Sitting of 5 July 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

EDUCATION ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) (LIMERICK DIOCESAN SCHOOLS).
THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. CHARLES R. SPENCER)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 20th May last, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My consent from so much of Paragraph 6 of Scheme 90, framed by the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commissioners, relating to the Limerick Diocesan Schools Endowments, as provides for the conveyance and release by the Commissioners of all their estate and interest in the lands, buildings, and premises described in the First Schedule thereto, Part IV., subject as therein to the Rev. James Fitzgerald Gregg on the notice and payments therein set forth by him to the Commissioners in that behalf to be given and made; and disapprove of that part of said scheme which makes the default by the said Rev. James Fitzgerald Gregg in giving said notice or making said payments within certain times therein set forth, a condition precedent to the Commissioners putting up for sale by public auction and selling it to the best advantage all their estate and interest in the said premises subject as aforesaid, and conveying same to the purchaser thereof; and disapprove of any part of the said Scheme which, if retained therein, will operate to compel or allow the Commissioners to take any course with regard to the said premises other than to put up for sale and sell to the best advantage all their estate and interest therein, and convey same subject as aforesaid to the purchaser thereof. I will comply with your advice."

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE SOUTHERN APPROACH) BILL.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL,
As amended, considered; read 3°, and Passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 21) BILL.
Read 2°, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) (SALFORD) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Title amended; [Provisional Order relating to Salford not proceeded with; remaining Orders confirmed]; costs awarded;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, considered; read 3°, and Passed.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, considered; read 3°, and Passed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; read 3°, and Passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; read 3°, and Passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Leave given to the Select Committee on the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) to report their Observations to the House.—(Mr. Leveson Gower.)
Second Report, with Observations, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 385.]

POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILLS.
Special Report brought up, and read;
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 386.]

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Return [presented 4th July] to be printed. [No. 387.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (PORT AND RIPARIAN SANITARY SURVEY).
Copy presented—of Reports and Papers on the Port and Riparian Sanitary Survey of England and Wales, 1893–4, with an Introduction by the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TRAINING COLLEGES).
Copies presented of Reports and Statistics for the year 1894, &c. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORTS).
Copies presented of Reports of the Chief Inspectors of the Eastern, North Eastern, North Central, South Western, and Welsh Divisions for the year 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (UNIVER SITY COLLEGES.)
Copies presented of Reports from University Colleges participating, in accordance with the Treasury Minute dated 1st July 1889, in the Grant of £15,000 made by Parliament for University Colleges in Great Britain [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, for 1894–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT).
Copy presented of Return showing the manner in which and the extent to which Local Authorities in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland are applying funds to the purposes of Technical Education (including Science, Art, Technical and Manual Instruction) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT).
Copy presented of Calendar, History, and General Summary of Regulations of the Department of Science and Art for the year 1896 (with Tables) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEEN'S COLLEGE (CORK).
Copy presented of Report of the President of Queen's College, Cork, for the Session 1894–5, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Annual Report for the year ended 31st March 1895, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS IN COUNTIES (SCOTLAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 20th May; Sir George Trevelyan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 388.]
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS IN BURGHS (SCOTLAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 20th May; Sir George Trevelyan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 389.]
ISLE OF MAN.
Account presented of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1895, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 390.]
UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 15th September 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 391.]
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 392.]

TRAMWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
Return ordered—
"Of Street and Road Tramways authorised by Parliament, showing the amount of Capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of Tramway authorised, and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers, down to the 30th day of June 1895; the gross receipts, working expenditure, and net receipts; the number of passengers conveyed; and the number of miles run by cars during the year ending the 30th day of June 1895; together with the number of horses, engines, and cars at that date (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 270, of Session 1894)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 393.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Right Honourable Charles Thompson Ritchie, for the Borough of Croydon, on his re-election, after acceptance of the Office of President of the Board of Trade.
QUESTIONS.

  DELAGOA BAY ARBITRATION.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets, Stepney (Mr. Wootton Isaacson), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that the Delagoa Bay Arbitration Tribunal has again postponed pronouncing sentence for ten weeks; (2) whether they are aware it is reported that the Government of the South African Republic is negotiating with that of Portugal for the purchase of the line; and (3) whether they will take steps to ensure that no properties affected by the arbitration shall be disposed of either publicly or privately before the tribunal has pronounced its sentence, so that all the properties sequestrated may remain at the entire disposal of the bondholders in case the sentence should be given in their favour?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CUHZOX,): By a decision dated the 3rd of June the Court of Arbitration has fixed a period of one month for the filing by each party of a summary, as short as possible, of the points of law and fact on which they base their conclusions; and a period of six weeks for delivery of schedules of the documents comprised in the written cases, the authenticity of which is challenged by either side, and for the enumeration of the points on which it is desired to take oral evidence or the opinion of experts. Both periods are to commence from the 15th of June, the day on which the decision was communicated officially to the British, United States, and Portuguese Legations at Berne. With regard to the last two paragraphs of the question, Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge that such negotiations are in progress. They would be inconsistent with assurances which we have received from Portugal that, until the Award is given, no steps whatever will be taken which will affect the future of the railway.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. WILSON LLOYD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, in the Finance Accounts, Revenue, the accounts arising from the Income Tax, under Schedule D, embracing professions and trades, could be divided into three sections, showing the amounts—firstly, from manufactures and industrial occupations; secondly, from professions; and thirdly, from distribution, with the object of showing if our industries are progressing or otherwise?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, and I will take care that it shall be considered. Of course, in these matters, one has to place the expense and trouble of additional returns against the advantage that may arise from them, and to take care to avoid, also, anything interfering with secrecy.
  MR. WILSON LLOYDasked whether one schedule did not descend to the lower figure of £253,000, whereas in the other there was over £8,000,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will look into the matter.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would also consider the advantage of setting out the amounts derived from realty and personalty respectively.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that will hardly apply to the question of my hon. Friend below the Gangway.

  TIPTON RIFLE RANGE ACCIDENT.
  MR. WILSON LLOYD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if the War Office will recommend that a gratuity of £60 be paid by Her Majesty's Government to Mr. Henn towards his expenses arising from the accident which occurred on the 9th June 1894, to his son, who was standing at his house door, by a stray bullet from the rifle range near Tipton, which caused his death; and whether he is aware that Mr. Henn's house is almost in a direct line behind the rifle range, and that,
  256
  since the accident on 9th June, 1894, many bullet marks have been found on Mr. Henn's house.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): Volunteer battalions are held primarily responsible for claims arising out of accidents such as that referred to, and in cases where there has been no negligence on the part of, and no blame attaches to the corps, it is reimbursed any legitimate expenditure it may necessarily incur. If the corps has not already discharged the claim which was made on it last year by Mr. Henn it will be instructed to do so. The house is not quite in a direct line of fire. The range was closed after the accident and consequently the house has not since been examined for bullet marks.
  MR. WILSON LLOYDinquired whether that would give to Mr. Henn power to claim some compensation for loss.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. The expenses will be paid by the Volunteer corps, and, if there has been no negligence, they will be reimbursed by the War Office.

  PERSONAL CLERKS IN CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the allowance made in a lump sum to the Head of a Department to enable him to obtain copying or clerical assistance in accordance with the provisions of the Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889 (paragraphs 24, 25, and 26), is intended to be applied in the employment of persons at a higher rate of pay than that formerly paid to the old class of temporary copyists, or on work of a more important character than that formerly performed by that class; whether the allowance of £1,300 (Bankruptcy), and £1,200 (Companies (Winding-up), entered in the Civil Service Estimates (page 119) as required by the Inspector General in Bankruptcy for clerical assistance for the year 1895–96, will be applied in the employment of persons receiving a higher rate of pay than 35s. a week; whether one personal clerk employed temporarily under these regulations in the office of the Inspector General in Bankruptcy is paid a salary of £400 a year

  257
  out of this allowance, and another personal clerk is also employed in the same office at a salary of £150 a year, payable out of the same allowance; whether any other personal clerks, employed under these regulations and paid out of an allowance for clerical assistance of the character referred to in the aforesaid Treasury Minute, are employed in any other Government Department at a higher rate of pay or salary than 35s. weekly; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to have a Return of such employments, with the rate of pay or salary assigned to each post, placed upon the Table of the House; whether these appointments are in the patronage of the head of the Department; and whether the personal clerks so appointed undergo any examination at the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The paragraphs of the Treasury Minute referred to apply only to copyists. The higher appointments referred to are made by arrangement between the Treasury and the Departments concerned, under the authority of the Order in Council, dated June 4th, 1870. Such lump sum allowances as are referred to are not necessarily confined to purely copying and routine work. The two sums allowed to the Inspector General in Bankruptcy are not confined to such services. The distribution of such an allowance, when the total allowance of the amount has been fixed, has been left to the discretion of the head of the Department, and the Treasury have not hitherto interfered with it; and, therefore, I have no official information as to the details. I am unable on such short notice to say whether the suggested Return could be given, without communicating with the Board of Trade and other Departments concerned; but I will gladly make further inquiry. Persons so employed are selected by the head of the Department, and without any examination by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (SATUEDAY.)
  Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Half-past Ten of the clock a.m."—(First Lord of the Treasury.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  EXTRADITION BILL. [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR EDWARD REED SIR EDWARD REED (Cardiff) moved to insert the words:—
  "Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after 'is,' insert 'and at the request and with the consent of the criminal, made or given in writing, the order may, if the Secretary of State is of opinion that that course is necessary to avoid danger or injury to the health of the criminal, permit the case to be heard by the magistrate in the absence of the criminal.'"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said that, as far as he was able to form an opinion, he saw no objection to the proposed Amendment; but he might mention that he had been informed by a high legal authority in the House of Lords that their Lordships might take a different view of the situation. If so, the Bill would be lost, and if the hon. Member insisted on moving his Amendment, the hon. Member must take the risk of that.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid, there was certainly a difference of opinion as to this provision, which, though undoubtedly a novel one, safeguarded as it was here, could not, he thought, do much harm. As, however, his hon. Friend had been told that the Bill might be lost altogether if he persisted in pressing his Amendment, his hon. Friend might find that, in his attempt to make the measure more perfect, he might lose it altogether, and he ought to weigh well the responsibility he was incurring.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, that he gave full weight to that consideration, but it was balanced by the future consideration that the Bill could be of no use without the Amendment in the particular case that it was designed to meet. He was aware of the peculiar nature of the proposal he was putting forward. He would ask the First Lord of the

  259
  Treasury, if the Amendment were now inserted and if the Bill should be thrown out by the House of Lords, whether the Government would give a pledge that on the reassembling of the new Parliament they would take the whole case into their consideration and see what could be done; because he thought that, circumstanced as they were at this moment, it was desirable to make provision for cases of this nature.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that he did not know on which side of the House he might be sitting in the next Parliament. But whoever might be sitting on the Treasury Bench when the next Parliament reassembled would probably feel very little energy or desire to get through more than the necessary financial business. The hon. Member seemed to look at this Bill as a measure for the relief of one particular individual, but it was not from that point of view that it should, he thought, be regarded. He looked upon the Bill as effecting a desirable Amendment in the present law, which required that these accused persons should only be tried at Bow-street, although they might live at the other end of the kingdom.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, he thought the point was not an unreasonable one, and that it was one which was sure to receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, the Bill itself was a reasonable one, for it simply proposed that the case should be heard in a county town as well as in London. That was no new principle, but there was the point of hearing a criminal charge in the absence of the criminal. At that late period of the Session he did not think that this Amendment ought to be allowed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, it appeared there was some feeling in the matter, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read 3°, and Passed, without Amendment.

  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read 3°, and Passed, without Amendment.

  NATURALISATION (RESIDENCE ABROAD) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2°.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, as the Bill was one to which no objection was taken, he hoped the House would allow it to pass through its remaining stages.
  Bill committed: considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read 3°, and Passed, without Amendment.

  FIRES (FALSE ALARMS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  RETIRED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Message from the Lords, That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships a Copy of the Report, &c., of the Select Committee appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament on Retired Soldiers and Sailors (Employment).
  Printed Copy to be communicated.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships a Copy of the Report, &c., of the Select Committee appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament on the Royal Patriotic Fund.
  Printed Copy to be communicated.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(First Lord of the Treasury)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at Four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL.
  On the Motion to read this Bill a third time,
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY) moved an Amendment to clause 21. The clause read as follows:—

  DANGEROUS STRUCTURES AND PROJECTIONS.
  "(1.) Whenever any structure or any part thereof, or anything thereon or attached thereto or projecting therefrom is deemed by the surveyor to be in a state or position whereby public danger is, or may be, occasioned, the surveyor shall give notice under his hand to the owner or occupier of such structure, or to both of them, requiring such owner or occupier forthwith to take down, remove, repair, or secure the same to the satisfaction of the surveyor.

  (2.) In case the work required by the notice is not begun within forty-eight hours after the service thereof, or is not completed to the satisfaction of the surveyor, as soon as the case admits the surveyor may give information thereof to any justice, who may thereupon issue his summons requiring such owner or occupier, or both of them, to appear before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

  (3.) In case it appears to the Court that immediate danger from such structure or part thereof or thing thereon or attached thereto or projecting therefrom, as aforesaid, is to be apprehended the Court may make an order authorising such surveyor to cause such structure or part thereof or thing thereon, or attached thereto or projecting therefrom, as aforesaid, to be forthwith taken down, removed, repaired or secured.

  (4.) In case it appears to the Court that public danger is to be apprehended, but that such danger is not immediate, the Court may make an order on such owner or occupier, or both of them, requiring him or them to cause such structure or part thereof or thing thereon or attached thereto or projecting therefrom, as aforesaid, to be taken down, removed, repaired, or secured to the satisfaction of the surveyor within a period to be prescribed in such order.
  214
  In case such order is not obeyed within the period prescribed therein, any person on whom such order has been made shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and to a daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.

  (5.) The Court may, at any time after the end of the period prescribed in such order, make an order authorisiug the surveyor to cause such structure or part thereof or thing thereon or attached thereto or projecting therefrom, as aforesaid, to be taken down, removed, repaired, or secured as required by such order, and the person or persons on whom such order has been made shall, in addition to such penalty, pay all the costs, charges, and expenses of, and incidental to, the execution of the order.

  (6.) If the owner or occupier of any structure which the surveyor has deemed to be dangerous to the public cannot be found, or does not appear after service of notice and summons as hereinbefore provided, the Court having cognizance of the matter may make an order authorising the surveyor to cause such structure or part thereof or thing thereon or attached thereto or projecting therefrom, as aforesaid, to be forthwith taken down, removed, repaired or secured, and the costs, charges, and expenses thereof shall be paid by such owner or occupier as aforesaid.

  Providing that nothing in this section Contained shall apply to poles, standards, wires or works used for telegraphic or telephonic purposes"
  The Amendment proposed to omit the proviso.
  The noble Earl said, that if telephone companies used dangerous structures, he did not see why they should be exempted from the operation of clauses of this kind. The clause, it should be observed, only enabled a surveyor to call attention, in the first instance, to any structure which he might consider to be dangerous. Then, if the notice given on the subject was not complied with, the surveyor could apply to a Court of summary jurisdiction to make an order to have the nuisance complained of abated. The owners of telephone or telegraph wires had nothing to fear from this clause, for anything like arbitrary interference was not possible under it. But it would not be right to exempt them from provisions respecting dangerous structures, to which everyone else would be subject. He moved this Amendment with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read 3a

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE SOUTHERN APPROACH) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  COLONIAL BOUNDARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.] and
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.],
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.— [No. 200],
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.—[No. 201],
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.—[No. 202],
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—[No. 203],
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PEOVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL,
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  EXTRADITION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  NATURALISATION (RESIDENCE ABROAD) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  FIRES (FALSE ALARMS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with Amendments agreed to.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 199.)
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, for 1894–95;
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Sixty-third Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, 1894–95;
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Report of the President, for the Session 1894–95;
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1895; with Appendices;
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Reports and Papers on the Port and Riparian Sanitary Survey of England and Wales for 1893–94; with an introduction by the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board;
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Thirty-eighth Report (being for the year 1894) of the Inspector;

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  I. General Reports for 1894 by the following Chief Inspectors:

  1. (Welsh Division.) W. Williams, Esquire, with Appendices;

  2. (Eastern Division.) The Reverend F. Synge;

  3. (South-Western Division.) E. H. Brodie, Esquire;

  4. (North-Eastern Division.) W. P. Turnbull, Esquire;

  5. (North Central Division.) The Reverend C. H. Parez;

  II. (Training Colleges);
  Reports for the year 1894, by,

  1. H. E. Oakeley, Esquire, on the training colleges for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses;

  2. The Honourable Mrs. Colborne, on needlework in the training colleges for schoolmistresses;

  3. Sir John Stainer, on music in the training colleges for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses;

  Statistics relating to the training colleges for the year 1894;

  List of training colleges under inspection;

  Syllabus of subjects for the examination for certificates, 1895;

  Regulations relating to the Queen's Scholarship examination, 1895;

  III. Reports from university colleges participating in accordance with the Treasury Minute, dated 1st July, 1889, in the grant of £15,000 made by Parliament for university colleges in Great Britain (1895);
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (CAMBRIDGE SHIRE.
  Order of the Cambridge County Council, dividing the Western Division of the county into polling districts;
  ARTISANS AND LABOURERS' DWELL INGS IMPROVEMENT ACTS, 1875 TO 1882 (METROPOLIS (TRAFALGAR ROAD, GREENWICH) IMPROVE MENT SCHEME, 1883).
  Order of the Secretary of State permitting further modification of this scheme;

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Abstracts of accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ended 15th September, 1894, being the annual Report on the state of the finances of the University under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act;
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Order for going into Committee on this Bill,
  *THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Earl CADOGAN)said: Before the Motion is put to the House I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) and the House generally the position in which we find ourselves in connection with this Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that on the occasion of the Second Reading I ventured to suggest to the House that this was a Bill which embodied a principle with which we all agreed, and that it was therefore one which I hoped your Lordships would be disposed to read a second time. I think it will be absolutely necessary before long to deal with the question of the Municipal Franchise in Ireland, and I was naturally very unwilling that we should be thought to show any indisposition to deal with this most important question. I was therefore glad that the Bill should be read a second time. But now that it is proposed that the House should resolve itself into Committee to consider the details of the measure, I should wish to be allowed to remind your Lordships of the proceedings in the other House with respect to it. The Bill was referred to a Grand Committee, and although it was obvious that in many respects the Bill required amendment, the majority of the Committee absolutely declined to accept one

  219
  amending word, the result being that the Bill was reported without amendment to the House, and that there was no Report stage and no further discussion of its details. The consequence is that the Bill has come up to your Lordships' House in what I must be excused for describing as an undigested and ill-considered form. I have myself attempted, in concert with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose knowledge of these subjects is exceeded by no one, to draft some Amendments which would put this Bill into a shape which might possibly induce your Lordships to pass it, and I have reason to believe that many noble Lords behind me have made similar attempts, for notice has been given of a very large number of Amendments. But it is understood that the other House of Parliament will be prorogued to-morrow, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord how he conceives it possible that a Bill like this, involving large questions of principle, and bristling with technical points, a Bill which, in ordinary circumstances, would occupy the attention of your Lordships, for more than one and possibly for several sittings—how he conceives it possible that this Bill can be dealt with adequately in Committee, and passed through its remaining stages this afternoon. Of course, I will not offer any direct opposition to the consideration of the Bill in Committee; but I put it earnestly to the noble and learned Lord that he would be well advised if he did not urge your Lordships to proceed with this measure. I have heard it said that the Government are dealing with this Bill in a hasty manner, but there certainly has been no intention to do anything of the kind. I shall be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord that he recognises the force of the reasons which I have advanced, and that he will not ask us to go through the form of considering the Amendments to the measure when there is no possible chance of passing it in a satisfactory form, and when, in fact, it is almost certain that it cannot pass in any shape.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am afraid that I cannot respond to the appeal of the noble Earl. I cannot admit that this is a Bill bristling with technical or legal points and difficulties. I must
  220
  remind the House that the Bill has been before it a considerable time. It might have been read a second time before the political crisis, but the order was postponed for some days at the request of noble Lords opposite. I believe the noble Marquess desired that it should be postponed to a later date in order that he might be present at the discussion. The Bill, therefore, has been before us for a not inconsiderable time. The noble Earl says that he sympathises with the general purpose of this Bill. Well, one knows what will happen if the Bill is not passed this Session. Municipalities in Ireland have been waiting 20 years for this Amendment of the law, and if the Bill does not pass now as many more years may elapse before the change is effected. [Cries of "No" and "Why?"] Noble Lords who doubt that have perhaps not watched public affairs as closely as I have. How often has one seen measures near fruition, which, however, have not attained fruition until many years afterwards? If noble Lords opposite are in a majority in the next Parliament, unless they take up this measure a private Member who should bring it forward would obviously have very little chance of success. Much has been said as to the non-acceptance of Amendments in the Grand Committee, but if Amendments had been accepted this measure would never have seen the light of your Lordships' House. Its chance of coming here would have been destroyed. Considering that this is a measure upon which all are substantially agreed as far as its principle is concerned, and considering the large concessions which I am prepared to make in order to save the measure, I cannot think that there ought to be any difficulty in passing it into law, even now. The Amendments on the Paper are largely verbal Amendments which will effect no change in the framework of the Bill, and the more substantial Amendmends would no doubt be accepted by the promoters of the measure. Then why should not the Bill pass into law during the present Parliament? It might pass through your Lordships' House this afternoon, and to-morrow the Amendments inserted might be assented to in the other House. If the Bill were regarded with real goodwill, there is no doubt it could become law.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): The question before us is a practical one. The Prorogation is to be to-morrow, and the other House has now risen. If your Lordships had spent several hours, as I have, in wading through the Amendments to this Bill, you would recognise that many of them require careful examination, and are likely to cause much controversy. The House of Commons cannot receive them before to-morrow, and no House of Commons would like to embark upon the consideration of controversial Amendments without having some documents before it explaining why those Amendments had been made. If you discuss this Bill now and send it to the House of Commons to-morrow, the chances are that it will be no nearer passing. An effort has been made to throw the responsibility for the miscarriage of this Bill upon this side of the House. I entirely repudiate such responsibility. If the Standing Committee of the other House had gone through the Bill with the intention of making such Amendments as were needed, it would not have come to your Lordships' House in this crude and unfinished form. What has come to my knowledge in the few days during which I have held my present office? Two Departments of the Government have impressed upon me in the most earnest way that the Bill cannot pass without Amendments. One of these Departments is the Treasury, and the other the Post Office. It is manifest to anyone acquainted with official life that similar representations must have been made before they were made to me. How was it that these necessary amendments were kept back from the Grand Committee and the other House? One of these Amendments deals with a question involving a point of privilege. There is absolutely no machinery provided by this Bill for making certain necessary payments. The measure comes to us in such an incomplete form that if it passed unaltered it would contain no machinery providing for necessary payments, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year would have to introduce a special estimate. The Amendment that has been suggested to me on this subject is one which the persons who would be called upon to pay ought to have an opportunity of examining,
  222
  and the authorities of the other House would be entitled to scrutinise it closely and jealously before accepting it. It is easy for my noble and learned Friend to say that he will accept many of these Amendments. I have no doubt he will. He has put down, many himself, which shows that he thinks the Bill requires amending.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I put the Amendments down because I pledged myself to make the law in Ireland the same as the English law.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have myself handed in 50 or 60 Amendments which are necessary to make the Bill workable, and other noble Lords have also given notice of Amendments. Having regard to the time at our disposal I think the noble and learned Lord would be wiser to rest content with the fact that the assent of this House has been given to the principle that some alteration is necessary in the Municipal Franchise in Ireland, and to leave it to a future time to make an effort to pass a measure on the subject.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I have no opinion about the principle or merits of this Bill except the opinion that the municipal law in Ireland should be put on the same footing with the law in Scotland. But, although I have no knowledge of this Bill, I must say that after the statement of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the admissions of the noble and learned Lord opposite, I think we are in a most awkward position, and that we shall be abdicating our functions if we were to profess to make Amendments in a Bill which we know cannot be expected to pass this Session. Were we to make Amendments we should be wasting our time; and therefore if any noble Lord opposes the Motion for going into Committee I will vote with him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)put the question that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  The House divided:—Contents, 15; Not Contents, 77.
  Resolved in the negative.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived; and (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said:—This Bill, my Lords, is intended to carry out those accepted principles of factory legislation which have been adopted by Parliament, now, for a long period of years. That legislation, which has been proved by experience to be so advantageous, can claim neither Party as its principal supporter; though I admit that the credit of having originally supported legislation of that kind belongs to the Conservative Party, and is connected with the name of that eminent man, Lord Shaftesbury. Since those days, however, the Governments of both Parties have dealt with this question. Those of us who are old enough to remember the commencement of this legislation will remember how it was prophesied that ruin and evil would result from it. Those prophecies have always been proved false, and the legislation adopted at various periods has been attended with unbroken success. Therefore, it is natural that successive Governments should advance along the lines originally laid down, and I have now to offer to your Lordships a measure brought into the other House by my right hon. Friend Mr. Asquith, the late Home Secretary, which, by the consent of all, I think, was piloted by him through that House with I eminent success. The Bill does not introduce, so far as I can see, any new question of principle. It simply extends factory legislation, on the lines which, of late years at all events have been adopted, somewhat further than it has hitherto been carried. A large portion of its provisions relate to the securing of more sanitary conditions and the making of stricter regulations for the safety of the workers in factories, and the proper fencing of machinery. In these days, when we all feel so increased an interest in everything connected with sanitary legislation, and when sanitary science has progressed so much and impressed itself so strongly
  224
  on the mind of the public and Parliament, I feel confident there is no one of your Lordships who will object to make the provisions of factory and workshop legislation more stringent and more complete in respect to sanitary matters, so as to secure the safety of the workers. There is one provision connected with the question of sanitary regulations which will, I am sure, commend itself to all, and that is the imposition of a penalty for allowing wearing apparel to be made up in places where there is any infectious disease. There is another provision which prohibits children from being engaged in the cleaning of machinery in motion, extending to a certain extent the provisions of the existing law. I am quite sure that to that provision none of your Lordships will raise any objection. Then, again, there is a provision which requires that a fire escape shall be connected with factories and workshops. That, again, is a matter about which there can be no difference of opinion. Then there are provisions providing compensation for persons suffering loss of life or bodily injury through the occupier neglecting the provisions of the Factories Acts or the special regulations made under them. These provisions, your Lordships will see, have been carefully guarded so as to prevent anything that is inconsistent with perfect fairness towards those to whom they may be applied. Then we come to the question of employment, and, in regard to that, overtime for young persons is prohibited. Overtime is now prohibited for children; that prohibition is extended to young persons. I should be surprised to find there was any difference of opinion as to the excellence of that provision; while the overtime now allowed in regard to women is reduced in their case, and it is provided that where women or young persons or children have worked the full time allowed by law in a factory or workshop they shall not be allowed to take work home afterwards and do it there under the orders of their employer. There are provisions for the maintenance of a register of accidents, which, I am quite sure, all your Lordships will approve. The Bill proposes to deal with a new form of industry—namely, that connected with laundries. We had some discussion about that a year or two ago in this

  225
  House, and your Lordships hesitated to adopt to the full extent the proposals of Lord Sandhurst and others in regard to the protection of women engaged in laundries. The Bill has been in certain ways considerably altered from the form in which it was originally introduced in regard to laundries, but it does, I rejoice to think, apply to laundries of all kinds some of the most important provisions of the Factory Acts. In regard to steam laundries, it provides regulations for the fencing and protection of machinery. To that I cannot imagine anybody can object, and it is a notorious fact, which I remember a year or two ago I examined into myself, that machines employed in steam laundries are liable to produce serious accidents to the hands of women, which, by a little care can be easily avoided. But the provisions in regard to laundries are not to apply in any case where the only persons employed are of the same family that dwell in the place, nor where there are not employed more than two outsiders; and a provision has been introduced carefully guarding laundries which are established in connection with charitable institutions or with convents. That matter formed a large portion of the discussion in the other House, and I cannot but think that the provision introduced removes all reasonable objection upon that point. There could be no desire, and there was no desire, on the part of Mr. Asquith to disturb the minds in any way of those who conduct these admirable institutions, and the only difficulty was to take care that by excluding them you do not let in other people who are not carrying on laundries for really charitable purposes. I think the Bill has provided safeguards against that danger, and that it will at the same time afford perfect relief to all those who are interested in institutions of this kind from unnecessary or disturbing interference. Then, for the first time, some portions of the Factory Act are applied to docks, wharves, quays, and other places of the like description. These are the requirements for the fencing of machinery and for the notice of accidents. Then, again, nothing can be more reasonable. Wherever machinery is employed it is desirable and right that care should be taken that it should be properly fenced. Then the Bill deals
  226
  with bakehouses. At present the law regulating bakehouses applies, at all events in its main provisions, only to towns in which there are upwards of 5,000 inhabitants. It is difficult to see why that distinction should be made. I believe that the existing law has worked I well in those cases to which it has been applied, and I think the measure is right in proposing that it should be extended to bakehouses of all kinds. Then there are rules relating to dangerous employments and extending the power of the Secretary of State for making regulations with respect to them. There are provisions requiring medical practitioners to send notice to the Chief Inspector of Factories in any case to which disease appears to have arisen from the conditions of employment in certain industries. There is also a clause which will be extremely acceptable to the workers in textile factories. Under a recent Bill relating only to the cotton trade, a right was given to the pieceworkers to have supplied to them with their work such particulars as would enable them to ascertain the rate of wages, and that is now extended to all persons employed on textile fabrics. Workshops are to be registered and lists of out-workers are to be furnished by those who employ them to Her Majesty's Inspector of Factories. These are the principal provisions of the Bill which I desire to submit to your Lordships. It does not introduce any novel principles. It only extends and applies more widely, and I think more efficiently, the principles that have already been adopted in legislation of this kind. The measure, as your Lordships are aware, was carefully considered at great length by the Standing Committee on Trade of the other House, and was reported to the House in the shape in which it now stands. It was received there, I think I may say, with general approval, and the Leader of the House, the First Lord of the Treasury of the present Government, I think I might fairly say, gave it his blessing as it passed through that House. At all events, he took no exception to its speedy progress in the hope that it might become law in the present Session. Of course, I am perfectly aware that in asking your Lordships to pass this Bill in the way in which it is necessary for it to be

  227
  passed, if it is to become law before the Dissolution on Monday, I am making a large demand upon your Lordships, but the measure is one of so much importance to so many people engaged in industry, it has received such careful consideration in the other House, it comes up to this House under such peculiar circumstances, and, as I hope, with such general favour, that I trust your Lordships will allow it to pass now, so that the work which has been given to it may not be wasted, and, what is more important, that those who will benefit by it may be brought under its advantages without delay. Of course, I am entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot force this Bill through at all without their consent, but I have every reason to hope, from what has passed in another place, that that consent will not be withheld, and that this valuable measure may be written during the present Parliament upon the Statue Book of this country. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): This Bill belongs to a class of measures which has always been received with great favour in this House, and has certainly not been ever regarded otherwise than with satisfaction by those who sit on the side where I am now standing. I believe that, on the whole, the principle of factory legislation which was first initiated by Lord Shaftesbury, and carried against a great weight of prejudice at that time, have proved enormously beneficial to the country. Naturally, therefore, one would wish to apply them wherever it seemed reasonable they could be applied with success. I feel, as a matter, perhaps, of logical punctilio, impelled to demur a little to my noble Friend's argument, that because apprehensions expressed in the past were not justified, therefore no apprehension ought to be felt in the future.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I do not think I said that.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I think that is rather a violent argument to make. It is a very common one, but it hardly rests upon any strong logical basis. However, I quite agree with him that our experience of the Factory Acts is such as to make it desirable to extend their principles as far as we can do it with success. I have nothing to say
  228
  against this Bill except to express some slight apprehension with respect to the provisions as regards laundries. When the subject was here before your Lordships took a decided view upon that point; and I believe the scruples then expressed in this House have had their effect, and the legislation that has been offered to us has been considerably modified. I see that Mr. Morley makes great fun of this House because it is suggested we might pass this Bill hastily, without subjecting it to all the examination which we think it is the duty of this House to apply to it. But I would entreat him to observe that the functions of a House of this kind are twofold. It is not only that we stop bad Bills when they are here, but the knowledge that we shall stop them has a great effect upon the form which they assume in another place. And whether from that motive or from another, this Bill differs very largely from the form in which it was introduced into the other House of Parliament. It has been considerably modified, and some most serious objections to it have been removed. I still have some apprehension that it may bear hardly upon the poorer laundries, upon the poorer forms of industry; that the tendency of all these provisions, with their extreme precautions and minute legislation, is to destroy the work of the smaller industries, and to force all industry into the hands of the capitalists. That is the tendency of the present day, but it is not one to look upon with complacency, and I should be sorry if our legislation had the effect of accelerating its action. But, still, what we have to consider is really a practical alternative; and I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be a great misfortune if this Bill were not allowed to be placed on the Statute Book. It is possible it may turn out that some of its provisions dealing with the smaller laundries will require to be modified in some future Session. It will always remain open to us to listen to the complaints that may be made to us, and to apply a suitable remedy; but it would not be fair considering the large and varied interests which the Bill embraces to deprive of its advantages all those whom it would otherwise affect. On the whole, therefore, without in the least pledging myself to agree in all the details of the

  229
  measure, especially in the matter of laundries, I think I may, on behalf of the Government, assure the noble Marquess that we shall give him heartily that co-operation he seeks, and we earnestly desire that the Bill may become law during the present Session.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)said, the noble Marquess opposite had made a reference to the late Lord Shaftesbury, and also a reference to himself. As the Minister responsible for what was now the principal Act which regulated factories and workshops, he could only say that this Act had stood the test of 20 years, and had been the charter of all workmen in factories and workshops up to the present time. During those 20 years of experience it had been found that a good many matters had not been dealt with at the time which might safely and fairly be dealt with now. Experience had proved that many of the dangers which were foreshadowed at the time of the passing of the Act had not been realised, and that a great deal had been done for the workers in factories and workshops which had largely promoted the health and the comfort of the working classes. He was glad to see the Bill now before their Lordships extending, as it did, the provisions of the former Act, and he believed that it extended those provisions safely and not otherwise. The noble Marquess said that the present Bill proceeded on the same lines as the existing Act. He was thankful for that, because there were certain contingencies which might have rendered legislation very dangerous; but this measure confined the legislation to women, young persons, and children, and did not extend it to the adult labour of men. He therefore gladly welcomed this Bill, which was an improvement on the existing Act, and he was obliged to the late Government for bringing this question forward.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I am glad that my noble Friend at the head of the Government has seen his way to allow this Bill to pass without alteration. I do not rise, however, for the purpose of offering any observations to the House either on the principle or on the details of this measure. As regards the principle, it is not different from the other Factory Acts which have been passed
  230
  during former years. I have myself always been a strenuous supporter of the principle of those Acts. I have defended them not merely as a politician and as a Member of Parliament, but in argument, as perfectly consistent, in my opinion, with every true view of political economy. But I am anxious to say a few words on the passing of this Bill in the present circumstances as a good text on which to speak with reference to the spirit, temper, moderation, and wisdom with which this House habitually exercises its great functions in the constitution of the country. This is rather a strong measure to pass in one night. It is a Bill which undoubtedly affects the liberty of a great many persons, containing more than 50 clauses, and we are passing it on the faith of others, except so far as we have been able to read the Bill during the few hours it has been in our possession. Therefore, it is rather a strong measure to ask this House to pass a Bill of that kind, no doubt involving some difficulties of important details, without one word of Amendment, simply in consideration of the interests of those for whom it is intended. I agree with my noble Friend when he said that the Bill belongs to a class of legislation which has always been received with favour by your Lordships. I am sorry that Lord Rosebery is not present here to-night. It seems to me that he never is present when this House is doing useful work. He never appears except for a Party division or a Party Debate. I think that during the many years I have been in the House and have been sitting with the noble Lord, I have seldom seen him except on the occasions to which I refer; and yet outside this House, upon every platform and at every dinner party he can attend, he is inveighing against the conduct of this House in the discharge of its public functions. ["Hear, hear!"] I regret Lord Rosebery's absence therefore, and I shall not now say a good many things which I should have said had he been present. It seems to me, however, that it is not our fault he is absent; and I think this is an occasion on which we can direct the attention of the public to the spirit in which we do exercise our functions. I ask the attention of the late Lord Chancellor, because he is one of the few Members of this House

  231
  who have taken up the accusations made against this House by Lord Rosebery, and he has hinted, at least, if not openly spoken them in this House. It is not many nights ago since another Bill was before us, on which I voted against the noble and learned Lord. I am bound to confess that I voted against him, although I had previously, as a Member of a former Administration, voted for a measure of the same principle I now opposed. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that this House never accepted any measure which came from a certain Party, namely, his own. What does the noble Lord say to our acceptance of this Bill to-night? Is not that an instance of our accepting a Bill which comes from another Party where we consider it consistent with the public interest that we should do so? I think it is. It is not only with regard to this Bill, but with regard to the whole subject of social legislation as distinguished from what I call socialistic legislation that I wish to direct public attention to the continuous action and feeling of this House. My noble Friend the noble Marquess did not overstate the case when he said that Bills of this class, connected with factory legislation, have been always favourably received in this House. In the accusations which are made against the House of Lords by Lord Rosebery and others—I am sorry to say others of still higher authority—it is always claimed that the great reforms of the last half century have been due to what they are pleased to call the Liberal Party. It so happens that I have never been officially connected with the Conservative Party at all. I have never held office along with them or under them. I have always held office and have acted with the Liberal Party until the Irish question arose, which divided us; but I am bound to say that I have often been ashamed at the extravagant pretensions which have been made on behalf of the Liberal Party by electioneering politicians. I cannot bear to hear the truth perverted even in the interest of my own Party; and I must say this, looking to the course of the last 50 years, that many of the most beneficial measures which have ever been passed through Parliament for the benefit especially of the poorer working classes
  232
  of this country have been mainly at the instance of the Conservatives. Lord Shaftesbury never was a member of the Liberal Party in the technical sense of that word. He was a Liberal of Liberals, in my opinion, in the character of his mind and in the earnest disposition which he had to benefit the poorer classes of the country. No man ever made greater public sacrifices than he did for them, but he was never a member of the Liberal Party technically so-called; he was always a Conservative. And so it is with many other measures. The noble Viscount who spoke last was himself the author of an important addition to the Factory Acts; that did not belong to the Liberal Party; it belonged to the Conservative Party. Then, on what ground is this claim made which I see put forward on high authority, that all the important improvements for this country have been made by the Liberal Party? It is absolutely untrue in historical fact. I should say that the whole subject of social legislation has not only been as favourably received in this House, but more favourably received than in the House of Commons. Lord Shaftesbury, during many years, met with strong opposition in the House of Commons. The Factory Acts were opposed tooth and nail in that House; they never were opposed in this House. They passed without difficulty and without objection; therefore, I say it is a monstrous claim on the part of those who now assume and arrogate to themselves the exclusive name of Liberals to pretend that social legislation of this kind has been due entirely or mainly to them. I think it is also entirely untrue to assert, as they have done, that this House never discusses measures on their merits, but always with reference to their Party origin. I hold, on the contrary, that the "cross-bench" element—to use an expression of the late Earl Granville—"the cross-bench mind" in this House is more powerful than the House of Commons, and we discuss measures on their merits more purely and more sincerely than the other House of Parliament. That is the reason why all those measures have been passed through with such facility, and why, on this particular occasion, we are sacrificing what is, undoubtedly, our only function, of reviewing closely the details of a measure of

  233
  this kind, in order to see whether, in doing justice to the many, it may not be doing injustice to the few; and, in sacrificing our duty for the purpose of the public interest, we are following the usual course of this House in the discharge of its great functions in the State. It is true that this House is generally opposed to changes of a particular character. It is generally opposed to what are called organic changes in the Constitution, and in my opinion it ought to be so. We must remember that in this country we have no written Constitution. It is becoming a serious danger, and it has often seemed to me more than possible that we should have to resort to a single vote of the House of Commons. Perhaps a snap Division, weakly assented to by the majority in this House, might demolish the balance of the British Constitution; and that is the condition of things which noble Lords opposite wish to see. I am not going to argue now on what, by a hideous vulgar Gallicism, is called the question "of the two Chambers." We have the good old English phrase "two Houses," which our children across the Atlantic use also. I have said that this House is indisposed to great organic changes except when carried by the obvious assent and general opinion of the people; and I cannot help observing on the extraordinary fiction which has been promulgated by Lord Rosebery on this question. Lord Rosebery always refers to what he calls the history of the three Reform Bills, and there never was a grosser misstatement of historical fact. Lord Rosebery made three speeches in Scotland, each one contradicting the others, and the middle one was immediately attacked and sneered at by one of his own colleagues, and even Mr. Asquith. The noble Earl is the most ill-used man by his own people I have, ever known. But the history which he gave to the three Reform Bills was to prove that the House of Lords never approved of measures on their own merits, but according to their origin. Lord Rosebery says that the first Reform Bill was passed by the House of Lords because they were overborne by an immense rush of public feeling. But the House of Commons was equally overborne by the feeling of the country; and there were only a few months between the assent of one House and the other. For half a
  234
  century—against the clearest evidence and arguments for the necessity of Parliamentary reform—the House of Commons through many Administrations refused to grant reform. Something like 200 seats among themselves were at stake, so that they had an interest in resistance. At last they were obliged to give way, and so were the House of Lords. We acted under the same pressure as the House of Commons, and in that respect there was no difference between us. Then Lord Rosebery says that we assented to the second Reform Bill because it was pressed by the Tories. That is a total misrepresentation of the case. I was a Member of one of the Administrations which brought forward Reform Bills, and which were generally resisted by the Tories. At last Mr. Disraeli decided that the fort of Toryism could not be held any longer, and he brought in a Reform Bill. Why was it accepted by the House of Lords? It was obvious that when the Conservative Party gave way resistance could not be maintained; and that must always be the action of this House. We act in connection with our Party in the House of Commons, and when our Party has found long-continued resistance to be further impossible, of course we give way also; because then it is absolutely proved that the opinion of the country has been decided. With reference to the third Reform Bill, I voted with the Government, though I was out of Office. But it is absolutely untrue to say that the House of Lords in that case resisted reform as reform. They merely insisted that it should include redistribution of seats as well as alteration of the franchise. Lord Rosebery has absolutely and grossly misrepresented the position. The Conservative Party in this House on that occasion triumphed. They not only acted on their opinion about the necessity of coupling these two branches of reform, but they were successful. And, as I happen to know, Mr. Gladstone saw the duty, at a large sacrifice of personal feeling, of agreeing to join the two measures. These three Reform Bills do not at all tell in favour of Lord Rosebery's contention. I am sorry to feel obliged, as a public duty, to enter upon a matter, which is certainly contentious, on the Second Reading of a Bill which in itself is not contentious. But it is a mere farce for

  235
  us to go on talking mere civilities across the Table of this House when a great constitutional contest is raging round us out of doors. When we have a favourable opportunity of defending ourselves, and of showing what has been the true action of this House on great public questions, it is wise that we should take the opportunity. Because, although we may treat with contempt the attacks on this House, which are now made by what I call the rump of the Liberal Party, yet still there are a large number of voters in this country who are as ignorant of history as those who address them are unscrupulous in misrepresenting the facts. I heartily rejoice in the passing of this measure, although I do think that it is a measure which, under all ordinary circumstances, ought to have been received by us in time to enable us to go over all the details, so as to see that while doing a great work of humanity it was not injuring or doing injustice to any one.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The student of the procceedings of this House will be a little astonished at the course which this discussion has taken. He will wonder that in any Legislative Chamber, during the discussion on the Second Heading of a Factory Bill, it should have been thought an appropriate time for—and that the Rules of the House should have permitted—a speech which had nothing to do with the Factory Bill, but which was entirely devoted to an electioneering manifesto on the subject of the House of Lords. I should not have followed the noble Duke's example but for the personal allusions which he has made to the noble Earl at the head of the late Government and to myself. As, under those circumstances, silence might be misinterpreted, I will trouble your Lordships with a few observations. The noble Duke said that Lord Rosebery was never present when useful work was being done here. Does he think that this is one of those occasions? The useful work that is now being done is passing a number of Bills through the House, or rejecting them, with the statement that it is too late to discuss them. Surely that is work which might be done in the absence of anybody. But when the noble Duke says that Lord Rosebery is never here when useful work is being done, he
  236
  makes one of the bitterest attacks on your Lordships' House; because Lord Rosebery has been here constantly during the last year whenever the House has been sitting, except when he was away on account of illness. Therefore, the statement proves that this House has not been doing any useful work during the last year. The noble Duke says that I have joined with my noble Friend in making attacks on this House. As far as criticism goes on its proceedings in certain particulars, I plead guilty to the charge; and in spite of all the noble Duke has said, I shall repeat the offence on every possible occasion. He says that the time is past for bandying civilities across the House. The noble Duke cannot lay that sin very much to his charge; but, however much we differ politically, we may, I hope, treat each other civilly. This is not the occasion to enter upon the great subject of the functions of this House, and the manner in which they are discharged; but I confess that my historical memory does not run on the same lines as the noble Duke's. I do not agree to the accuracy of the history he put before your Lordships. But he says that I have alleged that this House will pass a measure when introduced by a Conservative Government and will reject the same measure introduced by a Liberal Government. I have said that. I repeat it; I believe it; and I can prove it. The noble Duke confessed the whole charge in the words with which he began his speech. Alluding to this Bill, he said, "I am glad the noble Marquess has seen his way to allow it to pass." Yes, those measures pass which the noble Marquess sees his way to allow to pass; but any others have no chance. That is the point on which we have insisted, and I am glad to find it supported by the noble Duke. The noble Duke says that this House has shown to-night how ready it is to pass this Factory Bill. No doubt it is; but there may be some who have the suspicion that the great interest which large classes of voters take in this Bill is one reason why it has been allowed to pass so readily. We are on the eve of a General Election, and it would never have done to prevent the Bill from passing.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Has not that fact contributed to Mr. Asquith's attitude also?
  LORD HERSCHELL: That is not the question. When the noble Duke holds this forward as an evidence of the calmness, consistency, and propriety of this House in dealing with measures, I say that there may be other reasons for their conduct in this case. We have had another experience this afternoon. We have had another Bill not so successful in its passage. The noble Marquess did not see his way to allow it to pass. I cannot help having a suspicion—and I am afraid that I shall always retain it—that if it had been a Bill dealing with English municipalities, in which great English municipalities were interested, it would have received much more friendly treatment. But the Bill dealt with Irish municipalities in a way which we know is not particularly agreeable to those who have long had the ascendency in Ireland, and who are entirely the supporters of the Government. I am not going further into that question, but I am perfectly satisfied myself that the House could perfectly well, if it had pleased, have taken as benevolent a view of that Bill as of this and have enabled it to pass into law. I have had experience of this before. I have brought before this House a Bill word for word the same as a Bill introduced by the noble Marquess—copied from it, in fact. And my experience was, that the noble Marquess led into the Lobby against the Bill a multitude of noble Lords who defeated it. That is one of my reasons for saying—and I shall continue to say it—that what this House does depends largely on who introduces the measures and not on the merits of the measures themselves. This is an irregular discussion altogether. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, the noble Marquess says, "Hear, hear," but when the noble Duke, who is a supporter and an ally of the noble Marquess, makes charges across the table of this House in which he personally refers to me and to the noble Earl under whom I recently served, I should not be worthy of being a Member of this House if I did not get up and say something in answer.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: The observations of the noble and learned Lord
  238
  have been of an extremely combative and aggressive character, and I cannot entirely pass what he has said without some remark. In the first place, he was pleased to say that Bills were passed because I had introduced them, while Bills were not passed when they were introduced by others. I should rather wish a different interpretation to be put upon the fact to that he has put. It was not because the House preferred the Bills I introduced, but because they exercised a very wise and properly-founded distrust of the Bills introduced by the noble and learned Lord; and, knowing the enterprises with which the noble and learned Lord is associated and the sympathies which he has frequently displayed, I am not at all surprised that when he selects a couple of clauses out of a Bill of ours, and introduces them without any of the surroundings and accompaniments which they formerly possessed, the Members of this House should have looked upon the proceeding with some misgiving and should have preferred to adjourn the consideration of the question. I wish to make another remark with respect to the Irish Bill we dealt with earlier in the evening, and as to which the noble and learned Lord made some remarks. He said if that had been a Bill concerning English municipalities it never would have been treated as it has been in this House. My remark is that if it had been a Bill concerning English municipalities it never would have been treated as it has been in the House of Commons. The Bill was sent to a Standing Committee, and instead of being examined there for the purpose of amending it, instead of being subjected to that investigation for which a Standing Committee was set up, a stalwart stone wall majority passed every word of it in spite of every protest or any Amendment, merely in order to serve the purposes of faction by which it was introduced. My Lords, that, if I may use an equity phrase, was a fraud upon Parliamentary procedure. It was the most monstrous thing that has been done in my time with respect to Parliamentary action. I confess I am not surprised at, in fact I heartily join in, the suspicion of a Bill which was introduced into the House under such auspices, and I think it is quite right that a Bill stamped with that

  239
  stigma and contaminated with that disgrace should not pass by the sanction of this House on to the Statute Book. With respect to the Bill now before the House I have nothing further to say. I believe the extremely aggressive and combative language which the noble and learned Lord has introduced into the discussion is wholly alien and unsuitable to the philanthropic and very estimable operation of the Bill. It is a Bill which is only a party Bill in this sense—that the principle of it has generally been initiated and supported by the Conservative Party. On this occasion the Liberal Party has had the honour of contributing to the same great work. I am sorry we should have fallen foul of each other over a matter on which we might have joined together, but I hope that, in spite of the evil and inauspicious auguries by which this law has been brought into existence, it will yet fulfil the philanthropic aims which I am convinced both parties wish it to fulfil.
  LORD HERSCHELL: As the noble Marquess accuses me of introducing a combative element, I must say a word or two. He condemns me for introducing a combative element into this Debate. He seems to be oblivious of the fact that the noble Duke had spoken before me. Not a word of reproach for him for introducing a combative element. But then the noble Duke is one of the noble Marquess's supporters, and I have the misfortune to be one of his opponents. The noble Marquess said this House views with distrust any measure I present, and that that is the reason why, in spite of any explanation, he rejects it. I think it hardly to the credit of this House that it can carry personal distrust to such lengths as that. They might distrust the thing until they knew what it was; but when they knew what it was and that I was only presenting something to the House which the noble Marquess had presented before, surely the House should have had sufficient resolution to get over their distrust and to deal with the work on its merits. The noble Marquess has said I took two clauses out of a Bill previously before the House, and presented them shorn of that which accompanied them before. It is quite true, but the other clauses I put in another Bill, and that other Bill had passed this House
  240
  at the time these two clauses came before us.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: They had not passed the Commons.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is true they had not passed the House of Commons, but I do not see that is a reason for rejecting the Bill in the House of Lords. As the noble Marquess has revived the question which was before your Lordships previously, I feel obliged to say a word. I do not admit that the Bill came here with any stigma. It is quite true no Amendments were made in the Standing Committee. As far as I can judge, I think none of the Amendments proposed ought to have been made. It has been discovered here that perhaps some other Amendments might have been expedient. I do not understand the suggestion that when a Bill goes to a Standing Committee the Standing Committee ought to amend it whether they agree with the Amendments or not. But it was within the province of the other House to deal with the Bill as it thought fit when it came before the House on the Third Reading. A Motion was made to recommit the Bill, but the House by a majority of 62 refused to recommit the Bill; it thought it in a fit condition to be sent to your Lordships' House. That was not, and could not be, a mere Party majority. To speak of a Bill, the Third Reading of which was passed by a majority of 62, as a Bill coming to this House with a stigma upon it, seems not very respectful to the other House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) has repeated what I have previously described as the romance of history about the Bills to which he has referred, and as this appears to be a sort of electioneering cry about this House, I think I had better state the facts. My noble and learned Friend is entirely mistaken. He says the House passed the Bill that the noble Marquess and I were responsible for. As a matter of fact, that Bill was rejected, and that is one of the things the noble Lord invariably omits to mention.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My noble and learned Friend is historically inaccurate. A Bill exactly in the form in which I introduced it was read a second time in this House. At a later stage

  241
  of the Bill tan Amendment was moved upon one of the clauses, and that Amendment was carried by a majority of seven. That Amendment was not an Amendment directly bearing upon the clauses which I afterwards introduced as a separate Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said the Bill was rejected.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The particular Amendment was carried. The Bill was not rejected in this House at all; it was abandoned, not rejected.
  Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON moved: "That the Bill be read a Third Time."
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that, inasmuch as the discussion upon the Second Reading of the Bill had taken so unexpected a turn, he hoped that he should be permitted to say a few words in reference to the measure upon the Motion for its Third Reading. He should like to express the great satisfaction with which all those who had watched the course of this class of legislation viewed the action of that House in passing this Bill rapidly through all its stages. He had had the honour of serving upon the Select Committee of that House which had investigated the question of sweating, and which had examined the whole subject with great care, and the effect upon the minds of those who formed the Committee was, that this kind of legislation ought to be pressed forward in the interests of humanity, and therefore he was glad that this measure, after having undergone many changes during its passage through the other House of Parliament, had at length reached the stage of Third Reading in their Lordships' House. It was the fact that all true progress in the country had been marked by care for those who could not care for themselves, and by a determination that
  242
  they should not be exposed to temptation or to pressure which they were unable to resist. There had, undoubtedly, been a great change of opinion on this subject throughout the country since the time when Lord Shaftesbury incurred so much odium in bringing forward legislation of this kind which had conferred such a great benefit upon the working classes of the community. It would, of course, have been far more satisfactory if they could have examined the provisions of the measure point by point, but there was not time to do that on that occasion, and therefore they must accept the measure as it stood, at all events for the present. They had the satisfaction of knowing that the provisions of the measure had been the subject of considerable discussion in the other House of Parliament, and they could not help feeling that those provisions were in a large degree adapted to the exigencies of the situation, but that the measure was upon the whole a good one. There were, however, certain points, such, for instance, as the provisions which related to laundries, which would have to receive further attention in the future. It was clear that the whole subject-matter of the Bill would have to be reconsidered at no very distant date, because factory legislation had got into such a condition that it would have to be consolidated. In the meantime, however, it would be satisfactory to all humane and Christian persons that a great step in the right direction had been taken by the passing of this Bill.
  Bill react 3a, and Passed.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  *LORD PLAYFAIR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he hoped that the House would consent to allow the Bill to pass through all its remaining stages that evening. There was a difference between the law of England

  243
  and that of Scotland in relation to inquiries into cases of accidental death. In England the inquiry was an open one, which was held before a coroner and a jury, but in Scotland the inquiry was quite private. This Bill had been fully considered by the Grand Committee for Scotland in another place, and he therefore trusted that the House would facilitate the passing of the measure into law.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he entirely agreed in the remarks of the noble Lord opposite in reference to this measure, which he hoped their Lordships would allow to pass through all its stages that evening. The Bill had passed through the Standing Committee of the other House of Parliament, and had been very carefully considered, and its main principles had been passed with general consent. He agreed that the measure was a step in the right direction, because it was desirable that the system now in force in Scotland that inquiries into accidents of the character dealt with by the Bill should no longer be conducted in secret. He was not going to discuss the relative advantages or disadvantages of the English and Scotch systems, because doubtless there was a great deal to be said on both sides. It had been said in favour of the Scotch system that it had the advantage of saving the feelings of the relatives of the deceased persons, and there was no reason to doubt that hitherto such inquiries had been satisfactorily conducted; but during the last few years, in a certain class of cases, suspicions had arisen in the minds of some people, and they desired that a jury should be associated with the officer who made the inquiries. He was bound to say that the Bill was not in all respects in the form that he should have liked to have seen given to it, but he thought, in the circumstances, that it was desirable that it should pass as it now stood. He did not think that there was any ground for the objection that had been raised to the measure on the
  244
  ground that it would involve a large additional expense, because he believed that the result of the inquiries would frequently be to save the relatives the cost of bringing actions which were not well founded. He hoped that their Lordships would permit the Bill to be read a Second Time.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith: Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived.
  On the Motion that the Bill be read a Third Time,
  LORD STANMOREsaid, that one of the objections that was entertained in Scotland to the Bill was that it made inquiries into the cause of death in the cases dealt with absolutely necessary, whether foul play were suspected or not, whereas in cases where there was no suspicion of foul play a coroner in this country was not bound to hold an inquest. On point of principle he wished to know why the provisions of the Bill did not apply to all cases of accidental death.
  Bill read 3a, and Passed.

  THE NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  THE PRIME MINISTERformally moved the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill.
  *EARL SPENCERsaid, that he had no desire to enter at any length upon the questions involved by this measure, but, as he had been responsible for its introduction during the period when he had the honour of holding the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, he should like to make a few observations with regard to it. During the time he held that office the then Government had found it necessary to undertake a considerable expenditure for the purpose of placing the Navy upon a proper basis, and they

  245
  believed that nothing could more greatly conduce to the efficiency of that branch of our defence than the execution of necessary works which had not been properly carried out for many years. In the first place we required larger docks and deeper closed harbours for our new ships of war in order that they might be protected from torpedo attack, to which they would be liable in the old open roadsteads. The late Government, therefore, had determined to improve the harbours at Portland, Portsmouth, and Devonport at home, and to create a harbour at Dover. Their Lordships would all agree that Gibraltar was one of the most important stations of Her Majesty's Navy, and that it was essential that its harbour accommodation should be increased, and that the harbour itself should be closed, and that proper dock accommodation should be provided. The noble Marquess opposite had pressed him some year or two ago on the subject, and he then explained that he had already conceived the intention of taking the course which the Bill now sought to carry out. The Bill also gave power to improve the harbour at Hong Kong, which would in all probability become of even more importance than it was now, in the course of a few years. It gave him the greatest satisfaction to find that Her Majesty's present Government had taken up this Bill with every prospect that it would become law this Session.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid, that he entirely concurred in the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord opposite with regard to this Bill, but he could not help feeling that in such a matter, although speech might be silver, silence was golden. It was not necessary to do more than what had been done by the noble Lord in introducing the measure. It was hardly a subject much suited for Parliamentary discussion.
  Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived; and (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and Passed.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved that this Bill be read a second time. It was a Bill which had passed through the other House with, he believed, general assent, and it would benefit the poorer classes of Her Majesty's subjects. He explained the provisions of the Bill, and pointed out that it would have a very useful effect.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he heartily approved of this Bill, which was to some extent a Consolidation Bill. It improved the procedure, and would, he thought, make it more easy than it was at present to protect the wife who was ill-treated by her husband.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith: Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and Passed.

  CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT (1883 AMEND MENT BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved that this Bill be read a second time. It had been agreed to by the other House, and he thought it was the unanimous desire to provide some kind of barrier against a practice, which was alleged to be increasing, of obtaining the suffrages of a particular constituency by slanderous statements made in respect of the candidates. Legislation on this subject had been greatly wanted, and the Bill had been almost unanimously accepted. He thought, perhaps, the criticisms made upon the Bill would be rather that it was too weak than that it was too strong. The Bill was not too strong in the direction in which it went, and had received the general assent of both sides of the House which was principally interested in dealing with election matters.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, of course it was impossible to do anything but accept or reject the Bill. He sympathised with its objects, but he did not feel altogether sure that the wording of the first clause might not include erroneous statements with regard to political conduct, which nobody would wish to include.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not pledge himself to an approval of the exact drafting of the Bill. He was not prepared to say that he altogether disagreed with his noble and learned Friend, but the effect of amending the Bill now in any form would be to kill it.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith; Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and Passed.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  *LORD PLAYFAIR*LORD PLAYFAIR moved that this Bill be read a second time. It was a Bill to carry out the unanimous recommendations of the Committee appointed in 1888, which reported in 1890. It was merely to enable assessments to be made upon the large houses or improvements that might be erected on a lease having less than 21 years to run. At the present moment that could not be done in Scotland. It did not apply to agricultural nor, except in rare cases, to mineral leases.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith; Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and Passed.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOT LAND) BILL [H.L.]
  *LORD PLAYFAIR*LORD PLAYFAIR moved that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be considered. The few Amendments which had been made in the other House were almost all drafting Amendments.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that as this was a Bill which had attracted a certain amount of attention, the House would desire that he should state what Amendments had been made by the other House. The first were those which were privileged Amendments; there having been a clause in this Bill placing a burden on public funds, certain words were struck out by the House, and these words had now been re-inserted by the other House in exactly the same form. The other two Amendments which had been made were upon Clause 10, which was that clause giving power to the Secretary for Scotland to frame bylaws for enclosing certain parts of the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland against trawling. The wording of the clause was now negative instead of positive, as it was thought in the other House that the drafting of the proviso was open to objection. There was no change made in the sense or effect of the clause, but he thought the Amendment did make it more certain that the Secretary for Scotland should not close the sea trawling unless other nations had accepted the same limitation in regard to their own ships. There was only one other Amendment, which provided that the bylaw could not be confirmed till the Secretary for Scotland should have directed a local inquiry at which all persons interested might be heard. In addition to this, it was specially enacted that notice should be sent to all sea fisheries in England. This was a reasonable provision, and added to the protection already afforded by the clause that no injustice should be done to material interests. He hoped that the Amendments, being so slight in their nature, but still adding to the protection already afforded by the Bill, would be accepted by their Lordships without difficulty.
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order) and agreed to.
  House adjourned at Half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.