Sitting of 13 May 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read 1°:—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 5) BILL.
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the counties of Chester, Derby, East Sussex, Hereford, Kent, Northampton, Salop, Southampton, Stafford, Warwick, West Sussex, and Worcester.—[Bill No. 237.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 6) BILL.
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bangor, Chorley, Derby, Hyde, Kingston-upon-Hull Skipton, and Southport.—[Bill No. 238.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 7) BILL.
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bradford (Yorks), Bristol, Leigh, and Llandyssul.—[Bill No. 239.]
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Copy presented,—of Report of the Chief Inspector for the year 1894 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (HYDROGRAPIIER'S REPORT.
Copy presented,—of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1894 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 263.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 263.]
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill No. 241.]

THE BEER DUTY.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERgave notice that on the Second Reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill he would move an Amendment declaring that, in the opinion of that House, the beer duty should be readjusted with a view to the removal of taxation on home-grown barley and hops, and that an import duty should be imposed on foreign barley and hops.
QUESTIONAS.

  KEW GARDENS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the extension of the Temperate House at the Royal Gardens, Kew, recently sanctioned, will be commenced; and, whether the delay has been caused by the Office of Works, or by the authorities at the Gardens?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): Preparations for the extension of the Temperate House at Kew Gardens are being made with all possible dispatch, and tenders will be invited almost immediately, so that the work will probably be ready to be put in hand about the beginning of June. There has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Office of Works, and nothing but the most harmonious co-operation on that of the Director of Kew Gardens.

  BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ON THE NILE.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have received any further information as to the existence and present position of the French expeditionary force which was
  1030
  rumoured to be approaching the neighbourhood of the British sphere of influence on the Nile?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OP STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): We have not received any further information tending to show that any French force has entered the country in question.

  EXPEDITIONS IN UNYORO AND ON THE NILE.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the fortified posts established by Colonel Colville and Major Owen, on the occasion of their recent expeditions in Unyoro and on the Nile, have been abandoned; if not, will he state the exact position of those which are still retained, and the garrisons left in each, and whether they are under English or native commanders; and if he can state whether any of the forts established by Captain Lugard, and afterwards abandoned by order of the Government, have now been re-occupied?
  SIR E. GREY: The posts in question have not been abandoned, except Wadelai, where no new fort was made, and where there were only some locally enlisted troops, who were afterwards disbanded. The posts are at Kachumas, to the south of the Kafu river; Baranwa, on the Kafu; Hoima, near Kabarega's old capital; Kitanwa, near the Albert Lake; Kibiro and Mahaje Kahir, on the Albert Lake. They were, at the date of our latest information, held by 400 men, and were under the direct superintendence of British officers. It has been found necessary to re-establish two posts for the security of Uganda in the country where the forts of Captain Lugard mentioned in the last part of the question were placed. These are in Usungara and Toru.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked whether it was not the fact that the British flag has been hoisted at Wadelai?
  SIR E. GREY:I think the whole account of that was given about a year ago, when Major Owen went to Wadelai.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Are we to understand that any of these forts are considered by

  1031
  the Government as being outside the Uganda Protectorate, and within Unyoro Territory?
  SIR E. GREY: Yes; most of the forts are outside Uganda Protectorate.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Then I should like to ask the hon. Member a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether, after the expedition "with the object of breaking Kabarega's power," reported by Colonel Colville July 15, 1894, Lord Kimberley replied, 23rd November—
  "You should "be careful to keep your action within the limits of such measures as may be necessary … in order to provide for the defence and security of the Protectorate;"
  whether, after the letter of November 1894, reported by Captain Thruston to Colonel Colville, as sent by the former to Kabarega, making "the first condition … "that you should become an obedient British subject," the Foreign Office, 6th April of the present year, observed—
  "No such condition of peace should be insisted on. Unyoro is outside the limits of the British Protectorate, and neither the chief himself, nor any of his subjects, can be considered as under the protection, still less as the subjects, of Her Majesty;"
  and whether, having regard to further recent operations against Kabarega, in which it is reported that the Acting Commissioner of Uganda has been killed, the Foreign Office will insist that their cautions thus given should be fully acted on?
  SIR E. GREY: The forts are outside the Uganda Protectorate. There does not seem to be any necessity for repeating instructions sent as lately as April 6 of the present year, and in view of the fact that the latest information received states that Kabarega had raided two provinces of Uganda, no instructions to withdraw from the forts could be sent without endangering the safety o Uganda itself. Captain Dunning, the only officer who is reported to have died of a wound, was not the Acting Commissioner of Uganda, and we have no news of any other British officer being injured.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: What are the provinces that have been raided by Kabarega?
  SIR E. GREY: We must wait for the despatches before we can give details, The telegram only said "two provinces."

  LICHFIELD RACES.
  LORD STANLEYS.E., Vesthoughton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that he has refused permission (hitherto annually granted) for the Lichfield races to be held on War Office lands; and, if so, for what reason?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BAXNERMAN,): From a military point of dew it was considered undesirable to hold a race meeting so close to barracks occupied by young soldiers, and I failed to find any circumstances of a local nature in favour of these races which would outweigh the military objection.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERwished to know whether the then Secretary of State for War, the present Lord Cranbrook, did not distinctly tell the inhabitants of Lichfield that the buildings connected with the military estabishment would be so arranged as not be interfere with the races, and would probably last for two centuries?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he knew that it was to be in the power of the military authorities of the day to do what they liked in the matter. He was not a connoisseur in race meetings, but he understood that this particular meeting was not what might be called from the outside point of view a first-class meeting. Therefore, nothing damaging to the interests of horse-breeding was likely to be caused by the action of the Authorities.

  HYMNS IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that there is in use in the Denmead School, under the management of the School Board of Hambledon, Hants, "the Children's Hymn Book, arranged in order of the Church's year," and containing hymns which cannot properly be sung by the children of Nonconformists, and that the School Board have declined to discontinue its use, alleging that it is used

  1033
  with the sanction of the Education Department; and whether the Department will take any action in the matter?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): Hymns are constantly used in Board Schools without, so far as I know, in any way infringing the Act of 1870. The statement by the Board, which is to the effect, as I understand, that the hymns used in the school have received the sanction of the Department, must be due to some misunderstanding. It is, I believe, quite incorrect, as the Department have no such power. The Department is of opinion that, in consideration of the provision of the Act of 1870 and the general circumstances of the case, School Boards will be wise to refrain from providing hymn-books for the children which are connected with any particular church or denomination, and to which objection might be taken by some of the parents. This is, I believe, largely the practice of School Boards throughout the country.

  THE TIMES ATLAS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has observed an advertisement in The Times purporting to give from the "Post Office Guide" the rates of postage for The Times Atlas to the British Colonies and Dependencies, and also to the principal foreign countries of the world; whether he has noticed that there are 38 different rates of postage for the 74 countries in the list, based upon no common principle, most of them far exceeding the freightage paid upon a ton of merchandise, the charges being higher to our Colonies than to foreign countries, for instance, to British Guiana 7s. 6d., to Dutch Guinea 4s. 6d., and to French Guiana 3s. 11d.; to Cochin China (French) 4s. 8d.; to Hong Kong (British) 5s. l0d.; to Egypt (under England) 5s., and to Massowah (Italy) 3s. 8d.; to Tunis (France) 3s. 1d.; to the Congo Free State (Belgian) 3s. 5d.; to the Gold Coast (British) 8s. 3d.; to the Cameroons (German) 4s., and to the French Congo 3s. 11d.; and, finally, to British New Guinea 8s. 3d., and to German New Guinea 4s. 10d.; and, whether he will endeavour to arrange
  1034
  with the other members of the Postal Union for the establishment of a general parcel post (the United States being included in the scheme) at uniform rates, based as nearly as may be on the actual cost of transmission and delivery?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): The advertisement to which the question no doubt refers gives the cost of an 11 1b. parcel sent by parcel post to various places abroad by British, Colonial, or foreign services, or a combination of such, as the case may be. The endeavour of Her Majesty's Government in entering some years ago on this service, of which it had no experience, was to fix the rates in accordance with the estimated expenses, with some margin to secure the State against loss. As experience has been gained, rates found to be more than duly profitable have been reduced; and the process is still going on. But the circumstances are so dissimilar in this country and foreign countries, that, with every desire for a more uniform tariff for places abroad, I see very little likelihood of attaining entire uniformity; on the basis of expense such a tariff is simply impossible. One important difference between our system and that of the Postal Union is that we recognise the difference of cost as between light and heavy parcels, while the Union does not; hence, while a comparison of rates to foreign countries and Colonies shows an advantage to foreign countries in regard to heavy parcels, it shows a great advantage to Colonies on light parcels. A comparison of parcel post and freight rates would not be apposite, as the latter do not include collection, inland conveyance, customs formalities, or delivery.

  PAUPERS IN SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Paupers (Scotland and Ireland) Return, which was ordered to be printed on 18th February, will be distributed to Members?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN,): The Return referred to by the hon. Member was issued on Saturday.

  IRISH DRAINAGE LOANS.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain how it is that Mr. Daniel M'Coy, of Cooltoman, Shanagolden, County Limerick, who applied to the Board of Works last November for a loan for drainage, has been delayed since, answering one set of questions after another; whether his last replies were satisfactory; and, if not, in what particular; and why, if they were satisfactory, no reply was given to his application?
  THK SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): I find on investigation that the delay has been caused by the applicant's dilatoriness in answering the necessary inquiries. The Board of Works are now awaiting the Local Inspector's Report on the case. The number of such cases in his hands at this time of year is very large, and some days may pass before it is sent in; but there will be no undue delay on the Board's part in dealing with.
  In answer to a further question asked by Mr. MICHAEL AUSTIN,
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTsaid, that he hoped a definite reply would be given in the course of a few days.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. C. A. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1894, in which he insists upon the urgent necessity for the removal of the barracks adjoining the National Gallery, because of the possible danger of fire, and suggests that, pending their promised removal, a further extension of the Gallery to the westward might be made to give some much-needed additional space for the national collections; and, whether he is taking any steps to give effect to this recommendation?
  *MR HERBERT GLADSTONE: My attention has been called to the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1894. I have no doubt that
  1036
  every effort will be made by the authorities of the War Department to push on the new buildings at Millbank as soon as they enter into possession of the site, so as to allow for the removal of the barracks adjoining the National Gallery at the earliest possible date. Apart from the question as to whether a portion of the barrack-yard could be spared for an immediate and small extension of the National Gallery westwards, I am strongly of the opinion that it would be inconvenient and undesirable to carry out the extension in a piecemeal fashion. The designs for a more complete building can be prepared in 1897, so as to be in readiness for beginning its construction in the following year should funds be available.

  PORTADOWN POST OFFICE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Colonel SAUNDEHSON), I beg to ask the Postmaster General when it is proposed to build the post office at Portadown?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: As stated on the 21st of February, in reply to a similar inquiry, the question is more properly one for the Secretary to the Treasury. The plans were approved by me at the end of February, and I understand that the Board of Works in Ireland will probably be in a position to invite tenders for the work some time next month.

  MARKET TOLLS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Town Council of the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme has recently, by an alteration in its bye-laws, very largely increased the market tolls on agricultural produce; whether such alterations have been approvd by any Department of the Government; and, whether, in view of its serious and damaging effect on the agriculture generally of the district, he will intervene to procure a reconsideration of the subject, or will suggest what action should be taken to that end?
  *THE PRESIDENT OP THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER,): I

  1037
  have been in communication with the Town Council of Newcastle-under-Lyme on this subject, and I am informed that in no case have the tolls on agricultural produce been increased, but that, on the other hand, they have in several items been decreased. The tolls have not been approved by any Department of the Government, the Mayor, as Clerk of the Markets, being empowered under a Local Act to fix the amount of the tolls to be collected. The matter is not one in which I have any authority to intervene, and I can only suggest that the agriculturists of the district should bring their case under the notice of the Town Council with a view to its further consideration.

  THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General—(1) whether, on two occasions recently, the American mails made up in London on Saturdays have reached New York within a few hours of those made up the preceding Wednesdays; (2) whether, as now arranged, in consequence of the slow speed of the Britannic and Germanic, compared with that of the Lucania and Campania, there will be every fortnight this year a practically simultaneous delivery at New York of the Wednesday and Saturday mails; and (3), whether, in future mail contracts, precautions will be taken against depriving the public of a semi-weekly delivery of the mails at New York?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is, Yes; and this is one of the minor drawbacks which occasionally qualify the public advantage of introducing such swift boats as the Campania and Lucania into a mail service. With regard to the second paragraph of the question, I am glad to be able to assure the House that there will not be every fortnight this year a practically simultaneous delivery at New York of the Wednesday and Saturday mails. As far as can be judged from the information in my hands, this is not likely to happen on many occasions in the next few months. Nevertheless, I have already called the attention of the contractors to the postal disadvantage
  1038
  resulting from the juxtaposition of slow and fast boats, and have ascertained from them that they have re-engined the Germanic with the view of securing a considerable acceleration by that vessel; and I have also obtained from them a promise to curtail the use of the slow boats as far as possible. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that the arrangements for accelerating the American mail on Saturday, which was rendered possible by the Saturday half-holiday, have reduced by at least four hours the interval between the sailing of the Wednesday and Saturday packet.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. FREDERICK FRYE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether one of the principal officers of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentonville, is over 70 years of age, and has completed more than 40 years' service, and, if his acceptance of a higher salary, based upon the Government scale of pay on the transfer of the prisons, brings him under the usual regulations governing retirement from the public service; upon what date is it proposed to retire him; and, in view of that fact, that one-fifth and three-fifths respectively of the first and second-class clerks are already at the maximum of their ranks, whether he will recommend the Treasury to enforce Section 36 of the Prisons Act, 1877, and retire the officer referred to and others who come within the provisions of that section, in order that the serious congestion in promotion may be relieved in those other ranks.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): The statement in question as to the age and length of service of this officer is correct. His rights are preserved, as I stated the other day, by Section 35 of the Prisons Act, 1877; his salary remained unaltered, but he has been granted a house allowance which, however, does not bring him within the rules as to retirement which govern the Civil Service. The Treasury has no power under Section 36 of the Prisons Act to compel the retirement of an officer transferred from the Local Service and protected by Section 35.

  TRANSMISSION OF UNUSED FOREIGN STAMPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg
  to ask the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although used and unused Foreign stamps could formerly be sent by book post, in January last a new regulation provided that only used stamps could be so transmitted; whether he is aware that the used stamps, and particularly rare varieties, are as a rule just as valuable to a thief or other possessor as those which are unused; whether it is still permitted to post a stamped and addressed envelope in an open envelope or cover by book post, although, if the stamp be unattached to the enclosed envelope, the whole must be sent by letter post; and, whether in view of the fact that Foreign stamps are largely exchanged or sent for inspection by post, he will allow such stamps to be enclosed, used or unused, in an open envelope, or cover, for transmission by book post, as was formerly allowed?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The new regulation to which the hon. Member refers was introduced in order to check the objectionable practice of sending paper money (which term includes postage stamps) by post in open envelopes, and I think it is a wise provision. Under the Postal Union rules, obliterated as well as unobliterated stamps are excluded from transmission by book post; but within the United Kingdom obliterated stamps are at present allowed to pass by book post, though I can hardly suppose that valuable stamps would often be sent in such a way. It is still permitted to enclose in an open packet a stamped addressed envelope forwarded in order that such envelope may be returned through the post to the sender of the packet.

  MILITARY BANDS IN THE ROYAL PARKS.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can now state when the Military bands will commence to play in the Royal parks?
  *MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: A military band commenced to play in Hyde Park on Saturday afternoon last, and I am informed by the Adjutant-General, on behalf of his Royal Highness
  1040
  the Duke of Cambridge, that bands will play there for the present on Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., or later when practicable. [Hear, hear.]

  ANTHRAX.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that it was reported at a meeting of the Leicestershire County Council that anthrax recently broke out on a farm of Mr. Warren, at Arnesby; not only cattle, but human beings and all kinds of animals were attacked that the farmer and 16 men were ill at one time of this disease, one man dying at the Leicester Infirmary; that a woman was stung by a fly and died from anthrax; and that cats, dogs, and birds also died; and whether it is true that, in reply to an application by the County Council asking for an Inspector to be sent down to make inquiry, the Board of Agriculture replied that they had not a professional officer to send down?
  *MR. J. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that an application has been made to his Department by the Leicestershire County Council for the assistance of a professional man to inquire into the cause of an outbreak of anthrax at Arnesby, in. that county, of so severe a character that, in addition to the loss of the farmer, 16 residents are said to have been attacked by the disease, to which one of them succumbed; that his Department replied that they had no professional man to send; and, whether he will consider of providing some means by which some help and advice might be promptly given to a local authority doing its utmost to stamp out such a pestilence, and will issue such instructions as will insure immediate attention to the matter?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I may perhaps reply at the same time to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for the Harborough Division also asks me on this subject. It is the case that an outbreak of anthrax which led to the loss of two cows and a ewe recently occurred on a farm at Arnesby, but the statements made as to loss and injury to human life appear to have had

  1041
  reference to an outbreak which occurred nine years ago, and I do not gather that any such loss and injury has taken place on the present occasion. I am always very anxious to afford Local Authorities any assistance in my power, and the information we have issued on the subject of Anthrax has been more than usually elaborate. But, as the hon. Member is aware, the business of dealing with outbreaks of this disease rests with those authorities, whose duty it is to employ such veterinary assistance as they may require, and I regret that it is not in my power, nor is it in my opinion desirable, that I should afford them relief in this respect, especially in a case in which no special features present themselves.

  IMPERIAL BRITISH EAST AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is anything to prevent the Imperial British East Africa Company from immediately surrendering to the Sultan of Zanzibar the concession which they hold from His Highness' predecessor; whether Her Majesty's Government declines to permit such a surrender to be, effected until such a time as Parliament has voted a sum of £50,000 in respect of the cancelling of the Charter and the transfer of the Company's assets to Her Majesty's Government; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will indemnify the Company for the expenses which the latter will incur in maintaining the administration of British East Africa until such time as Her Majesty's Government is able to fulfil the agreement into which it has entered?
  SIR E. GREY: Since the final acceptance by the Company on the 11th of. April, no time has been lost in preparing to execute the legal formalities necessary for the transfer of the £200,000 belonging to the Sultan of Zanzibar, but some time must still elapse before these are completed, and this part of the arrangement has not, therefore, up to the present been delayed by the fact that a vote has not been obtained in Parliament. A sum will be taken in the Vote on Account before Whitsuntide in respect of the arrangement concluded with the
  1042
  Company, and that vote will be regarded as the authority of Parliament for carrying the whole agreement into effect.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the interregnum in the administration of British East Africa, Her Majesty's Government will forthwith complete the agreement come to with the British East Africa Company by inviting Parliament to provide the necessary sum of £50,000 by means of a Vote on Account, or other method, which will avoid the serious delay incidental to the ordinary course of Supply?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Derby): Yes, Sir; the matter will be included in the Vote on Account which will be taken before Whitsuntide. That will be the proper opportunity for Parliament to express an opinion on the subject.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot. It will be just before Whitsuntide.

  THE FALLS OF FOYERS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any further information as to the proposed destruction of the Falls of Foyers by a public company; and whether he has made any further inquiries with regard to the matter?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I have made further and careful inquiry. I am informed that every precaution which is possible will be taken to minimise the interference with the natural beauties of the place, though I fear from what I am told that those beauties will be less natural than before. But the Government has no power whatever of intervening. The position of the matter was discussed at the annual meeting of the County Council of Inverness-shire, held last week, and it appears, from the proceedings recorded in the Press, that the matter will again be referred to them at their next meeting in October.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Do I understand my right right hon. Friend to say that the matter is not yet settled?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: It is practically settled. The only body able to interfere is the Road Board, and, I believe, they have decided not to interfere.
  *DR. MACGREGORasked whether he was aware that although the ornamental waters of Foyers might hereafter be conveyed in a more utilitarian channel, enough would be left in that neighbourhood of the grand and the beautiful to satisfy the sentimental yearnings of the hon. Member for Peterborough?
  [No answer was given.]

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of Lord Morley's and Lord Helper's Committees in reference to the administration of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The recommendations of Lord Morley's Committee may be regarded as merged in those of Lord Belper's Committee. The latter are at present under my consideration, and I hope to be able to give effect to a large proportion of them; but as the changes to be effected will require Treasury consent, I cannot at present specify the proposals which will be adopted.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps are taken, if any, to ascertain the number of Second Division clerks who are eligible for promotion to the First Division; whether a list of such candidates is kept; and what measures are adopted for their promotion?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: Every clerk after eight years' service is eligible, if specially recommended by the head of his Department, for promotion. The number of such clerks in each Department is known to its head, and it rests with him to make the special recommendation if he thinks it is warranted by the clerk's exceptional merits.

  ENGLISH RAILS FOR INDIA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a contract for conveying to Calcutta 11,000 tons of Middlesbrough rails has been given to the German "Hansa" Line of steamers, for the reason that the German tender was 6d. per ton lower than any English tender, making a total difference on the contract of £275; whether he is aware that in the case of loss by collision by fault of the captain the only redress against a German ship is recovery of the sunken wreck, whereas a British ship-owner would be liable up to £8 per ton register; whether the matter of insurance has hitherto been considered of such importance by the Secretary of State for India that he has refused shipowners the benefit of the negligence clause; and whether he can state what steps have been taken in this case to insure the said rails, and at what cost?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. HENRY FOWLER,): No contract for conveying rails to Calcutta has been entered into on behalf of the Secretary of State for India with any foreign firm, the shipment of Government stores being confined to vessels sailing under the British flag. In cases where the manufacturer undertakes to deliver goods in Calcutta at his own risk, he of course chooses his own means of conveyance.

  BRITISH SEAMEN AT FOREIGN PORTS.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reply from Her Majesty's Consul at the port of Antwerp with reference to the circumstances attending the signing on of the crew of the steamship Ethel Ratcliffe?
  SIR E. GREY: We are informed that the Shipping Master engaged by captains to select a crew and by seamen to find employment make a charge for their services according to the custom of the port, and that the sailors and firemen of the Ethel Ratcliffe will therefore not have been exempted from paying the usual fee, irrespective of their getting advance notes or not. The Consul states that he has no personal knowledge as to whether

  1045
  in the present instance the issue of these notes was made conditional upon the payment of the charge of three gilders, as advance notes are always handed to the men by the Captain and Shipping Master after the crew have left the Consulate. The Consul says that he certainly did not use his influence to procure the men at the wage of £3 for able seamen and £3 5s. for firemen, nor does he consider it part of his duty ever to interfere between the contracting parties in a matter of this kind unless called upon to do so, which seldom or never happens. It is also incorrect to state that the police were called into the Consular Office to prevent a disturbance, no such request having been made and no police officer having entered the Consulate. It appears that the shipping office being situated in the Sailors' Home, there are always a large number of men congregated about and in the building, and with a view to possible disturbance the police are stationed in the neighbourhood. The practice at Rotterdam is for the Master, or his deputy, the Shipping Master, to make terms with the crew before they enter the Consulate, and the Consul states that he does not have and never has had any business transactions with shipping agents.
  MR. WILSON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not issue instructions to the Consuls to prevent shipmasters from transacting their business in Consular offices?
  SIR B. GREY: It does not seem to me that there is any occasion to issue fresh instructions to Consuls. In any case the Foreign Office could not issue further instructions without having the opportunity of consulting the Board of Trade.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Board to instruct the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Tower Hill, London, to take down the statements of the crew of the steamship Ethel Ratcliffe, which crew recently signed articles at Antwerp, and allege that they were charged three guilders each before they could get their advance notes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. J. BRYCE,): There will be no objection to the
  1046
  Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office in London receiving any statements of the crew of the Ethel Ratdiffe.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in consequence of the many complaints made by British seamen in regard to the question of engaging and discharging seamen, also the question of the shipping fees charged, and the general treatment of seamen in the ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and New York, he thinks it desirable that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into and thoroughly investigate such charges?
  SIR. E. GREY: As far as the particular complaint into which we have made inquiry is concerned, it does not appear that there is occasion for such an investigation. I have received some further letters relating to other places, but it will be necessary to confer with the Board of Trade before expressing any opinion upon them.

  SHIPOWNERS AND SEAMEN.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I
  beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state the number of shipowners and shipping companies who are at present employing Lascar or Asiatic seamen; whether he can state the names of those owners or companies who are complying with that section of the Merchant Shipping Act which provides that all seamen shall have 72 cubic feet of space; whether he can also state the names of owners or companies who are not complying with this section of the Act; whether notices have been served on owners or companies who have failed to comply with the section of the Act referred to; and whether it is his intention to take any action, with a view to enforcing the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act?
  MR. BRYCE: As I informed the hon. Member, on the 9th April, there is some conflict between the requirements of the Imperial and Indian Acts bearing on the subject to which he refers. Every effort will be made to remove this conflict, and mean while it will be made known as widely as possible that the provisions of the Imperial Act must be complied with; and the Board of Trade Surveyors in this country are giving special attention

  1047
  to the matter. I am not prepared to state the number of owners at present employing Lascar seamen. Nor do I think it necessary to publish the names of those owners who have been complying with the Indian rather than with the Imperial law, especially as I am informed that they have shown every willingness to amend their practice upon its illegality being explained to them.
  MR. WILSON: I should like to ask whether a British ship owned in an English port must comply with the Colonial Act or with the Imperial Act?
  MR. BRYCE: I have already stated that we conceive that as regards this point the provisions of the Imperial Act apply.
  MR. WILSON: Then I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce the Imperial Act on English ships in English ports, by compelling them to provide 72 cubic feet?
  MR. BRYCE: We are enforcing the Act now.

  THE CROFTERS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland—(1) whether he is aware that an eviction notice has been served on Donald M'Iver, a crofter on an estate at Ferrytown, Balblair; that Donald M'Iver was a tenant holding under a lease which expired in 1890, and since that time has been a yearly tenant at a rental of £4 4s.; and that at Martinmas last he was only £2 in arrears; and (2) whether with the view of protecting such tenants and preventing landlords anticipating the Crofters' Bill, the forces of the Crown will not be used for the purpose of evicting tenants whose leases have expired since the passing of the Crofters' Act of 1886.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I have received a further report from the Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty, in which he informs me that M'Iver was a tenant holding under a 19 years' lease, which expired in 1890. He was allowed to remain as tenant from year to year by tacit revocation, but from 1890 onwards he did not pay his rent. For crop and year 1891 he paid 16s. only, and for 1892 and 1893 he paid nothing. In September 1894, after being brought into Court, he paid the arrears £11 16s. due
  1048
  for the three years subsequent to the conclusion of his regular lease. For crop and year 1894 he has paid as yet nothing, and is due £2 2s. for the half-year past at Martinmas last. In regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question on the 23rd of last month.

  UMRA KHAN.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, (1) whether the news has been confirmed that Umra Khan has been interned by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and will he be handed over to the Indian Government; (2) whether this Umra Khan is the chief of the same name who in 1891–2 was engaged in raiding on the territories of the Ameer in the districts around Asmar; (3) whether on that occasion, when the Ameer's commanders proposed to make reprisals, His Highness was warned by the Indian Government against doing so, on the ground that Umra Khan's territory was outside the sphere of influence of Afghanistan; (4) can he state to the House the terms of the ultimatum which was recently sent to Umra Khan by the Indian Government, and was it received by him before the British troops crossed the British frontier on 2nd April; (5) and can he also give the terms of the proclamation by the Indian Government to the surrounding tribes?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: I have no official confirmation of the statement that Umra Khan has been interned by the Ameer, and will be handed over to the Indian Government. My answer to the second and third clauses of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative; but Asmar was not occupied by the Afghans at the time referred to. The terms of the ultimatum and of the proclamation will be included among the Papers to be presented to Parliament; but I am not yet in a position to say when the presentation may take place. The proclamation of the Indian Government has already been published in the Press.

  COLONIAL MINISTERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the date of the Ordinance

  1049
  providing that Ministers and others entitled to the prefix "Honourable" in any of the self-governing Colonies should receive the same designation in this Country; and whether Members of the legislative councils in the Crown Colonies are excluded from the scope of the Ordinance; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State will recommend that they shall rank during their stay in England in all respects as if they were from a self-governing Colony.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said, there is no Oordinance providing that Ministers and others entitled to the prefix "Honourable" in self-governing Colonies should receive the same designation in this country; but in June 1893 the Queen—to quote The London Gazette—
  "approved of the use and recognition throughout Her Majesty's dominions of the title of Honourable at present only appertaining locally to Members of executive or legislative councils in Colonies possessing responsible government for so long as they main remain entitled thereto, whether for life or during tenure of the qualifying office."

  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Officers of the General List Indian Army, in view of a collective promise with reference to promotion and pension made to all Indian Officers (including the cadet who entered the service up to 1861) that is to say, the Officers now complaining of unequal treatment—by a Despatch of Sir Charles Wood, then Secretary of State, published to the Indian Army as G.G.O. 632, of 4th August 1864—will he explain whether the assurances of "promotion through every grade with the pay thereunto belonging," and the right to Indian pension maintained, include the grade of colonel with colonel's allowances, mentioned in paragraph 81?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: The passage in the Order of 1864, quoted by the hon. Member, refers to the prospects of promotion and pension under the rules then in force, including the succession to the colonel's allowance; but, as regards the officers who entered the
  1050
  service since 1858, this promise is subject to any change that might be introduced into the Service.

  DANGERS OF ORANGE LODGE CEREMONIAL.
  MR. MICHAEL M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Belfast Irish News of the 2nd inst., from which it appears that the Procurator Fiscal at Hamilton had, on the 30th ultimo, to take the dying deposition of a young man named Joseph Rankine, of Airbles, who had his spine dislocated at an initiation into the second degree of Orangeism in Motherwell; whether he is aware that young Rankine was blindfolded, and, while undergoing certain rites, fell to the ground and was picked up unconscious; whether he is aware that some time ago David Hall, while going through a similar process of promotion at Belfast, by ascending "the first three steps of Jacob's Ladder" blindfolded, fell back and was killed; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter, to see if any steps can be taken to save the members of this society from the danger to which this mode of promotion exposes
  them?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): From the information furnished to me, it appears not strictly correct to say that the Procurator Fiscal was sent for to take the dying deposition. Joseph Rankine attended a meeting of an Orange Lodge at Motherwell, on Saturday the 27th of April last, to go through the ceremony of initiation into the second degree of Orangeism. I am informed that he was taken blindfolded into the hall, and was there put into a blanket, or net hammock, and swung about in it. By an unfortunate accident, his neck received a twist during these proceedings. He called out that he was injured, and the ceremony was at once stopped, and Rankine was conveyed home, and examined by two medical men. They were both of opinion that he had sustained a fracture or dislocation of the spine at the back of the neck which would probably prove fatal within a few days. He is, however, still alive, and his condition is regarded as

  1051
  more hopeful; but I am told that if he survives he will probably be paralysed for life. No blame was imputed by Rankine, or his friends, to anyone. The witnesses refused to describe the ceremonies practised on the occasion, on the ground that it is against the rules of their society to do so. With regard to the case of David Hall at Belfast, I am informed that, on 7th July 1893, he attended a meeting in the Orange Hall for the purpose of getting a "degree" in the society, that his eyes were covered with a handkerchief, and that in stepping on to a table he lost his balance and fell back, sustaining such injuries to the spinal column as resulted in his death. The jury returned a verdict that—
  "he came to his death from the effects of an injury accidentally received, or by misadventure."
  There was no secrecy observed in this case, and the members of the lodge volunteered to give all necessary information. It is difficult to say what steps could be taken to protect the members of such societies from dangers to which they voluntarily expose themselves.

  RICHMOND PARK.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether there has of late been any extensive felling of trees in Richmond Park; whether such felling has been undertaken for any purposes save those of arboriculture—that is, the necessary thinning of woods, and the removal of aged and unsafe trees; and whether all removal of timber is accompanied by the planting of fresh trees?
  *MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: There has been no extensive felling of trees in Richmond Park. All the felling that has been done has been for the purposes of arboriculture, viz., the necessary thinning of plantations and the removal of trees dead, unsafe, or absolutely unsightly. In the last few years the amount of planting that has been done has far exceeded the removals.

  LOCHMADDY WORKHOUSE. INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  DR. DONALD MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has been able to consider the
  1052
  further information submitted to him in regard to the unsanitary and dangerous condition of the poorhouse at Loch-maddy, Inverness-shire; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy the existing state of things there?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have not yet been able to inform me of the result of the meeting of the Lochmaddy Poor-house Committee which was to be held on the 9th instant. I will give the matter my careful consideration when the report is laid before me; and we are pressing to have it.

  NEW SOUTH WALES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been come to as to who is to be appointed Governor of New South Wales?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This matter is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State. He is not yet in a position to make any recommendation to the Queen, but hopes to do so shortly.

  ARMY FOOD SUPPLIES—HOME AND FOREIGN.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, on what principle the percentage of Foreign and Home produced meat which may be issued to the troops is based; whether that percentage only applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether it holds good in the case of each separate station; whether it applies to both beef and mutton, or whether in the case of mutton no restriction exists; what is the estimated saving for this year by the purchase of foreign and colonial meat; and, whether he can state what has been the estimated saving since the rule was established in 1890?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Up to December, 1888, the trade in frozen or refrigerated meat had not been largely developed, and no restriction had been necessary on its supply. It was ascertained, however, that the contractors were issuing some of this meat mixed with home-killed meat; and, as it was unquestionably a cheaper article, though not as a rule inferior in quality, it was

  1053
  decided that the State should have the benefit of the lower price by calling for tenders from contractors who were to be permitted to supply frozen or refrigerated meat on not more than four days a week. In 1890 it was found more convenient to substitute a maximum quantity for a maximum number of days; and 60 per cent. was adopted as a rough substitute for four days out of seven. The percentage applies to each station at which frozen meat is supplied, and it includes frozen mutton as well as refrigerated beef; but mutton must never exceed one-seventh of the total issue of meat. Mutton can be issued all the year round; refrigerated beef only from October to July, inclusive. This period was extended last year, May having previously been the limit. The saving effected cannot be stated, as the tender is at an average price for the whole supply, and the fluctuations in home and foreign meat prices from year to year preclude comparison; but there is no doubt that the saving is considerable. I may add that I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks this question, because categorical replies upon nearly all his points were made to him by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on May 12th, 1893.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Is it not the duty of the Government to carry out the doctrine of free trade in this as in other respects?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The duty of the Government raises a very wide question.

  THE GORDON HIGHLANDERS.
  MR. J. A. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to a statement that the Gordon Highlanders stationed at Rawal Pindi are, in general, Presbyterian in religion, and that they are without a Presbyterian chaplain; and, whether this is a fact; and, if so, whether a Presbyterian chaplain will be appointed?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: I will inquire into the facts of this case, as to which I have at present no information except that, according to the Returns, rather more than half the Gordon Highlanders are Presbyterians?

  WELLINGTON BARRACKS.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will have the exterior of Wellington Barracks coloured or painted!
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The periodical painting of Wellington Barracks inside and outside, is due this year, and will be carried out.

  FIJI.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir J. B. Thurston, Governor of Fiji, has arrived in England; whether Sir J. B. Thurston devised, and has continuously defended, the scheme of Native taxation that has been in operation in Fiji for several years past; whether he is aware that this taxation scheme was characterised at the outset by Sir William Hackett, the first Chief Justice of Fiji, as unvarnished slavery; and, also, that Mr. G. A. Beauclerc (clerk of Native taxes and Native accounts in Fiji) stated in a recent Report to the Governor that, owing to the continual exactions of the chiefs, for their own personal aggrandisement, added to the preparation of produce in payment of the Government tax, the Natives were kept in such continuous servitude that they had not time to provide sufficient food for their families or proper dwellings, and that the women, being similarly compelled to raise tax produce for the Government, were unable to bestow proper care upon the nurture and care of their infants, with the inevitable result of a large infantile mortality; and, whether, in view of this strong official condemnation, Her Majesty's Government contemplate any action in the direction of a radical alteration in the mode of raising the revenue in the Crown Colony of Fiji?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Sir John Thurston, who had a share in devising the Native taxation system of Fiji, has arrived on leave, and Her Majesty's Government will confer with him on that and other public questions; but, in saying this, I must not be taken as admitting the correctness of the view implied in the highly argumentative question of my hon. Friend, nor as implying that there is any intention of departing from a system which, as I have

  1055
  already stated, is believed on the whole to have worked fairly well.

  RIFLE PRACTICE ON WIMBLEDON COMMON.
  MR. J. C. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that, in the Chancery Division on 8th inst., Mr. Justice Homer, in the case of Putney Burial Board v. Balfour and others, granted an injunction against the 100 and 300 yards ranges being used for rifle practice on Wimbledon Common on account of the danger to life of persons occupied in or attending funerals in Putney Cemetery? and, whether, this being so, he will bring to the notice of the War Office the advisability of doing away with the shooting on the 200 yards range as dangerous to the lives of the inhabitants and others frequenting Wimbledon Common?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The military authorities carefully inquired last year into the safety of the Wimbledon ranges, with the result that the short ranges were found to be capable of being safely used. The judgment referred to by the hon. Member, in so far as it touches the question, confirms the view that the 200 yards range is free from danger, and under the circumstances I do not see any necessity for stopping firing at that range.

  MARRIAGES IN MALTA.
  MR. R, W. PERKS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason why the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have not given judgment in the case as to the validity of marriages in Malta, which was finally argued before the Council on 20th February 1894; and whether, seeing that the ancient practice whereby the Governor of Malta has issued licences empowering the Protestant clergy in Malta to solemnise mixed marriages, when the parties so desired, has been suspended for upwards of five years, in order that the decision of the Judicial Committee might at the instance of the Government be obtained, he can take any steps to expedite the delivery of judgment by the Privy Council?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government have no control in any way over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I cannot answer in any way for them.
  MR. PERKS: May I inquire whether the Government will instruct the Governor to resume the issuing of licences?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I am not sufficiently acquainted with the question to answer.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great additional labour which will be imposed upon the Chairmen of Standing Committees by the proposed appointment of a Standing Committee for the consideration of Scotch Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown, he will take steps to strengthen the Chairmen's Panel, at present limited by the Standing Order to six Members, by adding one or more Members thereto?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will have inquiries made into that matter.

  TELEGRAPH FACILITIES IN ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the tenure of the present Government there have been no extensions of the telegraph system in the western mainland of Ross-shire and in the Island of Lewis; and that for some time past there has been no additional expenditure in improving the postal facilities there; and whether, seeing that the development of the fishing industry is of great importance to the people of these districts, and that to a certain extent it is dependent upon better telegraphic and postal facilities, the Treasury will waive or modify its rule which requires guarantees, and give to the Postmaster General discretionary power to deal with the needs of districts where the people are unable to provide guarantees?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question to the Postmaster General; it is a matter he is more familiar with than I am.
  MR. WEIR: I have already put the question to the Postmaster General; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the purse-strings so tightly that it is impossible for the Postmaster General to do anything. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to relax the stringent rules laid down by the Treasury.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend knows that this is a matter in which I have taken a personal interest. I will see what can be done.

  COLONIAL JUDGES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state at what date there will be introduced into Parliament the Bill promised by the Prime Minister to enable Colonial Judges to take their seats on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Bill, I understand, is to be introduced at once into the House of Lords.

  THE LATE SPEAKER'S SEAT.
  MR. J. T. BRUNNER: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, and it is whether he will be good enough to state the cause of the delay in the issue of the Writ for Warwick and Leamington, and the date on which he will cause the Motion to be made for the issue of the Writ?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand that all the formalities connected with the Peerage of the late Speaker have been completed, and it will be gazetted to-morrow, and I have no doubt that the new Writ will be moved for in regular course.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  In reply to Mr. A. J. BALFOUE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Report of the Resolution on the Budget would be taken that night and the Bill brought in; he proposed to take the Second Reading on Thursday, and to take the first Vote in Supply on the Civil Service Estimates on Friday.

  THE EARL OF SELBORNE.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: Sir,—I have to call your attention to the presence in this House of a nobleman—[Cries of "Stranger!"]—who at the last General Election was elected a Member of this House, who took his seat accordingly, and who since then, I am informed, has become a Peer of the realm. I have to ask you, Sir, in these circumstances, whether the noble Lord has a right to be within the Bar of the House, and, if not, what steps will be taken in consequence of his being here?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Without anticipating the action of the House upon this suggestion, I think it is right I should ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact that, since he last sat in this House, he has succeeded to the Peerage of his father, the late Earl of Selborne?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Sir,—I am not a Lord of Parliament, but I am a Peer of the realm.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I also ask the noble Lord the further question, whether he has applied, or whether it is his immediate intention to apply, for a Writ of Summons to the House of Peers?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Sir,—I have not so applied. It is not my intention at present so to apply; and I claim still to be the duly elected representative of West Edinburgh.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right of the noble Lord to vote is a question for the House itself, not for me. But I think it is right I should point out to the House, that although many cases have occurred of Members standing in the position in which the noble Lord is at this moment, there is not an instance on record, as far as I am able to discover, of such a claim being made as that made by the noble Lord to sit and vote in this House. Under these circumstances I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw below the Bar until the question of his right to sit and vote has been decided by the House.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose from his seat, and having passed along the Gangway to the floor of the House, bowed to Mr. Speaker, and retired below the Bar.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, In these circumstances, unusual and important from

  1059
  a constitutional point of view, the House will expect from me, in. the position I occupy, that I should tender some advice to the House as to the course that ought to be pursued. I have had occasion carefully to consider this matter in reference to the Committee which has sat on the vacating of seats and the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds in the case of Lord Coleridge, and, without endeavouring to bind anybody by the opinions I am about to express, I should like to state to the House what, as far as I can ascertain, is the Parliamentary law in reference to this matter. I will endeavour to state three propositions as clearly and concisely as I can. I put out of consideration altogether the case of Scotch or Irish peerages, because they are governed by entirely different rules and laws which were laid down by Statute at the time of the Union, and I must be understood now to speak only of an English peerage, governed only by what I may call the common law of Parliament. Now, as far as I can ascertain the matter, I think these propositions are correct. An English peer by patent—I say by patent because the old rules with reference to peerage by writ are somewhat different—I am speaking now of the case of an English peerage by patent, which is the case of the Earl of Selborne—on his succession to the peerage he becomes not only a peer of the realm (which the noble Lord stated that he was), but also a Lord of Parliament. The distinction which the noble Lord has drawn is one in which I cannot agree. The second proposition is that his right to a seat in the House of Lords is as much inherent and inseparable from his succession as his title to the dignity. I believe those two things are inherent in the succession. He cannot divest himself either of the right to the dignity (of that there can be no question) or to a seat in the House of Lords any more than a Member of the House of Commons can divest himself of his seat by resignation or abstention. We all know that can only be done under the statute of Anne by the acceptance of office. The noble Lord may think fit to abandon his title. He may call himself "Mr. Palmer," but he would still be Earl of Selborne, or he might abstain from performing the necessary formalities
  1060
  qualifying him to exercise his right to sit and vote in House of Lords. His right would exist all the same. The preliminaries taken in order to obtain the writ of summons are proof of birth, marriage of parents, production of patent, and so forth. But these are only formalities to enable a right to be exercised which already exists. In the same way a Member elected to the House of Commons cannot sit and vote until he has brought his writ to the Table and taken the oath, but he is a Member of the House of Commons from the date of, and by virtue of, his election, before he comes to the Table, and I imagine that if he were called upon to serve on a jury—from which a Member of the House of Commons is exempt—the exemption would take place though he had not come to the Table and taken the oath. In like manner, on his succession to the peerage, he becomes a Lord of Parliament, and incapable of being a Member of the House of Commons, though he may not have qualified by taking out the writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords. The writ of summons does not create the right. It presupposes that it exists. It is like a summons to a meeting of a body of which a man is already a member—for instance, the Privy Council. There are many Members of the Privy Council. When a Cabinet meets a summons goes out to certain members who sit in the Privy Council. The summons and the inquiry upon which it is founded is only to ascertain the individual in whom the right exists. The practice of the House of Commons has been not to issue a new writ until the writ of summons has gone in the House of Lords; because that is the best and most authentic manner in which the House can be informed that one of its Members has become a peer. But in the interval, before the issue of the writ of summons, sometimes there is a considerable interval. In that interval no Member of this House has ever, in fact, sat or voted after his succession to the peerage, and it was to terminate that interregnum that the Chiltern Hundreds was given to Lord Coleridge. The writ of summons, however, though the simplest and best means of informing this House that one of its Members has succeeded to a peerage, is not the only method, and in case

  1061
  for any reason the writ of summons is deliberately withheld, the House will make its own inquiry into the facts, and if satisfied of the succession to a peerage, will issue a new writ. This was laid down distinctly in 1830, in the case which occurred in the borough of Beer Alston. An hon. Member moved—
  "That the Speaker do issue his warrant for a new writ for the borough of Beer Alston in the room of Lord Louvain, now Earl of Beverley."
  The hon. Member said:—
  "The Speaker having inquired, when the subject was mentioned to him yesterday, whether the usual words, 'now summoned up to the other House of Parliament,' were added to the Motion, and having been answered in the negative, was pleased to recommend that reference should be made to the precedents for the purpose of seeing whether such addition in the terms of the Motion was not essential."
  Therefore, there was a Motion made without allegation that a summons be issued, which is the usual, and, under the particular circumstances, the proper allegation, because that is the evidence upon which the House acts as being the best evidence that can be got. But the Speaker laid down this doctrine (in which I may be permitted to say I entirely concur). He said:—
  "There could certainly be no doubt that if a Member of this House became a peer the House can order a new writ to be issued in his room, and consequently unseat him without the House of Lords having issued such summons."
  That is the critical point.
  "But, then, the House would require evidence, positive evidence, that such a Member had really become a peer. This had been the uniform course. The House must have sufficient proof, and it was true that the issue of a summons by the other House was not essential to the sufficiency of proof. The issuing of such a summons alone would be sufficient proof. It had always been taken as such. But it did not follow from that that the House might not have sufficient proof without the summons, or if they were negligent in issuing the summons such conduct on the part of the Lords could not estop the House of Commons from doing that which the law of the land justified them in doing, or in calling upon them to do—to issue the writ."
  That is to say, if there were laches in the House of Lords, or the House of Lords
  1062
  deliberately did not issue the summons, the House of Commons would act on the fact that the Member had succeeded to the peerage; and, in fact, that is so, if the House of Lords not only had not issued the summons but had refused to issue the summons. So it is perfectly plain that the same principle applies whether there are laches in not applying for, or in the House of Lords not issuing the writ of summons. The Speaker in 1830 repeated, that the House must have sufficient evidence of the fact that a person had become a peer. Now, is that a true doctrine?
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEY: What was done in that case?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am going to state what was done—
  "Thereupon the Speaker said he had received information that Lord Louvain was going to apply for a writ of summons, and having received an assurance that that course would be taken he requested Mr. Leader to withdraw the Motion, which he did."
  It was for this reason, no doubt, that you, Sir, put the question to the noble Lord, whether he intended to apply for a writ of summons. If he said he intended to apply for a writ of summons, that would determine the case. Then, of course, there would be no reason to do anything more. It might be left until the writ of summons was issued, and we could proceed upon it—
  "As soon as the fact of the succession to a peerage has been ascertained by this House, the writ will issue, of course, the Member becoming in fact a Lord of Parliament, and as such incapable of sitting in the House of Commons."
  The House, therefore, if satisfied that Lord Wolmer has succeeded to the peerage, and consequently become a Lord of Parliament, would be justified, and, indeed—as Speaker Manners-Sutton, in the Beer Alston casa, said—would be called upon to issue a new writ for West Edinburgh, having made such inquiries as may be necessary to ascertain the fact of his succession to the peerage. It is true that, in answer to your question, Sir, the noble Lord said he had succeeded to a peerage. But I do not think the House could be satisfied with that evidence alone, which ought to be taken in

  1063
  the formal manner in which it would be taken in the House of Lords, before the writ of summons was issued, the evidence being there being marriage of parents, succession, and patent. A man might think he had succeeded to a peerage and be mistaken, as happened in the case of Lord Dursley, who claimed the Berkeley peerage. Therefore the House of Commons should satisfy itself of the succession of Lord Wolmer to the Earldom of Selborne, and, having done that, I have pointed out what its decision would be. There is no doubt but that the House will take a proper course, and the noble Lord, by bowing to your recommendation to retire until the matter has been decided, has given us ample time to take a proper course in this matter. There is a Committee sitting now on the question of the vacating of seats, and I submit to the House that it would be convenient that we should refer to that Committee to ascertain whether or not Lord Wolmer has succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne. If the Committee report to us that he has so succeeded, it will then, I imagine, be the duty of those who are responsible for the proceedings of this House to move thereupon that a new writ be issued, and, if that course commends itself to the House, it would be a proper thing to put down on the paper this evening a motion of reference to that Committee to report to us on the facts as they find them. In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the question raised, I would submit that the instruction to the Committee should be that the fact of the succession of Lord Wolmer to the Earldom of Selborne be ascertained in the same manner as that in which the House of Lords would ascertained that fact if it were asked to issue a writ of summons. We should then be in exactly the same position as we should be in on the issue of a writ of summons by the House of Lords, only we should have made that investigation for ourselves in the absence of an investigation by the House of Lords which will not be made, but will be defeated by the noble Lord not applying for a writ of summons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In substance I entirely concur in the course suggested by the Leader of the House, although I have one small
  1064
  suggestion to make with regard to the method in which that suggestion should be carried into effect. While I agree with the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, at all events we must regard with great sympathy the attempt made by my noble Friend, Lord Selborne, still to remain a Member of this House so as to be able to work in a sphere which he has so long adorned. For my own part, if my settled conviction on this subject could be shaken, it would be shaken by my sense of the great loss, not only to the Party to which I belong, but the whole House has suffered in the course of one week by the loss of two of its Members who have done so much to adorn our debates. Putting aside all legal technicalities, and putting out of sight all precedents and all those utterances, occasionally ambiguous, and, I fear, sometimes contradictory, which may have been made by various authorities, what we have to consider is the broad, practical effect which would follow from the success of the policy which Lord Selborne desires us for the first time to take. It seems to me that every subject of Her Majesty has a right to be either a representative in this House or in the other but that no subject can have a right to choose what his status shall be. We cannot, in addition to Peers of Parliament and Commoners, have a third class to whose own good will it shall be left to decide whether they shall have the status of Commoners or the status of Peers. It is evident that in that case I an ambiguous class would be brought into existence if we were not ourselves to insist upon the course recommended by the right hon.. Gentleman opposite, of ourselves moving a writ if a Peer of the realm did not apply to be made a Peer of Parliament or for a writ of summons to be issued. Under those circumstances, I conceive that it is a matter of secondary importance and interest to try to extract a perfectly consistent and harmonious theory from all the utterances of great lawyers and great speakers on this question during the last 500 years. That would be a task worthy of the antiquarian, and perhaps an appropriate occupation for the Committee which is now sitting upstairs of which I am a Member. But upon the broad

  1065
  issue—it is not a technical or legal issue—raised, there can be no doubt that by what is called the hereditary principle a man must accept a particular status, and cannot be allowed to choose for himself whether he shall retain some other status. There is a case not wholly analogous to that of my noble Friend, which has also come under our notice within the last few days, which it may well be worth the while of the House to consider, and which might with propriety be referred to the same Committee. If a Peer succeeds to a deceased married brother, he is not, I understand, qualified for the other House for some months, and yet, according to habitual practice, it is not customary that he should continue to sit in this House. That appears to me to be extremely unjust. There is a case in our history which occurs most readily to us, and which shows the danger to the community of a Commoner suddenly being made a Peer by the death of his married brother, and being unable to address either branch of the Legislature in his capacity of a Minister. If Lord Chatham had died and left a widow, Mr. Pitt, according to our practice, would have been a Member of neither this nor of the other House of Parliament for some months; at any rate, he would not have been qualified to take part in the Debates of either House. That is an anomaly quite unjustifiable in theory, and it ought to be removed. But that anybody should be able to do that which my noble Friend now proposes to do—namely, to defer to a convenient season his becoming a Member of the other House and during that season to remain a Member of this House—would not be consonant with the interests of the other House, and certainly it appears to me that it would be very derogatory to our own dignity. May I say that if we are going to appoint a Committee to inquire whether the present Lord Selborne is a, person to whom a writ of summons ought to be issued for the other House, I think that that might be referred to a different and smaller Committee than that unwieldy and rather august body to whom has been entrusted the duty of investigating an interesting historical matter, and of which I am a Member.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to admit that I do not agree with either of the two Leaders of the House. I confess that my sympathies are wholly with my noble Friend in this matter. If any way could be found in which my noble Friend could continue his services in this House, I for one should be very glad to assist in bringing about such a result, but I think that it is perfectly fitting that a question of this delicacy and importance, which has now arisen for the first time, should be submitted to a Committee. I complain, however, of the nature of the reference which is to be made, and which I think the House, upon consideration, will see is altogether too limited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that it shall be referred to a Committee which is now sitting, and the reference contains instructions to report on all the circumstances connected with the vacating of seats. We—the Committee—are therefore instructed to report on the principle involved as well as upon individual cases. Let me put a case to show the absurd position in which we may find ourselves. Supposing that this Committee, after carefully considering the matter, came to the conclusion that a Peer of the realm was not necessarily a Lord of Parliament. That is possible; but under the reference they would have in the first place to report—[Cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no Motion before the House, and that notice has been given of the kind of Motion that will be proposed, and when the Motion is made there will be an opportunity of discussing the terms of the reference. The right hon. Gentleman can speak only by the indulgence of the House.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg pardon. I was under the misapprehension that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not propose the Motion, because I thought that, in relation to a question of this gravity, the Motion ought to be put upon the Paper. I will fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there

  1067
  should be a small and independent Committee appointed to inquire into this matter.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to put the Motion down for Thursday next. It cannot be taken after Twelve o'clock. It would be most convenient to defer the whole discussion until the Motion is on the Paper.
  MR. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give notice of his Motion tonight?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, to-night, for discussion to-morrow.
  MR. GEORGE CURZONsaid, he knew that it was only with the indulgence of the House that he could make a few observations, but as his noble Friend had been directed to retire below the Bar he could not speak on his own behalf. [Cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think that it would be better that the hon. Member should postpone his remarks until the Motion is upon the Paper, as they might lead to a general discussion on the subject.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he should be sorry to do anything irregular. He would like to point out that they were in a very extraordinary position. [Cries of "Order."]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I would rather abstain, in the interest of the noble Lord; but if the right hon. Gentleman desires it I will move this moment that the Writ be issued, and that will put an end to the whole matter. I do not think the two right hon. Friends of the noble Lord have been very well advised, but in these circumstances I move that a new Writ be issued for West Edinburgh.
  *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER rose to put the question, when—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: I will state my reason for making the Motion. I do not mean to press it, but it will put the House legally in order, and the discussion, if there is to be a discussion upon that, may be adjourned. I think that is the proper way in which to raise the matter, and I shall move that a new Writ be issued for West Edinburgh, and then
  1068
  we shall see what course the House will desire to have taken.
  *MR. SPEAKERput the question that a new Writ be issued for the election of a Member for West Edinburgh "in place of Lord Wolmer, who is now Earl of Selborne."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No allegation—merely "in place of Lord Wolmer."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help thinking that the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is somewhat hasty—[Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"], and has placed the House in a somewhat difficult position. What was the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman? Having, in the first instance, told the House that it would be impossible, and contrary to precedent, to move for the Writ until, at all events, proof had been given of the accession of Lord Selborne to the Peerage, and some days must necessarily elapse while that proof was being sought for, the right hon. Gentleman then gets up and moves the immediate issue of the Writ in a fit of temper. [Loud Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must object to a statement of that kind, which the right hon. Gentleman knows to be unfounded. [Cheers and cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have made that Motion in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to speak. It was necessary to have a Motion before the House in order that anybody might speak. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Curzon) desired to speak. I have already stated that I was not about to press that Motion to a Division to-day, but I have made that Motion with the intention of an Adjournment in order that the House might take proper measures with reference to the Committee. To state that I have made that Motion in a fit of temper shows that, I think, for the moment the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten himself.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid: Before I repeat the statement which I have just made I will justify it. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the kind when he made this Motion. [Cries of "He did!"] When he made this Motion the reason he gave—[Cries of "Order!"] Do not let the House run

  1069
  away. I am sure I shall recall to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen the exact words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said his right hon. Friends—meaning my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Courtney) and myself—had been very ill-advised, and in consequence of that he would make the Motion. That is what I call making the Motion in a fit of temper. [Cheers and cries of "Oh!" What I have to say in the matter is that the moment you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to me that there was no Motion before the House I stopped abruptly, having only just commenced my argument, and agreed to reserve it till such time as the Motion should properly be laid before the House. What justification was that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer jumping up and immediately moving the issue of the Writ? Having done so, no doubt he recognised the mistake he had made. [Laughter.] Of course he did. He recognised that he was going to ask the House to do the very thing which ten minutes before he had told them they could not do, namely, to issue a Writ far West Edinburgh without knowing whether Lord Selborne is a Peer or not. I really think that it was quite unnecessary for him to make a Motion of that kind. We were perfectly content that the matter should go over till a future day, and that the question, which, after all, ought to be discussed in perfect good humour, should be postponed. For my part I am totally unable to under-seand the feeling evinced in a question of high constitutional importance. Surely we ought to be able to discuss that with perfect coolness and impartiality. I recognise that I am, on the present occasion, at any rate, in a minority in this House. It is evidently not a Party question. There are at least as many hon. Members on the other side who disagree with me as on this side; but I hope, notwithstanding that, that the House will allow me very briefly to state the reasons which have led me to object to the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bear in mind what it is we are discussing—nominally whether the Writ should issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1070
  has been good enough to explain that he is perfectly willing that this matter should be adjourned while the question is referred to a Committee. My first point is this—and upon that I hope I shall have the general assent of the House—that if you refer it to a Committee, you shall refer, not part of the question, but the whole question—you shall, in fact, refer to the Committee what has already been referred to the Committee on the Vacation of Seats—namely, whether a person who succeeds and becomes a Peer of the realm does of necessity become a Lord of Parliament, and is thereby excluded from sitting in this House. If you do not refer the whole question, you will run the risk of settling this question in a sense which may be inconsistent with the settlement of the general question. My second point—and this I address to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—is this. I think my hon. Friend suggested that the matter should be referred, not to the Committee already sitting, but to an independent Committee. There again, if I may venture to submit to him an objection, it appears to me that it would not do to have two Committees sitting on the same subject at the same time, for you might have the extraordinary result of two inconsistent decisions. Surely you must leave this whole question to the decision of one Committee, whether it be the existing Committee or a new one. There is one other point: that is, the question whether you have gone far enough in referring exclusively to the status of Lord Selborne. You, Mr. Speaker, said, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated, the statement that there never had been, to the best of your knowledge and belief, any previous case in which a Peer of the realm had either sat in this House or claimed to sit in this House. But I am under the impression that that is not the case. I am under the impression that there has been a case of a gentleman who is entitled to claim his position as a Peer of the realm and a Lord of Parliament, who has refrained from applying for a Writ of Summons, who has refrained from taking any of the steps necessary in order to establish his position as a Peer, who has

  1071
  appeared as a candidate before a const tuency, has been elected by that constituency, and is now sitting in this House. (An hon. MEMBER: "A Scotch Peer.") No. It is an English Peerage that is in question. [Cries of"Name?"] If that be so should not the reference to the Committee be wide enough to cover that case also? Is it right and proper, if this matter is for the first time to be decided, that reference should be made to a single case which has been openly and frankly brought before the House when there is, as I believe, one case—there may be others—to which exactly the same argument will apply? As to the general question, I think it has been very fairly stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As I understand the matter, there is no statutory provision in regard to this subject. My noble Friend can sit and vote in this House, if this House will allow him, without incurring any penalties, or without its being in the power of any person to contest the matter in a Court of Law. It is, therefore, wholly a question for this House. The House of Commons has never, so far as I know, decided the question heretofore. It has to decide a new point—a point no doubt of the greatest importance, and it must decide it, I think, as a matter of expediency. Therefore I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. But my right hon. Friend goes on to say that, dealing with it as a question of expediency, it cannot be expedient that a man should now for the first time be allowed to choose his own status—whether he shall be a Lord of Parliament or a Member of this House. I do not think that accurately describes the situation; I believe that choice has already been exercised, and therefore, may be exercised again. The case I should quote is that of Lord Palmerston. He deliberately chose his status. He might, by making his claim, have become a Peer of Ireland, and as such he would probably have become a Lord of Parliament. But in order to avoid that, and with no other reason whatever, he refused to make good his Irish Peerage, and sat and voted as Leader of the House of Commons. Therefore, I say, the point is not new. There have been precedents,
  1072
  although not raised in quite so simple a form as the one before us. I hope the House will not allow its prejudices to be enlisted, but will allow of a full and fair inquiry, which will take into account not merely the case of my noble Friend, but all similar cases that may exist at present or may hereafter be brought before us, so that once for all the principle may be decided by the House. One word more before I sit down. If we were dealing with this question as a matter of expediency do not let us pass over altogether the possibility of the interests of the constituency. What is to happen if this House practically expels my noble Friend, or decides that he shall not be allowed to sit and to vote? Suppose thereupon that he goes down for a new election, and suppose that his constituency of West Edinburgh, sympathising with him and willing that this great constitutional question should be fought out, re-elects him to this House. This House has been engaged from time to time in contests with the constituencies, but although it has always had the legal power and the executive power, it has in the long run always been worsted. What I would urge is, that it is worth while considering very carefully what course we take, lest we should find once more we are acting in a way which is really hostile to the intentions and desire of the constituency,
  MR. GEORGE CURZONasked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to move the new Writ that afternoon, but to state the terms of the proposed reference to the Committee before the close of the Sitting?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will consider that suggestion. My notion is, that it will be most convenient to the House that we should not continue this discussion now, but that we should adjourn the Debate on the Motion for the Writ, and I will consult the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to the Committee and put down the terms of reference, and then I would propose that we should take the Motion tomorrow night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no great desire to take much further part

  1073
  in this Debate, but I think it would be probably more convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to put down his Motion as the first Order to-morrow. There is evidently a great divergence of opinion on this very grave question. As I gathered from the cheers of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, there are great constitutional authorities who do not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or myself, and I think it would be better we should deal with the Motion to-morrow as the first business; nor do I see any reason why it should last more than two hours or two hours and a half. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say he will consult me as to the terms of reference. Probably he and I will find it very easy to come to an agreement, because we agree as to our general policy; but there must evidently be an opportunity given to those Gentlemen who do not agree with us to put down Amendments. I hope, therefore, it will be found possible to put the Resolution in their hands informally to-night, so that before to-morrow they will be able to give notice of their Amendments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will try to do that. I do not think there will be much difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to what the form of reference should be. Of course this is a matter of grave importance, and I shall not resist the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion should be the first Order. I hope there will not be more time than is necessary occupied on the subject. I think now I will withdraw this Motion, which I only made in order to regularise our discussion, with a view to substituting for it the Motion for the reference to a Committee tomorrow.
  MR. COURTNEYwished to point out that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition, weighty and powerful as they were, must not go forth to the country as statements absolutely acquiesced in by the bulk of the House, because very different opinions might be expressed on the subject.
  Motion for the issue of the Writ withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  In Committee (Progress, Clause 1, 7th May)
  MR. MELLOE in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause I was as follows:—

  DISESTABLISHMENT.
  "On the first day of January One thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven (in this Act referred to as the dale of Disestablishment), the Church of England, so far as it is Established by law in Wales or Monmouthshire (in this Act referred to as the Church in Wales) shall cease to be so Established, and save as by this Act provided, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed by Her Majesty or any person, by virtue of any existing right of patronage, to any ecclesiastical office in or connected with the Church in Wales."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words, "save as by this Act provided."—(Mr. Fisher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *SIR EDWARDCLARKE, resuming the Debate on the Amendment, said, that by the 32nd section of the Bill, which was the one to which these words referred, there was to be a special set of persons created in the Church in Wales during the time after the passing of this Bill and before the date of Disestablishment. It was provided by Section 32 that the Queen might, in the case of a vacant Bishopric, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury or any three Welsh Bishops, fill the vacancy, and any Bishop so appointed should not be summoned to or qualified to sit in the House of Lords. The second sub-section provided that any other vacancy might be filled up as if this Act had not been passed, but the person so appointed should be subject to the provisions hereinafter mentioned. The effect would be this: If the Bill passed, and there was a vacant Bishopric in the Church in Wales between the

  1075
  time of the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, that Bishopric would be filled up in a way that was entirely new—namely, by Her Majesty upon the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh Bishops. But a Bishop or an Incumbent so appointed could only exercise the functions and receive the emoluments of his office until the already fixed date at which the Disestablishment should take effect, and it appeared to him a somewhat serious thing that that office should be created. He could not see any reason why, during the time before the date of Disestablishment, if any vacancy should take place, a Bishop should not be appointed having the full rights of any other Bishop. The same observation applied to Incumbents. If Section 32 passed as it stood, they might have a small group of incumbents who, having been appointed between the date of the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment, were in an altogether anomalous position. At the time of the date of Disestablishment they would remain Incumbents, and so far as he could see, would have the legal rights and positions of Incumbents subject to this—that they would get no income at all, and new appointments would have been fixed upon places without any income whatever from Church funds. That seemed to him an undesirable arrangement. There was one class of persons for whom, if compensation were to be given—as he thought it should—some clause of this kind would be required. If it were proposed that some provision should be made for curates in the Church in Wales, then undoubtedly some words of limitation might be required to prevent the appointment of curates for the purpose of obtaining the advantage of compensation. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to compensate curates at all, and there was no class of persons which might be called into existence for the purpose of getting compensation. That seemed to alter the case altogether from the case of the Irish Church Bill. Suppose this Bill were to pass this year, but was nut to come into force for eighteen months, he could not see why, if a vacancy took place six months hence in one of these parishes, the clergyman appointed should not be in full possession of the rights
  1076
  and emoluments, and have a permanent income like the other clergymen of the Church. The effect of this clause would be to set up a limit. There would be an altogether anomalous class of persons who would stand in a different position from either of those who had their appointments before the passing of this Bill, that was, after the date of Disestablishment. Suppose the Church were disestablished, it would be for those who were to carry on in these dioceses the useful work that belonged to the Church in Wales to try and create another organisation which would have to find its own funds and to constitute its own ecclesiastical polity. But the Bishops who were appointed by the Crown under this Section 32 would remain Bishops of the dioceses to which they were appointed, and although they remained Bishops of these dioceses, there would be taken from them, according to the scheme of the Act, everything they required for supporting the work they were doing. He hoped upon reconsideration the Home Secretary might see that it would be reasonable in this respect to modify the Bill, and, while fixing the date of Disestablishment at such a time as he thought right, to give all the persons concerned the opportunity of preparing for the change which at that date was to take place. It was not reasonable to put in a provision, of this kind by which the Act would begin to operate long before the date of Disestablishment was reached. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman might to some extent reconsider his answer, and be prepared to make not a large but a not unimportant concession.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,)could only repeat his former answer. This clause was an exact reproduction mutatus mutandis of the provision dealing with the same subject-matter in the Irish Act; and it was placed in the Bill for exactly the same reason, namely, to prevent the growth of vested interests in the Church between the date of the passage of the Bill and the date of Disestablishment. That was an essential safeguard. The Suspensory Bill proposed to bring about the same state of things. The right hon. Member for Midlothian accomplished it in connection with the Suspensory Act of 1868. The present Government were

  1077
  following his example, and for the same reasons, by declaring that in the interval which they reasonably allowed between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, the growth of new interests should be postponed.
  *MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENadmitted that the clause was an exact reproduction of the words of the Irish Act, but it did not reproduce all the Irish Act. If they were to follow the precedent of the Irish Act they must do it all through. He failed to see the justice of following the precedent only when it appeared to penalise the Church, and disregarding it when by so doing they would inflict some extra injury upon the Church. There was a very good reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not follow the Irish Act in this case. The Church in Ireland was the Church of a small minority, and it was perfectly well known, even before Disestablishment, that there was not the slightest chance of there being a resident clergyman of the Disestablished Church in every Irish parish. Now, the Welsh Church covered the whole of the Principality, and even after Disestablishment it was hoped that it would still be possible to maintain a resident clergyman in every single parish in Wales. But if the Amendment were not accepted, it might be absolutely impossible, between the two dates, to get any clergyman appointed. If no vested interest were allowed to be created, it might be impossible for private patrons to find anybody who would be willing to accept the position of clergyman under the existing circumstances. It was true that if the Amendment was accepted vested interests would be created for 16 months; but, on the other hand, it would be a great disadvantage to the Welsh people if, until the time of the constitution of the representative body, no provision at all were inserted whereby, of necessity, Clergy should be nominated to vacant benefices.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid it seemed to him there was the widest difference between this Bill and the Irish Church Act, because Clause 66 of that Act provided that between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment those benefices were to receive income as aforetime.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, that up to the present date it had never been absolutely decided what the position in regard to income was of clergymen appointed ad interim under Clause 66 of the Irish Act.
  MR. HARRY FOSTERsaid, that by Clause 32 of this Bill some provision was made for appointments in the suspensory period; but he also found that if any clergyman, at present having a vested interest, accepted a preferment during the suspensory period, he by that act lost the right to compensation in respect of the benefice which he had vacated, while he acquired no right of compensation in respect of his new office. In Clause 66 of the Irish Act, however, there was an exprsss provision to the effect that any one who, during the suspensory period, vacated one office in order to accept another, retained the right to compensation in respect of the office which he vacated. And the reason was obvious—for, unless some such provision was made, no sensible man, having regard to his duties and responsibilities, it might be as head of a family, would give up any position which he held, however humble, and to which a right of compensation attached, for the purpose of taking another place which would yield him no compensation. The effect would be to limit the choice of successors to those outside the Welsh Church and, so far, to paralyse the Church.
  MR. ASQUITHundertook to consider the point raised by the hon. Member before Clause 32 should be reached. The hon. Member would probably agree that the question could not be discussed fittingly on the particular Amendment now before them. The point, however, was well worthy of consideration.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 230.—(Division List No. 72.)
  *MR. J. G. TALBOT*MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University) moved the following Amendment, which stood in the name of Viscount Wolmer:—"Page 1, line11, after 'appointed' insert 'or nominated,'" and explained that in the case of bishoprics the persons selected were not "appointed," but "nominated" by the Crown.
  Amendment agreed to
  *MR. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN*MR. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN moved Page 1, line 12, to leave out "Her Majesty or." He said he put the Amendment down for the purpose of asking a question. When this Bill was going into Committee, the Home Secretary said that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to place her patronage at the disposal of Parliament. He wished to point out that in the preamble to the Irish Act the following words occurred:—
  "And whereas Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she has placed at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the several Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, Benefices, Cathedral Preferments and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Offices in Ireland:"
  and he would ask the Home Secretary whether it was the intention of the Government to insert similar words in the preamble of this Bill.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the Government had carefully considered the question as to the necessity to make a similar recital in this Bill, and they had been advised that it was not necessary to do so. This Bill would have to receive the assent of Her Majesty, and it certainly could not receive that consent, unless Her Majesty had consented to place her patronage at the disposal of Parliament.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERquite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to argue that it was absolutely necessary that the Crown should consent to the contents of this Bill; but still, he thought that it was a desirable thing that there should be general words to that effect in the preamble. He only mentioned this in order that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the matter.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not know by whom the right hon. Gentleman had been advised. Probably it was by the draftsmen of the Bill, and he ventured to say that the practice of draftsmen at the present day, wilfully to destroy the preambles of Bills was a very unfortunate thing. Preambles often contained historical statements of great value, and the insertion of those words in the preamble of this Bill would be a record of the fact that Her Majesty had assented. It was not of course, a matter of contention, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider it.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he was glad to hear this pleading for the aptitude and accuracy of preambles. He remembered when a certain Bill was before the House not long ago, the Government proposed to insert words in the preamble to secure the supremacy of the Crown, but were told that the preamble was worthless.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the point then taken was, that the insertion of the words in the preamble was not sufficient. The right hon. Gentlemen would remember that the contention was, that although there were words in the preamble, the body of the Bill ought to carry them out.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON MR. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk and Malton) moved, "Page 1, line 12, leave out 'or any person.'" He said he had placed the Amendment on the paper with a view to protecting the rights of lay patrons in Wales. They had now arrived at the first wore s in the Bill which attacked the rights of particular individuals. The Queen had placed Crown rights at the disposal of Parliament, but private patrons had not. Why should private patrons be deprived of their property? The right of presentation and advowsons could not, by any straining of the term, be said to be, national property. He did not deny the power of Parliament to deal with this property, but he denied the justice of so doing. He had taken the trouble to find out how many livings in Wales were subject to the rights of lay patronage, and he found that 360 out of 1081 were so subject. Therefore the lay patrons were a sufficiently numerous body to demand the attention of the House. Here, again, they were following the broad road that led to the destruction of churches, as laid down in the Irish Act. In that Act there were very similar words. In that Act the words were:—
  "Save as hereinafter mentioned, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed by Her Majesty, or any other person or corporation,"&c.
  But what did "hereinafter mentioned" mean with regard to lay patronage?

  1081
  One special section expressly protected the rights of lay patrons. In Section 70 it was stated that:—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the patronage or right of presentation to any proprietary or district parochial church or endowed chapel of ease which has been endowed out of private funds, or affect the property in any such church or chapel, or the property held for the purposes of or appropriated to the use of the same, or affect the continuance of the trust relating thereto as originally constituted."
  Under that section a vast number of lay patrons were protected; but under this Bill they were not protected at all, and the provision for compensation was ridiculously inadequate. There was no doubt that the right of selling an advowson was a very old right of property. It was as old as the Church itself. It was only natural that those who built and endowed churches should desire to have the appointment to them. When the Irish Church was disestablished it was not found that lay patronage was incompatible with what was called a Voluntary Church. Again, it had been distinctly recognised by the State on several occasions that this right of presentation was a bonâ-fide right of property. When Corporations were reformed they were directed to sell their advowsons; and again in 1863, under Lord Westbury's Act, the Lord Chancellor was instructed to sell certain advowsons of the Crown. The Liberation Society, which desired to liberate the Church from holding any property, in 1885 put out a scheme of Disestablishment for England and Wales. In this scheme it was remarked that—
  "rightly or wrongly, patronage in private hands has been considered, both by law and usage, as property of which the holder cannot equitably be deprived without an equivalent."
  Yet this Bill proposed to take away this right without any equivalent whatever. It might be said that the deletion of the words to be struck out by the Amendment would put the owners of patronage in rather a curious position; they would have the right to present to livings from which the means of living had been taken away. Of course that would be a very hard case, but he proposed by a subsequent Amendment that, where a man or his ancestors had built or endowed a church, that that Endowment should continue in the future appropriated to
  1082
  that particular living, and should not be handed over to the common purse of the Disestablished Church. He further proposed that the owners of these advowsons, if they desired it, might give up to the representative body their rights of presentation on receiving compensation for so giving them up. Unless the Amendment were carried, lay patrons would suffer from a grievous injustice. One class who would be specially injured by the Bill were those who had bought under the Act passed by Lord Westbury in 1863, which authorised the sale by the Lord Chancellor of the advowson of a living if the money went to increase the endowment of the living. He had succeeded in finding five livings which had been sold under that Act, and these advowsons, bought from the Lord Chancellor since 1863, were to be taken from the purchasers, with the compensation of one year's emoluments. One of these livings was at Grossmont, in Monmouthshire. The value was £200 a year, and in 1864 £1,200 was given for it, or six years' purchase. Since then it had been twice sold, once for £2,300, and once for £1,700. He fully recognised that they could not be influenced by these differences between one private patron and another, and that what they must look at was what the Lord Chancellor got for the living when he sold it, and that was six years' purchase. Now they were going to take it back by another Act of Parliament for one year's purchase. Another living in Herbranston, Pembrokeshire, worth £220 a year, was sold under the Act of 1863 for about £2,400, which was about 10 years' purchase. A third case was at Ilston, in Glamorganshire, where the living was worth £250 a year. It was sold in 1864 for £2,222, which was about 9 years' purchase. This the State was to take back at £250, so that it would make a clean profit of nearly £2,000. A fourth case was at Norton, in Radnorshire, but he had not been able to obtain the figures. A fifth case was at Pwllcrochan, in Pembrokeshire, where the value of the living was £145 a year, and it was sold in 1864 for £1,100, or eight years' purchase, and it had since changed hands for £1,500. The Committee would agree that the holders of these livings would be treated shamefully if the property were taken from them without any compensation.

  1083
  What was the title under which these gentlemen held? It was Lord Westbury's Act of 1863. The form on which the advowson was granted from the Crown to the buyer began:—
  "Know all men that, by virtue of the power given me, in consideration of the price paid, I, the undersigned, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby appoint and grant all that advowson, subject to the present incumbency, to hold for ever, for absolute and indefeasible estate and inheritance."
  That was under the Act of 1863, and now, in 1895, they were passing a repeal that was to take back the livings at a price to be fixed by themselves. What he proposed was, that these advowsons should not be taken away, but that the present holders should continue to hold the right to present they had bought from the Crown. Thirty-two years ago an indefeasible title was given to the purchasers of advowsons, who gave ten times as much for them as they would obtain under this Act. He regarded it as spoliation and injustice, and thought they would be able to establish a case for the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that, so far as the question was one of compensation, it would be more properly discussed on Clause 18, and he should defer any observations on compensation until they reached that clause. The larger question raised was that of disestablishment and disendowment of the Welsh Church, quoad livings in the gift of Her Majesty or of private patrons. Would it be satisfactory to have the nomination to one class of livings vested in the representative body, and the nomination to another class left in the hands of private patrons, after they had ceased to have any interest in them?
  MR GRANT LAWSONexplained that he meant by a subsequent amendment to keep the endowment for these livings, and, if they were taken, to say that the patron should have a right to compensation.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that was, no doubt, the logical sequence of the amendment, so that what was proposed was partial and optional disestablishment and disendowment, and it would be left to private persons to say in these cases how far disestablishment and disendowment should be carried. That struck at the root and principle of the Bill.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that under this Bill there might be cases in Wales—there would certainly be such in England—in which the endowments would remain; and what was then to become of the right of patronage?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he ought to have referred to that point. The hon. Member had quoted the section of the Act of 1871 dealing with the class of cases to which the right hon. Baronet referred—that is to say, cases in which endowments of the Church were not affected by the general disendowment of the Act. These cases were reserved, and there ought to be a similar provision in this Bill. He would give the matter his attention.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHcontinued, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had thought out the matter of private endowments. A private endowment ought to remain where it was given, and the patronage would remain also. He hoped the point would be considered before they reached the private endowment clause. He understood the amendment to raise the whole question of the way in which the Bill proposed to take away the right of patronage to livings. He thought this was the proper time to make a protest, and would support the hon. Member if he divided the Committee.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,)quoted, in support of what he had said with regard to private lay patronage in the Disestablished Church of Ireland, a letter he had received from one of the highest authorities on ecclesiastical matters in that country, whose name, however, he was not at liberty to mention. The writer said:—
  "The right of advowson was taken from individual patrons by the Irish Church Act, and compensation given to the patrons accordingly. Under Section 70 of that Act, certain rights of patronage were reserved, having regard mainly (if not exclusively) to trustee (as distinguished from parish) Churches. The Church of Ireland, in her own Statutes, has made provisions (whether wisely or unwisely) for a benefactor obtaining a right of presentation under certain exceptional circumstances, and under certain rigid conditions. As a matter of fact these provisions have not been put in force save in a very few cases, and in those with which I am acquainted, the parish has reserved the right of

  1085
  buying back its liberty to have an incumbent appointed in the ordinary course, viz., by a Board of Nomination, in which the diocese, the parish, and the Bishop all have a voice."
  *MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid he desired, as having been nominator in the largest diocese in Ireland since the date of Disestablishment, to say that there were some cases in which there still remained, outside the Irish Church Act, lay patronage in the Church of Ireland. Lay patronage, generally, was dealt with by a Board of Nomination, consisting of elected laymen and clergymen, from the various parishes in the diocese. But there were cases, some in large towns, and others in country districts, in which, by the Irish Church Act, the right of the lay patron to nominate clergymen was continued. And in the Statutes of the Church of Ireland provision was made for regulating such patronage.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he took a different view as to the rights of patronage, from those of some of his hon. Friends. He had always regarded them as a trust, and not as private property, although the law had distinctly made them personal property. He regarded the terms of the Amendment as rather too sweeping. Although he hoped the Bill would have the effect of stopping the sale of livings, which was so great an evil in the Church, he thought the right of private patronage should, in certain cases, be maintained. In Ireland there were cases in which the right of next presentation was kept and never sold. If the words of the Amendment were retained, the right of private patronage would be absolutely swept away, and not merely money value, but spiritual duty, which was the most important. He hoped the right of private patronage would be retained, although the value of the living might go.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he believed the right of private patronage originated in exchange for generous endowment on the part of a pious donor. He did not speak as an accomplished historian—far from it; but he understood that in the early days of the Church certain pious persons allotted a rent-charge on their land for the service of the Church, and in return received the right of presentation to the incumbency. This being so, Parliament had
  1086
  no right, in the nineteenth century, to take away from them the right to obtain which they gave their money to the Church. He deprecated the traffic in the sale of livings as much as anyone, but the Committee should look at these things rationally, and if pious persons in past ages, in return for their endowments to the Church, received certain rights, those rights should be preserved to their representatives at the present day. If the right of next presentation were conveyed to a discreet and careful purchaser, as pious and desirous of the welfare of the Church as the person by whom it was conveyed, that purchaser should receive just and fair treatment at the hands of that House. As long as a private patron, whether an original settlor or a purchaser, fulfilled his trust to the Church, showing he had the interests of religion and the Church generally at heart, he should be treated with every regard, and not have his rights forfeited.
  MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDalso supported the Amendment. He said there was something that private patrons valued more than the fact that they had a valuable piece of patronage to bestow, and that was the privilege of appointing those whom they knew would do their duty faithfully and loyally by these parishioners. Such patrons as these would infinitely prefer to retain these privileges than receive the miserable compensation the Home Secretary contemplated in this Bill. They would view with great apprehension and anxiety the proposal that presentees to the livings should be appointed by Parliament as often as not for political reasons more than for any merit of their own. For the reasons he had given he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if he went to a Division.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEhoped that he should be allowed to say a few words in reference to this Amendment, because this proposal had deeply stirred up the minds of people, and especially those of his constituents. A great number of persons objected most strongly to this proposal for the Disendowment of the Church, and therefore they were anxious that no opportunity should be lost for doing everything that was possible to mitigate the evil in the event of the proposal being carried into

  1087
  effect. There were some 350 or 360 livings in Wales belonging to lay patrons, and the amount proposed to be taken by the clause would be something between £360,000 and half-a-million a year, and to take away property of that extent without compensation would be a monstrous abuse of Parliamentary procedure. He was aware that it had been said that property of this kind was a mere trust, and that the lay patrons who sold the next presentations were guilty of a breach of trust. No one could object to traffic of that kind more than he did himself. These benefactions had a respectable origin, and a large number of lay patrons regarded their right of presentation as a sacred trust to be exercised for the spiritual welfare of the community. In such cases he maintained that such property ought not to be lightly dealt with. As it appeared that the Government did not intend to give way upon the point, he hoped that the hon. Member would go to a Division, when he should certainly support him.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that he should like to say just one word in reference to the system of compensation that had been adopted in the case of Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that no question of compensation arises here. The only question before the Committee is that which relates to the preservation of the rights of lay patrons.
  MR. CALDWELLonly wished to point out that a Conservative Government had adopted a certain principle in their Scotch Bill.
  MR. HARRY FOSTERsaid it was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had desired to keep the two questions of the retention of the rights of lay patrons and that of compensation separate, but he did not see how that could be done. When they were asked to put an end to the rights of the lay patrons, they must look at the further clauses of the Bill and see what was to become of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that the difficulty would be dealt with under the subsequent clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Irish precedent, but in dealing with this question hon. Members would
  1088
  not feel themselves bound by that precedent. At any rate, however, the lay patrons were treated much more favourably under the Irish Act than it was proposed to treat them under the provisions of this Bill. Under this Bill, the lay patrons were to be deprived of rights which had a real market value. As regarded the right of the lay patrons to compensation, he must remind the Committee that compensation had been given even to those who were the possessors of slaves, whose rights were taken away by Parliament. These rights of presentation were held, not only by lay patrons, but by the Lord Chancellor, who was the keeper of the Queen's conscience, and it was certainly a most important question how these lay patrons were to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. He should most certainly support the Amendment if the hon. Member who moved it were to press it to a Division.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that he did not think it was at all unreasonable that this question should have been raised. The clause, as it stood, would operate as an entire prohibition to the exercise of the right of lay patronage. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary intended to take away the rights of lay patrons without giving them compensation. However, that was a matter that could be dealt with later. He entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet the Mem-for the Kingston Division (Sir R. Temple) that a great number of the lay patrons regarded their rights of presentation as a trust reposed in them which was to be exercised for the spiritual benefit of the Church. He should support the Amendment.
  *MR. J. G. TALBOTasked whether there was anything in the Bill that would protect the rights of those who had given Benefactions for the endowment of Benefices, and now enjoyed the right of presentation to these Benefices.
  *MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDasked whether there were any provisions in the Bill to safeguard future Benefactions to the Church.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he thought he could give a satisfactory answer to both questions. The House would observe that the absolute prohibition was qualified by the introductory words, "save as by this Act provided." Therefore it was

  1089
  competent for them, at a later stage, to introduce supplemental limitations and qualifications which would be perfectly consistent with the prohibitory words of this clause. Therefore, the House was not stopped from considering the matter by passing the clause in its present form. As he indicated at an earlier stage, they ought to make provision in respect of those private benefactions which were not made the subject of Disendowment at all. With regard to the other question, it was quite clear that the representative body ought not to be in the least degree debarred from exercising the same freedom which the Irish body appeared to have exercised in making arrangements for its own future Government. If the words of the Bill were not sufficient he would see that they were extended.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 202.—(Division List No. 73.)
  MR. R. W. HANBURYdesired to move the following Amendment: "Clause 1, page 1. line 13, leave out 'ecclesiastical.'" He had, he said, put down the Amendment because he did not know what was the meaning of the Government in departing from the corresponding Irish Act and inserting these words. In the Irish Act the words were, "Archbishopric, Bishopric, Benefice, or Cathedral there referred to," and the phrase "ecclesiastical office" was not used. Besides ecclesiastical offices held by ecclesiastics, there were also offices held by lay officials, and he should like to know the reason for extending the meaning of the clause. If it were to cover not only offices held by ecclesiastics, but also those held by laymen in the Church, why was it necessary to have this word "ecclesiastical" at all, instead of applying it to all offices connected with the Church? If the Interpretation Clause stood, he could not see any purpose in this word "ecclesiastical."
  MR. ASQUITHremarked that the hon. Gentleman's criticism was fair. The words "ecclesiastical office" were used here in order to avoid the redundancy of "Archbishopric, Bishopric, Benefice, or Cathedral referred to" used in the Irish Church Act. They had proceeded to define "ecclesiastical office" which would include such offices, for instance, as lay
  1090
  rectors and lay vicars. He was not himself wedded to the expression "ecclesiastical office."
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the Chancellor of a diocese and Diocesan Surveyors would be included in the expression, "ecclesiastical office." For his own part, he thought "ecclesiastical" was a better form of defining what was meant than would be secured by the omission of the word.
  MR. ASQUITHthought this was rather a technical question, but before coming to the Definition Clause, he would see if it was necessary to make the language more specific. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division, his impression was, that a Diocesan Surveyor did not hold any office in connection with the Church. Such an official, he understood, was paid according to the work he did, and had not a salary out of the funds of the Church. What it was meant to apply the clause to was, any office in the Church to which the holder had been appointed in virtue of some right in the patron, and the emoluments of which were derived from the endowments of the Church.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERdid not think it made very much difference whether the word "ecclesiastical" was left in or not, but expressed the opinion that the Definition Clause would have to be carefully remodelled in order to exclude or include certain of these offices.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHobserved that it was obviously intended by the Bill to deal with all offices which derived their emoluments from the endowments of the Church. There were some offices at the present time in connection with which fees were paid, such as the fees paid by Churchwardens at visitations. If it were desired that such fees should not continue to be chargeable under the altered circumstances, something would have to be inserted in the Bill to provide for it.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYconsidered
  that the language of the clause as drawn was so wide as to include other than endowed offices in connection with the Church.
  *MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDpointed out that under the Irish Church

  1091
  Act, sextons, and like officials, were admitted to be ecclesiastical persons, and were allowed to commute
  MR. HANBURYintimated that after what the Home Secretary had said he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. WICKHAM: moved "Page 1, line 13, leave out 'or connected with.'" The words, he said, were so wide that their inclusion would lead to certain difficulties. The preceding words were:—
  "After the passing of this Act no person shall be appointed by Her Majesty or any person, by any existing right of patronage, to any ecclesiastical office in or connected with the Church in Wales."
  If the words "or connected with" were to be left in they would apply to the case of offices which the Bill had no intention of dealing with. For instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury held an office which might come within the description of being connected with the Church in Wales. But he thought the Committee would agree that it was not intended that the Bill should apply to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the Metropolitan of the whole Church, including the Church in Wales, and yet, how was it possible to say his great office was not in some way or other connected with the Church in Wales? He begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHreplied, that of course it was not intended that the Bill should apply to such an office as that held by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to disestablish it by what was called a sidewind. The words "or connected with" were used in the Irish Church Act. He did not mean to suggest that that invested them with any sacred sanction. They did, however, happen to be the words used in the Irish Church Act, and they had been repeated here because the Government were afraid they might fail to sweep within the scope of the Bill some posts which, though technically not in the Church, were so connected with it that they ought to stand or fall by the same consideration that applied to offices in the Church. It was rather a question of draughtsmanship, and was a matter which might also be cleared up by a fuller statement in the Definition Clause
  1092
  of what was meant by the term "office." He would suggest that it might be better to leave the word as it stood until they came to the point.
  *MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the words in the clause, would be literally read by anyone cognisant of Church order to entirely include all offices connected with the Church of England. The words of the clause ought not to be left so that they might possibly be interpreted to cover a wider field than was strictly intended.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he could not assent to the construction the hon. Member had put upon the words, but rather than occupy time in contesting the matter, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY MR. R. W. HANBURY moved, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to insert after "the" the word "disestablished."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the insertion of the word was unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester) moved to add at the end of Clause1:—
  "Provided that, upon the avoidance of his office by any person having been the incumbent of a benefice at the passing of this Act, and having since continued to perform the duties of his ecclessiastical office in the parish, if it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Welsh Commissioners hereinafter mentioned that there has been no minister of the Calvinistic Methodists, Independent, Baptist, or Wesleyan denominations resident for the preceding six months in the parish, they shall so inform the person or persons who would have been the patron of the benefice if this Act had not passed, and thereupon all rights and duties existing at the passing of this Act as to presentation and institution to such benefice shall be in force, and any person duly presented thereto and instituted therein shall be deemed to be the holder of an ecclesiastical office at the passing of this Act."
  He said that in the Debates on this Bill it had been continually urged that since the time these particular endowments were conferred upon the Church in Wales, a large number of other denominations had grown up; that this fact had altered the whole state of things; and that, therefore, those endowments were to be regarded as conferred upon religion generally, and not upon any

  1093
  particular religious body. He disputed the justice of that argument. Was it true that the Nonconformist denominations which had grown up in Wales during recent years did really cover the ground so as to compete with the work of the Church? If it could be shown that Nonconformist bodies had not grown up in Wales in such a way as to compete fully and properly with the Church—to cover the ground which the Church covered, and to do the work which the Church did, then the argument to which he had just referred fell entirely to the ground. One of the most important parts of the duties of an ordained minister of the Church was his personal work—in fact, he might say that it was the most important work he had to do. At any rate, it was quite true that without it his labours in the pulpit would be practically useless. Unless ministers by their lives and conversation carried out the principles which they preached amongst those with whom they lived, their influence among the people would be small. This condition did not apply to matters of religion only. Let them consider for a moment the efforts which were made some time since to raise the tone of the people in the East End of London. The success of that work was achieved mainly by personal effort—by personal contact between the teacher and the taught, between the reformer and the person to be reformed. No amount of preaching or of writing would avail without this close personal effort. Another consideration in this matter was, that very few people comparatively went to church or to chapel. He did not mean to apply this remark to any denomination in particular, for it was a fact that the habitual attendance of people at church or chapel was very small; and the minister or clergyman who only attended service on Sundays, and did not trouble himself about the interests of his congregation during the week, could have very little influence on a very small fraction of the population around him. He was much interested to notice that in a recent election the hon. Member for East Leeds pointed out that in his opinion the parachial system of visitation was at the root of the success of the Established Church. That was quite true. He wished he could adequately convey to hon. Members what the
  1094
  actual duties were that a busy clergyman undertook. Ho would try, however, to give some idea of the pastoral work of a good clergyman of the Church of England. In a country parish in Gloucestershire, the vicar stated that either he or his curate saw everyone in the parish once in every five weeks. Every day of the week this work of personal visitation was systematically pursued; the vicar had no district visitors to assist him, and all the people, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, looked to him to minister to their wants. There was a small Nonconformist chapel in the parish open on the Sunday, but during the whole of the week there was no one to look after the people but the vicar of the Church. It was idle to preach religion without personal work to back it up; and that system of personal work was a characteristic feature of the English Church. In many matters people looked to the Church for little services, such as the giving of hospital tickets, visiting the sick, and so forth, and precisely the same system existed in Wales. The clergyman was at the head of all that was done in the way of good works, and all movements, of a non-political character, for social improvement. Did the Nonconformists do this kind of work in Wales? He should be very glad to hear a reply. As there was no answer he took it to be a confession. They not only did not, but could not, do this work, and the reason was that they were not there. They did not despise it, but they did not fully realise its importance, and distinguish between the two classes of ministers, the preaching and the pastoral—he was speaking specially of the Calvinistic Methodist body. In nearly half the parishes of Wales, by the admission of the Home Secretary, there was no recognised Nonconformist minister. Anglesey had been the piéce de resistance of the right hon. Gentleman, but most of his figures had subsequently broken down.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he adhered absolutely to what he had said.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had reckoned more Nonconformists than there was population in the island. There were 76 parishes in Anglesey, and 68 of the clergy, but how many Nonconformist resident ministers were there?

  1095
  Only 21, and, consequently, although there was a larger number of chapels, a great many of the parishes were absolutely bereft of pastoral care except that which they obtained from the clergy.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether these figures related to one, or to all the Nonconformist denominations?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he was speaking of Calvinistic Methodists. The Committee would observe that there were Calvinists in every parish, so that the argument was perfectly sound. In the vale of Towy there were 61 parishes, and only 18 Calvinistic Methodist pastors; in Radnor there were 36 parishes, and two pastors only of this denomination; in Brecon there were 92 parishes, and only 11 pastors, whereas there were 102 clergy; in Pembrokeshire there were 110 parishes, and only 18 pastors; and, finally, in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, there were 280 parishes and 103 pastors, while the clergy numbered 450. In addition to that it must be remembered that nearly half the parishes were absolutely bereft of Nonconformist ministers of any kind. Pastoral care was absolutely essential, but it followed that in nearly half the parishes of Wales it could not be said that the Nonconformist bodies would succeed to the work of the Church. The Church alone occupied the ground. He hoped that, though so seriously hampered, the Church would continue to do her work, though, of course, if this Bill were passed she would not be in a position to do so much as at the present time. The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that the Nonconformists would occupy the ground, entirely failed him, because, although they proposed to take away the power of the Church, they would do nothing to replace the clergy by Nonconformist ministers. Was it not intolerably mean to expect the Church to do that work which it was admitted was essential, and yet to take away from them their endowments and position by which in the past they had been able to do it? Surely the labourer was worthy of his hire. The replacement of the clergy by Nonconformist ministers would not satisfy him, but he had made every concession to the Government in this matter. He did not pretend that if
  1096
  this Amendment were inserted he should approve of the Bill, but he wished to see how far the Government would really go, and he, therefore, appealed to them to leave the Church in full possession of her endowments in parishes where there was no resident minister of any Nonconformist denomination until such a minister was appointed. It was a tremendous concession, and he thought the Amendment a very moderate one.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid, the Amendment was unworkable and entirely unnecessary. He only got up lest it should be supposed that no answer being given, the assertions of the noble Lord, who spoke with scant knowledge of the subject, were accurate and well founded. Of course, the noble Lord had his knowledge at second hand. They knew where it came from. They knew it was totally inaccurate, and inaccurate to the knowledge of the person in high authority who supplied that information to the noble Lord. The noble Lord had argued from the facts, as they related to the Calvinistic Methodists, who have an itinerant ministry, and he put that forward as proof that there was no pastoral care of the people by Nonconformity. Was there any parish in Wales that had not got its Chapel? Was there? [Sir R. WEBSTER: "What about its minister?"] Was there a Chapel which had not got its minister, whether he resided in the parish or not? ["Oh."] He asserted, as against the assertions of the noble Lord, that there was no country on the face of the earth where the ministerial and pastoral duties to which the noble Lord referred were so well fulfilled as in the Principality. The noble Lord said there was no resident ministry, and that the people were deprived of pastoral care during six days of the week. There were, however, people in the Principality who took care of the religious services in those villages even though the pastor might not be there, who were as godly, as pious, and as capable as the minister himself to carry out those functions. To say that there was none to visit the sick, to administer consolation to the bereaved, was a libel on the Welsh people. Was it not astounding to hear the noble Lord make such statements when it was admitted that the vast majority of the people belong to the Nonconformist denominations? There

  1097
  was, he repeated, absolutely no truth whatever in the noble Lord's assertions, which showed utter ignorance of the whole subject.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Asquith) spoke with perfect ignorance of North Wales. The hon. Member sat for Glamorgan, and the House might not be aware how entirely distinct North Wales was from South Wales. He had spoken as if he knew what was going on in North Wales, but yet he had never denied the fact that in half the parishes there was no resident minister other than the clergy of the Church. The reason was that the system of Calvinistic Methodism was the itinerant system. But the point which the noble Lord had made—and he could prove its truth out of the mouth of the Calvinistic Methodists themselves, was this—that the Nonconformists did not attend to the poor, and could not attend to the poor. At Llandudno they had a Committee to inquire as to how it was their numbers were falling off, and the answer was—neglect the poor.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is going very wide indeed of the subject-matter of the Amendment.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the want of pastoral care and the neglect of the masses was the very groundwork of the Amendment. Which was the system that would help the poor of Wales best, which would give most strength to the religious well-being of the people—the itinerant system or the pastoral system? His noble Friend's Amendment said—take not away the one until you somehow or other supply the other. That seemed the only worthy way of looking at the matter, and he very much regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite should have ventured to contradict the facts.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he had lived in North Wales longer than any man in the House. and he asserted deliberately that every single word spoken, by his hon. Friend in his short and temperate speech, was quite as applicable to North as to South Wales. As to the Amendment, it was ridiculous and unworkable.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYOE,)said, they all agreed with what the noble Lord said about the resident ministry and their excellent work. But it must also be remembered that the work which was done under the system of the Church of England by the resident rector or vicar, was, under the system of the Nonconformist Churches, performed by those who were not resident ministers but deacons or elders. It was a different system. Each had its merits, but it would be going rather far to say that because the Nonconformists proceeded upon a different system, therefore they did not discharge the great work which all denominations in common aimed at. Be that as it might, it was the system in Wales, and when the hon. Member for Shropshire talked of pastoral care and neglect of the masses, he must bear in mind that the Welsh masses preferred the system of Welsh Nonconformity. It was the system with which they were familiar, and he saw no reason to think that any Amendment would alter the preference which for many years past they had shown. He thought the noble Lord could hardly expect the Committee to take his Amendment seriously. The operation of this Amendment would depend upon a mere accident. If there did not happen to be in a parish a resident minister belonging to one of only four specified Nonconformist denominations, the Amendment would apply. Why had the noble Lord confined his choice to four denominations?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that he would willingly include others.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether the noble Lord would include Roman Catholics.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Certainly.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that at any rate the Amendment as it stood related only to four denominations, and its application would depend upon such accidents as whether a Nonconformist Minister had continued to live or had died within a fixed period. It would not be reasonable to say that in a Disestablished country there should be little accidental cases where the Church should be reestablished. Then these little cases themselves would be liable to extinction in the event of the appearance of resident Nonconformist ministers.
  *MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that the religion of a country did not consist exclusively of services on Sundays, but required daily ministrations. He reasserted that in half the parishes in Wales there were no resident ministers. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorganshire said that the week-day work was done by laymen satisfactorily; but were these lay deacons persons who had other things to do, or were they people like the clergy of the Church of England whose whole time was given to parish work? It was one of the greatest advantages of our Establishment that under it there must be in every parish a man who was bound to occupy the whole of his time in looking after the spiritual interests of his parishioners. If the present system was to be done away with there ought to be some substitute for it, and the noble Lord's proposal, which he did not say was a very good one, was at any rate better than nothing. It was very desirable that there should be somebody in every parish able to carry on the pastorate work all through the week. Figures had been quoted on the other side, and he proposed also to give figures bearing on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMANdoubted whether elaborate figures could be made relevant to the Amendment.
  *MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether it would not be in order to give figures showing that half the parishes of Wales were without resident Nonconformist ministers? Such figures proved how necessary this Amendment was.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he did not dispute that the hon. Member was entitled to argue that half the parishes were without resident ministers; but to go into elaborate figures in this Amendment would not, in his opinion, be in Order.
  *MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that in 485 parishes in Wales there were no resident ministers charged with the duty of looking after the daily religious interests of the people. Was the object of the promoters of this Bill to strike a blow at Religion? If not, if the object was not irreligious, this Amendment must be accepted. Lay deacons, it should be remembered, had their own private work to do. In fact, a large proportion of the Calvinistic Methodist ministers were men who had other work to do besides
  1100
  spiritual work. In 1888 the number of Calvinistic ministers was 569, and of these 191 were shopkeepers, farmers, commercial travellers, or agents. He might be asked—
  "What business has the State to say that there is to be a resident minister in every parish?"
  The modern secular principle was apparently that the State should do everything in other matters, but nothing for Religion and Christianity. He opposed that view strenuously. The late Archbishop of York, speaking on the Irish Church Bill, said—
  "The object of the Establishment is, that inasmuch as the State has an army to contend against its enemies without, so it has an army to contend against the enemies within of sin, ignorance, and crime."
  Adopting that view he contended that it was the right and duty of the State to arm itself by a recognition of Religion against sin, ignorance, and crime. The Amendment was in accord with the principle of religious equality, for all that it said was that there ought to be some minister of religion in every parish ready to perform its pastoral work. In his opinion every man who voted against this Amendment was really an enemy of Christianity.
  *MR. TOMLINSONremarked that the President of the Board of Trade, arguing against the Amendment, had said that it would create a number of oases in the Disestablishment zone, and that that was undesirable. But under the Bill, as it stood, there would be similar oases for a long time to come. All that the Amendment would do, therefore, would be to give to a few more parishes an exceptional position.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that the proposal in the Amendment was that in a parish where there was no resident Nonconformist minister the endowment of the Church should continue. The new body that was to be created was to give notice to the parties who had the right of presentation that that right could still be exercised in the circumstances. It had been shown that 480 parishes out of 1000, or nearly half, were without resident ministers. Therefore, in his opinion, the Amendment was very necessary. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorganshire had said that the statistical arguments of the mover of the Amendment

  1101
  applied only to one Nonconformist denomination—namely, the Calvinistic Methodists, and that these had the services of peripatetic ministers. The hon. Gentleman was at once challenged by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight to name some denomination having a different system, and he failed to do so. It was clear that in the main the hon. Member admitted the contention he had endeavoured to traverse. The reply of the hon. Member was imperfect and partial—not complete. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite thought that it did not matter whether the minister resided in the parish or not. It was of most vital importance that a Minister should reside in every parish. How did the hon. Member for Glamorganshire try to escape from that? He said that the work was done by the lay brethren. That was a most extraordinary statement to make. Besides the visitation and charitable work clergymen had to do, there was their spiritual work, and a minister could not do that if he did not reside in the parish. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had tried to offer one or two answers. The right hon. Gentleman said that this system of a peripatetic Ministry, entirely dependent on the laity, was approved of by the people of Wales. That was the very thing the supporters of the Amendment denied. They did not believe the people liked it. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of certain oases in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that these were the very parishes from which all the money would be taken away, and that was the case this Amendment was intended to meet. These were parishes in which there was no resident minister except the clergyman of the Church, and from them all their money was to be recklessly and needlessly taken away. That was the point at which this Amendment aimed. He contended that the Amendment and the Debate which had followed it, had entirely exposed the capricious principles embodied in the Bill. It showed clearly that this Bill was intended to take away money which was now given to pastoral aid, and to leave all these parishes destitute of any permanent spiritual attention. Therefore, he did hope that his hon. Friend would go to a Division.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLin supporting the Amendment, said, they were invited by its opponents to put the clergy who devoted their whole time to their sacred duties on a level with laymen, who, though equally pious and learned, were only able to give their leisure to promoting the interests of the Church. The Committee could not in fairness or justice place them both in exactly the same position. He should be glad to see the time when the influence of the laity was increased in the Church. At the same time he was by no moans certain that increased work for the laity in connection with the affairs of the Church was not attended with some dangers. Some of the Nonconformist communities gave too political a character to their church organisation and work, and he was not sure that this was not due to the predominance of the influence of the laity. Personally, he could not regard the ministration of laymen, however capable, as equivalent in value to the ministrations of the clergy or of other ministers of religion who gave their whole time to their duties. Laymen were influenced as the clergy were not, by associations of a mundane character. He did not say that those associations were not highly honourable, but they were such as interfered with that freedom of action which he believed to be absolutely necessary for the administration of religious work. Regard must be had not only to those who ministered, but to those to whom the ministrations of the clergy were directed. There seemed to be an hypothesis working in the minds of those who opposed the Amendment that the whole of the people of Wales and different districts in England were broken up into religious communities, and that every man in every district and parish in Wales was a devoted member of some religious organisation, and that the only question before the Committee was as to what organisation or society he was attached. But he himself felt that the great difficulty of those who desired to promote religious influence among the people was that so many belonged to no religious body, but were men leading careless, thoughtless lives, and who, in a religious sense, might be described, if not as outcasts, at any rate, as out of the way. It was to these that the clergy and ministers of religion had

  1103
  to minister in an exceptional degree, for they were persons whom the ordinary religious societies did not reach. They had to pursue in the different parishes what he might describe as a work of "friendly aggression." They had to seek out the lost, to penetrate into dark places, to lighten lamps which had either been extinguished or had never been lighted. This work could not be done without ministers set apart for the task. The laity were so engrossed in worldly affairs that they could not give the time or manifest the energy, force, or vigour, so necessary. America was often pointed to as a nation without an Established Church. But the religious census of the United States illustrated the inability of unendowed Churches to reach the masses of the people. The report on the census showed that a large proportion of the people of the United States were not reached by any religious agency. The Amendment before the Committee would really be an act of kindness to those who were forgotten, who, in the absence of endowed clergy, would be entirely out of the reach of Christian ministrations. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of the Amendment as constituting oases in the desert. They wanted these oases throughout the whole of Wales. Rich parishes could take care of themselves. There were many rich parishes which did not require any endowment. The Amendment was not for the benefit of the rich, but that of the poor, and it was for the poor he pleaded. It was for the benefit of the poor that endowments were mainly intended. Let the rich be remembered when occasion arose, but never let them forget the poor.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the Committee should remember that the case of Wales differed materially from that of Ireland. When the Church was disestablished in Ireland, there was, in every parish, a Roman Catholic priest, at any rate, who gave his whole time to his duties, and was not engaged in other occupations as many Nonconformist ministers (however worthy they might be) undoubtedly were. So there was a clear distinction to be drawn between the case of Wales and the various villages in Ireland left without a resident Church of England clergyman. The Amendment seemed to him to put the objection they entertained to the Disestablishment of the
  1104
  Church in Wales on a broader basis than any Amendment that had yet been moved, because, after all, speaking for himself, the most serious objection he had to the whole Bill was that it diverted from religious principles money intended for religion, and did not allow either the Church of England or any other religious body to have the use of those funds. The Amendment recognised, as they all ought to recognise, the good work undoubtedly done by the Nonconformist bodies. But even where there was a Nonconformist minister resident in a parish it was a great advantage to have a resident clergyman of the Church of England. But the supporters of the Amendment did not go as far as that. All they asked was that there should be in every parish some resident minister ready to attend to the wants of the poor. He was sorry the Amendment did not include other denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church. He would not object to ministers being itinerary if they were men who gave their whole time to the work. It was not so much a question of resident ministers, as having a body of men giving up their lives to the work, and the whole of whose time could be depended upon to attend to those who required their ministrations. The influence of the laity of the Church of England was to be encouraged in every possible way. But emergencies would arise in which it would certainly be a comfort to the sick or dying to have the ministrations of some recognised resident minister. The clergyman of the Church of England could be there at a moment's notice, whereas the itinerant minister might be resident several parishes off, and therefore his services might not be secured until the emergency was over. That was a striking argument in favour of having a resident minister. He also, thought hon. Gentlemen opposite, in recognising the good work done by Nonconformist ministers, had forgotten the fact that there would still be in the parishes a large number of persons who formerly, and who still, belonged to the old Church, to whom lay ministrations would be by no means sufficient. Therefore, the claims they had to a resident clergyman, ought, in no way, to be neglected. He was inclined to think the case put by the Hon. Baronet the member for

  1105
  Wigan, was very well worthy of consideration, the case of those who practically had no religion at all. They were people who, above all others, did want a resident minister, and it was more in their interest than of anybody else, that this Amendment was proposed. The whole assumption of hon. Members opposite was that a population split up into a certain number of sects, could be properly attended to under the itinerant system. He did not believe this system would work well; he did not think it would touch the outcast at all. He recognised the good work itinerant ministers did, but the difficulty was that they attended to their own Hock and did not search out the outcast. He did not regard this as an absurd Amendment, as one hon. Member described it; it was a most useful Amendment and he would most heartily vote for it, because it was an amendment based upon no sectarian prejudice whatever
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYwas surprised the Amendment had not been accepted by his Nonconformist friends, because it seemed to him that if ever there was an Amendment that would promote Nonconformity this was the one. The existence of such a clause must be a great inducement to every parish that had not a resident Nonconformist minister to get one as soon as possible, because as soon as a parish got such a minister the clause would not apply. The Amendment was most catholic in its object, but it would ultimately prove a great stimulus to those parishes that were not yet properly provided for to do what was undoubtedly in their own interest. What was it the Amendment proposed? Why, that if, when the Church of England was disestablished, any spiritual injury was done to any particular parish by the fact of there being no resident Nonconformist minister, there should be a pause in the application of the Act until some provision was made for the spiritual welfare of the people. Surely that was about as liberal a measure as could possibly be proposed. If it was really true that the aim of this measure was to improve the people of Wales and to make them better citizens and Christians, surely it was reasonable some provision should be made to prevent any parish in the Principality being for any period of time without some spiritual
  1106
  resident minister. Though he would prefer to see a clergyman of the Church of England resident in the different parishes in Wales, he certainly would like to see the different parishes provided for by any denomination of Christians rather than left as they were left by the Bill, without any minister at all. The Amendment itself showed very clearly low Christians of all denominations were combining together, for he asserted that such an Amendment would never have been proposed 40 or 50 years ago. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment was recognised as a strong supporter of the Church. So anxious was he that there should be spiritual ministration in every parish that he proposed a clause which showed conclusively they had gone far towards combining the various denominations. He agreed with the observation that this Amendment was moved in the interest of the poor. The rich could provide what spiritual ministrations they required, but it was not so with the poor. Many of the districts of Wales were very poor, and it would be a long time before the Nonconformist bodies could cover the whole ground. The Amendment would, therefore, serve a great and good purpose, and he was surprised the Nonconformists on the opposite Benches had not accepted it with cordiality.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERthought it right a vote should not be taken on the Amendment before there had been some expression of opinion on the part of those who occupied the front Opposition Bench in vindication of their cordial support of the Amendment. He and his hon. Friends had been twitted with accepting information given them by the Bishop of St. Asaph. He was not ashamed to say he was much indebted for the information given by the Bishop of St. Asaph, because he knew it was given with a desire to put the truth and nothing but the truth before the country. Hon. Gentlemen who were protected by privilege were wont to attack that right rev. Prelate, but he would test the justice and the accuracy of his Lordship's statements. Some mouths ago the Bishop of St. Asaph put into their hands a statement, which was quoted on the Second Reading Debate, with regard to the number of the Nonconformist resident ministers in 1,006 of the parishes in Wales,

  1107
  leaving only 75 parishes unaccounted for. He would give the figures, and he desired to remind hon. Members who represented Welsh constituencies that those figures had been taken from returns which had been furnished by the various Nonconformist denominations themselves. The figures showed that the total number of parishes in the diocese with resident ministers was 521, the total number of parishes without resident Nonconformist ministers was 485, those which had resident Calvinistic ministers were 328, those which had Independent resident ministers were 309, those which had Baptist resident ministers were 245, those which had Wesleyan resident ministers were 112, and those which had resident ministers of other denominations were 45. Those figures were brought up to the 1st January of the present year. He had made inquiries on the subject, and he believed that he was right in asserting that there had never been any contradiction of the accuracy of those figures by any of the representatives of any one of those bodies. It was, of course, perfectly easy for hon. Members who had no responsibility in the matter to suggest that the figures were inaccurate, but he thought that, as between man and man, the charges of inaccuracy ought to be fair. If any hon. Member for Wales would get up in his place and give, upon his own authority, the numbers of the resident Nonconformist ministers in his constituency, he for one would accept his statement. He, however, stood in this position, that there had never been any return from the different Welsh Nonconformist bodies which contradicted those figures, and indeed, their accuracy had never been questioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He was entitled to ask that, if these figures were challenged, some responsible persons should place before the Committee the figures which they believed to be more correct. For his part he proposed to assume that the figures he had laid before them, as to the number of resident Nonconformist ministers in the diocese in question, were substantially accurate. He certainly was not aware that any figures that had been quoted by the hon. Gentlemen who represented Welsh constituencies in any way contradicted
  1108
  those which he had just laid before the Committee. What did those figures show? They showed that if they were lumped together, nearly one half of the parishes in the diocese were without resident Nonconformist ministers of any denomination.
  An HON. MEMBER suggested that there was a large amount of lay help.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that he would come to that point by-and-by. At present he was simply dealing with figures which he believed were acknowledged to be accurate, and which had not hitherto been contradicted by any statements that had been made in the course of the Debate. It was an extraordinary thing that there had been an attempt for the purposes of that Debate—a desire on the part of the opponents of the Church in Wales—to put together into one pool, as it were, the whole of the ministers of the various Nonconformist denominations, and to contrast their work with that of the Church of England. He had, however, taken some pains to make inquiries in the case of South Wales as to the connection between the various denominations, and he had put this question to more than one of those who, he believed, were thoroughly qualified to give information upon the subject. Supposing there did not happen to be a Calvinistic minister upon the spot, and immediate spiritual help was required by a person of that denomination, to whom would that person resort? And he had been informed that it was the almost invariable experience among those who were engaged in pastoral work that if there was no minister of their own denomination in a particular parish they would prefer to come to a minister of the Church rather than to a minister of any other Nonconformist denomination. Hon Members opposite might question the accuracy of the statement if they thought fit to do so, but he, at all events, was entitled to state his view of the case, which was founded upon information which had been supplied to him upon good authority. The noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne, Rochester) in treating all the Nonconformist ministers as though they were one body had acted with great liberality towards them. No one would believe that in placing this Amendment upon the Paper the noble

  1109
  Lord had any other object in view than that of ensuring that the poor should have spiritual provision made for them as far as Parliament could accomplish that end. The Amendment had been spoken of by some hon. Members opposite as being absurd and ridiculous. But let them examine the principle of the Amendment and see whether it was in fact absurd and ridiculous. The Amendment proposed not that there should be a re-establishment of the Church in any particular parish, or in any particular district—not that they should in a manner set up the Church again, but merely that in such parishes or districts in which for the six months previous to the passing of the Act there had been no resident Nonconformist minister of any denomination, Disestablishment in that parish or district should be postponed. What was there absurd or ridiculous in such a proposition as that. Was no spiritual assistance to be given to the sick or dying, or the poor, in such a parish or district. If the Nonconformists believed that as a result of this measure their Churches were going to increase and to spread as Churchmen knew that the Church in Wales had increased and spread of late, why should they object to this Amendment? For his part he had never attempted to depreciate the religious work that had been done by the Nonconformist bodies, and he fully admitted that they worked in the same fields, for the same end, and for the same object that the Church did; and, therefore, it was that he appealed to them not to deprive those parishes in which there were no resident Nonconformist ministers of any denomination of all spiritual ministration. He could not agree with hon. Members from Wales with regard to the working of the Church in that country. Was there no such thing as lay helps in the Church as well as among the Nonconformists? Then, again, hon. Members from Wales would not deny that there were large numbers of the Welsh Nonconformists who were not able to devote all their time to their ministry. He had no desire to depreciate the altruistic efforts of those persons who gave up their leisure time to the service of their fellows. But they did not affect the Amendment. The Amendment was directed not to the number of preachers,
  1110
  but to the number of men who were on the spot, and to whom appeal could be made in times of trouble, sorrow, and distress. No Welsh Member would deny that they valued the presence of resident pastors. Of course hon. Members who had not heard a word of the Debate would come in and vote the Amendment down. But hon. Members from Wales could not disprove by any statistics which they would lay before the House on their own responsibility the facts which had been brought forward in support of the Amendment. As long as they believed that one-half of the parishes of Wales were without a resident Nonconformist minister, they would protest against a scheme which deprived those parishes of that spiritual aid which, by Divine Providence, as well as human prudence, had been given to them.
  MR. AUGUSTIN BIRRELLsaid, that the sympathy of the hon. Member with those Nonconformists who lived in parishes where there was no resident minister was more creditable to his heart than to his head. Nonconformists did not recognise the subtle distinction which for Churchmen existed between laymen and the clergy. It might be the misfortune of the Nonconformists, but it was the fact that when they came to die they did not send out post-haste for a clergyman. They confined themselves for the most part to pious persons of their own persuasion, who, although they did not call themselves clergymen, were able to give the consolations of their religion. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about leaving out lay aid, but beyond some platitudinous observations, he did not deal with the fact that Nonconformists, in the hour of death, sickness and misfortune were able to derive spiritual consolation from blacksmiths or tailors.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I did not say that they would not derive spiritual aid, and I did not speak of "blacksmiths and tailors." But I did say that resident ministers were preferable to gentlemen who gave their time, when they could, from their ordinary vocations.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that the hon. and learned Member showed still further ignorance in thinking that by thus referring to "blacksmiths and tailors" he was using terms of derision. When a Nonconformist sent for a resident

  1111
  minister he did not get a priest, or a man who had any priestly functions, or who could bind or loose. It did not matter, therefore, whether he sent for a resident Nonconformist minister or an ordinary inhabitant of his own persuasion. He could quite understand hon. Gentlemen opposite objecting to being deprived of the ministrations of their own religion, if that should be the effect of this Bill, and he hoped it would never happen. But Nonconformists, rightly or wrongly, were not dependent on resident ministers, and in their last moments godly members of their own persuasion would repeat to them texts from the Scriptures or stanzas of their favourite hymns, which on these occasions were of great assistance. A minister could not do more for them. It was not the practice of Nonconformists, during their last hours, to receive the Sacrament or Holy Communion. [An hon. MEMBER: "More shame."] That depended on the religious conceptions of the Sacrament. Perhaps they thought that it was better to receive it in hours of perfect health. But he hoped that hon. Gentleman opposite would not expend their sympathy on a class of people who did not want it. Let them keep it for themselves. Nonconformists did not admit that there was such a thing as a priest; and it would shorten Debate if hon. Gentlemen opposite would realise that fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he did not wish to press further into a region which the House was probably forced into by observations of his own friends below the Gangway. But the hon. Member's speech showed conclusively why it was that in certain parts of the country, by the admission of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Nonconformist bodies were losing their hold and their utility among the poorer classes of the community. He did not mean to criticise the great work which was being done by the Nonconformists, but in the poorer parts of our large towns they were not doing the work which they once did. They were a diminishing, rather than an increasing, force in the religious welfare of these great congregations. The solitary text of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that a Nonconformist layman was every bit as good for religious purposes as a Nonconformist minister. Then why did Nonconformists
  1112
  go to the trouble of having large and costly colleges for the education of their ministers?
  MR. BIRRELL: I was dealing with the point as to the supposed necessity of having resident ministers to administer the consolations of religion. For preaching, and for exigetical purposes, to which the Nonconformists attach great value, they have trained ministers, but for the purposes of administering consolation, it does not matter where the person lives for six days in the week.
  MR. BALFOURsaid that if the hon. Member had listened to the early part of the Debate, he would have known that the preaching was regarded as a small part of the pastoral work. There was a great pastoral work to be done on the other six days in the week, and that that work would best be done by ordained and trained ministers. [Ministerial cries of "No."] Did not the hon. Member assert that the Nonconformist layman was as useful for every pastoral purpose as the Nonconformist minister?
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that a trained minister was necessary for preaching and exigetical purposes—men who had devoted time and attention to the study of the Scriptures and cognate subjects. But from the Nonconformist point of view, for the purpose of ministering to the sick, the ordinary godly layman, living in the neighbourhood, and able and ready to attend people in trouble, was as good as the exigetical preacher.
  MR. BALFOURadmitted that the layman might be able to administer consolation in certain cases as well as the trained minister, but did the hon. Member really think that in the 486 parishes of Wales where there was no resident Nonconformist minister, it would be possible to count on finding a person, not only qualified by individual piety and power of communicating to people in trouble the consolations of religion, but the necessary leisure for carrying out the work? [Cries of "Yes."] If so, Wales must be blessed with a leisured class which did not exist in any other part of the kingdom. To tell those who were familiar with the conditions of rural life in Wales that there was to be found among Nonconformists or Churchmen in every parish someone who was qualified to carry out this kind of pastoral work was to tax credulity. Having noticed the cost to which Nonconformist bodies

  1113
  went for the very purpose of having resident ministers, and knowing the admirable work which they did, not on Sundays only, was he to be told that all this money was thrown into the sea? To say that if the Nonconformist bodies would only trust to the lay, amateur, and casual help of pious members who might have leisure to fulfil these functions, was surely to forget all the conditions of ordinary English life in town or country. He hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a division, and if he did so he would certainly support him.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether Churchmen were to have no consideration in this matter. Because the hon. Member thought that a farrier was as good as a St. Augustine, and that theology and farriery were good enough mixed up together in a jumble, that was no reason why Churchmen should think so too. This Amendment raised no question at all between Nonconformists and Churchmen. It simply raised the question whether it was or was not desirable to have in a parish a resident minister, either Nonconformist or Churchman. It was not contended that it should always be a Churchman, and he quite recognised the character and services of Nonconformists. In fact, he had always wondered that they had not conformed. This was a very simple matter, and where there was already a Nonconformist resident minister the Amendment would have no effect whatever. It seemed to him, speaking without any ecclesiastical knowledge whatever, except what he derived from attendance at church, the greatest service that could be rendered by a minister of religion to his parish was to live there, to know the people, to be acquainted with their ways, and to be ready at any time to give them the, consolations they required. Nonconformists on the Benches opposite might smile and jeer, but the true ministry was done during the life of a person, and it was the last, but not the greatest service when the minister attended such a person in the hour of his death. In the words of Goldsmith—
  "Truth from his lips prevailed with double sway,
  And those who came to scoff remained to pray."
  1114
  He could not conceive any body of men coming to the Committee and saying—"We are content with lay ministrations; if you want ecclesiastical ministrations we shall not take your case into consideration, and you shall not have your ordained ministers even where we have no resident Nonconformist minister of our own." If that was the sort of spirit which was to be evinced in these Debates, he could predict for the Bill a very long and melancholy career.
  *MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that his noble Friend might congratulate himself on having raised a very important discussion, but the Amendment had been met by a simple negative, and no arguments or statistics had been brought forward on the other side. So far from its being the case that the Welsh Nonconformists did not care about a Welsh resident pastor, at this very moment the Calvinistic Methodists were making special efforts to increase the number of such pastors, because they knew that having a resident pastor was the only way of attracting persons to their fold, and of ensuring to them the ministrations of religion. Then, why was it they could not secure the aid which they desired? Because they had not the money. And they had not the money because they had not endowments. It was proposed by this Bill to take away from the only body that could supply endowments for religion those provisions which only they were able systematically to employ. He was told this on the authority of those who knew Wales, because he did not profess to know Wales. Was it true or was it not? The Home Secretary said that he stood by his figures on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the President of the Board of Trade said, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, that he was authorised to confirm the statement that there were only 27 resident clergymen in Anglesey for 76 parishes. As a matter of fact, he was informed that there were 68 clergymen. Did the right hon. Gentleman adhere to those figures?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think those are the figures I gave.
  MR. ASQUITH: I adhere to every figure both as to the Sunday School attendance in Anglesey and every other neighbourhood which I gave in my speech. I said that there were 27

  1115
  parishes in Anglesey where there were no resident clergymen, and that is absolutely true. The only error I made—if error there is—was that I understated rather than overstated the figure.
  MR. WILLIAM AMBROSEregarded this Amendment as a serious and important one. Every part of Wales, he asserted, was subject to the visitation and teaching of resident ministers. When hon. Members opposite had not got an institution of their own they incurred grave responsibility in sweeping away the Church of England.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 180.—(Division List, No. 74.)
  MR. HANBURYrose to move in Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end, to insert:—
  "Provided always that where any portion of Wales or Monmouthshire shall hereafter form part of England, the Church of England shall, in such portion, become re-established bylaw."
  He said he proposed to move this Amendment, but in a somewhat modified form, and he would now present it as follows:—
  "Provided always that where any portion of Wales or Monmouthshire shall hereafter form part of England, the Church of England shall, in such portion, cease to be subject to the provisions of this Act."
  The Home Secretary was good enough to say, with regard to the last Amendment, that it was brought forward for the purpose of improving the Bill. This Amendment was brought forward for the same reason—to prevent what would otherwise become a great absurdity in the measure. Now, there were outlying portions of Wales, on the borders, where the boundaries were doubtful. There might be small parts of an English county to which the Church in Wales extended, and surely it would be absurd to Disestablish those particular Churches when they were surrounded on all sides by the Established Church of England. This was no imaginary grievance, for there were many places on the borders of Wales where such a state of things might happen if no such Amendment as he proposed to obviate it was inserted in the Bill. In the case of the Irish Church Bill there was no occasion for such a provision, but the case was very different in Wales, because on the borders of the Principality there were
  1116
  many points the nationality of which was doubtful. There was even the case of Monmouthshire itself. Under the Bill, that county was treated as an essential portion of Wales; but there was some question on the point, and it was not improbable, at least with regard to some portions of the county, that alterations might be made attaching those portions to England. Unless some such Amendment as he had moved was inserted, the absurdity might arise under the Bill of whole parishes in the midst of an English county, and forming a portion of that county, having a totally different ecclesiastical law to that which prevailed in the rest of that county. In the discussion on the last Amendment, the President of the Board of Trade objected to any kind of oases being created in Wales under this Bill—places where the Church was established being surrounded by places where the Church was disestablished. Quite so; he applied the very same objection with regard to England that the President of the Board of Trade applied to Wales. It would be a positive absurdity to have such oases in an English county. All he suggested, therefore, was that if any portion of Wales in the midst of a county, ultimately became incorporated with any English county, and formed a part of that county,—if it became practically a portion of England in that county, then the Church in that portion should be held to be in the same position as the Church in all other parts of England. He contended that the Amendment was a practical one, and hoped the Home Secretary himself would see that the case was one for which provision should be made. Already in the course of the Debate certain parts in a particular county in Wales had been mentioned as very likely to be added to England at no remote period, and for such a contingency provision ought to be made. With the view of improving the practicability of the Bill, be moved the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he could not accept the Amendment in its present or any other form. The contingency was one so remote and improbable that it was hardly worth while providing for it, even, indeed, if it were within the scope of the Act at all. No part of Wales could be transferred to England except upon the initiative

  1117
  of the County Council concerned. What the hon. Gentleman asked them to suppose was that a Welsh County of its own initiative, was going to deliberately part with some of its own territory, knowing that the effect of its so doing would be that the Church would be reestablished in that territory. He really did not think that that was a matter so practical or probable that there was any occasion at present to provide for it, and he was quite sure if such a case did arise the resources of Parliament would be quite equal to making special provision for it.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEthought the contingency by no means an unlikely one. Such cases did happen, and provision was made by the Local Government Act for that very purpose. This incredible provision the House of Commons spent a great deal of time in that case in carrying out. The right hon. Gentleman thought it absolutely beyond the bounds of the imagination that any county should desire to change its boundaries, and yet the Local Government Act stared them in the face. Why then did the right hon. Gentleman think that a county of Wales would not agree to re-arrange its boundary with a neighbouring county of England? Was the difficulty that the one case was that of Wales and the other that of England? Or was it because the right hon. Gentleman thought that County Councils would not like to part with the money of a Disestablished Church? He thought better of his countrymen than did the right hon. Gentleman. He was quite aware that many people inside and outside the House looked at this Bill from the point of view of the financial advantage it would give to the various county authorities, and did not very much care about the religious view of the question. The contemporary history of Wales showed that there was a distinct change of opinion in Wales. The County Council Elections in Denbighshire showed a very distinct change of opinion, and he thought the time was not very far distant when in many of the Welsh counties it would be found that the public opinion represented by the County Councils had risen above these very sordid considerations, and that where for public reasons it seemed good to rearrange the boundaries, the change would take place. The Hundred
  1118
  of Maelor was, as they knew, almost surrounded by an English county. He would invite the right hon. Gentleman to confide to the House what he would do when the hypothesis became an accomplished fact. The President of the Board or Trade had told them on the last Amendment that these oases between Establishment and Disestablishment were very bad arrangements, and he quite agreed that Wales and England were neighbouring countries united in their public life and conditions. He thought his hon. Friend had certainly made out his case.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman had said that Parliament on some future occasion would find some means of dealing with the rearrangement of county boundaries, on other topics he had not been so willing to trust to future Parliaments. The contingency was very likely to arise in the county of Monmouthshire, where there was at present a very large English element, and it would not require much change of opinion to create an actual majority in favour of treating that county as part of England instead of part of Wales.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESobserved, that the more reasonable the Amendment proposed from that side of the House the more strenuous was the Opposition of the Government. If part of Wales should become part of England after the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales the Church was to remain Disestablished there as if the part which had been added to England still remained part of Wales. The Home Secretary said that the possibility of any part of Wales becoming part of England was a very remote contingency. He did not think so, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, by the present Bill had taken a great part of England out of England and made it part of Wales. He had taken the County of Monmouth. He might as well have taken Macedon, for there was a river in both. Since the right hon. Gentleman had done this there might, perhaps, be even a greater Home Secretary than he who would take the whole of Monmouthshire out of Wales and put it back into England, and they claimed in that event that it should be treated as English. The Amendment would only have effect in cases which the Home Secretary said

  1119
  were too remote to be considered. If that were so, then the Amendment of his hon. Friend could be insisted upon with perfect safety. It was only in the event of the grievance arising which they said was possible that the thing would occur. The secret fear of the Home Secretary was that there would be a rush on the part of their Welsh neighbours to become English in order to escape from this Bill, and to come back into the old condition in which they formerly were. He could not conceive of any reasonable person opposing so reasonable an Amendment, and he was still in hopes that the Home Secretary would accept it.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEagreed with the hon. Member for Preston that there were some parts of Monmouthshire which would desire to be treated as English, in which the people were thoroughly bound up with the English Church and mixed up with English associations. Supposing it should happen that the County Council of Monmouthshire should hereafter decide to bring those districts into the neighbouring English counties were they to be under the operation of this Bill or not? Was it not reasonable that in such cases this Bill should cease to operate in those particular districts? As to the alleged impossibility of Welsh villages being transferred to English counties, and vice versa, might he remind the right hon. Gentleman of the proceedings of the Boundary Commission? He believed, if reference were made to the Reports of the Commission, it would be found there were constant proposals for interchanges all along the Welsh borders. Suppose some day that these recommendations should be carried out by the County Councils, and certain tracts of Wales should come over to England. These, of course, would be the English-speaking and the English-associated parts of the Welsh counties. Were these villages to continue to be subject to this Act? Ought they not, rather, to come under such a proposal as that contained in this Amendment? He contended that there could be nothing more reasonable and practical than the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
  MR. EDWARD J. STANLEYsaid, that in reference to the contention of the Home Secretary that nothing could be done without the
  1120
  consent of the County Council concerned, he would point out that at this moment the people of his own county of Somerset were engaged in an active fight with the county of Devonshire to prevent that county stealing from them a Somersetshire parish, which they were proposing to annex to Devon.
  MR. BARTLEYremarked that it seemed to him that the Government and the Home Secretary would not look at amendments in their reasonable sense. The present Amendment ran thus:—
  "Provided always that where any portion of Wales or Monmouthshire shall hereafter form part of England, the Church of England shall in such portion become re-established by law."
  One of two things must happen. Either some part of Wales or Monmouthshire would become part of England, or it would not. If any parish did become such part of England, surely it was reasonable that the English law should rule there. If it did not, then this clause would have no effect, and no injury could be done. That was a fair and reasonable way of putting it. Why should Wales have it all the one way, and the predominant partner, England, always be put on one side? They simply asked that if any of these parts came back to England they should be treated as English. It seemed obvious that in putting in this Amendment they would only be putting in what was fair to England, and therefore he could not understand why any reasonable man should object to the provision. Although England was now politically at a discount in the eyes of the Government, still everybody did not think England was so insignificant. The border counties would probably before long wish to come back to the Established Church, and if so, why should they not be allowed to do so, seeing that this did not profess to be a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church of England? That was a fair proposition, and he should support his hon. Friend even though everything that tended to make the Bill more fair to England was scoffed at by the Home Secretary and jeered at by the Welsh Members.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, that in the event of the oases referred to by the Home Secretary, such as the hundred of Maelor, being transferred to England, every argument advanced in behalf of the Bill was good

  1121
  for re-establishing the Church in those parts. Provision should be made for the possible alternative.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 199.—(Division List No. 75).
  On the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill,
  *MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he was impressed by the magnitude of the interests involved in the cause he was about to plead. The question involved in the clause was whether or not there was to be an Established Church, not merely in Wales, but in England. That was the only thing he had to consider in dealing with this clause, and it was a matter of sufficient magnitude to form a Bill in it self. It was a matter which those on his side of the House had endeavoured to separate from the by no means necessary corollary of Diseudowment. In that, however, they had been unsuccessful. He knew it had been said over and over again on the other side of the House that it was mere confusion to mix up Disestablishment with religion; but if they took away the Endowments of the Church, if they took away the Church's means of carrying on her work, what was that but an attack on the cause of religion? As regarded Disestablishment itself, quite apart from the question of Disendowment, he could perfectly well understand that there were many zealous Members of the communion to which he belonged, who considered that Disestablishment would be a good thing for the Church. The history of the last 30 or 40 years showed that in the matter of enforcing salutary discipline the State had been a good trustee for the Church. It had recognised its duties and obligations with regard to nominations and appointments; and this could be said without distinction of Party, for if there were an individual who deserved credit it was the right lion. Member for Midlothian. There had been exceptions such as the selection by Lord Rosebery for a bishopric of a political supporter who was in disagreement with almost all his co-religionists on the matter of Disestablishment. He could quite understand that the State should abuse its trust by continuing to make such appointments, and if it did there would naturally spring up a
  1122
  strong demand for Disestablishment. It was because the State had hitherto, with that one lamentable exception, recognised its duties, that at present there was no such general demand. He wished to direct attention to the disorder into which the Church would be thrown by Disestablishment. The Bill proposed to tell the Archbishop that he was no longer to summon the Welsh bishops to Convocation. But supposing the Archbishop snapped his fingers in the face of Parliament, which he was entitled to do? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members seemed surprised at such a suggestion; but a brutum fulmen of this kind might well be disregarded. Did hon. Members propose to make the Archbishop guilty of praœmunire and put him in prison if he still continued to summon the Welsh bishops? Convocation was a body coordinate with this House, older than this House, with rights this House had never interfered with. Perhaps hon. Members hardly realised the extraordinary performance the Government was attempting—one to which anything in the Irish Church Bill was a mere flea bite. It was an interference with an integral portion of the Church of England. Suppose the Archbishop obeyed their mandate and did not summon the Welsh bishops, would it not be unjust if a bishop in Wales was to Vie condemned for heresy in a synod of Convocation in which he could not be heard? These were difficulties which arose directly out of Disestablishment. Again, the Bill did away with the coercive jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. This would involve hopeless difficulty in dealing with criminous clerks. It was a serious question how the discipline of the Church was to be maintained. If nothing were left of the old ecclesiastical courts, it would be impossible properly to deal with the case of a criminous clerk. No one could show how any minister in Wales charged with an offence, now visited by removal from his benefice, could, if the Bill were passed, be fairly tried, or could be removed from his benefice if found guilty. These were a few illustrations of the serious difficulties which would ensue if the Church in Wales were disestablished. But the main objection to the Bill was the effect it would have on the people of Wales. It was the inhabitants of poor and remote parishes, where there were

  1123
  no wealthy residents, who would suffer most by the Bill, by being deprived of the ministrations of a clergyman. It would, of course, be said by the supporters of the Bill that the village shoemaker, or the village tailor, would be able to take the place of the minister in administering the consolations of religion. He could quite believe that men who were engaged in the ordinary occupations of life were perfectly competent to render such consolations. But nobody had any claim to the ministrations of such men, or could use the slightest moral pressure to get them to come to them at any time, as they could in the case of a minister; and, besides, men who were trained in the exercise of those solemn duties, and who devoted their lives to the service of their fellow men, like the ministers of the Church, must, prima facie, have more influence with the people than men whose discharge of the ministerial functions was merely an accident in the ordinary daily round of their lives. Another very strong objection to the clause was that a whole English county was included in its operation. Did not that fact entitle those who, like himself, did not pretend to any special knowledge of Wales to utter a strong remonstrance and protest against the clause on the ground that it practically gave away the whole case of the Established Church of England. If the Church in Monmouthshire was to be disestablished, was there any essential ground why the Church in Cornwall should not be disestablished? It might be said by the promoters of the Bill that there was a large majority in Monmouthshire in favour of Disestablishment, but that was a matter on which no proper evidence had been adduced. But neither on the question of abstract right nor of propriety, could he see any reason why, if the Church in Monmouthshire should be disestablished, the Church in any other part of England should be allowed to remain. Therefore, it was as a member of the Church of England that he desired to move the omission of the clause as a strong protest against the scheme of Disestablishment proposed in the Bill.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he did not intend to debate the clause, as he had already expressed his opinions in the discussions on the Amendments. But he rose to say he thought an argument
  1124
  he had used the other night in reply to the Solicitor General had gone too far. Since the Debate on the Amendment for the exclusion of Monmouthshire from the Bill he had had the opportunity of reading the whole statement, and, by the courtesy of an anonymous gentleman in Wales, of an interesting pamphlet, from which it appeared, contrary to his contention, that some of the marches did form part of the three counties, and were geographically within the dominion of Wales. But that did not remove his main argument that Monmouthshire never had been a Welsh county; and that it had always been described, by those entitled to speak, as an English county, and nothing else.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he did not think there was any desire to delay the Division on the first clause; but, undoubtedly, the putting of the clauses to the Committee gave the opportunity to the opponents of the Bill of making again in the Division Lobby a protest against Disestablishment. It would be remembered that in the Debate on the Second Reading there had been a division of opinion as to whether Disestablishment or Disendowment were the more important part of the Bill. Of course, on the Second Reading there was a desire to support the Bill generally on the part of some Members who attached more importance to one part of the Bill than to another, but who did not feel able to deny their support generally to the principle of the Bill. In putting the first clause to the Committee there was now an opportunity of testing in the Division Lobby the opinion of the Committee upon the great question of Disestablishment. The first clause contained the essence of the Bill so far as the question of Disestablishment was concerned. If the clause were passed it would be a recognition that the principle of Disestablishment had been affirmed by the Committee; and therefore it would be desired to test by a vote the opinion of the Committee in regard to that principle. He need not again express the deep conviction which was felt by the opponents of the Bill that the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales would cause the deepest injury to the people of Wales. They had expressed the opinion, which they held very strongly, that the Establishment of the Church, although it involved a

  1125
  certain amount of limitation on the freedom of action of the Church; and, although it involved certain incidents of conduct on the part of the Church which were not acceptable to many members of the Church itself, at the same time gave to the Church the privilege of universal ministry, which was worth a great deal more than all the disabilities imposed on it by its connection with the State. He therefore hoped the Committee would divide on the clause as a protest against the principle of Disestablishment which was embodied in it.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that the Home Secretary had expressed a desire to place the Disestablished Church on absolutely the same footing as Dissenting religious bodies. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware of an Act of Parliament known as the Dissenting Chapels Act, which secured to Dissenting religious bodies any property in which they had been in possession for 25 years. Would the right hon. Gentleman extend the principle of the Dissenting Chapels Act to the Disestablished Church by giving all property held by the Church for 25 years over to the Representative Body of the Church?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the hon. Member's question dealt entirely with Disendowment, and had nothing whatever to do with Disestablishment. But he would answer the question in this way: certainly he would apply the same measure to the Church of England that he would apply to dissenting bodies. They preserved to the Church every endowment given within the last 190 years. The only endowments which they proposed to deal with in the Bill were endowments which they believed were given to the Church at a time when the Church was practically the religious body representing the whole community, and which, therefore, they could deal with as national property for national purposes. They really, to all intents and purposes, put the Church on the same footing as all dissenting bodies. But that had nothing to do with the question now before the Committee. The solo question before the Committee was, whether those legal incidents and privileges summed up in the word "Establishment" should continue.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is it not a fact that Clause 5 only preserves
  1126
  to the Church those endowments and property given by private persons out of their own resources?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes. All endowments given to the Church by private persons out of private funds.
  MR. AMBROSEsaid, he had listened in vain for arguments in justification of the clause. The Church had been doing her duty, at all events during the last quarter of a century, and all that could be said on the other side was, that a majority of the Welsh representatives were in favour of Disestablishment. They had the statement of the right hon. Member for Denbighshire, that 25 years ago only seven Members from Wales were found to vote in favour of disestablishment. What was the reason for the change that had come over the Welsh people? The answer was, that the present majority was a mere temporary majority. How had it been procured? By reason of the tithe war. It was perfectly plain that the tithe agitation was promoted and intended entirely with the view of furthering the cause of Disestablishment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is travelling a long way beyond the clause.
  MR. AMBROSEsaid, he only wanted to point out that it was by virtue of the tithe agitation that Disestablishment was being promoted. The Welsh Party in that House had stated that it was most important that agitation on this subject should be maintained. What was the value of a majority that was secured by such treatment. He, however, had no desire to prolong the Debate or to prevent a Division being taken upon the Amendment.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 173.—(Division List, No. 76.)
  Progress reported.

  WAYS AND MEANS. [10TH MAY.]— BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  On the Report of the Resolutions (Customs Duty on Beer and Excise Duty on Beer) passed in Committee of Ways and Means,
  MR. G. J. GOSCHENsaid, I do not propose to debate this Resolution at this late hour of the evening. I only wish to

  1127
  remind the House that on the late occasion we discussed in Committee the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sudbury, and did not debate the substantive Resolution at all. I only point this out in reference to any future action that may be taken at other stages of the financial proposals. The question as between spirit duty and beer duty has not yet been debated.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL.
  "To grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue, to repeal and alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and to make provision for the financial arrangements of the year," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 240.]

  LAND TRANSFER (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any deficiency in the Insurance Fund that may be created under any Act of the present Session to simplify titles and facilitate the transfer of land in England."—(Sir John Hibbert.)
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Harry Foster)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  STATIONERY OFFICE (PRINTING CONTRACTS).
  Resolved—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the present system of issuing invitations for tenders and of making contracts for Government printing and binding sufficiently secures compliance with the terms and spirit of the Resolution of the House of Commons of the 13th February, 1891, and whether any, and, if so, what, improvements of the system are called for."—(Sir John Hibbert.)

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Ordered—
  Return showing (1) the ratio of all Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the nest receipts and appropriation thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1895; and (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such Duties,
  1128
  Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of Revenue; (2) the aggregate nest receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce after deducting those charges in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1895; and, notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1895 (in continuation of Return, No. 325, of Session 1894).—(Mr. Conybeare.)

  PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, showing, with reference to the recent Parish Council Elections in Scotland—(a) The number of Electors, distinguishing between male and female, in each Parish or Parish Ward; (b) The number of Electors, distinguishing between male and female, in each Parish or Parish Ward who recorded their votes; (c) The Parishes or Parish Wards in which no contested Election took place; (d) The Parishes or Parish Wards in which the number of persons nominated for election was less than the number of persons to be elected; (e) The number of members elected for each Parish or Parish Ward.—(Mr. W. Whitelaw).
MOTIONS.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS (CHEESE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir A. Acland-Hood, Bill to extend the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 to 1894, to Foreign and Colonial Cheese.
  Bill presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to he printed.—[Bill 242.]

  FUNERAL EXPENSES OF CHILDREN INSURANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Richard Webster, Bill to amend the law relating to the Insurance of Funeral Expenses of Children.
  Bill presented and read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday, and to be printed.—[Bill 243.]

  LONDON WATERWORKS TRANSFER (MONEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. James Stuart, Bill to authorise the London County Council to raise and expend Money on capital account in connection with the acquisition of Waterworks.
  Bill presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 244.]
  House adjourned at Half after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF BESSBOROUGH—VISCOUNT CLIFDEN.
  (CLAIMS TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.)
  Ordered and directed—That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Bessborough and the Viscount Clifden to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland; and it is hereby also ordered, That the said reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
  The Earl Cowley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
  DISTRESS FROM WANT OF EMPLOYMENT.
  Report, &c., of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, communicated pursuant to Message of Tuesday last, and to be printed. (No. 112.)
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MANCHESTER GOODS AND INDIAN IMPORT DUTIES.

  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
  said, that the Government and the country were to be congratulated on the majority against the Motion of Sir Henry James, or what the Lord President last week had almost called the cotton intrigue. He would have quite called it a cotton intrigue if the mistaken selfishness of Manchester had succeeded in gaining the support of a selfish disregard of the interests of our own Indian fellow-subjects. It must be remembered, however, that if the Manchester men received a portion of support from the Conservative side, that the Leader of the Opposition was in that same seclusion from which the Lord President had just emerged. It would have been a great misfortune if the Government had been defeated when it was in the right, instead of upon one of the Bill drafted by the last of the Plantagenets upon fiscal principles which might possibly have been current in Plantagenet times. The Secretary of State for India deserved great praise and credit for the firmness and skill which he had shown during the Cotton Duties Debate. In this country we were aware of the difficulties that he had had to meet and to overcome, but in India these difficulties were less felt; and not only the natives of India, but also the English officials of the Government of India, felt that they had been overruled by the Secretary of State by the substitution of 20 for 24 counts in respact of the Cotton Excise. He hoped that any discussion which might take place, or if there should be none, the answer of the noble Lord the Under Secretary for India would facilitate in another year the restoration of the figure advocated by the Indian Government, or even the abandonment of the new Excise Duties. If the presence of excisemen was odious to brewers and farmers who brewed in England, how much more so must they be odious in the cotton mills of Bombay? He doubted whether the cost of collection would have much net revenue from the Excise Duties, and on this account he had put the question on the Notice Paper as to the net revenue expected

  999
  from this source. He also asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary for India if 5 per cent. Import Duty on yarn and 5 per cent. Excise Duty on cloth woven from that yarn did not make 10 per cent., and therefore 5 per cent, protective duty in favour of Manchester goods? If the noble Lord were to say that none of the Bombay mills would use the yarns upon which 5 per cent. Import Duty was levied, would not that be protection to Manchester cottons by compelling the Bombay mills to use the coarser yarns. He had said that the selfishness of Manchester was mistaken; and he would remind the House that Mr. Cobden, when urging the repeal of the Corn Laws, had said that the English corn-growers would have the natural protection of 10s. a quarter freight on wheat. Mr. Cobden, of course, could not foresee ocean steamers and nominal freights, sometimes indeed, wheat coming over in ballast. Now Manchester cotton goods had this natural protection in India—coal costs more at Bombay than in Manchester, machinery costs more, and requires skilled English hands to fix and repair it and Bombay mills, to do the same amount of work, have to employ about a third more hands than would be required in Lancashire, where the operatives are stronger. He had much compunction in putting this question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for India on account of the conflict it might arouse between his duty to his Office and his sympathy for Bombay.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord REAY)thought he could easily allay the fears of the noble Lord, who need feel no compunction, for the answer he had to give was a very simple one. By the Indian Act of December 1894 the Excise Duty was only imposed on yarns manufactured in Indian mills provided they were of counts above Number 20. There was no Excise Duty on woven cloth in India, and therefore there could be no protection or fiscal advantage in favour of Manchester goods as compared with Indian goods. The estimate for the yield of the Excise Duty given by the Government of India for the current year was Rx.75,000.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhad also given notice of the following question:—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government if, in consideration of the protection given to cotton goods, they will take a similar step on behalf of the silk industry, by placing duties on foreign silk stuffs imported into England it"
  He said it would be to the convenience of the House and the right rev. Bench that he should postpone this question until Friday next.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On the Reports of Amendments,
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, Clause 4, page 2, line 6, after Sub-section 1, to insert as a new sub-section:—
  "It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland to appoint a Scientific Superintendent, who shall hold office during pleasure, and be paid such salary as may be determined by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. The Superintendent shall, under the directions of the Fishery Board, conduct and supervise such scientific inquiries as the Board may deem necessary in carrying out the provisions of the Herring Fishery and Sea Fishery Acts."
  There was at present a Scientific Superintendent, and he was entirely under the orders of the Fishery Board in Scotland; he was appointed by the Fishery Board, he acted under their orders in all his work, and he was liable to be dismissed by them on three months' notice. Their Lordships would easily understand that, in the course of his duties, it was quite possible he might now and again be obliged to give evidence, with regard to the fishing questions, which might give offence to the trawling interest on the one side, or to the line or net fishermen on the other side. Under those circumstances, his position as Superintendent, carrying on most interesting work, was somewhat precarious. All he proposed was that, instead of the Superintendent being either appointed or dismissed by the Fishery Board, he should be appointed or dismissed by the Secretary for Scotland. His intention was, that there should be no extra charge whatever on the public fund in the shape of a payment of the superintendent's salary. There was a Scientific Vote now paid to the Fishery Board of Scotland amounting to £1,800

  1001
  a year, but of that £300 was paid to the Scientific Superintendent. He suggested that a small alteration should be made whereby £1,500 should be paid to the Fishery Board, and the salary of the Scientific Superintendent should be paid directly by the Treasury to the extent of £300 a year. It had been pointed out that the words "who shall hold office during pleasure" would practically mean that the appointment would be a permanent one. That was not his intention. He was sure that in the public interest it was very desirable the position of Superintendent should be made more permanent and less subject to any catch vote of a small body on the Fishery Board.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)said, it was not from any feeling of failureon the part of Dr. Fulton, who at present fulfilled the office of Scientific Superintendent, that he asked their Lordships not to accept the Amendment. Dr. Fulton had done excellent work; he had carried on the scientific work of the Board with the greatest success and advantage. But the proposal made in the Amendment was to take the appointment of one of the officers of the Board out of the hands of the Board altogether, and put it in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland already appointed all the members of the Board, and the Board had full charge and responsibility with regard to all fishery matters in Scotland. The question, of the relation of the scientific department to the Board, and the other parts and duties of the Board, must necessarily sometimes be of a somewhat delicate character, and it seemed to him it would be a very undesirable thing for Parliament to interfere between the Board and one of itsown officers. Surely it was a right thing that the Board should decide exactly in what way its own Scientific Superintendent should carry out the scientific work of the Board. To direct that the Scientific Superintendent should be altogether irresponsible to the Board would show a want of confidence in the Board, and really imply that the Board was not fit to carry on one of its! most important functions, namely, the exact manner in which the scientific department of the Board was to he carried on. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment, which would
  1002
  do much to undermine the powers of discipline of the Board itself over its subordinates.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas sorry to hear the objections taken by the noble Lord to the proposition of the noble Marquess. The noble Lord said the adoption of the Amendment would imply a doubt as to the fidelity of the Board. The noble Lord himself casts a doubt on the fidelity of the present Board, for he wants to reconstitute it completely. [Lord TWEEDMOUTH: "No." Yes; he proposed to reduce the number from nine to seven, and, of the seven, four were to be professional fishermen. He believed there was some not unnatural jealousy between the fishery members and the scientific members of the Board. Fishermen often took very much amiss the discoveries of science. He had heard a story, which he believed to be authentic, that when Professor MacIntosh, one of the most distinguished authorities in Scotland on marine biology, promulgated more certainly and absolutely the fact that the food fishes deposited their spawn in the open sea, and not on the bottom, the local fishermen were so angry that they burnt the Professor's effigy. That was the way in which uneducated men, full of prejudices with regard to the migrations of fish which they could not follow, looked upon scientific investigations and facts. It took a long time to drive the facts into their heads, and he had no great confidence in a Board of fishermen with a Chairman who was to a large extent a politician. If his noble Friend divided, he should support him in urging upon the Government that the scientific officer should be independent with respect to the Board, and under the Secretary for Scotland.
  The House divided on the Question that the proposed words be added:—Contents 76; Not-Contents 37.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, in page 2, lines 30 and 32, after the word "county" to insert the word "or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he had not given notice of any Amendment for the best of all reasons—that he

  1003
  did not see how the clause could be amended properly without omitting the whole subsection to which he was going to call attention. In Subsection "B" of Clause 6 there was a most extraordinary method proposed of defining a constituency. It differed entirely from the English Act, in which the Local District Committees were named by the District and County Councils. Under this subsection the constituency was selected by the county and burgh assessors, who were to go round and fix a number of distinctive marks against the name of any county or burgh elector whom they might consider entitled to come within the expression "fishing interests." That meant that the officers who were simply charged with recording the list of voters were to be given power to select from among the voters such persons as they thought proper to be electors for the District Committees. He had never heard of such a proposal in any Act of Parliament. Why were the County Councils not fit to nominate those who were to represent these fishing interests in their own area? He did not know where the noble Lord got such a provision from.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that the District Committees were made up of two different sorts of members. Half of the members were appointed by the County and Town Councils from among themselves, and half were to be elected by the members of the fishing interests within the districts which the District Committee was to regulate. He would admit that there was a certain difficulty in finding a way in which this could be done. There was a recent precedent for starring individual members of the register who should vote for a particular purpose. That proposal was adopted here; and it was provided that, on the register, a star should be prefixed to the names of those persons who came under the definition of members of the fishing interest. For the purpose of the election of members of the fishing interest to the District Committees, those men alone would have an extra vote. The poll was taken at the same time as the County Council elections. Those who had a star against their name voted at the same time for a fishery member. That proposal did not come into force until 1898. Up to the year 1898, the
  1004
  Secretary for Scotland nominated the fishery members of the District Committees, in the same way as the Board of Trade nominated the fishery members of the English District Committees. He admitted that this provision in the Bill differed from the English Act.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought that the English Act was sound in principle; but if the Government were going to have an elected element, the constituency that was to elect should be known to some publicly constituted authority. Under the Bill, the Government gave the power to elect to the local assessors. Was this fair to a great public interest? The fishing interest of Scotland was a large one, worth £1,600,000 annually. It was, therefore, by no means unimportant that they should be fairly and truly represented. He suggested that the Government should allow the County Councils to elect the members. He had before objected to the vague and unsatisfactory definition of the fishery interest as "owners of fisheries." There was no such expression applicable to the industry. There were owners of salmon fisheries and owners of mussel beds and oyster beds, but there was no such thing as the owner of a white fishery.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It means the owner of a mussel fishery or an oyster fishery.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: "But you do not say so." He repeated that the fishery interest of Scotland was quite capable of being classified. There was the herring fishery, the seine-net fisheries, the drift-net fisheries; but the white, fisheries were different. If the Government wished a genuine representation of the fishery interest they ought to secure a representation of the great divisions which embraced the great capitalists of the fishing industry. There was, however, no security in the Bill that they would be duly represented.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that so far as the representation of the County and Town Councils on the District Committees was concerned, the Bill was exactly on the same lines as the English Bill. The Town and County Councils were represented in the same manner as in England at this moment. The difference was in regard to the members of the District Committees who represented the fishery interests.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I said so.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Duke found fault with the representation given to the Town and County Councils. ["No, no!"]
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I object that you do not give to the County and Town Councils the power of choosing the constituency who might fairly represent the fishing interest.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Bill laid down the same conditions as the English Bill. The Town and County Councils in England did not nominate the representatives of the fishing interest. The representatives of the fishing interest on the English District Committees were nominated by the Board of Trade. The difference arose when they came to the question of members representing the fishing interest. It was thought better by the Government that the fishing interests themselves should be directly represented by their own votes on their own District Committees, rather than that it should be left to a Minister to nominate representatives of a particular interest, backed up by outside advice. The Government, therefore, tried to devise a scheme by which those fishing interests should directly vote for their own representatives on the District Committee. They provided that the number of Fishery representatives on a District Committee should not exceed half of the total number of members of the Committee; it might be as many less as the Secretary for Scotland chose to set out in his Order for the district. But the Government found it needful to find a method by which the fishery interests should be represented on those Committees. They thought that the best plan was to take the County Council roll of voters, and to make arrangements by which a particular mark should be made against the names appearing on that register who belonged in any sense to the fishing interest. The criticism of the noble Duke with regard to the definition clause was rather that it was too wide, and not too narrow. This clause had been carefully considered by a Select Committee, and no objection was there raised to it. He hoped that the House would support the decision of the Select Committee rather than adopt the hypercritical attitude of the noble Duke.
  THE MAHQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not believe that the noble Lord was really so successful in misunderstanding the noble Duke as he had tried to represent. The noble Duke's objection was that the man who selected the constituency selected the member. The men who starred those special fishery interests practically selected the persons who were to represent them. Why were those particular officials to have this power of election, which was given to no other officials? If he might believe the lectures which he had received from the Bench opposite, the peculiar mark of noble Lords opposite was that they trusted the people. Why, then, did they trust the assessors in this case instead of the people? This proposal was like conferring on the Vestry clerks of London the duty of electing County Councils. There was no ground why the assessors should be given this enormous power. If they exercised it with integrity and wisdom no harm would be done; but in this country they watched official jurisdiction carefully, because they could never say whether it would be exercised with integrity and wisdom. There was no difficulty whatever in setting this matter right. The Government had nothing to do but to direct the County Council to select a certain number of members to represent the fishery interests. The County Councils would then, themselves, see what were the proper constituencies to elect those fishing representatives; and thus the election would not be carried out by special officials whom they had invested with this very unusual power. The election would be conducted on the only lines on which elections were conducted now; and no difficulty would arise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LOKD HERSCHELL)said, that the persons charged with the duty were—
  "(b.) The county and burgh, assessors, respectively, or other persons charged within a fishery district with the duty of the preparation of the County Council and burgh registers of voters (including the registers of police burghs) shall, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and in every third year thereafter, prefix a distinctive mark (of which they shall have given due notice on the lists published by them) to the number or name of any county or burgh elector whom they shall respectively consider to be entitled, or who shall satisfy them that he is entitled, to be included in the expression 'fishing interests.' It shall be lawful

  1007
  to object to the insertion or omission of the distinctive mark in this section mentioned as nearly as may be in the same manner and subjeet to the same provisions as to appeal and otherwise as in the case of any other entry in or omission from the register and lists of voters."
  Therefore, the same persons who prepared the register for the fishery elections were the same as those who prepared the register for the County Council elections; and any objection might be taken in the same way as in the other.
  LOUD HALSBURYsaid, that those who prepared the register had definite legal principles to guide them on which they must act. Persons who had the Franchise were recognised by the law and surrounded by certain safeguards. What was the fact which the assessors had to ascertain here?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Whether the persons came within the description of Clause 27 (Definition Clause).
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that to adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess would be to throw the whole representation of the District Committees into the hands of the Town Councils and the County Councils. The County Councils nominated one-half of the District Committees, and the object was to get the other half composed of persons who would really represent the fishing interests. This was not the course adopted by the noble Marquis with regard to the English Bill, which provided that the fishing interest should be represented in a way entirely separate from the Town or County Councils. Town Councils chose one-half and the Board of Trade nominated the other half to be chosen from people concerned in the fishing interests, and that had been adopted for the next three years in this Bill. He ventured to hope that their Lordships would allow the clause to pass as it stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that, inasmuch as what the noble Lord had just stated appeared to be conclusive to the noble Duke, he would pass on to Clause 10 of the Bill, and he moved to insert in Clause 10, page 7, line 33, after the word "areas," the words, "under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty." The Amendment which he proposed in Clause 10 was to limit the difficulty which was encountered in Committee, when the stringent remedy was
  1008
  proposed to strike the clause out altogether. But he did not like to strike the clause out altogether. His impression, however, was that the law was a little confused in regard to this matter. If the trawlers were admitted within the three-mile limit, there was no doubt that the industry of line fishermen would be crushed out in a great many places. Though that was a kind of protectionist doctrine strange to hear from the Benches opposite, yet there was no doubt that some kind of protection might be legitimately given to these smaller industries. He could not entirely agree with the proposal of the noble Lord, and thought it would be the subject of great misconception on the part of those affected by it; and the proposal in the Bill would expose the line fishermen to very grave dangers. As the Bill stood, there was nothing to prevent a stretch of sea being declared in which the foreigner may trawl and the Englishman may not. He could not conceive that that state of things would be endured. Would it be reasonable, if a trawler were sighted some five miles from land, and a Queen's ship were sent out to stop her, that while the vessel was being brought in, a French trawler should be able to come in and take fish on exactly the same ground with impunity? He felt quite sure that there would be an outburst of extreme indignation, not only from the population immediately concerned, but from all along the coast, if such a scandal were committed. What was proposed was, that the House should not affect to forbid trawling except in those areas of water over which Her Majesty had jurisdiction, and it seemed to him rather doubtful whether it would not be straining a point in international law if they were to forbid, even our own subjects, waters over which we have no jurisdiction. But, even supposing it were possible, it would be a scandal to do so, when the very same waters would be open to foreign trawlers whenever they pleased. There would be serious difficulties in the practical working of the noble Lord's arrangements, and one was that English ships would provide them selves with the requisite documents in order that they might fly the French flag when they liked. The moment a

  1009
  Queen's ship went out to stop a vessel, the French flag would be flown, and by statute there was no power to inquire into the nationality of the vessel, which professed to be a French one. The French had always jealously refused the right of search, and he thought, therefore, that the noble Lord's arrangements would break down in practice, though the breaking down in practice would be a lesser scandal than if it succeeded. If it did succeed, it was evident that the whole of the trawling industry would have to put itself under foreign flags. That would be the only remedy open to them. He had been told that on the east coast his Amendment would not make a very great difference in the practice which prevailed in existing bylaws. This Bill did not deal with the east coast of Scotland only, but with the north coast, and the whole of that area of waters, in fact, which was governed by the Highland coast. And the proposals of the Bill practically came to a limitation of 15 miles, in which Englishmen could not trawl, but where the foreigner might without question. Such a proposition was intolerable, and it would create great discontent by reason of English fishermen being placed at great disadvantage as compared with the foreigner.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid he should be sorry to strike out the clause if it would open the three-mile limit to all comers, but he did not think it would have that effect. Still the only object of the clause was to get in the 18 miles, so as to exclude trawlers altogether from a large circle of water on which they could now operate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if the Bill were passed as proposed, the law would be a little doubtful, and his object was not to incur that doubt. He did not wish the line fishermen to think that their interests had been neglected.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to say a few words on the principle involved in the clause. It might be recollected that when the Debate took place, he ventured to defend trawling against the old objection which used to be taken—that it destroyed immature fish and spawn; and pointed out to the House that those objections had been proved to be completely fallacious by the
  1010
  discovery that the food fish spawned in the open sea, and by the fact that the line fishermen caught immature fish as well as the trawlers. What objections remained to trawling after those old-fashioned objections had been disposed of? The fact was there was no solid objection to trawling, except that it caught too many fish, and employed too few men. That was an objection which had been used against machinery by the Socialist party, and by unconscious Socialists for centuries, whenever new machinery was invented. But was that the principle upon which the House was going to act in these times? The object of this Bill had altogether been to extend the area beyond the territorial waters, and prevent trawlers catching a good many fish with the greatest economy of labour. He was not one of those political economists who belonged to what was called the Laissez-faire school, and had always supported the whole series of legislation which had gone under the name of the Factory Acts, and the Shaftesbury Legislation, the end of which they had not yet seen. He admitted that Parliament had a right to interfere with the exercise of individual liberty where that liberty interfered with the life or the health of the subject; and, after all, surely there were some truths which political economy had firmly established—truths as certain as any of the physical sciences could be, and one of them was, that it was the absolute tendency in all mankind to get the largest possible result out of a given amount of labour. That result was the cause and the origin of machinery which always did displace labour for a time, and was bound to operate hardly upon a few. But such principles did not find favour in that House, and he should be surprised to find that there were any Members of that House disposed to adopt principles which had now become perfectly irrelevant. Peace be to its ashes! He believed that, if this principle had been applied to labour, it would not have received a majority in the County Council. This was his principle objection to the clause. Turning now to the magnitude of the interests involved, the noble Lord opposite had spoken the other day of beam-trawling as, after all, an inferior branch of the Scotch industry, as to quantity.

  1011
  The noble Lord could not have read one of the last Reports of the Scotch Fishery Board, that for 1893, published in 1894, for that Report showed that beam-trawling and the produce of it was rapidly increasing, and was, year by year, becoming one of the main items of the Scotch fishing industry. Moreover, the Report showed that, in those waters which had been closed by way of experiment, there was no proof that any good had been done to line-fishing. There was another table in that Report, which showed how serious it was for Parliament to interfere with the new and rising industry of beam-trawling. He had to present to the House that night a Petition from the Leith Dock Company, a powerful Corporation, imploring their Lordships not to pass this Bill, and pointing out that they were executing extensive improvements at the harbour of New-haven to accommodate the trawlers. The truth was, that year after year there was a larger amount of capital being employed in this industry. The vessels were getting larger, the engines more powerful, the whole of the machinery more scientific; and they were catching a larger amount of fish every year. The line fishermen were helpless against this competition. Was the House to stop an industry like this for the sake of a few fishing villages? He begged the House also to remember the effect upon the food supply of the people. The trawl did not merely catch the prime fish which were consumed at West End tables; along with the prime fish there was a large amount of inferior fish, which were largely used by the poorer classes, and were very good for food. Small flounders, for instance, were caught in large quantities by the trawlers, and formed an invaluable source of food for the poorer classes. In his own district he could speak of the injurious effect on the food supply of the people, which the closing of the waters to trawlers had had. In one part where he had fished he remembered that there were trawlers every night. All that was stopped, but the line fishermen would not catch those fish. They could not be caught with a line, and were simply left at the bottom of the sea to rot or to feed other fish. He trusted that the House would pause before passing a Bill which would have the effoct of injuring a great and growing
  1012
  industry in Scotland, and of limiting the food supply of the people. If these evils could be prevented by adopting the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he would be entirely satisfied. He confessed himself somewhat doubtful as to the effect of the Amendment, but he intended to vote for it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthought, that the noble Duke's speech should have been made the other night on his (the speaker's) Motion to omit the clause. His objection to the Amendment of the noble Marquess was, that it did not in any way alter the existing law, by which all trawling in territorial waters was declared to be illegal. The words proposed by the noble Marquess really carried the matter no further, the waters referrred to being already excluded from the operations of the trawl. He had himself put an Amendment on the Paper providing that the by-laws referred to in Clause 10 of the Bill should not come into force until the convention or arrangement with regard to sea fisheries, concluded in 1882, between Her Majesty and certain Foreign States—and which had since come into force and been embodied in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883—should be so extended as to prohibit the subjects of Foreign States from engaging in beam and other trawling in the waters which by such by-law or by-laws should be closed to British subjects. He thought that this proposal would better meet the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYexpressed regret that he had not been present at the Debate the other night. He hoped that the noble Marquess would insist upon a Division. He thought that the interests of the fishing classes of the East coast of England had to a great extent been overlooked in the discussion. He had it on the authority of the Member for Tynemouth that in the Tyne ports of North and South Shields Clause 10 was viewed with dismay. He had also been informed by Mr. Heneage that similar apprehension existed in the minds of the trawling fishermen of Grimsby. He had no doubt that a similar apprehension existed in other centres on the East and North-east coasts. The fishermen at these ports travelled great distances in the pursuit of their vocation, and made use of the seas adjoining the Scotch

  1013
  coast. The noble Marquess had not exaggerated when he drew attention to the fact that under the clause as it stood an English fisherman might be chased by an English gunboat, and the ground consequently left clear for trawlers of any other nation—French, Belgian, German, or Dutch. The only alternatives left to the fishermen of this country were, either to sail under a foreign flag, or to get rid of their trawling boats and remove their business to some other country. This would have a very serious effect upon the industry. What use were the local inquiries to the trawlers on the East coast of England? In all probability the local inquiry would only be advertised in the local Scotch paper, and these men would never see it; or even if they did, was it likely that they would travel up to Scotland in order to put their grievances before the Local Board? Then again, how was the English trawler to know whether he was outside the 18-mile limit, particularly in hazy weather? Could anything be more unfair than to permit the foreigner to fish within this radius, and to have, so to speak, the first run of the markets, while our own fishermen could not do so? What guarantee was there that the foreigner would not take advantage of this? He believed so lately as last year two German fishing-boats were seen in the Moray Firth evidently endeavouring to spy out the nakedness of the land. At the present moment our fishing industries were very heavily handicapped, and this Bill proposed to handicap them even more severely. So far as Germany was concerned, they had but the Lady Godiva case to look back to, while the new law enacted by the Danish Government proved what was our position with regard to Iceland; and lately in France import duties had been levied on fish caught by foreign vessels there. He believed there was no question on the 18-mile limit raised before the Select Committee of last year, that the witnesses examined suggested no more than a nine-mile limit, and that this limit was not mentioned in the report. If the Amendment were not carried he should feel it his duty to move the rejection of the entire clause.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he felt he was very bold to venture to dispute
  1014
  the sic volo sic jubeo of the noble Marquess, because if he determined that this clause should be rejected his determination would be carried into effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never proposed to reject the clause.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that trawling was already prohibited within the three-mile limit absolutely as far as Scotland was concerned by the Act of 1889, and he admitted that under this Bill there would be certain waters in which foreigners could trawl and Scotch and English vessels could not. If the noble Marquess carried this Amendment the clause would be so much waste paper. In answer to the Duke of Argyll he pointed out that very great damage was done by trawlers, particularly in waters near the coast, to the nets and lines of fishermen, and especially to those of the herring fishermen. The noble Duke, in trying to show the importance of the trawling industry in Scotland, had forgotten, he thought, that the main Scotch fishing industry was the herring fishing. Of the total amount of fish caught in Scotland, 72 per cent. were net-caught fish, and of those no less than 71 per cent. were herring. A great deal of the opposition to the Bill proceeded from Aberdeen, the happy home of Scotch steam trawling, but there was no part of Scotland which was so interested in the herring fishing as the Aberdeen district. Last year the value of the herring caught in the three districts of Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Aberdeen amounted to no less than £819,711, or practically half the value of the total amount of fish caught all over Scotland. The area of the herring nets in use in Scotland was no less than 164 millions of square yards, and the total amount of the lines in daily use during the winter months was 82 million yards, or enough to go 1¾ times round the globe. That was the amount of the gear which they wished to protect, not unfairly or by giving any undue preference. It might really be supposed from the speeches they had heard that it was proposed to close the whole of the North Sea to trawlers instead of a mere strip along the coast of Scotland. Lord Londonderry was not correct in saying that this question, of the territorial waters had not been raised before the Committee of the House of Commons which

  1015
  sat to consider Sea Fishery Questions in 1893, and of which he (Lord Tweedmouth) was chairman. It was a point that was constantly raised before the Committee, and it formed one of the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee recommended that it would be desirable to extend the territorial waters for fishing purposes only, and that if it were done it would be well to get the other nations to agree to it. But there was one curious point to which he desired to direct the attention of their Lordships. At that very moment the trawlers, who were opposing the Bill, were pressing another Bill for prohibiting the sale and capture of immature fish on the House of Commons, which differentiated between British and foreign fishermen exactly in the same way as this Bill proposed; and yet, while those trawlers were grumbling and growling as the other Bill was not being pushed forward with greater rapidity in the House of Commons, they opposed exactly similar provisions in this Bill, because they thought it would shut them out of a very small area of the water off the Scotch coast. He, however, did not want to take up a non possumus line on the question. He felt that concession after concession had been made in regard to the Bill which, perhaps, those who were interested in Scotland would hardly thank him for. But still he was prepared to go a step further, and make another concession. He was prepared to accept the Amendment of the Marquess of Lothian, which would make the limit 13 miles instead of 18, as now proposed in the Bill, and also to move on the Third Reading an Amendment enabling the Secretary for Scotland to suspend the clause in regard to any particular closed area in which foreign trawlers made a practice of fishing. That would get rid of the feeling of objection which might naturally arise on seeing foreign trawlers fishing in waters where British trawlers were prohibited. But he could not help saying that this great campaign against the clause came rather late from the noble Marquess opposite, because these very prohibitions dealing with trawling, which the promoters of the Bill were endeavouring to get the House to adopt in a modified manner in regard
  1016
  to the coast of Scotland generally, were already in force in a much stronger form in regard to the Moray Firth, from Dun-cansby Head to Rattray Head.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was under the North Sea Convention.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, it was under a clause in the Act of 1889. It was often said that the House dealt differently with the Bills of a Liberal Government, and the Bills of a Conservative Government. He did not desire to say anything in an aggressive manner, but he could not help pointing out that the Bills promoted by the Conservative Government in 1888 and 1889, containing wider and more stringent proposals in regard to the two disputed points of district Committees and trawling, were treated very differently by the House from the present Bill, In the Bill of 1888, which affected England, there was a compulsory power by which twenty ratepayers of any district could initiate District Committees if the Town or County Council did not take such initiatory action. Those District Committees were given rating powers, and it was compulsory on Town or County Councils to provide the rates imposed by those District Committees. However, in the Committee upstairs that compulsory power was struck out of the Bill, and the payment of rates was left entirely at the option of the Town or County Councils. But when the Bill of 1889—the Bill of a Conservative Government—came to the House of Lords, the proposal to prohibit trawling in a much more stringent form than was proposed in the present Bill, over a third of the area of the East Coast of Scotland in the North Sea, was accepted without demur. It was now proposed to apply a similar provision, but carefully safeguarded, to the whole coast of Scotland. The Fishery Board of Scotland had not the power to apply the clause. It could only be done with the sanction of the Secretary of Scotland after a local inquiry, before which all parties were to be heard; and this carefully guarded provision was now, apparently, about to be rejected by their Lordships. He would feel deep regret if the clause were rejected. He believed

  1017
  the passing of the clause was but a small act of justice to the fishermen of Scotland. But if their Lordships chose to reject the clause, the Government would have to submit to their will.
  THK DUKE OF ARGYLL: Has the noble Lord got any statistical information as to the amount of damage done by steam trawling either to nets or to lines? There was a statement submitted to the House which represents the damage as quite trifling.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am afraid I am not prepared here with statistical information; hut I was a member of the Trawling Commission of 1883–4, and we had abundance of evidence before us of the great damage that was done. I would also refer the noble Duke to the annual reports of the Fishery Board, where he will see the number of cases dealt with by the officers of the Board under the Act of 1885. I can assure the noble Duke that I am not drawing on my imagination in regard to the damage to gear done by trawlers.
  THE MAUQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that, if the House occepted the Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury, it would be useless for him to move his Amendment, which the noble Lord opposite had signified his willingness to adopt on behalf of the Government. But he should like to explain, as he might not have another opportunity of doing so, why he would propose to limit the restricted area to 13 miles, rather than to 18 miles. He believed that, if the area restricted went beyond the territorial limits, it was a matter of very small importance whether the limit was 13 miles or 18 miles. Another point which might have some effect on their Lordships' decision was that, so far as he was able to ascertain, foreign trawlers, rarely, if ever, came within the 15 miles. They did come within the 18 miles, but they did not come within the 15 miles; and, therefore, the objection that British trawlers would not be allowed to fish where foreign trawlers could fish fell to the ground. He should like to go back some time in our history in order to show the claim which this country had over the fisheries of the North Sea. In 1604, in the reign of James I., there was a Commission consisting of 44 English Members and 29 Scotch Members appointed to settle some arrangements in
  1018
  regard to fishing matters under the proposed Act of Union between England and Scotland. The proposal submitted was supported by 39 of the English Members and 28 of the Scotch Members. The leading English Commissioners were the first Lord Cranborne (an ancestor of the Marquess of Salisbury) and Sir Francis Bacon. The principal Scotch Commissioners were "Tarn of the Cow-gate" (Lord Haddington) and Lord Fyvie. The Commission proposed the closing to all fishermen (the English included) but Scotch fishermen of the waters between St. Abb's Head and Red Head in Forfar, and between Rat-tray Head and Duncansby Head and 14 miles beyond that line. That proposal was ratified in 1607 by the Scotch Parliament, but the Bill was rejected by the English Parliament, not because of the proposal, but because it contained a naturalisation clause, under which it was feared a crowd of "hungry Scots" would come to England. Between 1630 and 1633 Charles I. was anxious to foster the Scotch fishing as against the Dutch, so he appointed a Commission, which recommended that all the waters on the east of Scotland to the mid-line between Scotland and Norway should be closed to everyone that was not Scotch. That proposal was not agreed to by Charles I., and, on the matter being remitted back to the Royal burghs, they proposed a line from St. Abb's to Red Head; from Rattray Point to Duncansby Head; from Duncansby Head to Cape Wrath; thence to Stour Head in Assynt; thence to the Butt of Lewis; and southwards from Mull of Kintyre to Mull of Galloway; and thence eastward to English Sol way Firth, and 14 miles beyond that line. That proposal was likewise not agreed to, and the final decision was to close the waters within a line drawn from St. Abb's Head to Red Head, and from the Mull of Kintyre to the Mull of Galloway. There seemed to be a general opinion that we had absolutely no power against foreign vessels which came within the limit prohibited to our own trawlers. He should be very sorry to give up the right against any foreigners coming within the waters which we chose to close against our own fishermen. He thought his noble Friend the Marquess of Londonderry took a rather

  1019
  extravagant line in dealing with the question of trawling, because he seemed to consider nothing but trawlers. The noble Marquess argued that if the Bill were passed in its present form the whole of the trawling industry on the East Coast would be absolutely destroyed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, the whole gist of his argument was that he did not wish to see the trawling industry placed at a disadvantage with the foreigner.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought the remarks of his noble Friend went further than that. He talked about our trawlers having to go to other parts of the world rather than fish in our own waters, which meant, if it meant anything, that they were to be done harm to. He had some regard for the interest of the line and net fishermen of Scotland, and did not want to see them obliged to seek employment in other callings. At present there was immense difficulty in getting employment, and he had no desire to see that difficulty aggravated.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that, having been a Member of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, he wished to recognise fully the great courtesy and consideration which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill displayed to all the Members of the Committee. He entirely agreed with Lord Lothian, but since the noble Lord opposite had agreed to bring up, on the Third Reading, a clause which would, if it were found that the foreign trawler came into our waters in a manner which was hurtful to our own trawlers, give the Secretary for Scotland power to revoke the bye-law and so meet the case of the foreign trawler, which seemed to be one of the great objections to the clause. He should be sorry to see the clause struck out.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the EARL OF KIMBERLEY)said, that, having had the matter of the foreign trawler brought before him at the Foreign Officce, he should feel some compunction at the existence of a law which might enable foreign trawlers to fish on ground which was forbidden to subjects of Her Majesty, but he could not help thinking that the point which the noble Marquess brought forward could be adequately
  1020
  met by the suggestion of Lord Tweed-mouth. The point was that it would be unjust and unfair that foreign trawlers should be allowed to fish where British trawlers could not fish. That point could be fairly met if it was made incumbent upon the Secretary for Scotland, if it was shown that foreign trawlers fished in prohibited waters, to withdraw the prohibition. They would thus not interfere with the herring fishery, neither would they put an end to the clause altogether, and take away from the Secretary for Scotland and the Fishery Board the power to protect the line and net fishermen against what was held by a great many people to be an injury done to them by trawlers. He hoped, therefore, the noble Marquess, particularly after what had been said, would consider the suggestion of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYcould not admit that in this matter they were abandoning the line and net fishermen, and doing everything for the trawler. What use would it be for the line and net fishermen if they were no longer disturbed by English trawlers, and yet liable to be disturbed by foreign trawlers? It was idle to say foreign trawlers had not frequented the seas in question—he believed they had—but after the agitation there had been amongst the fishing population they would be thoroughly made aware of the advantage which it was proposed that Parliament should confer upon them, and if the House pressed this clause as it stood they would be doing no good to the line or net fishermen, but they would be simply providing a place vacant from all English trawling competition where the trawler of the foreigner would be at perfect liberty and in entire safety. Noble Lords opposite proposed a remedy for the danger which might or might not be successful. The noble Lord complained that there were clauses in the English Bills passed while a Conservative Government was in office which were open to the same objection, and which were passed without any remonstrance in their Lordships' House. It was very discreditable to the Opposition of that time if it was so. [Lord TWEEDMOUTH: "We approve of it."] It was the business of the Opposition to raise the point. [Lord TWEEDMOUTH: "We approve of

  1021
  it."] He would not be shut out from advocating beneficial legislation, or resisting legislation which was pernicious, by being told something could be found in a statute passed by a Conservative Government which furnished a precedent. He would much rather admit at once that all Governments were bad, but that some Governments were worse than others. They had now to consider what the interests of the country required, and not what they did in the past. He could imagine that if the clauses with respect to the action of the Secretary for Scotland were properly drawn—it all depended upon that—the powers might be so exercised as to reduce the invasion of the foreign trawler to a minimum. He could imagine even some time limit, which in the case of the herring fishery might be useful, but he could see no reason why they should not put into the clause a sound principle, leaving it to the Government to adjourn the Bill, if they pleased, or insert provisions at a future stage by which they imagined they could get rid of the danger of the foreign trawler. The sound principle was the one which this Amendment would place on the Statute Book, the principle that the sea was to be open to the English trawler wherever it was open to the foreign trawler, the principle that they were not to give to the foreign trawler an advantage over the English trawler. He personally proposed to take a Division on the Amendment, to by no means exclude himself from giving favourable consideration to any proposal, by way of exception, which the noble Lord might think it wise to introduce into his Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Marquess had said the fact that a provision of this kind was inserted and approved by this House was no proof that it was a good one. It throw some little light on some controversies that had taken place from time to time that a measure containing a provision so outrageously bad as the noble Marquess represented this to be should have been passed through this House, and that no one who was now going to vote with the noble Marquess was found to raise an objection. But he rose to suggest that it would be better to divide on the omission of the clause than on the Amendment. It was proposed that the
  1022
  Fishery Board might by by-law prohibit trawling in any area under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty. That would leave the law as it stood at present; but what he asked the noble Marquess to consider was whether that might not give rise to some very awkward and difficult questions as to what waters were within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty. Of course if the Queen's jurisdiction in territorial waters were well settled there would be no difficulty.
  The House divided:—Contents 73; Not-Contents 45.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he was anxious for the assertion of the sound principle; but now that his object was achieved, he was inclined to think that the best way would be for the discussion to be adjourned, in order that the noble Lord might place upon the Paper any proposals which he thought would effect the limited prohibition he desired without injury to the principles which the House had laid down.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought it would be better to finish the few Amendments remaining on the Paper, and so get rid of the Report Stage. He could then bring up his Amendments on Third Reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the noble Lord would, of course, choose which procedure he preferred. On Third Reading the House would only have one stage before it; and he thought it would be more economical of opportunity to take the Amendments at this stage, so that if any mistakes were made they could be corrected later.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that the words of the noble Marquess would have to be struck out on Third Reading in any case. If other words were put in which would render them nugatory there would be a jumble. He should prefer to finish the Report Stage at once.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in Clause 10, page 7, line 33, to leave "18" and insert "13," the object of the Amendment being to reduce the limit of the operation of the Bill from 18 miles to 13 miles from the coast.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, to insert in Clause 10, page 7, line 36, the following words:—
  "Provided that the powers conferred in this section shall not be exercised in respect to any areas under Her Majesty's jurisdiction lying opposite to any part of the coast of Ireland, or the west coast of England, within 18 miles thereof."
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that he should naturally desire to protect Ireland, and, therefore, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved the addition of the following new clause after Clause 19—
  "Without prejudice to any powers otherwise vested in them, the Fishery Board may from time to time, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, employ such officers and vessels and take such other means as shall be necessary for the efficient protection of the sea fisheries and for the observance of such by-laws as may from time to time be in force; provided that nothing in this section shall exempt the coastguard and Admiralty officers from their statutory duty in enforcing the law and regulations affecting vessels engaged in sea fishing."
  He said he looked upon this question of a sea police as perhaps the most important of all in regard to sea fisheries in Scotland. The unfortunate state of feeling between the line fishermen and the trawlers was in great part owing to the fact that the system of sea police by which the law had been supposed to be enforced was thorougly inefficient. It was of the first importance, in the first place, that the vessels which were to police the seas should be under the direction, and at the orders, and in the employment, of the Fishery Board, and that they should be sufficient in number for and adequate to their work. His contention had been supported by every Commission and Committee which had sat on this subject. The person who had insisted most on the necessity for an efficient sea police in the employment of Local Authorities was Lord Tweedmouth himself. In the Report of the noble Lord's Committee, issued in 1893, it was pointed out that the Dalhousie Commission of 1885 had proposed that adequate arrangements should be made for the
  1024
  establishment and maintenance of an efficient sea police under the control of the fishery authorities as constituted. Then the Report of the noble Lord's Committee proceeded thus:—
  "Your Committee would entrust to these authorities the care and regulation of British sea fisheries, and recommend that they should be supplied with adequate funds to collect statistics and to keep up an efficient sea-police to enforce the regulations made by them. Up to the present time, such a police as has been in existence is supplied by special cruisers devoted by the Admiralty to the purpose. This system had not proved satisfactory; and so far unsuccessful, where British waters were concerned, that the Committee believed those cruisers should be supplemented by a special force, organised by, and under, the Fishery Authorities themselves."
  In the evidence before the Committee, Mr. Esslemont, Chairman of the Fishery Board, appeared, and gave the strongest possible evidence in this direction. He stated that the sea police, up to that time under the Admiralty, had been thoroughly inefficient, and there were frequent complaints on the Scottish coast that the vessels ought to be under the Fishery Board, and paid for by a Vote from Parliament, and that the Board had no efficient means of enforcing bye-laws on the sea, while sufficient money should be given to the Board for their own vessels and their own police. After a statement of this kind it was unnecessary for him to say more, and he moved the Clause of which he had given notice.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTHadmitted the necessity of a good sea police for Scotland as well as for England. He agreed with his noble Friend, and so far as the new clause was concerned he saw no possible objection to it. It did not, however, grant a single power to the Board which the Board did not already possess. He would accept the Clause.
  Clause agreed to, and Bill reported with Amendments.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that under the Municipal Elections (Corrupt Practices) Act an inquiry might be held into a municipal election by a Barrister Commissioner appointed

  1025
  by the election Judges. If the commissioner reported that any person had been guilty of a corrupt practice, then the consequence was that the person became incapable for seven years to be registered as an elector, or to vote in any election, or to hold a judicial office; and if he filled such an office it was vacated. That decision of the barrister, appointed as a Municipal Election Commissioner, was absolutely without appeal. In order to show the necessity and expediency of the law being amended, he would call their Lordships' attention to a case which had drawn his attention to the present unsatisfactory state of the law. There was an election petition in Wigan. In the course of the evidence in support of the petition, a gentleman who had filled many public offices had been guilty of treating. All the witnesses were out of court at the hearing of the petition. After the hearing of the petition was over, this gentleman was called upon by the Commissioner to say whether he should not be reported as having been guilty of treating on a particular occasion. The gentleman asked that he might be allowed the assistance of Counsel, but the Commissioner was not able to permit that. The decision arose out of a rather curious circumstance. A controversy arose between the solicitors and the Bar as to whether a barrister had exclusive audience, or whether solicitors could also appear; and the question was raised before the courts. It was argued both by the Bar and by the solicitors, and the court decided that neither the Bar nor the solicitors was entitled to be heard; the party interested could only be heard by himself. This was the decision followed by the Commissioner. The gentleman who was charged had heard none of the witnesses; he learned from the newspapers the nature of the evidence that was given. He had no legal assistance; he called his own witnesses, but beyond that he was practically unable to do anything. The Commissioner reported him as having on this occasion been guilty of a corrupt practice. The gentleman was disqualified for seven years from fulfilling any public office. At the time the gentleman was a Justice of the Peace of the borough of Wigan, a Justice of the Peace of the county of Lancaster, a member of the Town Council of Wigan,
  1026
  and a member of the County Council of Lancaster. All those offices were vacated, and the gentleman was incapable for seven years to hold any judicial or public office. Proceedings were taken against him by prosecution for the offence, and the case was tried at the Assizes by Judge and jury. The jury without hesitation found the gentleman not guilty, and the Judge expressed his concurrence with the verdict. The gentleman was acquitted, but there was no means of reversing the effect of the finding of the Election Commissioner. All the statutory disqualifications continued. He made an appeal for pardon, and for some time that was under consideration. The Legislature had provided, in the case of a Parliamentary election, that those penal consequences could not follow in any case, unless the matter had been heard by two Judges, and they were agreed that the offence had been committed. This was a great protection, and a very important safeguard. If the three Commissioners appointed to inquire into corrupt practices, schedule a person as having been guilty of corrupt practices, the Legislature gave him the right of appeal to the assizes, and the matter was open to review. But probably through some oversight in transferring to the Municipal Acts the provisions of the Parliamentary Act without foreseeing all the consequences, this tremendous power was given to a barrister, and there was no mode of re-trying the case. He therefore proposed by this Bill to give the same right of appeal to the Judges of Assize, as existed in the Parliamentary petition, and any person who had been tried and acquitted of corrupt practice, in respect of which disability had ensued, the disability should cease, and the man should on that account be free from the incapacities which the Legislature had imposed as the consequences of the report of the Commissioner. It was open to consideration, in Committee, whether it might not be advisable to make another change in the Bill. He thought it might be feasible in Committee to settle the question whether a person called forward and charged with offences carrying such very serious consequences should be allowed the assistance of counsel to cross-examine the witness and to put his case before the tribunal. It seemed to him an anomaly

  1027
  that a person so charged should not be allowed to have the assistance of counsel in endeavouring to clear himself from so serious a charge. He thought that this might well be considered in Committee. His present purpose, however, was to give the appeal to which he had alluded.
  LORD HALSBURYhad nothing to say against the second reading of the Bill, but he was somewhat doubtful whether the amendment suggested by the Lord Chancellor to be made in Committee was within the ambit or title of the Bill, though he hoped that it was. He could not help thinking that some matters incidental to the trial of a Parliamentary Election were open to one or two of the objections raised by the Lord Chancellor. He remembered what happened with reference to a gentlemen against whom the Commissioners made a Report with the consequences mentioned, the fact being that the Commissioners were under a very strong impression, and would not consequently call the gentlemen himself to state the facts, because he would not then have been liable to prosecution. Nevertheless, by their Report they disqualified him, though they had not called him as a witness. He had taken a different view of that case and its result, and, shortly afterwards, the principal witness upon whom the Commissioners had relied was indicted for perjury and convicted in connection with the same election. He quite thought that some further provision ought to be made for the protection of an accused person in the direction of what the Lord Chancellor had suggested, but he was afraid this would not be within the ambit of the present Bill. As he had said before, he should be very glad if it were.
  Bill read 2°

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RECEIVER) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Five minutes after Seven o'clock.