Sitting of 22 June 1896

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
Paper [presented 19th June] to be printed.—[No. 244.]
EAST INDIA (MAHARAJA RANA OF JHALAWAR).
Return [presented 19th June] to be printed.—[No. 245.]
NAVAL RESERVES.
Return [presented 19th June] to be printed.—[No. 246.]

NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS (WAGES OF WORKMEN).
Copy ordered—
"Of Statement showing the increases of pay and other privileges granted to various classes
1540
of workmen in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at home from the commencement of the financial year 1896–7."—(First Lord of the Admiralty.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 250.]

QUESTIONS.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many of the 20,792 pauper aliens, officially returned as landing at the eastern ports of Britain between 1st January and 31st May, averring that they were going to the United States, have been refused an embarkation certificate from the American Consul at Liverpool or Hull; how many have been returned to England by the Board of Supervision in New York as unworthy under the laws of the American people to land in America; and by how many the 17,087 arriving for sojourn in Great Britain this year has been augmented by these causes
  MR. B. L. COHEN: Before my right hon. Friend answers this Question, may I ask him whether the 20,792 aliens en route to America are, as quoted in the Question, officially described as "pauper aliens"; and whether it is not a fact that the official Return, from which the figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are taken,

  1541
  distinctly states that under the head of—
  "Aliens not stated to be en route to America, it is not thereby implied that these aliens come to this country for settlement, there being in fact a large emigration of foreigners from this country, while many of the aliens arriving from Continental ports return to the Continent"?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,),having remarked that he thought an answer to both Questions would be found in the reply he should give, said: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I again assure him that the Board of Trade Returns do not deal with pauper aliens, but with alien emigrants generally. The information in my Department shows that passengers for the United States are not required to obtain embarkation certificates from United States Consuls, and it is unlikely that any were applied for or refused. As to the second part of the Question, the answer is that there are no complete Returns of the number of aliens refused admission into the United States and sent back to this country during the current year. The number so returned in 1895 was 177 out of 59,017 aliens who left this country for the United States, and there is no reason to expect that the proportion of the number returned to the number that leave in 1896 will vary much from what it was in 1895. The answer to the third part of the Question is that the number of aliens who have come here to settle since January 1 must be very much smaller than the figure of 17,087 quoted by my hon. Friend, as he will see by reference to the note on the alien Return that this figure is not that of aliens coming here for sojourn but that of aliens who come here not en route for America. Of these, a number return to the Continent or proceed to other places out of the United Kingdom, and 4,317 of them are sailors who do not come here to settle. The addition of the number of aliens sent back from the United States would be a very small one.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the aliens referred to in the monthly alien Returns laid on the Table of the House treated entirely of deck passengers arriving at eastern ports, and in no sense referred to passengers arriving in the ordinary course?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; they are not confined to deck passengers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To what do the Returns extend then?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that, as he understood, the number of aliens given in the monthly Returns extended to all aliens.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether they included first-class passengers? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. RITCHIE: I believe they include all aliens except those coming by the cross channel routes, where only those continuing their journey by third class are included.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUMMER CLOTHING).
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether in future arrangements can be made for the issue of light clothing for the Metropolitan police during the summer months, from 31st May to 31st August, as has already been done in several counties?
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can see his way to recommend the adoption of more suitable clothing and helmets for the police during the summer?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I can assure the hon. Members that I am anxious to do anything, so far as it may lie in my power, that will conduce to the comfort of the force during such weather as has prevailed lately; inquiries with this end in view are being made at the present time. At the same time there are considerable difficulties, chiefly of cost, which will amount, it is estimated, to £14,000 or £15,000 for light tunics alone; and I may point out to the hon. Members that the conditions of service for the police in the Metropolis are not exactly similar to those prevailing in the country, where the beats are much longer and the heat in consequence more severely felt.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask whether it is not advisable to change the uniform for policemen on point duty?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I think it would be difficult to make any distinction in the uniform of policemen on different duties.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERasked whether it was proposed to take steps in the direction of a change this year or next year?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid it was too late to do so this year, but he was anxiously considering whether it was possible financially to make some change next year.

  ST. PANCRAS (POLICE COURT ACCOMMODATION).
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Parliamentary borough of St. Pancras, containing a population of nearly 250,000 inhabitants, has at present no police court, and that in consequence great inconvenience is caused by police cases having to be heard outside the borough; and, whether he will establish a police court within the borough?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: This question was carefully considered three years ago by a Departmental Committee on the number and limits of the police court districts, who, after taking evidence, reported to my predecessor that a sufficiently strong case had not been made out for the establishment of a new police court to serve the parish of St. Pancras. I am not aware that there has been any such change in the circumstances since as would call for a reconsideration of the question.

  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  MAJOR BOWLES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what number of men having attained the age of 65 years were discharged from the Government factories under the War Office Department during the last financial year?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Thirty-two, Sir, of which number 18 were discharged from the ordnance factories, two from the Royal Army Clothing Factory, and 12 from the Ordnance Store Department.

  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD (ROAD REPAIRS).
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which have arisen over the repair of the high road connecting Newhaven with Seaford, which has been seriously damaged by sea encroachments, between the East Sussex County Council and the District Councils of the two places in question; whether he is aware that a joint committee of the two District Councils reported in favour of the construction of a new road as the best way out of the difficulty, but that the County Council declined to assist in the matter; whether he is aware that neither the County Council nor the Newhaven Rural District Council will undertake to repair the said road; whether he is aware that the said road is the only road from Sea-ford to the county town of Lewes, and the only road on that part of the coast for military movements; whether he can state what public authority is primarily responsible for the repair of the said road; and, whether, seeing that the damaged portion of the road is outside the boundary of Seaford district and is likely to be rendered impassable in the coming autumn, he will be pleased to intimate to the East Sussex County Council that they had better undertake the repair of the road, charging the cost to Newhaven and Seaford District Councils respectively, and thus extricate the two parishes from the present deadlock?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): My attention has been drawn to the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I believe that the facts are substantially as stated by him. As I understand, the existing road is a road of the Newhaven Rural District Council, and, if so, that body are prima facie responsible for its repair. The County Council would not appear to be in a position to repair it at the present time. If, however, complaint were made to them by the Parish Council of one of the parishes interested that the Rural District Council has failed to maintain the road in a good and substantial manner, it would appear that the County

  1545
  Council, if satisfied after due inquiry of the default, might resolve that the duties and powers of the Rural District Council in the matter should be transferred to them, and such powers would then be transferred accordingly. Or the several local authorities interested might enter into an agreement for the improvement or reconstruction of the road. I agree with any hon. and gallant Friend that it appears very desirable that steps should be taken to put the road into a proper state, but the Local Government Board have no power in the matter.

  BELFAST (TELEGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENTS).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the branch post office recently opened in 38, Ann Street, Belfast, he will add to the advantage conferred on the locality by establishing there a telegraph office?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is making inquiries on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  ROYAL CANAL (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will direct that an inspecting officer of railways will examine the state of the Royal Canal between Ferns Lock and Kilcock on the one side, and Killucan and Enfield on the other, and report to him on the fitness of the canal for traffic; and, whether, in consideration of the fact that the Royal Canal is the property of the Midland Great Western Railway Company, who have tried to have it run dry in the interests of their line, he will direct the same officer to inquire personally into the number of men employed in dredging the canal, and where are the two steam dredges alleged to be in use?
  MR. RITCHIE: Under 58 of George III., chap. 35, and 89 Victoria, chap. 119, provision is made for the supervision of the Royal Canal by a body appointed by warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, which embraces the three members of the Irish Board of Works. These gentlemen
  1546
  are in communication with the Company with regard to the fulfilment by the Company of the obligations imposed upon them by Acts of Parliament as well as with regard to the recommendations of General Hutchinson in 1894 and Major Marindin in 1895, and I am not of opinion at present that any further inspection by an officer of the Board of Trade is desirable. It is fair to the Canal Company to say that they are making a quarterly report of the progress made in carrying out the previous recommendations made by our inspectors. I may mention that I have received from the hon. Member for North Westmeath a communication covering a complaint with reference to a portion of this canal, and I will communicate with the Canal Company in regard to it.

  DISUSED PRISONS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of county Longford requested the Earl of Longford to take off their hands the prison which has been disused for the past ten years, and that he has since sold part of it to a local contractor; at whose expense was this prison originally erected, and what was its cost; did the Earl of Longford pay anything for it, or was any money realised for the material sold to the contractor, and, if so, who gets the benefit of it; and, will he state whether the county prison at Cavan, which is now also disused, is the property of the Grand Jury to dispose of as they wish, without regard to the cost these erections originally entailed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed that the Grand Jury of the County Longford did request Lord Longford to take over the county prison, at the Spring Assizes of 1895, but that, some difficulties having arisen as to this course, proceedings in ejectment for non-payment of rent were instituted, and terminated in possession being resumed by Lord Longford. The Government have no official knowledge as to what has since become of the premises, which passed out of the control of the Prisons Board in 1894. The Secretary to the Grand Jury states that

  1547
  the prison was built by means of a loan of £12,963 from the Consolidated Fund, which was repaid by the county. The only advantage to the county was in the first place the extinction of a rent of £18 13s. 4d., for which the Grand Jury were liable to Lord Longford; and, in the next place, the abandonment of Lord Longford's claim for dilapidation of buildings. The prison at Cavan has not yet been transferred to the Grand Jury, but remains the property of the Prisons Board.

  FACTORY INSPECTION (SWEATING DISTRICTS).
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the statement of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories that the power of the Secretary of State to issue orders applicable to particular classes of work in specified areas where outwork is carried on under insanitary conditions will enable the sweating districts to be dealt with, to what extent steps have been taken to deal with the sweating districts under the provisions of section 5 of the Factory Act of 1895?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Immediately after the Act of last year came into force I made very full inquiries with a view to determining the districts in which the section should be put into operation. The qualifications, however, introduced into the section in the House of Commons were so stringent that I found no case existed in which I had power to make the order. The right hon. Member will remember that before such an order can be made it must be proved that the number and distribution of the population, or the conditions under which work is carried on, are such as to involve special risks of injury or danger to the health, not only of the persons employed, but also of the whole district. I do not know of any case in which these conditions would be complied with except when a district is suffering from, or is threatened with, a special outbreak of infectious disease originating among the sweated workpeople. If that state of things should arise, or if, in any other way, the conditions
  1548
  which the Act imposes are fulfilled, I shall be ready to make the necessary order.

  RIVER BRENT (SEWAGE POLLUTION).
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the General Purposes Committee of the County Council of Middlesex of the 9th instant on the subject of the state of the River Brent owing to its pollution by sewage; and, what steps are to be taken to remove this danger to the health of the western suburbs of London, especially during this hot weather?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have received a copy of the Resolution to which my hon. Friend refers. I stated, in reply to a question which he put to me on the 5th instant, that I would communicate again with the Thames Conservancy and the Middlesex County Council as to preventing the pollution of the Brent, and this I have done. I am informed that in several of the cases of pollution of the river by sewage, to which attention was drawn in the Report on the subject made last year by one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, either the pollution has now been diverted from the stream, or steps have been taken to abate it; whilst in two instances samples, taken periodically since October last, have been analysed, and are reported to give good effluents. I understand that writs have been issued asking for injunctions against two of the District Councils referred to in the Inspector's Report. One of these Councils has applied to the Board for sanction to a loan for works of sewage disposal, and I am informed that proposals are to be made to the other by their surveyor as to the execution of some additional works with a view of preventing the pollution.

  PRISON SERVICE (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to a deputation of the chaplains and medical officers of the Scottish prison service in February last, received by the Secretary for Scotland, whether

  1549
  any steps are being taken to redress the grievances under which these officers are alleged to be suffering in respect of their status and salaries?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,):The matter referred to by my hon. Friend has been carefully considered by the Secretary for Scotland, and some additional information has been recently asked for from the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, but, as the Secretary for Scotland does not intend to make any representation to the Treasury until the time for the consideration of the Estimates for 1897–8, he is not able at present to make any statement.

  RAILWAY RATES (GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY, IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the traders in Ballybay have been charged increased rates on carriage of goods by the Great Northern Railway, Ireland; that Mr. Robertson, Traffic Manager, Great Northern Railway, had an interview with the merchants of that town, and admitted the carriage of merchandise was too high, and promised a reduction, but that after Mr. Robertson's departure from Ballybay an increase in railway rates took place to that town instead of a reduction; and, whether he will cause an Inquiry to be made into the rates charged by the Great Northern Railway Company to the traders of Ballybay?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that since January, 1893, the Great Northern of Ireland have reduced the rates for wheat, barley, oats, indian corn, meal, bran, pollard, &c., between Ballybay and Belfast, Dundalk and Newry, from which places this traffic is received. The rates for potatoes and packed manures have also been reduced. As regards butter and eggs from Ballybay Market to England and Scotland the rates remain the same as in 1892. I have no power to order an Inquiry of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, but he is no doubt acquainted with the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

  WHISKY STRENGTH (IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is aware that some wholesale whisky merchants in Ireland have supplied retailers with whisky of a less strength than shown on permit; and, whether he will direct that police stations in Ireland be supplied with a hydrometer, or some other kind of tester, that publicans may have the whisky they buy tested to insure it is the strength shown on permit?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): No recent case of this kind has been reported to the Inland Revenue. When such a case is reported to them, they of course take proceedings in the interest of the Revenue, but whether the police should be equipped so as to protect the publican against the risk of fraud in buying his goods is not a question with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deal. It might be better for the public that the whisky should be weaker.

  SLAVE OWNERS AT PEMBA.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Foreign Office have received any information respecting the Pemba slave owner, Abdullah bin Ali, who failed to appear before the Court when a case of gross cruelty to a slave was tried before Judge Cracknell, as reported in the Zanzibar Gazette of 4th March; and, whether the Government have taken any steps, or propose to take any, to administer the estate of the fugitive and to provide for the safety of the slaves, of whom it is said 2,000 are the property of the delinquent; he would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. Arthur Har-dinge had now come home, and who was responsible for the administration of Zanzibar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Mr. Hardinge has just left Zanzibar on his return home, and during his absence his place

  1551
  is being filled by Mr. Cave. The information in our possession is that Ali bin Abdullah was the owner of 2,000 slaves at Pemba. This man was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a heavy punishment for gross cruelty to two of them. As regards one, his son, Abdullah bin Ali, was suspected of being gravely concerned, but he escaped arrest, and is believed to have gone to Arabia. The slaves maltreated by Ali bin Abdullah have been freed, and the Vice Consul in Pemba has been instructed by Mr. Hardinge to report as to the position of the others. As the property is that of an Arab subject of the Sultan, Her Majesty's Government have no power to administer it.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the widespread feeling in Ireland that the reduction of marks for Irish in the preparatory grade, under the new Intermediate Educational Rules, will have a detrimental effect on the study of the Irish language in both intermediate and university courses; and whether, under these circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant will take into consideration an alteration of the new rules sanctioned by him?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the statement made by me on this subject on Thursday night, unless it be to say that no remonstrance against the reduction has reached the Board of Intermediate Education from any manager of a school, and that it would not appear, therefore, that there exists any widespread dissatisfaction with the reduction.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education how much money has been spent under the new arrangement upon cataloguing (1) the Oriental, and (2) the Italian photographs at the South Kensington Museum; how many catalogue slips have been completed in each branch respectively; and what is the intrinsic
  1552
  value of the Oriental and Italian photographs now catalogued?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): On the Oriental, £274 7s.; on the Italian, £7 17s. 4d. In the former, about 10,000; in the latter, 472. The intrinsic value of the Oriental photographs cannot be estimated; they were done by officers of the Government of India. The Italian photographs cost £44 5s. 10d.

  IRISH NIGHT MAILS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any arrangement could be made for the conveyance of the night mails from Clones to Belturbet by train, and thence by the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway train, to Baunboy Road and Bally-connell; whether the Department has yet been in communication with the newly appointed secretary of the Great Northern Railway Company, Mr. Plews, on the subject of a night mail train from Belturbet to Clones, and Cavan to Clones; and whether the Postmaster General would be willing to have the contract price fixed by arbitration in case an agreement cannot otherwise be come to?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of arranging for the train services suggested by the hon. Member was fully considered some time since, but it was found that there were no trains running at hours suitable for the night mail, and that the cost of establishing such trains would be altogether beyond what the circumstances would warrant. The service is already carried on at a serious loss to the revenue. The Department has not been into communication with Mr. Plews, the newly appointed secretary to the Great Northern Railway Company on the subject. The case is not one in which the Postmaster General would be willing to have the price of the trains fixed by arbitration, because, as already stated, the existing service is attended with a serious loss, and there is, therefore, no revenue to meet a charge which might be even moderate for trains specially established, but which would certainly be many times in excess of the cost of the present car services.

  BAVARIAN PENCILS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the secretary to the Treasury, why no mention is made in the Return just presented of Government Contracts with foreigners of Bavarian pencils supplied by the Stationery Office for all Government Departments, and marked in Germany with the broad arrow and royal cypher; and in the event of the contracts for the supply of these foreign pencils being concluded with persons inside the United Kingdom, if he will put a stop to the expenditure of the taxpayers' money on foreign labour.
  MR. HANBURY: The Bavarian pencils are not mentioned in the return because that return is merely one of the contracts with contractors outside the United Kingdom, and is one practically useless for the purpose of the information my hon. Friend desires, I think, to obtain. It is held that foreign firms having London houses are not contractors outside the United Kingdom, and the two German firms who supply these pencils are in that position. The pencils are not bought from them under contract in the strict sense of the word, as there is no obligation to continue to give orders to these firms. But they are ordered in quantities as required at agreed prices, an arrangement which appears to me to be very nearly the same thing as a contract. I shall be very glad to consult with my hon. Friend as to granting a return containing more useful information than the present annual return. It appears that hitherto the Stationery Office have not known whether the goods purchased, such as paper or pencils, have been produced at home or in foreign countries. This information they ought, I think, to require. If British or Irish firms can supply equally good home-produced articles at the same cost preference might, I think, fairly be given to them. It is, however, not always easy to be sure that what is called a British or Irish product is really such, and I am informed that this applies amongst other things to pencils. The danger of a combination to run up the price by home firms has also to be guarded against.

  DEFECTIVE GAS METERS.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been drawn to the defective condition of meters supplied by the Gas Light and Coke Company throughout that part of London which is North of the Thames; whether he has observed from cases which have been brought before the magistrates and ventilated in the public Press, that these meters usually err in favour of the Company, registering a much larger quantity of gas than has been consumed, and that the magistrates are practically powerless to give adequate relief, even when a case is proved; and whether, under these circumstances, he can use his powers to compel the Gas Company to supply their customers with meters of a less defective character.
  MR. RITCHIE: Except from the hon. Members I have not had complaints on the subject referred to in the Question. I have seen newspaper statements of the kind described, but I cannot express any opinion as to whether they are generally well founded or not. I have no power to compel the Gas Companies to supply their customers with meters of any particular description, but under the Sale of Gas Act provision is made for testing meters, and that duty is imposed on inspectors appointed by the local authorities, in this case the London County Council.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the London County Council put their powers into force.
  MR. RITCHIE: My experience is that they are always ready to put their powers into force.

  RHODES (MR. CECIL).
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has any further imformation in regard to the knowledge possessed by Mr. Rhodes of the contemplated raid into the Transvaal before that raid took place since the publication of the "ciphered telegrams." Whether, since these telegrams have been made public, the Directors have had under their consideration the acceptance of the resignation of Mr. Rhodes as Managing Director of the

  1555
  Chartered Company of South Africa, and whether they have come to any decision in this matter; and, whether, Herr Beit is still a Director of the Company, and whether he has furnished any explanation of the "cyphered telegrams," in so far as he was connected with them, to the Board of the Company.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with the Company, and I shall be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will postpone his question for a week.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES.
  MR. G. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has been informed of the acts of trespass and intimidation which are almost daily practised by the Danish gunboat off the coast of Iceland on British fishing vessels; whether he is aware that British fishermen are so incensed at the injustice done them that there is reason to believe that damage to property or loss of life may occur if proper protection is not given; whether, considering what has recently occured, Her Majesty's Government will station a cruiser off the coast of Iceland during the summer months, in order that British fishermen may have some protection and a British authority to whom to appeal in cases of injustice; whether he has been informed that on 1st June the steam trawler Hibernia, fishing off Horn Reef, fully six miles from the coast line, was seized by the Danish gunboat, an officer and two armed men placed on board, and taken to Egsberg; that Captain Waldie was there fined 200 kroners, and his gear confiscated; and that, when the captain protested, the only evidence offered was that the officer stated that he had seen the steam trawler's smoke within the three miles' limit; whether he has received sworn statements from Captain Halversen, of the steamship Fitzroy, and Captain Whitworth, of the steamship Perseus, who state they were fishing with the Hibernia, and saw him arrested; that Captain Halversen further alleges that he took the bearings, and that the Hibernia was six miles from the land; whether he has been informed that the
  1556
  steam codman Undine, on 6th June, when about five miles from the Western Isles, homeward bound, was boarded by armed officers, who demanded to examine the fish, and detained them until the gunboat went to the islands to ask the natives if they had seen the vessel fishing; and that, after considerable delay, Captain Hillyer was threatened and then allowed to proceed on his voyage; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Committee of Inquiry into these outrages, and also into the general working of the new Icelandic law?
  MR. CURZON: We have received information of several seizures and detentions of British fishing vessels off the coasts of Iceland and Denmark, among them being the cases of the Hebernia and Undine, which are mentioned by the hon. Member. Her Majesty's Government are keenly alive to the importance of the question, and to the desirability of composing a state of affairs that appears to be fraught with so much friction, and even danger; and Her Majesty's representative at Copenhagen has been instructed to bring the cases at once to the attention of the Danish Government, and to ask for a full investigation. It does not appear to them, however, that a Committee of Inquiry here is at present necessary. The training squadron, consisting of four British vessels, is expected to visit Iceland and the Danish coast in the course of a few days.

  ULSTER CANAL.
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the facts that the Lagan Navigation Company lost, in working the Ulster Canal within the past three years ended 28th April, 1896, an aggregate sum amounting to £3,680 18s. 10d., and that this loss resulted mainly from a failure in the supply of water; whether he is aware that the Directors of the Company submitted the reports of three eminent engineers to the Board of Works as to how the defect could be remedied, and that the Board then sent their own engineer, Mr. F. J. Dick, to make a special report; and that these various reports show that a sufficient supply of water can be obtained but at large cost,

  1557
  and probably requiring an Act of Parliament; and, whether, seeing that the directors stated that if the supply of water be not provided by the Government they would surrender the Ulster Canal, he can explain what steps have been taken to keep this important waterway open in the interests of the four populous Ulster counties through which it passes?
  MR. HANBURY: The Report for 1895–6 has not been received at the Treasury, but in the two previous years the net loss was £2,540. The existing water supply is no doubt insufficient for the requirements of the canal. The three experts named differed so greatly that the Board instructed their assistant engineer to report, and that report is of course confidential. The subject is receiving due attention, and any public statements would at present be more likely to hinder than facilitate an arrangement.

  FISHERY RIOTS IN CORNWALL.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the recent Bodmin Assizes three men named Alfred Green, Nicholas Paul Hoskin, and William Triggs, after a trial lasting seven hours, were convicted by the jury of riot and occasioning actual bodily harm, at Newlyn, to four persons, including three police officers, one of whom had his head severely cut, and the master of a Lowestoft boat, who was brutally ill-treated and permanently injured, but were discharged by the judge without punishment, being bound over in their own recognizances to come up for judgment when called upon; also that five others of the ringleaders pleaded guilty to joining in unlawful assembly in which other acts of violence were committed, including the destruction of a considerable amount of property, and that these persons were also discharged without punishment; and, whether, in view of the danger of similar riots elsewhere as a result of the unlawful proceedings at Newlyn, he will take the necessary precautions to prevent a recurrence of similar acts of violence and destruction?
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, I beg to ask him a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether these men will be called up for judgment in the event of any further disturbance or illegal interference with the East Coast fishermen in Cornish waters?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have received reports of the trial of the men who were charged in connection with the disturbances at Newlyn. The three men Green, Hoskin, and Triggs were found guilty of riot and assault, not of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; while four others pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly. Six of the defendants were bound over in their own recognisances to come up for judgment when called on, and Triggs was bound over in £50 and two sureties of £25 each to keep the peace. From information in my possession I believe that the great leniency which has been shown to these men is producing the best effect in the district, and that no recurrence of the late disorders is to be apprehended. The whole subject of the arrangements to be made in case of riot was most carefully considered by a Departmental Committee two years ago, and as a result of their Report suggestions were made to the different police forces of the country which were acted on in the present instance, and in my opinion with excellent results. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth, I have only to say I imagine that, if any of these men who have now received such lenient treatment should be guilty of any further breach of the peace, they will be called up and receive judgment.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that the East Coast fishermen have recently suffered loss to the extent of £1,300 and upwards by the destruction of their property in the recent Newlyn riots; and, in view of the fact that under the existing law they have no claim for compensation out of the police rate, and that all shipping property suffers under the same disability, whether the Government will consider the necessity of taking steps at the earliest moment for remedying this defect in the law, and to afford to shipping property the same

  1559
  protection as is accorded to property on land?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have consulted with the Home Secretary, and he agrees with me that the matter is well worthy of consideration. I will further consult with him and the Law Officers as to whether anything can be done in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

  BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. H. SETON-KARR (St. Helens): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government have appointed a Commission to report on the condition of the Fur Seal Fishery in the Behring Sea; and, if so, could he inform the House how the Commission is composed; when it will start; and what are the particular points into which it will examine; whether the two naturalists appointed by Her Majesty's Government to investigate and report on the same subject will visit the fur seal breeding islands in the Behring Sea on vessels belonging to and as guests of the proprietors of the seal breeding islands, or whether arrangements can be made by means of a British man-of-war, or otherwise, to enable the said naturalists to make independent inquiries; and, could he state what are the particular points connected with the natural history and habits of the fur seal not at present fully known on which they are being sent to report?
  MR. CURZON: The United States Government are sending experts to the islands this season; but we have no official information as to the composition of the Commission, or as to the particular points upon which it is instructed to report. The British naturalists are, by the courtesy of the United States Government, proceeding to the islands on board the United States Fish Commission steamer Albatross. Their inquiries will of course be independent, and one of Her Majesty's ships will be available for their use should it be found desirable. The chief object of the Mission is to furnish Her Majesty's Government with independent information as to the state of the seal herd, and the effect upon it of the regulations now in force. Their
  1560
  attention will also be particularly directed to the statements in regard to the causes of the large number of dead pups found upon the islands.

  PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he will state under what Statute the medical superintendent of a public asylum in Ireland is enabled to discharge patients who are chronic but not dangerous; (2) whether the 77 chronic cases now in Belfast Workhouse, as transferred from the Asylum, are such cases as the ninth Section of 38 & 39 Vic., c. 67, provides for; (3) whether, seeing that 47 of those transferred to the Belfast Workhouse belong to the Belfast Union, he will state whether they are legally detained there; and (4) whether he will have an inquiry made into the whole matter, in the interests of the inmates, the Governors, and the Guardians?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The power referred to in the first paragraph is conferred on the Resident Medical Superintendent by Clause 26 of the Privy Council Rules dated 17 December 1894, for the management of District Asylums. Under the 11th section of the 30 & 31 Vic., cap. 118, he has power also to discharge lunatics committed as dangerous when they have ceased to be dangerous, and such patients may, if destitute, be sent to a workhouse under the 11th section of the 38 & 39 Vic., cap. 67. The application of the 9th section of the latter Act does not arise in regard to the particular cases referred to, because no agreement between the Guardians and the Governors has been entered into. On discharge from an asylum to a workhouse under Section 11 of the Act of 1875, patients cease to be legally detained as lunatics and are treated as destitute persons in receipt of indoor relief. The operation of Section 9 of the Act of 1875 was reported upon unfavourably by the last Committee on Irish Lunacy Administration and a recommendation was made by the Committee that in any new Lunacy legislation its provisions should be repealed. The Report of this Committee was presented to Parliament in 1891. Under

  1561
  the circumstances, I see no sufficient reason for an inquiry as suggested in the fourth paragraph.

  MILITARY DESERTERS (BELFAST).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will make inquiry into the case of John Perry and Joseph Bloomer of the Antrim Artillery, and Patrick Brougham of the third battalion Royal Irish Rifles, who were on the 17th instant charged with desertion at the Belfast Police Court; whether the desertion consisted in having gone home on leave on the previous Sunday and having through inability to return in the meantime, remained over till Tuesday evening when they were arrested; whether the constabulary had to communicate with the War Office, the War Office with the depôt at Belfast, and the Belfast authorities with the regiments at Antrim and Newtownards, and owing to this circuitous routine these men had to be remanded to gaol for eight days, when an escort will fetch them to their regiments as military offenders; whether he is aware that the magistrates in Belfast have frequently spoken against the hardship at committing such offenders to gaol for such a long period without trial when greater expedition might easily be arranged for by the War Office; and, whether he will consider the desirability of using the telegraph in order to have the escorts in attendance in such cases without unnecessary delay?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): These three Militiamen were arrested in uniform and admitted that they were absentees, and as there was no reasonable doubt of the truth of such admission, it was open to the magistrates to deliver them into military custody. In their discretion the Belfast Magistrates gave a remand for a longer period than was necessary, but no remarks on the subject by them have been brought to the notice of the War Office. The telegraph is used in cases when by doing so it is possible to avoid delay.

  PRESERVED PEAS.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I beg to ask the President of the
  1562
  Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to a decision given by the Deputy Chairman of the County of London Sessions, condemning preserved peas as injurious, in the preparation of which sulphate of copper is used; whether he is aware that in France the Government, after an exhaustive Inquiry, permits the unrestricted sale of such peas as quite harmless, and the same is the case in the United States, Denmark, and other countries; whether, as the Justices of Glasgow and Bristol have held that such peas are harmless, he will consider what steps can be taken to prevent the retail grocer being subjected to such prosecutions; and whether, if satisfied that such peas are harmless, he will issue a recommendation to the local authorities to discontinue such prosecutions?
  MR. CHAPLIN: My attention has been drawn to the decision mentioned in the Question; but I am not in possession of any reports which have been made in France or other countries, and which have led to the unrestricted sale of peas coloured with sulphate of copper, at the rate of three grains of copper salt to one pound of peas, on the ground that peas thus coloured are quite harmless. Nor have I seen the decisions of the Justices of Glasgow and Bristol to which my hon. Friend refers. Indeed, I am not in possession of any evidence which proves that peas, coloured as described, may be habitually consumed without injury to health, and under these circumstances I am unable to make the recommendation which my hon. Friend suggests.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a representation from the Grocers' Association upon this matter?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am not aware of it.

  PONSONBY EVICTED TENANTS.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, whether he is aware that, of the Ponsonby evicted tenants who early this year signed their agreements to purchase under Section 13, only ten have been put into possession, while the great majority are still out of their farms, with the result that these people have been deprived of all opportunity

  1563
  of using the land this year: and, whether he will take this into consideration with a view to making some compensation to these tenants for this long delay.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Little more than three months have elapsed since the agreements were lodged, and I am informed there has been no unnecessary delay on the part of the Land Commission in the matter. About 30 of the former tenants have been put into possession, not ten as stated in the Question. As to the second paragraph, there has, as I have stated, been no avoidable delay on the part of the Land Commission, and the tenants have certainly no claim against the Government for compensation.
  MR. DILLONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could give any indication as to when the remainder of the tenants might expect to be put in possession.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURcould give no decided answer, but could assure the hon. Member that the matter would be dealt with as rapidly as possible.

  NEW ROMNEY CHURCH SCHOOLS.
  MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Corporation of New Romney, Kent, are in the habit of making an annual grant of £25 out of the municipal funds towards the support of the Church of England Day Schools in New Romney, and that last year, in addition to the donation of £25, the Corporation also contributed to a voluntary rate made on behalf of the same schools; and, whether such payments can be legally made by the Corporation; if not, why they have not been disallowed by the public auditors.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have no information as to whether the Corporation have made the contributions in the Question, or as to the legal authority under which they considered that they could make these payments, assuming that they have made them. The accounts of the Corporation are audited by auditors appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act, and these auditors have no power to disallow payments included in the accounts, even although it may be illegal.

  PARCEL POST (JAPAN).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Germany has a Parcel Post to Japan while England has not; whether parcels sent from England to Japan by post still go to Hamburg or Bremen, and are carried back to England en route for Japan in German ships; and, if not, whether such parcels are placed on board German mail ships calling at English ports on the way to Japan; and whether he can state the causes of the delay in arranging a Parcel Post of our own between England and Japan?
  MR. HANBURY: Germany has a Parcel Post to Japan, while at the present moment England has not. Parcels from England for Japan are not forwarded to Hamburg or Bremen, but since November they have been embarked on board the German mail packets at Southampton. Arrangements have now been made between the English and Japanese Post Offices for a direct exchange of parcels, commencing on the 1st of October. The delay in making these arrangements is entirely attributable to the Japanese Post Office.

  CRETE.
  MR. C. J. MONK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will inform the House as to the nature of the concessions which the Great Powers have recommended the Ottoman Porte to grant to its Cretan subjects; and whether he is in a position to state that the Porte has consented to those concessions, and whether they are considered to be satisfactory by the Christian inhabitants of that island?
  MR. CURZON: The concessions which it would be desirable to make in the interests of the Cretan population continue to be discussed between the Governments of the six Powers, their representatives at Constantinople and the Porte; but I think the hon. Member will agree that, while the negotiations are still proceeding, no good object is likely to be served by making them public. ["Hear, hear!"]

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether the safety provisions, contained in Clause 1 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of (1887) Amendment (No. 2) Bill, can be proposed by him under Clause 54, sub-section (2), of the 1887 Act, and without further legislation: (2.)And, whether, if such Amendment to the special rules were proposed, he has any reason to anticipate objection, either on the part of coal owners or their employees?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The rules which it is proposed to make under Clause 1 of the Bill to provide for the safety of the miners involve the amendment and to some extent the repeal of the General Rules contained in Section 49 of the Act of 1887. These General Rules being statutory, I am advised that, in order sufficiently to attain the end in view, express statutory authority is required for their suspension. This is given in Clause 1, Sub-clause (2) of the Bill, in accordance with one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Coal Dust. In answer to the second paragraph I have every reason to believe that I shall have the hearty support of both owners and workmen in making such special rules as are reasonable and necessary in the interests of safety.

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP DRUMMOND CASTLE.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENSI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he proposes to hold an Inquiry into the circumstances connected with the command and loss of the Drummond Castle and, if so, when such Inquiry will take place; and whether the friends of deceased passengers will be allowed to be present?
  MR. RITCHIE: An Inquiry will be held into the circumstances of the loss of the Drummond Castle, and every facility will be given to the friends of those lost who may wish to be present. I am not yet in a position to say when the Inquiry will be held, but there will be no delay. Perhaps I may be allowed to express my sincere sympathy with my hon. Friend in in the great personal loss he has sustained,
  1566
  and also with all those who have sustained losses in connection with this most deplorable accident. [Cheers.]

  REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY (GIFTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board—(1) whether he received on the 5th of July of last year from the Runcorn Urban District Council an application for power to accept gifts of real and personal property under Section 8 (1) (h) of the Local Government Act, 1894 (a power enjoyed under that Act by every parish council in the country), and why the council has had to wait 11½ months and has not yet been granted the power; and (2) whether he is prepared to introduce legislation for the purpose of endowing district, borough and county councils with the powers now enjoyed by parish councils of receiving gifts of real and personal property for the benefit of the inhabitants?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Runcorn Urban District Council applied to the Local Government Board in July last to have conferred upon them the power to appoint Overseers and Assistant Overseers, and also the powers of a Parish Council under a number of enactments, including that mentioned in the Question. Orders enabling the District Council to appoint Overseers and Assistant Overseers have been issued. There has been some delay in coming to a decision as to the remainder of the application, but Orders are now in preparation conferring upon the Runcorn Urban District Council some of the powers of a Parish Council, including that referred to by the hon. Baronet, and these Orders will shortly be issued. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar inquiry by him on the 24th February last. As I then stated, it does not appear to be necessary to propose legislation on this subject.

  WORKHOUSES (EX-MILITARY INMATES).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, when he expects

  1567
  to lay upon the Table of the House the Return of the number of ex-soldiers who are inhabitants of workhouses in Great Britain and Ireland, or otherwise chargeable on the rates?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Return, which has to be collected from many hundred sources is in course of compilation by the offices concerned. It will be presented at the earliest possible date.

  BREACH OF PARK REGULATIONS (MANCHESTER).
  Mr. F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the sentence of a month's imprisonment passed on Mr. Leonard Hall, journalist, by Mr. Headlam, the stipendiary magistrate for the city of Manchester, on 13th June, for having spoken to an orderly public meeting held in a public open space on the outskirts of the city, known as Boggart Hole Clough, whether he is being treated in all respects as a common criminal, put to wear prison clothes, denied books and writing materials, and the opportunity of being visited by his family and friends, and, whether he will consider the propriety of recommending some mitigation of this sentence?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: This case has been brought to my notice, and I am informed on inquiry that the prisoner Hare was summoned with several others on a complaint of the Parks Committee of the Manchester Corporation for breach of one of the Parks Bye-laws, by causing annoyance in the parks. The annoyance was caused by the holding of a meeting of some thousands of persons, about which complaints were made by frequenters of the parks, and from which he was warned to desist. Hare expressed his determination in Court to carry on the meeting, whatever the magistrate's decision might be, and was sentenced in consequence to pay the maximum penalty of £5, and on his refusing to pay the fine to a month's imprisonment. Hare is not, as suggested, in prison for a political offence. He is treated under the existing regulations, which I have
  1568
  no power to alter, as a criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour. The question of the classification of prisoners is one which is engaging my serious attention in connection with the proposed prison legislation. The magistrate informs me that he would concur in the prisoner's immediate release if he would give an undertaking to desist from holding similar meetings in future.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, previous to the interference of the authorities, the audience did not exceed from 200 to 300 persons, and were of an orderly character; and does he know that speakers have addressed audiences in the same place before it became the property of the citizens of Manchester?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have no information that the audiences were so small as stated by the hon. Member. My information is that complaints were made to the authorities in Manchester of the holding of these meetings, and, on the instigation of the Parks Committee and the Chairman of it, action was taken before the magistrate, with the result I have stated.
  MR. SCHWANN: I should like to state that the numbers have been——[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I should like to ask in this case whether the offence was connected with the speeches that were made, or was it in the nature of obstruction of the public thoroughfare?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I understand it is obstruction, Sir.

  TRIAL OF DR. JAMESON AND OTHERS.
  MR. J. L. WALTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General, whether the case of Regina v. Jameson and others is to be tried at Bar, which will involve the sitting of three or more Judges for the hearing of this case; if so, what, if any, arrangements will be made to obviate the interruption which will be caused in the conduct of the ordinary business of the Queen's Bench Division in London by the withdrawal of three Judges at a time when the maiority of the Judges will be away on circuit?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I am informed by the Lord Chief Justice that in all probability a Commissioner will take his place on circuit, and that, in consequence, he will be able to continue the London special day list, which is the only list which is much in arrear, upon all days during the sittings which are not occupied by the case of "The Queen against Jameson and others." Mr. Baron Pollock will, in any event, be in town. Mr. Justice Hawkins's circuit will be finished about the 25th of July, so that no serious difficulty will arise in his case, but, if necessary, Mr. Justice Collins will be able to assist him at Stafford.
  MR. FLYNN: I would like to ask whether the Government will direct the Law Officers of the Crown to institute and expedite the proceedings as far as possible.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The proceedings are being expedited.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that three Judges will be withdrawn from the Courts in London and only one Commissioner will be appointed. Will not that delay the business in London?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is arguing the question.

  OXFORD ASSIZES.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that the Commission of Assize was not opened at Reading, on the Oxford circuit, until Wednesday last, the day after that appointed for opening of the Commission, and that the Judge of Assize has not disposed of the civil causes entered for trial at the Assizes; and whether the Lord Chancellor will consider the advisability of sending a Commissioner to assist Mr. Justice Hawkins, in order that the work on the Oxford Circuit may be disposed of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Lord Chancellor has received no communication respecting the matters mentioned in the Question. As doubtless the hon. Member is aware, under the Statute and Order in Council the date of the Commission day can be postponed upon the certificate of the Judge
  1570
  of Assize. There is no necessity for appointing a Commissioner. In the event of great pressure, which the Lord Chancellor does not expect, the services of some one of the Queen's counsel whose names are in the Commission could be utilised in the usual way.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will postpone those parts of the Education Bill that do not concern elementary education, as well as Clause 27, and will pass the essential portions of the Bill before the Adjournment in August, thus obviating the necessity of running the Session of 1896 into 1897?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I propose to make a statement in Committee on the Education Bill, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to wait.
  Mr. J. H. DALZIEL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement will be made in such a way as to allow full discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is not for me to pronounce on these matters, but I have no doubt there will be opportunity.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (APPROPRIATION OF SITES.)
  The Select Committee on Government Offices (Appropriation of Sites) was nominated of—Mr. Smith-Barry, Mr. John Burns, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Sir James Kitson, Mr. Legh, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Molloy, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Mr. Whitmore.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Chairman of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  Progress, 18th June. [SIXTH DAY].
  Clause 1,—

  COUNTY EDUCATION AUTHORITY—ACTION OF COUNTY COUNCIL AS EDUCATION AUTHORITY.
  (1.) Every County Council and every Council of a Municipal Borough of not less than twenty thousand inhabitants shall appoint an Education Committee for the purposes of this Act, and the County Council acting by that Committee shall be and is in this Act referred to as the education authority for the county.
  (2.) The number of the members of the Committee shall be fixed by the County Council.
  (3.) The County Council may appoint persons, whether members of the Council or not, to be members of the Committee, provided that a majority of those members shall be members of the Council.
  (4.) A member of an Education Committee shall hold office for three years, and one-third, as nearly as may be, of the members of an Education Committee shall retire annually at such time and in such order as may be fixed by the County Council, and their places shall be filled by a new appointment, but retiring members may be re-appointed.
  (5.) Two or more County Councils may combine for all or any of the purposes of this Act.
  (6.) Provided as follows:—

  (a.) A County Council may submit to the Education Department a scheme for providing separate Education Committees for different parts of the county or for otherwise modifying or supplementing the provisions of this section so as to adapt the constitution of an Education Committee to the needs of the county or of different parts thereof, and for making any supplemental provisions which appear necessary for carrying into effect the Scheme, and if the Education Department approve any such Scheme, without modification or with any modifications agreed to by the Council, the Scheme shall have effect as if enacted by this Act, but shall be subject to revocation or alteration by a Scheme made in like manner.

  1572

  (b.) Where a county governing body has been constituted for any county by a Scheme made in pursuance of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, the county governing body shall be the Education Committee for the purposes of this Act, and the County Council acting through that governing body shall be the education authority for the county.

  [The words printed in italics have been inserted in Committee.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said: Exactly a week ago, Mr. Lowther, I informed the House, on the Motion for adjournment, of what the general view of the Government at that time was with regard to the future conduct of the Education Bill. I told them that in the opinion of the Government probably the best course would be to continue the discussion in Committee so long as the general exigencies of public business allowed during this part of the Session, and then to adjourn and resume the discussion of the Bill early next year but in the same Session of Parliament. I now have to announce that I shall conclude to-day by moving that you do now leave the Chair—a Motion which will have the effect, as I may inform hon. Gentlemen, of destroying the Bill for the present Session. [Opposition cheers.] I think the Committee are entitled to have from me an explanation and justification of the change of policy which has occurred in the course of these seven days, and that explanation and that justification I now proceed to give. I may premise by reminding the House that, under what I may call the plan of last Monday, there would have been allowed now for the passage of this Bill into law before the exigencies of the new financial year required or suggested a new Session, no less than 53 days, and we thought, and we still think, that 53 days is an adequate length of time to give the discussing a Bill of this Character. [Cheers.] We had no right, or we thought we had no right, to anticipate that we should be met with a character of opposition—[cheers and counter cheers and cries of "From your own side"]—a character of opposition with regard to which, whatever epithet may be supposed best to qualify it, will,

  1573
  at all events, be admitted to have had this inevitable result, that if continued it would have made 53 days an absolutely inadequate time for passing this Bill into law. [Cheers.] We have been now since last Monday four days in Committee; we have had five days altogether. If the merits of the Opposition are to be measured by the magnitude of their conversational output—[laughter]—this is certainly the most meritorious Opposition of which the history of this country tells us. [Cheers.] And the right hon. Gentleman who appears to dissent from that general statement of their merits has set the example of ranging at large over clauses of the Bill—[cheers and counter cheers]—with a happy sense of irresponsibility which from a debating point of view is extremely attractive, but very ominous to the future prospects of the Measure. Sir, in five nights we have passed two lines—14 words. [Opposition laughter.] I remember that on the fifth night of the Debate on the Home Rule Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, came down and moved the Closure on the first clause. Now the first clause of the Irish Home Rule Bill set up an Irish Parliament. [Cheers and counter cheers, and Mr. MAC NEILL: "What Lord Carnarvon wanted to set up."] It turned back the Constitutional clock for a hundred years. [Cheers.] It not only set up an Irish Parliament but it determined that that Parliament should consist of two Chambers. It will be admitted that that was no small or insignificant change to introduce into the ancient Constitution of this country. Five nights were enough to Debate, to discuss, to amend, and to pass that clause in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have been more than that period discussing the first clause of a Bill which, whether it be a good Bill or a bad Bill, whether this clause be a good clause or whether it be a bad clause, at all events does no more than intrust to existing local authorities duties which those authorities are well competent to perform. [Cheers and Opposition cries of "No!"] I do not enter into the merits of the clause, Mr. Lowther. I should be out of order in doing so. All I ask the House is, to remember that so
  1574
  great has been the progress in Parliamentary arts since the Home Rule Bill was under discussion that we now cannot in five days touch even the fringe of this inferior and less important subject, whereas it would have been disposed of in the course of five days four years ago. The Committee will do well to consider that state of things. I shall have something more to say upon it before I sit down. But at all events this will be admitted, that in her old age the Mother of Parliaments has become somewhat garrulous. [Cheers and laughter.] It will be manifest both from what I have said and what I am about to say, that it was impossible for the Government to adhere to their original scheme without change. One brief calculation will bring this home in a concrete form to every Gentleman who hears me. There are now on the Paper 96 pages of Amendments. Excluding duplicates there are 1,238—or 1,200 Amendments. Allowing 20 per cent. for friendly Amendments which might possibly be withdrawn or accepted—a not illiberal allowance—that leaves 960 Amendments to be disposed of. That number we cannot regard as final, for one of the peculiarities of the last four nights' Debate has been that for every Amendment of which we dispose two at least appear on the Paper next day. Let us take it at 960—that no further Amendment is put down on the Paper, and these 960 hostile Amendments have to be disposed of. I see, or I think I see, plain indications on the part of those responsible for the conduct of the opposition to this Bill that no Amendment shall be disposed of except after resort to the Closure. [Cheers.] Assuming that it takes 10 minutes to divide—which is a low estimate—and on those Amendments we had to divide twice, it would take up—without any discussion whatever, without a single word being said for or against those Amendments on their merits—it would take, by the mere operation of walking round and round the Lobbies, no less than 40 eight-hour days to dispose of the Amendments on the Paper—40 days of eight hours continuously occupied, not in Debate, not in discussion or argument, but in the healthy but somewhat barren, process of walking round and round the Lobbies. I think it will be

  1575
  admitted after what I have said that the idea, in the face of such opposition, of finishing this Bill before a new Session had to begin was chimerical and one which no rational man could possibly entertain, however much justification there may have been before. And I have to point out that this state of things would not have been met by an expedient which approves itself to the minds of a certain number of Gentlemen—I mean, of an autumn Session. It is clear that if you added to the 53 days the Government could have given to the discussion of the Bill 25 or 30 days you would not have been nearer your desired object of passing the Bill into law before a new Session had begun, and for this, if for no other, reason—that it is manifest after what has occurred that the mere fact that a time limit is before the Opposition, to driving us over which they may devote their efforts—so long as that is the case there is no hope of passing legislation of this character into law. The only alternative will be admitted by every Gentleman who has heard my calculation and watched for himself what has gone on. If that calculation be just, is it not manifest that we had but three courses open to us? We might, in the first place, have extended this Session to absolutely abnormal limits and carried it on until May, June, or July in defiance of all precedent and probably at the cost of considerable confusion and inconvenience to public business. I do not know that such a course would have been illegal. It would have been unprecedented, and I think it would have been inconvenient. We might have carried the Bill over by a Resolution, and sat about the 15th or end of February, and, if we dropped the Bill as far as this Session is concerned, commence a new Session and by Resolution revive the Bill at the point at which we left it. For that plan I will not deny there is something to be said, and it would be a great advantage in Parliamentary procedure, in connection with large Measures; but I think, if such a plan is to be adopted, it should be adopted after mature deliberation and after the House had had time to consider so great a change in procedure from all points of view. There are two courses; and the third course was the course we
  1576
  adopted. We are content to sacrifice the 11 days we have occupied on this Bill, to begin the subject afresh early next January—["hear, hear!"]—to carry through the remainder of the Session's business that we think necessary, and to meet at that very early date in order to fulfil our pledges to the Voluntary Schools. [Opposition laughter, Ministerial cheers, and Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: "Where is Gorst?"] That, Sir, is our scheme which in outline I now desire to press upon the House. There are critics—all Governments have critics—and the critics appear to be disposed to say:—
  "What an extraordinary example of weakness is here shown!"
  [Opposition cheers.]
  "You have in the House a majority of 150; the Second Reading of the Bill was carried by a majority far larger than your normal majority; do you mean to say that in such circumstances you are going to show yourselves so poor in spirit as to permit a relatively insignificant minority to foil your Parliamentary plans?"
  Well, Sir, this theory of the advantage of large majorities—[Opposition cheers]—would have overwhelming authority if we had to decide these questions by appeals to force. [Laughter.] But so far as I am aware the only advantage in this House of a large majority is that it is very difficult to turn it into a minority. A small majority, so long as it retains life as a majority, is every bit as powerful as the largest majority that ever was contemplated. I suppose the most tyrannical majority which this House has ever seen is one which, before it finally expired, habitually oscillated between 30 and 13. [Ministerial cheers.] And it is just as easy for a majority, which differs from a minority only by 1-600th part of this assembly, to silence that minority, to tyrannise over it, to pass all Resolutions it pleases, subject only to this, that the majority, being so small, a very small cut at any moment may sever the thread of its existence. Now, Sir, we have to face this question, whether first of all to follow the example of our predecessors and with a majority of 150 to Closure by compartments as they did with a majority of 15. [Cheers.] That is a simple and easy method out of your Parliamentary trouble; anybody can govern in a state of siege—[ironical

  1577
  Irish cheers]—any Government can get through business by the help of Closure by compartments. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House agree with me in deprecating this last course—[cheers]—but do not let them suppose it would necessarily be unpopular even among their own supporters; on the contrary, the number of persons who confuse violence with vigour is still so great that I doubt not we should be overwhelmed with laudations from some of our best friends in many parts of the country had we taken that course. [Laughter.] But, in my judgment at all events, whatever changes may ultimately be required in our rules, this way of cutting the knot of a difficult situation is not one which we can recommend to the House. Twice before the last Parliament Closure by compartments was adopted—[cheers]—once by the Government of Mr. Gladstone in 1882, and once by the Unionist Government of which I was a Member in 1887; and although, rightly or wrongly, the Administration of the day thought they were driven to that course not by legislative but by administrative necessity, in the last Parliament, for the first time, the Closure by compartments was adopted in cases in which there was no question of administrative necessity and in which legislative necessity alone was pleaded. Observe how the appetite for this poison grows by what it feeds upon. The Home Rule Bill had not been 28 days in Committee before the Minister in charge came down and announced Closure by compartments. But, Sir, another Bill soon came, the Evicted Tenants Bill, and that Bill had not been two days in Committee before the Government of the day, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, came down and told us that the 22 pages of Amendments on the Paper was sufficient justification, after two days' discussion, for gagging that Bill, as it is described, by closuring in compartments. I do not think that example is reassuring for the future. I think, if this House is driven to adopt any great change in its procedure, it ought to be done in different circumstances and with a different degree of deliberation from that which attended the adoption of the course on those two celebrated occasions during the tenure of power by the right hon.
  1578
  Gentlemen opposite. I have explained to the House why we have adopted the course we have adopted as distinguished from the only alternative—namely, continuing the Session to an inordinate length, and carrying the Bill over to a new Session, and closuring by compartments. I now address myself, in a very few words, to another part of the subject, which is the effect of that decision of ours will have upon the prospects of those schools for whose benefit primarily this Bill was introduced. We consider we are absolutely pledged—we are still, as we have always have been, pledged—to aid the Voluntary Schools and to carry our aid to the furthest point our Imperial resources will permit. Will the delay resulting from the adoption of the particular plan we have announced our intention of adopting do any harm to these schools? Will the delay be of such a character that they will materially suffer? It is evident from what I have already said they will not suffer from this plan as compared with the plan of handing up this Bill till January and then resuming the consideration of it, for we could not have passed the Bill by the end of the financial year, and therefore no loss will accrue to these schools by any delay our present procedure will involve. The actual amount which would have gone to the Voluntary Schools had we been able to pass the Bill before August would not have been very great—the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculates it at about £100,000—but I hope we may find a method by which even that loss may be avoided; and, although I should be wrong in giving any definite pledge to the House, I can assure hon. Members we shall spare no pains in considering whether the difficulties which lie in the way of that course cannot be effectively surmounted. I therefore venture to say that, whatever other objection there may be to the plan of the Government, the Voluntary Schools will not be prejudiced. They have suffered much from the veiled hostility of those who object to denominational teaching under the somewhat thin disguise of a zeal for education in general. But, Sir, if they have to deal with that opposition, I think we can promise them that that opposition will not have the effect of seriously delaying that relief which it is our great

  1579
  desire to give them. I have now, Sir, nearly completed my task. I have discussed the relations of our plan to the prospects of Voluntary Schools, to the order of business, and to the rules of Debate. I may be asked, "Have you nothing to say about the credit of the Government?" Well, Sir, I confess I do not feel moved by any of the objections I have heard urged under that head. It may be said, "You have made a miscalculation." We most undoubtedly have made a miscalculation, and the result of that has been the loss of 11 days of Parliamentary time. Whether we were responsible for the miscalculation, whether we had or ought to have had at our disposal the materials for forecasting the peculiar character of the opposition which this Bill would arouse—["Oh, oh!"]—and the peculiar methods by which that opposition would be aided, I leave it to others to determine. I, at all events, am too familiar with incidents of this kind to feel that it is in any respects an important factor in that perennial contest between the two sides of the House in which we are engaged. I hardly remember any year in which a Bill of equal magnitude has not been abandoned by the Government which introduced it. I remember the Welsh Church Bill being introduced and abandoned. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] How short are the memories of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] They remember the Session in which the Bill went through the House of Commons; but they do not remember that other Session in which it was introduced and not proceeded with. [Cheers.] I remember the Suspensory Bill in 1893. I do not make this a peculiar charge against hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the charge—if it be a charge—is one which can be brought with equal truth against everyone of their predecessors. I remember bringing in the Land Purchase Bill of 1890 and failing to pass it into law, reintroducing it next year in a shorter form, and it is now in the Statute-book. Such experiences are the most familiar items in Parliamentary history. It is not from that point of view in the least that I regard with anxiety and misgiving the incidents of last week and the result of those incidents. Those Debates will be buried in the unfathomable bog of "Hansard"
  1580
  —[laughter]—never, I suppose, again to see the light, and the controversies which they have occasioned will be forgotten with the same rapidity as the incidents of 1893 are already forgotten by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But there are much more important issues than the credit or discredit of a particular Government or a particular Minister behind those transactions. After all, if one Party fails to do the work of the country another Party will be found to take its place. [Loud Opposition cheers.] If one Leader has proved incompetent, there are plenty of persons capable of filling his place. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] But what does not depend upon the change and chances of political life or political Ministries, is the permanent credit of this House. [Ministerial cheers.] Let it be remembered that we, the Members of this House, and we alone, are the guardians of that credit. We shall get no assistance in that duty from outside critics and outside supporters. The Press, however well instructed, the great mass of the community, however politically zealous, never can form a full and true estimate of our proceedings in the way we can form it. They would welcome, I believe, a change in our Rules, however drastic, which would give to the majority for the time being the absolute control of the business of the House; and, if we are to resist the tyranny of majorities which would then ensue, we must resist it by ourselves, we must not ask for the sympathy of those who are not of ourselves, nor must we ask assistance from those who do not belong to our ranks. It is from that point of view, and that point of view alone, that I deeply regret the evidence of Parliamentary decay—[cries of "Oh, oh!" and Ministerial cheers]—which, last week especially, but in some respects all the events of this Session have begun to show. To those who love our traditions, to those who are careful of our fame these incidents portend, and must portend, great mischiefs in the future. They are ominous, I fear of inevitable change. [Ironical cheers and Nationalist cries of "Home Rule."] But this is not the time to enter upon the nature of those changes. They could not be discussed even if they could be now adumbrated. It would be going far beyond my duty were I to initiate a

  1581
  Debate which could now, at all events, come to no purpose. Therefore, having explained, and, I hope, justified from every point of view—from the point of view of public business, from the point of view of education, and from the point of view of the Voluntary Schools themselves—the course we have pursued, I have only to move that you, Mr. Lowther, do now leave the Chair. [Cheers.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who was received with loud cheers, said: I cannot but regret, and deeply regret, the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it fit to approach this subject. [Cheers.] He has spoken of the course which the Opposition have taken in this matter, and how far they are responsible for the loss of this Bill. But there was one topic on which he did not touch, and that was how far he and his colleagues have contributed to that result. [Cheers.] That is a topic upon which I do not wish—especially in its personal aspect—to dwell. I have too much regard and esteem—I speak it in all sincerity—for the right hon. Gentleman—[cheers]—to desire to censure his conduct as he has thought fit to censure mine. But it is my duty, on behalf of the Gentlemen with whom I act, to state the course we have pursued, and, like himself, to justify that course. What has that course been? The Bill was introduced making a vital change, a revolutionary change in the system of elementary education in this country. We were told that the vital principle, the leading feature of this Bill was found in the first clause. That was repeated over and over again. [Ministerial cheers.] All the other subjects, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill informed us, were comparatively secondary matters. This transfer of the authority from the Education Department to the new authorities to be constituted under this Bill was the main feature of the Measure. Opposed as we were to that change and to that transfer of authority, it was only natural, and it was proper that the Opposition should devote their energies to the defeat of that clause of the Bill. Now, from whom did the opposition come? [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman has denounced that opposition as unjustifiable and factious. There was
  1582
  one Amendment, and one Amendment only carried in this House. At whose instance was it carried? By a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.] It was an Amendment carried by the Leader of the House against the protest and against the opinion and the judgment of the Vice President of the Council; and there is no man in the House, or out of this House, who does not know that it was the carrying of that Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman that was the most fatal blow to the Bill. [Cheers.] At the commencement of this Measure, was it the Opposition alone who were opposed to this Bill? County Council after County Council throughout the country had condemned the Bill, and had declared that they would take no part in carrying it out. Devonshire, the West Riding, and many other counties condemned the Bill; but when that Amendment was introduced, at the instance, or by the consent of the right hon. Gentleman, there was a meeting held upon Friday last by the executive of the united County Councils of the whole of England. There were present there, representing the County Councils Association, the Duke of Bedford, the Earl of Morley, Lord Herries, Sir John Dorington, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Bill, Mr. Hobhouse, Colonel Williams, and many others distinguished in the Tory Party, and added to these were the clerks of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Monmouthshire, Lancashire, Bedfordshire, East and West Sussex, Middlesex, and Shropshire. They met together, and, with one exception, unanimously condemned this Bill. [Opposition cheers.] The Vice President of the Council, the other day, prided himself upon the support which he had received from Lancashire and from Sir John Hibbert. Sir John Hibbert, who ought to have taken the chair at that meeting, was judiciously absent, and the Clerk to the Lancashire County Council said:—
  "The result of Mr. Balfour's concession would be that in Lancashire alone there would be as many as 46 educational authorities. Only yesterday the Technical Instruction Committee resolved that the change would strike a serious blow at the administration of the Technical Instruction Acts, and that under those circumstances they considered that the County Council could not with advantage undertake the additional duties proposed to be conferred upon them in regard to public elementary education."

  1583
  [Cheers.] That was the repentance of the Lancashire County Council, and that was their withdrawal of the support which they had previously given to the Bill. [Cheers.] And then the right hon. Gentleman says it is we who, by our factious opposition, have defeated this Bill. [Cheers.] What are the real facts of the origin and disappearance of this Bill I do not know whether we shall ever really learn. But things will leak out on these occasions, and I observe that at this meeting of the executive of the County Councils of England, a Gentleman who seems to have known something about it—the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse)—is reported to have said:—
  "The Parliamentary Committee of the Association of County Councils drew up a list of reasons why non-county boroughs should not be constituted separate educational authorities. These reasons were duly handed to Sir J. Gorst, and apparently met with his approval, for his speech on Thursday last ran exactly on the lines of those reasons. It was, therefore, greatly to his surprise that within half-an-hour of Sir John Gorst having made his speech, and without any opportunity having been given to any representatives of the County Councils in the House of Commons to speak against the Amendment, the First Lord of the Treasury got up and made the concession which was so much deplored. There was no doubt that the Amendment was moved on other than purely educational grounds. (Sir Albert Rollit had stated publicly that the boroughs would never rest content until they had broken down the line which was fixed at a population of 50,000 by the Act of 1888, not only for educational, but for all administrative purposes. That was what made the concession of such vital importance to nearly all County Councils."
  Why did not you foresee that your scheme would necessarily create this internecine conflict between boroughs and counties? [Cheers.] Why did you give such superficial consideration to your plans—[cheers]—as not to perceive that the municipal boroughs of England would not stand being overruled by the counties, and that the counties would not permit the boroughs to escape their jurisdiction? [Cheers.] And you tell us that we alone defeated your Bill. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman thinks that to have defeated this Bill is a discredit. We believe it to be a credit. [Loud cheers.] But we have no right to claim the whole credit, and we do not claim it. What we have done, what it was our right to do, and what it was
  1584
  our duty to do was to debate this Bill, and to examine this Bill until the true character of the Bill and its operations were understood by the country and the House of Commons. [Loud cheers.] That, Sir, we have done; and I am happy to say that we have done it with success. The Vice President of the Council said on Thursday night that these Debates had removed many misconceptions. So they have, Sir. [Cheers.] And when the misconceptions are removed the Bill disappears. What sort of a Bill is this which cannot stand a week's discussion in the House of Commons? [Cheers.] Were the Amendments trivial that we moved? Will you say that the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for London University was a trivial Amendment from the point of view of this Metropolis? Will you say that the Amendment moved on Thursday night by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch, claiming that you should not transfer he authority nor meddle with the principles on which elementary education was founded, was trivial? Was it not an Amendment which went to the root of the whole question—[cheers]—which we were bound to discuss, and to discuss in manner which was not possible on the Second Reading, because it was only his Amendment which brought out the fact of the friction which would be created? It was presented from every point of view upon Amendments moved from both sides of the House, and they showed the difficulties which were created in the scheme you had propounded. It is for that purpose that debate and discussion exist in the House of Commons. [Cheers.] And when the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and says:—
  "If we have got a Measure which will not stand Debate in the House of Commons we must in future take some method of cutting off that Debate,"
  he had better consider these facts. [Cheers.] He said that cutting off the Debate was the only alternative. What I maintain is that your Bill has perished, not from any factious opposition but from its inherent imperfections. [Loud cheers and Ministerial laughter.] It has perished not only by the exertions of an Opposition which you are never tired of telling us is weak and feeble, it

  1585
  has perished because you had not the united support of your own Party. [Cheers.] And I believe because you had not the united support of your own Government. [Renewed cheers.] These are the causes which have really wrecked this Bill. We were determined to oppose what you called the vital principles of your Bill, because we saw in it, as explained by Members of your own Cabinet, a deliberate intention to wreck the School Boards of England—[cheers and Ministerial cries of "No!"]—because we have been told in violent terms by the Prime Minister and his Bishops, and in violent terms by the right hon. Gentleman that they hoped and expected that the result of the Bill would be that School Boards would disappear. You say that we made Second Reading speeches upon this Bill. [Ministerial cheers.] When you have such an issue as that raised by the Amendment of Thursday night, whether the new authority was to deal with elementary education or not, of course we went to the whole principle of the Bill, and it was proper that we should do so. The right hon. Gentleman has raised what I venture to call a misleading analogy with respect to the first clause of the Home Rule Bill. The first clause of that Bill declared in favour of the establishment of a legislative assembly in Dublin. But that was the direct question upon which issue had been taken at the General Election. [Ministerial laughter, and Opposition cheers.] Does anyone deny—[Ministerial cries of "Yes"]—let hon. Members wait till they hear what they are going to deny—that Home Rule was the issue at the election of 1892? [Renewed cries of "Yes."] Why, you have been asserting it ever since. The political education of the Gentlemen who say "Yes" is incomplete. [Laughter.] But as to the first clause of this Education Bill nobody ever heard or dreamt of it. [Cheers.] Therefore the two questions are utterly distinct and different, and the full discussion on this absolutely new proposition was demanded. We had that discussion; and the result of it has been that the echo of those Debates has come back to you from the country. They have condemned your Bill. The County Councils have condemned it. You know perfectly well on that side of
  1586
  the House—though it is natural and discreet that you should not say so—that that part of the Bill has not given universal or general satisfaction. Though we were weak in the Division lobbies, it is perfectly true, yet we were strong in arguments against this Bill, and argument has prevailed. [Cheers.] That new authority which you have endeavoured to set up has disappeared with the Bill. Is it true that, in the opinion of this country, this Bill has disappeared on account of obstructive opposition? I look at the organs of public opinion to-day. To what causes do the journals which are the supporters of the Government attribute the failure of your Bill? Here is one of your main and principal supporters:—
  "The Government have persisted in overloading the Session with complicated and contentions projects of legislation in spite of warnings repeatedly addressed to them in these columns."
  [Laughter.] That is your friend, The Times newspaper. [Cheers and laughter.] An admirable friend in prosperity, but a broken reed to any Government in adversity. [Loud cheers.] It goes on:—
  "The friends of the Voluntary Schools have been unable to agree among themselves."
  That is not the doing of a factious Opposition. That is the Church Party. [Cheers and laughter.] Why do not the noble Lord the Member for Rochester and his friends agree among themselves? [Opposition laughter.]
  "Though, as we pointed out, their divisions have jeopardised their common interests. Insisting upon their separate views, they have refused to join heartily in backing up the Government in the course that was ultimately chosen."
  Would you not reflect on that as being one of the causes which may have destroyed the Bill? [Cheers.] "It is to be hoped that these errors will be avoided next year." [Laughter] I commend that also to the attention of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. I hope he will not laugh at me to-day—[laughter]—for that advice is given to him in a spirit of sincere regard. There are many things which I envy the noble Lord, but there is nothing which I envy him more than his youth and inexperience. [Loud

  1587
  laughter and cheers.] And then they go on:—
  "If not, we are unable to see why the disappointments of the present Session should not be reproduced."
  Now let us hope that the friends of the Voluntary Schools will see the errors of their ways and avert in a future Session the misfortune they have brought upon themselves and the Government in the present Session. That is The Times. Now, then, for what I may call, perhaps, the more nominally official organ, The Standard. [A laugh.] It says:—
  "It is easy to appreciate the laudable desires of the constructive legislator, who fancies he has at length found an opportunity of dealing comprehensively with a great question."
  Why did you have the laudable desires of the constructive legislator, which have led you to believe that you had no opportunity of dealing comprehensively with a great question of which we now see the result?
  "But experience has shown that comprehensive Measures arouse boundless criticism, and do not always meet with unqualified sympathy and hearty support, even among those who approve of their general principles."
  Therefore this comprehensive attempt at legislation has not met with the unqualified sympathy and hearty support of Gentlemen opposite who adopted its general principle.
  "If we look a little backward, we shall perceive that all the Unionist Party had pledged itself to do was to save Voluntary Schools from the 'painless extinction' which their enemies were predicting for them by coming to their aid with financial assistance; but out of this small and modest obligation, there had been developed a Measure as large, as wide, and as ambitious, to say the least, as the original Education Act of Mr. Forster."
  And you denounce us for devoting a week to the discussion of the vital clause of the Bill thus described. [Mr. BALFOUR: "Mr. Forster's Bill took nine days."] I took part in that discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman did not. [A laugh.]
  "Not content with calling into existence a totally new school authority, it aims, at the same time, at bringing secondary education within the scope of its arrangements; and it has, moreover, raised anew the burning question which the famous 'Conscience Clause' was once supposed to have allayed."
  1588
  What is the meaning of that? Why, your own organ says you have introduced a Bill which met with violent opposition and which had not the hearty support of your own Party, that you have raised questions which you need not have raised, and, above all, that you have introduced the element of religious controversy in this Bill. How idle it is for the right hon. Gentleman to come forward and profess to give an explanation of the disappearance of this Bill by saying it is due solely to an obstructive Opposition. [Cheers.] It is very mysterious how this Bill came to be constructed and who constructed it. That I do not suppose we shall ever be told. Why it has disappeared we are not told, but we had a little light thrown upon the matter from a very important quarter on Friday last. In an after-luncheon speech delivered at a meeting of the Midland Union of Conservative Associations we had some intimation from the fugleman of the Conservative Associations of the Midland Counties which throws an important light on the Bill. The chairman was a nobleman whom everyone who knows him respects—Lord Windsor—and he apparently agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had some disadvantages in having so large a following. Well, in that we sympathise with them. [Laughter.] At the meeting of the Midland Conservative Associations Lord Windsor went on to say:—
  "There were occasionally indications of temporary want of cohesion"—[laughter]—"which, however unimportant in themselves, at least gave their opponents moments of what he might call hysterical joy."
  Moments of hysterical joy! [Laughter.] Really, one wonders whether the great Persian King, as he looked upon Salamis, imagined that Themistocles and the Greeks were afflicted with hysterical joy. Anything like this discomfiture of a great majority, I think, has never been heard of since those experiences which Xerxes had. There was an overwhelming majority on that occasion, but their Measures were not a success. [Laughter.] I do not profess that we look at this matter at all in the spirit of hysterical joy, but we do regard it with calm satisfaction. [Laughter and cheers.] I cannot profess to-night to

  1589
  observe the ancient maxim that you should say nothing but good of the dead; but we are here to bury this Bill, not to praise it. [Laughter.] Sir, I desire as far as I can to act upon the noble maxim of the oldest and the greatest of poets, that "it is an unholy thing to glory over the slain." ["Hear, hear!"] I wish to say comparatively little of the Bill itself; but with reference to the future of the Bill I do think it is important to consider what was said of it by the Colonial Secretary on the occasion to which I have referred. As we are to revert to this matter, let us see what it is which so high an authority said of this Bill. He said, "The Education Bill is, undoubtedly, a complicated Measure." I suppose it cannot be a complicated Measure, because a week was enough to finish the discussion of it in Committee. [A laugh] He said—
  "The only thing to which any member of the Government is pledged is to do something to prevent the Voluntary Schools from being extinguished."
  Then the Government are not pledged to this transfer of authority. That is one good thing, at all events.
  "That was our only pledge; but in dealing with that question the Government, like all Governments, especially young Governments"—
  This unfortunate young Government—[laughter]—
  "With an ambition a little, perhaps, beyond its powers"—
  It is an unfortunate thing for a Government, even with an overwhelming majority, to have an ambition a little beyond its powers—[laughter]—
  "Desired to take the opportunity to reorganise, to co-ordinate our primary and secondary education systems, in view of the experience which we had gained during the last 25 years."
  Well, that was beyond their power, and it was an unwise ambition of a young Government. And then there follows this most extraordinary statement:—
  "That part of the Bill, I believe, when passed, will prove to be a great advantage to our whole system of local government throughout the country'
  ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, one would suppose that was part of the Bill to which
  1590
  they would most faithfully adhere; but not at all. The Colonial Secretary is very willing to part with it—it is of great value and will be of great use—and why? "We did not think that was a Party object," and that was why the Colonial Secretary does not desire to pass that part of the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The right hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresents me. That was not the reason why I did not expect Party opposition.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman went on:—
  "And I say now that, as regards the whole of that part of the Education Bill which deals with this subject, it does not matter to any sect, whether it is carried or whether it is not."
  Your Bill has failed because it has been founded upon Party principles and to serve the interests of a sect. And the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:—
  "Of its merits I have no doubt."
  —that is, the first clause of the Bill—
  "but from a Party point of view I do not suppose, if the Bill was passed exactly as it was brought in, except so far as the assistance given to the Voluntary Schools, it would be in any sense a Party Measure or would be of any Party advantage whatever."
  ["Hear, hear!"] And, therefore, the part of the Bill to which the Government are pledged, and to which Gentlemen opposite are pledged, is only that part which can be called a Party Measure. He proceeds:—
  "I admit that we have made a miscalculation of the opposition which was likely to be given to such a Bill. A miscalculation is not a catastrophe, and the best way, I think, to meet a miscalculation is frankly to admit it."
  I do not know what exactly is the interpretation of a catastrophe and how far it is applicable to the scene at which we are now assisting, but it is true you made a miscalculation. But what was that miscalculation? You thought that the School Boards of this country were unpopular with the nation and that you could trample upon them. That was the spirit of the conferences at the Foreign Office. That was the language which was held throughout the winter, and it was upon that miscalculation that the Bill was founded. You have discovered

  1591
  your mistake. You have discovered that, not alone on this side of the House, but upon your own side of the House, your attempts on the life of the School Boards of the country have met with repugnance and opposition. ["Hear, hear!"] Now, those, in my opinion, are the main grounds which have destroyed this Bill. We have nothing to regret in the part we have taken in making clear to the country and the House what has been the true object and what has been the true character of this Bill. This Bill has failed because it was introduced without due consideration of the operation of the change which you proposed to effect. It has failed because even your own Party was not united upon it. It has failed because it has been conducted under a mandate from the House of Lords. [Cheers.] It has been conducted under the instructions of those who knew nothing of the real sentiments of its representatives. [Cheers]. That is one of the main causes of the failure of this Bill. It has failed because it was conceived in the interests of a Party and for the promotion of the objects of a sect. [Cheers.] If you will abandon these sources of weakness in the coming year; if you will come forward with a Measure for the education of the people which is framed, not in the interests of a Party, not to fulfil the objects of a sect, then you will find from us no obstructive opposition. [Cheers and counter cheers.] You judge us by yourselves. [Ministerial laughter.] We have declared, and we are willing to show, that in any fair Bill, not conceived in the spirit I have described, elementary education may be made a non-Party Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] If it is brought forward, not with the object of destroying the School Boards of England, but of assisting upon fair terms those schools which might be assisted—if it is a fair Bill for the promotion of the education of the people, then it will be a Bill which will not disappear as this Bill has disappeared under the force of public discussion, but will be a Bill which may make a permanent settlement of the greatest aim to which the House of Commons can direct its attention—namely, the education of the people. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that the Vice President of the Council
  1592
  (Sir John Gorst) stated, on the first occasion on which the House went into Committee on the Bill, that the first clause was regarded by the Government as the most important one in the Measure. Speaking, as he conceived, in the interests of the Voluntary Schools, and of those Catholic Schools in which he was particularly interested, he strongly protested against such a statement. Since then the Government had made the most extraordinary face-about in their attitude towards the Bill and towards the Voluntary Schools. The Committee had it now on the authority of one who must be qualified to speak for his colleagues in reference to the Bill—he meant the Secretary for the Colonies—that it did not matter an atom to the Government whether the devolution clauses were carried or not. It had been pointed out by that right hon. Gentleman that what the Government had pledged themselves to do was to rescue the Voluntary Schools by giving them increased financial aid; and that they were in no sense pledged to introduce the far-reaching and comprehensive proposals of devolution. ["Hear, hear!"] The First Lord of the Treasury had attempted to throw upon the Opposition the responsibility of the destruction of the Bill, but, speaking from a different standpoint, and as one who was pledged to support any real and honest Measure having for its object the rescuing of the Voluntary Schools from the cruel position in which they were now placed, he contended that the loss of the Bill rested not upon the Opposition but upon the Government themselves, [Cheers], who, instead of introducing a simple Measure offering fair and generous treatment of the Voluntary Schools—a Bill which might have been drafted in five or six clauses—had brought in a Bill which aimed at the destruction of the School Board system and revolutionising the entire educational system of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been said that the opinion of the country on the Bill was to be gauged by the extent of the majority for the Second reading. He denied the statement entirely, for many Members voted for the Second reading under protest, because their main desire was to secure some relief for the Voluntary Schools. The supporters of the Voluntary Schools—at least those

  1593
  who spoke for the Catholic section—had no desire to attack the great educational system of the country or to lower the standard of education. They simply asked for justice, and that Catholic children in this country should not be fined because they went to a school in accordance with the religious convictions of their parents. ["Hear, hear!"] They asked for equality with the children who attended the Board Schools, and that no discrimination should be made among the children who required religious instruction. ["Hear, hear!"] His view of the matter was that the Government had sacrificed the interests of the Voluntary Schools by bringing in a Bill which had produced the greatest possible amount of exasperation and friction while offering the least possible benefit to Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was dead; it had been swept away, and they had the assurance from the Government that its place would be taken next year by a new Bill. He would venture to press on the Government, in regard to this new Bill, that they should bring forward a logical and defensible Bill, one which would secure the support of the friends of the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He would suggest that the Government should commence by bringing in a short Bill which would deal out justice to the Voluntary Schools, and redeem the pledges they gave to the constituencies during the last election. But if they would persist in the desire to reorganise and reconstitute, on a new basis, the primary and secondary education of the country, let that be the work of another Session. ["Hear, hear!"] Speaking on behalf of the Catholic Schools, he would urge on the Government, if they really had the interests of the Voluntary Schools at heart, not, in any future attempt to deal with the subject, to mix up in one Bill proposals attacking the School Boards and reorganising the whole educational system of the country with the proposals for the relief of the Voluntary Schools. Let them put forward first the proposals in respect to the Voluntary Schools, and he ventured to say that if they were found to be just and adequate they would command the support of a large majority of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He had noticed during the Debates that when the question of relief
  1594
  of the Voluntary Schools was raised there was a great deal of common ground between the two sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Member after Member declared that they recognised the verdict of the country at the last election; that they accepted the Voluntary Schools as part of the educational machinery of the country; and that they did not desire to starve them, to condemn them to inefficiency, or to squeeze them out of existence. But those Members had said that if the Voluntary Schools were to be placed on a par with the Board Schools as regarded assistance from public funds, either from the rates or the Imperial Exchequer, they would demand that there should be some amount of popular control. Statements had appeared from the Catholic Bishops in the country, and from authorities of the Northern Province of the Anglican Church, that if justice was done in the matter of the grant of public money for the Voluntary Schools they would be willing to accept any Measure of public control in the Voluntary Schools so long as it would not destroy the religious character of the Schools. Speaking in the interests of the Roman Catholics he had the deepest possible conviction that it would not be for the good of their schools, nor, indeed, for the good of their Church schools, to settle this question as the result of a long and angry contention, even if they were able to force such a Bill as the present one through the House. He did not believe that any settlement of a question where religious animosities were roused in such a way as that would be a permanent settlement. What he desired and longed for, and what he had worked for, according to his opportunities, in the interests of the Catholic Schools, was some settlement which would be the result rather of give and take between the different sections of the House than of the brute force of a great majority after prolonged and angry discussions. It was to the interest of education that this question should be settled, if it could be settled at all, as the result of compromise. The present Bill, even if it had been possible to press it, would have been no settlement of the question. The whole Session would have been consumed, and passions would have been let loose, and if the old religious animosities, which were now happily

  1595
  slumbering and to a great extent softened, had been aroused and lashed into fury, the Catholics in this country would have been bound to suffer in the long run. The Conservative Party was not always going to be in power, and the time would come when another Party would come in on a wave of enthusiasm directed against Voluntary Schools, and the position of the Catholic Schools would be much worse than it was to-day. A breathing space had been given by what had occurred. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill had been lost entirely through the overbounding ambitions of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] The first blow which was struck at it, and the blow which in his deliberate judgment killed it, was the concession made by the Leader of the House to include the boroughs of 20,000 population and upwards. ["Hear, hear!"] The Leader of the House became rather pathetic over what he called the decay of the House of Commons. Well, he must confess that the Irish Nationalist Members had heard with a certain amount of gratification and satisfaction the groans of the Tory Party over the degradation of Parliamentary institutions to the machinery of Closure by compartments. They could not but remember that Closure by compartments was first introduced to pass an Irish Coercion Bill and to force the Pigott Act through the House for the purpose of catching Irish Members, and so long as this procedure was confined to crushing an Irish minority it never occurred to Unionists that it was an objectionable method. [Cheers.] They had devised several kinds of rules to shorten their Debates, and he supposed they would have another new set next year. But it was all of no use. They had got too much business to do, and they would not be able to do it unless they recast the whole of their Parliamentary institutions so that the work could be adequately devolved. If, instead of endeavouring to devolve the business of the Education Department upon County Councils and other local authorities, the Government would turn its attention to some method of relieving Parliament from what was an absolutely intolerable burden, then and only then would that House really recover its power over its own business. Before
  1596
  sitting down he desired to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he could favour them with some indication of what was to be the future course of business. The Members from Ireland hoped that, as the result of what had happened, it might be possible to bring on the Irish Land Bill and other Irish business sooner than was contemplated.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the Rating Bill would be put down for to-morrow.
  MR. DILLONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make a statement to-morrow as to the general course of business.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he would do so.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was in an awkward position. He was obliged to please his Roman Catholic supporters in this country and he had to try to retain his old connection with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would invite the hon. Gentleman to ride one horse or the other; and, if he was really in favour of aiding Voluntary Schools, as he assured them he was, to act with those who had that object in view and not to give his assistance to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whose expressed determination it was to kill that scheme. For his part, he was not in any way alarmed as to the future. He hoped they would see, at an early date next year, a thoroughly adequate scheme of relief for Voluntary Schools brought forward and passed into law. ["Hear, hear!"] He confessed he did not believe in any arrangement with the other side. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that if the Government would be content to bring in a Radical Measure he would refrain from obstructive opposition. That was a very significant phrase, because it carried with it the assumption that he had, in what had occurred in Committee, been, guilty of obstructive opposition. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he never said anything about a Radical Measure.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not use the word Radical, but he said a Measure with which he could agree, and that was the same thing. [Cheers.] He thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little bit

  1597
  hard on the Church party. The other day he accused them of being responsible for bringing in this Bill. Except in so far as they represented a large body of the supporters of the Government, that was a most unwarrantable supposition. To-day he accused them of being one of the main causes of its destruction by reason of their criticism of its provisions. They could not at once be its authors and such critical opponents as to destroy it. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that those who supported Voluntary Schools did not approve of the Government Bill as it stood. They had not signified their approval for the very obvious reason that every speech they made would have led to further discussion and to the making of additonal speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] As regarded Clause 1, he would only say that it had their most hearty approval and that they said so during the Debate on the Second Reading. They had hoped that the whole nature of this Assembly as a deliberative body would not be destroyed by grossly obstructive tactics. ["Hear, hear!"] All those expectations had, however, been frustrated, and they had been obliged to listen to Second Beading speech after Second Reading speech. The right hon. Gentleman said they had no right to complain of his making a Second Reading speech. No, they had not; but he made so many Second Reading speeches, always the same, that there was endless repetition. ["Hear, hear!"] If it were ever the lot of Members on the Government side of the House to obstruct any Bill—which he hoped was a thing they would never be guilty of—they would do it more artistically than the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] The discussions had shown that the sole object of hon. Members opposite was to obstruct the Bill. He could only say for himself and many of those who had taken an interest in the support of Voluntary Schools that they were deeply grateful to the Government for the great effort they had made to assist them. ["Hear, hear!"] They were quite confident that at an early date that effort would be renewed, and they looked forward to the future without apprehension, but with a determination to defeat any obstructive
  1598
  tactics with which they might be met. [Cheers.]
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREobserved that the Leader of the House at the commencement of his interesting speech stated that he intended to justify and explain his action. He certainly did not justify it, because he did not go into the real reasons why that action was called for, which were the mistakes and errors of the Cabinet, in which he was one of the leading Members. ["Hear, hear!"] When the right hon. Gentleman came to his explanation he explained nothing from his own side of the House, but tried to let his Bill fizz out under a blaze of fireworks directed against the poor innocent Opposition. [Laughter.] The Ministry in power always tried to make out that they were the best and wisest persons and the Opposition the very worst and the greatest obstructives. He had looked through the Amendment Paper, and he would take as an instance of what had been done on the other side the name of an hon. Gentleman who was one of the most modest and unassertive Members of the House. He need not say he alluded to the Member for Islington. [Laughter.] There were altogether 1,238 Amendments, and how many did the right hon. Gentleman think stood in the name of the modest Member for Islington? No fewer than 85 Amendments. [Renewed laughter.] He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find a difficulty in discovering the name of any hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House who, however strong his objections might have been, had developed them so largely as the hon. Gentleman to whom he had alluded. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Member for Islington was to be taken as a fair sample, it appeared to him there would be as many Amendments from the one side as the other, and at any rate an enormous number were put down by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. ["Hear, hear!"] The real fact was that hon. Members opposite owed a certain debt of gratitude to the Church at the last election, and, being anxious to pay it, they brought in this Bill. It was very easy to give to Voluntary Schools and aid Church Schools, but they went further than that, and when they determined to

  1599
  rearrange the whole system of elementary education in this country then their majority fell to pieces, there were dissensions in their own Party, and the Opposition simply looked on and accentuated the dissensions which existed on the other side of the House. [Laughter.] Why did the right hon. Gentleman come down and make reckless proposals to the House of Commons and then, a few days after, when the Opposition had settled down, were ready to go on after August, to have an autumn Session and be the slaves of the right hon. Gentleman, again come down and tell them that would not be enough. Why did this not occur to him before? The right hon. Gentleman did not say his proposal was a foolish one, but he thought he would agree with him that it was a foolish proposal. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "A sanguine proposal."] Well, he had found there was nothing more foolish in the House than being over sanguine. [Laughter.] It was a remarkable fact that, according to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he should never be able to pass any Bill unless the minority allowed it, as if a certain number of Amendments were put down, and a Division on the Closure and on each Amendment insisted upon, the time so spent in dividing would exceed the length of any Session. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that he was not actuated by these lofty principles about the Closure—[laughter]—or feelings of benevolence towards the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had been himself a very pretty hand at obstruction before now. He knew the art; he had cultivated it, and no doubt under other circumstances he would again cultivate the art and encourage his followers to do likewise. [Laughter.] No, the right hon. Gentleman had to give up the Bill because he knew perfectly well that his own followers would not stand it, and that there was no support behind it. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the rules of procedure and had taken a gloomy view of the House in consequence of what went on. But was it not perfectly true that, whichever Party was in Opposition, there was a considerable amount of obstruction, and had it not become a Parliamentary aim when a Party was in
  1600
  a minority to stale-mate, if they could, any majority? He agreed that that lowered and degraded Parliament, and he believed that anything which lowered and degraded the House attacked the principle of self-government in this country. ["Hear, hear!"] As far as he was concerned he would give the right hon. Gentleman his most cordial support in so altering the rules of procedure as to place it in the hands of the majority, after fair and legitimate discussion, to be able to pass any Bill they might wish to bring forward. ["Hear, hear!"] He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the graceful manner in which he had met the situation. He thought he had shown his wisdom. When a person had to eat the leek he did it better by not standing to make faces over it and so attracting everybody's attention to what he was doing. It was better to bolt it and swallow it, as the right hon. Gentleman had done. [Laughter.]
  MR. HENKY HOBHOUSEsaid he desired to explain, after what had been said by the Leader of the Opposition, the attitude of the County Councils towards the Bill. On Friday last the Executive Council of the County Councils Association passed a resolution to the effect that considering the changes introduced into the constitution of the education authority by the executive administration in the county or non-county boroughs with a population of 20,000, they were of opinion that it aimed a serious blow at the administration of the Technical Instruction Acts and county administration generally. The resolution of the Association did not touch on elementary education at all, or follow the lines of the resolution passed by certain County Councils, including the Lancashire County Council. They were expressly desirous not to take any political action. They did not condemn the Bill as a whole, but felt bound to take the earliest opportunity to place on record their strong protest against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, and they asked the Government either to reverse their decision on that Amendment or undo some of the striking mischiefs that would have followed. They did not follow the lead given by some half a dozen County

  1601
  Councils in declining to accept the duties in connection with public elementary education imposed by the Bill. They gave a general support of the Bill, but protested against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington. It was therefore clear that if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to find a scapegoat for his Parliamentary sins, he could not find that scapegoat in the County Councils Association.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid his hon. Friend who had just spoken had not attempted to minimise the importance of the refusal of the County Councils to accept the duties relating to elementary education imposed upon them by the Bill. The Debates on the Bill had done one thing—they had killed the mischievous idea of making the County Councils the educational machinery for elementary education and had rendered it impossible for the present or any future Government to revive an idea which the local authorities had pronounced unworkable, and which the Government, in spite of its enormous backing, had practically renounced as unworkable. The principle was now established that they must have for the control of elementary education a sufficiently small area for the authority to work in, just as the great School Boards had done in the great towns where they had achieved such splendid triumphs for the development of elementary education, and that the devolution of the powers of the Education Department would be premature and unsatisfactory till education was thus organised. The outlines of the Bill to be introduced next year were not before them, and they were left with an open hand and a free conscience to face the Bill when it came. He was not one of those who recognised an advantage in the competition of a necessarily inferior system of education with the best system in this country, and although there might be some middle line by which the friends of different kinds of educational machinery might be reconciled, they could not commit themselves to any concessions with regard to the principle of maintaining permanently Voluntary Schools as an essential element in the education of this country. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester had referred to the position of Voluntary Schools. Radical
  1602
  Members did not care so much for the position of Voluntary Schools as for the three millions of children who were being educated in them, and what they would like the Government, whether Liberal or Tory, to do would be to so reorganise popular elementary education as to provide the best and most effective education for those children. That problem would not be solved by overthrowing the School Boards and setting up Clerical Board Schools all over the country. Because the people wanted a national system of education, they did not want to crush out the religious spirit, but to encourage it. He was glad to note that the hon. Member for East Mayo spoke with sympathy of the religious spirit in schools, and used the words religious schools rather than denominational.
  MR. DILLON: When I spoke of religious schools I spoke of what are known as denominational schools.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid in any case he believed the religious teaching given in the Board Schools was the best religious teaching for the children, and enabled children of different creeds and Churches to grow up in natural sympathy and toleration. The real problem was to create a religious spirit on which the organisations of the religious bodies might work when young children left school. The decision of the Government had relieved many of those, with whom he had the warmest sympathy, from great anxiety. They felt assured that the existing machinery of national education would not be shattered or destroyed. Religious liberty was safer than it was a week ago; the religious teaching of the children of this country was also safer, and national education had a rational future before it instead of being merged in the chaos of different sects and conflicting religious and political interests. He hoped the Government, in considering the terms of next year's Bill, would have regard not merely to political and Party pledges made before the General Election, but to the welfare of the children of this country.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid his own personal feeling as a member of the Anglican Communion, and representing his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen, was in favour of Voluntary Schools, and he hoped that the Bill,

  1603
  with judicious emendation, would secure benefit to the two-and-a-half millions of children in Roman Catholic Schools, most of whom were of Irish extraction. He could hardly accept the forecast that the next Bill would be on the same lines as this, but having regard to the interests of the Irish people in this country, who were among the poorest of the poor, and had conscientious objections to the divorce of religion from school instruction, he earnestly hoped that some extra provision would be made for Voluntary Schools. The First Lord of the Treasury had been the most prodigal of all prodigal sons, in that he had been a party to the wasting of three weeks of Parliamentary time, and it had been lost through his own fault rather than through the defects of Parliamentary machinery; but the history and fate of the Bill had made it clearer than ever that it was hopeless to get detailed legislation through this House, and that for it the great work of the future would be the work of devolution.
  MR. J. L. WHARTONsaid the country would see the wisdom of, as well as the necessity for, the step taken by the Leader of the House. He recollected some discussion of former days, which the right hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. James Lowther) used to call "adequate" discussion, but which other people called obstruction; and there had certainly been adequate discussion of this Bill. Looking at the Amendments on the Paper, it was certain this Bill could not become law this year or in two months of another year. He thanked the Leader of the House for the straightforward action he had taken to save what was left of this Session. There were other Measures which the public wished them to pass, and they could now look forward hopefully to their being passed this Session. As to the future Bill on education, he hoped they would not lose by what they had already done. [Opposition cheers.] He was quite willing to accept that cheer from the Opposition, because he believed that no Bill passed through a fiery ordeal in that House without being the better for it; and he hoped and believed that the next Bill would testify to the benefit of the discussion this Bill had received. No doubt time had been wasted, but some other time in the
  1604
  future would be all the more usefully spent, and probably on a better Bill. It was stated that £100,000 would be necessary for the relief of the Voluntary Schools within the financial year, and he believed that the majority of the people of the country would be anxious that money necessary for the purpose should be found. On that point some support might be looked for on the other side of the House. No doubt discussion had killed the Bill; but another year it would be introduced in a better form, and the country would appreciate and demand that it should be passed.
  MR. MARK OLDROYDsaid he wished to take the opportunity, in the name of those boroughs with a population over 20,000, to thank the Leader of the House for the concession he had made. A great many friends might have told the Leader of the House that he was unwise in making that concession; but whatever opposition might have been aroused against the Bill on account of that concession, the boroughs felt grateful for it. Of course, the Association of County Councils were opposed to it, as militating against the carrying out of technical education by the County Councils. Some of the boroughs would suffer financially by their independence, Dewsbury, for example, receiving £550 instead of £1,600; but still, the boroughs would be able and willing to co-operate cordially with the County Councils in the work of technical education. There were some boroughs that had received little help from their County Councils, and this neglect had accentuated their opinion in favour of separate management. He cordially disliked the Bill. He told his constituents that he was opposed to decentralisation; but he felt that if there was to be decentralization—as seemed only too probable owing to the big majority the Government had at their back—it was only right and fair that the small boroughs should have their independent educational authorities.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid he did not desire to say much about the Bill, which, as he approved of a great deal of it, he regretted was about to be withdrawn. But he wished to know exactly where they were. There was no doubt that if there was any mandate

  1605
  given at the General Election it was that the Voluntary Schools should be maintained. He did not quite understand the statement of the Leader of the House, but so far as he could gather from it there was to be a small Bill introduced next January in order to give some relief to the Voluntary Schools in the current year, and that later on there would be a larger Bill to re-arrange the primary education system. But why should they not pass the relief Bill now, when they had the whip hand of the Opposition, so to speak—[ironical Opposition laughter]—instead of waiting until next year, when it was quite clear some excuses would be made by the Opposition for opposing the Measure in the way this Bill had been opposed? He could not see any reason why the small Bill should not be introduced immediately and forced through before the Irish Land Bill and other Measures, which, though important, was not so important, or as clearly before the country at the General Election, as the question of the Voluntary Schools. But perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury had some other means of relieving the Voluntary Schools. One thing was clear—something should be done in that direction, and done quickly.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONsaid that when the hon. Member for North Islington predicted that next Session some excuse would be found by the Opposition for approving or obstructing legislation on the subject of education, he would remind the hon. Member that it was he and his friends who commenced in the last Parliament a policy—which the present Opposition had not attempted to emulate—for they felt it was certain to detract from the dignity of the House. But the manner in which this Bill had been opposed was only the honest and genuine reflection of the real feeling of the country in regard to the Bill. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] His constituents heartily endorsed the action of the Opposition. Therefore he maintained that so far from the House of Commons having lost in dignity, as the First Lord of the Treasury had imputed, it had gained in dignity from the fact that an honest and full discussion of the details of the Bill had shown it to be an impracticable Measure, and its fate would
  1606
  be gladly welcomed by all friends of education.
  MR. C. J. MONKsaid he learnt with regret, though not with surprise, the position which the Government had taken up in regard to the Bill. He failed to see how the Government would be in a better position next year than they were now. In fact, it seemed to him to be hopeless for them to think of being able to pass a Bill of this nature, opposed as it was by the other side of the House on principle, without some alteration in the rules of procedure. At present any number of Amendments could be put down to a Bill, and each Amendment could be discussed for hours. Of course, the Government had decided very rightly not to use the gag in getting rid of the Amendments which had been put down to the Education Bill, but he would like to hear from the First Lord of the Treasury how the Government could entertain a hope, under the present rules of Debate, of passing an opposed Measure of this nature during a single Session without some alteration in the Rules of procedure.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid he had listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in order to ascertain what was to follow the Measure for the relief of the Voluntary Schools, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had added anything which would justify the implication of the hon. Member for North Islington that there would also be introduced next year another Bill for altering the primary education system. The hon. Member seemed to think that it would be an easy thing to pass a Measure giving increased money to denominational schools. It was right, therefore, that hon. Members opposite should be warned that the matter would not be so easy as some of them seemed to suppose. The Opposition could not consent to any substantial addition to the money voted to denominational schools except on conditions, including some degree, at least, of local control; also a guarantee that the voluntary subscriptions should not cease, but, on the contrary, increase, and a further guarantee that the additional grant should be devoted to increasing the educational efficiency of the schools

  1607
  He did not quite agree with the statement that the Bill had been killed by discussion. Discussion had only given the final blow to it. The Bill had been, in fact, killed by its own demerits. In the first place, it was a Bill difficult to understand. When questions were put to Ministers as to the meaning of this clause or that clause, answers were given totally inconsistent with previous answers on the same subjects, and in addition to that, leading Members of the Government made contradictory statements inside and outside the House as to the character and the intentions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India wished the House to believe that the Bill was opposed only by what he called political dissenters; but he had never known a Measure which received so large an amount of condemnation from educational and other public bodies throughout the country. On the other hand, few public bodies of any authority had come forward in support of the Measure. The Leader of the House had made no reference to the divisions which had shown themselves more and more each week among the professed supporters of the Bill. The action of the Northern Episcopate and their allies, within the last few days, must have seriously embarrassed the Government. The supporters of the Government must make up their minds what they wanted, and how they wanted it, before they called upon the Government again to place themselves in a position of difficulty, similar to that from which the right hon. Gentleman had now extricated himself.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that these obsequies were very, very sad. The House had lost a most interesting friend, of varied qualities and great conversational power. [Laughter.] What it died of they did not quite know; but in this burial, as in others, there were some consolations. In the first place, "there was a considerable sum of money in the deceased's pocket." [Laughter.] The First Lord of the Treasury put the sum at £100,000, but he understood from the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was much more than that. Before the Debate was ended, he hoped the Government would explain what was to be done with this money. The Leader
  1608
  of the House had been reproached with beginning that which he was not able to finish; but he thought the Government had in the present instance acted rightly. There was no other course for them to take. Taking all the days of the present and of a future Session, it would have been impossible to pass a Bill of this kind. [Opposition cheers.] He did not entirely blame the Opposition. The Bill was in itself calculated to promote discussion; and he thought it was a pity that the Government had not restricted it to more modest dimensions. Now the right hon. Gentleman had properly recognised that it was not in his power to pass the Bill.
  "He quits the world where strong temptations try,
  And since 'tis hard to combat, learns to fly."
  He hoped that any future Bill would simply fulfil the promise of aid for the Voluntary Schools. He had expected to hear a funeral oration on the Bill from the Vice President of the Council, but the right hon. Gentleman was not present. [Cries of "Yes!"] At least a modest retirement now marked the right hon. Gentleman's presence—[laughter]—and lately the right hon. Gentleman had often been observed occupying the Treasury Bench alone. [Cheers and laughter.] He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman's affection for the Government or his official career would not be affected by the fate of the Bill; and that he would not, officially, imitate Ahithophel, who, when his advice was ignored, saddled his ass, and went home and hanged himself. [Laughter.] He could not comprehend why the Government had not taken last week the course they had announced today. He feared that the able men who composed the Cabinet were called together, like parties, not for consultation, but for the receipt of orders. ["Hear, hear!"] Any system which superseded the Cabinet in favour of a smaller Committee of that body would be fraught with great danger to any Government, because it cut the Government off from information and counsel which their own Members could supply; and such a Government would be very apt to take a course on one Monday which they would find impossible on the following Monday. [Cheers.] He rejoiced that the Bill had met with its fate that day. [Opposition

  1609
  cheers.] He did not join in the chorus as to the time which had been wasted. There had been 12 days spent over the Education Bill, and three days over the Benefices Bill, and he supposed there would now be another funeral for the latter Measure. [Cheers and laughter.] He thought those 15 days had been gained rather than wasted, because if they had not been employed in the consideration of these Bills the House might have been passing Acts of Parliament, mostly mischievous. [Laughter.] He hoped that now this difficulty had been disposed of, the House would recur with increased vigour to the discussion of Estimates, and the passing of those few small Bills which were calculated to benefit the country. [Laughter.]
  MR. EDWARD MORTONsaid that the hon. Member for North Islington had asserted that, after passing a Bill dealing solely with Voluntary Schools, the Government would introduce another Bill next year dealing with the remaining portions of the Bill about to be dropped. But the First Lord of the Treasury had made no such statement. Before Members came down to the House they had read in The Times an account of the intentions of the Government, which exactly agreed with the subseqnent statement of the Leader of the House, excepting that The Times confirmed the statement made by the hon. Member for North Islington. Was it the intention of the Government to proceed with such a second Bill next Session?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONreminded the Government that an increased burden fell on the Voluntary Schools this year under the Code of 1890. In the month of August they would have to face an additional expenditure of from 4s. to 4s. 6d. per scholar; and, in view of the great disappointment which was undoubtedly felt by the inability of the Government to do anything this year to fulfil the pledges made at the last election, would it not be possible to suspend the operation of that part of the Code of 1890 until a Measure of permanent relief could be introduced?
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEcalled attention to the fact that under the Technical Instruction Act of 1888, an urban district and
  1610
  County Council were each allowed to levy a rate of 1d. in the pound; so that in an urban district the total rate leviable was 2d. in the pound. If, as was proposed in the Education Bill, powers were taken from the County Council and transferred to the urban boroughs the rate for technical education purposes would be limited to 1d. in the pound. In any future Bill he hoped this would be taken into consideration. He should also like to know how the next Parliamentary three days were to be occupied.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The last two or three questions have referred rather to the Bill which is to be introduced next year, than to the Bill which has been withdrawn, and I do not think it would be desirable to discuss the former Bill now. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Devonport says that in my statement I followed The Times newspaper up to a certain point, and that then there was a difference between us. I, unfortunately, did not see The Times this morning—[laughter]—so that I do not know in what my statement agrees or differs from that forecast. But when I state that we mean to meet early in January, that our object will be to deal with the education question, and that we shall especially have in view the necessities of the Voluntary Schools, I have said enough to satisfy the House as to our intentions. [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down put a question as to the rate which might be levied in an urban district for technical instruction. That is a point which may be worth consideration; but it has not much reference to the present discussion, as the details of the Education Bill are no longer before the House. I ought to have stated that to-morrow we shall proceed with the Report stage of the Agricultural Rating Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northeast Manchester put a question to me with regard to the Code. That, of course, is only indirected to the topic of this Debate; but I understood my right hon. Friend to urge that, inasmuch as the new Code might throw further pressure on the Voluntary Schools, there was special reason why the financial relief he propose to give to the Voluntary Schools should be given at as early a date as possible. Of course, I cannot enter into the subject of the new

  1611
  Code, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is our intention to give the financial aid to the Voluntary Schools as soon as possible. I think I have now answered all the questions put to me, and I hope the House will now be allowed to come to a decision. ["Hear, hear"!]
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSdesired to say that the withdrawal of this Bill, so far as Wales was concerned, would be received with the liveliest satisfaction by the great majority of the people of that country. They believed, as he did, that this Bill was designed in the interests of one Party alone.
  SIR HENRY MEYSEY-THOMPSONthought that a much too tragic note had been sounded in the newspapers. What was it all about? To hear the Leader of the Opposition talk one would think that no Government had ever attempted to do too much before. He was going very shortly to address his constituents, and he believed he would have a very pleasant time with them. [Laughter.] He would tell hon. Members opposite what he was going to say. [Laughter and Opposition cries of "No !"] He would ask them, "What did you want us to do?" The first thing they wanted was that the wicked should cease from troubling: that had been secured. The next thing they wanted was good administration: they were satisfied with the administration of the present Government. ["Order, order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself more closely to the question.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid the Government had tried the experiment this year in taking Fridays and promising an early Adjournment.
  THE CHAIRMANagain called the hon. Member to order, and he resumed his seat.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid it was claimed that there was a mandate from the country for the help of Voluntary Schools. There was one part of the country from which no such mandate came. In the Principality of Wales a large majority had been recorded against the policy of the Bill which was now dead and buried, and unless the just and legitimate grievances of the Non-
  1612
  conformists were dealt with in the Bill promised it would meet with strong opposition from the representatives of Welsh Nonconformists. The lamentable failure of the attack on the School Boards had aroused the greatest enthusiasm in Wales.
  Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to (No Report).

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,)moved the Third Reading of this Bill.
  MR. JAMES STUARTproposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months." He said that there was a characteristic of this Bill for which he desired to oppose it. The Bill transferred a power from the House of Commons to the House of Lords. At present the position was this. The Board of Agriculture, if they saw fit, might permit the importation of cattle from countries which they were satisfied were free from disease. That position had existed for a number of years and as the President of the Board sat in the House of Commons, the control of the administration of the Department was in the hands of the House of Commons, and consequently the question of the admission of foreign cattle was practically now in the hands of the House of Commons. He did not think the House of Commons had exercised its control in such an improper or unsuitable manner that it should be deprived of it, but it was now proposed to abolish by Act of Parliament the power of the Board of Agriculture and the control of the House of Commons and not a single head of foreign cattle could be admitted after the passing of this Bill, unless the Act was repealed. The consent of the House of Lords would have to be obtained to the repeal of the Act, and hence foreign cattle could never again be admitted without the consent of the House of Lords. This was a type of Measure which was becoming much too common. It was a type which was characteristic of many of the Measures introduced by the present

  1613
  Government and by the last Conservative Government. It was necessary to look at the Bill as part of a system whereby powers were being transferred from the House of Commons to the House of Lords. Take the Bill in whose obsequies they had just been engaged. That Measure proposed, among other things, to transfer the control of the taxes from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, because it was enacted that no more money was to be granted for education, and that enactment could not be repealed without the consent of the House of Lords. The Agricultural Rating Bill had exactly the same characteristic. Under that Bill the obligation was imposed upon this House of giving part of the taxes to a certain object. Originally that object was a perpetual object, and although it had since been limited in point of time, it was not on that ground that the Government gave way; and they proposed to make permanent in another form, and at another period the same condition of things. Thus they had three Measures brought forward in the present Session, one limiting the power of the House in giving the taxes, another limiting the power of the House by compelling it to give the taxes, and a third, the Bill now before the House, which took away from the House the power which it now possessed in respect of the admission of foreign cattle, and made it necessary that the House of Lords must consent to the repeal of the Act before such cattle could be admitted into this country. In these circumstances he thought it was time the House should begin to look to the preservation of its own authority. But he could go further, and could trace the rise of this method in their legislation further back. The commencement of the system which culminated in this Bill commenced during the Tory Administration of 1886–92. By the County Councils Act of 1888—an admirable Measure in other respects—a number of grants which had been made by the House of Commons on its own authority, year after year, and whose supervision therefore was in hands of the House, were consolidated into a sum to be given out of the Probate Duty by Act of Parliament, and consequently the power to dispose of that part of the taxes was taken out of the hands of the House, and the power of ceasing
  1614
  so to dispose of them was placed in the hands of the House of Lords, without whose consent the Act could not be repealed. The Coercion Act of 1887 was the first Measure in which this tendency was manifested. Whereas all previous Acts of the kind were made terminable, that Act was made perpetual, and thus the power to put an end to coercion in Ireland was taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and placed in the hands of the House of Lords. The principle was also to be found in the Act passed by the same Government for increasing the Navy. A certain amount was to be given for increasing the Navy year by year for a long term of years, and that was voted by Act of Parliament, so that money which hitherto had been given by the House of Commons alone was taken out of the control of the House completely for a long period of years. The present was a very definite instance of the transference of powers from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, because there was nothing else in the Bill. The Measure simply said that henceforth, until it was repealed, no cattle should be admitted from foreign countries. At present the President of the Board of Agriculture, acting on the recommendation of his advisers and on his own authority and responsibility to the House of Commons, like all other Ministers, had discretionary power to prohibit the importation of foreign animals; and no sufficient reason had been advanced against that method. This was a case of a Tory Government having got a majority in both Houses, taking the opportunity of settling something which had hitherto been under the control of the House of Commons by Act of Parliament, so that it should be necessary to secure a majority in both places before a reversal or alteration of that policy could take place. That was not a proper position in which to place the House of Commons. It was a very dangerous position, and he hoped the Debate would be the means of calling the attention of the country to this tendency in legislation. They had heard frequently during the past ten years from the present Prime Minister and others of his way of thinking, statements to the effect that the House of Commons was not an adequate or satisfactory representation of the will of the people.

  1615
  It had even been said that the House of Lords was a better representative than the transient House of Commons of the permanent will of the people; and they had been told that representative institutions were on their trial. They had heard many ominous statements of that kind from members of what he might call the ruling family. That was a serious menace and danger to the House of Commons. In the great Reform Bill of 1832, the point was not really so much the extension of the suffrage and the redistribution of seats as the breaking of the power of the House of Lords over the legislation of this country. From that date down to ten or a dozen years ago the tendency of legislation was to increase rather than diminish the powers of the House of Commons. Now that tendency had been turned, and he had given specific instances of great importance in which, under the regime of the Party now in power, that change had come markedly to the front. Were they going to turn their backs upon themselves? If they were going to remove power from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, let them do it with their eyes open, and let the country see what was being done. It was in order to call attention markedly to the point that he brought forward his Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The Act of 1894 was a consolidating Act, but it was the immediate descendant of the Importation of Foreign Cattle Act of 1878, which in its turn was the immediate descendant of the Act of 1869. Before 1869 this matter had practically escaped the attention of the Legislature, but in 1869 an Act was introduced which left to the Privy Council and the House of Commons the question of the importation of foreign cattle. In 1878 a remarkable thing occurred. A Bill to amend the Act of 1869 was introduced by a Tory Government in the House of Lords. It would have prohibited by Act of Parliament the bringing in of foreign cattle into this country; but while the Bill was going through the House of Lords the administration was left to deal with cattle from Canada and the United States. In the House of Commons, with a Tory majority similar to the present, the Bill was hotly contested, the Opposition being led by Mr. W. E. Forster. Time after time
  1616
  Mr. Forster pointed out the impropriety and wrong of limiting by Act of Parliament the introduction of foreign cattle into this country. When the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, it was altered into practically the same condition as the law now stood. Was the House of Commons now to so far change its attitude on this question as to pass a Bill which it would not accept in 1878? The only explanation of such action would be that there was a weakening tendency to stand up for the powers and privileges of the House of Commons as opposed to the House of Lords. The policy was not to curtail the powers of the House of Lords, but to prevent the powers of the House of Commons from being curtailed. In his judgment the Leaders of his Party had been slack in opposing the powers of the House of Lords; and he now called on Liberal as well as Conservative Members to support him in his protest. He was not pleading a Radical cause, but he was pleading the cause of the House of Commons and the retention of the powers which it at present possessed. The House ought to be most jealous in allowing any powers to go out of its hands which it at present possessed. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a Third time that day six months.
  MR. FREDERICK CAWLEYprotested as representing a large working class constituency against this Bill. In his opinion it would not affect the poorer class of meat that was imported, but his constituents wished to eat English meat, and not foreign. They had sufficient knowledge of political economy to know that it was altogether wrong to tax the raw material and let the finished article in free. He objected not only on the ground that the Bill was against the interests of his constituency but of the country as a whole; in fact against the whole body of farming interests. The President of the Board of Agriculture would agree that cattle could be reared cheaper in Canada than this country, and that this country, being the market for all feeding stuffs, could feed cattle more cheaply than foreign countries. By the policy which this Bill would make permanent they would foster a trade which the Colonies could do better than we could at the expense of a trade which we could do better

  1617
  than they. It was hardly necessary to say that such a policy was against all ideas of political economy, and against all ideas of common sense. The right hon. Gentleman might say he was supported by the opinion of different agricultural societies of this country. He did not wish to cast reflection on Members of the different agricultural societies, but the right hon. Gentleman would admit that a great number of Members of these different societies were not so much agriculturists as pedigree stock breeders. It was a well-known fact that many men of means went into pedigree-stock raising, and allied themselves with agricultural societies more as a hobby and in the same way as some men did with yachting and racing than as agriculturists. He was of opinion that neither the Royal Agricultural Society nor the other agricultural societies quoted were entitled to speak as agriculturists from a rent-paying and living-getting point of view. No adequate reason had been given for taking away an elastic power from the right hon. Gentleman or his successor. In the case of plague, such as visited this country in 1865, they might find that though there were fat pastures there were no cattle to stock them, whilst there might be thousands of lean cattle in the colonies which, owing to this Bill, they would be unable to bring over. He opposed this Bill because it was protective in its character, and against the interests of the working class communities, who wished to consume English-fed meat and not foreign-fed meat; secondly, that it was unjust, and sought to protect one class of farming industry at the expense of another; and, thirdly, that it sought to take away from the Board of Agriculture a power which, in case of possible contingencies, it was eminently desirable that they should possess. He concluded by seconding the Amendment.
  COLONEL MILWARDsaid he should not have risen but for the statement of the hon. Member for Shoreditch with regard to the Minister for Agriculture, and asked whether the Committee would not be able to control the Minister in the way the hon. Member thought he ought if he sat in the House of Lords. Was it not more reasonable that the Minister for Agriculture should sit in the House
  1618
  where almost all were agriculturists, and the Postmaster General sit in this House? There was an entire fallacy underlying the contention of the hon. Member, and it was, besides, quite unconstitutional, because Ministers were responsible to both Houses.
  MR. R. J. PRICEthought the hon. Member had not appreciated the point. In whichever House the Minister for Agriculture sat, this House held the purse strings, and it was a distinct curtailment of its power to put this question beyond the reach of a discussion by this House on the Estimates. He did not feel justified in allowing the Third Reading to pass without expressing his sense of the great injury it would be to the constituency he had the honour to represent. The opponents of the Bill had been treated in a curt manner by the Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had never sat on the Treasury Bench through the whole of these Debates although the question was one in which the Dominion of Canada was most vitally interested. They had had no satisfaction at all out of the Board of Agriculture, they had not got it nor were likely to get it. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the diagnoses of his Veterinary Department were beyond reproach, but the fact was, unless that Department was entirely re-organised, we should be the laughing-stock of all civilised humanity. It was useless to try to prevent the Bill from becoming law. Nevertheless, it was going to be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. He could only indulge the hope that even now there would be those on the opposite side of the House who would speak up and try to prevent this great injustice being done to a certain portion of the agricultural interest. Sooner or later it would be found that as they removed one of the elements of competition, they would heighten prices. Protection was at the root of this Measure, as it was of most of the Measures for agricultural relief proposed by this Government.
  MR. J. BRYCEheartily endorsed the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch. His argument was not quite understood by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture was the same in whichever

  1619
  House he sat, but this was essentially a question for the House of Commons, because it was a question of administration. It was not a question which ought to be put in a permanent enactment. The Government of the day ought to be watched from time to time, to see that they used the administrative powers entrusted to them in a proper way, and in the general interests of the country. Now, the House of Commons was essentially the guardians of administration, and the reason why it had the financial control and exercised it over the salaries of Ministers was that it was the guardian of the administration of the country. A more superfluous and wanton piece of legislation had never been introduced into this House. What were the facts? During the last few years there had been suspicion of pleuro-pneumonia existing in other countries from which cattle were being imported into this country. Under the existing law the head of the Board of Agriculture had the right to interdict importation in suspected cattle, and that right had been used with the utmost firmness not only by the right hon. Gentleman now the President of the Local Government Board, but also by his hon. Friend now Lord Burghclere, and the House had always supported the action of the Executive in that regard. No reason had ever been given why the House should cease to trust the Executive. From beginning to end of the Debates no reason had been shown why it should abrogate its control over administrative matters. No reason had been given why it should pass this wanton and unnecessary Bill. He would point out what the difference was between putting the matter under legislation and leaving it under administration, and how serious was the evil which the passing of it would inflict. It would inflict injury upon the agriculturists of some important counties in England and in Scotland. In those counties, although the cattle breeders had not received any Canadian cattle for some time, still they lived in the hope that they would be able to resume a remunerative business. That hope would be destroyed by this Bill. Let him take another instance. As long as this matter rested on administration, the President of the Board of Agriculture had full powers to prohibit the
  1620
  importation of cattle from any suspected district—and he used his power. The right hon. Gentleman did not prohibit importation from a country which was known to be perfectly healthy and from which no danger could arise. That was the case with Iceland. That country sent to England and Scotland 40,000 sheep every year, and by that trade it had been able to support itself. That importation would be stopped by this Bill. Was it right that the great machine of British legislation, moving on in its own course should overturn and destroy the prosperity of a neighbouring and innocent country? ["Hear, hear!"] Lastly, he took the case of Canada. We were always talking of our desire to conciliate our colonies, and we were now contemplating methods by which the colonies might be brought into trade relations with ourselves. At the very moment that schemes were propounded for linking the colonies to ourselves, it was proposed to inflict upon one of our greatest colonies a very severe blow by cutting off a very important branch of her trade. Neither he nor any of his hon. Friends desired to subject our herds to unnecessary risk, but they believed the present safeguards were ample, and they were strongly opposed to transferring their rights to the House of Lords. He hoped his hon. Friend would be warmly supported in his opposition to the present Motion.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. C. E. SCHWANNsaid he was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch had insisted upon the constitutional aspect of this question, and had drawn the attention of the House and of the country to the practice which was insidiously but constantly being followed by the Conservative Party whenever it was in Office, to diminish the power of the House by handing over matters hitherto under its control to the discussion and control of the House of Lords. This Bill diminished the powers not only of the House of Commons, but of the people. The Members of the House were under the control of the constituencies, but in the serene atmosphere of the House of Lords, public opinion was

  1621
  never felt, and the Members looked after their own interests without regard to the interests of the great masses of the population. Ho most strongly objected to the Government filching away these powers to hand them over to an irresponsible body, at the other end of the passage. Consternation filled many Members when the House of Lords was given power over the repeal of a perpetual Coercion Bill, for it was felt that the Irish landlords in that House would never consent to such a proposal; and it was generally felt that the House of Commons should have retained its full control over expenditure in connection with naval defence. They all knew where the inspiration came from. It came from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and if that inspiration continued, as no doubt it would, they would have all financial matters, little by little, abstracted from the House of Commons—at any rate the other House would be entrusted with equal control with ourselves. He trusted, however, that the House of Commons would maintain its own liberties and powers, and, at the same time, the liberties and powers of the people. He was afraid that the House, containing as it did a large majority of Conservative Members, would probably pass this Bill, and add still more to the power of the House of Lords, but the day would come, and he trusted would quickly come, when they would sweep away this bastard Burleighism for ever. He was not at all surprised that this Bill had been proposed by the present Government. It was a landlord Government, and it was only natural that they should propose Bills in the interest of that class. The Agricultural Rating Bill was of the same kidney as the present Measure. The hon. Member for Stockport said in the most distinct terms that these two Bills were absolutely the children of class legislation, and that in these Bills the interests of the urban population had been entirely lost sight of, and he should oppose them with all his power.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is referring to a speech made in a Debate on another Bill and that is out of order.
  MR. SCHWANNbowed to the Speaker's ruling. He had only to say that the hon. Member for Stockport's
  1622
  language in the other Bill was precisely to the same effect as the language he used with regard to the Measure now before the House. It seemed to him that the exhibition they had had that afternoon on the part of the Government showed that their rapacity was greater than their capacity, and while willing to foster one special section of the British public, the agriculturists, they were neglecting distinctly the interests of the urban population, and representing as he did a large centre of industry in the North, he protested in the name of his constituents and of Lancashire against the Third Reading of this Bill. He could assure the Government that the people of Lancashire looked upon the Bill with the greatest distaste and aversion, believing as they did that it would materially raise the price of meat. While he had to complain on that head, he had also to point out that Lancashire was in intimate business relationship with Canada and it was obvious that if they did not receive cattle from Canada, she, in turn, would not be able to buy the same quantity of cotton and other goods in England. He was afraid it was a foregone conclusion that the Bill would be passed, but he entered his earnest protest against it on the part of the labouring population of Lancashire.
  MR. R. SOUTTARas representing a county deeply interested in this subject, should not like the Bill to pass without a single word of protest on his part. He gave the President of the Board of Agriculture every credit for absolute sincerity in regard to the Bill. He believed the Government thought it was going to do a great deal of good, but he, on his part, was equally convinced they were making a mistake, and that the Bill would do much injury without effecting any corresponding good. The Bill, in the first instance, would alienate the colony of Canada. They had already belittled Canada in the eyes of the whole world by saying she was an infected country, and then declined to receive any cattle from her shores. At the same time they must know that instead of being an infected country, the cattle of Canada were far purer and of better health than the cattle of their own country. As regarded the city in which they stood, it was well known that pleuro-pneumonia—concerning which

  1623
  only doubtful cases had been found in Canada—was always present, and they were now going to injure Canada by destroying a trade which had been built up with a good deal of pains and some expenditure. It might seem a slight matter to thus offend the colony of Canada. It was a slight matter which alienated the hearts of their American colonies a century ago. It was only a question of taxation upon a few chests of tea that lost them their American colonies, and he should not be surprised, knowing the temper of many Canadians, if the United States were to diplomatically offer to receive Canadian cattle upon free terms, if the hearts of their colonists in Canada were won from the Mother Country and eventually transferred to the United States. In the second place the Bill would do a great injustice to the gallant little island of Iceland. The county he represented took most of the sheep that came from Iceland, and whilst he recognised, after what had been stated by the Law Officers of the Government, the impossibility of excepting that island from the operation of the Bill, it was an unfortunate thing that this Measure, which was not going to do any good to themselves, was going to ruin that country. In the last place he would point out that the Bill would not benefit either the landlord or the farmer. If he thought it would he would gladly give it his support. Its effect would be to increase the importation of dead meat to such an extent that prices would ultimately fall, and he believed that would result in exceeding great injury to the farmer, and would rob him of the share he previously enjoyed in connection with the fattening of cattle unless more enlightenment was shown. He looked upon the future of British agriculture in a very pessimistic way. He thought the effect of this Measure would be to cheapen meat, and he believed that cheap meat was, for the moment, the darkest cloud upon the horizon of British agriculture. They had had cheapness all through the winter, ever since live cattle were shut out of the country, and the cheapness of meat would some day soon be almost parallel with the cheapness of bread, and would simply mean that the stock-feeder, whom this Bill was intended to benefit, would
  1624
  soon be in the unfortunate position in which the wheat-grower stood at present. Look at the way in which the importation of dead meat had increased. In 1894 the importation of fresh beef was 470,616 cwts., in 1896, 630,247 cwts. In 1894 the importation of fresh mutton amounted to 380,732 cwts., and in 1896, 736,717 cwts., so that in two years the increase in this particular trade had risen from 50 to 100 per cent. When they considered that this was only a very small portion of the dead meat trade, it was idle to think of checking the torrent of such trade streaming into this country by any such Measure as this. He believed hon. Members on the other side were under an utter misapprehension with regard to the fancies of the British public. They had got the notion that the British public would buy a British article if they could get it rather than a foreign article. There could not be a greater mistake. Would any hon. Gentleman order the best British wine? Would he order the best British cigar if he could get a mild Havana? and would not his good lady prefer a bonnet from Paris rather than London? The thing was absolutely absurd. The British public was not easily gulled, and quality and cheapness were the only things it cared about. He believed agriculture was in for a great deal of trouble, and he thought that trouble was all the greater because it was perfectly evident that the accredited friends of the farmer on the other side of the House either did not or would not understand where the trouble lay. He believed the trouble of British agriculture lay not in low prices but in low production. Their land was producing 30, 40, 50, and even 60 per cent. less than it ought to produce, and that was simply because the farmer had no security whatever. He had no security of tenure——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now going outside the discussion of the Bill.
  MR. SOUTTARregretted that a powerful Government like this, which was so much trusted by the farmers, would not introduce a Bill which would remedy the evils under which that class were suffering, and thus give them a chance. This Bill would just for a moment tickle and delude their fancy,

  1625
  but he believed it would ultimately prove a dismal failure, and in no respect improve their condition.
  MR. ALEXANDER UREasked what the reason was for the introduction of the Bill, which appeared to him to introduce the principle of rigidity, where formerly there was elasticity, and which removed from the region of administration into the region of legislative enactment a topic which was pre-eminently one for administration. The only defence he had heard from the Treasury Bench was that it seemed desirable in the future that the British breeder should have an opportunity of conducting his business under more fixed and stable condtions. But the British cattle trade was not subject to any greater fluctuations or disturbance than other trades in the country. If they asked the corn merchant what determined the rise and fall in prices he would probably say he could not tell. It depended on caprice and speculative activity in spheres beyond his ken. Could it possibly be said that the British cattle-breeder was affected by any such fluctuating conditions? No one would suggest that he was affected by the caprice of a Minister. He admitted the capacity and knowledge of the Minister for Agriculture, but by this Bill he was going to abdicate his functions. Hon Members opposite had always disclaimed the idea of Protection. He accepted their disclaimer, but upon what ground could they possibly justify the Bill? In former times the Minister of Agriculture was called upon, day by day, to decide whether this or that country might send its cattle into Great Britain. Under the Bill, he had no longer to decide this question. If the reduction of his salary were moved in Committee, on the pertinent and cogent ground that by this Bill, of which he was sponsor, he had deprived himself of the opportunity of exercising the most important function of his office, he would find it difficult to go into the Lobby against the proposal. He, therefore, heartily supported the Amendment. It appeared to him that the Bill was wholly unjustified. It was constitutionally bad, because unquestionably for the future the House of Commons would lose its control over the Minister for Agriculture in this important matter,
  1626
  and a Bill would need to be passed through Parliament to restore that elasticity which it was so desirable to have in this Department, and remove the rigidity they themselves had impressed upon this very important part of the duties of the Minister of Agriculture. He heartily supported his hon. Friend's Amendment, and protested in the name of his constituency against this Bill becoming law.
  MAJOR RASCHdenied that this Bill was only supported by agriculturists who were well-to-do. His experience of agricultural societies was that they were composed chiefly of farmers who were divisible into two classes—those who had been ruined and those who were going to be. [Laughter.] It certainly was not because they were rich men that they were unanimously in favour of the Bill. He could not understand why hon. Members opposite opposed the Bill. Last year the Minister of Agriculture was Mr. Herbert Gardner, now Lord Burghclere, and although in Essex they never considered Mr. Gardner a prophet as far as agricultural matters went, or that he had a wide acquaintance of the Department over which he presided, yet he always put his foot down over this question, and took a strong negative position in spite of the remarks and votes of his friends on the same side. The supporters of the Bill were asked why they tried to keep lean cattle off rich pastures. Hon. Members opposite could buy as many lean kine as they liked and take them to the north and fatten them wherever they pleased. They would thus revive distressed agriculturists in Essex, and help the farmers of the north.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid Metropolitan Members objected to the Bill largely on the ground that they believed the consumer was likely to suffer by it and was more likely to do so than if elasticity was maintained. Then there was a considerable trade in cattle to the port of London, and the prohibition under this Bill would diminish what was a drooping trade. The hon. Member opposite said the late Minister of Agriculture was as strong in maintaining these regulations as his predecessor. That was one of the reasons Liberal Members felt quite justified in opposing this Bill. No

  1627
  question of danger could or would arise, for the Board of Agriculture would resist any pressure from this or that section of agriculturists or traders outside in the interests of the majority, and maintain the restrictions where they should be maintained. When they had a system that worked well they ought to be content. After all, the Minister of Agriculture was there to carry out the work of his Department; and he must say that he agreed with his hon. Friend behind him, that if they were to go on at this rate with regard to the duties of the Minister of Agriculture, his Department might be transferred to the Department to which it previously belonged. It would not be necessary to have a separate Department. What they wanted to know was why exactly that Bill had been introduced at all. They had had a certain amount of elasticity, and they had protection from the importation of foreign diseased cattle. Where, then, was the necessity for this Bill, if these restrictions had been carefully carried out? He did not desire to blame the present or past Boards of Agriculture. He did not desire to prejudge that question. It was quite obvious that it was a question of considerable doubt, but it was remarkable that when it was shown that the Canadian cattle were free from disease, the Government should decline to allow Canadian cattle to come in. He was glad that the Attorney General had come into the House, for he wished to refer to the case of Iceland. Whatever might have happened up to the present moment, up to a short time ago Iceland was entirely free from disease, and many thousands of sheep were imported into this country every year. He thought that was an argument against a cast-iron Bill applicable to varying conditions and various countries. He condemned any such cast-iron system interfering with the course of Canadian trade. If this was not Protection, it was certainly very close to the word. ["Hear, hear!"] They were not able to see the economic results of the Bill, and therefore he asked that the Bill should only run for a certain number of years. He did not see why the principle should not be adopted. It had been adopted in the Government Rating Bill for a period
  1628
  of five years. It was on that ground that he asked that the Bill should be limited to a certain period. The Bill was largely aimed at Canadian cattle. ["No, no!"] With regard to other countries there was no question, and therefore he maintained that the country which would suffer most in the future would be the Dominion of Canada. It might be quite necessary to shut out Canadian cattle, but after what they had heard from the Colonial Secretary about bringing the colonies together, he could not but think it unfortunate that one of the first proposals of the Government should be to aim at their trade. He therefore protested against the passing of this Bill.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid it was surely most undesirable that the question of the duration of what was an administrative Act should be placed in the hands of another place which was not representative. All the Amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill had been rejected, and the Bill was reported without Amendment to the House. The hon. Member for S.E. Essex spoke for the eastern counties, but there was great divergence of opinion there. Also, feeling in Scotland was most antagonistic. The views and interests of feeders ought to be considered as well as those of breeders, and the views of the graziers of the eastern counties, of those who wished to buy cattle and to pasture them, had not been sufficiently taken into account. The immediate effect of the Measure would probably be to raise prices, and the ultimate effect would be to encourage the dead meat trade. The Bill did not introduce any new protection against the importation of disease from abroad; it only enacted regulations already enforced by the Department, and it rendered impossible the repeal of them by the Board of Agriculture, even if it could be proved that there was no necessity for their further continuance. The opponents of the Bill wished to place more confidence in the President of the Board of Agriculture than he placed in himself. All that was desired was that it should be left to him or his successors and their expert advisers, to say when it was necessary that the existing regulations should be enforced, and when

  1629
  they could with safety be relaxed. What was objected to was that, by passing a Bill to deprive the Department of its discretion, that discretion should practically be vested in the other House because the prohibitory impost could not be repealed without its concurrence, and there was a shrewd suspicion that the other House would not be guided by the consideration whether disease was prevalent in Canada or not, but it would be guided by its own Protectionist sentiments. And yet there was no connection between the protection which their Lordships would favour, and the protection of cattle from disease. [Ministerial cheers.] They were prepared to trust the Department and its expert advisers even against the experts of Canada; but they were not prepared to trust the House of Lords to repeal the Act if it was found to be unnecessary. If Canada was free from disease it was desirable that Canadian store cattle should be admitted into this country. If Canadian cattle were excluded, there was a suspicion that in time the exclusion would be extended to Ireland; there was really no logical reason why it should not be. In Norfolk, and in certain parts of Suffolk, there was the strongest feeling against this Bill. Those counties had formerly done a considerable trade in the fattening of store cattle from Canada, and they were much afraid the restoration of the trade would be rendered impossible even when Canadian cattle were perfectly free from disease. He regretted that the President of the Board of Agriculture had considered the supposed interests of breeders as opposed to those of feeders. If the anticipated impetus was given to the dead meat trade, the effect upon the breeders would be greater than they imagined, and they would find they had been mistaken in supporting the Measure.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYSsaid there were 52 counties in England and Wales, and only one of them, Norfolk, really opposed the Bill. The county of Suffolk did not altogether oppose it. It was really too ridiculous to think that England and Wales were to be prevented passing the Bill because only one county opposed it. It was a selfish policy on the part of Norfolk to desire to run the risk of admitting disease simply in order that its farmers might
  1630
  make a little more profit. In such high repute were our flocks and herds that buyers came from all parts of the world, and last year cattle and sheep worth a quarter of a million were exported. If the existing regulations were relaxed and the health of our flocks and herds endangered, great injury would be done to the whole farming population of these islands. There was a conflict of opinion as to whether the Bill would raise prices or not; but the farmers, almost to a man, wished the Bill to pass. As to the cattle trade of London, all cattle had been slaughtered on landing for the last four years. He was in favour of helping the trade of Canada in every way possible; but he understood it would be just as advantageous to Canada to fatten cattle herself as to send them here to be fattened. The House of Lords would not occupy a position in regard to this Bill different from that it occupied in regard to any other Bill which became an Act; for no Act could be repealed except by another. Therefore, the objection offered to this Bill would apply to any Bill.
  MR. STUARTsaid his objection was to the change from administration to legislation.
  MR. JEFFREYScontended that that was the change that was wanted, but the House of Lords had no more to do with it than the House of Commons; the agriculturists of the country asked Parliament to pass this Bill. It was a selfish policy on the part of Gentlemen from Suffolk and Norfolk to ask them not to pass this Bill, and he would impress upon the House that the great majority of the farmers in England and Wales, and also, he believed, the majority of farmers in Scotland, and the whole of Ireland, demanded this Bill.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCHsaid this Bill would be a fatal blow to agricultural interests in Scotland. He represented a district where the feeding of cattle had been carried on for a number of years, it was the one great industry of the district. The farmers on the east coast of Scotland had been the leading farmers of this country; when the time of agricultural depression came these men did not let their farms go derelict—but they saw at once that the only hope for agriculture, so far as they were concerned was the feeding of cattle.

  1631
  They found, however, that the breeders of cattle could not supply the raw material at the price required, and, therefore, they went to foreign countries, and especially to Canada. The Canadian trade helped them immensely, and made the difference to them between profit and loss. For three or four years they had been without that trade, and they had felt the terrible depression which followed the taking away of their raw material; but they had always lived in the hope that after three or four years experience had proved that there was no disease in the cattle, the Board of Agriculture would have admitted Canadian cattle into this country again. Instead of that, however, they were going to make a permanent law that these cattle should not be permitted to enter the country. These men were the chief farmers in Scotland, and this Bill would not only be detrimental to their interests but would strike at one of the most important industries in the Kingdom, for the best beef in London came from Scotland. Surely in these times of depression it was worth while running a little risk, for the system of scheduling that Mr. Gardner used was a perfect system. The men who had crack herds, though they had done great good in breeding in this country, were not the men whom they depended upon for getting the store cattle. The men they depended on were their own small farmers who turned out half-a-dozen or a dozen cattle a year. He would gladly see this Bill buried in the same coffin with the Education Bill.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYvery much regretted that the Government had not seen their way to introduce some Amendment into this Bill. It was almost heartbreaking that in the first Session of Parliament, with a majority of 150, they should find nearly the whole of their time devoted to Measures inimical to the interests of the towns. [Opposition cheers.] Those Bills which were of primary importance had been subordinated to class Measures which were urged on by the county and landed interest. There was more danger of our own flocks and herds communicating infection to imported cattle than there was of imported cattle at present communicating disease to our own cattle. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter.] He noticed that there was a good
  1632
  deal of rinderpest in Buluwayo, and he would suggest that the President of the Board of Agriculture should take his bovine Bill and poleaxe policy over to Buluwayo, where it might do some good. [Laughter.] In this country it would be very injurious to the major part of the community. Members on that side of the House representing borough constituencies would be expected in the autumn to hold public meetings and to laud and magnify the policy and acts of their Government; but were they to praise a Bill for raising the price of meat, or to praise a Government for raising their rates to 6s. or 7s. in the pound in order to reduce county rates? [Opposition cheers.] He was convinced that if this kind of legislation was going to obtain in their Party, very soon they would receive their punishment; and he believed at the present time if they were to go to the country they would not obtain one-half of the borough support which they now had. [Opposition cheers.] He looked upon this policy as a suicidal one, and thought that a homogeneous Party, such as theirs was at the beginning of that Session, ought to have turned out legislation for the benefit of the whole community. He should vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. PAULTONsaid the speech of the hon. Member was a very valuable contribution to the Debate. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they addressed their constituencies in the recess, and found that the chief things they had to discuss were dead Bills and dead meat, would have some difficulty in justifying the glowing prophesies which were made at the last Election. The hon. Member for East Fife was greeted with a derisive cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite when he said that it was perhaps worth while to run the risk of some contagion than to face the more serious danger that would arise from the prohibition of the importation of live cattle altogether. But that was exactly the opinion of the Legislature in 1878, when the cattle plague was rife in England. The then Government brought in a Bill very much on the lines of the present Bill, but were compelled by the opinion of such authorities as the Duke of Richmond to withdraw the clause prohibiting the importation of live cattle on the ground that there was more

  1633
  danger in that policy than in the risk of contagion. He believed the effect of the Bill would be to greatly injure, if not to entirely destroy, the trade in English fed meat. Even at present the trade in foreign and colonial meat was increasing enormously, and preparations were being made to further develop it. People were finding in an increasing degree that they could obtain at much less cost meat very nearly as good, if not equally as good, as English fed meat, with the result that the demand for the home grown article was decreasing. Another objection he had to the Bill was that it was legislation of a protective character. They were face to face with a growing feeling in favour of protection in many parts of the world, and especially in America and France, and the Bill would undoubtedly furnish the advocates of protection in those countries with the argument that England, the great leader in the Free Trade movement, was going back on her Free Trade principles, and would thus have the disastrous effect of encouraging a retrograde movement. For those reasons he must support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the representative of the Colonies in the late Government had deprecated the Bill in the strongest terms because it would have a bad effect in the Colonies by interfering with their trade in the exportation of meat, and the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had attacked the Bill because it would have a directly opposite effect.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon, but he forgets to differentiate between the dead meat trade and the live meat trade of New Zealand and Canada.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonies in the late Government was hard on the Measure because it would interfere with the trade of the Colonies. But the Gentlemen opposite said that it would have precisely the opposite effect. Although one hon. Member was referring to the live cattle trade and the other to the dead meat trade, their arguments went to show that the same action would tend to benefit and to injure the Colonies. It was as well to be outspoken on this question and he wished to say, that in his opinion, the hon.
  1634
  Member for Stockport was utterly and thoroughly mistaken in the unfortunate action which he had taken in regard to this Bill on that and on former occasions. The fact was that the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen and those of the Party opposite were eventually destructive of each other, because while one said that it would increase the price of meat to the consumer the other said it would cheapen the price, and while one said that it would benefit the Colonies the other said that it would injure them. Hon. Members opposite appeared to take a most tender interest in the welfare of hon. Members on the Government side of the House and in those of their constituents, but he thought that they would do well to leave the hon. Members on the Government side of the House to take care of themselves seeing that they were perfectly competent to look after their own interests and those of their constituents. What were the real objections to the Bill. Hon. Members opposite seemed never to be able to speak about agricultural subjects without dragging into the discussion Protection and the House of Lords. Surely, hon. Members should confine themselves to practical suggestions with regard to this very practical Measure. This Bill had nothing to do with Protection and it did not propose to hand over any additional power to the House of Lords. The Measure was an absolutely straightforward one, intended for the relief of that part of the population of this country which was engaged in producing meat. They believed that the immunity of our flocks and herds from disease was absolutely necessary to secure the food supply of the country. Hon. Members opposite did not appear to recollect the desolation in our farms that was produced by the cattle plague some years ago, which brought so many farmers to utter ruin. Hon. Members opposite appeared to think it worth while to run what they called a little risk rather than to absolutely exclude cattle disease. As regarded the House of Lords he supposed that such a body would naturally be anxious to do the best they could for the agricultural community. In his view it was rather foolish to laugh and sneer at such a body as the House of Lords when they were doing their best to secure the farmers of the country

  1635
  from ruin. He would recommend hon. Members opposite when they went down to their constituencies, not to proclaim too loudly that they had opposed this Measure on grounds that were utterly idle and unsupportable.
  MR. T. R. LEUTYsaid that he would endeavour as far as possible to spare the already too lacerated feelings of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture had expressed his readiness to standing his own responsibilities in this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be willing to take upon himself also the responsibility of his successor in office, and to deprive the latter of the power of opening or closing the ports of the kingdom to foreign cattle as circumstances might direct. The present Government with its great majority appeared to have set itself to work to do that which the late Government had failed in doing, namely, to fill up the cup of the House of Lords.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House.
  MR. LEUTYsaid that he begged pardon if he had gone too far, but he thought that the Government had intended by this Measure to fill up the cup of the House of Lords, so that when another election, having a different result from the last, took place, the House of Lords would have the power of preventing the then Minister of Agriculture from exercising any discretion with regard to opening or closing our ports to foreign cattle. The present Government, therefore, were attempting to throw the power of opening or closing our ports to foreign cattle into the hands of a body in which their Party had a permanent majority of ten to one. He did not regard that as fair Party warfare. Hon. Members opposite had talked as if this was a question merely of cattle disease. But was that the case. The predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman han never opened the ports of
  1636
  the country to foreign cattle in a manner that had been disastrous to the country. The stockowner in this country was very adequately protected against the introduction of disease under the general law. He himself had sat upon a Committee which had the duty of drawing a cordon round an infected farm, ordering the slaughter of all the beasts on it, and paying fancy compensation to the owner. And this was in addition to the protection afforded by the orders of the Board of Agriculture. If the supply of cattle were interfered with, as this Bill proposed, it was impossible to say what would be the effect on the markets; and as to the effect on the Colonies, and especially Canada, history proved that a very small Measure might produce a great amount of ill-feeling. Canada resented this Measure, especially from Gentlemen who boasted of their Imperial instincts, and the fact was, that an Imperialism, which simply consisted of forcing its will on other people, was really a disintegrating force. Any effect the Bill might have was ten times more likely to be disastrous than beneficial.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that every argument which had been adduced that evening had been used already, and no fresh reasons had been brought forward against the House reading a Third time a Bill which had been read a Second time and passed through Committee without amendment. Perhaps he ought to except the contention that it was an unconstitutional act on the part of Her Majesty's Government to place in the hands of the Houses of Parliament a duty which ought to attach to a Department. From the beginning to the end of these Debates he had endeavoured to prove that the main reason why the Government thought it necessary to introduce this legislation was the difficulty of administering the law as it stood at present. Hon. Gentlemen opposite reminded supporters of the Bill of their duty to their constituents, and certainly those hon. Gentlemen were well

  1637
  qualified by recent experience to give advice about appeals to the country. But the Government and their supporters must be the judges of what was right for those whom they represented. They believed the Bill was in the best interests of the agricultural community, and that the country would not regard it as inimical to the interests of the urban communities. As to the gloomy forecast of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, to whose speech every one had listened with interest and pleasure, he should contemplate without misgiving any attack on the Board of Agriculture for the passing of this Bill. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had appealed to the Government to attempt in another place to set some limitation on the operation of the Bill, because, he said, no one could know what the effect of the Bill would be. One of the objects of the Government in introducing this Measure was to remove this power from the discretion of the Department. They desired to make it absolutely certain in future that disease should not be introduced into this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said this Bill would have disastrous results not only in the agricultural community, but also in the urban communities. For his part he could not understand why those direful results should accrue, when it was remembered that this Bill only sought to make permanent what was the practice at present and had been the practice for four years. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been said that the Bill would raise the price of meat, but nobody had ventured to show by the quotation of prices that there was any foundation for that suggestion. His hon. Friend opposite had urged that in 1878 the position of things with regard to cattle disease in this country was far worse than it was at present. It was quite true that in 1878, when legislation was passed on this subject, that the condition of things with regard to disease in this country was worse than at present, and one of the arguments used at that time was
  1638
  that they ought not to impose restrictions of this kind on imports until this country was cleared of disease. They had not done that, perhaps, but disease had been reduced to a minimum; and that better state of things had only been brought about by a very great expenditure of money and enormous inconvenience and suffering to the British farmer. The British farmer was therefore entitled to ask that, whether the imports came from the colonies or from foreign countries, he should not be called upon to run the risk of disease after the severe restrictions that had been imposed on him. He believed that Canada had already recovered from any injury done her by the imposition of these restrictions. From information he had received he had reason to believe that Canada was already entering on a new trade with France, and two ships previously used in the trade with this country had been taken off that and were now engaged in the trade between Canada and France. Nothing this country did need necessarily interfere with the trade between Canada and other countries. All the Government could do was to protect this country, which happened, as an island, to lend itself better to protection. He wondered whether hon. Gentlemen who attacked the Government realised what a very large industry the cattle industry in this country was. In the year 1895 there were nearly 11,000,000 cattle and 30,000,000 sheep in this country, and the value of the former might be put at £96,750,000, and of the latter at £29,750,000. Beside those figures, the importations of cattle, whether from Canada or any other part of the world, sunk into insignificance. He very much regretted that the Government should do anything to interfere with the trade of Norfolk or the Scottish counties, to which allusion had been made. They appreciated the fact that some temporary injury might be done to those who were dependent on Canadian store cattle; but it was a misconception

  1639
  to suggest that injury, if any, would be done by the passing of this Bill. If there was any injury, the farmers so placed had been suffering from it for four years, and there was no reasonable prospect of any restrictions being taken off. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken in the highest terms of the professional advisers of the Board of Agriculture—commendation which was thoroughly deserved. Those Gentlemen were of opinion that this policy was necessary, and they heartily supported it. The hon. Member seemed to think that the sole duty of the Board of Agriculture and its professional advisers was to look after the health of foreign cattle; but there was a duty calling for attention with regard to the health of cattle at home. What they had advised with regard to pleuro-pneumonia and sheep scab was that it was almost impossible to detect either of those diseases at certain stages in the living animal, and this made it impossible for them adequately to undertake the responsibility of advising whether or not the restrictions on importation should be taken off. The Government did not desire that anything should be done which would be injurious to Canada or other colonies, and he believed hon. Gentlemen were exaggerating the effects of the Bill. They had a duty, however, to perform to the agriculturists at home, and thus the House was asked to read the Bill a Third time. [Cheers.]
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDEadmitted the difficulty of administering the law as at present arranged. The difficulty arose principally in connection with the proper centreing of the infected area, but the right hon. Gentleman had not told the House how the passing of this Bill would relieve the Board of Agriculture of this difficulty. Before an animal came from Canada pleuro-pneumonia existed in these islands; and after foreign and colonial cattle were excluded pleuro-pneumonia would not be eradicated. In his opinion, the great
  1640
  difficulty was the want of continuity in administration. When the Conservatives were in office, they were inclined for Protection on one side or the other; when the Liberals got into power, they were in favour of Free Trade. He admitted that feeders would find it to be almost impossible to calculate beforehand with reference to their business; but he intended to support the Bill. Feeders depended on the small farmers for the supply of their store cattle. He represented a large number of small farmers in Ireland, and they sent over large supplies of store stock here. He was not supporting the Bill on its merits. [Laughter.] Who was? He was supporting the Bill because it helped his constituency; and the agricultural Members opposite were supporting it for similar reasons. During the Debates, hon. Members who represented breeding constituencies supported the Bill; while Members representing feeding constituencies opposed it. He had heard it stated in the course of this Debate that the Bill would destroy the trade in home fed meat. It would undoubtedly affect the trade in home fed meat very seriously, and if he were an Englishman, having a large concern for the future welfare and prosperity in this country he wonld have opposed the Bill, on the ground that these store cattle would, by the operations of the Measure, be kept out of the country, the feeding of which would largely enrich England. What did they get by having store cattle fed abroad instead of on this side of the water. The agriculturists would lose considerably, for it was always an advantage to the agriculturist to have the feeding of these cattle. How were tillage farmers to get on in the future? How long were they going to produce grain crops, if the feeders of cattle owing to the price of store were going to give up feeding? Could they carry on agricultural operations for an unlimited number of years with success by artificial manure alone? They all knew

  1641
  that that would very quickly use up the land in Norfolk, and every other such constituency. As he was not an Englishman he was not concerned with this question, but if hon. Members wished to have the land of Norfolk and Forfar and other districts on the landlords' hands as they were in Essex, that was their business and he was not concerned in it, except in so far as that a couple of years hence it might afford him useful arguments for the reduction of rent in Ireland. Some hon. Gentlemen said this was Protection. Yes, it was Protection only in one direction. Foreign meat would be allowed into this country as usual. He always understood Protectionists were in favour of allowing the raw material in free and the Protection should be for the manufactured article. But here they were giving protection to the raw material while they allowed the manufactured article to enter the country free. The President of the Board of Agriculture in his speech had said that the Unionist policy was to foster the trade of different portions of the British empire. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that two or three ships had been specially built some years ago for the purpose of carrying on the cattle trade between this country and Canada, and that they were still engaged in the cattle trade. Were they in the British cattle trade? No; they were in the French cattle trade. That was an unfortunate admission for the Unionist Party to have to make. If they wanted to annihilate Canada this would be a good way for doing it. It appeared to him that France, at the present day, was a better friend of Canada than Great Britain, for while the Mother Country prohibited the importation of store cattle from Canada, and went as far as she could in imposing protection against the Colonies, France, on the other hand was doing what she could to stimulate trade with the Colonies. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Whiteley) who
  1642
  eloquently and ably represented a large manufacturing constituency knew that the English money given for Canadian cattle would, in a great measure, be used for buying goods manufactured by large towns like Stockport, and, therefore, the mill hands of this country would benefit directly by this trade in Canadian cattle. Apparently that did not concern the President of the Board of Agriculture who was not concerned for the mill hands of England but rather for those of France. He did not believe that cattle, perfectly healthy when put on board ship at Montreal, would arrive here affected with contagious pleuro-pneumonia, though they might catch ordinary pleuro-pneumonia. No; the protection which the English farmer was supposed to have asked for was not against contagious pleuro; it was protection against Canadian competition. It was because it was protection against Canadian competition that he was in favour of the Bill. [Laughter.] The more they kept Canadian cattle out the better he was pleased. He knew that if Canadian cattle and cattle from the States were freely allowed into this country, Irish store cattle would drop £2 a head next November, and if that should happen the farmers in the rearing county of Galway would not be able to pay their rack rents at all. He wanted to keep them in their homes and so he was in favour of the Bill. The Bill would not affect the consumer one bit, because he believed that if Canadian store cattle were freely allowed into this country, the home grown beef would still be the superior article and still command the superior price. If the effect of this Bill was to kill all the large farmers of Forfarshire, and Leicester and Norfolk—that was Englishmen's business. It was no business of his. He washed his hands of the murderers. He supported the Bill because he believed it was in the interests of the small farmers of the West of Ireland.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that his constituency were of opinion that they would be deeply and injuriously affected by this Bill. They had expended large sums in improving their farms, which would be rendered useless by the passing of this Bill. The county of Forfar, as well as the entire agricultural and urban population of Scotland, were unanimous in condemning this Measure. He had listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but he must say that he found no argument in it in favour of the Bill. Two sets of arguments had been put forward, one dealt with Protection, and the other with the House of Lords, but neither of them dealt with the different aspects of the Bill which was under the consideration of the House. The working people of Scotland thought that the effect of the Bill would be to increase the price of meat. On the other hand, hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to think that the effect of the Measure would be to reduce the price of meat. He did not pretend to sit in judgment upon the question, but he ventured to cite an authority that would be accepted beyond all doubt by hon. Members opposite. It was nearly 20 years ago when a similar question to that now under discussion was raised in that House, and there was then a strong conflict of opinion as to whether the result of prohibiting the importation of live cattle would raise or lower the price of meat. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies then pointed out that a rise of 1d. a pound in the price of meat meant the imposition of a tax of £5,000 upon the inhabitants of this country, and he added that he was not prepared to run the risk of adopting any policy that might impose such a tax upon the country.
  MR. LONGsaid that the words which the right hon. Gentleman had then used took the form of a prophecy. They had now facts to go upon.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid that the words of the right hon. Gentleman were
  1644
  applicable to the present state of things. He did not pretend to say which view of the matter was correct, especially when the hon. Member for Stockport and the hon Member for Dumfries took exactly opposite views. With regard to the constitutional question the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture had said that this Bill would become law in the ordinary course of things with the consent of the House of Lords. But this was not an ordinary Bill. Any Minister of any Department was liable to account for his action to the House of Commons, but if this Bill were passed the Minister for Agriculture could not take action, but would be bound by the Statute and would be no longer responsible to that House for closing the ports of the country to foreign cattle. To take a particular function from the domain of administration, and put it into an Act of Parliament, the Act giving no new power at all, and thus to make the consent of the House of Lords necessary to the repeal of that Act was thereby to give to the House of Lords that which it was not entitled to by the constitution—namely, a veto upon an Act of Administration. ["Hear, hear!"] That was a point which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had neither appreciated nor answered. He was again going to make a quotation from an authority which hon. Gentlemen opposite would not dispute. This authority, speaking of the House of Lords, said:—
  "So long as they are prepared on future occasions to reduce themselves to a nullity whenever it is desired for them to do so, no one will care to attack them. But it is quite certain that with the House of Commons growing more democratic and more in sympathy with the people every year, the interference of the Lords—the hostile action, in other words, of a Chamber which possesses a permanent anti-popular majority—will not be tolerated with the same equanimity as heretofore. The country, indeed, would not allow any Government possessing its confidence to suffer such a thing, and the condition on which alike Ministers and the hereditary and the aristocratic branches of the Legislature exist, will be that the latter abstains from asserting itself."

  1645
  He took this from a book which appeared about 10 years ago, and it bore the imprimatur of the present Secretary for the Colonies. He should very much like to know whether the Secretary for the Colonies stood by those opinions at the present time. There was no part of the legislative work of the Government this Session which could not be condemned by previous utterances of more than one of its Members. So long as the present Government were in power there would, perhaps, be no difficulty; but with the advent to power of another Party and Government—an event which seemed to have been brought appreciably nearer through the proceedings of this week—[laughter]—then they would have, or might have, the very conflict with the House of Lords which the Secretary for the Colonies in his wiser days declared that the country would not tolerate. That argument had been placed before the President of the Board of Agriculture by several hon. Members, but he had not replied to it. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought also that the right hon. Gentleman, and those of his supporters who had spoken, had not sufficiently recognised the significant protests against the Bill which had been made on both sides of the House by English and Scotch Members alike. He was not at liberty to discuss the general policy of the Government, but following the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Stockport, he might perhaps be allowed to say that the policy of the Government this Session had been chiefly of a twofold character—one being the clerical policy, which had just failed—[laughter]—and the other the landlord policy which still awaited the judgment of the House. In the present Bill they had the first instalment of the landlord policy, and there were two more instalments in development of it to come. This Bill, however, was the poorest, the meanest, and the most miserable of the instalments of that policy, and it was utterly bad in
  1646
  principle. In the interests, therefore, of his own constituents, and of the public generally, he should vote against the Third Reading.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid he hoped that the speech of the hon. Member for Galway had at any rate cleared their minds of cant in regard to this Bill. For his own part, while he was a free-trader in principle and belief, he had no hesitation in saying that he should support this Bill in the interests of his constituency. Most Members acted now on this principle in all matters that came before the House. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He voted for the Bill in the interests of his constituents, because a large portion of them were small farmers and all of them were engaged in the breeding and rearing of young stock which they supplied to the English and Scotch markets. The hon. Member for Dundee seemed to have vexed his mind a great deal too much over the constitutional aspect of the question. He had referred to the Secretary for the Colonies, but surely he could not have forgotten that Canada was one of the great colonies of the Empire, and that the right hon. Gentleman was bound in regard to this Bill and every other Bill that came before the House, to consider the interests of the Dominion as well as the interests of this country and his own constituents. When the Secretary for the Colonies supported the Third Reading of the Bill he would, no doubt, be able to explain to his constituents the fact that he had voted for a Bill in the interests of the landlord class. [Laughter.]
  MR. PARKER SMITHconsidered that, in the interests of the country, there should be free competition in the supply of cattle so long as the source of supply was healthy. In Scotland, at any rate, they felt it was a great misfortune that any attempt should be made to permanently exclude cattle from a healthy source. He did not like this Bill at all. [Opposition cheers.] He had voted against it before

  1647
  and should vote against it now. He thought it was very unfortunate that at this time, when they were wishful of establishing some sort of a Zollverein in which the colonies should be included, they should tell them that, however clear the proof might be that there was no disease in their country, they would not allow them to import any cattle into England. He regretted very much, in the interests of the feeders and consumers of this country, that the Government had not seen their way to limit the operation of the Bill to a few years. He believed they would have acted wisely in pursuing that course.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEsaid the live-cattle carrying trade of Aberdeen would be completely ruined by this Bill, and he would respectfully ask the Government, seeing that they were ready to advocate compensation for so many things, whether they would consider the advisability of giving compensation to those whose business would be destroyed by their Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] The title of the Bill was a false name to delude the public, for the Bill had only one object—Protection. As representing an urban working constituency, he entered his emphatic protest against a Measure which was for the benefit of one class only, and which would increase the price of food for the working population.
  MR. JOHN COLVILLEalso entered his protest against the Bill. At the last election his constituents were assured that the return of the Conservatives meant better wages and trade for the people; but this Bill would simply increase the cost of living for the working classes. It was an attempt to favour the class which was now in power.
  MR. BATTY LANGLEYsaid that a great many of the agricultural unions of this country would never have supported this Measure, if they had not thought it was the first step towards Protection. The Bill protected the home breeder against the foreign breeder, and its object was to keep up the price of store cattle. There were thousands of acres of land in Rutland and Northamptonshire which were not fit for breeding store cattle. It was almost impossible to breed young stock there. The beasts must be three or four
  1648
  years old before they began to fatten. It was necessary that the grazier should buy store stock in the cheapest market; but if any Measure was passed which would tend to increase the price of store stock, they would damage not only the grazier, but the landlord. There was land in Rutlandshire which let at £3 and £3 10s. an acre. If the price of store cattle was increased they would diminish the value of that land. If disease broke out they would have to go cap in hand to Parliament to repeal the Law, and cap in hand to the House of Lords to allow foreign cattle to come in to eat English grass and enable landlords to get their rents. He protested against this Measure, believing it was a first step towards protection, and was introduced as a sop to the landlords on the one hand and the agricultural interest on the other.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid the Bill would raise the price of store cattle, and the margin of profit that farmers in the north were now deriving from the feeding of cattle would be "squeezed out" and abolished. He believed the Bill was well meant, but the future would prove it to have been a mistake. This Bill would give great relief in Ireland, and he believed it would be of advantage both to Ireland and Great Britain. As to dear meat, after all they they should pay attention to their constituents and give to them what they demanded. He would do that even if it raised the price of meat in England. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Tottenham Court Road [laughter] cheered him. All he had to say in connection with the Measure was that he hoped the Government would be as wise in their generation as they had been with regard to two other matters which they had had under their consideration.
  MR. J. W. LOGANwho rose amidst cries of "Divide," said he hoped hon. Members would allow those who represented agricultural constituencies to say a word with regard to the Bill. His object in rising was to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what it was that this Bill proposed to do? It was intended for the advantage of agriculture. Would that do anything for the agricultural labourer? Would it fulfil the promises given to

  1649
  them at the General Election? His objection to the Bill was that it would not do anything in any degree whatever for the agricultural labourers. But he had a much stronger objection. He objected to the Bill on the ground that it was a perfectly unnecessary Measure. The Board of Agriculture at the present moment possessed every power that they would possess when that Bill was passed. The Board had now a discretionary power which they could exercise to prevent the importation into this country of animals that were infected with disease. He objected to the Bill, because it would stereotype and make permanent the powers now at the discretion of the Board of Agriculture. He hoped the country would note that it was intended to render it impossible for the House ever to repeal the law without the permission of the House of Lords. They knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be anxious to repeal it; but whenever they crossed over to the other side of the House they would be powerless, in consequence of the other Chamber. This Bill would bring about that condition of things. The Bill tried to interfere with the natural order of things. [Cries of "Divide!"] Sufficient store cattle could not be raised. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed at that statement. Let them go down into the county he represented—Leicestershire—and try to raise store cattle. ["Hear, hear!"] They would find it impossible to do so. In Canada land was taken by farmers in large tracts; indeed, they could buy the freehold there for what they would pay in rent here. The Bill was trying to reverse the natural order of things and it would fail. He could understand the Irish Members supporting the Measure, because they believed it would benefit their constituents; but, if it were to do that, it would do it by raising the price of store cattle. If it were to do that in England and Scotland, someone must suffer. Who would suffer? An hon. Friend near him said "The consumer." Whatever prices the farmers gave for store cattle in the spring, the prices they would get for them in the autumn would be ruled by the prices in the dead meat market, for the result of the Measure would be to increase the supply of dead meat in this country. After the Measure had been in operation a short
  1650
  time, the supply of dead meat would be more regular, and the English farmer would find himself in a worse condition than before. The men in Canada, who would otherwise be engaged in supplying this country with store cattle, would turn their attention to supplying it with dead meat and to fattening cattle in Canada for that purpose. No doubt the President of the Board of Agriculture honestly thought he was doing good, but he would ruin the grazing interests of this country.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232 Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 256.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Further proceeding on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee) deferred till Thursday.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to give some short explanation of the Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)explained that in introducing the Bill he gave a general description of its contents, in addition to which there was a memorandum prefixed to the Bill. It appeared to him that this was a Bill which should necessarily be discussed in the Standing Committee, and, if it was now read a Second time, he would move that it be referred to the Standing Committee.
  MR. DILLONhoped his hon. Friend would not object to the Bill proceeding.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th May] on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further adjourned till Monday next.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  GLASGOW PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PORTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY [19TH JUNE].
  Resolutions reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £253,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £294,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of the Medical Establishment, and the Cost of Medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £548,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances (exclusive of Supplies, Clothing, etc.) of the Militia (to a number not exceeding 135,355, including 30,000 Militia Reserve), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £73,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the pay and miscellaneous charges of the Yeomanry Cavalry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  Resolutions read a Second time.
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £624,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Capitation Grants and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, including Pay, etc., of the Permanent Staff, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  On the Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,"
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERtook the opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for War for the way in which he had met the wishes of the Volunteers with respect to the Capitation Grant.
  Resolution agreed to.
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £660,200 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Transport and Remounts, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  Resolution read a Second time, and agreed to.
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,519,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked for some definite explanation as to the sources from which the Army in Ireland was supplied with forage? He urged that a Return ought to be supplied of the Irish contractors who were employed. That would enable Members to some extent to trace the sources of the supply of forage. Although Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £2,000,000, money which the Government ought to spend in that country was not spent there, but went into the pockets of contractors in England. Irishmen did not want the British Army of occupation, and were taxed for its maintenance, and they obtained no return for the taxes which were exacted from them.
  DR. TANNERsaid that he had also raised the question. He had given three cases in connection with barracks in Ireland, where local purveyors of forage had no employment because the forage was imported from abroad. As to provisions, there was a point which he had raised eight years ago—namely, how it came to pass that so many of the Army canteens were supplied by the Army and Navy Stores, at the instance of hon. Members who were shareholders
  1654
  in those stores? The interests of the poor local purveyors ought to be considered in these matters.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid it could not be denied that Ireland produced hay of a quality superior to a great deal, if not all, of the foreign hay brought into the country. The only reason why contractors used foreign hay at certain times of the year was that they could get it cheaper than Irish hay. Everyone knew that contractors tried to make the articles they supplied as weighty as possible, and he knew that in some cases the hay supplied to the cavalry had been watered in the course of transit. Everybody knew that watered hay when stored heated and became injurious to horses, and, consequently, a large proportion of cavalry horses got wrong in their wind. He maintained that the home grown article ought to have a preference over hay grown in Belgium or Holland. The same argument held good with regard to Irish oats. Oats grown in County Dublin or Kildare were heavier per bushel than foreign oats, and the War Office should direct officers to see that Russian oats or foreign hay were up to standard. A great deal of the foreign oats given to the cavalry was little more than chaff.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,),in answer to hon. Members, said a suggestion was now under consideration of a Committee upstairs to publish the name of every contractor who entered into a contract with the War and Admiralty Departments. As regarded the question of the purchase of forage and meat in Ireland, as he had formerly informed the House, the Department made every possible effort to buy both meat and forage locally both in England and Ireland, and they were not without hope that that system would become so universal that very little meat of foreign origin would require to be purchased hereafter. It was extremely difficult, in dealing with dead meat, to be certain what its origin was. No doubt it was easier to ascertain where meat in Ireland came from than in England. Still, there was considerable difficulty; but he repeated his assurance that, price and all things equal, the War Department would

  1655
  endeavour to avail themselves of local sources of supply.
  DR. TANNER: What about the Army and Navy Stores?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid the hon. Gentleman ought to know that the purchases for the canteen were made, not by the War Department, but by those who managed the canteen, and those persons had as much right as the hon. Member to get their supplies from whatever place they thought fit.
  DR. TANNER: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JAMES DALY MR. JAMES DALY (Monaghan, S.) rose, when—
  MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBEclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. DALYsaid he did not propose to detain the House for many moments. When the Speaker was not in the Chair the hon. Member for South Birmingham was not at all explicit, and, therefore, it was the duty of Irish Members to endeavour to get the oats that were consumed by the horses of the Army in Ireland purchased in Ireland. It was the fact that American oats were supplied, while much better Irish oats could be supplied. It was the same with hay. Three-quarters of a million sterling was——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that all these statements have been made by a previous speaker.
  MR. DALYsaid that all he desired to enforce was that the supplies for the Army in Ireland should be purchased in Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  Financial Secretary to the War Office.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  TITHE REDEMPTION (No. 2) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  PRISONERS' EVIDENCE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.I,.].
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before One o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Tyrone (Marquess of Waterford) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Denman sat first in Parliament after the death of his great uncle.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHELSEA WATER BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  WATERFORD CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  FALMOUTH RECTORY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  IRISH CHURCH ACT, 1869, AMENDMENT (REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Irish Church Act, 1869—Was presented by the Earl of Belmore; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 6th of July next.—[No. 151.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, who rose to move the Second Reading of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, said their Lordships were well acquainted with the arguments for and against the Measure, and he did not think it necessary to enter into a very elaborate argument in support of the very earnest appeal he wished to make to the House to assent to the Second Reading. In a case of this kind, when the Measure
  1518
  which he advocated had been subject to large experiment, and could be judged by a large experience, he thought the House would agree that the onus of proof lay rather with those who objected to the reform, than with those who advocated it, to show cause why that which had proved to be beneficial over nearly the whole civilised globe, should be harmful in these islands. In asking for this reform of the marriage laws, they wore asking for nothing novel, but merely that the law of this country should be placed in harmony with the law and custom of nearly every state and community on the face of the earth. He should like to be perfectly accurate in regard to this matter; he was informed that there was a tribe highly cannibalistic but otherwise insignificant in Borneo, among whom marriage with a deceased wife's sister was absolutely forbidden, but otherwise, in civilised countries, such marriages were, as a rule, permissible, and were either allowed by the State as civil marriages, or the State followed the custom of the Church in regard to the matter. In civilised countries such marriages were, as a rule permissible, and he thought that those who advocated a reform could best make out their case by pointing to experiment and experience, and that in this matter ecclesiastical history and theological discussions were entirely irrelevant. These marriages were permitted in nearly every State on the Continent of Europe, in every State on the continent of South America, and throughout the United States, and they were legal and valid in Canada, Newfoundland, in all the Australian colonies, New Zealand, the Cape, and, he believed, Natal. Not only were they legal, but they had been legal for a considerable period of time in most of these States and communities, for periods amply long enough to prove that there existed no sound ground for the theory that such marriages produced a disintegrating effect upon family life, or led to demands for further changes in the marriage law; indeed wherever they had taken place the result was quite sufficient to dispel all the groundless fears which had been expressed in that House. The whole experience of mankind proved that such marriages were beneficial. Take the

  1519
  case of France. In no country in the world were the domestic affections more developed. In none was the family as the unit held in higher regard, and yet these marriages had been recognised in France for over 60 years, and had practically always been permitted by the Church. He was not fond of quoting the example of foreign countries as one which was necessarily applicable to us, though human nature was in its essentials the same everywhere. But turn to our nearest kinsmen—the nearly 70 millions of inhabitants in the United States. Surely the fact that these marriages were permitted, had never been protested against, and had been found to work well, these afforded an object lesson applicable to ourselves. Look closer at ourselves beyond the sea. Communities of Englishmen in the broader sense, great communities enjoying perfect legislative freedom in these respects. In every one of the self-governing Colonies this much needed, long delayed reform had been effected long ago. Had there been the slightest disposition to extend or alter the law? In every one of them it had been found to work beneficially and well. What could there possibly be so essentially different between Englishmen in the United Kingdom and Englishmen in the rest of the United Empire as to justify the conclusion that marriages which had proved beneficial to us in the Colonies would not prove beneficial to us at home? In this respect the United Kingdom occupied a position of complete, but not splendid—isolation. He held that unless it could be absolutely proved that the English at home differed essentially from the English abroad, unless it could be conclusively shown that our human nature was radically different from the human nature of the rest of the civilised world, the strongest possible prima facie case existed in favour of the contention that permission to contract these marriages was right, was in accordance with sound instinct and common sense, and was productive of good results. With such an overwhelming mass of human testimony in its favour, argument was scarcely necessary; it rested upon those who objected to this reform to show and to prove why that which was permitted, and had been found beneficial, over the whole civilised world, should be forbidden
  1520
  and would be harmful in the United Kingdom. It was very unfortunate that there should be such a far-reaching difference between the marriage law of the Mother Country and that of her self-governing colonies. It did not matter what view their Lordships might individually take with regard to Imperial questions, to the subject of federation, or as to the best manner of bringing about a closer union among the different portions of the Empire, because the essential principle they had to look at was that there should be between us uniformity of race, religion, laws and customs. It was unfortunate that there should be this fundamental difference between the marriage laws of Great Britain and her colonies, which affected the status of every man, woman, and child in the Empire. He submitted that he had shown that this subject was worthy of the very serious attention of their Lordships. With regard to the Bill itself, it was certainly unnecessary that he should say much, because it was practically identical with the Measure that had been introduced into that House two years ago. It consisted of two clauses only. By the first clause it was proposed to effect the legitimacy of marriages with a deceased wife's sister, and it was, of course, retrospective in its action as far as legitimatising the children already born of such marriages was concerned, but it would not be retrospective as far as the devolution of property, of titles or dignities of the Crown were concerned. The second clause was designed to avoid any possible interference with the scruples of conscience of the clergy, and it did so in a very effective way. If it failed in securing that object, he should be quite ready, in the event of the Bill being read a Second time, to consider any Amendment that might be proposed in that direction. It was certainly unnecessary for him to urge that the Bill must be retrospective as regarded it legitimatising children of those marriages who were now born otherwise. Thousands upon thousands of such children would remain under the brand of bastardy whilst those born of such marriages in the future would be legitimate. Such a distinction between equally innocent children would be unchristian, uncharitable, and unjust. It might be, and indeed it had been urged,

  1521
  that to legitimise these marriages in the past would be to condone a breach of the law, and that whether a law were wise or foolish, just or unjust, it ought to be obeyed as long as it was the law. That might be so. But, however salutary a rule might be, there might be exceptions to it. It must be recollected that the prohibition against these marriages was an innovation, and that it had been protested against over and over again by the people, that it had been repealed over and over again by the other House so far as one House of Parliament could do so, and that it had been repealed in that House as far as it lay in the power of its lay Members to do so. In these circumstances it was not strange that violations of these prohibitions carried with them no sense of law breaking in the ordinary way, and no sense of wrong-doing either on the part of those who broke the law, or of those who were their friends and neighbours. In such a state of things the condonation of the offence could have no injurious effect in weakening the law-abiding instincts of the people, but, on the other hand, it would tend to weaken those instincts if a law were maintained which, according to the consciences, the opinions, and the instincts of the great bulk of the people was neither expedient or right, nor founded on either divine sanction or natural law. At any rate, it was perfectly clear that they could not punish the parents in these cases without inflicting much more severe punishment upon their perfectly innocent children. In consideration of that fact, it would be well to show some mercy to the parents who might be guilty. The second clause dealt entirely with the clergy, in connection with these marriages. By that clause the clergy were prohibited from solemnising these marriages. That prohibition might, perhaps, appear to some people to be going too far, but the object of the clause was to avoid placing the clergy in the invidious position of being called upon to exercise an option in the matter. By refusing to solemnise such a marriage a clergyman might make himself unpopular, and so be disabled from exercising the duties of his holy office to the best advantage. This clause had, therefore, been introduced, and he thought that it would give them ample protection as far as these marriages were
  1522
  concerned. It might be said that this Bill would create a difference between the law of the Church and the law of the State. That was perfectly true, and he regretted that the Church should remain isolated in this matter. He had sincerely hoped that the Church would have shown itself more in sympathy with the almost universal feeling of the people in this matter. If the law of England were exceptional in this matter, as he had shown, it to be, if we were isolated as a State, so also was the Church of England in an attitude of isolation which was not wise. These marriages were solemnised by the Roman Catholic Church, which practically never refused to grant the necessary dispensation. They were solemnised by the Episcopal Church of the United States and in the colonies, and they were not objected to by the Nonconformists of England and Wales, and, judging by what had lately occurred in the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, he felt justified in saying that the objections of that Church to such marriages had ceased or would shortly cease to exist. He regretted greatly the more or less isolated position of the Church in this matter, and, as a very earnest and sincere friend of the Church, he humbly urged her to put an end to that isolation. When the Church had been attacked he had always done the best he could to defend her and her connection with the State, and he had been somewhat emboldened by that recollection to make an appeal to the most rev. Primate in regard to this question. He did not ask that the Church should be compelled to solemnise these marriages, or that she should abstain from using all her influence and powers at her command to prevent them taking place, but he did ask that the Church should not make use of her Parliamentary powers to prevent the legalisation of marriages which were consonant with the feelings, the instincts, and the consciences of the great majority of the people of this country. He asked the Church not to accept these marriages as sanctioned by the Church, but to accept the Bill. That this measure of reform was earnestly desired by the nation generally there could be no doubt, especially by the working classes. Resolutions in favour of a Measure of this kind had been passed

  1523
  eight times at Trades Union Congresses, Petitions in the same direction had been sent up by numberless Boards of Guardians, 254 municipal boroughs had from time to time sent up 1,000 petitions in favour of the change, the Convention of the Royal and Parliamentary Burghs of Scotland sent a deputation to the Prime Minister in 1880 praying the Government to take the matter up themselves, and as to what he might call private petitions, at one time there was considerable activity in that direction, and up to 1887, there were 182,600 signatures to petitions against the change and 1,765,000 signatures in its favour. He did not attach great importance to petitions of the latter kind, which were apt sometimes to reflect more truly the energy of secretaries and associations than public opinion; but the spontaneous action of great public bodies was quite another matter, and did indicate very strong popular feeling on the subject. As to the comments of the Press on the Debate on the Bill of 1894, with the exception of The Times, The Globe, and the Manchester Courier, every one of the Metropolitan and Provincial leading papers commented in favour of the Bill. But, after all, what other proof of the popular feeling in favour of the Bill was necessary than the fact that on 14 different occasions a Bill of this kind had been read a Second time in the Commons House of Parliament by very large majorities? He thought he had said enough to show that there was a very wide-spread feeling of support and sympathy for those who desired this change in the law. He had confined himself, he believed, entirely to the practical aspect of the case. He had avoided controversy and all research into the past, because he thought it was their Lordships' business to consider the needs and requirements and wishes of the people of the country at the close of the 19th century, rather than to consider what was the opinion of ecclesiastics in the 4th or 5th century. He had been so puzzled to understand the nature and cause of the opposition to this Bill, that he sometimes thought there must be a notion abroad that its promoters were anxious to compel every man to marry his deceased wife's sister at the earliest possible opportunity under frightful pains and penalties if he did not do so.
  1524
  [Laughter.] Such was not the case. They only wanted to allow people to contract these civil marriages who desired to do so. The argument was sometimes used that the Bill was illogical—that if marriage with a deceased wife's sister were allowed, so ought to be marriage with a deceased husband's brother. It was not necessary for him to go into that. It was sufficient to point to the fact that marriages of this kind were permitted in all the colonies and nearly every civilised country on the Continent of Europe, and in none of these cases had there been the slightest desire to extend the law further. If the Bill was illogical, human nature was illogical also. The theory had been advanced of the absolute identity of affinity and consanguinity, that a sister-in-law was the same as a sister in blood, and that an alteration of the law would completely alter the status of the sister-in-law. That was an entire fallacy, resting on the false idea that human instincts were based on or created by human law, whereas human law was based on human instinct. The universal testimony of the experience of mankind showed that where these marriages were permitted, none of the disastrous effects which were predicted in the status of the sister-in-law had been observed. The law as it stood was not, never had been, and never would be respected, because it did not rest upon divine command or upon natural law. It pressed exceedingly hard upon the poor. The rich could go out of the country to contract these marriages in foreign lands. The rich could evade the law. The poor could not do so. The present law drove people into deceit and evasion. For the sake of truth, and in the interests of morality, he asked their Lordships to read the Bill a Second time. For the sake of bringing about uniformity in a matter of such importance throughout the Empire, for the sake of men and women here in the United Kingdom who laboured under disabilities which did not affect them in any other civilised country, and for the sake of thousands and thousands of innocent children, he appealed most earnestly to their Lordships to grant this much-needed Measure of reform. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  EARL PERCY, in moving ''That the Bill be read 2a this day three months,''

  1525
  said he had heard many speeches on this subject, but he did not think he had ever heard one which astonished him quite as much as that just delivered by the noble Earl. The noble Earl, in the opening part of his remarks, contended that argument in favour of this reform was not necessary, but he ventured to think that some argument was due to their Lordships. The noble Earl made the boldest and most unsupported assertions. He told the House that this change in the law had been beneficial in almost every civilised country in the globe, but he did not give one single proof of that most astounding assertion, beyond this, that in France, of all nations in the world, family life was purer and better than in other countries, and that marriage with a deceased wife's sister did not interfere with it. Family life in France was very carefully guarded in a way that family life in England was not guarded, because it was not necessary; but it was notorious that the standard of morality of France, generally speaking, was much lower than was that of England, and indeed, worse than in any civilised country. The noble Earl also said that this Measure had been adopted for many years in most other countries. As a matter of fact, that was exactly the reverse of the truth. It was given in evidence before the Royal Commission, that in Prussia the state of the marriage laws was such as to make Germans hide their faces in shame; and so bad were the consequences of the marriage laws in France, that once, at least, it was changed by the Code Napoleon. Then the noble Earl quoted the South American Republics, but he was bound to say that he had never heard them held up as an example of virtue in any connection. The Colonies had only had this law in operation for a comparatively small number of years, and the Colony of Victoria was already relaxing her marriage law to an extent deplored by many people. The noble Earl had astounded him by declaring that the Roman Catholic Church had always permitted these marriages, for here again was the exact opposite of the case. The Roman Church had never permitted these marriages; it had always refused to admit that they were permissible without a dispensation. The Pope had
  1526
  also taken power to grant dispensation in the case of other marriages without the prohibitions, and if the noble Earl's argument was well founded—if it were true that because the Pope had specially permitted by dispensation marriage with a deceased wife's sister, the Church of Rome must be held to have always permitted these marriages—the noble Earl ought to have included in his Bill other marriages within the prohibited degrees, for the Pope had given dispensation in the case of those marriages also. Yet, these other cases the noble Earl excluded. The noble Earl said that the prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister was an innovation. What did he mean? If he referred to Lord Lyndhurst's Act the noble Lord surely knew that what that Statute did was to make it perfectly clear that these marriages were illegal. The law of this country had been immemorially against these marriages, and the present law was only an innovation to this extent, that whereas formerly these marriages were voidable if steps were taken to upset in the lifetime of the parties they were now void ab initio. But it was not really an innovation; it was the improvement of the machinery for carrying out what was always the presumption of the law. In the Debates on this subject in past years, arguments had been abundantly used by the opponents of the Measure, and never once had he heard those arguments met. The law stood upon a logical basis, regarding the union of man and wife as making the relations of the one the relations of the other. He would ask the noble Earl this question: if a man was to be allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister why should he not be allowed to marry his wife's niece? There were people who wished to contract such marriages, and there was no greater reason why the prohibition should be removed in the one case than in the other. Why was the noble Earl not prepared to relieve the conscience or feelings of a person who wished to marry his wife's niece as well as to relieve the conscience and feelings of a man who wished to marry his deceased wife's sister? He challenged a reply to that question. A man had no ground for feeling agrieved as long as the marriage prohibitions were logical and equally

  1527
  applied as between the sexes. If, however they should begin to pick and choose; if they should say that because there were so many thousand people who wished to marry deceased wives' sisters permission to do so must be granted, whilst permission to marry a deceased wife's niece must be refused because the number who wished to contract that marriage was not so large, a grievance would at once be created. The noble Earl declared that there was a strong feeling in the country in favour of the Bill, and that many public bodies had petitioned in support of it independently of suggestions from interested parties. For his part he was sceptical about that. The Measure had passed through the House of Commons on several occasions, and had been before the country for 40 years at least. That being the case, would their Lordships, or could they resist the Bill any longer if there were really any large desire for it outside? What Party in search of a programme had ever put this question in the forefront of their proposals? How many Members of Parliament had ever mentioned the Bill in their election addresses? The fact was that there was no strong feeling among the people in favour of the Bill. But there was a small and active organisation which was keeping up a constant agitation for this change, and there was a prevailing indifference on the question among the mass of the people, the bulk of whom had never considered the principles upon which the prohibitions of the marriage law ought to be based. Organisers went among the people and asked—"Do you see any reason why a man should not marry his deceased wife's sister?" and if the reply was "no," the petition in favour of the Bill was presented for signature. He hardly thought it was quite respectful to their Lordships that year after year this Measure should be reintroduced when they had so often rejected it. No new argument had been adduced in support of the Bill, but there was one new provision in it. For the first time, they were asked to sanction marriage from the performance of which the ministers of the Church were to be excluded. It was to be a kind of half marriage, and was not even to affect rights of property retrospectively. It was to be a union which dared not show itself in the House of God, and which, he
  1528
  felt sure, would not be approved socially. It had only this one merit, that it enabled a man to deprive the heir of property which from time immemorial he would have had a right to expect. Were their Lordships going to make a kind of half marriage of this sort for the first time in the history of England? The noble Lord said that this was done to save the consciences of the English clergy. He was glad that the consciences of the English clergy should be so, and from that point of view, at least, he welcomed that provision in the Bill. But they had something else to think of besides the consciences of the clergy. Was this country going to sanction a half marriage of this kind? Hitherto in this country there had been two forms of marriage—one was the marriage as they knew it, and the other was the morganatic marriage, which was blameless in the sight of the Church, blameless in the sight of society, and the only incapacity from which it suffered was in connection with civil rights. Now they were going to create the reverse—a marriage which should have no status from a religious point of view, which should be looked down upon from a social point of view, but which should carry with it civil rights. He could not imagine that their Lordships, having so often recorded their opinion that without such a hideous provision as this they would not assent to a change of the law, would on the present occasion stultify their former action with a proposition so monstrous as that now put before them. He moved that the Bill be read a Second time that day three months.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid that on the last occasion he addressed some observations to their Lordships with regard to this Bill, and he certainly would not have spoken now if it had not been that in the interval a dignitary of the Church had honoured him, by commenting in a preface to a work recently issued on some statements which he then made, maintaining that they were wholly incorrect. If he were to remain silent on this occasion it would be assumed that he admitted the criticism to be just, and therefore he felt bound, as he was right and the reverend Dean wrong, to point out the reasons for his opinion. Before coming to that point, however, he should

  1529
  like to say a word as to what the noble Earl said—that it was unbecoming this Bill should be again introduced because their Lordships had rejected a similar Bill two years ago. He wholly dissented from that argument. Because the advocates of a Bill of this kind were defeated in no way precludes them from raising the question again. Some of those who voted on the previous occasion might have seen reason to change their views, and he was disposed to say that the Division Lists would show this to be the case. Moreover, during that period a number of new Members had been introduced, and there was no reason why they should not have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the question. On that occasion, and in reference to the arguments used, he asked whether any time could be shown in the Early Church when those marriages were forbidden, when other marriages were not forbidden. His argument was that he was unable to see by what right the opponents of this Bill selected one marriage which they said that the Early Church forbade and insisted that the marriage should not be permissible, while they themselves celebrated marriages which the Early Church equally forbade and said they were lawful. But to appeal to the Early Church and then take part of its opinion and reject the rest, deprived the authority to which they appealed of all weight whatsoever. The Dean of Lichfield, in making that suggestion, said that he (the speaker) was mistaken, for he referred to marriages with cousins, and that while marriage with a deceased wife's sister was forbidden as early as the Council of Elvira in 305, marriage with a cousin was not put into the same category until a later Council in 506. If that had been the case he should have not regarded it as depriving his argument of weight because he should still ask why they maintained that what was said in the canons in the fourth century was binding, while what was equally said in the sixth century might be safely disregarded. After having referred to the canons of the Council of Elvira, the learned writer next said that in his opinion a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was in the apostolic canons. It was true, but the apostolic canons said that a man who had married his
  1530
  deceased wife's sister should not become a cleric, but he said this was because it was an illegal marriage, and there was a taint of impurity attaching to it. The date of the apostolic canons was put by high authorities at a period anterior to the Council of Elvira; Bishop Beveridge looks upon them as dating from the latter part of the third century. It was quite true that the German critics put the date somewhat later than the Council of Antioch; they put it a few years only after the Council of Elvira. The Dean of Lichfield referred to this apostolic canon as showing what the Church then thought of marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but that very canon put the deceased wife's sister and the cousin exactly on the same footing. It said:—
  "he who marries his deceased wife's sister or his cousin cannot become a cleric;"
  And therefore if the apostolic canons are dated as early as they were alleged to be, and if they were relied upon as evidence of the view of the Early Church, he said that he was absolutely correct in saying that the Early Church forbade marriage with a deceased wife's sister; it forbade, at the same time, marriage with a cousin. But the Dean said that he was mistaken in saying that they were put on the same footing, because he said that when the Church forbade marriage with a cousin it only treated it as an ecclesiastical prohibition, and did not found it on Scripture, whereas the condemnation of the marriage with a deceased wife's sister was founded on Scripture, and there was always this broad distinction between the two—the first was treated from the first as incestuous, and the other not. He read that statement with amazement, because a few pages before the first mention of it was at the Council of Elvira. What did that Council say about it?—
  "If anyone after the death of his wife shall marry her sister and shall be a, believer it is resolved that there shall be abstinence from communion for five years."
  It did not say a word about being incestuous or invalid; it subjected only to a mild penance of five years abstinence from communion. It recognised the validity of the marriage; it did not declare it to be incestuous. If it stood

  1531
  by itself it would be scarcely possible to do otherwise than recognise it as a marriage considered expedient by the Church; but all doubt was removed if they would look at the other canons of the same Council. This canon was always quoted by itself; the other canons were not quoted, but they were useful in interpreting the terms of the others. This was the 61st canon. The 64th canon was in these terms:—
  "If any Woman to the end of her life shall live in adultery with a man it is resolved that the communion shall not be given to her even at the last; but if she shall leave him, then after 10 years she shall receive the communion."
  But it was said that it declared the marriage to be incestuous. The Council of Elvira knew what it was about when a marriage was declared to be incestuous. Canon 66 said:—
  "If anyone shall marry his stepdaughter inasmuch as it is incest, it is resolved that communion shall not be given to him even at the last."
  When the Council meant that a union was an incestuous one, it declared it to be so, and the penalty was different from the case of a deceased wife's sister. He submitted that no unprejudiced man could read these canons of the Council of Elvira without coming to the conclusion that at that time marriage with a deceased wife's sister was not regarded as incestuous; it was regarded as valid. It seemed to him, therefore, that when those records of the Early Church were fairly considered, they gave no sanction whatever to the case which was sought to be made out against the validity of those marriages on the ground that the Early Church regarded them as incestuous and void according to the Divine law. The noble Earl opposite said that this Bill was an illogical one. He was not concerned to contest that argument, but he referred to certain marriages of affinity. If the noble Earl desired, after the Bill was read a Second time, to extend the Bill in that direction in Committee, no doubt consideration would be given to his views. But it had always been the practice of Parliament to endeavour to deal with difficulties and with evils as they arose. It had never attempted to be logical. He had heard the noble Marquess on more than one
  1532
  occasion say that was a counsel of perfection with which they had nothing practically to do as legislators. It had been said that the effect of the proposed change in the law would be to diminish the sanctity of marriage and the purity of family life. The author whom he had quoted said it would remove the naturalis horror which, he said, chiefly stood now between men and intrigues with their wife's sisters. That might be a serious matter if it were the case, but this naturalis horror did not exist in the majority of their Lordships—he put the episcopal Bench respectfully aside for the moment—as was shown by their vote on the last occasion; and he was therefore a little astonished to hear that suggestion, and with reference to the objection that we had no experience of how this change was likely to work, he maintained that we had ample experience of it. It was true that in the colonies it was not a very old law, but it had existed for long in Germany and Scandinavia, and he believed that domestic life was as pure and wholesome in Germany and Scandinavia as it was in this country. In some of the American States, too, where the law relating to marriage and divorce remained substantially the same as our own, this law had been in operation for a long time, and the same remark applied to them as to Germany and Scandinavia. He singled out those States, because, as to others, it might be said that there was greater laxity in the divorce laws, and to avoid the argument he confined his statement to those whose marriage and divorce laws were substantially the same as our own, with the exception of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He maintained that not an atom of evidence ever had been or could be produced to show that such a change would render the marriage hearth less safe or in the slightest degree tend to immorality or improper relations which were now avoided by the existence of the present law. Jersey had passed, by a great majority of its Legislature, representing an enormous number of the people of the country, a law permitting this change. The noble Marquess said it was necessary to take time seriously to consider this decision, because the island being near here, people might go and take up their domicile there with a view

  1533
  to contracting such a marriage. But he would remind the noble Marquess that in 1875 the Government of which he was a Member gave their approval to the law passed by the New South Wales Legislature. At that time the law had not been changed in the adjoining colony of Victoria, which was much nearer to New South Wales than Jersey is to England, and where the same inconveniences of doubtful domicile were much more likely to arise from the greater facility of intercourse between the two; and yet the noble Marquess or his Government did not regard that as a sufficient reason for not approving the action of the New South Wales Legislature. The people of Jersey desired the change with comparative unanimity, and yet it was doubtful whether they were to be permitted to marry one another because of possible inconvenience to the people of this country from a temptation to obtain a domicile in Jersey, and so to carry out their desire to marry one another. This Bill, of course, would not interfere a whit with the opinion of any one, as to the propriety or impropriety of this marriage, but when they were asked to submit the opinion of this House to the opinions of the Episcopate, the Church, or the clergy, it must be remembered that there were a great number of people in this country who desired those marriages, and who believed them to be perfectly right, who were not within the pale of influence of the Bishops and clergy of the Church of England. There were Nonconformists, Jews, and Roman Catholics, and by what right was this House to maintain a civil law with regard to marriage which was to affect those classes of the community who were outside the Episcopacy? ["Hear, hear!"] Yet that was what was happening, because on the last occasion the lay Members of this House, by a majority of votes, expressed themselves in favour of this Bill. The Bill was rejected only by reason of the views of the Church, and the views of the Church were thus being imposed on the laity of this country outside the communion of the Church altogether. It was said that the Roman Catholic Church did not regard this marriage as valid. Of course, it was admitted that it was regarded as valid when a dispensation for it was given, but it was said
  1534
  the Roman Catholic Church maintained its right to dispense with the Divine law, and consequently its opinion on the subject was not to be regarded very seriously. That was the other observation which he made which was criticised by the Dean. He said that he did not understand that the Church of Rome maintained its right to dispense with the Divine law, although undoubtedly it dispensed with the ecclesiastical law. The Dean said he was wrong, and he regretted very much that a Member of the Episcopal Bench, did not rise and correct him at the time; because, he said, at the Council of Trent, an anathema was pronounced upon those who maintained that the Pope could not dispense from some of the prohibitions contained in Leviticus. He did not understand that as maintaining a right to dispense with the Divine law. He understood it as expressing the view that there were prohibitions contained in Leviticus which were not of perpetual obligation, and from which it would be quite proper for the Pope to dispense. That view was very strongly borne out by the very limited terms in which it was couched. And was there any Member of the Episcopal Bench who would maintain that the old Jewish law, the whole law of Moses, was of perpetual obligation? He doubted very much whether the maintenance of this prohibition was calculated to increase respect for those parts of the marriage law in regard to which they were all in absolute agreement. He thought the danger lay in this, that they would be apt to weaken the sanction, authority, and force of those prohibitions which the great majority of men agreed in regarding as binding. [Cheers.]
  EARL NELSONthought it was utterly unfair that a Bill brought in as a private Bill should be allowed to damage the harmoniousness of their marriage Code. He thought that the time had well nigh come when the question of holy matrimony should be dealt with by the Government of the day. There were many things crying for a remedy. At the present time there was a law in Scotland with regard to marriage different from the law in England, so that a marriage in Scotland under which property could be inherited was totally different from the law in

  1535
  England where the property could not be inherited. What was more terrible than the present condition of the law? He instanced the case of a man and his wife and her paramour who had gone to the United States and obtained a divorce there. He did not agree with the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill in the commendation of Lord Lyndhurst's Act. That was a proof of how dangerous it was to bring in Bills for private reasons. He could not help thinking that they should press on the Government that a Commission should be appointed to deal with this question in all its forms, and his great objection to this Bill was that it dealt piecemeal with the question instead of having a Commission to inquire into and consider their whole marriage laws.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord in a criticism of a book to which I think he attaches far too much weight. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to this Bill now before your Lordships, I must acknowledge that the Church is not compromised by it to the same extent as it was compromised by other Bills. The clergy are set free. What the movers do they do freely, so that what is done for the clergy is done completely and, I ought to say, generously. But, my Lords, the clergy do not sit in this House only as ecclesiastics. ["Hear, hear!''] They do not sit here with narrow preconceived ideas; they sit here also as Englishmen and citizens, and they cannot be a party to a ruinous breach in our marriage law. I cannot, therefore, look lightly upon this idea of setting Church law and State law at variance. I must remind your Lordships that time after time the repeal of the law has been refused by the lay Vote. Many entertain the idea that it is maintained by the Episcopal Vote; but that is not so. ["Hear, hear!"] At present there is a Registry of Marriages; and this registry exists for the use of those who are indifferent to the prayers and blessings of the Church. But it is a different matter to introduce marriages which are considered to be wrong. We know the feelings of the poor. We know that the majority of the people are on our side and do not desire these marriages.
  1536
  ["Hear, hear!"] I shall not go further now into that question, but I will say this— that the Bill, if carried, will compromise the peace of many families. At the present moment the religious law and the civil law are at one, but it is proposed by this Bill to sever them by a very deep gash. We have had very large assertions as to how beneficial this legislation has "proved," but it takes a great many years and a great accumulation of evidence to "prove" that any such piece of legislation is beneficial, and I do not hold that it is "proved" in the least. We have been told, and absurdly, that there are thousands of thousands of children who are suffering under the present disabilities of bastardy, but when the case is brought before you with that kind of exaggeration are we to suppose that stripped of exaggeration the argument is perfectly fair and good? I cannot consent to sever the religious and the civil laws, not as a Bishop, but as an Englishman with English history behind me. It is the duty of those who are placed here to represent the national Church to boldly express what the teaching of that Church is, and, taking the whole tradition of our English Church into consideration, I declare that these marriages will break up the principle upon which our marriages are founded, and if the principle goes I do not believe the detail will rest there. We are told that it is a very unfortunate thing that we should differ in our marriage law from our colonies, but it would be more unfortunate if at home the law of the Church and the civil law should be set at variance with one another. Your Lordships have refused again and again to repeal this law, and I hope you will refuse again. We have been told with much force that human law rests on human instinct, and I believe that the law as it stands is the expression of human instinct. [Cheers.]
  The House divided on the Question whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion:—

  CONTENTS

  …

  …

  142

  NOT-CONTENTS

  …

  …

  113

  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  DIVISION LIST.—CONTENTS.

  Wales, H. R. H.

  De La Warr, E.

  Carew, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Prince of.

  Denbigh, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  York, H. R. H. D.

  Effingham, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Devonshire, D. (Lord President)

  Granville, E.

  Connemara, L.

  Morris, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Davey, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Beaufort, D.

  Kimberley, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Northington, L. (L. Henley)

  Bedford, D.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Denman, L.

  Fife, D.

  Minto, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Portland, D.

  Morley, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Saint Albans, D. [TELLER.]

  Onslow, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore)

  Playfair, L.

  Orford, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Sandwich, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly)

  Westminster, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

  Rendel, L.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Greville, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Ripon, M.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Herschell, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Hobhouse, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  James, L.

  Sackville, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Kelvin, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Aylesford, E.

  Portman, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Templeton, V.

  Shand, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Wolseley, V.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) [TELLER.]

  Sherborne, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Caledon, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Kensington, L.

  Thring, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Tollemache, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Ashburton, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Trevor, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Battersea, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Belper, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Boston, L.

  Loch, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery

  Macnaghten, L.

  Welby, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Magheramorne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Manners, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)

  Craven, E.

  Burton, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden).

  Crewe, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Methuen, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Amherst, E.

  Stamford, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor

  Beauchamp, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  York, L. Abp.

  Carnwath, E.

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Cranbrook, E.

  Bangor, V.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  de Montalt, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens- berry)

  Knutsford, V.

  Addington, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Llandaff, V.

  Aldenham, L.

  Melville, V.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Dudley, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Haddington, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Bateman, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Blythswood, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne)

  Richmond, D.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Manvers, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Mar, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Mayo, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carys-fort)

  Bute, M.

  Nelson, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Exeter, M.

  Powis, E.

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

  Hertford, M.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Selborne, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Clinton, L. (TELLER.)

  1538

  1539

  Colchester, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hillingdon, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell L.

  Crofton, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough,)

  Dinevor, L.

  Keane, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home)

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Raglan, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Rookwood, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Esher, L.

  Llangattock, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Wantage, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.) (TELLER)

  Wigan, L. (E. Craw-ford)

  Saltoun, L.

  Foley, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Lime-rick)

  Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford)

  Wynford, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  North, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT (AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Five o'clock.