Sitting of 10 March 1896

INTERMEDIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION (COWBRIDGE SCHOOL).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL,)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 2nd March, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will exclude the Cowbridge Grammar School from the Intermediate and Technical Education Scheme of the Glamorgan County Council.
"I will comply with your advice."

LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. VESEY KNOXproposed as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months." He said that on Friday last he had to call the attention of the House to the case of a minority of Catholics in Belfast who had been entirely deprived of all municipal representation, and he had now to call attention to an even stronger case—to the

543
case of the majority of the Catholics of Derry, who were absolutely unrepresented on the Corporation of that City. Derry, according to the last census, contained 33,200 inhabitants, of whom 18,340 were Catholics. Thus 55 per cent. were Catholic, and 45 per cent. were Protestant; yet, owing to the strange laws made by that House, the majority of the people of Derry had not got a single representative in the Corporation. And not merely was there no Catholic member of the Corporation, but the body of Protestants elected to the Corporation carried out the same exclusive policy in Derry which was carried out by the Corporation of Belfast in the distribution of the municipal offices. As a matter of fact, there was not an official under the Corporation of Derry who was a Catholic, and therefore the majority of the people of Derry lived under this extraordinary state of Government, that they were not merely deprived of being Town Councillors, but not one of them could hope to be even a Corporation official. Every single officer of the Corporation of Derry, down to the humblest one at ten guineas a year, was a Protestant. It was perfectly clear that this was a state of things which most fair-minded Members of that House would be anxious to see removed, and when the Municipal Franchise Bill had nearly passed in the last Parliament, the Corporation of Derry began to see that a change would come. They therefore set themselves to find some way of preventing the majority of the people getting control in Derry, and they set themselves to find some dodge by which they could prevent the 55 per cent. of the Catholics having any proportionate representation in the Corporation. This Bill was their dodge. This was not an ordinary Private Bill. No such Private Bill had ever been introduced into the House. It was a scandalous and flagrant trick, and it was a Bill which ought to be jeered out of the House as a ridiculous imposture. To begin with, the Bill proposed an extension of the City of Derry. The City contained a population of 33,200, and included an area of 2,000 acres, half that area being built upon. Therefore there was plenty of room for expansion, without extending the present limits. Fair rents for agricultural holdings had
544
actually been fixed within the present boundaries of the City of Derry. Nevertheless, the Corporation proposed to take in no less than 30 square miles of surrounding rural country. There was not an acre of that area which could be properly described as urban in character. Not a single acre, not a single townland in the area proposed to be taken, included so much population as one person to the acre. It was, therefore, the most grotesque scheme for extension ever proposed by a Corporation to the House—a proposal to take in an enormous and entirely rural area solely for political purposes. The object of taking in this great area, greater than the City would grow to in the course of 20 generations, was because the population outside the present boundaries was mostly Unionist, and it was hoped that thus the Catholic votes might be swamped under any system of voting. He had been told that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill intended to drop the proposal for extension, but he protested against a Corporation using their power to promote a Private Bill, and bringing forward in the House a grotesque scheme of this kind, putting opponents to great trouble and considerable expense, and more or less agitating the whole countryside which it was proposed to take into the town, and then, when it was found the proposal was too grotesque for serious consideration, dropping it, of course without any offer to repair the damage caused. The second proposal was, that there should be a £4 Franchise—that was to say, that nobody rated at £4 and under should have a vote. He believed the vast majority of the people of Derry protested against this proposal as stigmatising the population of Derry as inferior to the people of English towns. However, he was glad to hear that, even on that ground too, a more reasonable frame of mind was now prevailing. He heard that the promoters of the Bill were ready to meet their opponents, but he called attention to the point as a matter of procedure in Private Bill Legislation. Dropping first the proposal for extension, and then altering throughout the provisions as to the Franchise, meant that two-thirds of the Bill would assume an entirely different shape to what it had at present. In fact, the Corporation came to the House and asked the House

545
to draw the Bill for them in such a shape as would give the Bill a probability of passing. But the promoters had left in the Bill a provision for so arranging the wards of Derry that, even if Parliament were to extend the Franchise, as had been proposed by the Irish Nationalist Party, the majority of the people of Derry would still have a very small share of Municipal power. He thought it was well understood that the object of division by wards was to give, as far as possible, proportionate representation to all sections of the population. But that did not seem to be the view of the Corporation of Derry. Their idea of division by wards was that it was a way by which the Corporation could be made to represent Protestants, with just as few Catholics as possible. They had drawn the most extraordinary division of wards that had ever been proposed. They had seized on the Parliamentary polling districts, and took them as suitable ones for wards, thus quite reversing the process that obtained in any other town. As a rule, Parliamentary polling districts were altered to suit the wards, but here the wards were made to conform to the polling districts. Parliament had dealt with this point, for it gave Corporations power to alter polling districts at any time, and obviously it was a matter of slight importance how polling districts were divided, while the ward divisions were of much importance. He had been anxious to find out how it was that the Corporation came to think of this proposal, and the best explanation of the genesis of the proposal he found in certain facts published in the Conservative newspaper, The Derry Sentinel. That newspaper gave the number of Catholics and Protestants in each polling district after the revision of 1892. According to the statement of The Derry Sentinel, if the City were divided into five wards, even with the Parliamentary Franchise, and taking the Protestant electors and Catholics, who were the majority of the population, these last would only have a majority in one of the wards. Such was the statement of the Derry Conservative newspaper, and upon that the Corporation founded the proposal they submitted to the House that Derry should be divided into five wards, so constituted that in only one ward should
546
Catholics have a voting majority. He need hardly labour this point to show how preposterous, how insulting to the intelligence of the House, was this proposed division into wards. The dodge evidently was that the Catholics should be allowed to have a representative in one of the wards, where there were about 750 Catholics to about 100 Protestants, and that in every other district there would be a distinct Protestant majority. In that Bill they were asked to set up a new code for the City of Derry, that would leave the Catholics, who were a majority of the population, with only one-fifth of the representation. It was alleged that these divisions were, at any rate, equal in area. That, he believed, wan true, but they were very unequal in population, and it would happen, if the provisions of this Bill were carried, that the Catholic ward would have half as many people again as some of the Protestant wards. There was a proposal to increase the size of the Corporation to 40. He was speaking for the majority of the Protestants and the Catholics of Derry alike, when he said that it was very undesirable to increase the number unduly. Clause 15 of the Bill contained another extraordinary proposal. According to that clause the Town Clerk, Surveyor, or other officer should not, except for grave misconduct or neglect of duty, be subjected to dismissal or reduction of salary without the consent of the Lord Lieutenant. That was a most extraordinary provision, and he defied the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Lea), who had great knowledge of municipal matters, and who had charge of this Bill, to produce any precedent for it. It might be that a Nationalist Corporation might think a mace-bearer rather an absurd extravagance in these modern times, yet they could not dismiss him without going to the Lord Lieutenant. The proposal was ludicrous. His contention about this Bill was that it was so inherently vicious, and so absurd, that the House should not give assent to its Second Reading. Instead of changing the details of every clause, and putting the Bill into such a shape as that it should be allowed to pass into law, he thought they should give the Corporation an opportunity of bringing in a Bill more in accordance with

547
the usual practice of English Corporations. If the useful power which permitted Corporations to promote Private Bills for municipal improvement was to be used to further political and partisan jobs, then it would be necessary to restrain that power, and, when so partisan a Bill as this came before the House, he considered it should be rejected at once, and the Committee spared the trouble of considering it. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
MR. T. B. CURRANsupported the Amendment.
MR. MURNAGHANin supporting the Amendment observed, that in the Bill as originally drafted the Corporation of Derry asked for powers so extensive and far-reaching that it seemed to him they acted on no other principle except that when the sun shone they should make hay. They evidently thought they had got to support them a Party that would not hesitate to go any length. What did the Corporation ask? They asked this House to sanction a proposal to take in 31 square miles of territory without any absolute necessity for so doing. Within the last 20 years the population of Derry had increased something like 300 people, the present limits of the city were very inadequately filled up, so that there was no actual earthly reason why this Bill should have contained such a provision. The proviso of a franchise of £4 and over for the municipal elections had been put in, because the corporation was afraid that in the course of a little time the municipalities of Ireland would be treated as those of England and Scotland now were, and that the franchise would be assimilated to that for the parliamentary elections. In order, therefore, to protect themselves in all their privileges, and to keep within their grasp every place of power, influence, and emolument, they adopted this method of effecting their object. The corporation must have acted systematically, for if they had come and asked for this proviso without also making some provision for an increase of the wards, the Catholics of Derry would have had some sort of representation. But under the system that was now proposed, what was the fact? The fact was that the Catholics of Derry, who were the majority and numbered 55 per cent. of the
548
population, would only have in the Corporation a representation of one-fifth, whereas under the existing system they would be able to obtain one-third. It was clear, therefore, from an examination of the Bill, that it was not brought in the interest of the general welfare or of good government. If the Corporation had desired to promote the interests of the citizens at large or of the public good, there was a simple way of obtaining that with the consent of everybody. There are living in Derry men of intelligence and of influence, belonging to the Catholic Party, who were most anxious that the City of Derry should be built up and become prosperous, and that its material prosperity should be insured. If the promoters of the Bill had taken such men into their deliberations, then he believed a good Bill would have been brought before the House, which would be acceptable to all parties. Therefore, he argued that it was very clear, to anyone acquainted with the circumstances of Derry, that the Bill was not introduced for the general good and would not promote the peace and prosperity which all good Governments should desire to see existing in a community. He (Mr. Murnaghan) therefore most positively protested against this Bill. He believed that this Bill was intended to fasten an insult on the Catholics of Derry, and to make it appear as if they were unworthy to occupy their proper position in the city. He hoped hon. Members opposite would take note of this action on the part of the Ulster ascendency Party. There were, he believed, plenty of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite who had no adequate idea of the feeling on this matter in Derry and other places in the North of Ireland—that because a man professes a certain religious belief he must not be allowed to work out his own salvation, or to improve the general conditions of himself and his family. They in the North of Ireland had opposed to them forces which they could not combat, and therefore he appealed to English Members opposite not to help the Derry Corporation in this matter, and to take into consideration the large section of people who lived outside the influence of the promoters of this Bill.
SIR THOMAS LEAin supporting the Second Reading,

549
said, he was at some disadvantage as compared with the hon. Member for the City of Derry inasmuch as he only represented that part of the county further from the city itself. He therefore looked upon it from rather an outside point of view, and was unable to give to the House full information with regard to the Measure. The hon. Member in moving the rejection of the Bill began by saying the Nationalists were not represented in the city. They were not at the present time, but up to the year 1892 there always had been Roman Catholics elected to the Corporation of the City of Derry. [Mr. T. HEALY, "No!"] An hon. Member contradicted him. Did not he remember—at all events he (Sir Thomas Lea) remembered very well—that during the last 20 years of his connection with the County of Derry, Mr. Charles O'Neill was in the Corporation. He thought Mr. O'Neill died in 1892, after having been a Member of the Corporation for 27 years. The late Mr. O'Neill's election was frequently opposed by staunch Protestants. He sat, he believed, for the most Protestant ward in the City of Derry, and was always returned at the head of the poll. They need not go further than amongst Members of the House of Commons. There was a Member who sat in the House for several years (Mr. O' Hanlon) who was also in the Corporation of Derry for 10 years. He also remembered other Roman Catholics who sat in the Corporation elected by a majority of Protestants. He admitted that at the present time it was not so, but they must take into account that in 1892 there occurred a most violent change of feeling. They had legislation introduced in the House of Commons which stirred up the strongest party feelings. They in England fought municipal elections from a party point of view, and could it be wondered that violent party feeling prevailed in Derry, where the Unionists had looked at recent events as a sort of notice to quit. It was this feeling which prevented Unionists from voting for Nationalists. It was only during the last three years that Roman Catholics had ceased to sit in the Corporation, and the change was entirely due to the violent legislation to which he had referred. He had always felt
550
that it might be advantageous to have Roman Catholics sitting on the Derry Corporation, and this Bill was for the purpose, he believed, amongst other things, of enabling a very considerable number of Catholics to be elected to the Corporation. The hon. Member said the wards had been cut up to suit political purposes, but he would ask any hon. Member of that House what more natural basis could be taken for cutting up the area of the City for municipal divisions than the existing Parliamentary polling districts? No better method could, he thought, be desired; but if an improvement could be suggested it could be brought before the Committee upstairs, and not Debated on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. Objection had been take to the extension of the boundaries of the City. In the Bill he held in his hand all Clauses for that extension had been struck out. The City of Derry during the last 50 years had more than doubled its population, and the Corporation, naturally believing that increase would still continue, proposed to enlarge the boundaries so as to provide for the possible wants of the future as well as the demands of the present. There had, however, been considerable opposition by hon. Gentlemen opposite to that proposal, and the clauses had therefore been struck out of the Bill. The hon. Member for Derry City had referred to the proposed franchise. He said it was above £4 franchise. As he (Sir Thomas Lea) read the Bill, the franchise was a £4 franchise, such as was passed a few days ago in the House of Commons, without Division or comment, for the City of Waterford, a Nationalist city. Looking to the future, as they would have the Parliamentary franchise, for his own part he would have gone the whole hog and proposed the Parliamentary franchise in this Bill. But the Corporation in its wisdom had reduced it to a £4 franchise. That would increase the number of electors from 800 to 3,000, while the total number of electors on the Parliamentary roll was over 4,000. He was informed, and he believed with very good reason, that when this Bill passed and the next Municipal Election took place, at least 16 Nationalists would be elected to the Corporation as against 24 Unionists. That was a very considerable increase.

551
It was at all events a step in the right direction, and one he should be glad to see passed. The hon. Gentleman also made some criticisms with regard to the increase in the number of representatives. They proposed to increase the number from 24 to 40, which did not seem to him at all unreasonable. The small boroughs of about 8,000 population had their 24 representatives, but the two towns that may be said to compete, as it were, in proportion to the City of Derry were Limerick and Waterford, and it was not at all remarkable that Derry, which had a rateable value very considerably higher than either Limerick or Waterford, and a population exceeding in the one case and nearly equal in the other, should wish to have 40 representatives. He could not understand the Bill being opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they maintained that the additional 16 representatives would be nearly all Roman Catholics. The hon. Gentleman also made some reference to Clause 45, but that matter could be dealt with upstairs; all they wished was that, if any of the officials were summarily dismissed by a Nationalist majority, they should be able to obtain some compensation. The other objects of the Bill were to his mind the most important objects which a municipal body could strive to obtain. The water supply of the City was neither good nor ample, but it was hoped in the future to obtain a far better supply. Before doing so, they wanted to be in a position to borrow without increasing the rates. It was calculated under the Bill that by paying off loans borrowed at a high rate of interest, and borrowing at the current rate of interest, they would be able to reduce the rates of the city by no less than £2,400 or £3,600 a year according to the period of repayment, and by doing that they would increase the efficiency of the Corporation for sanitary purposes and enable it to get a proper water supply. The hon. Gentleman had not touched upon the powers for dealing with the market tolls, but if they could obtain for the City of Derry the powers necessary for the welfare and well-being of the City, it would inaugurate an era of prosperity which he hoped would continue for many years to come.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the hon. Baronet who had just spoken had very astutely remained silent on the important matter of the franchise. He had closely followed the observations of the hon. Baronet, and he had observed that he did not say one word as to the acceptance by the promoters of this Bill of the Parliamentary franchise. Had the opponents of the Bill then been misled on that point also? Had they not been assured that the £4 franchise would be dropped, and the Parliamentary franchise adopted? Could the hon. Baronet confirm that?
SIR T. LEA: I said just now, as far as I myself was concerned, that I would go the whole hog at once and have the Parliamentary franchise, but the Corporation prefer the £4 franchise as the first step. The Corporation are willing to leave the matter to a Committee upstairs.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Then we have been deceived, and for my part I think we should have no truck with the promoters of the Bill in this House. Continuing, he said the one idea that the promoters of Bills of this kind had was to get them through anyhow, without regard to good faith. The opponents of the Bill had been led to believe that the Parliamentary franchise would be adopted as a simple basis, but now it turned out that that was merely a pious opinion of the hon. Baronet, and that the Corporation had no idea of adopting it; so that, seeing that in four out of the five wards the Protestants would have an absolute majority under the Parliamentary franchise, what would their majority be under a £4 franchise? He (Mr. Healy) had taken his figures from the Orange organ the Derry Sentinel.
SIR T. LEAsaid he had not seen the Derry Sentinel, and he certainly should not take a newspaper as his authority. He took the authority of the Corporation. He had seen the numbers in the five wards, and he said undoubtedly that in two wards there would be a majority of Nationalists.
MR. T. M. HEALY: With the Parliamentary franchise.
SIR T. LEA: That is the one at present in my mind.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that in Derry every man, woman and child was known to the party organisation.

553
[Laughter.] The opinion of every man was known, and if he happened to get drunk and was taken before the magistrates, he was followed with pious care to the Courts, and if he was imprisoned his vote was immediately struck off. The hon. Baronet said that the Derry Sentinel was inaccurate in regard to the Parliament franchise.
SIR T. LEA: I do not know anything about the Derry Sentinel.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it was the organ of the Orange Party in Derry, and the figures were supplied upon the authority of the Party agents. These were the figures that it gave for 1892, the year of the General Election, when everybody was keenly awake on the point. In the East ward there were 537 Protestants and 213 Catholics; in the North ward 595 Protestants and 361 Catholics; in the West ward 128 Protestants and 750 Catholics; Waterside ward 421 Protestants and 256 Catholics; and in the South Polling district 359 Protestants and 338 Catholics. So in every one of the proposed five wards, according to the authority of their own newspaper the Orange organ of Derry, they proposed on the Parliamentary franchise to get the control of the City into their own hands. What would it be on a £4 franchise? Did the House recollect the way this Bill came before it? The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland thought it in keeping with his position to go to Derry within the last three months and receive an address from the Unionist inhabitants, including this very Corporation, in which they applied to him these words:—
"But for your Excellency's action in the House of Lords (these were not the exact words, but the effect of them), we should now have been subjugated by the passing of the Healy Municipal Franchise Bill of last year."
The Viceroy of Ireland who procured the rejection of the Bill had the infirmity to receive in Derry, where the majority was Catholic and pining for the franchise, this address. He thought it in keeping with his position as the Queen's representative to allow an expression like that to be used in presenting him with an address. That was the spirit of their Government and of their Chief Secretary in Ireland. The "Parliamentary Debates" for 5th July, 1895,
554
showed that the Lord Lieutenant moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground of want of time to consider Amendments that the House of Commons had not dealt with. Yet the House of Lords on that occasion found time to consider the Factory Acts Bill containing 50 clauses, to read it a Second time, and pass it through the Report stage and its Third Reading without Amendments. They knew from the Chief Secretary that he would not take the smallest trouble with an Irish private Bill. The right hon. Gentleman denied that he had any right to give his sanction to private Bills; but Standing Order 173 said that the promoters of a Bill to give additional powers to a Municipal Corporation, must obtain a certificate under the Seal of the Local Government Board, setting forth whether it was promoted with or without the sanction of that Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman was President. The right hon. Gentleman could bring in a Parks Regulation Bill, which was not wanted, to exclude the people from Phœnix Park; but when the Catholics of Ireland were vitally affected, he did not think it worth his while to give the matter the smallest attention. As to this Bill, there was nothing in it, practically, except the protection of the position of the Corporation. As a makeweight, something was put in about loans; and that was the only substantial thing in it. It happened that this very Bill in all its provisions, even those relating to the Town Clerk, were moved as Amendments to the Municipal Franchise Bill in Committee last year by Mr. Ross. The hon. Member moved an Amendment to protect the Town Clerk in his position in case the Franchise were extended. In fact, the Amendments moved to a public Bill formed the substance of this private Bill. As regarded the Town Clerk of Derry, he personally would take no objection to these provisions, because he was a popular man and he need have no apprehension that he would be unfairly dealt with. The Town Clerk of Derry was a respectable and decent man, and so was his father before him. The Corporation of Derry distribute per annum £3,350 12s. 10d. in salaries, and the Catholics do not even get the odd tenpence. If ever there was a Nationalist majority, the Lord Lieutenant was

555
to be required to give his sanction as a preliminary to the dismissal of any one of several officers, including the Town Clerk, the Surveryor, their assistants, the City Accountant, the City Treasurer, the City Analyst, the Sword-bearer, the Mace-bearer, the Sanitary officer, the Superintendent of the Cemetery, and his assistant, the Superintendents of the markets and of the slaughter houses, and caretakers of the hospital, and the nurses thereat. Why was it that the Protestants of Derry were afraid of the Catholics? Why was it they thought the Catholics would dismiss the Protestant officers? It was because they knew that three centuries of intolerance was rankling in their breasts, and that the Catholics had not been allowed to go within miles of this Corporation. If there was any apprehension that the Town Clerk was in danger—and there was no more popular man in Derry—as far as he was concerned he had no objection to give him protection; but to go down to all the other officials was grotesque. Was this a reasonable Bill? Did it come properly under the designation of a private Bill? The Attorney General had that day given notice of an Armagh Bill. Would the Government deny their responsibility for that Bill? There was not a single Catholic in office in Armagh. It was not right to deal with this question city by city all over the north of Ireland. The Government rejected the Franchise Bill, through their Lord Lieutenant with the assistance of the Lord Chamberlain, and the least that could be asked was that these Bills should not be considered in the light of private Bills at all; but as Bills promoted by Corporations, in which Protestants had an ascendancy, and therefore wished to maintain their power. Derry was situated, not geographically, but in fact, in the County of Donegal, and the farmers of Donegal would have to pay heavy octroi duties in bringing their butter and other produce into the market. He did not know whether this was a good system of maintaining a town market or not; but before these powers were granted, the majority of the population of the town ought to be represented in the Corporation. The men who were asking for these powers had been unreasonable in the past. They had denied
556
any rights whatever to the class of people who would have to pay these taxes. So far as the extension of boundaries was concerned, that part of the Bill had disappeared amid the ridicule of the Protestants themselves, who declined to submit themselves to these taxes, even for the purpose of bolstering up a rotten Corporation. In what spirit did they expect the Bill to be dealt with by a Select Committee consisting of a majority of Englishmen and Tories? The promoters of the Bill would be then paid out of the rates, while the poor Papists would have to come and protect themselves at their own expense. Was that a fair thing? Ireland had waited 13 years for some scheme of local self-government. Where were the simultaniety and similarity which were promised? There was no analogy between these private Bills and English Bills. Therefore he asked the Government, being responsible for the good government of the country as a whole, and especially being responsible for this most inflammable portion of it—Ulster—to say that that question should be dealt with as a whole in some comprehensive scheme. [Nationalist cheers.]
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said, the hon. and learned Member was understood to have referred to an incident which had occurred at Derry in reference to a certain passage in an address presented to the Lord Lieutenant. If the hon. and learned Member would consult the Lord Lieutenant, he would learn from him that there were grave objections to taking exception to any passage in such an address. He thought that if Lord Houghton had to go through his own experience over again, he would be careful not to object to any passage in an address.
MR. T. M. HEALY: He declined two addresses on account of what they contained.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was aware of that; but he thought Lord Houghton's action was very unfortunate; and he would be extremely surprised that his Lordship was not prepared to admit that himself. Lord Cadogan, as Lord Lieutenant, considered it his duty to receive any addresses that might be presented to

557
him. The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to the rejection of the Municipal Franchise Act last year by the House of Lords, and he actually had the assurance to refer in this connection to another Bill which was passed by the House of Lords at the same time—the Factory Bill. Did not the hon. and learned Member know that the Factory Bill was discussed day by day on the Grand Committee?
MR. T. M. HEALY: So was my Bill.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: And with the majority which the hon. and learned Gentleman had at this disposal in that Committee he rejected every Amendment proposed to him.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Because every line was taken from an existing English Act of Parliament.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That Bill came down to this House un-amended in consequence of the action the hon. Member took in the Grand Committee. It was therefore impossible to discuss it in this House on its report stage. When it first went to the House of Lords something like 60 Amendments were put down, and those 60 Amendments were rendered unnecessary by the action of the hon. Member himself; and to compare the action of the House of Lords in reference to the Factory Bill, with their action in reference to the Franchise Bill was to compare two things essentially unlike. The hon. Member went on to charge him with having stated that the Irish Office had no concern with the private Bills introduced into this House. He never made any statement of the sort. What he did say was that the Irish Government was not responsible for the provisions of a private Bill and that was absolutely true. The hon. Member quoted a Standing Order which stated that when any application was made by any Municipal Corporation or Town Commissioners in Ireland, seeking for new powers or additional powers, that application should receive the sanction and approval of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. John Morley) shook his head when he made reference to the late Lord Lieutenant,
558
but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out in saying that this Standing Order had been always interpreted as saying that the sanction of the Local Government Board to the introduction of a Bill did not in any sense imply approval of the provisions of that Bill, and that it was always accompanied by the statement that it did not bind the Irish Government not to oppose the private Bill at any stage of its proceedings in the House of Commons. What this House had to consider was whether the Bill was so incurably vicious, that it could not be amended by the Committee to which it was referred. Was that the case with the Bill now before the House. He was sorry he was not present when the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Knox) moved his Instruction. He understood that the hon. Member objected to three main parts—the extension of the boundaries, the franchise, and the division of the wards. The question of the extension of the wards had he understood already been abandoned by the promoters of the Bill. As to the division of the wards he should say that the promoters had a very strong case. Their proposal was to take the existing polling districts for Parliamentary purposes.
MR. KNOXsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that under the proposed arrangement the majority of the population would only have one-fifth of the representation.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he did not admit that, but if the contention was correct, it was one which the Select Committee would inquire into. He had a petition from the opponents of the Bill which set forth a different statement from that of the hon. Member. The petition stated that the number of Parliamentary electors who were Protestants as compared with the number who were Catholics was 2,126 to 2,121; and by the proposed arrangement in three wards Protestants would have majorities, and in two wards the Catholics would have majorities. In regard to the franchise he entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Thos. Lca), that it would be better in this case if the Corporation of Derry were to agree to the Parliamentary

559
franchise rather than to the £4 franchise. It seemed to him that the questions which had been raised were eminently questions for a Committee to decide, and he hoped the House would take that view and vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. SWIFT MACNELLsaid, the Chief Secretary was so famous, that he was immortalised in this very Bill. In the preamble of the Bill—the Attorney General for Ireland would tell the right hon. Gentleman what the meaning of the preamble was—the Resolution passed by the Derry Corporation arranging for the introduction of this Bill, was set forth. In the Resolution it was stated that the proposals of the Bill had received the approval of the Local Government Board; ''and in respect of other matters the approval of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant." What portion of the Bill did the right hon. Gentleman approve of? Did the right hon. Gentleman approve of the retention of Derry and of the Municipal wards for Orange purposes. The Bill was the twin sister in antiquity to the Belfast Corporation Bill; it was framed to foster sectarian animosity; to set Protestant against Catholic, and as such he denounced it. He asserted that the Bill was Lord Cadogan's Bill. There was a very strong objection to bringing into the Debate the name of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was the representative of the Crown in that country, but Lord Cadogan was likewise a Cabinet Minister, and those who appointed him a Cabinet Minister should take the responsibility for his anomalous position. This Bill was substituted for the Municipal Franchise Bill, which Lord Cadogan, acting and speaking in another place in his capacity as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, actually strangled out of life. He could prove that this Bill from beginning to end was Lord Cadogan's Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member for North Louth was alluding to the history of that Bill, and I had to stop him. Its provisions must not now be made the subject of Debate.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid, he would obey exactly in the spirit and the letter everything the Speaker bade him;
560
but he would like to point out that every one of the Clauses in this Bill to which they (the Nationalists) objected on principle were proposed upstairs in Committee on the Municipal Franchise Bill, by Mr. John Ross, the defeated candidate for Derry, and rejected. He contended that the Bill was the Bill of Lord Cadogan, because when the Lord Lieutenant visited Belfast, he was the guest of the promoters of the Bill, the Corporation of the city, and the Bill was laid before him and approved by him. The Bill did not receive the support of public opinion in Derry. On the 20th of February there was a public indignation meeting held in St. Columba's Hall at which Dr. Keyes O'Doherty, the Catholic Bishop of Derry, who was not a politician—who took no part in politics—thought it his duty to appear to protest against the Bill as if interests of his flock were adversely affected by it. He would read three or four extracts from the Bishop's speech:—
"My rule is to abstain from all such meetings and to confine myself to my ecclesiastical duties here. But there are times and circumstances which demand the sacrifice of one's own private feeling for the public good, and I think the present occasion is one."
Again:—
"This Bill is denominated an Improvement Bill. It appears to me that it should rather be denominated a Bill for deprivation, perpetually, of the Catholics of Derry, of their civil rights."
Was that why the Chief Secretary liked the Bill? Was that his way of killing Home Rule with kindness? The Bishop continued:—
"That we should be perpetually deprived of any representation on the City Council, of any voice in the administration on the City affairs, or of any share of the expenditure of the taxation to which we have to contribute, is certainly a great injustice and one to which we must object in the strongest terms..… The object of the Bill is, while increasing the boundaries, to increase the Unionist vote and to sink the Nationalist vote in the City."
This was a pretty object lesson in the Administration of Ireland. Here was the extraordinary spectacle of a corporation of 24 Members, with not a single Catholic representative; while the Parliamentary representative was elected by the Catholics, the men who could not

561
Vote for the Town Council, and whose exclusion would be made perpetual by this Bill. As to the proposed gerrymandering of the boundaries, there was never any complaint or agitation until the House of Lords rejected the Municipal Franchise Bill of last year. He had merely stated the facts of the case; and they were far too strong to be got over. It was really a Government Bill; and as it was admitted to be so faulty, the Chief Secretary must see that the right thing would be to refuse it a Second Reading. As to the extreme Orange faction by which the Bill had been promoted, he knew the men who composed it, and he had known the Boers of South Africa; and he could say that the Boers were far the more tender and considerate to those who were under them.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Might I ask the hon. Member for North Louth whether he did not say that he would rather be governed by the Grand Orange Lodge than by the English Parliament?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, sir, I did say so, and I am proud of it. I would rather have you than any Englishman.
MR. J. DALYsaid, he did not believe the House knew or realised the state of things which existed in Derry as well as in Belfast. In Derry the Catholics procured a majority of 3,180, and yet they were not able to return a single Member to the corporation, and not a single corporate official was a Catholic. To show the spirit which prevailed among the Party in Belfast the Catholics did not obtain representation in the Corporation, because of the paucity of their numbers, but in Derry where they had a majority, they were also unable to obtain representation. [''Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member also attributed the prosperity of Belfast to the majority of the population, and by the same line of reasoning the prosperity of Derry should be attributed to the Catholic majority. ["Hear, hear!"] He mentioned which promoted this Bill, he mentioned that at the Poor Law Board the City of Derry was represented by two Catholics and two Protestants, but at the nominations the other day, not satisfied with this state of things, two other Protestants were nominated against
562
the Catholics. In the Debate on the Belfast Bill the other night, one of the Members for that city stated that the reason the Catholic population, as an illustration of the different spirit which prevailed among Catholics and Protestants in the North, that in Strabane, where the Catholics were in a majority of the population, of the seven Commissioners, two were Protestants, while three officers were Catholics and two were Protestants. In Armagh, where there were 3,828 Catholics and 3,610 Protestants, there was not a single Catholic officer. Wherever the Protestants in the North of Ireland had a majority, they were not inclined to give fair play to their Catholic fellow countrymen, and therefore he thought the House should support the Motion of the hon. Members for Derry (Mr. Knox), who belonged himself to the religion of the minority of the people of Derry, and who would not be a party to treating them unjustly.
[''Hear hear!"]
The House divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 130.—(Division List, No. 37.)
Bill read 2a.
MR. KNOXsaid, that he begged to move the Motion that stood upon the Paper in his name with the alteration that instead of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee of nine Members, four to be nominated by the House and five by the Committee of Selection, he proposed that the Bill should be referred to the Select Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill. His Motion therefore would stand thus:—
"That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill.
"That all Petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Main Question put, and agreed to:—Bill read 2a and committed to the Select Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Seven clear days be-
563
fore the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.—(Mr. Knox.)

BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Motion made and Question put—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the municipal franchise and the present mode of election of aldermen and councillors of the city, and as to the expediency of applying the principle of cumulative voting to such elections, and whether it is expedient to modify or alter the law as to such franchise or election in other respects, and, if they think fit, to make provision in the Bill for the same accordingly."
MR. KNOXsaid, that it was unnecessary that he should occupy the attention of the House with any lengthened arguments in support of his instruction which was intended to secure the representation on the Belfast Corporation of a minority of the population who were at present unrepresented upon it. He appealed to the fair sense of hon. Members on both side of the House to give his proposal adequate consideration and to come to the conclusion that an attempt ought to be made to remove the long standing grievances which the Catholics of Belfast had endured and were enduring. His Motion proposed that the Select Committee should have power to inquire into the question of the Municipal Franchise of the City of Belfast, and if they should think fit to make such changes in the mode of election as would give a fair share of representation upon the Corporation to all classes of the population. If the Committee were to be of opinion that the various sections of the population could be fairly represented under some other system than that involving the principle of cumulative voting—such, for instance, as by division of the city into wards—or any other way, he should be glad to accept whatever proposal they might make. The strong opinion he had formed was that cumulative voting was the only way in which the Catholics of Belfast could be fairly represented owing to their wide distribution among the rest of the population of the city. He did not ask the House to decide on
564
that occasion whether the principle of cumulative voting should be adopted or not, but merely to give the Committee power to adopt that principle in case they could find no alternative to it. He was aware that there were some objections to the principle of cumulative voting, owing to the experience which had been derived from the School Board Elections. There might be a waste of voting power in this country owing to the difficulty of ascertaining the views of the voters, but that would not be the case in Ireland where the politics as well as the religious views of every man were well known. In illustration of this statement he mentioned that at the last Derry Election they were able to tell before the result was declared, within 10 votes of the actual numbers. When the votes were counted it turned out that 10 voters being of an accommodating disposition, had promised to vote for both candidates and did vote for both—[laughter]—and consequently their votes did not count. On neither side would there be the slightest difficulty in working the system. It was objected that by adopting the cumulative vote they would punish Belfast, but on that point he was able to give the House some information which might influence its judgment. The question of inserting a provision in the Bill for cumulative voting was considered by the Land and Improvements Committee, which included the most able men in the Corporation, and was only defeated by the casting vote of the Member for North Belfast himself, although Mr. McCormack, an Orangeman, and one of the hon. Member's supporters, with other members voted for it. Since then there had been a contested election in North Belfast, and the hon. Knight who was the cause of the rejection of the cumulative vote in the Committee, though supported by the whole strength of his Party organisation, was only returned by 161 on a large poll. ["Hear, hear!"] The significance of the election was greatly increased by the fact that Mr. McCormack, who had supported the cumulative vote, was the agent and principal banker of Mr. Turner. He might illustrate the state of things that existed in Belfast by stating that Mr. Turner, the defeated candidate, was strongly of opinion that he would have

565
won if that story had not been circulated that Mrs. Turner was a Catholic. [Laughter.] That story—that cruel story—[renewed laughter]—having been circulated on the eve of the poll enabled the hon. Member for North Belfast to scrape in by the skin of his teeth. Consequently they had the fact, so far as they could get it, that the opinion of the majority of the people of Belfast was in favour of the adoption of this system. He appealed to the Conservative Party to support the proposal because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House had at various times declared themselves advocates of the cumulative system, and for his own part, he was prepared to pledge himself to support its application to the South of Ireland, whenever any proposal came before the House for the extension of the franchise. Desiring, as far as he could, to meet the views of those on the opposite side of the House, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Oswald) with a slight alteration, so that his instruction would read as follows:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the municipal franchise or mode of Election of Aldermen and Councillors of the City and whether it is expedient to modify or alter the law as to such franchise or mode of election, and, if they think fit, to make provision in the Bill for the same accordingly."
As the Chief Secretary had in the case of the Derry Bill said that he was in favour of the franchise being made the same as the Parliamentary franchise, he assumed that he would apply the same principle to Belfast. He thought the Instruction was a reasonable one and one that ought to meet with the approval of the House.
MR. T. M. HEALYin seconding the Motion said, that as regarded the Derry, Bill the Chief Secretary having committed himself to the Parliamentary franchise, he took it that he could not now recede from that position, and would support the proposal in regard to Belfast. He had the highest authority next to that of the Crown for the extension of the franchise in Ireland—viz., the authority of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. As far back as 10 years ago His Royal Highness put his name to the report of the Royal Commission
566
on the Housing of the Working Classes, which was also signed by a gentleman whose name was not unknown to the House, George J. Goschen, who, he believed, occupied a seat in the present Cabinet—[laughter]—and what those two people said with regard to the franchise in Ireland was to be found on page 13 of the Report:—
"The recital of these qualification shows that the exercise of the municipal franchise in Ireland is restricted on both sides, both as to the voters and as to the persons who may be elected to the local authority; more over, it proposes that in the Irish towns the majority of the people who are rated for the expenses of local government have no voice in the election of the corporate body who expend the rates."
He was quite sure that the House being now made aware that that opinion was held in such distinguished quarters there would be some hesitation on the part of the Tory Party in voting against it. Even the hon. Member for South Belfast, when he read the names of Albert Edward and G. J. Goschen appended to that Report would entirely change his view upon the matter. His Royal Highness also appended his signature to a paragraph which attributed the comparatively high death rate in certain Irish towns to preventable causes and suggested that the fault lay with the prevailing restricted system of the franchise which was not successful in securing the services of a sufficient number of energetic persons in local bodies. He had always been in favour of the introduction into Ireland of the system of cumulative voting. He recognised that in Dublin the Conservative Party were inadequately represented in the Corporation, and instead of 12 Tories he should like to see 24 serving on the body. There was no better means of guaranteeing excellence in municipal life than by the action of an opposition, whether it was an opposition of Protestants against Catholics or of Catholics against Protestants. Some alteration in the present system of election was certainly necessary in the case of towns like Belfast, where intolerance was rampant, and he held that the House ought not to preclude the Committee by a Party Vote from making a desirable change. He might suggest one way by which a representation of the minority might be secured. Under the Lighting of Towns

567
Act of 1828, which was still in operation in about 12 towns in Ireland, elections were triennial, and in his opinion it would be a good thing if this system of triennial elections were adopted for all Municipal elections, because the result would be that more interest would be taken than now in the qualifications of the candidates. In Ireland Aldermen were elected not by the corporations themselves as in England, but by the voters. If these in future were allowed to vote either for Aldermen or for Town Councillors, but not for both classes of representatives, the object which he wished to see accomplished would be greatly assisted, for then the Catholics in Belfast could elect the Aldermen in the Protestant wards and the Protestants could elect the Aldermen in the Catholic wards. By such means as that some fair system of representation would be obtained both for Protestants and Catholics. It might be objected that Aldermen were now elected for six years, whilst Town Councillors were elected for three only. That, however, was an objection that could easily be met. Years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer and more recently the First Lord of the Treasury had spoken in favour of minority representation and cumulative voting, and certainly the system ought first to be adopted where it was most needed.
MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid, that no one would take objection to the Instruction as now worded if it could be considered by itself. Everybody, however, who knew its real meaning realised that it was the same as the instructions originally set down. The meaning was the same, although the guise in which it was presented was different. There could be no doubt that if these directions were given to the Committee, the only things of interest that would be submitted to them would be the question of the cumulative vote. The two instructions were then practically identical. The Instruction as now moved was not only very much milder than the phraseology in which hon. Members opposite indulged last Friday, but those hon. Members had apparently relegated to oblivion all the dreadful accusations which they then thought it right to make against the
568
Orange body in Ulster. They were contented now in saying that it was a pity that Catholics could not be elected to the Belfast Town Council, but listening to them on Friday one would have thought that the Catholics in Belfast were all hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Protestants. He thought it very natural that the large Catholic minority should wish for representation on the Town Council, and he should not object at all to see a certain number of Catholics elected to the Council. What he did object to was the proposal that Catholic representatives should be thrust into the Corporation by artificial devices, and that the whole Municipal Government of Belfast should be treated exceptionally and altered in order to please the Catholics; it was true that hon. Members opposite said that if the representatives of the Corporation of Belfast would agree to the introduction of this cumulative vote they, on their side, would be ready to accept a similar change for the rest of Ireland. But when Bills applying to other parts of Ireland had been before the House, hon. Members opposite had not evinced any desire for the cumulative vote. Only a few days ago they had discussed a Bill affecting Waterford, and nothing was then said about this reform. It appeared to him that hon. Members from Ireland were anxious for the cumulative vote when they thought its adoption would be to the advantage of their supporters, but that they showed less anxiety for its adoption in towns where it would give Protestants the advantage.
MR. JOHN REDMONDobserved that if representations had been made, when the Bill to which the hon. Member had referred was before the House, that there was no adequate representation of Protestants in Waterford, they would certainly have been considered fairly by the hon. Members near him.
MR. WOLFFasked whether any hon. Member would dream of introducing the cumulative vote in an English town where the majority of voters were Conservative, simply in order to allow the Radical Party to have a representation on the Town Council. [Ironical cheers.] When they spoke about Roman Catholics and Protestants in the North of Ireland

569
he said that it was not to the Roman Catholics as a religious body that they objected. The divisions between Roman Catholic and Protestant in the North of Ireland were as distinctly political as those between Radical and Tory in England; and it was because the Roman Catholic was a Home Ruler that he raised objection now. Knowing Belfast well, he defied anyone to divide the city into 15 wards so as to exclude Roman Catholics.
MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to order, pointing out that he was now referring to a portion of the Bill not included in the Instruction.
MR. WOLFF,dealing next with the cumulative vote, said that while they might not object, if it was desired by the House, to have cumulative voting general throughout Ireland, they did object to the city of Belfast being picked out as the town in the whole of the United Kingdom where the experiment should be made. Many hon. Gentlemen were strongly in favour of cumulative voting and of the representation of minorities. He doubted, however, whether anyone who took a broad view of the question, no matter how favourable he might be to the representation of minorities, would think that this particular scheme of representation of minorities should be confined to one town in the North of Ireland. On that ground he objected to the Bill, and trusted that the House would reject the instruction.
MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid, that the evil with which the House was dealing was admitted by every one, or almost by every one. Belfast was a considerable town, where one-fourth of the population were Roman Catholics, and in the Corporation of the city elected by the ratepayers there was not a single Roman Catholic. The same phenomenon was to be seen in Derry, where the Roman Catholics were in the majority, and yet not a single Roman Catholic was returned to the local governing body. That was an evil which the House must agree in recognising. In his judgment the evil was not removed by the plea of his hon. Friend, that though there were no Roman Catholics in the Corporation of Belfast, they were not excluded because they
570
were Roman Catholics; they were excluded because it happened that the Roman Catholic was a Home Ruler in the North of Ireland. That was no excuse whatever. It was an evil in his view, even where there was no difference of creed, that one-fourth of the population of a town of Home Rulers should be unable to possess a Home Rule representative in the local municipality. It was impossible to obtain that knowledge in the governing body which was essential to the well-being of the body governed unless such a representation of the minority was provided for. But it appeared that in Belfast they could not even have fair dealing, because the minority was not only excluded from the governing body, but it was almost excluded from the posts of honour. Would that evil be removed by the proposal to extend the number of wards in Belfast? [Cries of "Yes!" and "No!"] It might be in some degree obviated; they might get a small representation, but would they get an adequate representation for an increase in the number of wards? They might have with a multplicity of wards the same exclusion of Roman Catholics and Home Rulers as prevailed now. It was probably unlikely, but the reduction of the municipal franchise in Belfast had failed to bring on the City Council any representation of Home Rulers or Roman Catholics, and the multiplication of wards might fail in the same way. To meet the evil it was proposed to refer the Bill to a Committee, and to empower it to consider whether any means could be devised in the way of remedy. Cumulative voting was one way; single preferential voting, vote by list, the machinery proposed by the hon. Member for North Louth were other means to the same end. Indeed, a dozen forms of machinery might be suggested and considered for getting rid of the evil if the Committee were given the power to consider them. It was said, however, that this method of requisition was not applied to any town except Belfast. His hon. Friend said it had not been applied to Waterford. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that it was not yet too late; he could move an Instruction to apply the same principle to Waterford. If the hon. Member did so he should be glad to support him.
MR. WOLFFsaid, he was not likely to put down an Instruction proposing to do that against which he now objected.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was now changing his attitude. What was the merit and worth of the argument that the principle should not be applied to Belfast because it could not be applied elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman was a strong advocate of minority representation, and a life-long believer in the system. He could not understand the line of argument that it was an injustice to Belfast to adopt there a system, the merits of which have been accepted and acknowledged by his hon. Friend all his lifetime, because it is not in force in Waterford and Limerick. He did not think that was an argument which could have any hope of being accepted by any person outside the North of Ireland. No Unionist Member could really think that Belfast would be injured by the adoption of a system which was good in itself because it was not adopted in Waterford and Limerick. Then came another argument, which he admitted he considered a serious one—the argument that they ought not, in a private Bill, to propose any alteration of the public law. He had used that argument himself and he felt the force of it; but, at the same time, he also felt the force of an observation once made by the late Mr. Darwin—
"The great defect of English legislation and English Parliamentary procedure is your timidity in trying experiments."
Why not try an experiment locally here and there, and see how it acted? Experiments had been tried in Ireland and in Wales, and it was proposed to extend them elsewhere. But was this a forcible objection? In this instance was there any public law in Ireland with respect to municipal elections which they would be departing from if they passed this Instruction? There was no such thing as a uniform procedure in Ireland. There were some boroughs which had separate Acts affecting them individually, but a general Act remained to be passed. There was no general law to be set aside, and they had, therefore, only to face the question as to whether they should allow the Committee upstairs to enter upon the consideration of this
572
question. Could the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench object to this as a new matter? The hon. Member for Derry called attention to the fact that so far back as 1877 the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed this very special method of cumulative voting in reference to Irish elections. They all knew that the then Chief Secretary for Ireland put it as a provision in the Local Government Bill he brought in, and he was sure that the present Chief Secretary would see that in any future general legislation for Ireland it would be essential that some method of securing the representation of minorities should be introduced. They could not get good local administration in the South or in the North unless it was done. They had got another illustration in this country. When the Local Government Bill was being discussed in relation to the election of parish councils and district councils, he proposed the adoption of the process of minority election in two successive forms, and had the satisfaction on both occasions of carrying the whole of the Conservative Party with him. Could they, with all this authority and weight of argument, accept a plea of timidity, which they would probably shrink from, and that other plea which they might not avow, but which might be potent, that they could not afford to offend their friends in the North of Ireland? Could they on such grounds shrink from giving this, which meant a mandatory but a permissive Instruction to the Committee upstairs. Of course they had to pay some respect to their friends from the North of Ireland, but he would also appeal to his Ministerial Friends from England, Scotland and Wales. They stood as Unionists because they believed that the best, if not the only, way of securing good and just Government throughout Ireland was to bring to Irish questions that moderating influence of the opinion of Great Britain which should control both factions, who are bitterly opposed to each other; and, if they were to remain in their present position of command, if the Union was to be preserved, they would not be able to do it even with a majority of 150, unless they stood by this principle of using the power which they had got to secure justice between the two parties in

573
Ireland. They were right in endeavouring to restrain the turbulence of the South; but they should also endeavour to restrain the exclusive Orangeism of the North. They ought to control one as well as the other. They would fail in their professions and in the great work which they had taken in hand if they did not. He earnestly appealed to Unionist Members from England, Scotland and Wales to remember that this was an illustration of the great problem they had always got in hand—the necessity of carrying good Government into Ireland, in spite of the North as well as in spite of the South, and to overrule the prejudices of both. If they shrank from that because the Members for Belfast were united on the point, if they shrank from it because they found that the Toryism of Ireland did not like to see any of its privileges taken away, because a Conservative Town Council in Belfast could not bear the suggestion that a single Home Ruler should be among them—if they shrank from curbing that feeling and using their power to make this state of things right, they might depend upon it, however great might be their majority now, they would fail in the work they had undertaken.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that might be a convenient time for him to state the views of the Government with regard to this Bill. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin had set before them what he described as an admitted evil in connection with the present position of affairs in Belfast. He himself admitted that condition of affairs to be an evil. At the present time he was aware that the Town Council was entirely in the hands of one party. That was an evil. He was aware, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that there was not a single officer of the Corporation who was otherwise than a Protestant or a Unionist. That was an evil in a city which had 70,000 Catholics and Nationalists among its population. When his right hon. Friend went on to ask whether they should not make an effort to put an end to that condition of things once for all in this Bill, he raised a question which the House would be bound to face some time, but which he did not think it was bound to consider in connection with a private Bill. Let him turn for a
574
moment to the form in which the Instruction had been submitted from the Chair. The hon. Member who moved the Instruction accepted certain Amendments which had been put down upon the Paper that day, the effect of which was to admit a direct reference to the Committee of the expediency of applying the principle of cumulative voting in Belfast. He was afraid that though the form of the Amendment was changed, its substance in reality was not altered, and the speeches which had been delivered that afternoon showed clearly that whether the Instruction was going to be carried in the form in which it originally stood, or in the form now put from the Chair, the real issue that would be raised before the Committee upstairs would be this issue of minority representation by means of the cumulative vote. He did not think it was necessary for him to go into the general question of the merits or demerits of the election to town councils by means of the cumulative vote. He did not think a proposal of that kind would be received with much favour in England or Scotland. In Ireland there was a good deal to be said for it, and the question assumed a different aspect. The principle was embodied in the Local Government Bill of 1892 introduced by the Unionist Party at that time. But, interesting and important as this question of applying the cumulative vote to the election of local authorities in Ireland might be, and necessary as it would be to face that question some time or other, the House, he repeated, should confine itself on the present occasion to considering whether it was a principle that ought to be left to a Committee upstairs to determine in its application to a private Bill. He could conceive that hon. Members might be perfectly convinced that representation of minorities by means of the cumulative vote was a principle that could be best adapted to the case of Belfast, and yet consider it their duty to vote against this Instruction. His right hon. Friend had dwelt on the fact that this was not a novel question, and in one sense, no doubt, it was not a novel question—that was to say that it had been raised in the House before; but it had never yet been decided. It had been introduced into a Bill which passed a

575
Second Reading, but which never got to the Committee stage. The principle, therefore, had never been accepted by Parliament as a whole as one proper to be applied in the election of Town Councils. It was, no doubt, a very important and a very large question, and the House had now to consider whether this principle, novel and important as it was, and wide-reaching as it was in its issues, should, or should not, be introduced by Instruction to a Private Bill Committee; and, secondly, whether it should, or should not be, introduced by an Instruction coming from a gentleman avowedly hostile to this Bill as a whole. On Friday last he listened with great attention to the arguments brought forward by hon. Members opposite against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Louth in particular dwelt upon various references in the Bill to cyclists and other matters. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Matters of police.] The hon. and learned Member appealed to the House to reject the Bill on the ground that those provisions should be dealt with, not by a private, but by a public Bill, and he could not help thinking then that the hon. and learned Member would find that he was cutting the ground from under his feet when he came to argue this Instruction. On Friday the hon. and learned Gentleman blamed the Government for not straining at gnats, and now he denounced them for not swallowing camels.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The other is the camel; this the gnat. [Laughter.]
MR. GERALD BALFOURsupposed the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the matters referred to in the Bill for administration by the local authority more important than this question of the application of the cumulative vote in Town Council Elections. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin did, to a certain extent, argue this question; but he did not do full justice to the view opposed to his own. His right hon. Friend had, for a long time, as was well known, been an ardent worshipper at the shrine of minority representation, and it would be painful to him to lose an opportunity on this occasion of adding yet another small sacrifice to his idol. [Laughter.] But for this being a question in which his right hon. Friend was himself deeply
576
interested, and to which he attached so much importance, he would have been on the side of the Government that day, and would have argued that this was a matter which the House as a whole ought to decide in reference to a public Bill, and which should not be delegated to a Committee upstairs. The Instruction was moved by an hon. Member hostile to the Bill; and, if the Bill had contained a provision such as the hon. Member desired should be introduced by a Committee, then there would have been sufficient ground for the rejection of the Second Reading. But such provision had not been introduced by the promoters. They had followed the usual and normal course in a Bill of the kind, and had simply asked that the ordinary principle in vogue up to the present time should be applied in Belfast to the election of the City Council. Should the House now, at the instance of an opponent of the Bill, introduce an Instruction to the Committee to do that which, had the promoters included it in the first instance, would have justified the rejection of the Second Reading? He could not help thinking that that would have been a very improper course for the House to pursue. At the end of his speech his right hon. Friend used an argument he was sorry to hear from his lips. He taunted the Government with opposing this Instruction on the ground of timidity, and said the Government wore influenced by the feelings and prejudices of their friends in the North of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to state, and in impressive terms, what he conceived to be the duty of an Irish Government—to place itself between the Nationalist Members on the one side and the North of Ireland Members on the other. Nobody could have been Chief Secretary for Ireland for six months without feeling the difficulties his right hon. Friend had so luridly described. They were great difficulties, but the Government had hitherto endeavoured to lean neither to the one side nor the other—[Nationalist laughter]—to lean neither to the one side nor the other [cries of "Oh, oh" from Nationalist Members] and hold an even balance between parties. In resisting this Instruction he did so in accordance with precedent, acting in no way from timidity or from a desire to

577
please friends in the North and to do for them what he would not do under similar circumstances for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Such was the line of policy which the Government had throughout endeavoured to maintain; they were following that policy still in resisting this Instruction, and such was the line of policy they would follow to the end.
MR. T. M. HEALY: What about the Parliamentary franchise?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Member had asked him about the Parliamentary franchise. He stated, in reference to the Derry Bill, that in his judgment the promoters would have done well when altering the franchise to alter it to the Parliamentary franchise. But in the present Bill there was no suggestion to alter the franchise at all. It would, therefore, be asking a much larger thing of the promoters of the Bill that they, in introducing changes, should completely recast the municipal franchise of Belfast. In whose interest would such a change operate? He thought it would strengthen the Orange party of the city.
MR. KNOX: I demand it alike for Orangemen and for the Catholic interests. Capitalists alone oppose it.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was possible the hon. Member might have supported this in the interests of the Orange faction in Belfast, but he was not aware the hon. Member had such a tender compassion for the Orangemen. But that was not the idea of the hon. and learned Member for Louth; he did not recommend the reduction of the franchise in the interests of the Orangemen.
MR. T. M. HEALY: No, in the interests of the common people.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if that were so, for his part, he could see no objection in principle in reducing the franchise. Whether it helped one side or the other was a matter of indifference to him, and sooner or later all those franchises would have to be reduced to a uniform level. But he submitted that it was a serious matter to ask the promoters of this Bill to undo at the present time all that had been done in connection with the Belfast franchise—that it would be unfair to require that because they had introduced a Bill dealing with
578
various local matters therefore they should go to the trouble and expense of changing the franchise unless some object had to be gained. But the object for which hon. Members opposite were contending by the Instruction—the adequate representation of Catholics and Protestants in Belfast—would not be affected by the adoption of this principle in elections there.
MR. KNOX: Considerably affected, but not entirely attained by the change.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that however that might be no case had been shown for insisting that the question of the franchise should be touched. If the Government resisted the proposal it was because it raised issues that should not be left to be settled by a Committee upstairs.
MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid every time the right hon. Gentleman got up to speak upon proposals made by hon. Members from the Benches opposite to him he showed how rapidly the policy with which he began his official career—the policy to kill Home Rule with kindness—was disappearing. [Laughter.] No Measure had been proposed or supported by hon. Members below the Gangway but the right hon. Gentleman found himself obliged to resist it, although he had just now assured the House that the right hon. Member for Bodmin had done him an injustices in attributing to him timidity or fear of his northern supporters. On all those occasions the right hon. Gentleman had been, he would not say forced, but biassed, against conclusions to which his own impartial judgment might have led him by the necessity of consulting what might be called the sinister interests in Ireland. He could not conceive a more gratuitous concession to this Northern prejudice and passion than the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman was taking up with reference to this not very fundamental or far-reaching affair. But just because it was not a wide and far-reaching proposal the more easily might the right hon. Gentleman have met the views and the demands of the large majority of Irish representatives, and resist for once the prejudice and passion of the Northern Protestant representatives. He had no

579
desire whatever to speak in any uncharitable tone of those gentlemen. He had had his own difficulties before now with them, and he thought they would do him the justice to say that when he was Chief Secretary he never yielded to his supporters and friends when he thought their demands were unfair to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could have wished the right hon. Gentleman had shown the same firmness towards the prejudice of his Northern supporters which, he ventured to say without an excess of complacency, he showed more than once in dealing with his friends below the Gangway. He knew very well that when the right hon. Gentleman announced his policy of killing Home Rule with kindness he meant it. He knew that he was going over to Ireland with a thorough desire to do all that the most enlightened Irish patriot could do or desire him to do, but he knew very well that he would not have been a month in Dublin Castle before he would feel slowly, but irresistibly, surging in upon him all the flood of prejudice and passion and old ascendency tradition which was just as strong in Ireland in a certain section of Irishmen now as it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago. He regretted it. He should have liked, after the verdict of the country at the last election upon one issue or another, to see the experiment tried by a strong Unionist Government of meeting, if possible, Irish demands and doing the best that could be done to avoid what Gentlemen opposite would have thought a great calamity. But he was well aware that the experiment was a hopeless one from the first, and every speech that he had had the privilege of hearing from the Chief Secretary showed that he was going to be dragged down into the same hopeless rut in which Unionist and Liberal Governments too hitherto had had to make their way and with so little success. [Cheers.] If he were speaking merely as a Home Ruler he should certainly be glad that the Chief Secretary had taken the view that he had done. The right hon. Gentleman had given no answer, it seemed to him, to the appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. The other day the Chief Secretary warned them on that side of the House to distinguish between the attitude taken up by the Conservative section
580
of the Unionists and that taken up by the Liberal Unionists. [Nationalist cheers.] They were having another admonition that afternoon in the same direction. The Member for Bodmin spoke as a true and enlightened Unionist ought to speak, in his judgment. That right hon. Gentleman said, "Meet Ireland where you can"; and what was the Chief Secretary's answer? His answer, in substance, was that the real issue of this Instruction was whether a Committee should or should not decide that the cumulative vote should be introduced in this special case. He would remind the Chief Secretary that that was not a really accurate definition of the Instruction as it now stood. If it were a positive, a mandatory instruction to introduce the cumulative vote, he should have had some difficulty in supporting it. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin and he had for a long time differed upon this great subject; but he had always gone so far with him as to admit that, if there was a set of social circumstances which would justify trying the experiment of the cumulative vote or some other form of minority representation, Ireland, either in part or as a whole, represented the field and the area in which such an experiment might advantageously be tried. But that was not the real issue. The Instruction directed the Committee to consider, not the propriety of introducing the cumulative vote, but of discovering whether by any means, the cumulative vote or otherwise, they could meet the evil which the Chief Secretary himself very candidly admitted. The right hon. Gentleman admitted it, but if they wanted to hear the view of the right hon. Gentleman's friends, it came from the hon. Member for South Belfast. The Chief Secretary said—
"I admit it is a great evil that there should be no Catholic on the Town Council of Belfast and no Catholic employé in the service of that Council;"
but that honest supporter of his called out "I do not admit it!" [Nationalist Cheers.] He would ask Gentlemen opposite to consider whether, at the beginning of a new Parliament and at the opening of a new Irish Policy, they were going to allow themselves to be

581
drawn into a resistance of every Irish demand that came from below the Gangway by Gentlemen like the hon. Member for South Belfast, who saw no evil in the total exclusion of men of a particular religious communion from anything like municipal power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin pointed out that the Instruction was permissive; and, secondly, what he valued greatly as coming from a Member of this House with his authority, the importance of this House accustoming itself to allowing municipalities and local governing bodies to try experiments of all kinds and in all subjects. This was a very small subject, and if the House, guided by the Chief Secretary, rejected the proposal, they were embarking upon a policy which would undoubtedly, as the Member for Bodmin urged, before the end of this Parliament, overthrow the whole foundations upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite hoped, and from a certain point of view reasonably hoped, to erect the structure of a stable and beneficent policy in Ireland. He regretted sincerely the line taken by the Chief Secretary. It would not become him to use the language which the hon. Member for Bodmin used when he said that the professions with which the Government majority was gained, in respect of Irish affairs, were false professions. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] The right hon. Member for Bodmin said that the refusal of this Instruction would be an indication that the professions which had been made of a desire to meet Irish feeling, Irish demands, and Irish evils, where opportunity arose, were false professions.
MR. COURTNEY: I did not use language of that kind. [Cheers.] I appealed to my hon. Friends about me to remember the line they took, and to recognise that in this case they were called upon to carry it out by granting the Instruction.
MR. MORLEYsaid, he could not see the slightest difference between what he imputed to the right hon. Gentleman and what the right hon. Gentleman admitted he intended to say. This was a test case of whether they were going to make any concession whatever to Irish demands; and whether, though they would not grant the greater demand, they were going to allow localities to try experiments; or whether they
582
were going to surrender themselves to the old passion and prejudice which had brought Irish government to its present miserable condition. [Nationalist cheers.]
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the Chief Secretary stated he saw no difference between the instruction as it originally stood and as the hon. Member moved it. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend. He certainly regarded the cumulative voting as a very valuable system of representation, but he thought the hon. Member had been very wisely advised in moving the Instruction in the amended form, because he believed that, when the Bill went before the Committee, inquiry might show other systems equally or even more desirable. He very much wished that this matter was to be decided by the votes of the hon. Members who had heard the discussion, because he should like to appeal to them and ask them whether the arguments of his right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary were really an answer to the arguments brought forward by hon. Members on the other side and by his right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin. The Chief Secretary admitted the evil, then why should he not try to remove it? He understood the hon. Member for Derry to pledge himself that, when a similar Bill came forward for any other part of Ireland, he would suppor at similar Instruction. The hon. Member for Longford did the same, and he presumed they spoke for the hon. Gentlemen on those Benches. They would thus establish a principle which would be adopted wherever it was required, and which would be gradually extended over the whole of Ireland. The Chief Secretary said it would be undesirable to do so in this case because it came from an opponent of the Bill. But surely they must deal with the Instruction, not with reference to the source from which it proceeded, but with reference to what the effect would be on the Measure. Then he went on to say that the hon. Member for Longford, when this Bill was last before the House, argued that these were changes which ought to be made by a Public Bill. That was perfectly true. That was the contention of the hon. Member, but the House decided against him. The House decided that this was a question which should be

583
decided by a Private Bill. He thought there was a great deal to be said for moving in this matter carefully and cautiously, and for trying the experiment, if it was an experiment, in some particular place before they applied it over the whole country. He had no doubt in his own mind that the experiment was one which would succeed. What had they seen in Switzerland within the last two or three years? This proposal was introduced into the Canton of Ticino, very much for the same reasons that had been advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It had worked there to the general satisfaction of the people, and it had worked so well that it had been extended to the Cantons of Geneva, Neufchatel, Zug and Basle, and probably would be adopted in other places in Switzerland also. Surely then it would not be wrong to try it here also. What they were asked to do was to give the Committee power to look into the matter and then decide. He advocated the institution on the grounds that minorities should have a fair hearing. As long as municipal elections were conducted in Ireland on the present system they would have the people divided into two hostile camps, but if this Instruction were passed and acted upon by the Committee it would do something to break down these unfortunate differences which existed, and help to secure the election of men who would look upon municipal government from an administrative, and not merely from a political or religious point of View
MR. STUART-WORTLEYas an old friend of proportional representation, was interested in this matter to see what prospects they had of tolerance and reciprocity in other parts of Ireland. He reminded the House that when the Unionists in 1893 proposed an Amendment to introduce into the Home Rule Bill a system of minority representation, under the Home Rule Government, it was resisted by Mr. Gladstone on the ground, amongst others, that it would not do to apply to Ireland a system that had been rejected for the rest of the United Kingdom, and it was outvoted by a majority which included the whole strength of the Nationalist and Irish Party.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYin supporting the Instruction, said that he
584
had been returned on the idea that they were to do their utmost to assimilate in every possible way the municipal arrangements of Ireland with those of England, and to endeavour to do away with every sort of injustice and anomaly in Ireland. In England such a condition of things as existed in Belfast would be considered unfair, unjust and un-English, for it was not disputed that there was no possibility of the 70,000 out of the 250,000 of the population having any voice in the management of that great city. If there was any possible way of getting rid of that anomaly it ought to be adopted, for he regarded it as a serious evil. He agreed that it ought not to be done by a private Bill, but they had waited 10 years for a public Bill and he thought they were bound, when an opportunity occurred in that informal way, to remove an injustice which was recognised by everybody and even by the Chief Secretary himself. He should certainly vote for the Instruction because it was reasonable and fair, for it was monstrous to talk so much about injustice to Ireland and to maintain such an outrageous anomaly. He did not believe it would change the representation in Belfast, while it would remove an injustice which would not be tolerated in England for a single month. [Cheers.]
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he did not want to continue the Debate, but desired to make some reply to the somewhat violent attack made upon him by the right hon. Member for Bodmin. He was supposed to have resorted to most unsparing sophistry, and a line of argument had been imputed to him which was not one upon which he relied, or asked the House to rely upon. The right hon. Gentleman charged him with extraordinary inconsistency in avowing himself an advocate of a particular form of voting, and then objecting to its application to Belfast. His reply was this—he looked to what was existing in other parts of Ireland, and they knew what Belfast was. They believed it to be a centre of good government and of loyalty in the North of Ireland. It might be said that the means which had been used to produce that result were such as they did not want to continue. He admitted it, and the Bill proposed to alter them; but he was not blind to the result which had been

585
attained. The hon. Member for the Scotland Ward Division of Liverpool charged him with inconsistency on the ground that he had said he did not believe that the admission of these new elements into the Corporation of Belfast would be an advantage, and yet that, holding that belief, he still advocated their admission. For his own part, he thought it was most important that the Nationalists should be heard. He did not regard the charge of inconsistency as any charge at all. He had the facts regarding the city of Limerick, although the right hon. Gentleman said he could not deny them. Perhaps he could not, but he was going to try. He found that in the city of Limerick at the present moment there was one Protestant on the Corporation, and he happened to be a Separatist. Out of all the officials of the Corporation there were only three who were Protestants.
MR. MACNEILL: Since 1841 there have been 13 or 14 Protestant mayors of Limerick.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that what he wanted to point out was that if they were to alter the whole constitution of one great town in Ireland, they must, in common fairness, carry out that principle, and apply it to all the other great towns. He thought it was fair to demand that while they were diminishing safeguards to good government in one part, they should establish safeguards to government in other parts, and he, and those who supported his view, were consistent in asking that what was done in one town should be done in other towns. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him his assistance in proposing to extend this Amendment to other towns in Ireland, he would gladly prove his consistency by doing his best to carry it into operation. The hon. Member for Sheffield was quite correct when he said that the same proposition, to apply the principle of proportional voting to the whole of Ireland, was rejected unanimously by the Party to which the late Chief Secretary belonged.
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that he had said he did not like cumulative voting at all.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, there was in the mind of the House some proposal for giving to Belfast proportional
586
representation, and he thought, therefore, the argument would hold good. He again complained of having been painted in black colours and being represented as some prejudiced person who desired to see every evil institution continued in the North of Ireland. On the contrary, they were now proposing a Bill to remedy what was agreed to be an undesirable state of things, and all he desired now to do was to protest against the charges of inconsistency and intolerance which had been made against him.
MR. S. YOUNGsaid that he thought he ought to know more about his native town than the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he just wanted to make one or two suggestions. He would admit at once that there were a good many good things to be said about the Town Council of Belfast. He believed that the affairs in the past had been well managed, and he would say further that a Bill was required for the extension of the boundaries of that rapidly growing city. His difficulty was to find a remedy for the state of feeling which existed in Belfast, and he thought that remedy would lie very much in a division of the wards. There were two systems of dividing wards, one from the centre to the circumference, and the other of a division of the centre of the city, and then the wards to be adjusted outside of the centre. He was not sure that he had confidence in Dublin Castle notwithstanding the good intentions of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he was afraid that any appointment from Dublin Castle, or from the Chief Secretary, would not be acceptable to the Belfast people who were in the minority if they had anything to do with the division, and, therefore, he would suggest that the House should itself appoint an officer to arrange the wards in Belfast.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is nothing about the division of the wards in this Instruction. It only relates to the franchise and the present mode of election.
MR. YOUNGsaid he bowed to the Speaker's decision, but thought the point as to the division of wards was one on which they might agree. The condition of Belfast was one that required exceptional measures; the

587
disease was very great, and they ought to take exceptional measures to remedy it.
MR. JOHNSTONdesired to say a few words upon the patriotic aspect of the question taken up by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. He was sure he would not decline to acknowledge the Irish Catholic, which, not very long since had a series of articles proposing a run on the Belfast banks, unless the Roman Catholic claims were conceded.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he never heard of it.
MR. JOHNSTONsaid that the proprietor or editor was very anxious that he should hear of it, for the newspaper was sent to him regularly with the articles marked in blue pencil. After reading those articles, they might be pardoned if they doubted the patriotism and the purity of their motives when they claimed a share in the representation. Twenty-seven years ago, when he first sat as Member for Belfast he advocated the assimilation of the municipal and parliamentary franchise, and he believed he had the honour of being supported at one time by Mr. Parnell, and certain supporters of his Party in Belfast. Personally, he had always endeavoured to do what was right in such matters apart from questions of Party, but those on the opposite side never lost an opportunity of vilifying Belfast. ["No, no!"] At one time there was a conspiracy to boycott its linen trade, and America was asked to join the patriotic Irish in boycotting the trade, which, like everything else that was good, was called the ''Orange Linen Trade." He was not ashamed of being an Orangeman, and thought they would even be endorsed by the Member for North Louth, if he properly inquired into the principles of the Orangemen, for they embraced toleration for Roman Catholics. Those principles had been misrepresented time after time, and he was afraid that those misrepresentations had operated to some extent on the minds of Members on the Conservative side of the House. This Corporation, of which they had heard such evil spoken, had made miles on miles of docks and miles on miles of wharves, and it had made a channel from the town to the deep sea. He would ask the House to leave in the hands of the city council the charge which it had so well performed hitherto,
588
and not interfere with this prosperous and progressive city, whose prosperity, he believed, was largely due to its Protestantism.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Member was completely wrong as to the opinion held as to the prosperity of Belfast by the great majority of Irishmen. He was opposed to the political opinions held by the representatives of Belfast, but in spite of that the Irish people, Nationalists and Catholics, were exceedingly proud of the prosperous position which Belfast had attained. If he were abroad he should be one of the first to boast of the prosperous state of Belfast if the question should arise—["hear, hear!"]—and the enormous strides it had made. All they wished was that other cities had the same advantages and the same care as was lavished on Belfast.
MR. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Member specify any benefit which Belfast had ever received from the Government?
MR. MACNEILL: Bounties for the local trade.
MR. W. REDMONDsaid perhaps it would not be in order, but he might refer the hon. Member—
MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not be led away by the interruption. [Laughter.]
MR. W. REDMONDsaid he should not, but it was awfully hard. [Laughter.] The speech of the hon. Member appeared to him to exhibit in the most perfect manner the spirit of exclusiveness to which they objected. The hon. Member said—he did not know whether he meant to be insulting, but possibly not—that the addition of any Catholics to the Belfast Committee would not tend towards the good government, or help the city in any way. That was the sneering spirit to which they objected—that the addition of a dozen men who were Roman Catholics was not calculated to tend towards good government. The hon. Member for West Belfast was totally wrong in the contrast which he drew between Belfast and other corporate cities in Ireland. If the hon. Member could point out in the cities of Limerick, Cork or Waterford, where the people were largely Catholic, that the same state of affairs existed as in Belfast, he would as strongly protest against it as he

589
did in the case of Belfast. Protestants were not excluded. It was quite the contrary. In Belfast and Derry there was not a single Catholic representative, but in the southern corporations it was well known that there were many Protestants to be found. In many cases Catholics had shown their toleration by electing many Protestants to seats in that House. ["Hear, hear!"] The Chief Secretary said he was in favour of extending the franchise in Belfast and Derry—["no!'']—but he knew very well that the franchise could not be extended if this Instruction was rejected. It did his heart good to hear the speeches of Unionist Members opposite. It was purely a local Irish question. It did not affect the Union in the slightest degree. It did not affect the integrity of the Empire or separation, and they only asked for that which would not be denied for a moment to any British city, or any city in any part of the world.
SIR THOMAS LEAthought the Instruction would put a heavy load on the Committee, by asking it to deal with a question which the House itself should decide. He did not know who the Members were that would serve on this Committee, but they would be bound to give a negative Report on this question. His right hon. Friend said, let them do justice to the majority of the Irish representatives on this matter, but the question arose, was it just to make this experiment in Belfast. They declined to do that, and rather than do it they might possibly drop their Bill. By passing the Instruction, the House would put a great responsibility on the Committee upstairs, and it would do an injustice to the citizens of Belfast.
MR. JOHN DILLONsaid, the hon. Baronet opposite had argued that this proposal should not be made in connection with a private Bill. The difficulty the Irish Members laboured under was that they had been waiting for many years to get such grievances remedied by public Bills, and they despaired of doing so. The Chief Secretary admitted the grievance and the evil; but the hon. Member for South Belfast denied that it was an evil, and he thus spoke the true sentiments of the controlling faction. The Chief Secretary said the remedy ought to be applied by public Bill. Seven years ago they received
590
a solemn pledge from the then Leader of the Unionist Party in the House that the whole question of local self-government for Ireland would be dealt with at the same time as it was for England; but Ireland was now further from the time of the question being dealt with than it was eight years ago. Therefore, Irish Members were justified in attempting to deal with it in any way they could. If, as the Chief Secretary said, the hon. and learned Member for North Louth was cutting the ground from under his feet when he objected to certain provisions dealing with the police and change of venue, because they ought not to be inserted in a Private Bill, did not the right hon. Gentleman see that he cut the ground from under his own feet when he insisted on reading the Bill a Second time with these provisions in it? When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a gnat and a camel, he made an unreasonable and absurd comparison, because the provisions of the Bill would reverse the whole public policy of the House with regard to the control of the police. This was a question which it was infinitely more improper to introduce into a Private Bill. Therefore there was not the least force in the argument that the Committee ought not to be asked to consider the question raised by the Instruction. He was quite prepared to admit that it would be better to settle all such questions by Public Bill if they could get one; but the Chief Secretary knew well that Irish Members could not introduce one with any chance of its making progress, and that the discussion of a Private Bill afforded the only opportunity they had of raising the question. The Chief Secretary claimed that he had resolutely and firmly preserved an attitude of impartiality between what he called the two factions; but the Nationalist Members did not admit this; they rather held that, before the meeting of Parliament and since, on every occasion that opportunity offered, he had shown an inclination to run counter to the wishes of the great majority of the people of Ireland. And now, while he admitted the existence of a grievance as to which a section of his Party urged inquiry, once more he declined, for no reason that would hold water, but simply because the Members for Belfast and others sitting behind him solidly opposed

591
this Instruction, to consider a remedy, and on the part of the Government he resisted and would defeat this Instruction. All that the Nationalist Members could do was to appeal to Ministerialists to listen to the voice of the hon. Member for Bodmin rather than to the voice of the Leader of the House.
The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 219.—(Division List, No. 36).

QUESTIONS.

  ILL-TREATMENT OF ANIMALS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a correspondence between Mr. H. S. Salt, Honorary Secretary of the Humane League, and the Commissioner of Police, with respect to the ill-usage, overloading, and unnecessary flogging of horses in the streets of London; whether he will consider the propriety of suggesting to the Commissioner of Police the necessity of issuing more precise and stringent instructions, urging the police by their personal authority to put an end to the common practice of overloading and ill-using horses in London; whether he is aware that in Manchester, Leeds, Huddersfield, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Cardiff, Bradford, and other towns, the police have orders to intervene, and do intervene, in cases of cruelty; and whether a similar practice might be adopted in the Metropolis?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The only powers which the Metropolitan Police have with regard to the ill-treatment of animals are those conferred by the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1849; and I have no ground for supposing that they are remiss in exercising them. In 1894 1,382 persons were apprehended, and 349 summoned, by the Metropolitan Police for cruelty to animals, while the total number of persons apprehended in the same year throughout England and Wales was 2,863. Further, the number of prosecutions under the Act in the Metropolitan Police district in 1894 was 2,817; in
  592
  the eight boroughs referred to by the hon. Member, 1,530; in the whole of England and Wales, 12,769. These figures do not appear to me to point to the necessity of additional or more stringent instructions being given to the Force.

  SOLDIERS AND THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether instructions will be given to commanding officers to refrain from punishing or reprimanding, as in some recent instances, soldiers who think fit to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): General officers commanding districts were instructed in 1893 that the grant of permission to wear a national or other emblem or badge on the occasion of anniversaries was to be left to the direction of officers commanding units. It is not thought necessary to issue further orders on the subject.
  MR. MACNEILLasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that in 1892 a soldier named O'Grady was sentenced to 48 hours' imprisonment by the commanding officer at Aldershot for wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's
  Day?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, there was no desire to interfere with the discretion of the commanding officer in such matters.
  MR. MACNEILL: May the men wear the shamrock, then?
  [No answer was given.]

  HOSTILITIES NEAR MOMBASA.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Indian troops have been engaged in military operations in the neighbourhood of Mombasa, under the command of Captain Barratt, 1st Sikhs, and Lieutenant Scott, 3rd Sikhs; who has directed in chief the military operations on the east coast of Africa; whether, in the course of the present year, fighting has been going on in the suburbs of Mombasa itself; and whether the fighting in the immediate neighbourhood of Mombasa and the recent hostility of the Masai tribe have delayed the construction of the Uganda Railway?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The Indian troops in question are Punjaubi Mussulman or Pathan Volunteers from Indian regiments, 300 in number, who belong to the regular police force of the Protectorate. Major Hatch is the officer in chief command. The missionary station at Frere Town was attacked on January 21 by marauders who were repulsed by the native guard without loss to the latter. The construction of the railway has not been interfered with.

  SCHOOL GRANTS.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) if, in calculating the population within two miles, for the purpose of making special grants to schools for small populations under Section 10 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, and Article 104 of the Code, the Department have power to exclude residents within the two miles limit, for whom accommodation is provided by other schools more conveniently situated for them, or who are within other school districts than that for the accommodation of which such small schools have been built; (2) if he is aware that considerable hardship is caused to managers of different schools ordered by the Department to be built to supply the educational requirements of outlying parts of school districts, and which would otherwise be eligible for the special grant to schools for small populations, by the practice of including within the two miles limit residents in other school districts or for whose education other schools are more conveniently situated, and who, in fact, make no use of the additional school accommodation provided by order of the Department; (3) if he can state how many schools for small populations are for this reason considered ineligible for the special grant; and (4), if he will take steps to redress this hardship by giving the inspectors power to recommend that in the case of any school built in pursuance of the order of the Department such population shall not be included within the two mile limit as
  594
  is within another school district, and in their opinion is better provided for by some other public elementary school?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council not only have power, but are bound, by the terms of the section, to include the whole population within two miles of the school in every direction; and the suggestions of the hon. Member could not be carried out except by an alteration of the law. Some schools are, no doubt, in the situation described in paragraph 2 of the Question, but I am unable to say how many.

  CONVEYANCE OF SINGLE POST LETTERS BY RAILWAY.
  MR. D. N. NICOL: On behalf the hon. Member for Canterbury, Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the present regulations in the "Post Office Guide" for the conveyance of single letters by railway; whether, until letter-post boxes are provided in all through trains, he will abolish all the present regulations, and permit railway guards to carry letters which are properly stamped with the requisite amount of postage for a fee of 1d.; whether, of the 2d. now demanded, in addition to postage, on each letter brought to a railway station for transmission by train, any portion goes to the Government; and, if he can give the date when the present system of exacting 2d. on each letter, in addition to the stamp, was brought into operation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is, of course, aware of the regulations for the conveyance of single post letters by railway. Those regulations were framed after negotiation with the railway companies, with a view to provide for a special class of correspondence, and the Postmaster General has no power to reduce the special fee, the whole of which is retained by the railway companies. The arrangement with the companies came into operation on the 1st February, 1891.

  LETTER-BOXES (THROUGH TRAINS).
  MR. NICOL: On behalf of Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any extension is contemplated in the provision of letter-boxes for attachment to through trains, to be cleared at the terminus of the journey, with a view to enable the public to post correspondence up to the latest moment, and to have it conveyed by the quickest and most direct route; and, whether, in the chief countries and colonies included in the Postal Union, letter-boxes are already provided for through trains?
  MR. HANBURY: Letter-boxes are attached to all trains in which travelling post offices run, and to a few other trains used for the conveyance of mails in which there is a mail guard. The question of extending the use of letter-boxes of this kind has often been considered, but, judging from the extent to which the existing letter-boxes on the principal mail trains are resorted to, the amount of correspondence which would be posted in boxes attached to ordinary trains would be trifling, and would not justify the special arrangements that would have to be made for meeting the trains and dealing with the correspondence, not only at the terminal but at intermediate stations. The Postmaster General is not aware to what extent letter-boxes are attached to ordinary passenger trains in the colonies and other countries included in the Postal Union.

  PILLAR LETTER-BOX THEFTS.
  MR. NICOL: On behalf of Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the officials of the Department have yet seen any mechanical device for preventing the theft of letters from pillar-boxes, which seems to be efficient; whether he is aware that in Germany a simple plan has been adopted for this purpose and found effectual; whether he has personally examined any models of the numerous British inventions of such mechanical checks; and, whether he can promise that after a fixed date the pillar-boxes in the United Kingdom shall no longer be left at the mercy of thieves?
  MR. HANBURY: The officials of the Department have not yet seen any mechanical device which would effectively prevent the abstraction of letters from street letter-boxes under all circumstances, and at the same time be free from serious objections in other respects. The Postmaster General has personally examined models of inventions submitted to the Post Office. The plan stated to be adopted in Germany is well known, and is not considered to be effective. There is still no reason to suppose that thefts from street letter-boxes are anything but rare.

  PAUPER LUNATICS.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any representations have reached him in favour of extending the Exchequer contribution of 4s. per head, in respect of pauper lunatics in county asylums, to the maintenance of pauper lunatics returned to workhouse wards after curative treatment; and whether he will carefully consider the feasibility of making the necessary alteration in the law with this object in view?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have received a large number of communications in favour of a grant being made by the County Councils in respect of certain classes of pauper lunatics maintained in workhouses, and the subject is receiving my consideration.

  TRAMPING PENSIONERS.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a pamphlet recently published by the master of the Faringdon Workhouse, in which he describes certain grave abuses under the head of tramping pensioners and short service men; and whether, having regard to the serious increase of vagrancy throughout the country, and to the fact that in the counties of Berks, Bucks, Oxon, and Warwick, it is shown, at pp. 26 and 27 of the Local Government Board Report, 1894–5, to have increased 256 per cent. in the 10 years, 1883–94,

  597
  he will consult the proper military authority as to the possibility of protecting discharged soldiers and pensioners from the temptations to which they are exposed on leaving the Army under the present system of deferred pay and the quarterly payment of pensions.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I had not seen the pamphlet referred to prior to the notice given by my hon. Friend of his Question. I will bring under the attention of the Secretary of State for War the statements which it contains with regard to the relief, as vagrants, of discharged soldiers and pensioners.

  OBAN AND WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAYS.
  SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the junction between the Oban Railway and West Highland Railway at Crianlarich, though completed for some months, is closed by interdict to the great inconvenience of the public, and that goods have to be carted from one station to another; and whether he will take steps to have communication opened forthwith?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade cannot interfere in this matter. Certain additional land is required to enable the company to make the junction available for traffic and the company have applied to Parliament for powers to acquire it.

  POLICE PROTECTION (IRELAND).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if he can state how much per annum the police hut of Dromod, South Monaghan, costs the State; (2) what is the valuation of the evicted farms this hut is intended to protect; (3) if he is aware that County Court Judge Orr was presented with white gloves at the assize town of the district of Castleblaney last Sessions; (4) whether he had seen the complimentary address of Judge Orr on the peaceful state of the locality; and (5) if he will take steps to have the hut removed, considering the very orderly state of the district?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The pay and allowances of the police at Dromod Hut amount to about £267 per annum, but this sum does not represent any additional cost to the State, since the services of the police there are used for general public purposes in a large surrounding area, and the reason for the quartering of the men in a hut, instead of a regular barrack, is because no suitable house is obtainable in the locality. Prior to October, 1894, the hut existed solely for the protection of the occupant of an evicted farm, the valuation of which is £18 10s. The fact is as stated in the third paragraph, and the hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report of the Judge's address referred to in the next paragraph.
  MR. DALYasked whether it was not a fact that there were no police at that particular place until the eviction took place; whether it was not true they were put there for protection duty, and whether that was not an extra charge on the district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they were put there at first for protection purposes, and were retained for general purposes.
  DR. TANNER: Raise the question on the Estimates.

  VOLUNTEER TRAINING.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY: In the absence of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Sir HOWARD VINCENT), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that of all Metropolitan employers, many Government Departments give the least facility for Civil servants who are Volunteers to be with their regiments for the continuous training enjoined by the authorities at Easter; and, if he will, by communication with the heads of the several Ministries, endeavour to induce them to make such arrangements as may save Volunteers in the Civil employment of the Government from coming up at their own expense from distant places on the Saturday morning, and take care that an example is set in this matter by the War Office and Horse Guards?
  MR. BRODRICK: So far as the War Department is concerned, instructions will be given to the heads of the various branches to afford, subject to the exigencies of the service, all reasonable facilities to Volunteers who may wish to serve with their corps on the Saturday before Easter. The Secretary of State will issue a circular to other public Departments inviting them to act in a similar manner.

  TOWN-PARKS (IRELAND).
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of so-called town-parks in Ireland, whether he is aware of the strong feeling existing in Ireland as to the exclusion of these holdings from the benefit of the fair-rent provisions of the Land Acts; and whether, considering that the Cowper Commission recommended that, in order to exclude them, the town should have 5,000 inhabitants, and that in the Land Bill of 1887 adopted by the House of Commons it was provided that there should be no town-parks where the town did not exceed a population of 2,000 inhabitants, he will extend to the inhabitants of towns in Ireland the fair-rent provisions of the Land Acts in respect of the lands which they hold adjacent to such towns?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question of town-parks has been considered in connection with the coming Land Bill, but it would be premature to disclose the provisions of the Bill prior to its introduction.

  LIQUOR DUTY (GOLD COAST).
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if five influential firms of merchants established on the West African Gold Coast have recently sent a petition to the English and German Governments asking for a heavier duty on liquors in view of the next revision (1897) of the Convention between these two Powers; and, if so, what answer has been returned to them by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,): The petition has been received and the matter is under consideration.

  INCOME TAX (CHURCHES).
  MR. ALEXANDERCROSS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in Scotland, churches and mission-halls, hitherto exempt from property tax, are now being assessed by the Inland Revenue authorities on the ground that they are used for purposes other than strictly Divine worship, although no profit is derived therefrom; whether he will state if this be the reason for their present assessment; and, if he will favourably consider an amendment, either in law or practice, to permit of their exemption from payment of this tax, as formerly?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Churches are never assessed to Income Tax, and the same is the case with buildings used exclusively for Divine worship. But where the building is not so exclusively used, the mere fact that Divine worship is occasionally held there has not been considered as exempting it from assessment. The Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts is a property tax, and the liability to it does not depend on profit being made from the property. There has been no change of practice, as the hon. Member seems to suggest. It is of course possible that in particular instances buildings formerly exempt have recently been charged owing to some change in the circumstances. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any such case I will inquire into it.

  ARMY PENSION.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the case of No. 4,443, Private Benjamin Ball, aged 62 years, who served 9 years 262 days in the Rifle Brigade, of which he spent 1 month at Malta, 13 months in the Crimea, including siege of Sevastopol, and 2½ years in British North America, being eventually discharged as unfit for further service,

  601
  and only received 6d. a day for 2½ years; that, having endeavoured to earn a livelihood since his discharge, he is now certified as being totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood, owing to chronic bronchitis and lung disease; and that he has been refused any compassionate allowance on the ground that he did not complete the necessary period of ten years' service; whether it was through the exigencies of the Service and not his own fault that he did not do so; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of considering this and all such cases on their merits, irrespective of the length of service?
  MR. HANBURY: This case has not been brought before the Treasury. The matter is one primarily for the consideration of the War Office.

  DEATH WHILE IN CUSTODY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a letter of District Inspector Sharpe, of Piltown, bearing date 22nd February, 1896, which was published in the Dublin Journal of the 7th instant, and from which it appears that a man named John Egan, who died suddenly while in the custody of the police in Mullinavat on the 4th of April, 1875, had in his possession 1s. 3d., which was retained by the police authorities until it was handed to the deceased man's relatives by Inspector Sharpe on the 22nd ultimo; whether he can explain how this property was held by the police for 20 years; and is it usual for the police to hold for like periods large amounts of personal property which may come into their possession under similar circumstances; or what is the police Regulation in such cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The sum mentioned was handed over, not to the relatives of the deceased, but to the Board of Guardians, at whose expense he was interred, as it was considered they had the best claim to the sum under the circumstances. Had the Guardians claimed payment of the money, it would no doubt have been handed over to them long ago. The police are not in the habit of retaining such moneys, be they of large or small amount, except
  602
  in the absence of claimants or of persons who have a legal right to receive them. The sum of 1s. 3d. referred to in this Question has all along been placed to the credit of the public account of the Inspector General.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Why was not the interest handed over?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think there was any legal claim.

  PRESIDENT KRUGER.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his Dispatch of 14th February to President Kruger has been received; and, whether any reply has been received; and, if so, if it is consistent with public interests, will he give the tenor of that reply?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No reply has yet been received?

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how much money has been spent by the Congested Districts Board in the county of Donegal up to the present, distinguishing the amount spent in each barony?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question has been referred to the Congested Districts Board, with a request that they will, so far as possible, afford the information desired by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will repeat it on Monday next.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  MR. P. McDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware of the small salaries paid to assistant teachers under the National Board in Ireland; if he will explain why they are not now paid according to their classification, notwithstanding that their teaching duties are the same as performed by principal teachers; and, if he will favourably consider the matter in connection with the Vote for National School Teachers in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of the remuneration received by assistant teachers in ordinary National Schools, and of the different sources from which it is paid. The average incomes of assistants, according to the latest Returns available, are, in the case of male assistants, £62 14s. 8d., of which only £2 7s. 3d. is locally contributed, and in the case of female assistants £50 18s. 9d., of which only £2 2s. 8d. is locally contributed. It is not, I am informed, the fact that assistants discharge the same round of duties as principals, neither have they the same responsibilities cast upon them. The position and duties of assistants are quite subordinate to those of principals, and the difference is signified by the difference of relative incomes. Upon the information at present before me I see no reason for reconsidering the question of the income of assistant teachers.

  ARMY SUPPLIES (OATS).
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what is the contract price of oats now paid by the Government for the supply of the mounted branches of the Service at Aldershot and in the Home District respectively; and, are these oats home-grown or imported?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): As has been previously stated in the House in reference to the supply of forage, it is not usual to disclose contract prices. As regards Aldershot, oats are bought in the London market. They have been mostly Russian oats of good quality, averaging 42 7/100; lbs. per bushel. English oats have averaged 40 lbs. per bushel. For the Home District oats are not obtained separately from other forage, all being included in one contract. The place of origin of the oats is not known in this case. As I have already informed the House, the whole question of the supply of forage to the Army is under consideration.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if Irish contractors were given an opportunity of tendering for large contracts for great military centres in England.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid there was nothing to prevent a contractor in any part tendering for the supply of forage. Of course the question of carriage arose, and it was a serious consideration.
  DR. TANNERinquired if there were any means of differentiating between foreign and home-grown oats, as oats could not well be stamped grown in Germany or grown in Russia.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if advertisements for tenders were inserted in Irish newspapers.
  MR. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of that on the Paper.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSbelieved there was a difference between home and foreign grown oats, which could be detected by those acquainted with the subject.

  UNDELIVERABLE CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. J. M. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that it is contrary to the practice of the Post Office to take note of requests clearly printed on the address side of envelopes for the early return to the senders of undeliverable correspondence orginating abroad; and, whether he will take steps to see that such letters are promptly returned to the senders.
  MR. HANBURY: Letters from abroad which cannot be delivered are retained in the Returned Letter Office for a week or a month, according to the distance of the countries of origin; and as letters so retained are frequently applied for by the addressees, it is believed that the rule, on the whole, is a convenient one. Letters bearing such requests as the hon. Member mentions are returned unopened to the country of origin. As, indeed, in this country the addressee, and not the addressor, is regarded as the rightful claimant of a letter, it follows that any request of the addressor must be disregarded till the addressee has had every opportunity which the Regulations afford him of claiming the letter.
  MR. J. M. WHITE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) if he can state how many of the 53 spoiled ballot papers at the recent election for the Montrose

  605
  Burghs were not spoiled by the voters but by the neglect of the polling sheriffs in failing to stamp the papers; (2) where the neglect occurred; and (3) whether any notice has been taken of it with the view of preventing its recurrence?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): I would refer the hon. Member to Part I of the First Schedule of the Ballot Act, which prescribes the rules under which alone the information asked for can be obtained. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  STATIONERY CONTRACTS COMMITTEE.
  MR. GALLOWAY: In the absence of Sir HOWARD VINCENT, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if the reference to the Select Committee on Stationery Contracts and their conformity to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891 was intended to be confined to the contracts for printing and binding only, to the exclusion of the larger contracts for papers, pens, pencils, and other articles of stationery alleged to be largely obtained from abroad; and, in such case, if the Inquiry can be extended?
  MR. HANBURY: Two successive Committees have already been appointed under the present reference, and it is, therefore, too late to alter it. The question of its interpretation is one for the Chairman to decide.

  COLLIERY DETACHING SAFETY HOOKS.
  MR. T. BURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can say what class of detaching safety hooks were in use at West Leigh Colliery, where an unfortunate accident, resulting in the loss of eight lives, recently occurred; whether he is aware that it was stated at the inquest that the hooks had been in use three years, and had never been taken off for the purpose of examination and cleaning during that time; whether general Rule 5 of the Mines Regulation Act, which makes imperative the examination once at least in 24 hours of the state of the head gear, ropes, chains, and other similar appliances of the mine, had been carried out at this colliery; and,
  606
  whether any reason can be assigned why the hooks did not come into operation to prevent the sad accident which took place?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that the detaching hook was that known as Bryham's. It was stated in evidence at the inquest that the hook had been in use for three years, but was scraped and wiped three months before the accident took place. It seems, however, that the accident was not due to any fault in the hook, which is designed to prevent accidents from over-winding, and which acted properly, but to the fact that the engine was started wrongly, with the result that the cage was raised instead of lowered, became unloosed through the operation of the detaching hook, and, as the safety catches failed to act, fell to the bottom of the pit. The catches appear to have been examined daily by the banksman to see if they were free, but subsequent examination showed that they had not been fixed so as to be effective. I understand that the owners of the mine intend to adopt a safety hook which does not depend on catches. I have asked the Inspectors of Mines to consider, at their annual meeting next month, what can be done to prevent similar accidents in future.
  MR. J. BURNSasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would intimate to his inspectors the possibility of inquiring in this, as in many other cases, whether the engine driver had duties other than looking after the engine at the time of the accident?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he would make inquiry.

  JUNIOR CAPTAINS (NAVY).
  MAJOR WYNDHAM-QUIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether Junior Captains of the Royal Navy receive only 12s. 6d. a day half-pay, while officers considerably junior to them in rank receive 16s. to £1 5s.; and, should this be the case, on what principle the difference is based?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The rates of half-pay as well as of full pay of Captains are governed by their seniority on the List, and range

  607
  from 12s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. a day. Half-pay is not regulated in any way by relative rank, but by the merits of the case, depending upon such considerations as the relation of the rank, in which the half-pay is payable, to the highest rank open to the recipient. It is, therefore, quite possible that Junior Captains in the Navy may be in receipt of half-pay at a lower rate than other officers who have attained more nearly to the highest rank open to them, but whose relative rank may be junior.

  NEWCASTLE HARBOUR (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the required pier and harbour works at Newcastle, County Down, whether he is aware of the very poor districts inhabited by small farmers and agricultural labourers running from Newcastle along either side of the Mourne Mountains; and, whether, considering the inability of the inhabitants of the adjoining districts to bear any additional taxation, and the necessity for the harbour works, he will now state whether the Treasury will advance the amount required to construct there such works as the Board of Trade recommend?
  MR. HANBURY: I am afraid that the Government would not be justified in asking Parliament to vote the whole of the large sum necessary for reconstructing the pier at Newcastle. The county authorities who have been so largely responsible for its ruin must assist substantially in the work of restoration; but, so far as I am aware, they are not bound to confine the cost to the neighbouring districts only.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the right hon. Gentleman to give a favourable consideration to the case?
  MR. HANBURY: In any case, I am afraid the Government would not be justified in asking Parliament to vote the whole of the large sum required for the construction of the pier.

  RIOTING AT ST. KITTS.
  MR. J. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that rioting, with loss of life, has
  608
  occurred in the Island of St. Kitts; that extensive sugar-cane plantations have been deliberately destroyed by incendiary fires; and that the industry of the island is paralysed by the disturbances; whether the Administrator of the island has expressed sympathy with the rioters; and, what steps are being taken to restore order in the island and give insurance of safety to life and property?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I received from the Governor on February 19th a telegram reporting that serious riots had broken out in St. Kitts, that houses had been set on fire and looted, and that two of the rioters had been shot, and that Her Majesty's ship Cordelia was at St. Kitts. On February 21st and 25th the Governor sent further telegrams reporting that the state of affairs was quieting, and I was informed by the Admiralty on February 21st that the officer in command of the Cordelia had telegraphed that the riot had been suppressed. There has been no time for the Governor to send by Dispatch the full information which I shall receive by next mail. The presence of one of Her Majesty's ships will, doubtless, prevent any recurrence of disorder.

  DOMINICA.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is his intention, before paying over the £10,000 recently voted by this House for public works in the Island of Dominica, to have laid before him, for his approval, a definite and comprehensive scheme for the expenditure of that amount; and, does he intend to appoint an independent and responsible officer to look after its expenditure, and to see that the work is carried out in a desirable manner?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The House has not voted £10,000 for public works in Dominica. Fifteen thousand pounds has been voted to meet outstanding liabilities on the general revenue account of the island, which amount to more than £10,000, and to cover the cost of public works urgently required to the extent of about £5,000. The particular public works have been approved by the Secretary of State, and will be

  609
  carried out according to plans and estimates submitted for his approval under the local supervision of the Colonial Engineer and the Administrator of the island.

  ISLAND CROWN LANDS.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether there is a full and complete survey of the Crown lands in the Islands of St. Vincent and St. Lucia in the possession of the Colonial Office; and, if not, if he will cause such a survey to be made by a responsible and qualified officer, sent out from this country with special powers to inquire into the matter?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no full and complete survey of the Crown lands in the Islands of St. Vincent and St. Lucia in the possession of this office. There has been for some years past in each of these islands a department created by law for the purpose of preparing such a survey, much of which has been already effected. To take the additional steps suggested would involve an expenditure which the Colonies are not in a position to incur.

  CLONGOREY EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the condition of the Clongorey evicted tenants, whose late holdings are all at present in the hands of the landlord, he would be prepared to lend his co-operation in order to assist in bringing about an amicable arrangement, by which these poor people would be reinstated in their holdings in time for them to make preparations to crop the land during the coming season?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not in my power to intervene in a matter of this kind, but if my co-operation were invited by both parties I would gladly do what I could to promote a settlement.

  LAND BILL (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state, even approxi
  610
  mately, the date at which he hopes to introduce the proposed legislation with reference to the Irish Land Question; and whether provision will be made in the proposed legislation to ameliorate the condition of the evicted tenants?
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is true, as stated in Saturday's newspapers, that he intends to introduce the Irish Land Bill on next Monday; and, if not, can he definitely state on what date he intends introducing the Bill, and will its introduction take place with or without explanatory speech?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to state the date on which the Land Bill will be introduced. When it is introduced I certainly hope to accompany it by an explanatory statement. The Bill will contain certain provisions dealing with the condition of the evicted tenants.
  DR. TANNER: Will the Bill be introduced before Easter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That will partly depend on the progress of public business.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the 25th March is the gale day of thousands of Irish tenants, and the commencement of the judicial abatement of rent is determined by the gale day when the originating notice is served, he will arrange that the Land Bill shall be introduced before the 25th March, so that tenants who are awaiting its provisions before serving their notices may not lose an entire half-year's reduction in their rents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With regard to the date of the introduction of the Bill I have nothing more to say. I do not know to what class of tenants the hon. Member refers in his Question, nor how any class can be prejudiced by a few days delay in the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a large class of tenants waiting for the introduction of the Bill, and if the Bill is not introduced before April they will lose half a year's gale.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see nothing to prevent them making application before the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Ignorance of the Bill will prevent them.

  COUNTY INFIRMARIES (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the law that provides from time to time for the inspection and examination into the administration of any hospital or infirmary, supported in part by Grand Jury presentments or Parliamentary grants, authorises the Local Government Board when making an examination of the administration of these institutions to inquire whether the public funds voted for its support are expended in accordance with the provisions of the law?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If this Question refers to the audit of accounts of County Infirmaries by the officers of the Local Government Board, I am afraid I can only repeat what I stated in reply to a previous Question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Local Government Board have carefully considered the whole matter and are clearly of opinion that as the duties and powers of their auditors are all expressly defined by Statute, and as there is no enactment in force giving them authority to deal with the accounts of County Infirmaries, an audit of these accounts could not be carried out by the Board's officers under the existing law.

  H. M. S. "NORTHAMPTON."
  MR. NICOL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is able to state what places on the west coast of Scotland H.M.S. Northampton will visit during her cruise; and if he can give the time and date of visit at each port of call?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The Northampton will visit Oban from the 12th to the 15th of May next; Tobermory from the 15th to the 19th; Portree from the 20th to the 26th; Rothesay from the 28th May to the 1st of June, and Campbeltown from the 1st of June to the 9th of July. The long stay at the last named place is to allow of rifle practice being carried out there.
  MR. J. G. WEIRasked whether the Admiralty had any
  612
  intention of sending the Northampton to my of the ports in Ross-shire and Sutherlandshire?
  MR. MACARTNEY: No, Sir.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Her Majesty's Government have information confirming the report of the intended arrest of Mr. Cecil Rhodes by the Cape authorities or others; and whether, in view of the great interests involved, and of the serious injury caused to industry, and of the belief entertained in certain quarters that the people of Johannesburg were induced to disarm under a misunderstanding, Her Majesty's government will take steps to put an end to this period of disquiet by urging upon all responsible a general amnesty for recent events in South Africa.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that there is no truth in the statement as to the action of the Cape authorities. I have no information as to such action by any others. In reply to the second part, I have to say it appears to me that any such representations would be premature and unattended by good results at present.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great anxiety which prevails and that serious injury is being done to large and important industries?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer as to the anxiety of individuals, and, as to the injury to industry, I have already answered that.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: And the right hon. Gentleman, agrees?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINdeclined to answer.

  SUNDAY LETTER DELIVERIES.
  MR. W. T. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the fact that London is able, without inconvenience, to do without the delivery of letters on Sunday, he is prepared to put an end to Sunday deliveries all through the country, allowing, under

  613
  proper safeguards as to identity, letters to be delivered at post offices during one hour of the morning to those who apply for them.
  MR. HANBURY: This question has from time to time been under the consideration of the Department; and in 1888 the then Postmaster General endeavoured to obtain some indication of public feeling upon it by inviting the Town Councils of several of the largest provincial towns in England to consider whether they were prepared to ask for the total discontinuance of the delivery and dispatch of letters on Sundays. The result was that of the eight Town Councils so invited, six—among them being Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham—decided by large majorities to reject the offer. Bristol declined to express an opinion, and one only—namely, Nottingham—replied in the affirmative, but only by a small majority.

  MALA REAL PORTUGUEZA COMPANY.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British engineers formerly in the employment of the Mala Real Portugueza Company have not yet been paid the wages amounting to several hundreds of pounds due to them at the time of the bankruptcy of that company more than three years ago; and that the late Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs stated nearly a year ago that he had received from the company's assets money for this purpose; and, if so, why the money has not yet been paid; what step the Government propose to take in the matter; and whether they will be willing to lay upon the Table the correspondence on the subject?
  MR. CURZON: The answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has continued to urge the settlement of this case on the Portuguese Government, and a Dispatch, dated the 2nd instant, has been received from him stating that three weeks ago the Portuguese Government renewed this formal engagement that the money due should be paid without delay. Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that this assurance will be carried out, and Sir H. MacDonell will of course not lose sight of
  614
  the matter. There would be no objection to laying the correspondence before the House, but it is hoped that the promised arrangement may render this unnecessary.

  AGRICULTURAL PRICES (IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 5th March sheep were almost unsaleable in Dublin Market, and that some of those sold were bought in October last and sold to-day at less than was paid for them in October and loss of feeding besides, and that bullocks bought in Athy Fair on the previous day, were sold in Dublin at £2 per head less than cost price delivered in Dublin; and (2) if, in framing this Land Bill for Ireland, he will remember the low prices that prevail for cattle, sheep, horses, and farm produce?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member has forwarded to me a newspaper report in this matter. The Land Commissioners, whom I have consulted, inform me that they have received no information as to the statements respecting repeated losses incurred in the sale of sheep purchased in October 1895, and of bullocks purchased at Athy Fair, on re-sale in the Dublin Market of the 5th instant, but it is observed that in the columns of a Dublin newspaper, several lots of sheep stated to have been bought at the October fair at 47s. each were said to have been sold in Dublin on the 5th instant at 56s. It occasionally occurs, especially at this period of the year, that sellers of fat stock find a particular market of a disappointing character, and on the whole the Commissioners understood that the market of the 5th instant was so. I replied to the second paragraph yesterday.

  ADULTERATED LIQUOR (IRELAND).
  MR. J. H. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will inquire into the number of prosecutions which have been instituted in Ireland during the past five years for the sale of liquors adulterated with

  615
  water, and cases in which the adulterations were of a poisonous nature dangerous to public health; and, in how many cases convictions were obtained?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I informed the hon. Gentleman yesterday, in reply to a similar Question which he put to me, that I hoped to be able to give him the figures he requires in some 10 or 12 days hence. Perhaps he will be good enough to put down the Question for the 20th instant?

  TIED (PUBLIC) HOUSES.
  MR. H. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he is in a position to inform the House what progress has been made in the matter of the proposed Royal Commission on "Tied" Houses and the Licensing Questions?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that a large measure of agreement has been arrived at with regard to the terms of reference, and I cannot believe that any further difficulty will arise on that score. The Government will therefore proceed to consider how the Commission is to be composed, and I hope there will be no long delay before the Commission sets to work.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the matter be brought before the House in any way?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should think that there will be no discussion in the House on the subject; but I shall be ready to state to the House what the terms of reference are.

  LICENSING LEGISLATION.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that, in view of the great differences between the Licensing Acts in England and Scotland, and nothing having been done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1878, the advocates of temperance legislation in Scotland desire that it should not be retarded by reference to the proposed Royal Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The information which I have received is not quite in harmony with the statement of the hon. Gentleman. I have received a great many applications that Scotland may be included in the reference, and I think that that will be the best course to adopt. Nor do I see that such a course can delay legislation as far as Scotland is concerned.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTasked the Leader of the House whether the Employers' Liability Bill was likely to be introduced before Easter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied, that so much time was being taken up by discussions in Supply that he was anxious as to the time that would be available before Easter. In a few days he hoped to give a more explicit answer.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question with reference to the Bill of which he had given notice, to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, relating to the Urban Sanitary District of Armagh. He wished to know whether, before the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded with the Bill—the second Bill of the kind—he would be good enough to make inquiry as to whether the Catholics were adequately represented in Armagh, and, if not, make provision in the Bill for it, Catholics forming about half the population.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)said, he had communicated with the Local Government Board and the local authorities in reference to what took place before the Provisional Order was made, and he would like to defer his answer until he heard from them.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he supposed fair notice would be given before the subject came again before the House.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDsignified assent.

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—(Mr. John Ellis.)
  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Ordered, That Mr. P. J. Power be added to the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons.—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  ACCOUNTANTS (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Accountants in Scotland, and to regulate their qualifications and provide for their registration, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Campbell, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Cox, Mr. Haldane, and Mr. Gordon; presented, and Read 1a; to be Read 2a upon Wednesday 20th May.—[Bill 137.]
  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Licensing Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tritton, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Hobhouse, and Sir William Houldsworth; presented, and Read 1a; to be Read 2a upon Wednesday 18th March.—[Bill 138.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL MUSEUMS (LONDON)— OPENING ON SUNDAYS.
  On the return of the Speaker after the usual interval,
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARINGrose to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the national museums and art galleries in London should be open for a limited number of hours on Sundays, after 2 p.m., upon condition that no officer shall be required to attend on more than six days per week, and that any who have conscientious objections shall be exempt from Sunday duty."
  After presenting petitions in support of the Resolution from Aldermen and
  618
  Common Councillors of the Corporation of London, the County Council, and a public meeting held at Queen's Hall on Monday night, he said the princpal obstacle he should have to contend with in this matter was a mysterious and yet actual feeling that the Resolution in some way might infringe the sanctity of the Sabbath. That was not his view. He had been told that the Church of this country was opposed to the Resolution, but he could not believe it. A committee appointed by the convocation of the Archepiscopal Diocese in which the Metropolis stood, and consisting of the Bishops of Exeter, St. Asaph, Rochester and Lichfield, the Deans of Rochester and Windsor, the Archdeacons of Buckingham, London, Kingston-on-Thames, and Birmingham, Canon Erskine Clarke, and the Rev. E. Carr Glynn, had unanimously decided that in no way would the opening of museums, art galleries, or public libraries on Sunday infringe upon the sanctity of the Sabbath which they all revered. He would make one or two quotations from the speeches of the Bishops upon the occasion when this subject came before them. The Bishop of Winchester, who was then Bishop of Rochester, said that it was stated by the opponents of the change—
  "That the working classes did not really want it; that it would involve an immense increase of Sunday labour, and that it was the thin end of the wedge, and that we should soon have in England what was popularly known as a continental Sunday."
  To this the Bishop replied:—
  … "To me the evidence before us shows conclusively that the cause of religion has nothing really to fear from the reasonable and careful extension of the principle to which we have referred. Some of those who read the Report may think that its compilers have suppressed the evidence furnished to them by the clergy and others opposed to such Sunday Opening. On the contrary, we have endeavoured to make the most of it, and have anxiously wished for more, but we cannot obtain it. There must certainly be many who feel strongly on the subject, but they have neither replied to our circulars nor answered the appeal we made through the newspapers for the benefit of their help. I confess to have been greatly surprised by the overwhelming preponderance upon one side of the clerical opinion furnished to us. Scarcely any disapproval is expressed by anyone, and this notwithstanding our endeavours to elicit it wherever it exists. We do believe, my Lords, that the Church has

  619
  nothing to fear, or rather that the deposit entrusted to her keeping will be in no way harmed if more institutions than now should be opened for a time upon Sunday."
  Thus it was plain that this great leader of the Church did not fear the opening of our museums and art galleries on Sundays. Then the Bishop of Lichfield said:—
  "He thought they ought to be glad to think that there were places of resort such as these for young people during their leisure hours on a Sunday. There was no portion of the community so difficult for the Church to deal with as their young people."
  The Bishop of Southwell thought the the time had come—
  "When they ought to express the opinion that there was nothing unholy, unsacred, or unworthy, after going to Church, in paying a visit to these different places. His own impression was that these places being opened, in themselves would not be any discredit to the spirit of Sunday. On the contrary, to many people they would be a very distinct gain."
  The opening of museums on Sunday had not affected the religious tone of the towns where this change had already been introduced. Had Birmingham been affected for the worse by this opening of museums? Was there less religious fervour? Were there fewer Churchmen in that town than formerly? Was there any sign that out of the portals of the museums came any irreligious miasma or agnostic chill? If Birmingham could open its museums on Sundays without evil results, surely similar institutions could be opened in London. The people were anxious that the working classes should have the advantage of spending the Sabbath in a rational way. His Resolution was so worded that it could not possibly interfere with religious services on Sunday. His proposal was that museums should be opened from 2 to 6. Those who desired to attend service would thus have every opportunity of doing so. In old days there was very little in the way of amusement for the working classes on Sunday, but latterly there had been some progress in this matter. The parks were open, and music was played there on Sunday. In former times this would have been considered a heinous crime, but public opinion had undergone a change. One of the chief objections
  620
  urged against this opening of museums was that it would cause extra labour. As a matter of fact, the extra labour caused would be infinitesimal. The authorities stated that an increase of one-third in the staffs was all that would be required if the South Kensington Museum and similar institutions were kept open on Sundays. As things stood at present, a large number of policemen and other officials were employed in museums on Sundays, and surely they would prefer to have numbers of their fellow-countrymen enjoying themselves in their company than to find themselves perambulating empty halls, melancholy and miserable. Those who were in favour of this change were sometimes taunted on the ground that they were not in sympathy with Sunday. He claimed that his Resolution was coloured with every sympathy for Sunday. It could not be said to be in any sense founded on irreligion, or to be couched in terms likely to be harmful to the morality of this country. People could not be in church all day, and in the interval between services they ought to have opportunities of rational enjoyment. At present, what was there for the working classes to do, especially on a rainy day? Were they to walk in the streets in the pelting rain? Were they to remain indoors in their miserable homes, listening to the harmony of squalling children, or were they to go to a far worse place, the drinking-shop or public-house? Would it not be far better to place another alternative in their reach, by saying "Open sesame" to the portals of our museums? The upper classes, it should be remembered, had their museums and amusements at home, and they had their clubs to go to. The working men were part proprietors of the museums, as they were taxed to support them. Why, then, should they not have the opportunity of enjoying them? They had not the opportunity of enjoying them on week-days; why, then, should they not enjoy them on Sundays? The opportunities afforded by the weekday extension in the Amendment were no opportunities at all, because a working man when he returned home tired, weary and dirty did not care to wash and dress himself in his Sunday best and go to a public institution in the evening. It was

  621
  said that the working man was indifferent. He denied that this was so. He had received a petition from 109 trade unions of the metropolis, representing every imaginable trade carried on in London, and they all united in asking that reasonable concessions should be granted to them and that the museums should be open on Sunday. Advocates of Sunday opening were twitted with the fact that the opening of museums in the larger towns had not reclaimed drunkards. That was not the question. Those who might become drunkards would, if the museums were left unopened, likely be more to take to drink if they had not rational amusements to occupy them on the Sunday and to keep them from wandering through the streets into the public-houses. It was further said that the working classes did not take an interest in museums. The return of attendance at Bethnal Green Museum, in the centre of a working-class population, showed that 595,422 working men visited the museum last year, while the attendance at the more fashionable museum of South Kensington was less than half as much again. The museums on Bank Holidays were crowded by the working classes, not only of London but from a great distance. Kew and Hampton Court were also well attended, and when the great magnates of the country gave the working men an opportunity to visit museums and picture galleries the advantage was fully accepted. The attendance was large where the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Sutherland, and the Duke of Wellington generously opened their houses on Sunday, so that their galleries might be seen by those who could not come any other day. But it was urged that the opening of museums would lead to the opening of theatres and workshops on Sunday. He denied this. There was no cry for the opening of theatres or workshops in any of the large towns in which museums had been opened. Even on the Continent workshops were being gradu-
  622
  ally closed on Sunday, while the museums remained open. It was said that the working men ought to walk in the parks on Sunday. No doubt a walk in the park was enjoyable in fine weather, but when the weather was bad the only alternative for these people on a Sunday was the public house, or a return to the misery of their homes. In the Colonies and in foreign countries museums were open on Sunday, and no evil result followed. Were the churches abroad less frequented? He did not think so. The churches in Paris were more crowded than our own, and more men attended them than was the case in London. The museum and Botanical Gardens in Dublin had been open for years on Sunday, and year after year the attendance mounted by leaps and bounds. The Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh had also shown a very large increase in the attendance on Sunday. If the movement was not a success then let the museums be closed. He believed, however, that the moment for opening museums on Sunday would be a vast success, and working men would thank the House for the opportunity afforded to them for rational amusement on that day. The question of expense would be covered by a sum of £2,000 to £3,000 a year. He knew there were thousands throughout the country who were anxiously waiting for the result of this Resolution, and he hoped that hon. Members would think twice before they voted against a Resolution which would confer untold benefits on thousands and thousands of people, and would in no way, he was certain, affect the religious atmosphere, which he was as anxious as any others should continue to be supreme in the Empire. He asked the House most seriously to take this question into consideration. He knew that great pressure was brought to bear from many quarters on hon. Members respecting this question. He knew that there were some who had a feeling that he was going to do something that would unsanctify the Holy

  623
  Day. He did not believe that for a moment. Why should it? When this question was brought before the House in days gone by, the clergy had not inquired into it. They had now had a Committee which had unanimously reported in favour of the proposition he made. The opinions of all kinds of great personages were quoted against the proposition. He had seen Mr. Gladstone quoted as being opposed to it; but when this question came before the House in 1891, it was a significant fact that before the Division took place Mr. Gladstone walked out of the House. That did not show that he was very seriously opposed to the opening of museums on Sunday, There were Members of the Government who were strongly in favour of it, and one in particular would, he believed, have spoken in favour of the Resolution had he not been laid up by serious illness. He would, however, quote a paragraph from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman because he thought it explained a good deal of the opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I can find no other meaning in it than this—that if you are rich enough to become sole proprietors of books and gardens and pictures, may, if you are rich enough to hold a share in a company that has such possessions, the law will not be against you, public opinion will be with you, and a religions scandal will not be created. If you can buy a share in the Crystal Palace, or if you can subscribe a guinea to the Edgbaston Botanical Gardens, you can enjoy art and nature righteously; but if you are so poor that you can possess books and pictures and gardens in the only way in which the poor can hope to possess them, namely, in their corporate capacity, then such engagements become oppressive to the consciences of certain other men, many of whom, by their own confession, derive the utmost delight in doing in their own houses that which they strongly object to be done in the public libraries and art galleries of the town."
  That was an expression of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, and it was of the highest importance. It went to the very root of the opposition to this scheme. People were not troubled by the thought of Sunday labour when their own comforts
  624
  were concerned; but when the advantage of other people was taken into consideration, then the Sabbatarian Pecksniffs cried out. In conclusion, he would urge the House to support his Resolution. In supporting it he felt certain they would give pleasure and enjoyment and religious and moral advancement to the people of this country. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid he was very glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in seconding the Resolution. He could not but think that they were very fortunate in the hon. Member who had moved it. He was well known as one of the most distinguished connoisseurs of art in the country. There were a large number of exhibits at the Bethnal Green Museum belonging to the hon. Member, and there were other museums to which he had contributed. He ventured to suggest that there was no principle that could be urged against the Motion. They had got Kew, Hampton Court, and other places in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis open, which entailed a railway journey and resort to refreshment houses; whereas the particular institutions dealt with in the Resolution were so conveniently situated that numbers of people could visit them without travelling or using refreshment houses. If there was no principle to be urged against the Resolution, so there were very few practical difficulties in the way of carrying it into effect. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the institutions affected should be open for only a short number of hours; but it would be a great advantage to have them open, if only for those few hours. He had lately received a telegram from a country town where a museum was opened for three hours on the Sunday, and he was informed that 3,000 people on the average attended it every Sunday. So far as the employment of labour went, the hon. Member had provided that no one who was un-

  625
  willing to work on Sunday should be asked to do so, and that no one should work more than six days in the week, and he hoped that the hon. Member would go the length of saying that they should not work more than 48 hours in the week. He ventured to put the matter on a somewhat broader ground. They did not object to Sunday labour, for the cook and the milkman had to work. What they ought to ask was, whether the labour undertaken was of a sufficiently important character to justify its being done. Who would question that the work necessary in this case would be as sanctified as any done anywhere on Sunday? He believed the existing staffs of the institutions affected were, speaking broadly, in favour of the Motion. It must, therefore, be agreed that there was no great practical difficulty in the way. What were the objections that were urged against the proposal? He believed that an Amendment was going to be moved which pointed attention to the fact that these institutions might be opened in the evening, and that that ought to satisfy anybody. He was talking to a working man only yesterday, who said he knew plenty of working men who had to carry 50 tons weight on their backs during the day and that, if they had to do that, they would be in no humour to go to a museum in the evening. The returns they had before them did not encourage them to hope that evening opening would be a sufficient substitute for opening on Sunday. He had heard a point put in this connection that evening opening did not enable poor people to take their families to museums. Many young people who might learn useful lessons from visiting museums ought to be in bed during the hours of evening opening. The toiling classes throughout the country had not so many opportunities for taking their children about with them that the House should deny the opportunity this Resolution would give them. A further objection urged by those
  626
  opposed to the Motion was that the ascertained wishes of the working classes were against the opening of the museums on Sunday. He was always suspicious of that kind of argument, and he thought the far better and more straightforward course to take was to ask themselves whether the thing desired was right, and if they believed it to be right to do it regardless of the wishes of any class. [Cheers.] It was an extraordinary thing to him that, in a matter which had reference to London alone, they should be threatened with an incursion of opposition from the lowlands of Scotland. [Laughter.] He would make this suggestion to the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcudbright, that if the question arose in his own constituency, and there was a desire on the part of the people to keep such local institutions closed on the Sunday, he would help him in seeing that their wishes were respected. In the same manner and in the same spirit he asked the hon. Baronet to assist the people of London on that occasion in getting the museums and art galleries of the Metropolis opened. [Hear, hear!"] Another objection brought forward was that after the experiment had been tried in a certain few places the institutions had been again closed. But there was no difficulty in that. There might have been a dozen reasons why those institutions were closed again. They might not have been very interesting or attractive institutions. But the institutions in London in regard to which they were now speaking, were among the most interesting and attractive in the world. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time, he was quite ready to respect local feeling and wishes in this matter; the people of each locality should be their own judges as to whether their local institutions should be opened on the Sunday; and he claimed the same privilege for the people of London. ["Hear, hear!"] Those were perhaps small objections. A more important one was the suggestion that if the Motion was

  627
  assented to they would be militating against the safeguards of the Sunday. If he believed the Motion would have that effect he would not second it. Of all the institutions which were invaluable to the social life of the people generally, Sunday was the greatest, and on no occasion would it become the House to take any step that would tend to weaken the observance of the day. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed that the action proposed would really tend to a better, rather than a worse observance of the day. It should not be forgotten that there had been a great deal of progress in recent years in the direction of the spirit that prompted those who were moving in this matter—the brightening of the Sunday for the benefit of the people. There was a time when it was even deemed wrong to have instrumental music in churches and chapels; but recently a great deal had been done in connection with places of worship to attract and interest the population on Sunday afternoons. He might instance the efforts of the Society known all over London as the "P.S.A.," and he had heard that some churches in the City had resorted to magic-lantern entertainments for the same object. He hoped that hon. Members would not be influenced by the efforts of certain Sabbatarian Societies, which sent round circulars on the subject. In one circular so distributed—he believed it was issued by the Lord's Day Observance Society—attention was drawn to the effects of the opening of museums and similar institutions on the Continent on Sundays, and it was suggested that if a similar course was adopted in London an increase of murder, drunkenness, illegitimacy, and other evils would follow. [Laughter.] This was simply gross exaggeration, and nothing but harm was done by it. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members should judge the matter entirely on its merits. He believed the opening of the institutions in question would greatly strengthen respect for the observance of the Lord's Day in the minds of the people; and,
  628
  after all, he thought that in this matter they might take some notice of the opinion of the civilised world. There was no other country in which, with such splendid institutions as the Metropolis possessed, the people would be deprived from visiting them on Sundays. ["Hear, hear!"] The alternative to keeping them closed was to condemn thousands of people to the open streets, to go to the public-house, or to attend some skating rink or other inferior entertainment open to them. He would appeal to the Government on the matter. They held the keys of the institutions in their pockets, and it was only for them to express a benevolent wish that they might be opened on Sundays and great good would result from their action. He appealed, in fact, to Members of all parties and nationalities in the House—Scotchmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen, as well as to Englishmen. In the constituencies of many hon. Members the local museums were thrown open to the public on Sundays with avowedly good results, and he would ask them to respect the wishes of the people of London, and to express by their votes that their opinion on the subject was in consonance with that so well expressed by the Committee of Convocation, namely:—
  "That the Committee was of opinion that the religion of Christ had nothing to fear from a reasonable and careful extension of Sunday opening."
  [Cheers.]
  SIR MARK STEWART*SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright) moved as an Amendment to substitute the following for Mr. Massey-Mainwaring's Motion:—
  "That, in the opinion of the House, it is desirable that the national museums and art galleries in London should be open from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on at least three week-day evenings in each week, so far as the safety of the collections will permit; but that the opening of museums and art galleries on Sunday is neither necessary nor expedient, and is contrary to the ascertained wishes of those classes chiefly interested."
  He remarked that he intended to put

  629
  the Amendment to the test of a division in order to take the opinion of the newly-elected House of Commons on the subject. He gave the Mover and Seconder of the Motion full credit for sincerity in stating that they did not believe the effect of opening the museums and art galleries in London would militate against the proper observance of the Sunday; but he entertained a very different opinion. He thought the Mover and Seconder had taken too narrow a view of the subject. They had taken rather a parochial kind of view of it, as if the adoption of the Motion would affect one place only; but he maintained that if the Motion was carried the action of the House would have a very far-reaching character. The sanction of the House of Commons to such a Resolution would have a marked significance. ["Hear, hear!"] It would not merely unlock the doors of a few institutions in London, but it would give an impetus generally to a movement which he, for one, did not think was calculated to work the good that was claimed for it. ["Hear, hear!"] He was satisfied that, if the Motion was carried, the vote would hereafter be regretted, and that the very class of persons who were to be benefited by it would be the first to complain. They could not cross the Channel without seeing the effects of the Continental Sunday. They would find that if they once moved in the direction proposed that night, if this question were solved in the way asked for by some hon. Members, the theatre, the Sunday concert and the racecourse would all be opened. The sanctity of the Sunday would be desecrated instead of that high veneration being felt for it which was the case at present. It might be said that what was proposed that night was only a very small matter, a mere nothing. But he ventured to suggest that they were boring a hole in a dam and that, when the water once began to pour out, they would find it very difficult to stop it. Who was at the bottom of this matter?
  630
  It was not his hon. Friend who moved the Resolution or the Seconder of the Resolution. It was the Sunday League, which did not respect or venerate the Sunday, and of which his hon. Friend said he was the champion. What those persons said who agreed with him on this side of the House was that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Sunday was a day of rest and it was to be enjoyed as a rest for the working classes. He admitted that there were, as one hon. Gentleman had put it, squalling children and homes that were not always happy, but that was not the position enjoyed by the bulk of the working men in this country. He knew a great deal about the working classes, and he knew that there were as happy homes among them as among those, for instance, in his own social sphere. Lord Shaftesbury, than whom a better friend to the working classes never lived, said on one occasion:—
  "The Lord's day is one of the greatest boons ever given by God to man. It is absolutely necessary to enable him to bear the wear and tear of six days' work. In these times of progress and hurry it is only through the institution and observance of the Sabbath that the mass of the people can enter into the full enjoyment of that great and blessed gift of God to man—domestic happiness."
  He maintained that the way he proposed to deal with this question by his Amendment would have as equally a good effect as the Resolution, and it would have this additional advantage, that it would not offend the susceptibilities of a single man either in the House or in the country. The proposal of the Resolution was not a mere matter of local option. The State was to direct, and he ventured to submit that the State had great responsibility in directing a question of this kind. He was quite satisfied that if the State directed badly it would not be supported either by the House or in the country. He was not going to argue this question from the religious point of view, though he felt very deeply on this subject and thought there was a much

  631
  greater principle involved in it than the hon. Gentleman who Seconded the Motion seemed to conceive possible. But he would ask was this a national necessity, a Government to compel men to work? If instead of opening the museums and galleries, as at present from 10 to 4 and then from 8 to 10 on three week day nights, they had them open from 10 to 10, they would bridge over a difficulty that now existed. He had been repeatedly told by the working classes and clerks in the middle walk of life, that when they came out of their workshops or offices at four, or five, or six o'clock, they would like to go into these museums. But they were closed at these particular hours according to the season of the year, and, as the majority of them lived in the suburbs they could not go home and then come back to visit them. If they allowed these museums, at a very trifling additional cost, to remain open continually from 8 to 10, then they would be able to gratify their desires. His Amendment, if agreed to, would obviate such a difficulty as he had alluded to. People did not visit these places at night. The British Museum, for instance, showed a steady decline of attendances at night from 15,000 in February to 2,000 in December. When he contrasted that with South Kensington and Bethnal Green he found that, where these institutions were opened from 6 o'clock to 10 at night on three week days in each week, the numbers in 1894 were 129,172 in South Kensington, and at Bethnal Green 267,322. That proved that his Amendment would do a great deal of good. Take the question of the Sunday opening of libraries. Since 1891, when they had a Debate on this question in the House, the libraries at Bristol, Bury, Cardiff, Leeds, Nottingham and Sunderland, mainly through the opposition of the working classes, had all been shut on Sundays. Of the 208 towns possessing museums, picture galleries and libraries, 176 did not open their buildings at all; 46 had consented
  632
  to be opened, and of these 14 had been shut up since, and of the 32 remaining the great majority reported decreasing or merely nominal attendances. It had been said that they were outraging the feelings of the working classes because they did not give them this Sunday opening, but such a statement was absurd when they had these examples to guide them as to what was going on in the country. One would suppose that all the 357 museums in England were open on Sundays, but as a matter of fact only 24 or 25 were opened in the smaller towns. No, the working classes enjoyed thoroughly a day of rest, and though it might be very elevating and a very good thing to go to museums and picture galleries, they did not care to do it on Sundays. As to the reclamation of the drunkard argument, he did not think any one would stand up in his place and say that the loiterers they might see at the public-house door on Sunday afternoons were quite the people who would care to go and enjoy the sights that an art gallery or museum offered. He contended that in the matter of crime the advantage was greatly on the side of those countries where Sunday was observed as a day of rest. Take the statistics of Paris, Berlin and Vienna, the number of suicides, murders and infanticides was greatly in excess of those in this country. He did not say this was entirely attributable to non-Sunday observance, but at all events it had not an elevating effect on the morals of the people, and the system was bad. The Manchester Art Gallery was opened on Sundays in 1884, and at first there was an average attendance of about 10,100 per day; but in 1894 the number had fallen to 25 per day, and now it was closed altogether on the Sunday. It was, indeed, found that the class of men for whom the Sunday opening was designed never presented themselves within its walls. In the case of the Liverpool Art Gallery, the Sunday attendance had fallen from 10,430 to

  633
  643, two-thirds of whom were boys who strolled through it on their way from the Sunday League Concert. In the case of the Birmingham Art Gallery, seven years ago there was an average Sunday attendance of 2,365, but last year the number had fallen to 1,029. He supposed that all Members of the House would believe the testimony of Christian Ministers, or, at all events, admit its reliability. The Sunday Society, not long ago, made an organised attempt to obtain a selected Sunday called ''Museum Sunday'' for its proposal to open museums. And how many of the thousands of ministers and missionaries in the country did it get to favour this proposal? The figures were instructive, namely—26 Anglican clergymen, 1 Scotch Church clergyman, 31 Unitarians, 1 Independent, 1 Theist, 1 Positivist, and 4 Ethicals. Since 1855 they had had no fewer than six different Motions of this character made in Parliament, and six times were those Motions defeated by varying but always by large majorities from 125 to 328. He mentioned this merely by way of indicating what the feelings of those were who were supposed to represent the constituencies of this country. Were the present Members not very much the same flesh and blood with those who held the same views and ideas that prevailed a few Sessions ago? He hoped they should have some expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench, and that Ministers would say what they meant, as the late Mr. W. H. Smith did. Mr. Smith did not for one instant conceal his views, and no doubt his doing so secured the large majority on his side of the question in the Session of 1891. The Liberal Ministers did not desire to open up this question. What was the answer of Lord Rosebery to the proposed deputation on the subject last Session or the Session before? He said the question had been so lately settled by an overwhelming vote, that it was too soon to again reopen it. He hoped therefore, that the Opposition Front Bench would vote with them in favour of the Amendment. It had been said that Trades Unions were almost unanimously in favour of Sunday opening. But Trades Unions did not represent all the working classes, for, outside those organisations, and unbound by their
  634
  fetters, were many respectable working men. These men had the courage of their convictions, they voted as they liked, and they had the free and unfettered opinion of the English voter at all Parliamentary Elections. At the Trades Union Congresses, six votes on this subject had been taken between 1884 and 1893. Five of the votes favoured Sunday rest, one favoured Sunday opening. On that occasion only 69 voted. It was on a Saturday morning, the last day of the Congress, and Mr. Broadhurst, one of the great champions of the cause, was absent through illness, and the vote went against him it is true, but the next time there was a large majority in its favour. What did Mr. John Hodge, President of the Trades Union Congress of 1892 say in his address at Glasgow?—
  "Within recent years a cry has been raised for the opening of Art and Picture Galleries and Museums on Sundays, ostensibly for the benefit of the working men. Shall we not in influencing or propagating such an object interfere injuriously with the leisure of those in charge of such institutions. ['Hear, hear!' and 'No.'] Selfishness is at the root of the movement. Do not let us, for the gratification of individual tastes, encroach on the leisure of others. ['Hear, hear!'] Rather press forward for the limitation of the working day ['Hear, hear!'], so that when the day's toil is over we may go to such places for pleasure, recuperation, or gratification of artistic tase, knowing that we are injuring no one. [Applause.] Remember that in France, where such institutions are open on Sunday, you look in vain for the workmen at any of these institutions. They are in their workshops, their factories, in their shop or warehouses, or in the fields following their usual occupations. Does anyone desire that this should be the result here? Do not, then, encourage it. It is due to the religious customs of our country that the avarice of the capitalist has been held in check, and Sunday Labour the exception and not the rule. Let us earnestly strive to retain our Day of Rest. [Applause.] Look not with kindly eye on any attempt in the direction indicated. It is this break in the continuity of daily toil that gives to many breathing-time. Let it be filched from us on such pretexts, and as a nation we would deteriorate; individually we would become nerveless, our powers of thought enfeebled, our physical energy a thing of the past, our preeminence amongst the nations only a name."
  With those words, far more eloquent than his own, he would conclude. They were stronger and better than anything he could put before the House. He could read to the House letters from thousands of the 500,000 persons

  635
  employed in the amusement industry, pleading for Sunday as a day of rest. He had in his pocket the strongest testimony of the great band of artistes who dreaded the exacting terms which might be placed on them in the rush for existence by Sunday work. These people, if present, ought to prevent this Motion being carried. He was but the humble mouthpiece of these persons, but he called upon hon. Members who thought with him once more to record their vote against this proposal.
  COLONEL SANDYSseconded the Amendment. He said he listened carefully to the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion, but they did not carry conviction to his mind, and he did not think they carried conviction to the minds of others who heard them. A certain amount of ridicule had been attempted to be thrown on the Lord's Day Observance Society, a society composed, he believed, largely of working men, who held strongly that the Sabbath should be kept inviolate, and that no concession whatever should be made to those who wished to impose Sunday labour on any portion of the working classes of this country. He rose in support of that particular view. The Mover of the Motion spoke in the Queen's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday, 5th January, and stated that he intended in the House of Commons to champion the cause of the National Sunday League. That League, he was informed, was a group of societies federated together for the avowed purpose of abolishing the Theological Sunday. He stood before the House to advocate the cause of the Theological Sunday, and he ventured to say that the Theological Sunday, as laid down in the Sinaitic Law, at which the proposer of the Motion had ventured to sneer, had made this nation great above all the other nations of the world. Now he would venture to put before the House a physiological fact which perhaps might not be known to all of those whom he had the honour of addressing. It was this, that during the week's work which men went through who laboured with their brains and muscles, the work they had to do during the six working days somewhat overtaxed the vital functions of the body; notably, the action of the heart was overworked by
  636
  the six days' labour, and it had, as it were, to drive the fly-wheel of the human body by beating more than its proportion of beats during the time it worked. But by the Sunday rest the fly wheel was enabled to calm down overpressure, and on Monday morning the fly-wheel of the human body was working at regulation speed, and all the functions of the body were in normal condition and able to take up the labour of the week. The Mover of the Motion said the young should be guided in the way they should go on the Sunday, and the way he indicated in which the young should be guided was that they should go to museums and picture galleries. He himself did not for one moment say anything against museums and picture galleries. He was a great admirer of art, and he was proud of the collections which we owned in this country. But he thought the way of training the young would not be altogether attained in the best manner possible by teaching them to spend their Sundays in picture galleries and museums. Indeed, it appeared to him that the object of those who opposed this Motion was to prevent the Sunday being spent in what he called a Sinaitic manner, and to introduce the Continental or Roman Catholic Sunday into England. It was stated that Sunday opening would involve the extra services of one-third increase of staff in the museums and picture galleries. But why were these people to be made to labour at all on the day set apart for rest? Why were tramcar men, omnibus men, and attendants at public-houses to be robbed of their legitimate Sunday rest? The hon. Member who introduced the Motion had referred to the feeling of the working classes, but he must have alluded to those of London, for the feelings of about 12,000,000 working class men in all parts of the country had been carefully tested by those who were best able to feel their pulse, and ascertain their views, and the result was 95 per cent. of the 12,000,000 were decidedly against Sunday opening. He represented one of the largest constituencies in England, in which the bulk of the people were of the working class, and he had not had a single request from a working man to support this Motion. There was a museum in his constituency, and he had

  637
  not heard of a single working man who wished it to be opened on Sunday. Sunday had been compared with a Bank Holiday, but the people of this country did not wish to make them parallel; they did not wish that our Sunday should approximate to that of the Continent, because they knew that the public opening of resorts of pleasure, such as museums and picture galleries, would be followed by the opening of theatres and race-courses; and they would be followed by more general Sunday labour, and the day of rest would be gone. He, therefore, trusted the Amendment would be accepted, as indicating that the House and the country still wished to ''Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."
  SIR S. MONTAGUsaid, he wished to explain in a very few words, his position with regard to this Motion. He had always held the opinion that the Sunday opening of museums and picture galleries would confer a great benefit on the working classes. But in the two first Parliaments of which he was a Member he remained neutral on the question. He had stated to his constituents that, seeing a religious question in which he had no personal concern was involved, he preferred to abstain from voting. In 1892, however, he made inquiries in Whitechapel, which he had represented since 1885, and found a general desire for this change, even among many opposed to him politically. He also felt that he was partially disfranchising his constituency by abstention; therefore, he promised to vote for Sunday opening. Another reason also influenced him. In 1891 a similar Motion was introduced and debated in this House, when Whitechapel was specially mentioned. The late Sir Robert Fowler, then Member for the City of London, misinterpreted his absence from the Debate; he referred to Sabbath observance in the Jewish community as an argument against Sunday opening of museums, whereas it should have been used in its favour. There was no objection, even among the most observant in his community, to visiting museums and picture galleries on Saturday. In fact, that day was often preferentially chosen. He therefore advocated granting this great boon in the interests of the labour-
  638
  ing classes in his constituency to brighten somewhat their dull lives by an intellectual enjoyment for which Members had many opportunities. His constituency, if not the very poorest, was among the three poorest in London. The bulk of its inhabitants could not afford to lose working time, and were too tired in the evening to visit our great national collections, however much they might desire to do so. Whitechapel was situated within a walking distance from the British Museum, the National Gallery, and Bethnal Green Museum. He believed that some of the stalwarts would even walk to South Kensington and back, if they were permitted to see the treasures in South Kensington Museum on Sunday, their only available day. He felt sure that such a facility would be highly appreciated by the working classes in Whitechapel and neighbouring districts, and would tend to make them more contented with their lot. This was no mere assertion on his part; he spoke from actual experience extending over the last ten years. In 1886, the Rev. Canon Barnett, then Vicar of St. Jude's, Whitechapel, established a loan exhibition of pictures for 20 days at Easter, in connection with Toynbee Hall, also in his constituency. That exhibition had been continued annually ever since, and was open on Sundays. The number of visitors had greatly increased in latter years. During the last three Easters the attendance had ranged from 62,000 to 73,000 for the 20 days; that would be an average of 69,000, or 3,450 a day. In the last three years the exhibition was open nine Sundays; the total of visitors was 36,000, or an average of 4,000 each Sunday. The comparison in favour of Sunday attendance would have been more striking were it not for the fact that Jewish residents visited the exhibition by preference on Saturday—their Sabbath. This local exhibition was one of pictures lent for the occasion; and it was located in school rooms insufficiently lighted and somewhat difficult of access. Of course, it could not be compared with even one room in our splendid National Gallery; yet, the result was so satisfactory that Canon Barnett had offered to raise £20,000 for a Town Hall in Whitechapel, on condition that a temporary exhibition should be held once or twice

  639
  a year, of course open on Sundays. He should like to read a very short extract from a recent letter he had from Canon Barnett:—
  "People do not know higher pleasures, because the places for higher pleasures are closed on their holidays. As long as the galleries are closed on Sundays, people will prefer the pleasure of bed and public-house, and they will not demand things which are good for them The Archbishop of Canterbury opened the Exhibition in 1890."
  Hon. Members would notice that some dignitaries of the Church of England did not oppose Sunday opening of museums, etc. The only difficulty, if any, lay in the employment of extra people in museums and galleries on Sundays. He said extra people, because policemen and other guardians were now very rightly employed on Sundays to protect our art treasures, although the public were excluded on that day. He believed very few extra men would be required in London on Sundays, and they could be chosen from those who had another day of rest. Supporters of the movement cited provincial towns where museums were opened on Sundays, but Government were not directly responsible for that fact; nevertheless Her Majesty's Government were directly responsible for what was done in our Indian possessions, and he found that in Calcutta the Great Indian Museum was open free to the public on Sundays. Of course it might be said that those employed there were not Christians. But that course could be adopted in this country if necessary. British subjects, either Mahommedans or Jews, could be had as volunteer guardians on Sundays, or at the cost of a few shillings each. Jews were so employed at Birmingham, in the reference library, as special assistants on Sundays. He need not refer to the Government employment of people on Sundays at Post or Telegraph Offices, because he held that what would be required in the museums and such institutions if opened on Sundays was not work at all. At the South Kensington Museum, visitors were not troubled to surrender their sticks or umbrellas, and no mischief had arisen. If that course were generally adopted, no one employed on Sundays need work at all. He did not call sitting down or walking in a picture room work. If
  640
  it were work it was the pleasantest kind of work known to him, and he would be glad to undertake it himself. There remained only the objection that working people did not desire this reform. He did not believe that; and if it were even true that the labouring classes did not love art, then create the taste for it, or otherwise it would be monstrous to have collections worth millions simply for the gratification of those who could buy pictures themselves. He yielded to no one in the desire that every person should enjoy a weekly day of rest, and he was glad to know that on the Continent that feeling was spreading; but certainly on the Continent they would never close their museums and picture galleries on Sunday. He need only add that he was convinced that by giving reasonable access to our splendid national collections on Sundays, even if only when public houses were open, they would strengthen the observance of religious and secular laws, they would make the labouring classes more contented, and would promote the intellectual improvement of the masses of the people.
  COLONEL WARDEsaid, he hardly thought that this question had been treated by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion from that high standpoint from which alone many persons thought such questions should be approached. He hardly thought that the question of expediency should be allowed to influence judgment in a matter which, in the belief of many people, threatened the very foundations of religious observances. He thought that in the abstract there was no harm in the opening of museums and picture galleries on Sundays; but in practice many evils might result from such a course. The displacement of a very small stone might start an avalanche which in its course would sweep away the monuments of centuries. Once sanction the interference by law with the Church's teachings of centuries, and where could they draw the line. Once sanction the interference by law with the Church's teachings in regard to the most serious aspects of the Sabbath Day—once sanction by law the feeling that Sunday might be regarded, as much as a holiday as a holy day—and they embarked on a course which would inevitably result in the loosening of the ties that in this country

  641
  bound Church and State so intimately together. If it were the fact that the working classes had not sufficient leisure to enable them to appreciate our art collections, make Saturday or Wednesday or some other day a compulsory half-holiday, but let the law leave the Sabbath alone. Already public bodies all over the country had the power of opening their local institutions on Sunday if public feeling in the locality was in favour of having them opened. Why, then, not leave the question to local opinion to decide? This was not a matter for collective action, but for each individual to decide for himself. Let every individual decide for himself according to his conscience as to how his day of rest was to be spent. This Motion would, if carried, be the first step towards introducing the Continental Sunday into this country. He had seen in Rome, which for centuries had been considered the headquarters of Christianity, that business and pleasure were conducted almost the same way on Sunday as on the other six days of the week; and the only result of such a course could be that many persons must forget there was such a thing as Sunday at all.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright, quoting a very distinguished authority, said this question had lately been decided by an overwhelming vote. The question was so decided by the Parliament elected in 1886. This Parliament, however, was elected in 1895, and it was extremely important they should know what it thought about this most important question. He was inclined to put aside at once all appeals that were made to popular feeling either on one side or the other. They were told by people very well qualified to judge that the immense mass of the working men of the country were opposed to the Motion, and they were told, on the other hand, by people equally well qualified to judge that the immense mass of working men were in favour of it. It had been said in the course of the Debate that every man should decide for himself how he should spend his Sunday. It was not desired to force any man to do what he thought wrong, but it was desired to enable every man to do what he thought right.
  642
  This was not a measure of local option; it was a measure of personal option; it was a measure which would enable every man to go to these galleries if his conscience allowed him, if his taste directed him. That was the reason why he did not think they should trouble very much as to whether the majority of the working men were on the one side or the other. There was another reason why he would not be too particular about one class of the community, it was that this was a matter which did not concern one class at all. These museums and art galleries appealed in a great degree to the middle class, to the less wealthy of the upper and professional class, men and women who could not go to these places upon any day except one in the week, and men and women who had the very greatest reason to go. When they considered how much of the very best of our modern literature was connected in the closest manner with art, and how impossible it was for any one to enjoy the works of Ruskin and Browning unless they had an opportunity of seeing these works of art—that alone was an argument in favour of allowing them to go on the only day on which they could go. He had been struck by the insistence with which hon. Members opposed to the Motion had argued that a comparatively small number of people attended art galleries. To Hampton Court 1,200 went on Sunday and on the week day 490 went; 1,650 people went to the Sheffield art galleries during the three hours on which it was open on Sunday, but on a week day, when it was open nine hours, 900 went. In Birmingham, 1,583 people went during three hours on Sunday, and in Newcastle, Lord Armstrong's gallery of statues, a severe, even though a beautiful and instructive form of art, was attended by 300 on Sunday. The art gallery in Bradford was open for three hours on Sunday, and well attended. He admitted that these exhibitions did not appeal to the multitude, but they did appeal to the choice people of every class to whom attendance was a great education of the very highest order. No one denied that a large number of people went to the libraries which were open on Sunday. The people went there to read books. What was the difference between reading

  643
  a book and looking at a picture for the purposes of education? But to read a book when people were tired with the work of the week was a serious matter; whereas to look at pictures and statues, especially pictures, was not only an education, but a rest. It must be remembered that some of the most highly-cultivated communities of old days and of mediæval days read scarcely at all, but got all their cultivation through pictures and through art, and that was a cultivation which hon. Gentlemen practically denied to the mass of their fellow-countrymen. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was willing to admit that hon. Gentlemen did not deny it by intention; but when men were tired with a long day's work they could not take advantage of what was offered to them by the Amendment in a right spirit, and spend their evenings looking at pictures. He did not believe there was any more religious way of spending Sunday afternoon than in looking at good pictures in our art galleries. ["Hear, hear!"] Two or three hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, such as the hon. Member who had just sat down and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, hold the strongest views about Sunday, and he deeply respected their opinions. But he would ask hon. Gentlemen who had a different sort of practice not to do that which was fit to be called by a not very flattering epithet, by denying to their less-favoured fellow-countrymen what they themselves enjoyed. One Sunday last year he went to a famous gallery of Flemish and French pictures possessed by a very well-known gentleman on the Chelsea Embankment. That gentleman this year had sent all those pictures to a public gallery, and among them was a replica of Millet's "Angelus." What better way of spending a Sunday afternoon could there be than looking at that picture of Millet's. [Cheers.] Lately at the National Gallery he was standing in front of Crivelli's "Annunciation"—a picture which every one who knew the Gallery would admit to be one of the most beautiful there—when a poorly-dressed working lad came, dragging a comrade to the picture, saying
  "Here, I will show you the best picture in the gallery."
  What harm would it do that boy to look at such a picture on Sunday? He had
  644
  noticed on week-days that a great many people, and especially many children, went to the picture galleries and museums for the sake, apparently, of the bright surroundings. Working men who could not go there during the week would go on Sunday for that reason. They might not be great art critics, but in walking about the galleries they would acquire higher tastes. They were told,
  "If it were possible to take a vote of the working classes throughout the country, we believe that vote would show an overwhelming majority against every Sunday-opening movement which involved Sunday labour,"
  and it was urged that, if once the floodgates were opened, there would be Sunday travelling in every way. What did that mean? Many people thought it wrong to travel out of the great cities on Sundays. Then were the dwellers in those cities, who were excluded from the sight of country scenes, to be deprived of the only brightness and beauty which a great city could offer—that of the art galleries and museums? Where could art joined with science be better seen than in our glorious Gallery at South Kensington? And he was glad to hear from Sir William Flower that, by an addition of only £300 a year to the Estimates, it would be possible to throw that unequalled collection open to the people who had paid for it. [Cheers.] For the people had paid for all these advantages; and who were Members of the House of Commons to deny them? Some hon. Gentlemen had galleries into which they could go on Sunday, and the wiser of them had the pictures in the rooms in which they and their families habitually lived. Just as much as those pictures belonged to the hon. Members in whose houses they hung, the pictures in the public galleries belonged to the great public who had paid for them with their taxes; and let the House give them the right to enjoy their own. [Cheers.]
  LORD WARKWORTHin a maiden speech, said that, as Kensington would be very closely affected by the success of this Motion, he felt he ought not to give a silent vote. He protested against the idea which had been hinted at, that in opposing this Motion he and others were actuated by any motive of bigotry or religious intolerance. Similar motions had been

  645
  rejected over and over again by both Houses, sometimes with an overwhelming majority and sometimes without a division; and the names of gentlemen who had spoken against such motions on former occasions—Mr. Gladstone, Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Lord Cairns—ought to be enough to guarantee them against the insinuation of intolerance. [Cheers.] No doubt that among those who held his views on this matter might be found some whose opinions would be regarded as narrow-minded and puritanical; but then, among the supporters of the Motion, there were many whose open and avowed object was the complete secularization of the Sabbath. [Cheers.] The opposition to this Motion was with no particular view as to the way in which Sunday should be observed by individuals—with that the House was not concerned—but simply and solely because the logical outcome of the acceptance of these proposals would be a still further advance in the direction of secularization. [Cheers.] That consequence would be regarded as disastrous by the vast majority of this House; and he was sure, in spite of all that had been said to the contrary, that it would be bitterly opposed by the religious feeling of the country. The opponents of the Motion were entitled to ask its supporters to show not only the advantage they expected the community at large would derive from the adoption of the Motion, but they should also explain, and not content themselves with mere assertion, where they proposed to draw the line between the opening of museums and the opening of other places of amusement on Sunday. ["Hear, hear!"] There was only one ground, in his opinion, for the interference of the State in the matter of Sunday observance, and that was the Fourth Commandment. He believed it to be most mischievous to put forward the physical advantage to be gained by one day's rest. No doubt it was an incidental advantage just as health was an advantage incidental to morality. But neither the health in the one case, nor the rest in the other supplied reason or justification for the action of the individual or the State. If it was true that the object of the State was that there should be a guarantee of one clay's rest out of seven, even that was not secured by the pro-
  646
  posal. To say that no official was to be compelled to work on the seventh day unless he liked it was not sufficient, and, in their opinion, the State was bound to say that no man in its employment should work on Sunday whether he liked it or not, except in cases of absolute necessity. The fact that that provision had been inserted showed, to his mind, confusion of ideas. For if it was the liberty of the individual to work or not work as he pleased that was at stake, there was no longer any justification for the interference by the State with Sunday traffic of any kind provided that it was voluntarily engaged in. To his mind there was a great difference between a holiday and a holy day. ["Hear, hear!"] A great deal was said about the State setting an example in the matter of wages to their workmen. If hon. Members were right in that argument, it seemed to him the State should observe an equal duty by setting an example to employers in the matter of Sunday observance. ["Hear, hear!"] The figures as to the attendance at these museums and other institutions showed that they were becoming smaller on Sundays as compared with week-days, and that a large proportion of those who did attend on Sundays were boys and girls. ["No!" and "Hear!"] It had been suggested during the Debate that boys and girls would be well employed in museums, but he did not know whether they constituted the most eligible class of the community to which reference had been made. He did not wish to weary the House with statistics, but he would point out, with reference to this question, that a paper had been recently circulated which contained what purported to be answers given to questions put by the hon. Member for Central Finsbury, the Mover of the Motion; but the hon. Member, however, had not supplied the House with the number of adverse answers which he had received. ["Hear, hear!"] It was obvious, nevertheless, that there were only 13 answers on four large pages which gave any statistics of the average attendance on successive Sundays. Out of those 13, only four were museums or public galleries. He was perfectly prepared to deal with the question of the libraries; and he knew that in at least 12 cases, and probably more, libraries which had been

  647
  opened in the country had proved failures. Manchester had only succeeded in 20 years in raising the attendance to 7,773, of which 2,926 were boys and girls. At Wigan the increase was very gradual indeed, being only 400 in a population of over 55,000. The report from Birmingham showed that the average attendance on Sunday had dwindled from 2,365 in 1888 to 1,188 in 1894. On Museum Sunday in 1885 it was stated that the attendance was 4,706, while in 1894 it had fallen to 1,193. At Stockport the Sunday attendance was 276 in 1891, and was only 220 in 1892. It did not appear to him that these figures showed that the opening of museums at the places to which they referred was a success. He had already mentioned the fact that a large portion of those who attended these places on Sunday were children, and that fact was of much importance, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Trevelyan) had remarked that children would be well employed on Sundays if they attended these museums. In his opinion, however, the places to which children should go on Sundays should be the Sunday schools, and not free libraries. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] He thought that no temptation should be held out to prevent children from attending Sunday schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The additional labour entailed by opening these institutions on Sundays was not confined to that of the officials in charge. There were other consequences that would follow the opening of museums on Sundays that were to be deprecated. For instance, the population in the neighbourhood of South Kensington Museum was of the well-to-do kind, and if that museum were to be opened on Sundays for the benefit of the working classes there must necessarily be a great increase in the traffic upon the railways and the tramways, which was amply sufficient at present. They were asked to believe that all the disadvantages to which he had referred were to be counterbalanced by the moral elevation which would result to the people as a whole from the opening of these institutions on Sunday. But museums had been open on Sundays for years on the Continent, and did anyone pretend that the people of foreign countries were more moral,
  648
  more religious, or more refined than our people were? ["Hear, hear!"] If the educational value of an institution was to to be made a test of its claim to exemption from the universal rule of Sunday closing we should be plunging into the region of speculation, where there was no appeal except to individual opinion. Many people believed that the Stage was capable of imparting quite as much education on Sundays as the picture galleries, and if they were to open such institutions on Sunday in order to relieve the dulness of Sunday afternoons, they would soon be asked to open the theatres also. ["Hear, hear!"] They had been told that this was a purely local and individual question, but, in his opinion, it was a national question. They would be taking quite a new step if they opened a national institution on Sunday. If the State were to go any further in the direction of abolishing the distinction between the Lord's Day and other days of the week it ought to do so upon some higher ground than that of affording additional comfort and amusement to a fraction of the population at the cost of depriving others of the one holy day of the week which this country alone amongst Christian nations continued resolutely to observe. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. G. HOLBORNsaid, that the opening of the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh had certainly not demoralised the population in any way. Speaking not the opinions of working men, but as a working man himself, who had worked at the bench not only until the last Election, but all through last Recess, he contended that they had a right to claim their share in those elevating influences which were contained in the national museums. As to the argument that the numbers who now attended Sunday-open museums were not sufficiently great to encourage an extension of them, was it not the duty of the House to give the people the opportunity of visiting and enjoying those places? And what was there in the contention that so many boys and girls frequented museums and art galleries on Sundays? Were they not better employed in looking at art treasures than in wandering about the streets? [Cheers.] When he was giving evidence before a House of Lords' Committee on this subject, a noble Lord asked him whether

  649
  he did not think the Sunday opening of public gardens would lead to a good deal of courting in those gardens, and his reply was—"It is better that the courting should be done in a public garden than in a close house in the high street." [Laughter.] He had pleasure in assuring the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that they should have at least one vote from Sabbatarian Scotland. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I wish, in the first place, to dissociate myself entirely from any Ministerial capacity in the words I am going to address to the House to-night. I am going to speak, like the noble Lord (Lord Warkworth) who has addressed the House a few minutes ago in a manner which has justly won the high appreciation of the House—[cheers]—entirely as an unofficial Member, and to state the views which, though I cannot be sure they are those of my constituents, still, from all that reaches me, I believe are the views which animate them. It was said by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow that this was not a question on which the House ought to listen peculiarly to the view of the working classes. I differ from him in that respect. ["Hear!"] I should be guided in my vote to a great extent by the wishes of those who would be able to avail themselves of those facilities if they were offered to them. I believe I express the views of four-fifths of the House when I say when I say that our minds have been peculiarly exercised as to the side on which we ought to vote on this question. On the one hand, there is the strongest desire, shared by every class in the country, that the British Sunday should be maintained in its essential conditions. [Cheers.] Some maintain that view as my noble friend (Lord Warkworth) has done, mainly from the religious standpoint; others from the social point of view; but I believe we are all agreed that if we were to see in the Motion a tendency that the Sunday should be made a day of labour, or that the rest which that day affords to the community should be sacrificed to any considerations whatever, there is scarcely an hon. Member who would not vote against any Motion which might have that effect. And so I
  650
  believe the working classes, the middle classes, and all classes in this country would be against any Motion which seemed to imperil the sanctity of the Sunday as regards the increase of labour. [Cheers.] The argument that we may, by a Motion such as this, encourage the idea that we are on the downward path, and moving in the direction of an exchange of the British Sunday for the Continental Sunday—that argument, if sound, would weigh greatly with this House, and justly so. On the other hand, we have to remember that this is no new proposal. Museums and libraries are open on Sundays in many parts of the country. They are open in Birmingham, in Liverpool, in Manchester, and so far we have had no sign that the opening of museums in those provincial towns has led to that which I should be one of the first to deplore—namely, any desecration of the Sabbath. ["Hear, hear!"] Then in London we have Kew Gardens, which are open, and other places of public resort to which recourse is had by those tramways and railways which unfortunately do necessitate Sunday labour. I have had a number of appeals from working men in my own constituency that I should vote in favour of this Motion, and it would be difficult for me to resist those appeals—["hear, hear!"]—knowing, as we do, what has been done already in the provinces, and the little harm that has there ensued from the opening of public institutions on Sunday. Has it led to far to the desecration of the Sabbath? Surely the Sabbath is desecrated as much by many of the amusements in which all classes habitually indulge on Sunday. ["Hear, hear!"] What will be the feelings of the working man who calls upon me as his representative to vote for the opening of South Kensington Museum if I refuse to do so? Supposing I tell him that I think this Motion would lead us on the downward path and open the floodgates to Sunday labour; will he not reply: "Is not Niagara open on Sunday?" ["Hear, hear!"] "Are there not many clubs, so-called clubs, organised so that those who have more opportunity than we have to enjoy themselves on weekdays may also enjoy themselves on Sunday?" To that I have no answer. If the Legislature is prepared to shut up all places of public amusement and to

  651
  take such measures as would stop every kind of amusement on Sunday, I could understand the position, but I find great difficulty in drawing a distinction between those places which are now open and the places which we are called upon to open by this Motion. I agree, to a certain extent, with the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division. I believe that it is far better that men and women, and boys and girls—["hear, hear!"]—should have recourse on Sunday afternoon to places like South Kensington than that they should be driven to seek excitement and amusement elsewhere. If it were a question of choosing between the Sunday-school and the museum I grant that it would be a great advantage that they should have recourse to the former. But if that is not the question, if they prefer the more frivolous occupation, then I say that the national institutions with their refining influences should be open to them. ["Hear, hear!"] Attention has been called to the work of Canon Barnett in the East-end of London, and he has told me himself that the refining influence he has been able to exercise through the opening of museums has often had greater effect than any religious power which he could bring to bear upon individuals. For my own part, although I wish to secure to the Church, to all Churches, to all denominations, as much attendance at their services as can possibly be secured on Sunday, I also wish that every kind of refining influence should be brought within the reach of the masses of this country—["Hear, hear"]—if that can be done without increasing Sunday labour to the extent which many friends of mine fearfully anticipate. If I thought that this change would lead to the breaking down of the sanctity of the Sabbath I would sacrifice all the refining influences that you might secure through its operation, because I believe it would be a social calamity of the most serious kind to sacrifice Sunday rest. But I think the sober sense of Englishmen, the ingrained feeling of the great majority of the people that Sunday must be kept as a time of rest, the influence which will be exercised by all the leaders of labour to secure that Sunday shall not be interfered with in the way some hon. Members fear—these are guarantees with which we
  652
  may embark on an experiment of this kind without running that risk which I would be the last man to wish to run, namely, that after six day days of labour the Sunday rest should be sacrificed. I hope the view I take is clear to the House. If working men appeal to me and ask that they, like other classes, should have the opportunity on one day in the week to visit our great public galleries and museums, and if, at the same time, I know that the influence of the Labour Leaders will be so great that it would not lead to that which we should all deplore, I cannot help saying that I shall join my voice without hesitation to those who are in favour of opening the museums. [Cheers.]
  MR. JOHN BURNSthought that the speech just delivered removed some fears and misgivings he entertained after the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington. He joined in congratulating the noble Lord on his maiden effort, and his only regret was that so good a speaker and so excellent a champion should be identified with so bad a cause. [Laughter.] But, fortunately for London, St. George's, Hanover Square, had come to the rescue of South Kensington, and, with that magnanimity which characterised a First Lord of the Admiralty asking the nation for a large sum of money—[laughter]—the right hon. Gentleman had dispelled the unfavourable impression created by the noble Lord's speech, and the Sunday opening of museums would be carried with practical unanimity. ["No, no!"] The great mass of the working classes who were in favour of opening the museums and picture galleries were not in favour, as a consequence, of holding that view of the secularisation of the Sabbath to the extent which the noble Lord indicated. Satisfactory statistics could not be obtained on this question until it had been put to the test, and until the test had been applied it was ridiculous to take a small town of 20,000, 30,000, or even 200,000 inhabitants, with a small museum, mostly consisting of the industrial products of the district, and which the men were sick and tired of making six days a week—[laughter],—and apply that test to the best and richest museums in the world, and deduce arguments there from. The noble Lord

  653
  did not seem to regard boys and girls from the point of view of a young Member of the House. To anyone who knew London the saddest sight was to pass through the streets in March, April, October, or November, and even in July and August, and to see the swarms of boys and girls with positively no place to go to. They would not go to Church because the service was dull, and the advice was not always acted up to by the parson himself. They would not go to Sunday school, and he ventured to say that the noble Lord himself, when he was a boy, did not practise as he now preached. [Laughter.] He wished to point out to the noble Lord that those who did not go to Sunday School unfortunately walked about the streets, hanging round about the corner posts and in and out the public house doors; and if the noble Lord would go to the father of a family, say a member of the A Division of the police, who looked after the interests of hon. Members so well, and asked him his straightforward opinion as a policeman first, as a citizen second, and as a father third, ho would tell him that it would be a godsend to the police and to the boys and girls if there were more places where the boys and girls could go for recreation. The noble Lord said that the opening of the museums on Sunday meant a larger use of the tramways, but surely the noble Lord knew that South Kensington was the centre of a radius of three miles from which 500,000 visitors to the museum could be drawn, who would walk leisurely over the bridges to the museum; and when they visited the Natural History Museum he sincerely hoped they would see the pliosaurus in a glass case and mark the evolution of the politician who opposed the opening of museums on Sunday, and avoid him in future as an awful example. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Member who represented the Medway Division of Kent certainly scored a point against the Motion when he contended that this was a matter which ought to be left to the localities; but this was mainly a London question and the Imperial Parliament kept the keys of the London Museums. The only bodies that could voice the opinion of London in this matter were the London County Council and the Vestries, and the London County Council had
  654
  decided with almost absolute unanimity in favour of Sunday opening, while many of the Vestries had taken a similar line. No one could go down to Toynbee Hall, where he had seen Canon Barnett's exhibition, or to the Tower Gardens, even when the weather was not particularly good, without seeing swarms and crowds of people, even to an extraordinary and inconvenient extent. If that was so, what reason had the House to assume that, if the same regulations which affected the Tower Gardens were applied to picture galleries and museums, the same result would not be obtained. He believed it would, and nothing would convince him that people would not visit the museums and galleries if opened, until they had been opened for six or 12 months and the fact proved by application. He thought the motion was too moderate. The hours it proposed were from two to six o'clock, and it seemed to him that it could not be framed more in the interest of the publican. On Sunday morning, the father of the family was generally engaged in domestic duties. The single man went for a walk in the parks; but there was a class not well dressed enough to come into the light of the streets, many of whom, he believed, would sneak from the slums and alleys of Seven Dials, just round the corner from the National Gallery, would find their way there if they go and visit it by gaslight, and if it was only for that class alone, he thought the museum ought to be kept open later than 6 o'clock in the evening. He did not see why they should not be open till 8 or 9 o'clock. But he wanted to urge another point. London was rapidly becoming in many respects a cosmopolitan city. There were in London at this moment from 10,000 to 15,000 visitors, who would welcome Sunday opening as a distinct boon. There were thousands of men, too, passing from and to the colonies who now looked on Sunday as a blank day; and beyond that how many thousands of young fellows from places round London would get on their bicycles and ride up to town and visit the many places of recreation, access to which was now denied to them. There were between 50,000 and 60,000 men in London—policemen, pensioners, post office employés, and others—who, in consequence of evening and night duty, could only conveniently visit such

  655
  institutions on a Sunday. He believed Sunday was certainly also the most convenient time for shopkeepers and shop assistants to visit them. As to the question of Sunday labour, he was free to confess that if he thought the Motion would lead to an increase of such labour he would oppose it. But Sunday labour and the demand for it were diminishing in all countries. One of the chief features of each of the International Congresses of workmen that had been held had been that the excellent institution observed in England of having the six days' work and the seventh day for rest had been again and again brought before the workmen of Belgium, Germany, France, Switzerland, and other countries with good results. He had recently had an opportunity of discussing the value of the six days' work with three German Imperial Commissioners, who had come here to investigate the question of Sunday labour, and the information he received was that on the Continent an unmistakable desire was being shown to follow England's example in this matter. With regard to the argument of cost he did not think there was much in it. It would involve comparatively very little cost to carry out the object of the Motion; for he was confident that, if the Chief Commissioner was appealed to, he would be able to make arrangements for the attendance of the few extra policemen who would be required at the museums and art galleries without calling for any additional men or money in consequence. He supported the motion as one, perhaps, as closely connected with labour as any metropolitan representative, and as one, too, who had always opposed the Sabbatarian party at his elections. He believed there was a much stronger feeling in London in favour of this motion than hon. Members opposite seemed to suppose. Whether that was so or not, the House was the guardian of those museums and picture galleries; it alone could give access to them on Sundays, and therefore the great body of ratepayers in the metropolis appealed to hon. Members to give them, for one day at least, a convenient opportunity of enjoying them. He was confident that, if the museums were opened as desired, they would prove a strong counter-attraction to the public-house, and would exercise a great moral
  656
  and educational influence on thousands of men, women, and children who now had no reasonable way of spending the Sunday afternoon and evening. [ Cheers.]
  MR. J. LOWLESin supporting the Motion, said that he had much experience of Church work in London, and one result of it was, that he had been made a convert to the movement for opening museums and picture galleries on Sundays. [Cheers.] He had himself again and again given interesting and illustrated lectures on Sunday afternoons to the people, and believed that much good was done by work of that kind. They were living now in different times to those of 25 years ago; the old narrow feeling of Sabbatarianist was dying out, and he certainly thought they might safely support such a moderate Measure as that proposed by the hon. Member for Central Finsbury. The people's capacities were being enlarged, and that being so, they ought, he thought, to enlarge their opportunities. He had himself no fear at all about this thin edge of the wedge. He was perfectly certain the House would take care of itself if any further proposition were made.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that as he had the honour of representing the trustees of the British Museum in this House, he ought perhaps to say a few words on this subject. The trustees of the British Museum were anxious to open the museum in accordance with the Resolution before the House. They quite admitted the importance of the evening opening, but they did not think that was any substitute for opening on Sundays. At the same time, if they thought that there was the slightest danger that, in doing so, they would be opening the doors to Sunday labour, they would resist any such proposal. But they believed that, so far from increasing Sunday labour, they would really be diminishing it by opening the museums on Sunday. The people who would come would be orderly, well-behaved people, and the extra staff which would be required would be extremely small. The people would really require less looking after in the museum than they would out of it, and for every additional policeman required in the museum perhaps two policemen would be set free somewhere else. Provincial

  657
  museums, and Birmingham in particular, had been referred to, and it was pointed out that the Sunday attendances had very much fallen off. But what was the explanation of that? Hon. Members were contrasting the numbers of those who went when the museums were first opened, when they were a novelty, with the numbers of those who went now. If they took the same standard of comparison for week days, it would be found that the numbers had fallen off even more since the opening of museums than on Sunday, and if they took hour for hour there was a much larger attendance on Sunday afternoons than there was on the week days. He thought six o'clock would be rather early to close, but that was a matter which would, he hoped, be left to the discretion of the trustees. They had heard something about Sunday Schools during the Debate, but he ventured to say that the British Museum was one of the best Sunday schools in the country. He would put it in this way. No one could thoroughly understand the Bible who had not travelled in the East. They could not all travel in the East, but they had in the British Museum monuments of Egypt, of Assyria, and of Babylonia—ancient records referred to in the Bible itself; and after they had seen these they would understand the Bible much better than they did before. He hoped the House would give its sanction to the Resolution.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes. 93.—(Division List, No. 39.)
  The result of the Division was received with loud cheers.
  On the Resolution being put from the Chair, a Division was challenged.
  The House having been cleared, Mr. Speaker put the Resolution again, and declared that the "Ayes" have it—a decision which was received with cries of "The 'Noes' have it."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! No one challenged, and I declared the Motion carried. [Cheers.]
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the National Museums and Art Galleries in London should be open for a limited number of hours on Sundays, after 2 p.m., upon condition that no officer shall be required to attend on more than six days per week, and that anyone who may have conscientious objections shall be exempt from Sunday duty.—(Mr. Massey-Mainwaring.)

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  MILITIA BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday.
  FRESH-WATER FISHERIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS(IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [3rd March] further adjourned till Thursday, 19th March.
  TOWN HOLDINGS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 24th March.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LETTING OF SPORTING RIGHTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  ABBATOIRS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  SPURIOUS SPORTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 19th March.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [4th March] further adjourned till Tuesday, 24th March.
  PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday, 3rd June.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS (ADVANCES).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY [9TH MARCH].
  Resolution reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  "That 93,750 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, including 16,005 Royal Marines."
  Resolution agreed to.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Report thereupon deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  TELEGRAPHS [ADVANCES].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday.
  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL MUSEUMS (OPENING ON SUNDAYS).
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
  MR. BYRON REEDaddressing the Speaker, said: I wish, Sir, to ask you a question as to your ruling—to which I submit with all respect—in regard to the Division which has just taken place——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is too late for that. If he had any question of Order he should have raised it at once. ["Hear, hear!"] I explained why I ruled as I did at the time. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BYRON REED(who was received with cries of ["Order!" and "Name!"]: I am speaking now strictly to the Motion for Adjournment; and I wish to ask hon. Gentlemen within my own hearing whether they understood that there was no negative response when the Resolution was put. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order in appealing to the House as to whether what I said was correct or not. [Cheers.]
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
This Bill having been read 2a,
LORD HERSCHELL,in moving the suspension of Standing Orders XXXIX. and XLV., said the Bill was similar to the Measure passed a few days ago to obviate a difficulty which had arisen with regard to District and Parish elections. The date fixed was March 9. As it was not an uncommon thing for persons to change their dwellings on March 25, the result of fixing so early a date as the 9th would be to disqualify any such persons from being elected. The Bill passed the other House unanimously.
EARL COWPERsaid, every week or two some little Amendment had to be proposed to make this Act work, and, as there were several clauses which needed looking into, he thought it would be better if the Government brought in a Bill to correct one or two important matters. For instance, any one could demand a poll, and generally the man who demanded it got very few votes.
LORD HARRISsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had no objection to the Bill; and as to the point referred to by his noble Friend, he should call the attention of his right hon. Friend to it.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, this Bill was not so much rendered necessary by any defect in the Act as by the accidental fixing of so exceptionally an early date.
LORD HARRISsaid, he was not so sure of that. Full consideration was given to the date; but Easter had to be considered.
THE PRIME MINISTER (the MARQUESS of SALISBURY)said, if he recollected aright, they did urge the importance of requiring more than one person to demand a poll, but the Government had a strong objection—he forgot what.
542
He doubted if it was so non-contentious a matter as the noble and learned Lord fancied.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. Considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered on Tuesday next.—[No. 29.]
House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.