must fall upon his own colleagues.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had not made any such remarks as the right lion. Gentleman attributed to him.
MR. PLUNKETsaid, he might have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. He would explain that the delay that bad occurred was not due to the refusal of the late Government to provide money, but it was the consequence of unfortunate circumstances which could not be foreseen—such as the difficulty of obtaining foundations, owing to the nature of the subsoil. On his own part, he had nothing to regret, and he did not believe that the completion of the buildings, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of 1887, would involve the delay which the right hon. Gentleman indicated.
*SIR E. J. REEDsaid, the business of the Admiralty was being conducted under serious disadvantages, and no one would conduct his private business under such conditions as the staff had long been exposed to for lack of accommodation. It was not surprising that the First Commissioner had thought it right to make a full statement on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite threw the blame for delay upon the Committee; but, if the plans of the present First Commissioner had been carried out, they would have had public buildings suitable for the purpose years before they could get them under existing conditions. He thought something ought now to be done to expedite the building operations. The mistake seemed to have been that the present First Commissioner had accepted as final and decisive the situation in which he found himself when he came into Office; but Parliament ought not to be content to wait seven years for the completion of the buildings. That was the adoption in the case of buildings of the policy that once characterised their shipbuilding, when public money was wasted wholesale by locking it up in ships that -were on the stocks for seven or 10 years. The late Mr. W. H. Smith once asked him in the Lobby what he could have done better while he was First Lord of the Admiralty. In reply he asked Mr. Smith, "If you had been a private shipbuilder, and your manager had persuaded you to build ships under the pretext that they were wanted, would you allow them to be years in building, with your capital in them lying idle all the time? "Mr. Smith replied—" I quite admit that the whole system is as bad as it can be, and, if I were First Lord of the Admiralty again, I would be a very different First Lord from what I was." He trusted something would be done to relieve them from a state of things like that with regard to the Admiralty buildings.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)said, he thought he ought to say a word upon the subject. If there were any fault in the matter, he was one of those who were guilty in common with Mr. W. H. Smith, to whom his hon. Friend had just paid such high testi-
244
mony. He took an active part in the Committee spoken of, in concert with Mr. Smith. They thought a good deal of public money was about to be wasted upon the designs put forward, and they therefore thought that a Committee ought to be appointed to consider plans that were to cost £700,000. The Committee were unanimous in their opinion that the elevation was unsuitable. There were towers that would have been a terrible eyesore, and the general style of architecture was what he might call a provincial municipal style. They came to the conclusion that a far better style of architecture for the purpose was the style of the existing Admiralty buildings or Marlborough House. A plan in accordance with the views of the Committee was prepared and brought down to the House, and if anything was said about three years it was on the authority of the architect and the surveyor of the Board of Works. No great public buildings were ever built in the time originally estimated, and, as to these buildings themselves, they had a feeling of despair. Every public building seemed to be, if possible, worse than its predecessor, and more inconvenient for the purposes for which it was intended. He really thought that the Foreign Office and the Home Office could not be beaten in the matter of inconvenience; but they were superseded by the Royal Courts of Justice. It was, in his opinion, a pessimist view to take—and which had been enunciated—that these new buildings would not be completed under seven years. He was sorry that the architect and surveyor of the Board of Works were mistaken in thinking that the buildings would be completed in three years. It had taken five years and they were not built yet, but he did not think it would take seven years more. All they could do was to finish the job as soon as they could, and he did not think that there was anyone to blame unless it should be the Committee. The matter was now in a sound position, and he hoped there would be as little delay as possible in carrying out the work.
*MR. JACKSONsaid, he was also a Member of the Committee, and perhaps he ought to take rather more blame than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as at the time he was also Secretary to the Treasury, and therefore

245
more or less responsible if there was any supposition of any delay in providing the necessary money. The Committee were practically unanimous on the plan, but in carrying out the plan there were two or three questions which involved delay. In the first place, it was uncertain what sort of a foundation there was. The bed of an old stream ran through the site, and there was also the belief that there was some shifting of the sand there.
SIR W. HARCOURT: The Admiralty itself is built on piles.
*MR. JACKSONsaid, that was so; as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Admiralty itself was built on piles. The question came before him at the Treasury, and his experience was that it was a little doubtful whether this site would be a satisfactory one. The question was held over for a long time; and then there was delay in advertising for contractors. They had a strike which lasted for a long time, and that was a most unsatisfactory time to advertise. The delay altogether extended over several months. But once the building was commenced there was no reason for delay. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had stated the amount of money expended on the building operations last year and this year. He thought it stood at about £40,000 last year when he (Mr. Jackson) was in Office; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could inform them, approximately at all events, the respective amounts, which would give them a fair idea of the progress that was being made, as to his mind it seemed that there bad been no unnecessary delay from the start. The officials of the Admiralty suffered great inconvenience from the fact that they were scattered all over different offices. There could be no doubt about the serious inconvenience; and he was of opinion that until the present buildings were completed, they could make no effective change. If the right hon. Gentleman in giving them the figures he had asked for, told them that he was in a position to make more rapid progress than had been made up to the present, he, for one, would be glad to hear that intelligence. There was really no reason why they should not go forward with more rapidity.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had done nothing to prevent the work being completed in the most rapid manner. He was most anxious to see it completed, although he did not approve of the scheme originally, but had accepted it as he found it, and it was his desire there should be no avoidable delay in carrying it into effect. If there was any blame, it was not unwillingness with regard to money. One year was lost by the late Government——
MR. PLUNKETT: What year was that?
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he thought it was 1888–9; but it was an undoubted fact that one year was lost by the Treasury declining to vote the money. He did not wish to go into details regarding the past. He could only say that the accepted plans would be carried out as rapidly as possible; but he still held to the opinion that the works could not be completed under six or seven years. Last year £40,000 bad been spent, and this year the amount would be £50,000.
*SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, they should look at the figures in this matter of the Admiralty buildings. The original Estimate was £195,000, now it was calculated to cost £304,500. This was an extraordinary inequality, and they were told that it would take seven years longer, or, in all, 12 years. It was certainly a most startling statement —one of the most startling ever made in the House. Why, the buildings should be completed in not less than two years. A great deal might have been done before the contract was entered into at all. For instance, the foundations should have been prepared. That would have been the right method, and, if that had been done, the rate of progress would have been more satisfactory. But the fact was, the right hon. Gentleman did not like the plan, and he was rather delaying it than assisting it. The late Mr. W. H. Smith was satisfied that, until the foundations were completed, he would not vote any money to go on with the building. That was a very common sense view to take. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would insist on rapid progress being made.
MR. HOWELLsaid, that he had been a Member of the Committee, and had taken an active part in the discussions, and the late Secretary to the Treasury was right when he said that the Committee was nearly unanimous. It had not, however, been so nearly unanimous as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated. Some of them were strongly averse to patching up the old Admiralty buildings, and he would remind the Committee that he had pointed out at the time precisely the difficulties that would happen, and the delays that would occur, and that the Estimates that would be put before the House would be inadequate for the purpose. It seemed to him that on these matters the last man whose opinion was taken was the man who had a practical knowledge of the subject. Such a man know too well the danger and difficulty of tampering with an old building. He did not agree with those who suggested that the building, the plans of which were placed before the Committee would have been inadequate, and would not have been a great improvement in the arrangement which was subsequently made. He held then, and he held now, that the building put before the Committee could have been constructed easily, and could have been constructed at less cost than the building they were renovating, and it could have been built not in 12 years, but in four or five. He found in his experience that it was much more easy to construct a new building than to make a now one out of an old one, and it was easier, too, to estimate when it would be completed. They could gauge pretty accurately the time it would take to construct a now building, but they would never tell when an old building that had to be patched up and renovated would be completed. If the plans and estimates put before the Committee had been adopted, they would have had a magnificent pile of buildings worthy of the Admiralty with an entrance in the Park, and by this time, he ventured to say, they would have been near completion, provided the money had been forthcoming. There was no reason why the operations which had been entered upon should not proceed rapidly, if the foundations were good.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the Estimate had been increased more than 50 per cent., and he wished to know to what circumstances that was due? It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to talk about economy. They were told when the holidays wore commenced that they would cost one sum, and. it was now clear that they were to cost another sum. The money of the country was being frittered away; therefore, it was clear there could be no economising. Was there any reason why the original estimate of £95,000 had been increased to £300,000?
SIR M. RIDLEYwished to know why the original plans had been departed from by which a brick building faced with stone —in the style of the old Admiralty Offices —was to be constructed? The new building was of stone with brick in the interstices.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he did not think there had been any deviation from the plans placed before the House of Commons in the Library. The Committee of 1887 had selected a somewhat plainer building and one more in accordance with the style of the old Admiralty building, but the building ultimately designed, the plans of which had been on view in the Library, was that which had now been commenced. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) asked why the expenditure had been so much higher than the Estimate. That was due, first, to the fact that the foundations had cost £30,000 or £40,000 more than had been estimatted; secondly, to the cost of building having increased in the interval, thirdly, to the building covering a greater extent of ground than was anticipated, and projecting about 35ft. further into the park; and, fourthly, to the increase in the accommodation it was proposed to provide. It was originally intended that the building should be devoted to the accommodation of clerks only; but the original design in that respect had been departed from, and it was now intended that the principal officers should be removed from the Admiralty to the new block. The provision of accommodation for the superior officials rendered it necessary to have a number of smaller rooms than were required for the clerks, with more expensive fittings. The hon. Member

249
for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) seemed to think that the foundations might be made for the new block, but that was impossible. If it had been possible it would have been done; but it was not possible, because the clerks were located in the block of buildings at present occupying the ground. In the first place, they must complete the new block; they must then remove the dorks; and, finally, they must begin the foundations of the second block. He had gone carefully into the subject, and should be glad to expedite the work; but, so far as he could see, it would not be completed in a less time than he had stated.
MR. FORWOODsaid, the second block could be commenced if temporary accommodation were found for the clerks. In this way, instead of having to wait seven years, the work could be done in four or five, and economy would be effected, inasmuch as it would prevent a largo amount of capital lying dormant.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that would have been an extremely good arrangement if carried out originally when the building was commenced. If the building had been erected in one block instead of two, the arrangement would have been beneficial and economical. That, in his opinion, ought to have been done five years ago; but they had been proceeding five years on an opposite plan, and inasmuch as the first block would be completed in 18 months or two years, he did not think it would now be economical to turn the clerks out into temporary quarters.
*SIR J. GOLDSMIDasked how many clerks were at present accommodated in the old building?
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that about 250 clerks occupied quarters in Spring Gardens. It would be difficult to find adequate accommodation for so many within reach of the Admiralty.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £48,719, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous legal buildings, namely, County Courts, Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there were always a number of foolish electors in the country who estimated the service of their Representatives by the number of Divisions they took part in. If their Members sat through a whole Sitting without taking a Division they considered them deficient in zeal, and for that reason, and to relieve his conscience, he proposed to move an Amendment, and take a vote. He had in several Parliaments moved to reduce this Vote, and he had always been defeated, but probably he might be more successful now. Hon. Gentlemen might be aware that outside the Metropolis the Police Courts were maintained by the localities.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I rise to Order. I desire to have some information on a subject which stands before the Police Courts.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Northampton is in possession of the Committee.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the hon. Member will be able to ask for the information he seeks later on.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Shall I be able to do so?
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be impossible to go back to a previous item. If the Hon. Member desires to move an Amendment to an earlier item it is open for him to do so now.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member has no Amendment.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I do not desire to move an Amendment. I simply wish to ask a question.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: If the hon. Member for Peterborough wishes to raise any question earlier in the Estimate he should do so by moving a reduction before the item for Police Courts is discussed.
THE CHAIRMAN: As I have said, if the hon. Member for Peterborough wishes to discuss or move the reduction of any earlier item, he must do so before the item objected to by the hon. Member for Northampton is discussed.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he might have to move an Amendment, but he wished, first, to know whether he was on the right tack? He wanted to know why there was an increase of £7,645 expenditure on County Court buildings over the Vote of last year?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the Vote was increased by the sum of £9,250 for the erection of new County Courts.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman did not know very much about the matter. There was great extravagance in the management of the County Courts. On this item and other small items there was extravagance and loss of money. Whore the Municipal Authorities had the management of these Courts, as they had in the City of London, instead of having a loss, they made a considerable profit every year. He would not prevent the hon. Member for Northampton from going on with his Motion; but unless the Government found out a more economical method of keeping up the Courts, he should move a reduction.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Police Courts all over the country were maintained by the particular localities, but in London the cost was all thrown on the Imperial Treasury. He had always contended that that was a very great injustice, and the answer he received when raising objection was that London did not control its own police. He was in favour of giving London that control, and he never yet could understand how the fact that London had no such control was an answer to the complaint raised by hon. Members who represented provincial localities that while they paid for their own Police Courts Londoners did not. It was said that a certain amount ought to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer for the Bow Street Police Court, because in that Court extradition cases were decided. Well, if they were only called on to pay a certain sum for that Court, there would be some reason in it; but, as a matter of fact, they had to pay for Woolwich, Greenwich, Gravesend, and other places, and had to find fuel, light, water, &c. He would move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £6,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £42,719, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was always very glad when he could support the hon. Member for Northampton. For the past five or six years he had always supported the hon. Member's
252
contention that London should support its own Police Courts, and could not see on what ground they were included in the general expenditure of the country; and if the hon. Member went to a Division, he would vote with him. The Vote had been reduced from £12,000 to £7,000, chiefly on account of reduction in the building item. Still, it was a substantial grievance, and they should go a step farther and make the whole cost fall on the localities.
SIR W. HARCOURT: In a Bill which I brought forward I did take these charges off the Imperial Exchequer and put them upon the Municipal Exchequer of London, and I admit that there is a good deal of anomaly in the way in which these charges are treated in London as compared with other towns. I hope the House will not disallow the Vote this year, as in that case there will be nobody to take charge of the buildings. All I can say is, that I will use all the pressure I can to induce the County Council to undertake the charge of these buildings. Before we take the extreme step of refusing to vote this money, we should make some arrangement with the County Council, or some Body else, to undertake the burden.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that no doubt there was great difficulty in the way of putting pressure on the Government in Committee of Supply; for though they struck out an item in Committee, the Government would put it back on Report. In view of the declaration which had just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that he would look into the matter, and of the attitude which had been taken up by a London Member, he would not press the matter to a Division.
MR. BARTLEYwas not at all satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's concurrence with the Front Bench. They had heard this promise before. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Never.] Yes; and he thought the hon. Member did not display the courage of his convictions which he usually did. He thought they ought to divide on the Amendment. Certainly, for his own part, he should challenge a Division when the Question was put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
*SIR J. LUBBOCKwished to say that the question which had just been raised was a large one, and people in London considered that in the allocation of the local grants they had received less than their fair share.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 118.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I undertook that, on the Third Reading, I would recommit this Bill with reference to Clause 5 in order to meet some objections which have been taken to it. On consulting the authorities, I find that there is some objection to inserting a new clause now, and I shall, therefore, confine myself at present to omitting Clause 5. I move that the Bill be re-committed with reference to Clause 5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 5."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 5 be omitted."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. BRODIE HOAREthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courteous way in which he had met his objection respecting Clause 5, and expressed his regret that the Forms of the House would not permit the right hon. Gentleman to move the new clause now.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider during the coming year whether he could not do away with Schedule B altogether, and throw the whole of the Schedule into Schedule D? This would tend very largely to simplify the Income Tax, and would be a step in the direction of the re-arrangement which everyone desired.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that is a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAXsaid, it was rather disturbing to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that there had been no equalisation of the Death Duties, because hon. Members had understood from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888 that an equalisation had been carried out by him under the Budget of that year.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid, that, speaking as an agriculturist, he should very much object to the abolition of Schedule B, because, although it might be all very well in these bad times that agriculturists should make their returns under Schedule D, he thought that in the good times, which he hoped would come back again eventually, it was very advantageous to the farmer to make his return under Schedule B.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look into a question respecting the assessment of the Land Tax? Some communications had passed between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself with reference to certain parishes on the east coast of England that had had their area reduced by nearly one-half owing to the washing away of parts of them by the sea. The Land Tax was still charged on the old area. The Dissolution came before the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could settle the matter, and he trusted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to set it right. As usual, it was said that there was a technical difficulty in the way of altering the assessment. Of course, that was all stuff, and there was nothing of the kind.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will promise the hon. and gallant Member, now that I have got rid of the Budget, to look into the correspondence.
  *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he desired to express, on behalf of a large class of his constituents, their great regret and disappointment that the deficit had been made good by a summary increase of the Income Tax, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thus trenched in time of peace upon that which should he looked upon as a reserve for time of war. During the period of office of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer two reductions of the Income Tax had taken place, and the payers of the tax naturally made a very unfavourable comparison in that respect between the present Budget and those of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, that throe years ago evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee respecting the fact that the Income Tax was not collected on premiums upon houses. The evidence showed that such premiums were simply rent paid down instead of deferred, and that such premiums ought to be subject to Income Tax just as much as annual rent was. The system of demanding premiums for the letting of houses was said to prevail extensively in London, and it was, therefore, very clear that a large number of metropolitan landlords were not subject to Income Tax which they ought really to pay. That seemed to him to be a matter worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.—(No. 1.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HOLLAND MR. HOLLAND (Salford, N.) moved that the Order for going into Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade."— (Mr. Holland.)
  MR. S. EVANSexpressed a hope that the hon. Member would not press his Motion. There
  256
  were a great many reasons against having the Bill referred to the Standing Committee. It had been understood for a long time that Standing Committees were only intended for dealing with Government Bills. Certain exceptions had been made to this rule, but only with reference to Bills about which the House was practically unanimous and which had the concurrence of the Government. The present measure was one which ought to be dealt with by a Committee of the full House. It was pretty certain that if the Bill were referred to the Standing Committee on Trade only those who were interested in the exemption of machinery from rating would attend that Committee.
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 2nd June.

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Resolved, That all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Rates, Tolls, and Charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and desire their concurrence.—(Mr. Burt.)

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Blackpool Corporation Tramways. Manchester Corporation Tramways, and Plymouth Corporation Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 336.]

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Hoy lake and West Kirby Water Pocklington Water, Poole Water, and South West Suburban Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 337.]

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade,

  257
  under "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Llandrindod Wells Water, Maidenhead Water, and Newington Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 338.]

  RAILWAY KATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER CRANBROOK AND PADDOCK WOOD RAILWAY, & C.] BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," relating to the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges applicable thereto of the Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway Company, the Glyn Valley Tramway Company, the Manchester Ship Canal Company, in respect of the railways of the said Company, and the Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway Company, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 339.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 10) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for forming the Brighouse, Guildford and Godalming. and Luddenden Joint Hospital Districts, the Clayton-le-Moors and Great Harwood Joint Sewerage District, and the Whitchurch Joint Cemetery District, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 340.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
  So much of the Lords Message [4th May] as relates to the reference of the Copyhold (Consolidation) Bill to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills road, and considered.
  Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EVENING SITTING.

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

APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY MAGISTRATES.

  RESOLUTION.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to call attention to the appointment of Justices of the Peace, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the appoinment of County Magistrates should no longer be made by the Lords Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being only on the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant."
  He stated that he should make his remarks as brief as he could, as his hon. Friends were anxious to obtain the decision of the House. The present custom of the appointment of Magistrates was that the Lords Lieutenant nominated, but there was a custom within the custom by which the Lords Lieutenant generally consulted the local Bench. That custom did not rest on law. The Chancellor could change it, and could himself appoint without the nomination of the Lords Lieutenant. The effect of the custom was to confine the Bench in many counties to a select group of friends. A Derbyshire antiquary, a friend of his, had informed him that successive Dukes of Devonshire, acting as Lords Lieutenant of Derbyshire, had wished to appoint millers, maltsters, persons of other classes than those now almost exclusively represented, and had been met by the County Bench with the statement that, while the candidates were admirably qualified in every other respect, their social position was such that it was unwise to bring them on to the Bench; and successive Dukes of Devonshire, from the middle of the last century to early in the present century, were shown by their letters to have yielded to such representations. He feared that 'this concession to the local feeling of a select class still continued. The present Chancellor was a moderate man; and in receiving a deputation upon this subject, he had lately stated that the "constitution of the Bench" in many counties was "extremely unsatisfactory" and "prejudicial to the public interest." Lords Lieutenant, he had pointed out, were, he feared, often "too much in the hands of the local Bench;" and the present system in many counties was virtually one of co-optation subject to "political proclivities." The Chancellor asked for a Resolution of the repre-

  259
  sentative House, in order that his hands might be strengthened in advising Lords Lieutenant to open the doors wider. The Chancellor could, of course, not only appoint from the present time without any change of law, but he could clear the existing Bench. He could advise the issue of new commissions and the discharge of all not included in them. But he would not take that course. He had, in fact, not been even asked to take it. The Chancellor was not only himself a moderate man, but he was right in his moderation under the circumstances of the case. How stood the facts? A great distinction must be drawn between the County of London and other counties of England and Wales and Scotland. He could not speak of Ireland, because the Magistrates in Ireland possessed far fewer powers. London differed greatly from the rest of the country. In parts of London more Magistrates were wanted, but no one cared whether they were Liberal or Conservative. He had been repeatedly concerned in pressing for the appointment of more Magistrates in the parish of Chelsea and in the parish of Fulham, because there were too few, who worked, to get through the work at present; and those for whom he had been most strongly pressing were persons—such as some of those who had, when he was Chairman of his Board of Guardians, greatly assisted him in the work—who happened to be Conservatives. In the parish of Fulham much difficulty had been found in discharging the work of Magistrates connected with lunacy, through the want of local Magistrates; and the Duke of Westminster had now placed upon the Bench the County Councillors and others, entirely irrespectively of politics, for the purpose of getting through the work. Elsewhere there were enough Magistrates, providing that they were the right men; but, virtually, in large parts of the country, they were only landowners, and of the landowners only those of one Party and one Church. In some counties the Lords Lieutenant admirably discharged their duties; for example, Lord Bath in Wiltshire, to name a member of the Party to which he was himself opposed; but in others the Bench was packed in such a way as to destroy public confidence. In his own division, and the counties which adjoined it—the
  260
  rest of the County of Gloucester, the Counties of Worcester and Hereford and Moumouth—the Liberal Party had a considerable majority of electors, but the Bench was 22 to 1 against them. It might be thought that, to use the language of their opponents, what they called the best of the Liberal Party having lately joined the Conservatives, it was through this loss of Liberal Unionists that such results had been brought about. That was not so. The number of Liberal Unionist Magistrates in those counties was very small; and, although some were called Liberal Unionists who had been pretty steady supporters of the Conservative Party long before Home Rule was heard of, yet, giving to the other side every doubtful, the Conservatives were 10 to 1 against the Liberals and Liberal Unionists combined. In the county which he had the honour to represent there were only nine Magistrates who voted Liberal last time, or were likely to on the next occasion, against 267 Magistrates on the other side. Yet the Liberal Party had a considerable majority of the electorate even at the Election of 1892, a majority which would be increased if they counted the recent figures at a bye-election. It might 1M; said that the Liberals had no men who could be placed upon the list. No doubt there were more Conservatives who came up to the standard of the qualification than there were Liberals; but fitting Liberals were not wanting, and he was himself engaged in adding to the Land Tax list the names of Commissioners who possessed the qualification in land in the county who would make admirable members of the County Bench. One, for example, was a Baptist minister, held in the highest respect throughout the country, who was not on the Bench, although admirably qualified, simply because it was not the custom to place Nonconformist ministers upon it. Another was a large landowner, a man of business, who had bought one of the finest places in the county, and who, if he had happened to be an opponent of the present Government, would have been placed upon the Bench the day he bought it. Others were managers of great works who had bought land in the district. Another was a Radical farmer of great authority in the agricultural classes, and one of the

  261
  most progressive farmers in the county; and, in addition, there were considerable numbers of traders in the towns, such as timber merchants, auctioneers, and others, who would be well fitted for the post, and whose appointment would command local confidence. In the next county to that which he represented there was a County Alderman who had been twice elected to that honourable post by a unanimous vote, but who, although an old resident in the county, had not been placed upon the Bench, for no apparent reason except that he was a Liberal and a Nonconformist. He would mention any of the names privately to any Member of the House on either side, but he did not like to cause annoyance to anyone by giving names in his speech. He did not wish to say a word against the existing Magistrates. No one who had long sat, as he had sat, on Local Bodies, both as an ex officio member and as an elective member along with ex officio members, would depreciate the services of the existing Magistrates to the community. If they had no other title to the respect of their fellow-subjects except the work they did in lunacy—the most dangerous, and, with the exception of the work in imbecility cases done by the Chairmen of Boards of Guardians, the most unpleasant of all local government work—these services were a sufficient title to commendation. He mentioned lunacy, because it was not only trying work, but it was the only work connected with local government which he himself had never done, he having been relieved of it by some of his colleagues, to whom he desired to pay all honour. Such dissatisfaction as existed was chiefly reasonable, so far as it concerned certain limited, but yet important, branches of the duties of Magistrates. There was reasonable dissatisfaction with regard to the political use at present made of the power to nominate to the Bench. There was also reasonable dissatisfaction with regard to a part of the Petty Sessional jurisdiction, which had been lately increased by the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. The cases which caused the most hostility were masters' and servants' cases, poaching cases, public-house licences, and the appointment of Overseers, but this last only in some districts. With regard to the political use of the power of nomination, he
  262
  would name privately to any hon. Member the cases of two gentlemen who had come at the same time into the same county, neither of whom had previously been known as politicians. They were both men who had made fortunes in business; they were both men in all respects fit to be on the Bench. One proved to have Conservative leanings, and he was at once placed on the Bench. The other proved to be a supporter of the policy of the present Government, although not a Party Liberal, and he, the owner of the larger property, had not been placed upon the Bench. As regards masters and servants and poaching cases, it was difficult to fully restore public confidence in the administration of the law so long as the qualification was retained, as it was, of course, retained under the present Motion. In districts which were urban, although outside of boroughs, the application of the factory legislation by Benches, which consisted chiefly of masters, led to much complaint. He knew a case, for example, in which a clear charge under one of the Factory Acts was brought against a master who was a member of the Bench, and was heard by only three Magistrates, all three of whom were masters in the same trade. In poaching cases he could name a case where, there being great doubt about the facts, a pheasant had been taken by a gipsy from the property of the Chairman of the Bench, who left the chair while the case was heard, but sat at the side and examined the witnesses, and talked all the while to his brother Magistrates. They were all also game preservers in the same district. As regarded public-house licensing, he could name a case where, the Chairman of the Bench being a brewer, undue regard had been paid to his opinion by his brother members—although he did not, of course, sit at Licensing Sessions—and a licence granted, which was not needed, against an almost unanimous local opinion. The brewer and the great majority of the Bench wore Conservative, but so was the Local Board, and so were the majority of the Overseers and Churchwardens; and yet the Local Board, the Overseers, and Churchwardens had all appeared against the licence. With regard to the appointment of Overseers, there were many districts in which the Magistrates in-

  263
  variably accepted the choice of the locality. But there were startling cases the other way. In the case of a parish near Southampton, within three years of the present date, two gentlemen had been elected Overseers on a show of hands at the Parish Vestry as against two others, there being no difference between them except on Party politics. The parish had been polled, and, in spite of the plural vote of property, the same two who had won the show of hands had been returned upon a poll. The matter was taken to the Magistrates, and they struck out the names of the two presented to them by the parish, and appointed the other two who had been twice defeated. In another case, which he could name, the Magistrates having a strong opinion against a publican, of whatever position and of character, however high, acting as Overseer of the Poor, and a parish of 100,000 people having returned two Overseers to them, the name of one of the two was struck out, under a mistaken impression that he was another gentleman, who was, in fact, a very popular publican, whose appointment would have been a very natural one had it, in fact, taken place on that occasion. It might be thought that the Local Government (England) Bill would get rid of this difficulty about the Overseers; but that was not the case, for the provisions with regard to Overseers applied only to some parishes, and all the most important parishes in the country were left by the Bill in their present relations to the Bench of Magistrates with regard to the appointment of Overseers. None of these difficulties could be fully remedied without the abolition of the qualification. But by placing upon the Bench, under the present Resolution, men taken from a somewhat wider field, it would be possible to put on those in whom the workmen would have confidence in masters' and servants' cases in industrial districts; and, with regard to poaching cases, to bring in men in rural districts who would neither be game preservers nor in close social relations with game preservers. As regarded licensing and the appointment of Overseers, the Benches would be more in touch with local opinion. The larger question was not raised by the present Resolution. It concerned only the mode of choice, given the qualification. The
  264
  qualification, he feared, was not always observed at present. But breaches of the principle were always upon one side He knew a case where a gentleman who had served for the whole of his long life as a Magistrate, had never possessed the qualification, or, at all events, not within the memory of man; and another gentleman had been excluded, who was a Liberal, although his qualification was a better one, and although he represented the oldest family in the district, and lived on the land which his ancestors had owned since the 14th century He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Maden) could name a case which was as startling. Under the Resolution, the qualification remaining the County Bench would still in most cases be Conservative. The vast preponderance, he admitted, of those who were likely to be placed upon it in rural districts were Conservatives. Those eligible would still be chiefly county gentlemen, and he did not pretend to deny that the great majority of county gentlemen were Conservatives. His speech had been but brief, because, as he had begun by saying, the case must essentially remain there where in his careful speech the present very moderate Lord Chancellor had put it. But his short speech was intended to secure that the opinion of the House should be pronounced upon their Resolution, and he made no doubt but that the House would carry it.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONseconded the Resolution with great satisfaction, and was glad that it applied to Ireland as well as to England, Scotland, and Wales. But he regretted that there should have been any necessity for the Resolution at all. The question was purely one of administration, and all that they were asking was that the Government should carry out the law. The Statute of Henry VIII. states distinctly that the King should appoint the Magistrates; and however convenient it might have been to hand over that duty to the Lords Lieutenant, and however long that custom might have been in use, it was irregular, illegal, and had been most unfortunate in its application. The expression "the king" now meant the Crown as advised by the Lord Chancellor, and he had no hesitation in saying that

  265
  the Crown had no right to shirk or to hand over to Lords Lieutenant or anyone else the duty confided to it by an Act of Parliament. He could not, and did not, object to the Crown getting whatever assistance it could in selecting Magistrates from either Lords Lieutenant or any other persons who might have local knowledge of the persons who might be nominated. This Resolution, and the representations that had been made to the Lord Chancellor, was not so much an attack upon Lords Lieutenant as an insistance upon the right of the Crown to appoint County Magistrates without the intervention of anyone. At the present moment practically the Lords Lieutenant appointed these Magistrates; and the Crown, notwithstanding the Act of Parliament to the contrary, merely did what the Lords Lieutenant allowed it to do; and the Lords Lieutenant illegally actually claim the right to appoint Magistrates. These were the facts of the present state of things, and the position of the Crown in the matter was both absurd and ridiculous. Well, he was sure that he was right in asserting that Magistrates should represent, and be taken from, all classes of the people. What had been the result of this unfortunate custom which had grown up, and which the Lord Chancellor desired the assistance of the Resolution to remove? The result had been that we found the Magistrates nearly all selected from one class or political Party and one creed or sect. He had no time now to give the figures to the House, but he was within the mark in saying that more than 90 per cent. of the present County Magistrates belonged to the Party opposing— the Liberal and Radical Party—which in this country represent progress and civil and religions liberty to all classes and sects. A very large amount of information had been sent to him, showing how unfair the constitution of the present country Benches was. He could only to-night say that it conclusively showed that at the present time they had a state of tilings which was intolerable in a free country. Though he did not wish unduly to occupy the time of the House, he supposed he ought to state how this matter affected the constituency he represented. In the County of Peterborough there were 42
  266
  Magistrates, and only one was a Liberal. They had sent the Lord Lieutenant a list of eligible gentlemen. They did not ask for 41 Magistrates so as to make themselves equal with the Conservatives; all they asked was that 10 fully-qualified persons should be appointed, and the Lord Lieutenant refused to nominate one of them. He hoped the Tory Party would have the good sense to accept the Resolution, which was a very moderate one. They did not wish to make these appointments political; they desired to put a stop to the present practice and to allow all parties to be represented. He could not at that time refer to the appointment and qualification of Magistrates, but he preferred that Magistrates should be elected by the people, and 700 years' experience supported that view. The City of London had produced the best Bench of Magistrates in the country, and the only Bench about which no complaints had been made in that House. The City Magistrates were elected by exactly the same constituencies as the Common Council, and by the Ballot. He had noticed that queer abuses existed in towns. A trader on one side of the street was appointed a Magistrate because he was a Tory. A trader on the other side of the street, though perhaps in a much better position, was rejected if he happened to be a Liberal, or, worse still, a Nonconformist, He claimed for all parties and all sects, and especially for the industrial classes, the right to be represented on the Magisterial Bench, and was confident that the more democratic they made the Bench the better and purer it would be.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the appointment of County Magistrates should no longer be made by the Lords Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being only on the recommemdation of the Lords Lieutenant,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. DORINGTON, who had the following Amendment on the Paper, but was precluded from moving, to omit from the

  267
  Resolution all the words after "House," in order to insert—
  "The present system of appointing County Justices has worked to the advantage of the country, and has created a body of men whose decisions have been recognised as just and impartial by all classes,"
  said the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean left matters, with regard to the appointment of Magistrates, very much as they were, because the Lord Chancellor at the present time had the right to rectify the evils he might find in the appointments made by the Lords Lieutenant. Of course, there should be a strong case before the Lord Chancellor acted over the head of the Lord Lieutenant, and no doubt the object of the Resolution was to induce the Lord Chancellor to exercise that power more freely. He ventured to say that if the Lord Chancellor acted as the right hon. Baronet proposed, it was bound to be the death of the present system of appointing Magistrates. That system had worked well, and very much better than any system which was likely to be introduced. He had for a long time been connected with county affairs in Gloucestershire, and had there been any real dissatisfaction with regard to the composition of the County Bench, he would have heard it before last November, when this agitation began. He believed it to be a mechanical agitation, not founded on any real grievance. It was said there were too many Magistrates 'who did not hold the political opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But what had political opinion to do with the Magistracy? Ever since he had been head of the Magistrates of Gloucestershire the Magistrates had never regarded themselves as a political body, and in the choice of persons to fill important public offices they had paid no regard to politics. Largely Conservative as the county was, at all events in the Magistracy and among the upper classes, his immediate predecessor in the office he held was a Radical, who had sat in that House as a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. He was elected by the free vote of the Magistrates, not because he was a Radical, but because they believed he was a man fit to fill the post; and when he succeeded
  268
  that gentleman he was elected, not because he was a Tory, but because it was thought he was suited for the place. His lieutenants had been drawn regardless of their politics, and that represented the really healthy condition of a Bench. The House was now asked to create a Bench which should be essentially partisan, the members of which would be appointed by the different parties because they were their own supporters. All ideas of fairness and justice would thus be removed; and the Bench, which ought to be perfectly pure and free from all political considerations, would immediately become a scene of faction, and certainly would not have the same tone of honour as that which it displaced. It was not altogether unknown to the House how, in former days, politics affected the judicial decisions of the House. At one time Election Petitions were tried by vote of the House. Subsequently a scheme for the trial of the Petitions was adopted, under which it was hoped, that Party feeling would be eliminated; but it was equally unsuccessful. In 1868 the House came to the conclusion that it was too much animated by Party spirit to discharge judicial functions, and it transferred these functions to hands to which no motive of Party could properl attach. That was the position of the County Magistrates at the present time —they could not be suspected of Party feeling. He had some reason to say that, because in his own county the Lord Lieutenant was not of his own political opinions, though the Home Secretary had repudiated him as belonging to his Party. The Lord Lieutenant of Gloucestershire considered himself as attached to the Liberal Party and his son had sat for a long time in the House as a supporter of the Liberal Party. At the present time, no doubt, he and the Lord Lieutenant were on the same side in politics. [Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Members opposite were entirely wrong if they thought the appointments, of the great mass of the Magistrates of Gloucestershire were due to political predilections. The majority of them, it was true, belonged to the Conservative Party, but they had been appointed by a Liberal Lord Lieutenant because he had thought them the men best fitted to administer justice. [Cries of "Oh!"] He main-

  269
  tained, despite the jeers of hon. Members opposite, that, as far as his own experience went, County Magistrates had always been appointed on account of their fitness. He believed that if the appointments to the County Bench were placed in the hands of gentlemen who had not the responsibility which now attached to the Lord Lieutenant the same state of things would prevail on that Bench that now-existed on the Borough Benches, and the appointments would be purely political. The late Lord Chancellor was most anxious that all the appointments to the County Bench should be absolutely independent of politics. Undoubtedly in his own county Lord Halsbury's appointments had been equally balanced, the Justices being selected from both Parties. The Chancellor of the Duchy prided himself upon putting things right, and had put an immense number of Radicals upon the County Bench. If hon. Members opposite made the change suggested, that would involve the abolition of the existing system, and such a change would be a fatal one. He hoped that the House of Commons, jealous as it was of the good name of the country, would not act hurriedly in this matter, nor after a three hours' Debate pass such a Resolution as this, which would give the appointment of County Magistrates to the Lord Chancellor, who could not be as well qualified as the Lord Lieutenant to judge of the fitness of the gentlemen appointed, and which would undoubtedly lead to the tainting of the County Bench with political partisanship.
  *MR. J. WILSONsaid, that in Scotland they could not say that either a man's position or his religious faith were a disqualification for the office of a Justice of the Peace; but, all the same, it was rather a strange thing that three-fourths of the Magistrates were Tories and Unionists. In his own Division, which had a population of 63,000, there were four Resident Justices of the Peace, of whom three were Tories and one, who had been a Unionist, was now a Liberal. Two of these four Magistrates were absent in Glasgow all the day attending to their private business, and, therefore, not available in Govan. He had called the attention of the Lord Lieutenant of Lanark to the want of
  270
  Magistrates in the county: and as the same state of things prevailed throughout Scotland, he hoped the Lords Lieutenant of all the counties in that country would bestir themselves. He was glad the matter had been brought before the House, and he should support the Motion of the right hon. Baronet.
  *MR. WHARTONsaid, that this Motion, if it: meant anything, meant an attack upon the Lords Lieutenant of the country for the manner in which they had appointed the County Justices. He had probably as large an acquaintance with this question as any hon. Member in the House. He had been Chairman of Quarter Sessions in his county for 22 years, and had dealings with three different Lords Lieutenant. The county for which he had been elected Chairman of Quarter Sessions was the most Radical county in England, and he thought that that incident might be taken as a good sign that politics were not the motive power in the appointment of the Magistrates of the county. His experience in that county convinced him that the present system was the very best that could be pursued. When additional Magistrates were required the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions represented the matter to the Lord Lieutenant, who made appointments to the Bench with the utmost impartiality, as far as politics were concerned. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite could not think that it was possible to make appointments without being influenced by political bias. All he could say was that the most fit persons were appointed. There was a very large number of Magistrates in the county with whose politics he had no acquaintance whatever. But what was suggested now? That instead of the appointments being made by the Lords Lieutenant, who had made them impartially, they were to be made in future by the Lord Chancellor for political considerations. Would hon. Members opposite deny that the appointments by the Lord Chancellor in the boroughs had not been political. appointments? They were political appointments. By whatever side in politics the appointments in boroughs were made they were always political appointments, and it would be an evil day for England if

  271
  political appointments wore made on the same scale in the counties. Did hon. Members opposite intend that these appointments should partake of a political character in the future? Had not the present Lord Chancellor made political appointments to the Bench? The late Lord Chancellor had done his best to keep a fair balance in making these appointments. Before the late Government left Office he was urged to send up the names of several gentlemen of his own political colour to the Lord Chancellor to be made Magistrates; but he refused, partly on his own account and partly because he had always found that Lord Halsbury had been determined to keep a fair balance between the two Parties. The very last appointments made by Lord Halsbury were made in Harrogate. One of the gentlemen appointed was a Conservative, one had been a Liberal, but what his politics now were he did not know, and three were out-and-out Radicals. But what was the state of things under the present Lord Chancellor? The other day Lord Herschell had appointed four Radicals to the Bench at Ripon without appointing a single Conservative or Liberal Unionist. Were those appointments fair? At Leeds, again, where there was a Bench of 63 Magistrates, the noble Lord had appointed 11 Radicals and only two Conservatives to the Bench, neither of the latter being asked as to their willingness to serve, and one of whom had previously declined to accept the appointment. Was this what they had to expect in the future? Lord Herschell was invited to follow the example of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but if that example were followed by future Lord Chancellors he was sorry for the name and fame of England. He declared, without fear of contradiction, that the Benches appointed by the Lords Lieutenant had done their work well in the past; and if the old system were to be abolished, and if the appointments were to be made political, the result would be that Stipendiary Magistrates would have to be appointed at an enormous cost to the country. [Ministerial Cheers.] He was sorry to hear that cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but then the policy of the Radical Government was a policy of extravagance and expense. He
  272
  hoped that, the Motion would be rejected, and that the Benches of England would continue to be nominated in the same way as heretofore.
  *MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, he desired to make a few remarks with regard to the County Benches in Wales, and particularly his own county of Flintshire. Whatever the last speaker might have thought would be the results in England of a change in the method of appointing Magistrates, he could assure the House that they could not be worse than under the present system in Wales. Wales suffered far more keenly and far more unjustly in this respect than England. In England, at all events, the Magistrates, whatever their politics might be, and the people, belonged to the same race and spoke the same language; but in Wales, unfortunately, Magistrates belonged to one race and the people to another. The Magistrates spoke one language; and, speaking broadly and generally, the people used another language; and he was afraid that the Magistrates seldom or never took the trouble to acquire the language of those to whom they were expected to dispense justice. An Anglo - Indian Magistrate was obliged to know the language of the people to whom he dispensed justice; but in Wales it was too often the case that the Magistrates took pride in being ignorant of the language of the people. He considered that every nation had an inherent right to have justice administered to it in its own language, but, so far as Wales was concerned, all they asked for was that a due proportion of the Magistrates should be able to speak the language of the people. Previous speakers had alluded to the disqualification under which Nonconformists laboured under the existing system of appointing Magistrates. In Wales the preponderance of Nonconformists was enormous, and yet nearly all the Magistrates belonged to the Established Church. Then, with regard to the political grievance which had been spoken of in England, he could assure the House that that grievance was intensified in Wales. Wales was Liberal to the backbone, but the Magistracy was just as Conservative as Wales was Liberal. To give an illus-

  273
  tration respecting one political question. The great majority of the inhabitants of Wales were strongly opposed to the present licensing system; but in that House, a few days ago, only one Member from Wales ventured to vote against the Welsh Local Veto Bill introduced by the Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs. On that subject, the Magistracy were in favour of the existing licensing system, and were entirely opposed to the wishes of the people. The Magistracy in the County of Flint was alien—he used the word in no offensive sense—in race, language, religion, and politics. Although Flintshire was a border county, two-thirds of the population spoke Welsh, but out of 90 Magistrates in Flintshire only 15 spoke the Welsh language, and there wore only eight supporters of the present Government. The hon. Member for the Southport Division waxed indignant the other night as to the composition of the Southport Bench; but accepting the figures of the hon. Member, if it was wrong that there should be a small Liberal majority on the Bench at Southport, was it right that there should be an enormous Tory majority on the Bench in Flintshire? Up to six years ago there was not a single Nonconformist Magistrate in Flintshire. A number of names had been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant of Nonconformists who had spent all their lives in the county, and were a hundred times better qualified than the strangers and squirelings who had been pitchforked on to the Bench, but the Lord Lieutenant absolutely refused to appoint them. This question was raised in 1887, and the only reply by the then Home Secretary was that there was no qualified Nonconformist. He could find no Parliamentary language whatever to characterise that statement. He could only say there were plenty of Nonconformists qualified for that position. But at last one Conservative Nonconformist was found, and he was forthwith appointed, although he had only resided in a seaside resort in the county for a short time, and had done, so far as he was aware, absolutely nothing for the county, and a short time after his appointment he left the county. The next Nonconformist put on the County Bench was himself; but he need not say it was not by the favour
  274
  of the Lord Lieutenant, but because he was Chairman of the County Council. At the present time, five Nonconformists out of 93 Magistrates were on the County Bench. That was an object lesson of how Nonconformity was tolerated in Wales that the House would do well to remember. He did not assume for a moment that Nonconformity or Liberalism, as such, had any right whatever to be represented on the Bench; but he said that Liberalism and Nonconformity ought not to be made a disqualification. The County Council comprised men of every shade of opinion belonging to all sects, parties, and creeds, and it had this question before it on two occasions. On the first occasion it condemned the existing system of appointment with one dissentient only. In September last the matter again came up, and on that occasion the system was condemned without a single dissentient voice. It would be quite impossible for him to lay before the House a more conclusive argument, so far as Flintshire was concerned, than the one he had put before them. He came to Parliament with a mandate from the County Council and from the constituency he represented to speak upon that question; and he asked the House, in the name of a country which had long and patiently—too long and too patiently —tolerated many grievances such as the one he had described, to pass his Resolution.
  MR. DILLON: The House will not be surprised, I am sure, to learn that the people of Ireland take a very special interest in the subject of this Resolution. The question of the Magistracy is a burning question in Ireland. I think I will be believed when I assert that there is no fact which forces itself more strongly upon the attention of any intelligent man who visits Ireland with the intention of inquiring into the social troubles of that country than that what lies at the root, possibly more than anything else, of all the troubles of Ireland is that you have never been able to establish any bond of sympathy between the Executive Government and the administration of the law and the people of the country. It is not alone the denial of a legislative machine truly representative of the people of Ireland which has been at the bottom of the intensity of the

  275
  demand for Home Rule, which is pressed upon this Parliament from Ireland. I have always contended that if it were possible for this House, as it might conceivably be, to legislate for Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the people of Ireland you would not get rid of the demand for Home Rule, for, whatever way you legislate in this House, the administration of the law in Ireland is not in harmony with the people of that country. The administration of the law, which comes home more than anything else to the lives of the people, is now, even under the present Chief Secretary, though happily to a much less extent than in times past, owing to the instruments which he is obliged to use in Ireland, not entirely in harmony with the people of that country; and until the administration of the law is brought into harmony with the people who have to live under the law, then, I say, you can never have contentment or peace. An hon. Member asked—What has politics to do with the appointment of Bench Magistrates?—and I think I will answer that question, and answer it to the satisfaction of every hon. Member of this House. I do not know what politics have to do with the appointment of Magistrates in England; but I do know what they have to do with the appointment of Magistrates in Ireland. If you dare to sympathise in politics with four-fifths of your people, that in Ireland is almost an insuperable bar, no matter what qualifications you may possess, to sitting as a Magistrate. There are people in our country, hundreds of men, intelligent men, well-conducted men, who are in every way qualified to act as Magistrates, and who are compelled to submit to the intolerable insult put upon them of seeing men who are not as intelligent, not as well conducted, not in any way as fit to sit upon the Bench, placed over their heads, simply because they are opposed in politics to the mass of our people. I shall now be compelled to give to the House a few figures as regards the condition of the Bench of Magistrates in Ireland. I will first give a few figures showing how the composition stands as regards religious persuasions. I must say, at the very outset, that this question is with us not a religious question, because there are
  276
  not in the most Catholic corner of Ire-land people who would not be just as well pleased to see on the Bench a Protestant who sympathised with the people as a Catholic; and I know myself, in the South and West of Ireland, many Protestants whom the people would infinitely rather see on the Bench than many Catholics. I would only allude, therefore, to the religious persuasions of the Magistrates as compared with the people, because it is one of the signs which show the gross and scandalous partisanship which has characterised those appointments. The Catholic population of Ireland is over 75 per cent.—that is to say, more than three out of every four of the inhabitants are Catholics. There were, in 1886, 5,065 Magistrates on the Bench, and of these 1,229 were Catholics, and nearly 4,000 were Protestants. The population stands in the proportion of three Catholics to one Protestant, while of the Magistrates there are four Protestants to one Catholic. When we go into the figures of the counties the case comes out even, stronger. In Fermanagh County 55 per cent. of the people are Catholics. There are 86 Protestant Justices, and there are 4 Catholic Justices. In Monaghan 73 per cent. of the population are Catholics. There are 81 Justices, and there are 13 Catholic Magistrates. In Leitrim 90 per cent. of the population is Catholic. There are 80 Justices of the Peace, and of these 11 are Catholics. In the Queen's County 87 per cent. of the population is Catholic. There are 84 Justices, and 15 are Catholics. In the great County of Tipperary, where 94 per cent. of the population is Catholic, and where there are an enormous number of Catholics qualified in every respect for the Bench, there are 217 Justices, and only 59 of them Catholics. In the County of Wick-low 79 per cent. of the people are Catholics. There are 116 Justices, and there are only 13 Catholic Justices. I think it will be admitted that these figures alone look suspicious, and are sufficient ground for just complaint on the part of the Irish people. But those figures only give an inadequate idea of the grievances under which our people have suffered in this regard, because I have no hesitation in saying that the

  277
  Catholic Magistrates are in a large degree worse enemies of the people than the Protestants, for the Executive Government of Ireland, or rather I should say the Lord Lieutenants, when making appointments to the Magistracy amongst those who hold the faith of the majority of the people, have selected men who are notoriously opposed in politics to the body of the Irish people, and who in many cases, I grieve to say, exhibit all the bitterness and animosity of turncoats and of traitors. In the County of Leitrim there are 71 Justices, and out of the 71 there is one Nationalist in a, county where the Tory candidate was only able to poll 14 per cent. of the Parliamentary voters—that is to say, 86 per cent. of the Parliamentary voters of Leitrim have one representative on the Magisterial Bench, and the minority have a representation of 70 out of 71. It is not to be wondered at that the Loyalist minority in Ireland should insist upon maintaining the present condition of things. In Sligo there are 78 Justices. One out of the 78 is a Home Killer. In the County of Mayo, a division of which I represent, and in which the Catholic population is, I should fancy, considerably over 90 per cent. of the whole, there are 95 Justices of the Peace, and two of these are Home Rulers; and in the County of Galway there are 196 Justices, and two only are Nationalists or Home Rulers. These figures are taken from the Return of 1886. Slight changes may have occurred since then, but those are not substantially wrong. I think it will be admitted by everyone who has any souse of fairness that those figures do constitute a grave and intolerable grievance upon the people of Ireland. I will give one more county, because I do not think it is necessary to pile up statistics. I have not selected the counties. They are taken at Random, but they are thoroughly characteristic of the state of things in Ireland in connection with the Magisterial Bench. The county I refer to is the County Carlow. The Roman Catholic population is 36,000, and the Protestant population 4,500. The Magistrates stand as follows:—There are 57 altogether, of whom 10 are Roman Catholics; but of those 10, 5 are Catholic gentry who do not reside in the county,
  278
  so that in that county, with a Catholic population of 36,000 out of 40,000, there are but 5 Catholic Magistrates residing there, and, let me add, 4 of the 5 are Unionists, and only 1 is a Nationalist. Anybody who knows the County Carlow, who is acquainted with it, cannot maintain for a single instant that there are not in that county an abundance of men holding Home Rule opinions who are quite sufficient and competent to man the Magisterial Bench even twice over if they were allowed to do so. I could go on ad nauseam piling up figures of the same character; because, as I have said already, the instances I have given are instances taken at random from different counties. This exclusion, as I have already pointed out, this barrier against the appointment of Magistrates in Ire-land, is not confined by any means to any particular section or creed; it is not a question between Catholic and Protestant, because I have instances without number at my disposal of men who have been strongly recommended for the Magistracy who it could not be denied possessed every necessary qualification, whose names were sent forward to the Lords Lieutenant of Counties in Ireland, and who were refused to be appointed, who were rejected by these Lords Lieutenant, not because they were Catholics, for many of them were Protestants and Presbyterians, and in some cases Unitarians, but because they held, or were suspected of holding, the same views as are now held by Her Majesty's Ministers. I have here the names of such men as Mr. John Sterne, Mr. John Coleman, and other men of the same kind in North Londonderry, whose names were sent forward some time ago before the Home Rule Question was raised, and they were then Liberals. I think they are Presbyterian by creed, and men of standing and wealth in that district; but they were rejected by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, Sir Hervey Bruce, not at that time, because they were Home Rulers, but because they were Liberals. They were, however, afterwards appointed over the head of Sir Hervey Bruce to the Magistracy in Ireland. Already in Ireland the Lord Chancellor has exercised this right in the past, and we in Ireland are extremely anxious to see him do it

  279
  again on a much larger scale. But those men, of whom I now speak, were refused to be appointed, so far as the Lord Lieutenant could refuse it 10 or 12 years ago, because they were Liberals, and the very same treatment has been meted out within the last few months to some respectable men of high standing in the County Down, whose names I have here. I may mention Mr. Robert B. Caughey, of Newtownards, a Presbyterian; Mr. Hugh Ferguson, formerly Chairman of the Newtownards Board of Guardians, and Mr. William Gibson, a Unitarian. But because these men were supposed to sympathise with Home Rulers and being Protestants—Ulster Protestants of the County Down—these men who enjoyed the universal respect of their fellow-citizens and neighbours, who had every qualification that could be imagined for the Magistracy, their claim was rejected by the Deputy Lord Lieutenant of the County Down simply and solely because they were suspected of sympathising with the opinions of the present Government. What is the condition of things in Ireland at the present moment? The condition of things is this: that to be a sympathiser with, and a supporter of, the present Government and to be in harmony with the political opinions and views of the vast majority of the people in Ireland is a barrier to being placed on the Judicial Bench. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Judicial Bench in Ireland has been turned into what is nothing short of a political engine, and that it is used for that purpose; and I say to that cause can be ascribed to a considerable extent the trouble which has arisen in Ireland, or rather the disrespect which is said to exist in that country for law and order. [Cheers and laughter.] It is all very fine to laugh, but when you sec men who are supposed to administer justice all selected from one class, and that a small minority and a small class, who are in continued conflict with the people, and if, when a man is brought up before these Magistrates, he sees no chance of impartial treatment, he sees arrayed against him the representatives of the very class who were oppressing him, then, I say, it is impossible to expect any kind of respect to exist for justice administered in such a manner. I will give one or
  280
  two more instances to show I am not exaggerating or drawing upon my imagination in this matter, and I think the first case I am about to quote will bring home to any fair-minded man the reasonableness of the case I am making. Take the ease of Mr. Tener, who was brought into the County Galway as a stranger and an outsider by Lord Clanricarde to carry out the law of extermination which he is waging against his tenants. Mr. Tener was not a resident, and had no connection with any property in the county. He was brought into that county at a time, as I say, when Lord Clanricarde was waging a war of extermination against his tenants, and when Lord Clanricarde was defying and embarrassing the Tory Administration in Dublin Castle. The then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) appealed to Lord Clanricardo to stop this war of extermination, and not to embarrass the Government. What was done by Mr. Tener? While he was actually living on Lord Clanriearde's estate, and while a house was being prepared for him to live in, he was created a Justice of the Peace—a man who had no property and no connection with the county, and, notwithstanding that, he was created a Justice of the Peace—I presume at the request of Lord Clanricarde —in order that he might discharge the double functions of knocking down the houses of the tenants and afterwards sending the tenants themselves to gaol. I also wish to mention the case of Mr. Hewson, a gentleman of evil fame in connection with the Falcarragh evictions. When he came into the County Leitrim he was created a Justice of the Peace, in order that he might be the better able to carry out his functions as a land agent. That is the common practice in Ireland. The land agent, when he is brought into a county and takes up agencies, is created a Justice of the Peace in order to enable him to carry out the work of his employer more effectually. I ask hon. Members of this House, as fair-minded Englishmen, can they ask or expect people amongst whom such things are being habitually done to have respect for the administration of the law or the agents of the law? I heard an hon. Member just now speaking of the ex-

  281
  treme purity of the Lords Lieutenant in England, describing the way in which the vacancies were filled up in England, and adding that the Lords Lieutenant and the Executive Government never for a moment appointed a Magistrate unless he was wanted. That may be the way in England, but it is not the way in Ireland. I will give you an instance. When the Government of Lord Salisbury came into power, and by our assistance—in 1885—they afterwards gave us a very bad reward for our good offices—when that Government came into power it lasted for 227 days. In that time they appointed 264 County and 63 Borough Magistrates, although there were no vacancies.
  An hon. MEMBER: What are the names?
  MR. DILLON: I have all the names of these Magistrates here; yes, every one of them. I am not going now, I need not say, to read out the list. I may say, however, that, on looking down the list, one would think you were looking down a list of English Magistrates. There is hardly a. name you would recognise as an Irish name. I have no doubt that a great many of them were Orangemen. Certainly they were all Tories. I have not been able to get the whole list analysed. Certainly that Government made hay while the sun shone. In the County of Leitrim, for instance, 13 now Magistrates were created, all Tories and Protestants, although up to that time there were no Nationalist Magistrates in the county, and only 11 Roman Catholic Justices altogether. I ask any Englishman present, even hon. Members sitting on Tory Benches, is that honesty? Is that fair play? Is that impartiality? Here is a county in which 80 per cent. of the population are Roman Catholics, and yet only 11 are Catholics, and there is not one in sympathy with the Parliamentary voters. Yet when there were no vacancies the Tory Party created 13 additional Magistrates.
  An hon. MEMBER: They were appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. DILLON: I thought the hon. Member knew enough to know that the Lord Chancellor is not coerced to make any Magistrates. If the Lord Chancellor
  282
  thinks that the Lord Lieutenant is acting improperly, he has only to refuse to make the appointments. I only want to dispose of the argument that the vacancies may not exist. I say it is the duty of the Executive Government now in power in Ireland to do something, no matter what abuse or criticisms they may receive from those Benches; to do something to redress the inequality in Ireland, to give to the people of Ireland some foundation on which to respect the law. You (pointing to the Conservatives) have been at it for the past 90 years; and you have not brought much respect for the law, and never will so long as the system your Party supports is enforced in Ireland. You can crush the people by force of arms, or you can bind them down with Coercion Acts; but respect and love for your administration and law you could never establish in Ireland. I will tell you the reason. Because they know your law is based upon injustice. I shall say no more except just a few words, because I think we are bound to economise the time of the House. It has been my lot, amongst a somewhat varied experience in different parts of the world, to live for some time in very new communities in the Western States of America, where rough people of all kinds are thrown together, under circumstances not particularly conducive to the establishment of law and order, or respect for the law, and I never lived in any part of the world where the law was better enforced or more respected. Why was that? Because there was no man in the district who, by the labour of his hands, earned his daily bread, who did not know that he had his chance of taking part in the administration of the law under which he lived, as well as the wealthiest man in the whole district. The poorest labourer had a chance of being a Magistrate, and if he did sit on the Bench there he was as much respected, if he deserved respect, as the richest man there. My experience there, and in other parts of the world, has convinced me the surest and only way to secure respect and love for the law amongst any civilised people is to bring home to the mind of every man that they have equal rights before that law and an equal chance of taking a share and having a voice and an influence in the

  283
  administration of it. If you will do that to the people of Ireland you will find there is not a people on the face of the earth more easily governed than the Irish people. I would appeal to the Prime Minister himself, or the Irish Secretary, to make some declaration to-night which will satisfy the people of Ireland that now at last, when for the first time since the Union there is in power in this country a Government which thoroughly sympathises with the masses of the population in our country, that they will use the power which unquestionably is in their hands in Ireland to remove this one great and intolerable grievance from the nocks of our people, and to commence, to some extent at least, the work of redressing the gross and scandalous partiality of the Bench of Magistrates in Ireland.
  SIR G. RUSSELLobjected that the people of England should be called upon to alter their entire system in order to meet the peculiar requirements of a peculiar people like the Irish. The hon. Member for East Mayo complained of the injustice of the administration in Ireland by the Magistrates, but be had heard from him precisely the same complaint with regard to the Judges of the High Court, who were not appointed upon the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant. No doubt there might be in Ireland a body of Magistrates and Judges who might afford satisfaction in particular quarters. No doubt a gentleman who had cut off a cow's tail would have more sympathy with another gentleman who had also cut off a cow's tail; but he never yet heard, either with regard to the Judges or the Magistrates, any charge which could bear investigation on the floor of this House—never once. They in England declined to be dragged in this, as in other matters, at the tail of Ireland. The hon. Baronet who moved the Resolution in so temperate a speech said not a word against the existing Magistrates. His complaint was that there were gentlemen who should be, but were not, appointed to the Bench. But at the bottom of the whole of the argument in support of the Resolution was the allegation that the existing appointments were made upon political grounds. How was it proposed to remedy that? By
  284
  handing over the appointments to a direct and distinct political personage. The Lord Chancellor sat in the Cabinet, was identified with every measure, Radical or Conservative, which the Government of the day might have placed before the people, and he would always be under pressure to regulate his Magisterial appointments so as to curry favour with the Party by whose aid he hoped to carry those measures. He had been sorry to hear from those Benches language somewhat condemnatory of the present Lord Chancellor, for there was no man living for whose character, capacity, and honesty he entertained a higher opinion. By way of analogy, take the appointment of the present puisne Judges of the High Court by the Lord Chancellor. Would any man venture to say that those appointments were made on the ground only of legal fitness? They were made every day, not on the ground of legal fitness, but of political exigency. Yet it was proposed to hand over Magisterial appointments to the very political gentleman who now made these political appointments in the High Court. The Resolution was reactionary; it would have the exact effect of doing that which it professed to undo, and he should have no hesitation in giving his vote against it.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I propose, in a very few sentences, to state the view which Her Majesty's Government take on this question. I think we shall all admit that we have had, up till now, a very valuable and interesting Debate. The Lord Chancellor, in answer to the deputation which waited on him a short time ago, expressed the opinion that while the legal right of appointing Magistrates for counties as well as for boroughs was vested in him alone, he himself did not feel justified in setting aside the long-standing practice and Constitutional usage which had grown up, of limiting the county appointments to persons nominated by the Lords Lieutenant, unless he was fortified in doing so by an unequivocal declaration of the opinion of the House. That declaration the right hon. Baronet, by his Motion, invites the House to make, and, as far as the Government are concerned, they

  285
  trust the House will respond to the appeal. The Motion, I may point out, is judiciously limited in scope; it does not propose to disestablish the Lords Lieutenant from the position of a recommending authority; what it does is to take away from them the monopoly of the power or privilege of recommendation, and to open out for the information, and, if need be, for the action, of the Lord Chancellor, other sources of suggestion and advice. Now the adoption of such a Motion, no doubt, involves a condemnation of the results of the existing system. What are the facts? The effect of them may be summed up by saying that they show, when the composition of the Magisterial Bench is analysed, an enormous disproportion, out of all correspondence with the distribution of outside opinion, in favour of a particular political Party, and in some parts of the Kingdom in favour of a particular religious creed. In Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Flint Boroughs has remarked, there is not merely the political, but there is the religious, question, and no one can doubt that over a very large part of the Principality the profession of Nonconformist belief is regarded as a disqualification for the Bench. In Carmarthenshire, for instance, there was, until lately, only a single Nonconformist on the Bench, and in Denbighshire there were only seven. In many parts of Wales the restriction of the appointments to the Bench to the Conservative Party and members of the Church of England leads to the great practical inconvenience that the Magistrates who have to administer justice among a Welsh-speaking population do not understand the tongue of the witnesses. In Ireland the Lord Chancellors have from time to time taken upon themselves to do what is a very rare, if not unknown, thing in this country, to disregard and over-ride the discretion of the Lords Lieutenant. Still, as a rule, the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, as well as in England, has felt himself bound, not by inflexible, but by common, practice to follow the recommendations of the Lord Lieutenants. I will take the appointments of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Ashbourue. Between August 5, 1886, when he came into Office, and August 22, 1892, when he went out, he
  286
  appointed in a country, where three-fourths of the population are Roman Catholics, 1,012 Magistrates, of whom only 166 were Roman Catholics.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many Presbyterians were appointed?
  *MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I cannot. The question of the hon. Gentleman is entirely irrelevant to the point. What I was saying was that in a country, three-fourths of the population of which are Roman Catholics, less than 200 out of over 1,000 Magistrates appointed by the late Lord Chancellor belong to that faith. That shows a practical, I will not say ostracism, but a discrimination habitually exercised against the faith of the majority of the people, which cannot but have the effect of permanently and profoundly impairing their confidence in the administration of the law. The present Lord Chancellor, during the nine months he has been Office, has appointed 210 Magistrates, of whom 133 are Roman Catholics. I do not know whether that will be represented as a scandalous piece of Bench-packing; but seeing that during the six years his predecessor was in Office only 166 Roman Catholics, out of 1,012 Magistrates, were appointed, I say it is high time some attempt was made to redress the balance. As it is, there are in Ireland some 5,300 County Magistrates alone, and after all the Bench-packing by the present Government 4,437 of that number are Protestants and only 873 Catholics. Though not strictly relevant to the question before the House, I have one observation to make on the criticisms passed on the action of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. It is suggested that in the boroughs my noble Friend has been guilty of extraordinary partiality and a want of a judicial spirit. When my noble Friend came into Office 22 per cent. of the Magistrates on the Borough Bench were supporters of the present Government. At the present moment 36 per cent. of the Borough Magistrates are supporters of the present Government. In other words, the Party opposite have been left in possession of nearly two-thirds of the Borough Bench. These figures speak for themselves. I will allow to those

  287
  who oppose the Motion that there are two circumstances that might fairly be taken into account, and which are independent of the political prepossessions of the Lord Chancellor. In the first place, I admit that the Conservative Party have always had, and has at this moment, probably to a larger degree than ever in the past, a considerable preponderance amongst its supporters of those persons of property and of social position from whom the Magistrates have been appointed in the past. I will agree further that the existence of the property qualification, which is exacted as a condition for Magistrates in counties, though it is not in boroughs, must necessarily limit and restrict the Lord Lieutenant's area of choice. I should be very glad to think that we should have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite in removing that disqualification and in assimilating the conditions for admission to the county to those which prevail for admission to the Borough Bench. I have been endeavouring for a long time past to bring in a Bill for that purpose, and if I can get the least encouragement in the course of the Debate from the Leader of the Opposition that that Bill will be treated as a non-contentious measure—[Opposition cries of "No!" and Ministerial Cheers.] I confess I never expected it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared deliberately to maintain, for the purposes of the County Bench, the property qualification. The noble Lord (Lord E. Churchill) shakes his head; but the noble Lord is a Tory democrat.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: The property qualification has disappeared long since.
  MR. ASQUITH: Not in the counties. The noble Lord is entirely mistaken.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: The property qualification for all political offices has disappeared.
  MR. ASQUITH: I understood we were dealing, not with political offices, but with judicial offices. Is the noble Lord going to maintain that these being judicial, and not political, offices the property qualification ought to be applied?
  LORD R. CHUECHILL: No.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I am glad of that admission; but then the noble Lord has got to deal with hon. Gentlemen behind him, who, when I ask that the measure I wish to introduce should be treated as non-contentious, immediately indulge in a chorus of negation. The Party opposite see that the property qualification, coupled with the exclusive power of Lords Lieutenant to nominate, is their great security for maintaining the County Bench in its present position. After all allowance has been made for the causes to which I have referred, the facts cannot be accounted for without supposing that the Lords Lieutenant, or those who advise them, have been influenced in the past by political motives. I do not make any charge against the Lords Lieutenant. I know there are Lords Lieutenant who have steadily refused to nominate on political grounds, but they very frequently took a course which, though they did not intend it, had precisely that result. They went to the various Petty Sessional Divisions for advice, and they got from the Magistrates sitting upon the Bench nominations which, although the Lord Lieutenant may have been too innocent to know it, were undoubtedly inspired by political motives. I do not think I am putting the case too far when I say that we may divide the practice which has been pursued into two branches. Upon the one side, where we have had a Lord Lieutenant acting on his own initiative, we have had nomination on political grounds; and upon the other side, where we have had a Lord Lieutenant applying to the Petty Sessional Bench, we have had co-optation on political grounds. I entirely agree with those who say that politics ought not to be regarded as a qualification for the Judicial Bench. [Opposition cheers]. Yes; but if I may quote a familiar saying of an eminent Frenchman, who, when asked his opinion about the abolition of capital punishment, suggested that the assassins should set the example, I would say that it does not lie with those who have packed the County and Borough Benches with political partisans to hold up their hands in holy horror and argue, as against their opponents, that politics should have nothing to do with judicial appointments. I make a fair offer to hon. Gentlemen.

  289
  Once let us redress the inequalities of the past, and we and our Party will be perfectly prepared to enter into a truce and to agree that, for the future, politics should have nothing to do with appointments to the Magistracy. I must add that I do not make any general charge against the County Magistrates. I have had an opportunity, perhaps, of seeing more of the proceedings of Magistrates than can fall to the lot of most hon. Members; and although mistakes are made from time to time, as they must he in the best-constituted judicial arrangements, I gladly yield my testimony that there is no ground whatsoever for suspecting the great majority of the Magistrates in this country either of partiality or incompetence. But it is not necessary for the purposes of this Motion, or for my argument, to allege that unfit persons are placed upon the Bench for political reasons, because, in the view of the Government, the efficiency of the persons who are charged with the administration of justice, important as it is, is not more important than securing public confidence in the administration of justice. 80 long as a state of facts exists—leaving England out of view—such as that which has been described in Wales and in Ireland, public confidence in the administration of justice is impossible. The determination of certain kinds of questions which constantly come before Magistrates must necessarily expose them to suspicion if the Bench be constituted wholly or mainly of one political or one religious Party. Take the case of licensing houses for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The appeal from the decision of the Borough Benches is to the County Quarter Sessions—that is to say, to Magistrates nominated by the Lord Lieutenant—and the cases are numerous in which the decisions of the Borough Magistrates have been over-ruled by the County Justices.
  SIR E. CLARKE: Not in the case of new licences.
  *MR. ASQUITH: No; there is no appeal in that case. Take the question of the rights of property, the enforcement of the Game Laws, and rights of way generally. Far be it from me to say that the Magistrates show bias in these
  290
  matters; but, so long as the Bench is constituted as it is at present, there will always be in the minds of people a feeling, which you cannot say is unreasonable, that Magistrates belonging exclusively to one class slightly depress or raise the balance in favour of the class to which they belong. Take one other illustration—the large, increasing, and most delicate class of questions connected with labour which are now constantly coming before Benches; take such a case as that of the Hull strike, which was discussed in the House only yesterday. That has happened in a borough, but a similar state of things may happen, and has happened during my short experience at the Home Office, in a county. There we have Magistrates of the Bench not only determining the charges made against persons summoned before them for offences against the law, but with the delicate and responsible duty thrown into their hands of determining whether or not they should call the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown to assist them in the maintenance of law and order. The only condition under which justice can be administered so as to inspire general confidence is that the Bench should represent all Parties and all schools, and should be free from all suspicion one way or the other. The conclusion to which the Government has come is that, although the Lords Lieutenant certainly should not be deprived of the power which they may usefully exercise in continuing to recommend Magistrates to the Lord Chancellor, yet that the Lord Chancellor should not be shut out from other sources of suggestion—that County Magistrates and various Local Authorities which made up the county should have an equal power and an equal right of recommending names to him for selection. In this way we shall, by widening the area of choice and enlarging the Lord Chancellor's free power of selection, provide not only, as the Government believe, security for the efficient administration of justice, but security for that which is equally important—for the deeply-rooted and widespread popular confidence and faith in the impartiality of those who administer the law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from the speech of the

  291
  Home Secretary that the Government propose, if possible, by the aid of this House, to force down the throat of their Colleague, the Lord Chancellor, a method of selecting Magistrates to which the Lord Chancellor himself has raised very strong objections. If I understand what took place between the Lord Chancellor and an important deputation not long ago, he is of opinion that, generally speaking, the existing system has not worked badly; he is of opinion also that any system that has been proposed as a substitute would work far worse; and he is especially convinced that that which commends itself to the Home Secretary—to take the nominations of County Councils—is not one which would, on the whole, conduce to manning the Bench in a satisfactory manner. This is a very extraordinary procedure on the part of the Government. I should be curious to know, if one could discover it, what happened at the Cabinet when this course was finally decided upon. With regard to Ireland, the chief objection raised by the Home Secretary, echoing the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. John Dillon), is that the proportion of Catholics to Protestants on the Bench is very different from the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the population. That is perfectly true, and the reason is obvious.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid, the chief objection he had stated was that of political partisanship.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will say, then, not the chief objection, but the longest objection of the hon. Member, and the chief objection of the Home Secretary. Both must be aware that one of the difficulties in Ireland in making the proportion of officers or of Magistrates, or of any officials whatever, at all correspond with the religion of the population is that, unfortunately, the class from which, on account of education and other circumstances, we have to draw the Magistrates is, unfortunately, not in conformity with the religious convictions of the majority of the people. It is a fact greatly to be deplored, and it is, in my opinion, a reason for limiting as much as possible the jurisdiction of unpaid Magistrates in Ireland. But so far as my experience of Ireland goes,
  292
  it is distinctly to a man's advantage to be a Roman Catholic in seeking an appointment. I had nothing to do with the appointment of Magistrates; but so far as I had to do with medical appointments, I can most truly say I took Roman Catholics of lower qualifications rather than Protestants. As between two competitors for the same place, one a Roman Catholic and the other a Protestant, I always more than stretched a point in favour of the Roman Catholic. The hon. Member for Mayo desires to see a body of Judges who would administer law in conformity with popular feeling. The difficulty of doing that in some parts of Ireland is to maintain any law at all. In Ireland I should always be in favour of extending the jurisdiction of the paid Magistracy at the expense of the jurisdiction of the unpaid; but I do not believe, and the Home Secretary, I am sure, does not believe, that the cause of justice in Ireland is likely to be materially improved by the policy of recklessly appointing persons who are to administer the law in conformity with popular feeling. Coming to the case of England, I cannot do better than recall the observations which fell from the Seconder of the Motion, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) yesterday, as to the effect of the system of appointing Magistrates. The hon. Member, and Member after Member on his own side belonging to the Labour Party, got up and told the House that the whole administration of justice with regard to the series of cases arising out of labour disputes in Cardiff, in Bristol, and in Hull has absolutely brought that administration into contempt, because it has been left to Magistrates appointed in the manner which the Motion of the right hon. Baronet commends to the House. Whatever may be said of the County Magistrates of this country, I do not believe that for 50 years any accusation has been made against them at all comparable to the accusations which have been made against the Borough Magistrates in this House only 24 hours ago. What do the Home Secretary and those who agree with him aim at? The Home Secretary has told us that if only the political balance were redressed as between the two Parties, he would allow matters to rest, and there

  293
  would be a truce. But because the political balance has not been redressed —except, indeed, by the energetic efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. J. Bryce)—because the balance has not been redressed except in one happy county (Lancashire), the right hon. Gentleman proposes to shatter the existing system from top to bottom and to call wholly new machinery into being in its place. But how long would this truce last if it were established? In 1886 it pleased hon. Gentlemen opposite to make great changes in their political creed, and, us a consequence, a great many Magistrates who up to that time belonged to their Party, now belong to the Unionist Party. Are we to understand that every time the Liberal Party choose to estrange a great body of educated opinion they are going to invent and set in motion new machinery until, to use the happy phrase of the Home Secretary, the balance has been again redressed? That phrase is enough by itself to dispose of the soft statements of the right hon. Baronet, who was moderation itself. The right hon. Baronet did not mention any desire to "redress the balance"; but now it has come out through the incautious utterance of the mouthpiece of the Government that the object is not to improve the administration of justice, but to increase the patronage of the Radical Party. The right hon. Gentleman says that, on the whole, he has not much to complain of in the action of the Magistrates in England; but that there are certain matters entrusted to them of such difficulty and delicacy, and so seriously affecting their own personal interests, that it is absolutely necessary to take the recommendations out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenants, and the right hon. Gentleman instances specially the question of poaching. Now, is there a human being in this House, acquainted with country life, who believes that the law relating to poaching would he more justly administered by Stipendiary Magistrates than it is at present? [Cries of "Yes!" and "Hear, hear!"] I do hon. Members who cried "Yes" the justice of believing that they spoke from ignorance, and not from prejudice. I am certain, at this moment—whatever may have been the case two generations ago—the
  294
  fact that so many of the Magistrates who have to adjudicate in poaching cases are drawn from the land-owing classes tends, not to the severer administration of justice, but, on the contrary, to a more lenient administration. [Ministerial laughter, cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] I do not believe that that statement will be seriously traversed by any hon. Gentleman of competent knowledge. I now pass—for I can only speak for a few moments more—to a consideration of the substance of the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet recommends this Resolution on the ground that politics should not enter into the selection of Magistrates; but does he mean that those who are appointed should not necessarily be connected with politics? I agree that these appointments ought never to be made on political grounds; but the Government are ensuring henceforth that they shall always be made on political grounds. You ensure that henceforth they shall always be made on political grounds. The right hon. Baronet says that the Lord Chancellor is to have other channels of communication than the Lords Lieutenant of the counties. What other channels? Well, Sir, we all know what the other channels are. They are to be the local wirepullers of the Party in power; the other channels are to be every Member of the House who wants to do a kindness to a man who has helped him in his election. I do not make that statement merely with reference to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have no special or peculiar monopoly of jobbery. I make no imputation of that kind, but I say while it is in the experience of every man in the House who has applied to a Lord Lieutenant to make a political appointment that he is likely to get well snubbed for his pains, every one is equally aware that if such an application is made to a Member of the Government obliged to conciliate the feelings of the Party behind him, and who is forced to think of the result of elections in dubious constituencies—an appointment of that kind made with those recommendations will be what the present appointments as a whole are not —namely, political appointments. I do not know whether the House has noticed that the Resolution of the right hon.

  295
  Baronet is of a purely negative character. He tells us that the existing system is to be done away with, but he does not tell us what system is to be substituted. What does that mean? Earlier in the evening the right hon. Baronet the Member for Gloucestershire said he believed that if this Resolution wore carried it would ultimately lead to the destruction of the existing system of Magistracy in England, and that statement was received with enthusiastic approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but if you want to destroy the system have the courage of your opinions, and tell the House what the system is which you wish to substitute for it. For my part, if you come down to this House and say that you think, as labour questions are coming to the front, and that even on general grounds you prefer a Stipendiary Magistracy to the existing unpaid Magistracy, I should not agree with you as a whole; but I should see very great force in your argument. But I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he would like to find £500,000 a year to pay for this Magistracy, and I might even feel called on to comment on the extraordinary cost which appears always to attend Radical reforms. But at least I should understand your policy. I should go further, and should have in many respects great sympathy with it. But that is not what you are doing. You have not the courage to attack the Magistracy; you want to make it look ridiculous—and, if I rightly interpret the cheers with which the right hon. Baronet's speech was received, you want to make it ridiculous for the purpose of ultimately destroying it. That is not statesmanship. That is not the way to deal with an institution which has existed for 600 years in this country, and which through these centuries has given, on the whole, great satisfaction. It is not the way to deal with a method of administering justice which I believe has the confidence of the people as a whole. Your plan, to put it shortly, is this: you wish to turn the patronage of the Bench of Magistrates in England into a wheel in your general electioneering machine. I object to that. Destroy the Magistracy if you will, but destroy it by legislation after full discussion, with the assent of the Representatives of the
  296
  people having the whole matter before them. But do not attempt this extraordinary expedient by which you will throw upon a political officer duties which he himself repudiates, and which he is ill-qualified by his position to perform. Do not take away duties from men who undoubtedly, with all shortcomings, have, on the whole, performed these duties well; and, above all, do not destroy a great system of administering local justice throughout the country until you are prepared to come forward and propose to us a system which you desire to substitute for it.
  *MR. DODD[Loud cries of "Divide!"] said, that a considerable part of the opposition to this Motion arose from misconception. First of all, the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire—[cries of "Divide!"]—who spoke with great authority on county questions, was, he thought, mistaken when he assured the House that there was no dissatisfaction with the present system. [Cries of "Divide!"] He wished to speak because he took an interest in this matter, and had himself received hundreds of letters on the subject from County Councils and other Public Bodies in Wales and in England, and even from Conservative Clubs, complaining of the present system of appointment of Magistrates. [Cries of "Divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman who was formerly responsible for the administration of the Government of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was, he thought, mistaken in saying that this was a strong proceeding on the part of Her Majesty's Government, because, as he (Mr. Dodd) understood the matter, the Resolution did not in any respect change the law, but merely asked that the Lord Chancellor should enforce it; and everyone who went to the trouble of understanding the question knew that the appointment of Magistrates rested with the Lord Chancellor alone. [Interruption.] It was because they were attacking a class that these interruptions were made. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had received a letter from a gentleman, who said he had never been made a Justice of the Peace because he was an advanced Liberal, notwithstanding that he had twice been returned to Parlia-

  297
  ment. [Continued interruption from the Opposition Benches.]
  *MR. SPEAKERintervened, requesting that the hon. Member might be allowed a hearing.
  MR. DODDsaid, that in the Division he represented there were 36 Magistrates, of whom one only was a declared Liberal. The same thing occurred in all the other Divisions of Essex—politics and social status, not fitness, were the present qualifications—and that was why one of the Conservative Members for Essex had joined in the crusade against the present mode of appointing Magistrates. He could give, but he did not propose to do so, letters from all parts of England where Nonconformists and Liberals had been excluded from the Bench. [Prolonged Interruption.] In Merthyr Tydfil, in Wales, there were eight Magistrates, seven of whom were Tories and one Liberal, and yet it returned two Liberals to this House, the lowest Liberal poll having been 11,756, while the defeated Tory polled only 2,304. [Cries of "Divide!"] Could they imagine a greater scandal? [Loud cries of "Divide!"] He recognised fully that the time had gone by for speaking on this matter. [Cries of "Divide!" and Interruption.] He knew that they had now to proceed to a Division, and felt confident that as a result this scandal would be put an end to.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE(who rose amid loud and continued cries of "Divide!" and Interruption) was understood to say that his chief ground of objection to the Motion was that it was a purely negative proposal. [Cries of "Divide!"]
  *MR. SPEAKERintervened to obtain a hearing for the hon. Member, but to no purpose.
  MR. HOBHOUSEwas further understood to say that the result of carrying the Resolution would be that the County Bench would be packed at one time with Liberals and at another time with Conservatives. It would deteriorate the Bench and overload the hands of responsible Ministers.
  *MR. COURTNEY(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said, they had only ten minutes more, and
  298
  it would not, perhaps, be too great a strain upon the House, in dealing with a subject which every one admitted was one of the greatest practical importance, if the time was devoted quietly to the consideration of the proposal before the House. He had a great difficulty in discovering for himself how he should vote on this Resolution. If any one were to suggest for the first time that the administrators of justice in each county should practically be intrusted to the selection of one man, chosen, perhaps, early in life, upon the development of whose character and opinions no one could speak with any certainty at the time of his appointment, that would be considered a proposal too ludicrous to be adopted. On the abstract question it was impossible to say that the present system was not open to the severest criticism, and he was free to confess also that too often the practical application of the system had been found wanting. There wore to be found amongst the Lords Lieutenant of Counties some gentlemen who, not dishonestly, but from the force of prejudice, the preoccupation of their minds, or the bias of their inclinations, were able to discover judicial qualities only in those who agreed with them in political life. That was not a fault confined to Lords Lieutenant—from what had happened during the past few minutes it was evident that it prevailed amongst Members of Parliament. But what were they to adopt in exchange for the present system? An Amendment had been placed on the Paper suggesting a definite principle for the protection as much as for the guidance of the Lord Chancellor, if he should dispense with the recommendations of Lords Lieutenant, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir. C. Dilke) had expressed his sympathy with that Amendment, but could not adopt it because it did not meet with the approbation of his friends.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid, that the Resolution correctly conveyed the opinion of his hon. Friends?, who thought that the Amendment might be misapprehended.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was strange distrust. The Amendment expressed their own minds, but they were

  299
  not sure that it expressed the minds of their friends. What was this hut an unconscious confession that in the minds of some there lurked the feeling that Magistrates should be appointed, not on grounds of personal fitness, but as the reward of political support. He was sure the present Lord Chancellor, and he believed all Lords Chancellor, would beg protection against the pressure that would thus be put upon them. He hesitated to accept a proposition involving this danger. As the Prime Minister had often contended, voting against the Amendment to the Question that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair was only voting for the Previous Question. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Dilke) was not able to disavow, as he frankly admitted he was not, on the part of his hon. Friends, this suggestion of partisanship, though he himself was personally against it, then he (Mr. Courtney) considered himself justified in voting for the Previous Question. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had heard the Prime Minister use that argument scores of times. It was a good argument, and it would prevail with him on this occasion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 240; Noes 293.—(Division List, No. 66.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. TOMLINSON: Mr. Speaker——
  *SIR C. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Do not divide.
  MR. SPEAKER: I was about to put the Motion for the closure, but if there is no necessity for it I will not do so.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the appointment of County Magistrates should no longer be made by the Lords Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being only on the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant.
  Supply—Committee upon Monday next.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892)
  AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 322.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SEA FISHERMEN'S VOTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Crombie, Bill to amend the Law as to the Voting of Sea Fishermen in Parliamentary Elections in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crombie, Mr. Buchanan, Sir William Wedderburn, Mr. Birkmyre, and Mr. Thomas Shaw.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 341.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:— Mr. Burt; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Seale-Hayne.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  COAL, CINDERS, &c.
  Accounts ordered "of the quantities of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel shipped at the several Ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland, coastways, to other Ports of the United Kingdom, in the year 1892;"
  "Of the quantities and declared value of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel exported from the several Ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland to Foreign Countries and the British Settlements Abroad in the year 1892, distinguishing the Countries to which the same were sent;"
  "Of the quantities of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel exported from the United Kingdom in the year 1892;"
  "Of the quantities of Coals and Patent Fuel brought coastways into the Port of London during the year 1892; "
  "And, of the quantities of Coal and Patent Fuel received coastways at the various Ports of the United Kingdom."—(Sir Henry Hussey Vivian.)
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.—(No. 63.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD PLAYFAIR*LORD PLAYFAIR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that its provisions had been mutually arranged between the Secretary for Scotland and the persons interested in the locality.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Playfair.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 43.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Acton.)
  *THE EARL OF BELMORE*THE EARL OF BELMORE, before the House went into Committee, asked the noble Lord to explain the object of the Bill, which had rather a peculiar history. It was read a first time on March 21 and a second time on March 24, without explanation or discussion, and very little was known in Ireland about the measure; but, from various communications received by himself and other noble Lords, it appeared that it was a Bill of a very contentious character. He held in his hand numerous representations from different interests on the subject—resolutions passed against it by the Laud Agents' Association of Ireland, by the Committee of the Northern Law Society of Ireland, a statement on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and other important bodies, a resolution from the Chambers of Commerce in Dublin and Belfast, and also from the Council of the
  170
  Incorporated Law Society of Ireland; and, in addition to the Irish objections, a resolution of a meeting of the Trade Protection Societies' Association which had been held in London. All those bodies earnestly protested against the Bill. The Amendments he had put on the Paper related to the resolution passed by the Land Agents' Association, which stated that official liquidators were hitherto unknown in Ireland; and they believed that, the creation of such an office, with powers not hitherto conferred on any officials in the United Kingdom, would cause difficulty and confusion in the management of lauded estates. Under it the management of estates would pass from the hands of experienced agents to officials who had not hitherto had to deal with landed property, and whose duties in connection with the Bankruptcy Court rendered them particularly unsuited for the management of estates. They represented that the duties which these officers would have to discharge would require their constant attendance in Dublin, and therefore that their personal management of the estates would be impossible. He did not know what was the reason for introducing this Bill, but there might be a very good reason for it; and he understood it, was intended to assimilate the law and practice in Ireland to the law and practice which had prevailed in England. It was evident, from the sweeping changes proposed, that the Bill was one of a very contentious nature, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to admit the Amendments, which would, to a great extent, remove the main objections to it.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONentirely concurred in the observations which had been made by his noble Friend. Similar representations had reached him from the same quarters, and he thought the objections taken to the Bill were, in substance, just. It was perfectly true that the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law in Ireland in the ease of bankruptcy and official receivership to that which had prevailed in England during the last few years. But it should be remembered that there had been considerable legislation with regard to Ireland which did not concern England, and that legislation had made it all the more necessary that persons entrusted with the duties contemplated by the Bill should

  171
  have personal knowledge of everyone— and especially with the circumstances of the tenants—with whom they were brought in contact. Official liquidators could not have such knowledge, and, therefore, it would be impossible for them properly to manage Irish estates. In his judgment they were about the most unfit persons who could possibly be selected for such a purpose. The Bill also trenched unfairly on the work hitherto done efficiently by accountants, solicitors, and land agents. Officials of the Court of Chancery residing in Dublin or other large towns would be utterly incompetent to deal with the complicated questions which must arise throughout Ireland under this Bill; and he, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would either withdraw the Bill altogether, or remove the objections to it by admitting the Amendments.
  LORD ACTONsaid, this Bill was introduced originally at the instance of the Irish Bench as far as they were interested in the matter, and he was not aware that there was any objection to it, or that it was in any way a contentious Bill. That was one reason why he gave no explanation of it on the Second Reading, and he might add that he was not very anxious to address Irish Peers on a question which they would probably understand much better than himself, or to discuss a measure of this description in the presence of so many Judges. The Bill was of a purely legal character, proposing to extend to Ireland analogous securities to those given by the Companies Winding-up Acts in England. Before going further, he would accept the Amendments alluded to standing in the names of the noble Earl (Lord Bel-more) and the noble Marquess (Lord Waterford). The 1st clause of the Bill proposed to place at the disposal of the High Court in Ireland the services of officials already attached to the judicial system as official liquidators of public companies. This was following the principle adopted in England, which had been considered extremely successful. The clause was, however, entirely permissive, leaving the option of appointing to the Court, whose power was not fettered in regard to the appointment of a commercial liquidator in cases free from suspicion. Clause 2 contained no new principle, and only extended the powers
  172
  of the Court in the choice of liquidators. The desirability of giving the Court that power had been fully recognised by the Law Officers of two successive Administrations as well as by the Judges. Clause 3 placed at the disposal of the Court the services of the same officials for the purpose of safeguarding property in pawn belonging to litigants. Clause 4 introduced the only new principle in the Bill: that of enabling the Court to call in the aid of the official liquidators ill the administration of estates of insolvent or deceased persons. It was believed that the adoption of the principle here proposed would result in the protection of property which in many cases at present was either made away with, or not distributed according to law. Clause 5 referred to the application of the law in lunacy matters under the direction of the Lord Chancellor. The Amendments proposed by both the noble Lords would be accepted by the Government, and he, therefore, hoped their Lordships would not at thin stage resist the further progress of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the Bill had passed very quickly through its previous stages, and had not, so far, attracted much notice in their Lordships' House. He was glad that the noble Lord had now given some explanation of it, but he could not agree that Clause 1 was permissive, as the noble Lord had said, and was glad the Amendment to make it so would be accepted. The Bill had caused great excitement in Ireland among officials and others, especially solicitors and chartered accountants, who feared that under its provisions they would be compulsorily forced to give up duties which, it was generally admitted, they had satisfactorily performed hitherto. It would be rather an extraordinary thing to say that an official of the Court sitting in Dublin should have the power of managing estates throughout the country. The noble Lord had intimated that the 1st clause was permissive, but the clause ran—
  "The official assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland, hereinafter called the 'official assignees' shall, by virtue of their office, be the official liquidators," &c.
  The bankruptcy assignees, of course, managed bankruptcy affairs with rapidity, but it would be a most serious

  173
  thing if they forced on sales of landed property. Land in Ireland was at present almost unsaleable, and if sales were forced it would be sold at a nominal value, or for almost nothing at all. This Bill was bad altogether, but he did not propose at the present stage to move its rejection. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord would be ready to receive the Amendments that were put down, because, as it at present stood, the Bill would cause much friction and great dissatisfaction. He had received communications from Ireland showing that the Bill was regarded with much disfavour; and he would suggest that, the Amendments submitted having been accepted, some time should elapse before the Report stage was taken, in order that the matter might be further considered.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, all that public opinion in Ireland has before it in reference to this Bill is the copy which has been circulated without any change or amendment. The opposition to it is growing in volume and intensity; and instead of being a measure which was to be allowed to pass quietly by consent, it is quite plain to me that, in its present shape, unless the objections to it are met in a conciliatory spirit, it will, In its subsequent stages, be one of the most keenly-fought Bills which your Lordships have had introduced during the present Session. To indicate the class of opposition which has developed, I may tell your Lordships that I have received representations from the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin and Belfast, and other bodies, against the Bill, and it is manifest from the amount of literature that has been issued there is a good deal of opposition to the measure. I believe the history of the Bill is that a suggestion was made that it would be a reasonable, and not an unwise, thing to give power to the Courts in these matters whenever they thought it desirable to appoint the official liquidators to perform certain functions. I believe that is the view of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice Chancellor, and the Judge of the Laud Court. I do not know that they think it is a Bill of any supreme importance; but I believe their view is that it would be a useful and wise thing to give the Courts such a discretion
  174
  as I have indicated. Now I have gathered what I was before aware of, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is willing to make it, instead of compulsory, purely voluntary, leaving it in the discretion of the Judges to make the appointments if they think right; and also to make it plain that the official assignees are to have no power to act as land agents and receivers. There is also, I believe, a desire to show that these officials are not to interfere with the creditors in the selection of a solicitor. These are important changes, but they are not known of in Ireland; and I think it would be wise if there is any such machinery in your Lordships' House to commit the Bill now pro formâ, let the noble Lord in charge of it introduce such Amendments as he thinks right and such others as the draftsman may think necessary, and then circulate a new print of the Bill. Let that go forth in Ireland, let the parties interested have the opportunity of considering whether their objections have been met, and then, at the end of two or three weeks, we shall be in a better position to know whether the further progress of the Bill will be easy. That course, I know, is taken in the House of Commons with great advantage. The only other course would be to defer the Committee stage for some time, and allow those interested in Ireland to consider the proposed changes. But it is quite manifest to me that the Bill, in face of the growing volume of opposition to it, will not pass unless a very earnest effort is made to meet as far as may be reasonable some of the various objections which have been taken to the measure in its present shape.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I quite agree that there is some weight in the objections taken to the Bill. At the same time, as regards the 1st and 2nd clauses, I think your Lordships should not be too closely guided by the expressions of opinion which have been given. It was owing to the experience in this country of the incidents attending the winding up of companies that provision was made for greater supervision, and for insuring that there should be proper investigation into the transactions which have led to the failure of companies. No doubt some exception has been taken in England to the measure as leading to officialism.

  175
  I have said before that I have considerable sympathy with the objections of those who are opposed to appointing officials to do that which in the ordinary course has been done by professional persons not officials connected with any Government. But, on the other hand, in these company cases there is work to be done which will be more efficiently performed by having official persons to look into the transactions; and it was on that ground that the late Government introduced their proposals relating to the winding up of companies. The first two clauses of this Bill contain the same proposals with reference to Ireland. I do not think there is any good ground for objecting to this part of the Bill, but I admit that the subsequent provisions may be open to criticism. I would, therefore, suggest that Amendments as to which there is agreement should be inserted in the Bill now, and that contentious points should be passed over and considered by the Standing Committee. Before the Bill reaches the Standing Committee there will be an interval, during which it can be circulated through Ireland, and to allow for its consideration.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIhad not heard very clearly the remarks of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and had not, therefore, clearly understood whether the noble Lord would accept his Amendments to exempt agricultural estates from its operation so far as it related to the appointment of official assignees as receivers of rents and estates in the hands of the Court. If they were to be accepted and the measure then further considered on the Report stage, he was willing to withdraw those Amendments at this stage, and bring them forward at a later period, dependent, of course, upon whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would vary the terms of the clause.
  LORD ACTONthought that all the difficulties raised upon details by the noble Lord were met by the Amendments already standing in the names of noble Lords which had been already in principle accepted.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIunderstood that it would be open to him at a future stage to make further Amendments if necessary.
  LORD ACTONassented.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think, whether they are great interests or not which are involved, it is clearly desirable that we should know whether these Amendments are agreed to by consent before we go to the Committee stage.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): The Amendments are accepted; when they have been inserted the Bill will be reprinted; and then it will go in due time to the Standing Committee, leaving a long interval in order that it may be fully considered. There will be an ample interval left for those who take an interest in it in Ireland to consider it. It seems to me that is the simpler mode of proceeding.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a matter rather for the consideration of the Irish Peers, but it seems to me that when the Government have by their action entirely altered the draft of the Bill in its important particulars it is desirable the House should know what the Bill really means before it gets to the Committee stage again.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not understand that it is by our action. It is by the action of noble Lords opposite who move the Amendments they think necessary. The Amendments are theirs; and when they are put in the Bill will be reprinted, and everybody will have the opportunity of considering it. It cannot prejudice anybody, I should think.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIwithdrew his Amendments for that day, and would keep them for a future stage. He understood that some of the Amendments were agreed to.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendments made.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 87.)

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD O'NEILL*LORD O'NEILL, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its chief object was to make permanent the Irish Sunday Closing Act of 1878, and to extend the operation of that measure to the five large towns which were excluded from it. That small Bill, as it might be called, without in the least minimising its importance, had conferred great good upon the country in the direction of temperance. The Bill also provided for the earlier closing of public-houses on Saturdays, and would effect some change in the law concerning travellers. In former Sessions legislation in this direction was proposed when the four years during which the Act of 1878 was to remain in operation were coming to art end. Lord Carlingford brought in a Bill on the subject, and in moving the Second Reading on l5th March, 1883, in the House of Commons, stated that "public opinion in Ireland was much in favour of the Bill; "that Sunday drunkenness had greatly decreased, and that the arrests from that cause had been at that time reduced as much as 50 per cent. That legislation was approved in their Lordships' House and in the House of Commons; but it had not been proceeded with in consequence of the pressure of other Business. The Bill was brought in again in 1884, when Sir George Trevelyan, in moving the Second Reading, said, after careful study of the statistics, he had come to the conclusion that Sunday Closing had been a great and unqualified benefit to those parts of the country where it had been in operation, and that it might be conveniently extended to the five exempted cities. For the same reason, however, that Bill again went no further in 1884. In 1887 Mr. T. W. Russell brought in a Bill for the earlier closing of public-houses on Saturdays. That Bill and the question of the working of the Act of 1878 were referred to a Committee. The subject was considered by the Committee in 1887, and the present Bill was based upon their Report. That Report stated that the
  178
  evidence was overwhelming in favour of making the Act perpetual, and that it was advisable to extend Sunday Closing to the cities and towns now exempted. It further stated that there was little difference of opinion as to earlier closing on Saturday night, and that much of the excessive drinking and waste of wages would be saved if the public-houses were closed earlier on that day. Allusion was also made in it to the difficulty of applying any test but that of mileage to the bonâ fide traveller, and of preventing other persons from availing themselves of that clause. The next step was that Sir Thomas Lea brought in a Bill on this subject, and carried it to a Second Reading in the House of Commons on April 23, 1890. Mr. Madden, the Chairman of the Committee, now Mr. Justice Madden, the then Attorney General for Ireland, took part in that Debate, and declared that there was an almost unanimous expression of opinion in favour of the Bill on the part of every class of society in Ireland. Sir George Trevelyan stated that Sunday Closing had led to no increase in "shebeenism." He had given their Lordships the history of that Bill, and he hoped they would give it a favourable reception. Politics did not enter into the question, and it would be a scandal if a measure of so simple a kind should any longer be put off in the face of an earnest desire so generally expressed. Many excellent people in Ireland who were neither bigots nor fanatics rejoiced in the success of the Sunday Closing Act, and thought that at some time within the last 10 years Parliament ought to have passed some Bill of this sort. This measure had nothing to do with any of the other Temperance Bills now before Parliament, and as compared with them had in its favour a successful 15 years' experience of the working of the existing Act. He trusted their Lordships would not refuse to take the step which would make that measure perpetual, and which would enable the good work hitherto done to still be carried on.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord O'Neill.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS moved the rejection of the Bill. He remarked that strange to say on that very day, in another place, precisely the same Bill stood for

  179
  Second Reading. Such a course was unusual, but he would ask the promoters of the Bill with which horse they intended to win, and whether they intended to win on this Bill and let the other in another place he scratched? His only apology as a Scotchman to noble Lords from Ireland for taking part in the discussion on a measure only affecting Ireland was that, happily as yet, Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord had stated that the Bill was the result of the deliberations of the Committee in another place; but he believed the recommendation had only been carried by a bare majority.
  *LORD O'NEILLhad intended to state that the Chairman was not in favour of including the large towns.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, they had then, at all events, the fact that the Chairman of the Committee was against some of the provisions in the Bill. It was proposed to bring the five largest towns in Ireland within the provisions of the Bill; but, so far as he knew, Belfast was the only one of them that strongly advocated the Bill. He found it stated in a paper sent round to their Lordships that there was practically no public demand for the measure in Ireland; in fact, the manifestations of public opinion proved the contrary. The Corporations of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Water-ford had all passed resolutions against Sunday Closing. Archbishop Walsh, in a speech he made on February 23, strongly deprecated such a measure being applied to Dublin. The danger from it was that it encouraged illicit drinking in the shebeens. Sunday Closing in Cardiff and Glasgow had been a notorious failure. In Glasgow Sunday Closing had made the law-abiding Scotchman a lawbreaker at last. The drink sold in the shebeens was horrible. As an Irishman not long ago said, "it was like a torchlight procession going down a man's throat in the dark." If the South of Ireland did not want Sunday Closing, why on earth should Belfast be so anxious that the Bill should be extended to all parts of Ireland? He could only understand it on one of two grounds— first, that the people of Belfast were in intimate connection with the people of Scotland by blood and religion, and were anxious on a great Imperial question to secure their votes. Geographically, the
  180
  North of Ireland was only 11 miles from Scotland. Perhaps another reason why the people of Belfast were in favour of the measure was in order that they might give an object-lesson in Home Rule by putting on the South of Ireland a Bill which the Southerners disliked just as the South was now putting legislation on the North which the Northeners disliked. He could see a solution of the difficulty. Within the last 24 hours they had been told that there was an idea of exempting Ulster from the scope of the Home Rule Bill, with the concurrence or assent, it was said, of the South. Let their Lordships apply the same principle to this Bill. Why should the Southern towns, which objected to this measure, not be exempted from its operation? Why should it not apply to Belfast only? The proposal to-close the public-houses at 9 o'clock on Saturday evening was simply intolerable tyranny and class legislation, the effect of which would be to deprive the poor man of his beer, while the rich man would have in his cellar as much wassail as he wanted. With regard to the question of the bonâ fide traveller, he saw no reason for extending the limit to six miles. It was hard that a working man who wished to walk, on a Sunday, to> some pleasant place near his home should not be able to wet his whistle at the end of a three miles' distance. Take their Lordships' case. Suppose their Lordships wished to take a recreative and healthy walk to Hampstead Heath, which was just three miles from that House, would they not think it very hard if they could not refresh themselves there without having to come back the whole way along the dusty road and get what they wanted at the refreshment bar of the House? He felt very strongly that this kind of legislation was wrong, and that it was a puritanical attempt to coerce men's natural feelings and tastes. It had been tried before, and the result was that the law had been, as such legislation always would be, evaded. He-was not in favour of drunkenness, but he was in favour of liberty and justice. He had attended great meetings, composed of men of all ranks and creeds and politics, in Glasgow and Manchester, and these gatherings were unanimous in their determination to resist veto legislation. He would venture to offer a word

  181
  of advice to those who were dealing with such questions. So strong was the feeling in favour of liberty and justice in connection with drink questions that whoever wanted to have a good majority at the next General Election should carefully avoid flirting with the Alliance or coquetting with the Veto. The Government had already put their foot well into it as regarded their Veto Bill, and it did not matter now whether they went on with it or withdrew it. It was not by infringing liberty or outraging justice in the way that the Veto Bill did that drunkenness would be cured. The evil must be met in other directions. They might imitate the method adopted in the Colonies in granting licences in proportion to the population. They must also look to the assistance which could be rendered in the matter by the police. Let men found drunk in the streets be fined and imprisoned, and let the licences be taken from public-houses that manufactured drunkards. Other powerful influences also existed in the pulpit, the Press, and public opinion. These were the weapons on which they ought to rely as elements of reform, which had brought about great and good results in the past, for not one of their Lordships who went about the streets in our towns could fail to be aware of the enormous improvement which bad taken place in regard to the decrease of drunkenness among the great mass of the population in this country. Two right rev. Prelates took entirely different views in this matter, and were now running different Bills for the Alliance Stakes; but be would beg them to remember that it was not by substituting for their croziers the baton of legislation that they could make men sober. Men were not to be made sober by Act of Parliament. Upon that point he would quote the opinion of an able lawyer and eloquent Member formerly of their Lordships' House—Lord Cairns—
  "There was no question which at the present time more deeply touched the physical and religious welfare of the country as that of temperance. It occupied the attention of moralists, statesmen, and divines. It had been under investigation by Parliament, and statistics had been obtained of the poverty, suffering, and crime it was causing in this land."
  And then Lord Cairns went on to say—
  "I have little hope myself of making men sober and temperate by Act of Parliament, and
  182
  look rather to other causes and influences. I look to the power and force of persuasion, of conviction, of example. I look to the change in habits, feelings, and tastes which comes when there is brought to bear on the hearts of men the light and power of the Gospel of our Saviour. I look to the efforts for better training the rising generation, and especially to the young men of England, in whose hands the future of the country is placed."
  He thanked their Lordships for their kind attention, and begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERfelt that this subject interested Englishmen as well as Irishmen. When it came before a Committee of their Lordships' House evidence upon this drink question was given to show the great improvement that had followed the imposition of further restrictions with regard to the hours of closing. He differed in toto cœlo from Lord Wemyss, who had given no proof whatever that legislation on this subject affecting Ireland had, as he alleged, signally failed. The question had been before the country many years,, and the great mass of opinion in Ireland, as evidenced before the House of Commons Committee in 1888, was strongly and overwhelmingly in favour of making; the Act of 1878 permanent instead of renewing it year after year. The greatest amount of drinking in this country, and in Ireland especially, took place on Saturday; and, as wages in Dublin and the other large towns were paid between 2 and 3 o'clock on that day, there was practically a half-holiday. The early closing proposed would still enable people to get what drink they wanted, and be considered it was sufficient to allow the public-houses to remain open until 9 o'clock that night, instead of until 11 o'clock as at present. The evidence given before the House of Lords Committee was conclusive as to the desire for closing at an earlier hour on Saturday. All the successive Secretaries for Ireland had been in favour of further restrictions' and of Sunday Closing. He should have thought it better that the public-houses might be allowed to open for two hours on Sunday, and that was the opinion of Mr. Madden, the Chairman of the Com-

  183
  mittee; but upon the evidence the majority of the Committee were m favour of total closing on Sunday. No proof was given that shebeening had increased, but if shebeening did increase it would be necessary to take measures against that form of drinking. He regarded the Bill as a reasonable Bill, and he trusted that their Lordships would assent to the Second Reading.
  LORD MONTEAGLEwould not, after the very full treatment of the subject by the noble Duke and by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, detain their Lordships with any discussion of the details of the Bill. Lord Wemyss had tried to persuade their Lordships there was really no public demand for this measure in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSShad not said that, but that resolutions had been passed in the four towns, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, objecting to be put under the Bill. That was all.
  LORD MONTEAGLEaccepted the correction, but had so understood the argument. His reason for supporting the Bill was that he believed there was an overwhelming demand for it in Ireland, perhaps not shared to so great an extent in the exempted large towns; but both in Limerick and Cork resolutions had been passed at public meetings in favour of the Bill. The noble Earl also said that the experiment had failed in Cardiff, and had appealed to Lord Aberdare's experience of its working in Wales. In Ireland the Act had been tried for over 10 years with success, and they were better able to judge in Ireland upon that point than people on this side of the Channel. He and others objected to the Act being kept in a state of suspended animation, and continued from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The opposition of Archbishop Walsh was entirely confined to the case of Dublin, and among the Roman Catholic Bishops there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill. He appealed to their Lordships' House very earnestly not to listen to the arguments of the noble Earl, and thought that, the Bill being supported so largely from Ireland, it would be a great misfortune if the wish of the Irish people of all Parties were over-ridden by their Lordships.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on this subject, both as representing the Government on the present occasion and the view which they take of the Bill, and also as having taken considerable interest in the measure when I was in Ireland. I rejoice that on one subject, at least, there is no Party difference in this House. When I had the honour of being in Ireland I received various deputations on the subject, and was constantly told of the great necessity for a measure of this sort, and the importance to all classes of having some limit placed on the trade in intoxicating liquor on Sunday. After the existing Act was passed by a Conservative Government, I had again a deputation before me urging that the measure had been of the greatest possible utility, and that, therefore, it should be made permanent. As far as I can gather, there has been practically no change in the evidence since that time. My noble Friends referred to the Report of the Committee which sat on the subject in another place in 1888. That Committee very nearly unanimously reported in favour of the continuance of this measure. Now, if your Lordships look at the statistics, you will find they are very remarkable. After the passing of the Act of 1878 there were 2,000 arrests for drunkenness, whereas before that time they amounted to 4,000; and other instances might be quoted of the marked effect of the Act in the diminution of drunkenness. Nor is there any evidence to show that shebeening has increased in the districts where the Act is in operation, or that any other serious drawbacks have occurred in the administration of it. I, therefore, still think as I did before, that it would be of great importance to continue the Act for the benefit of the Irish people. In my opinion it is a scandal that a matter of such great importance should be left to the chance of getting the Act included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There are provisions in the Bill as to which there may be difference of opinion. My own leaning would be in favour of the provisions contained in the Bill; at the same time, there are important considerations with regard to them. There are questions as to whether we should

  185
  enforce the application of the Bill to the towns which deliberately oppose it, or whether we should only apply it to those towns which are in favour of it. Those, however, I should say, are questions which should be left to Committee. Then comes our old friend the bonâ fide traveller question. My noble Friend on the Cross Benches thinks people cannot walk three miles without the necessity for refreshment. I think my noble Friend's powers of endurance, judging from what I remember of him in earlier years, are much larger than that: and I am sure he would still, under the proposals of the Bill, be able to take that exercise for which he was formerly so renowned. The question of the bonâ fide traveller, however, and also that of the hour of closing on Saturday night, are eminently questions for Committee. My noble Friend is in favour of not interfering at all in matters of this sort by legislation; hut under the existing law we limit the hours during which public-houses are open, and it is a mere question of degree whether the principle of limitation ought to be still further extended. As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they are anxious to see the Second Heading passed by your Lordships. I therefore sincerely trust the House will not follow the lead of my noble Friend on the Cross Benches, but will accept the proposals which my noble Friend opposite has brought before your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, after the speech which has been made by my noble Friend opposite, I hope the noble Lord (Earl Wemyss) will not think it necessary to go to a Division on the Second Heading. It is quite clear that throughout the whole of the legislation with regard to public-houses in these countries there is always the question of degree as to the amount of regulation to which they should be subjected. They are, of course, upon a different footing to ordinary trades, and the liquor trade has always been dealt with by local and other regulations in a different way to others. It appears that no one takes exception to the existing law in Ireland in reference to Sunday Closing everywhere except in the five large cities; and with reference to them my noble Friend, speaking for the Government, has left that question for considera-
  186
  tion in Committee. It seems to me, therefore, that my noble Friend who has made this Motion has really obtained all he desires in the declaration by the Government that the points in which he is mainly interested are questions for Committee, and will be left open to him for discussion hereafter. I trust, therefore, the House will give a vote, in accordance with that declaration, for the Second Reading.
  *LORD ABERDAREwould certainly not have risen to speak on this subject had he not been twice challenged by his noble Friend. He thought it might be useful if he stated his views of the success which had attended like legislation in the Principality. He had had a great deal to do with this kind of legislation, and in his opinion Parliament ought to proceed very carefully in the matter of restriction. He would be prepared at that moment to oppose any attempt to enforce absolute prohibition of Sunday drinking over the whole Kingdom. Yet when a Bill relating to Sunday Closing in Wales was introduced and passed through the House of Commons, he did not hesitate to take charge of that Bill in this House, because, in the first place, he wished to act in accordance with the feelings of his fellow-countrymen, and, secondly, because he wished to see an interesting experiment made. A Conservative paper of large circulation in Wales sent a very able man to make inquiry into the direct effect of this restrictive law in Wales. It came out that while the Act was acceptable to Welshmen generally, and had worked satisfactorily in the rural parts of the country, there certainly was a very great failure in the large and dense populations, especially where those populations had been brought together very recently. He referred more particularly to the Rhondda Valley, where there was now a population of 120,000, where he remembered a population of very few thousands. In the Rhondda Valley alone, every Sunday upwards of 60 brakes drove out to take people just about three miles from their place of residence, and Sunday was consequently desecrated in a very gross manner. In Cardiff the measures of repression were not effective, and the consequence was that there was an outburst of Illicit drinking in the place.

  187
  These facts were clearly brought out, and he stated that unless some vigorous attempt was made to enforce the law he certainly would not vote for its continuance. What had happened at Cardiff made him doubtful of applying such a doctrine to Dublin. The object of all law, he imagined, was not merely to punish offenders, but to prevent the commission of offences. According to a return published in a Cardiff newspaper, there had been within two years about 400 convictions for keeping sheheens on Sundays. It was clear, therefore, that the law, although it had punished, had not succeeded in repressing illicit drinking; but he believed the Local Authorities were doing their utmost to put down this defiance of the law. Therefore, while he should certainly vote for the Bill, he was doubtful of applying such a law to a city like Dublin. He had at one time to inquire into the condition of crime there, and found that in 1874, when the population was about 360,000, Dublin contained more criminals of a grave character than the whole of the rest of Ireland. Its ordinary crime was more than double that of Birmingham, with about the same population. In the Act of 1872, which he had the honour of passing through Parliament, it was provided that the Local Authorities, in all towns except London, should have the power of closing public-houses at any time between 9 and 11 at night if, in their view, such a course was required. The experiment of closing at 10 p.m. was tried at Liverpool and several other large towns with much advantage and without the slightest manifestation of discontent. Unfortunately this opportunity of trying a useful experiment was repealed by the Licensing Act of 1874. Power as to the opening and closing of public-houses should, within certain limits, be given to the Local Authorities. They should have the right to make the experiment. He would be glad to see a clause embodying that principle contained in the Bill. Subject to those remarks he would support the Second Reading.
  *THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, that the speech of the noble Lord (the Earl of Wemyss) would have been an excellent speech if it had been delivered 15 years ago. But now they had an experience of 15 years, from which it appeared that in the whole of Ireland, with the exception of the five towns to which the Act did
  188
  not apply, Sunday Closing had been a very great success. Some time since a house-to-house canvass had been made for the purpose of finding out the opinion of the five exempted towns with regard to Sunday Closing. In Dublin there were 34,000 householders who said "Aye" and only 8,000 who said "No"—that was a majority of 26,000 in favour of this measure.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Out of a population of——
  THE EARL OF MEATHdid not think that was to the point. Then, in Belfast there were 23,900 "Ayes" and only 2,900 who said "No," or a majority of 21,000. In Cork there were 9,605 who said "Aye" and only 1,807 who said "No," or a majority of 7,000. In Limerick there were more than 5,600 "Ayes" and only 560 "Noes," or a majority of upwards of 5,000. In Water-ford there were upwards of 3,000 "Ayes" and only 290 "Noes," giving a majority of more than 3,000. If that was not an emphatic expression of opinion on the part of the householders and ratepayers of those cities in favour of Sunday Closing he did not know what an expression of opinion was. The noble Lord had spoken a great deal about what members of the Alliance had said. But noble Lords who represented the vast majority of the people of Ireland, and who did not claim to represent the Alliance, asked the House to pass this Bill, which, as Irishmen, they believed would be for the benefit of their country. The noble Lord had told them that this legislation had been a failure in Wales and Scotland, but they had nothing to do with that in this connection regarding Ireland. The Union was for Imperial purposes, and they did not want to know what was happening in Glasgow and Cardiff on this subject. The noble Lord alluded to the subject of grocers' licences, and had passed it by somewhat cursorily; but the noble Lord must know that these licences were the greatest curse. Women went into grocers' shops and got behind a partition, where they were supplied with drink unobserved. He was very much pleased to hear that Her Majesty's Government were going to support this Bill, and that the Members of the late Government in their Lordships' House would also give it their support. The majority of the people of Ireland were in

  189
  favour of the principle of the Bill. There was no division, either political or religious, on the question. Protestants and Catholics, Home Rulers and Unionists alike, were united in favour of the Bill, and therefore all Parties in their Lordships' House could support it. Neither Party could afford to oppose the measure. The Unionists certainly could not do so, for they would by doing so be putting an argument into the mouths of their opponents, which later on it would be very difficult for them to refute.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that after the intimation given by the noble Earl (Earl Spencer), that the Government regarded the provision making permanent the Act of 1878 as the main principle of the Bill, he begged to withdraw his Amendment, and leave the measure open to be dealt with in Committee upon the questions of four towns, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, being brought under the Bill, the 9 o'clock closing and the bonâ fide traveller. He would, therefore, not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committ of the Whole House on Thursday the 18th instant.

  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.—(No. 36.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
  Message from the House of Commons to acquaint this House that they do concur in the Resolution communicated to them in the Message of Tuesday last—namely, That it is desirable that the Copyhold (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.] be referred to" the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Statute Law Revision Bills.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution—namely, that all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the "Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the classification of merchandise traffic, and the schedule of maximum rates, tolls, and charges applicable thereto, be referred
  190
  to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and to desire their Lordships' concurrence thereto; the said Message to be taken into consideration on Monday next.

  COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 34.)
  Referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. (No. 70.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  SUFFOLK COUNT V COUNCIL COMMITTEE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL.—(No. 60.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES BILL [H.L.] (No. 20.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  POLICE DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  Road 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.