Sitting of 11 May 1897

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Two o'clock.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
SIR H. VINCENT: To call attention to certain matters relating to the trade of the United Kingdom and the Colonies; and to move a Resolution.—[An early day.]
RAILWAY RATES (IRELAND.)
MR. J. P. FARRELL: To call attention to the excessive railway rates in Ireland; and to move a Resolution.—[An early day.]
QUESTIONS.

  TEST OFFICER (LEWIS).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the small number of money order offices in the Island of Lewis, the population of which numbers nearly 30,000, he will again consider the advisability of opening money order offices at Barvas and Crossbost without guarantee?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General regrets that the circumstances of the case would not justify him in opening offices at the places in question without guarantee. There are already six in the so-called Island of Lewis, which is not an island, but only half a one.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that in reply to an inquiry for the names of the post offices in the Island of Lewis at which money order and savings bank business is transacted the Secretary on the 31st March issued the following list, viz. Callanish, Carloway, Harris, Miavaig, Ness, Obbe, Port of Ness, and Scalpay, whether he is aware that three of the eight places named are not situated in the island of Lewis at all, and that the list is otherwise inaccurate, the most important money order office in the island, viz. Stornoway, being omitted; and, whether, in the circumstances, he will now give an accurate list of the money order offices in the island?
  MR. HANBURY: It is regretted that in the letter mentioned by the hon. Member, the sub-post offices in both Harris and Lewis (which are divisions of the same island) were included instead of those in Lewis only. Stornoway was accidentally omitted and the list was in that respect inaccurate. The money order offices in Lewis are as follows:—Stornoway, Callanish, Carloway, Miaviag, Ness and Port of Ness.

  UPPER DIVISION CLERKS (CHARITY COMMISSION).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the clerks of the Upper Division in the Office of the Charity Commission are required by Treasury Minute of 27th May 1883 to be either barristers or solicitors; (2) whether such clerks are appointed by open competition and after examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, or are nominated personally by the Read of the Department without such examination; and, (3) if by the latter method, whether there is any reason why these clerks should not be appointed by open

  191
  competition, as in the case of clerks of a similar class, required to possess legal qualifications, in the Office of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Office of Woods?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. The limits of age are 25 to 32, and the scale of salary £250, rising to £400. These clerks are nominated by the Charity Commissioners without a Civil Service examination, hut they must either be barristers of not less than two years' standing who have been called to the Bar after passing a public examination, or else persons who have been duly admitted as solicitors under the regulations of November 2, 1875. The present system secures men possessing the special qualifications necessary for the work, and there seems no need to alter it. I am not aware of any similar officers at the Ecclesiastical Commission. At the Office of Woods the limits of age and the scale of salary are much lower and they are not required to be either barristers or solicitors.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (EXAMINERS).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether appointment to the class of examiners in the Education Department is made by open competition and after examination of candidates by the Civil Service Commissioners, or by the personal nomination of the head of the Department without such examination; and if by the latter method, whether there is any reason why the system of open competition could not be adopted with regard to these appointments; and (2) whether the official duties of the Examiners are generally analogous to those of Clerks of the Upper Division in other offices, and such as could properly be performed br Clerks of the Upper Division?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Examiners in the Education Department are appointed by the Lord President of the Council. The special qualifications needed for the office could not, in the opinion of the Committee of Council, be secured by open competition. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Sub-Commissioners who sat at Carrickmacross on 18th March last, to fix fair rents on the estates of Mr. S. E. Shirley and Major Tennison respectively, have not viewed all the farms yet and in no case has judgment been given; whether he can say what is the cause of the delay in viewing the farms of tenants whose cases were heard at Carrickmacross on 18th March; and, when will judgment be given?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed that the lay Assistant Commissioners have not yet completed the inspections in the cases recently heard at Carrickmacross, but that the work, which has been somewhat retarded by bad weather, is being proceeded with, with as much expedition as possible. The decisions will be announced as soon as all the inspections have been finished, but no date can yet be fixed.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that tenants on the estate of Mr. R. C. Leslie, Ballybay, who served notice before November last to have their fair rents fixed on their holdings, have not got their cases heard yet; whether he can state the cause of this delay; and, whether the Sub Commissioners will sit at Ballybay to try the cases in question, and when?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In all cases on this estate where originating notices were received prior to the 1st November last the applications have been listed for hearing and appear upon a list, the hearing of which was commenced at Castleblayney on the 29th April. There has been no delay in dealing with these applications. It is probable that the Chairman of the Sub-Commission will sit at Ballybay for the disposal of the cases referred to, but the place of hearing has not been finally arranged.

  EVICTION (LITTLEDALE ESTATE, COUNTY WICKLOW).
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland

  193
  whether he is aware that the Receiver on the Littledale Estate, county Wicklow, has refused from lames Byrne an otter of 20 years' purchase for the farm from which he had been evicted; and, if so, whether the Receiver consulted Mr. Justice Ross before refusing the evicted tenant's offer?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So far as can be ascertained there are not any proceeding's pending in the Laud Judge's Court in reference to the estate mentioned in this Question.

  CONGO STATE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the territory west of the 30th meridian E. of Greenwich leased by Her Majesty's late advisers to His Majesty Leopold H, Sovereign of the Congo State, continues to be so leased, or what is its international position, the corresponding lease by the Congo State to Great Britain named in Article III. of the Agreement having been cancelled by the withdrawal of Article III.; and (2) whether in the territory east of the 30th meridian E. of Greenwich leased at the same time by Her Majesty's Government to King Leopold, but not since renounced by the Congo State, the special flag named in the Agreement is used by the Congolese forces, and what is it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The position created by the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the right hon. Baronet's Question remains the same as it was under the late Government. The special flag to be used in the territory named in the second Article of the Agreement has not yet been defined.

  EXPLUSION OF MR. MACPHERSON FROM PARIS.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received official information that Mr. Macpherson, a British subject for many years resident in Paris, has been expelled from France by order of the Minister of the Interior; whether the Government
  194
  have any information to show that the ground of the "arrêté d'expulsion" was that Mr. Macpherson had been active in arranging a conference in connection with the International Federation of Dock Labourers; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to make inquiry into the matter?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has reported the expulsion of Mr. Macpherson on the ground that his presence on French territory was of a nature to compromise public safety. Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed that if the action of the French Government was considered to be required in the interests of public order, and if it, has been confined strictly to what was necessary to enforce the expulsion, they appear to be within their rights and the occasion for diplomatic action does not arise.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the hours of arrival and dispatch of the mid-day letters in Cavan and Belturbet respectively; whether he is aware that, whilst I the acceleration of the mails all over Ireland has meant a gain of an hour and a half at least to most Irish towns, it only means about half an hour in county Cavan: and, whether, without incurring the cost of an extra train, the Postmaster General could press the Great Northern Railway Company to start their train at 8.30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. as at present?
  MR. HANBURY: At Cavan the hour of the arrival of the mail is 11.5 a.m. and of departure 1.15 p.m. At Belturbet they are 11.35 a.m. and 1.45 p.m. The gain of time for reply at Cavan is 40 minutes, and Belturbet ten minutes. Even if the railway company would agree to start the train from Dundalk at 8.30 a.m. instead of at 9.0 a.m. a further difficulty lies in the fact that the train from Dundalk joines at Clones a train from Belfast which only readies Clones at 10.21 and which the Company cannot see their way to run earlier. Unless, therefore, an additional tram were run beyond Clones, the train from Dundalk must still wait for the Belfast train, and

  195
  thus no benefit to Cavan and Belturbet or to Enniskillen would arise from an earlier start from Dundalk.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman put a further question to the railway company as to the reason why in Cavan they have 40 minutes longer and in Belturbet only 10 minutes?
  MR. HANBURY: It depends entirely upon the running of the trains of the Great Northern Railway. They refuse to alter their trains for mail purposes, and the number of letters and postal matters carried is not sufficient to justify additional trains for the purpose.
  MR. DALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the manager of the Great Northern Railway laid the blame at the door of the Treasury for not running additional trains.
  [No answer was given.]

  ROYAL, IRISH CONSTABULARY (TULLYVIN, CO. CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that faults have been found by the County Inspector with the performance of his duties by Sergeant Kelly, of Tullyvin, County Cavan, and that this man has not got on well with the inhabitants of the district under his charge, this sergeant will be transferred to another station?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no foundation for the statements made in the Question. The County Inspector has not had occasion to find fault with Sergeant Kelly, who gives entire satisfaction in the performance of his duties. I have no reason to believe that he does not get on well with the people of the district. It is not proposed to transfer him to another station.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the death at the battle of Tel-el-Kebir in 1882 of Trumpeter Fanning of the 18th Hussars, who was killed whilst engaged in saving his Commanding Officer under circumstances of great bravery; whether he is aware that the mother of this young man is residing at Longford in very distressed circumstances; and whether,
  196
  having regard to the circumstances of the case, the War Office will make his mother a compassionate allowance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Question of the hon. Member probably refers to Trumpeter Fanning, of the 19th Hussars, who died of wounds received in the battle of El Teb in 1884. The Secretary of State has no funds from which to make a compassionate allowance to the mother of a soldier; but if she can prove that she was in any considerable degree dependent on her son the case might be one for consideration by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund.

  ALDERSHOT CAMP SEWAGE FARM.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Aldershot Camp Sewage Farm, although much improved in its general condition, is still unsatisfactory as regards the character of the effluent; and whether it is the intention of the authorities to expend the extra money necessary to render the present farm successful, or whether it is intended to remove the operations to another site at a greater distance from the camp?
  MR. BRODRICK: This subject, which is a very difficult one, and has been discussed with reference to the treatment of the sewage of the town as well as of the camp, is still under consideration, and there are some points which are not yet cleared up; but the Secretary of State hopes to arrive at a decision very shortly.

  BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS (BALLYBUNION, CO. KERRY).
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Sergeant Donaldson, of Ballybunion, County Kerry, on Sunday, 18th April 1897, prevented bonâ fide travellers from getting refreshments on the licensed premises of Edward Enright, Ballybunion, although the people so prevented were travelling from Listowel, a distance of ten miles, and tried to exercise their legal right, but, owing to the orders of Sergeant Donaldson, were compelled to leave the licensed premises without getting the

  197
  necessary refreshments; and whether, owing to the fact that a very large number of tourists and the general public travel by the Lartigue railway to this well known seaside place, some inquiry will be made into the action of Sergeant Donaldson?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears that on the date mentioned two men, who were not tourists, but the guard and engine driver of one of the trains, entered the licensed premises referred to, and the Sergeant, having satisfied himself that they resided at Listowel, of which fact he was not previously aware, the men refreshed themselves without being in any way prevented. The publican in question was lined for a breach of the Sunday Closing Act in January last. The action of the Sergeant, under the circumstances, was right and proper, and does not call for further notice. There will be no improper interference with the privileges of bonâ fide travellers at Ballybunion.

  PORT OF NESS HARBOUR (LEWIS).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether a copy of the arbitrator's award in the case of the Port of Ness Harbour, Island of Lewis, has yet been received at the Scottish Office?
  MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has asked me to state that the answer is in the affirmative.

  MINES AND QUARRIES (STATISTICS).
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the summaries of statistics relating to mines and quarries for 1896 will be issued; whether he is aware that they were issued last year on 13th March; and if he is further aware that much of the value and interest attaching to them is lost by issuing them at so late a date after the period to which they relate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The summaries ought to have been issued mime days ago, but there has been delay on the part of the lithographers who are
  198
  printing the plans. A promise, however, has been given that they will be issued this afternoon. The hon. Member is mistaken as to the date of issue last year; it was not March the 13th, hut June the 24th, the delay being due to the difficulty of getting in the quarry returns which were appearing in the summaries for the first time. Every effort is made to issue the summaries at the earliest possible date, but some of the quarry returns are not due till the 1st March, and I do not think it would be possible to issue them much sooner.

  ARDAGH BURIAL GROUND.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether it is true that the Local Government Board have, without previous inquiry, but solely on the letter of a local landlord to the Board of Guardians of Longford Union, closed the Ardagh Burial Ground by sealed order; (2) whether such action is in accordance with the law; and (3) was the scaled order brought before him for approval before being issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In August 1892, the Guardians of the Longford Union, acting as the Burial Board, asked the Local Government Board to hold an Inquiry into the condition of the two burial grounds in Ardagh, and the Inquiry was held in December of the same year. With reference to the second paragraph, I have to state that the requirements of Section 163 of the Public Health Act were duly complied with in this case. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. It was not until the Board found that their continued efforts to induce the Guardians to take steps to provide a fresh burial ground were fruitless, that they made their dosing order on the present occasion.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a communication from the Guardians slating that in their opinion there was abundant room in the churchyards had been received?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; but an Inquiry was held by the Local Government Board, and I gather that in their judgment as to the fact there was no doubt whatever.

  WAR RISKS (BRITISH SHIPS).
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when he is considering any proposed scheme for the insurance of British ships and cargoes against war risks in time of war, he will consider the advisability of taxing British shipping for its own protection, and not throw the cost of insuring a special industry on the taxes of the general population?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think it would be premature to answer questions on this subject until the Government have come to some provisional conclusion, at all events as to the practicability of any scheme or as to the nature of the scheme that should be adopted; but I may point out that, if insurances of the kind referred to by the hon. Member were set on foot, it would not be in the interests of the shipowning community, but in those of the British consumers as a whole. It would be solely in the interests of the latter that public funds would be used.
  MR. O'KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such protection would not be at all in the interests of Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir: I cannot agree to that proposition. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANasked whether any Government had ever insured vessels and cargoes in war time, and whether such insurances were not effected by private underwriting firms?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not aware that any scheme of national insurance has ever been adopted before. But I would remind the House that perhaps I have gone almost too far in answering hypothetical questions on a very incomplete subject of study. ["Hear, hear !"]

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT:: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can conveniently so arrange that the Revenue Departments Estimates may be taken at an early date, in order to afford an opportunity of discussing the Report, of the Committee on Post Office Establishments?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I fully recognise the importance of the Vote to which the hon. Gentleman calls attention, and I will take care that when it conies on the Committee shall have a. full opportunity of discussing it, but I cannot promise that it will be taken either next Friday or Friday week.
  MR. DALYasked whether the Irish Estimates would be taken on Friday week.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question he should like to ask him—whether in the event of the Irish Estimates not being concluded on Friday next the discussion would be continued on the following Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will not venture to answer these Questions now, because I might give a pledge which might prove to be inconvenient to hon. Members generally. There is no difference between the House and the Government in reference to matters of this kind. Our sole desire is to meet the wishes of hon. Members. I shall communicate with the usual channels of these negotiations with a view to meet the views of hon. Members opposite and in other parts of the House.

  CAPE GARRISON.
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to a speech delivered at Dorchester by General Nicholson on the 10th May when inspecting the Batteries of the Royal Artillery which have been ordered to South Africa, and to General Nicholson's exhortation to the soldiers not to think the Boers could shoot as well as was generally reported; and whether the Commander-in-Chief and the authorities at the War Office intend to take notice of observations calculated to embitter the feelings between the British troops and the soldiers of the South African Republic?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State's attention has been called to General Nicholson's address to his men by the Question of the hon. Member. The remarks attributed to General Nicholson do not appear to call for the intervention of the authorities at the War Office.

  GREECE AND THE POWERS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House any information as to the stale of negotiations between the Government of Greece and the Powers. Perhaps I may be pardoned for reminding the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that yesterday in answer to a similar question he appealed to me not to press it, on the ground that negotiations were pending—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear !"]—and that therefore it would not be desirable that he should give any information on the subject. But in another place, in answer to what was practically the same Question, a tolerably full answer was given by the Prime Minister, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for submitting to him that such n method for dealing with a Question fairly put from this side of the House is not treating the House with that consideration to which it is entitled, above all from its Leader. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the incident to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is an indication of the inconvenience winch arises from the double demand made upon us by hon. Gentlemen opposite. One demand is that we should give answers to Questions of which the very shortest notice has been sent to us and the other demand is that the information given by Ministers in this House should be identical with the information given on the same day by a Minister in the other House. Let me tell the House what happened yesterday and it is merely an illustration of what has happened two or three times before. At a quarter past three I received notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Question.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I gave it at two o'clock.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I was away at two o'clock; in fact, I was at luncheon. [Laughter.] I actually received the notice a little alter three. I went straight to the Foreign Office. Lord Salisbury was not there, and his private secretary could not inform me where he was. I waited there until half-past three, when I had to come here to answer questions. I carefully considered all the information at the disposal of the Government.
  202
  and I came to the conclusion that I should be running a risk of making unnecessary difficulties in the conduct of delicate negotiations if, while these negotiations were going on, I were, without consulting with the Foreign Minister, to give any information to this House. [Cheers.] The Foreign Minister, it turns out, as I have since heard, was at Buckingham Palace. He then came down to the House of Lords quite ignorant of the fact that I had received private notice of a question. He was asked a question, and, of course, with that liberty of action which only a Foreign Minister can have—the Minister, in other words, who has all the threads of negotiations in his hands, and who has interviews with foreign ambassadors which no other Minister but the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister has—he very naturally gave all the information in his power. Then the right hon. Gentleman is indignant—no, I will not say indignant—but he makes, not unnaturally, the complaint that the same information is not given in both Houses at the same time. All I can say is, that if either Lord Salisbury or I had received private notice early enough that identical questions were going to be asked, precisely the same answer would have been given in both places. [Cheers.] It may perhaps be to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman to know that if the House of Lords yesterday received information which was not vouchsafed to the House of Commons, I shall be able to-day to give this House information which I presume has not vet been given to the House of Lords. ["Hear, hear !" and laughter.] In answer to the Question he tins put to me, I may inform him that the requisite instructions have been received this morning by all the representatives at Athens, and that mediation was offered by them and accepted by Greece. ["Hear, hear !"] I have no further information at present to give the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I do not propose to take up a moment of the time of the House in entering into any controversy with him as to the earlier part of his answer. I was not indignant—[Cheers.]—because we on this side of the House are getting rather accustomed to this kind of treatment, therefore there

  203
  was no surprise on our part. [Cheers.] I would only say this, that I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have told the Prime Minister that a question was about to be asked, and that he did not feel himself in a position to answer it. Sill, I pass over that, and I hope that in the future the House of Commons will be as well treated as it has been to-day. [Cheers.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the course of business this week and next, and when the South African Vote will be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As to the South African Vote, we are entirely in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. If he will let me know what arrangement can be come to in the regrettable absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I will endeavour to carry out his wishes. The first business on Thursday will be the Second Reading of the Prison Made Goods Bill, and the Second Order the Third Reading of the Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment Bill. On Monday the first business will be the Second Reading of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill.
MR. J. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has arrived at any decision as to the course of procedure with regard to the Poor Law Relief (Ireland) Bill, and the Agricultural and Industries (Ireland) Bill, the latter of which I understand is postponed indefinitely?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: These Bills are postponed until Monday. It is possible that on or before that day I may be able to answer the hon. Member's Question, and to make a statement upon the subject.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
SUNDAY CLOSING BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday 30th June.
INJURIES TO WORKMEN (EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 25th May.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] deferred till To-morrow.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
MOTION.
  COMMONS (REGULATION).
  Bill to abolish the Veto of the Lord of the Manor on the Regulation of a Common, under the Commons Act, 1876, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Luttrell, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Sir John Brunner, and Sir Joseph Leese; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday 19th May, and to be printed.—[Bill 240.]
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be Read a Third time upon Thursday.
  WAYS AND MEANS [10TH MAY] (BUDGET RESOLUTION).
  Resolution reported;

  TEA.
  "That, the Duty of Customs now payable on Tea shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): Tea . . the pound . Four Pence."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the Resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 30th April, and then agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant, to the said Resolution.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  "To grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue," presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 241.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL, continuing his speech, which was interrupted by the operation of the 12 o'clock Rule on 3rd May, said he had had an opportunity since he last spoke of reading the speech of the Under Secretary for the Home Department in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the expenses entailed by the Bill would be about £6,400. "But they ought to know the basis upon which this sum had been estimated, and the specific items of which it was composed. With regard to the salaries of the clerks in the police-courts, he found that the total amount was about £19,000 per annum. They ought to have been informed by what percentage it was intended to increase these salaries, he had been told, in answer to a question, that it was intended to increase the salary of the chief clerk by.£100, and that of the second clerk by £50; but there was no information with regard to the increase in the salaries of the remainder of the clerks. With regard to the increase in the salary of the
  206
  chief clerk he could not think that that estimate had been fairly made. It must be remembered that the chief clerks in the Metropolitan police-courts were gentlemen of very great and, in many cases, unique experience; and he did not think that the maximum of £600 now proposed was adequate for such an office. Inevitably these clerks would compare their salaries with those received by clerks to Justices in the several Petty Sessional Divisions in the Metropolis, and they would find that their salaries were very much lower, and would bring pressure at the Home Office to increase the maximum very much beyond the limit now contemplated. As to the proposed increased borrowing powers, they had been informed that the money was to be spent in two directions—in enfranchising the leasehold tenures of the building and also on erecting further buildings. But surely they ought to have been informed what proportion of the money was to be spent in the one direction and what in the other. Although that information had not been given, they knew that a very large expenditure on bricks and mortar was contemplated. The House was left in the dark so far as specific information was concerned, but they knew that the Bill proposed to remove two statutory bars now existing upon expenditure. With regard to the promise that £7,000 should be paid annually by the Treasury in respect of services rendered by the police to the Houses of Parliament, he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for recognising that there should be an authoritative record of this engagement. It appeared to him, however, that that record should be made before and not after the Bill passed. There was one further item which ought to be included in the record. He referred to the expenditure upon the Extradition Court at Bow Street. That court was not a Metropolitan but a National institution, and clearly the Exchequer and not the ratepayers should pay for it. He understood the justice of this claim was admitted, but they ought to know in black and white what contribution was to be made by the Treasury in respect of the expenses of that court. He appealed to the Members for Richmond, Croydon, West Ham and other parts of the home counties which were included within the Metropolitan police district,

  207
  to join in opposing the Bill. These districts would have to meet a double expense, first for their own Petty Sessional Courts, find, secondly, the cost of the Metropolitan police-courts, in which they had no interest as ratepayers. He could not understand what reasons could be alleged for precipitate haste in passing this Bill. The circumstances were different from what they were when the late Government brought forward a similar Bill. This question, with others, had since been referred to a Commission, and it seemed scarcely respectful to the Royal Commission for the House to forestall its decision by transferring these charges from the Treasury to the Metropolitan ratepayers. It might be said that it was absolutely necessary that the salaries of the clerks should be raised, and that new buildings should be erected. Well, if the Government would limit the Bill to these two purposes, without altering the present incidence, he, for one, would not oppose it. But in its present shape, he must offer it the most determined opposition. He moved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONseconded the Amendment. He said the first proposal of the Bill was to transfer the staff of the London police-courts, other than magistrates, from the Consolidated Fund to the Metropolitan Police Fund.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JEESE COLLINGS,)said that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. The Bill transferred nothing from the Consolidated Fund to the Police Fund. It did not interfere with any payment made out of the Consolidated Fund.
  *MR. HARRISONobserved that that might be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but the language of the Bill would not carry it out. At all events, the cost of the police-courts staff, chief clerks and others, and their superannuation would, by the Bill, be thrown on the Metropolitan Local Police Fund, and the general taxpayer would be relieved. The-second object of the Bill was to transfer the police-court buildings and their maintenance, now supported by funds voted by Parliament, from the Office of
  208
  Works to the Receiver General, which would throw the expenses of these courts upon the Metropolis Police Fund. The only argument which had been urged in support of that proposal was that the Metropolitan police area was really the Municipal area for the Metropolis. But it was no such thing; it was an Imperial area, and the richest part of it, the City of London, with its 4½ millions of rateable property, contributed nothing towards the Metropolitan police. While the richest part of the Metropolis was taken out of the police area, a large area outside, extending some 15 or 20 miles round about London, was included in it. This extension was made because it was from the first intended to form an Imperial area for rating and policing. It included four corporations or towns, the whole of Middlesex, and parts of four other counties, or 668 square miles in all. There seemed to him to be no reason why any portion of this Imperial expenditure, whether for the police-court staffs or for buildings, should be thrown upon the Metropolitan, ratepayers. So Imperial was the police force that its duties were not confined to the area which he had described. It was an area of criminal assize for a vast population beyond that of the mere Metropolis, and its police were employed at Her Majesty's dockyards at Devonport, Plymouth, Sheerness, and other places. The force was also employed at Imperial functions, and to protect the House of Commons. That being the state of the case, why should the buildings required for currying on what was Imperial administration be thrown upon the local fund instead of being defrayed out of sums voted by Parliament? There was no intention to make any change in regard to the payment of the Metropolitan police magistrates, who would still be paid out of funds voted by Parliament. Why then should the staff of clerks be treated separately, and why should the cost of the buildings and the expenses be thrown upon the Police Fund, which is contributed by ratepayers? In 1839, when the Receiver was appointed, the ratepayers had to provide the court buildings, but as they came to be used more and more for Imperial purposes an Act was passed in 1871 transferring them from the Receiver General of Police and from local rate to funds contributed by

  209
  the Imperial taxpayer. This Bill proposed to undo the arrangements made in 1871, and to throw the cost of the courts back again upon local funds. It was suggested that the Government would take care that no expense should be thrown upon, the ratepayers, but would they assent to a provision to secure the ratepayers against extra burdens? When the force was first established in 1829 it was to be supported by a rate not exceeding 8d. in the pound. In 1868 the sum was increased to 9d., the Government contributing 4d. Upon the faith of the understanding as to the rate, leases had been granted and liabilities assumed; but if the proposal of the government were carried the effect would he to enlarge the expenses, to alter the conditions of contracts, and to do away with the conditions which limited the ratepayers' liability to a rate not exceeding 9d. in the pound. In 1801 and in 1890, there being till then no power to provide pensions, Parliament imposed an additional liability on the locality, and something like £255,000 per annum was now paid for pensions which had been removed from the control of Parliament. The, pensions were not subject to any control either by the ratepayers or by Parliament. The matter was in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Receiver General. A subordinate Imperial officer, uncontrolled by Parliament, spent about £1,447,000 per annum. In this case representation and taxation were absolutely divorced. No control was exercised over the Fund, and what had been the result? Why, the Receiver General had always levied up to the full amount of the 9d. rate, and the levy had been far in excess of the expenditure. The excess during the past 20 years had amounted to £245,000. It was suggested that it had been necessary to raise this extra amount to provide a working balance for the fund, but if the fund contributed by ratepayers were worked as other and with other funds, similarly administered, there was no necessity why one set of ratepayers of years past should provide this large sum. If the Police Fund were under the control of the ratepayers there would not be that excess. The Receiver General was an official over whom neither that House nor the ratepayers had any control, and the result was that his administration had been extravagant. The present Bill would lead
  210
  to further uncontrolled extravagance. The cost of the police was 4s. 7·36d. per inhabitant, or on rateable value 8·33d. In Birmingham the cost was only 2s. 7d. per inhabitant, or 6·76d. on rateable value. He maintained that if any transfer of business were to be effected it ought not to be effected as proposed by this Bill. He urged that the expenses of the police-courts ought not to be thrown on local funds, that the Act of 1871, under which the buildings were transferred to the Commissioners of Works, ought not to be repealed, and that the staffs, as well as the magistrates, ought to be paid out of Imperial funds. There was no justification for burdening the ratepayers in what was really an Imperial area with the whole cost of the administration of public justice.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid that this Bill was of great concern to the Metropolis, not only within the four walls of the Bill itself, but also because it was part of a large and general question. He did not refer to the question of the control of the police, though he thought that might fairly be raised. But he wished to look on this Bill from a financial point of view. London had a considerable number of items on both sides of the account with the Treasury. On the one side were the contributions to London in aid of the rates, which were derived through various channels, and on the other side there were the expenses which London had to incur, a considerable portion of which were undoubtedly incurred for Imperial purposes. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill admitted that there were several charges falling upon London, which he reckoned at £7,000 a year, which would not fall on London but for her Imperial situation. He did not admit that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to take a particular item in police expenditure and set it against what was proposed to be put on London by this Bill. He did not think it was a reasonable or proper way of proceeding to isolate individual items on the one side or the other of the account, and say these ought to be borne by London. He contended that if the present situation in London were to be altered by this Bill, it ought to be shown that the contribution in aid of local rates in London was too large by the amount with which the Bill dealt.

  211
  What, then, was the situation in London? The main grievance lay in a most important point. The amount of the licence duties contributed under the Act of 1888, which is given back to London, was only 13 per cent, of the whole, the remaining 87 per cent, going to the rest of the country. If London's share were calculated by population, a much larger proportion than that would be due, and if it went by rateable value, then the rateable value of London was one-fifth of the whole rateable value of the country, which would make her share 20 per cent. As a matter of fact London received 21 per cent, of the grant from the probate duties. That being the recognised proportion, the amount received from the licence duties put London at a very great disadvantage indeed—a disadvantage of between £200,000 and £300,000 a year. That grievance had been more or less recognised by the occupants of the Front Bench on both sides of the House. He passed from that point to other and larger grievances in connection with contributions to local rates. Recent legislation had put London at a greater disadvantage still. There was the Agricultural Rating Act. What were the contributions that individuals living in London had to make to that. Quite apart from the question whether it was a good or a bad Act, it placed London at a great disadvantage so far as contributions to local purposes were concerned. Then, there was the Voluntary Schools Bill. The effect of that Bill would be again to put London at a very serious disadvantage, and the method in which the Government had chosen to deal with School Boards, the balance between London and the rest of the country had been still more altered. Having treated London in that way the Government now came forward with their Bill to deprive London of another advantage. On the other hand, what was it proposed to do for London? It was proposed to give London a sum of £7,000 a year, whereas the Bill made it absolutely incumbent on London to pay the expenses to which it referred. He did not admit that £7,000 was anything like enough, and it would depend upon the Vote of the House of Commons and would be uncertain. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the anomaly of London police courts being held on leasehold terms; one of the objects of the Bill
  212
  was to secure the purchase of the freehold, and a large sum of money would undoubtedly have to be spent for that purpose. Well, they were going to throw all this expense upon them and that was most inadequately met by £7,000 a year. The Bill came to a large sum indeed—he believed 10 or 12 thousand a year—and that would not cover it. They proposed to give them £7,000 for the service rendered by the police. Why was it not given long before now? They were paying for the services of the police in that House and elsewhere, and that Bill did not give them in the least adequate return. In other words, they would be losers without gaining anything in return. This Bill, in fact, created an additional charge on London rates. Formerly the expenditure on the police was limited to a 9d. rate, the Government paying in proportion. He thought that the House ought to know how this 9d. rate stood. He showed from figures which he quoted that the expenditure on the police was rising higher in proportion than the property that they had to protect. Then there was another point, and that was the confusion of areas that the present system, brought about. The hon. Member seemed to think that this Bill affected only the Metropolis, but that was a mistake, and a new grievance was about to be started between London and the outside authorities. Some rearrangement would be unavoidable. These questions were always coming up in connection with London finance, and he was afraid that they were making confusion worse confounded.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought there was a good deal of truth in what was said by the hon. Member. London was willing to pay its charges in connection with the police courts as in all other matters. ["Hear, hear !"] There might be a question raised as to Bow Street, which was, however, a separate matter. He supported the Bill on the understanding that it was to be the beginning of the readjusting of affairs as to London, which he regarded as unfairly treated in comparison with other parts of the country. London was receiving less than other parts of what was going. He referred to the Beer Bill and the Voluntary Schools Bill as examples to show that London was getting less than it ought. No doubt these were

  213
  matters which might be laughed at, but they were very serious for London itself. ["Hear, hear !"] If London were not so uniformly of one colour—if it were partly Radical and partly Irish Nationalist—it might receive closer attention from the Government. He supported this Bill, but he hoped that the Metropolis would receive the same treatment as other parts of the country. In parts London was rich, but they were bound to point out that there were poor parts of London for which they ought to claim the full share of these grants.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid he opposed a Bill similar to this, which was introduced by the Liberal Government, and he must oppose this Measure. He admitted that the London people had a certain grievance so far as the probate and the licence duties were concerned. Every other portion of the United Kingdom got its fair share of the probate and the licence duties, and he never could understand how it was that London did not. Doubtless the amount of which London was deprived in respect to those duties was considerably larger than any sum it could possibly get under this Bill. It was also true that London had a grievance in regard to agricultural rating, Voluntary Schools, and Board Schools; but then against whom had it that grievance? Against the other portions of England only, because whatever London was deprived of in respect of those matters by the action of Parliament, went to the rest of England. As between London and Scotland and Ireland there was no grievance. There was no international grievance because Scotland and Ireland got their proportion whether London got its proper proportion or not. In what respect, then, had the people of Scotland and Ireland a grievance as regarded this Bill? The Bill professed to do away with the objection taken on the Estimates that the expenses of the metropolitan police courts were defrayed out of Imperial funds, whereas those of the police courts in every provincial town were paid out of local funds. The contention of the objectors was admitted to be sound, but how did the Government suggest it should be met? It was proposed that the buildings, for instance, should be handed over to the London authorities. Why should the buildings be so dealt
  214
  with? In Scotland and Ireland the expenses attending such buildings were borne by the local rates. Upon what principle, therefore, if effect were to be given to the just contention he had previously mentioned, should the buildings in London be handed over as a present to the London authorities? Again, it was proposed that the salaries of the magistrates, amounting to £37,700, should be borne by the Consolidated Fund as at present. In the provinces of England, and other parts of the United Kingdom, the salaries of the magistrates were paid out of the local rates. Furthermore, the pensions of the magistrates were to be borne by Imperial funds, and they amounted to upwards of £7,000. In all about £45,000 was to be charged to the Consolidated Fund, with the result that these subjects would be withdrawn from the criticism of the House. He would like to know what was the interpretation put on Section 9 of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839? That section provided that an annual sum not exceeding £50,000 was to be paid out of the Imperial funds for the purpose of the police courts. That section was to remain in force, and therefore a sum up to £50,000 might be paid. The fees were not to be paid into the Imperial Treasury, but were to be given to the police-courts. Was it meant that, in addition to the £45,000 for salaries and pensions, about £50,000 was to be given annually, and no new provision made as to fees? Another objection to the Measure was that in reality it was a pension Bill. There was no provision in the appointment of clerks and other officials as to pensions, but the Bill entitled the present holders of offices to pensions. There was something to be said in favour of giving pensions to those appointed in the future, but it was hardly proper to spring this proposal as to present office holders upon the House. He mentioned that the Bill in no sense provided that equality of treatment which was said to be the reason for its introduction. There was to be a transaction between the Treasury on the one hand and London on the other, and in the end the Imperial taxpayer would be in a much worse position than he was in at present.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYwished to refer to the position which the extra-metropolitan areas would occupy under this Bill. As far as he understood, there were districts in. Essex, Surrey, and parts of Middlesex which maintained their own police-courts at the present day, but which, under this Bill, would also contribute to the cost of the London courts. He knew there was some considerable misapprehension in these extra-metropolitan districts as to the effect of this Measure, and he thought they ought to have that difficulty cleared away before they were called upon to vote for the Second Rending. It appeared to him that the districts which were already discharging their own local affairs satisfactorily should not be called upon, under such a system as this, to contribute to other districts in which they had no particular concern.
  MR. T. LOUGHthought it would be well if the Government would accept the wise advice of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark that it would be better to leave things as they are. The two questions which had come out in that Debate were those of control and of money. With regard to this question of control, if this Bill passed they would create a scandal of no slight magnitude. He quite admitted that theoretically the police-courts should be given over to the control of the local authority, but in London, unlike other towns, they had no properly constituted local authority, and, therefore, it was proposed to give the courts over to the control of a mysterious functionary called the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police. He did not think anybody knew exactly who he was, but the effect of this Bill would be that he would be empowered to do anything he pleased with public money. Practically speaking, he would be responsible to no man. He agreed the present position was anomalous, but it had this advantage, that when they discussed the Estimates these courts came before them, and they could criticise any extravagance in salaries, any extravagance connected with the buildings, or any scandal that arose in connection with the courts. That control would disappear if the courts passed into the hands of the Receiver, and, therefore, on that ground, he hoped the House would refuse to pass
  216
  the Bill. He would deal for one moment with the question of money. The hon. Member for West Ham, had had suggested to him the little trouble the outside areas would get into, financially, if the Bill were passed, and he had asked what was the cost that would be thrown on those areas. The right hon. Gentleman answered that question when he was explaining the Bill the other night. He said a charge would be thrown upon them, but it was a very small one. He would ask the hon. Member for West Ham not to rely on that. Whenever these bad principles were introduced into finance, they were always asked to assent because it was such a little thing. He commended to his hon. Friend the suggestion he had received from his own conscience to oppose the Bill, because it was not satisfactory that any charge should be thrown on these outside areas for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it the £7,000 were not sufficient, the Treasury would make some addition to it. That was one of those slippery remarks—
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSdid not think the hon. Gentleman could find that in his speech. What he stated was that the Treasury would give £7,000 for an ordinary Session, but that if there was an autumn Session or a long Session that amount would be increased.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that was his point—that if there was any loss, and representations were made to the Treasury, they would probably increase the amount. This was another suggestion to get the Bill through. He protested against their going on in a matter of this kind, in which there was no necessity to do anything under all these disadvantageous circumstances. The hon. Member for North Islington said he should vote for the Bill in the hope that this was the beginning of a general readjustment. This was a readjustment of £10,000 or £20,000 against London, and they should have no more of these financial scandals against the Metropolis attempted until, as the hon. Member for North Islington said, the whole matter was treated in a broad, liberal, and proper spirit. Because the finance of the Bill was bad, and because there would really be no control over these courts if the Bill passed, he hoped the House would agree to reject it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that during the Debate many very important questions had been raised, but they had nothing to do with the Bill. [Opposition cries of "Oh !"] The Bill did not raise them in any form, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would not think him discourteous if he did not go outside its scope. It was a very simple Measure. At the present time, he thought all hon. Members would admit, the management of the courts and of the stations was simply a mass of confusion, and when business matters were managed in a confused, mixed, and unsatisfactory way there was always a loss. They had at this moment police-courts belonging to the Office of Works where the freehold was vested in the Receiver. There were other wises where the police-courts and the police-stations were one and the same building, half of which belonged to the Office of Works and for half of which the Receiver was responsible, and there was the case of a site part of which was leasehold and part belonged to the Receiver. He was sure that no business man would in his own affairs tolerate for a, moment the existence of the state of things resulting from such divided control. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green made some extravagant references to what this Bill was going to do with regard to salaries. It was simply a matter of removing the limit placed on the clerks' salaries by an Act nearly 60 years old. The salaries were very small, but a Departmental Committee of the Treasury had reported in favour of their increase. The Treasury resolved to increase them, but found themselves barred by this old Act. The scale of increase was very limited, and the amount involved would not in the first instance be more than £270, and would ultimately be about £1,000. On the other hand, the sums received by police-court clerks for furnishing copies of depositions, amounting to £700 a year, would in future be paid into the Police Fund. With regard to the outside areas, even supposing nothing was paid by the Treasury, the burden thrown on the whole of Essex would be £194 on an assessable value of over one million sterling. In the case of Surrey the amount would be £271, or 1–25th of a penny in the pound. The total amount which would come out of the Metropolitan Police Fund under the Bill was £5,749,
  218
  and against that there was paid into the fund £7,000 in respect of the services rendered by the police to the Houses of Parliament, besides a debt of £7,000 cancelled by the Treasury, and the buildings would be handed over to the fund. The expenditure of the money would be just as much within the purview of Parliament through the Home Secretary and the Receiver as it was now. With regard to the Extradition Court, his own opinion was that the demand that some consideration should be paid into the Police Fund in respect of it was a just one. He would communicate with the Treasury, and he was inclined to think that the Treasury would view the request with favour. Looking at the matter as a whole, he was disposed to think the advantage was with the Police Fund and the ratepayers, and that the Treasury had not made quite as good a bargain as they might have made. He desired to give a word of warning to the outside districts. The alternative was to make a, separate rating area, and that was always objectionable, or to keep that a separate account with regard to the London police-courts, which would involve an enormous amount of labour and expense. This expense would fall on the Police Fund, and the outside areas would have to bear their share, while the £7,000 in respect of the police at the Houses of Parliament would be paid in for the advantage of the county of London only. The Bill would put the administration of the police-courts on a businesslike footing, and instead of throwing any extra burden on the ratepayers, would benefit the Police Fund to the extent of £1,500.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, with the exception of the argument that from the business point of view this reform should take place, the right hon. Gentleman had given no reason why it should take place at the present moment. The present arrangement had in practice worked fairly well, and there was certainly no immediate hurry in regard to the transfer. He objected to a question of this character being dealt with in piecemeal fashion. At present the House of Commons had the opportunity of exercising some control over the expenditure of this police fund, but if they agreed to the proposals of the Government they would part with

  219
  their control over this very large sum, which came partly from Imperial sources and partly from local rates. He did not wish to cast any imputation on the Home Secretary or the Receiver General, but he was certainly of opinion that they ought to retain the power to move reductions of the salaries of the officials who administered the police fund. If the Government thought that these expenses ought to be defrayed municipally, why did they not grant London municipal control over the police? As long as the Government chose to exercise Imperial control over the police, no additional burdens in respect of that force ought to be placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers. Regarded both from the point, of view of the ratepayers' control over the police, and from the point of view of Parliamentary control over the Estimates, this Bill was a retrograde Measure. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the question whether this Measure would or would not throw some additional burdens on the police fund, and had said that in his opinion the £7,000 which he proposed to supply would make up for any additional charge on the fund. But there were Estimates worked out by the statistical officer of the London County Council, and his calculation, founded on the proposed increase of salaries, and on the large increase of expenditure that would be incurred by the acquisition of the freeholds of the police courts, was that there would be an additional charge of over £9,000. There were under the existing law statutory limits to the officials' salaries, and to the capital expenditure upon buildings, but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to get rid of these limits, and the past administration of the police fund did not encourage Members to think that when these limits were abolished there would be much economy.
  *MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked why the hon. Member did not pass equally severe criticisms on the Bill brought in by the right hon. Member for East Fife in 1894 or 1895? [Mr. BUXTON: "I am now in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility."] The reasons why it was not proposed by Her Majesty's Government to transfer the police courts to the London County Council were the same good reasons an influenced the right hon. Member for
  220
  East Fife not to make that transfer. The statutory limits which had been referred to as removed by this Bill he regarded as public mischiefs. The limits on the salaries of the clerks led to their leaving London and taking service under provincial authorities, who paid them better. That showed that the market rate of payment was not being paid in London. Then the statutory limit upon capital expenditure upon buildings resulted in an unwillingness to spend sufficient public money for the purpose of having suitable buildings. There was no foundation for the fear that the House would be deprived of the control which it had hitherto exercised. But the kind of control which prevailed now was almost as great a public mischief as the statutory limitations. That control amounted practically to opposition to every kind of expenditure, and the Home Office had the greatest difficulty in inducing the officials of the Treasury, who feared what might be said in Parliament, to consent to any expenditure on the service of these police courts. The Treasury believed that the House had a radical objection to spending public money on local objects, and the result was that the police courts were not as efficiently provided for as they would be if this Bill were passed. The area affected by the Bill returned 88 Members to that House. Were they incapable of moving reductions on the Vote for the Receiver's salary? Then the accounts for the Metropolitan police were presented to Parliament annually in detail, and afforded the amplest opportunity for criticism. They knew from sad experience in the past that the voices of 88 Members were quite sufficiently powerful to influence the conduct of Ministers, and there was the indisputable fact that Debates and Questions asked in that House attracted a good deal more attention among Londoners than would be attracted by any number of debates on the same subject in any County Council that could be created. In the proposals of the Government he saw a very practical, if not a theoretically perfect, solution of a difficulty which ought to be dealt with in the interests of the public.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."—The House

  221
  divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes. 87.—(Division List, No. 201.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill rend a Second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law. Etc.

  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESproposed 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 the Bill was one of those which rose like spirits from the vasty deep, and required explanation. He should certainly show the House that this particular Bill required some explanation. In some eases, no doubt, as, for instance, in the case of enactments referring to friendly societies, it was necessary for them to be consolidated, for the assistance of the public; but it was not so important in Acts of this sort, because legal experts only were concerned with them. The so-called Consolidation Bills were commonly not Consolidation Bills at all. They arose in this way. A Department, when they had to carry into effect the wisdom of Parliament, embodied in a series of Acts, were confronted every day by new and sometimes great difficulties which they accumulated and presented to Parliament for removal. Then came what was called a, Consolidation Bill, and such was the ingenuity in Government Departments that they could persuade even his hon. Friend the Solicitor General that in change in the law was not a change in the law. Consequently, Consolidation Bills sometimes embodied changes in the law, not on the merits, but simply for the convenience of a Department.
  "The merchant to secure his treasure
  Conveys it in a borrowed name.
  Euphelia serves to grace my measure,
  But Chloe is my real flame."
  This Bill did alter the law. No Minister was responsible for the Bill, and that was
  222
  why the universal weightbearer, the Secretary to the Treasury, had to move the Second Reading, instead of some high legal authority: The Bill was introduced last year, and in speaking of it in the House of Lords on July 30th 1896, the Lord Chancellor said:—
  "Nome years ago it was the practice to pass these Bills through the House of Commons with the simple, statement that they were Consolidation Bills."
  If the Lord Chancellor meant that these Bills had been exempt from the ordinary procedure of the House, he was entirely wrong. The Lord Chancellor continued:
  "The Committee examined, word by word and line by line, everything that had been done in the wav of alteration. … It would not be possible to get Members of the House of Commons or of their Lordships' House, to go through this laborious and careful work, if it was afterwards to be east aside at the instance of any one Member who thought he would take an opportunity to amend the law where he thought it defective. If that system were pursued, it would be absolutely impossible to pursue this most useful work.…Whether any other system of doing this work could be contrived, or whether the Gentleman (who was not one of the six Members who gave their assistance) could do it better or not, the whole system must break down if Amendments were to be made on Bills of this kind, and it was hopeless to attempt anything like consolidation. This Bill of 93 clauses was not to become law because of this objection. It only showed what mischief might be done. If the practice were not suppressed by the action of the House, and in another place, he, for one, would hesitate to ask his noble Friends to waste their time on work which might be perfectly useless.… The House of Commons should take means to prevent so gross an abuse."
  It would be false modesty to affect not to know that the "any one Member" referred to by the Lord Chancellor was himself. [Laughter.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member seems to be replying to a Debate in the House of Lords, which is out of order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he had not intended to do that.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is out of order to refer to the Debate, and the hon. Member is not only referring to it, but is replying to a speech by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that to contend that, because the Bill had been examined by this Joint Committee, it

  223
  must therefore be withdrawn from the consideration of the House, was a contention against which he must protest. The mere breathing over the Bill of the magic word "consolidation," did not exempt it from the ordinary procedure. A Consolidation Bill was one which consolidated all the statutes relating to one subject; but this Bill did not fulfil that definition. It did not deal with the packet service, with the telephones, the telegraphs, or the parcels post. It only consolidated part of the law. The memorandum of the Bill claimed for it that it made "such alterations of the law only as are required for uniformity of expression and adaptation to existing law and practice, and does not embody any substantial amendment of the law." Surely the House of Commons ought to be allowed to form its own opinion on that subject. He would show that substantial amendments of the law were made. The memorandum of the Bill said:—
  "It is identical with that which passed the Joint Committee last year, except that Clauses 27 and 32 have been altered so as to give effect to the repeals effected by the Public Health Act of last Session (59 and 60 Viet. c. 19), and words have been introduced in. Clause 74 to make it clear that the operation of s. 2 of the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891 (54 and 55 Viet. c. 24) is preserved."
  The Bill of last year, which was said to be identical with this one, provided that, in spite of any other Act of Parliament, the fines, forfeitures, and other sums should be paid into the Exchequer. But it was then discovered by the Solons of the Committee, whose work was too sacred to be touched, that they had practically repealed the Act of 1891, which provided that all money directed by the Treasury to be applied as an appropriation in aid. should be so applied without bring paid into the Treasury. Section 2 of the present Bill gave the Treasury power to fix the rates and charges mi postal packets. That applied to all postal packets: and therefore it took away the express statutory right of newspapers to be curried for a halfpenny. Section 20, again, which prescribed certain rides for the registration of newspapers, now restricted the rules which were before general. Not only that, it provided that every page of a newspaper after the first
  224
  should bear the title and date of publication, wholly or in part. The words, "the whole or part of," were quite new. The decisions of the Courts were based upon the phraseology of Acts of Parliament, and the alteration of that phraseology might mean the destruction of u whole fabric of decisions of the Courts upon which the law was at present administered. That was one of the dangers of this Consolidation Bill. He did not object to consolidation. He objected to an advantage being taken of consolidation to alter the law, as in the case of the present Bill, and he protested against such action being coupled with the declaration that the House should not closely examine Bills of this character. Every Bill that came into the House should be subjected to the examination of the House. He had never known a Bill that had not left the House the better for that examination, and in the case of a Bill of this kind, with numerous provisions dealing with complicated matters, the most careful consideration was absolutely necessary. The Bill was presented to the House in the false guise of a Consolidation Bill. It was meant to further the small conveniences of an overworked and perhaps not very capable Department. He knew of no Department which was so continually construing Acts of Parliament, and was so absolutely incapable of doing it than the Post Office Department. He could give twenty instances of the incapacity of Post Office officials to construe Acts of Parliament, and as the Bill was introduced to relieve them of the difficulty of construing Acts of Parliament by altering the Acts to the way they wanted to construe them that he objected to the Bill.
  MR. BARTLEYseconded the Amendment. He thought the gradual consolidation of statutes was a valuable work, and that Bills having that object in view should be allowed to pass rapidly through the House. But the danger of most Consolidation Bills was that opportunity was taken to put, as the Departments thought, a certain number of things right, but which really amounted to amendments of the law. That was his hon. Friend's objection to the Bill, and he formally seconded his hon. Friend's Amendment in order that the House might have a statement as to the real effect of the Bill.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLsaid his objection to the Bill was not so much that it left out things but that it consolidated faults. A fault was bad, but consolidated faults were worse. There was one fault particularly which he thought most objectionable. Under Clause 46 of the Bill the Postmaster General was to have power, with the consent of the Treasury, to purchase land for the purposes of the Post Office; and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was to apply. Under that Act it was possible for a man who was unwilling to sell his land to get 10 or 15, and indeed in some cases 20 per cent, more for his land because it was taken from him compulsorily. That was a most objectionable provision, because it was a direct incentive to a, landowner to refuse to give his land for any public or useful purpose. It was quite true that the interests of private owners of land should be safeguarded; but they should not encourage private owners to behave badly to the public; and he contended that by the application of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act they were giving a direct inducement to landowners to behave badly to the public. He hoped, therefore, the Government would omit the application of that Act to purchasers of land under the Bill.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONappealed to his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn to withdraw his opposition, to the Second Reading, in order that Amendments might be moved to the Bill in Committed The Bill afforded the first opportunity for many years of moving Amendments to the present Post Office law, and it was probable there would not be such a chance again for many years to come. He had put down several Amendments—one of which was that the Postmaster General should be a Member of the House of Commons—which he was sure would be acceptable to the people of the country, and under the circumstances he trusted his hon. Friend would not go to a Division against the Second Reading.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the work done by the Joint Committee was exceedingly laborious and difficult; it was largely done by skilled draftsmen, and there were also skilled lawyers upon the Committee. The work must be in a certain degree imperfect—that much
  226
  should be conceded to human frailty—but every care was taken to prevent any mistake or any substantial alteration of the law. They might have to deal with from 20 to 40 Acts of Parliament in preparing a Consolidation Bill, and it was almost impossible to avoid infinitesimal alterations in the law. It was certainly necessary to alter the phraseology. He did not want to enter into any question which had arisen between the Lord Chancellor and an equally great luminary of that House as to whether the Lord Chancellor took the right view of what ought to be taken, in the House of Commons, but he did say all this work done by the Joint Committee was work of a character which could not be done there. This was work which ought to be tenderly regarded by both Houses of Parliament if it had been, done honestly, as it certainly had. His hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn complained that there had been an alteration in the law, while his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock said they ought; to take this opportunity of legislating with reference to the Lauds Clauses Act if 1845. The hon. Member for Canterbury had hailed this as a splendid opportunity for altering the whole scope of the Post Office law, but if that course were adopted it was no use putting this irksome labour upon the Committee, and they had better give up consolidation altogether. He did not think Consolidation. Acts ought to be discouraged, on the contrary, he thought that the fault of our legislation was that we did not legislate scientifically. Every Member of that House had the right to propose Amendments to a Bill, and some Amendments were adopted ! under pressure or for Parliamentary reasons, without sufficient appreciation of the scope of the change which would be made in a particular Act. For his own part he should like to see the Houses of Parliament laying' down the principle as to what the law should be in a series of Resolutions, and leaving it to skilled persons to frame the law in accordance with those Resolutions, as was done in some foreign Legislatures. He was afraid, however, he could hardly look forward to so conservative an Assembly as our own adopting such a system. In the long Bill they were now considering he did not think the hon. Member for King's Lynn could point to any important change in the law. The point he had referred to

  227
  came before the joint Committee, und it was resolved to insert the words to which attention had been drawn in order to preserve the law as it existed. As to the right of a newspaper to be carried for a halfpenny, he did not think that was changed. He would suggest that in future a, list should be made of all those cases in which the Joint Committee considered they had altered the law at all, and that this list should be placed in front of the Consolidation Bill when it came to be considered by Parliament. But if they were to have Consolidation Bills criticised at length in that House, or if the complaint was to be made that they did not comprise desirable changes in the law, it would be a very great mistake to continue the system of consolidation. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment, as it would be very unsatisfactory if all the labour of the Joint Committee were to be thrown, away.
  MR. W. AMBROSEsaid that, as a member of the Joint Committee since its commencement, and one of those most regular in their attendance, he thought it only right to say that he had never observed the slightest pretension or desire on the part of the Committee to alter the law. He could assure the House that they had been most jealous on every occasion to adhere to the rule that there should be no Amendment of the law. Such alterations as were involved in the piecing of one set of words to another wore, of course, absolutely necessary. The observations which had been quoted from the Lord Chancellor were made with reference to an Amendment that was upon the Paper of that House, and did not propose to point out that the Bill had gone beyond the lines of mere consolidation. When an Amendment to a Bill had been made—he recollected one such case—the special attention of the House had been called to it by the Report of the Joint Committee. He urged that the work of consolidation should not be mixed up with new reforms which might be desired.
  SIR C. CAMERONdenied that the Bill would deprive newspapers of their existing statutory privileges. These they derived under the Act of 1870, and he did not find this among the statutes repealed in the schedule. It appeared to him that the proposal with regard to registration was
  228
  to secure that a registered newspaper should be deemed to be a newspaper for the purpose of any arrangement between the British Government and the Government of any British possession with regard to the contents. The effect of the Bill would be to define newspapers for international and colonial purposes.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that Ireland had been greatly neglected in regard to the consolidation of the statutes applying to it, and he therefore appreciated all the more what the Government proposed to do in reference to Ireland. At the commencement of the Session the English Law Officers seemed anxious to improve the law by consolidating a series of Acts and enabling them to be more accessible. He appealed to the Attorney General for Ireland to take similar steps with regard to Irish statutes, but failed to induce him to do so. Chief Baron Palles, one of the greatest Judges in the United Kingdom, recently had before him an important question arising out of the Irish Poor Law. In his judgment he said he had had to consider a long tangle of statutes which ought to have been consolidated years ago, but, as they were Irish statutes, they seemed to be thought good enough for Ireland, and it was no one's business to set them right. Ireland only got the benefit of the consolidation of the law when the work was undertaken for the whole of the United Kingdom. As to separate consolidation of Irish statutes, there seemed to be little prospect of anything being done. With great respect to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, Departmental Acts like Post Office Acts were the very class of Acts which most needed consolidation. Statutes of practical every-day importance, to which constant reference was made, and which lawyers had at their fingers' ends, did not need consolidation so much, and the absence of consolidation in respect to these was not felt so much. The Bill did not go far enough, but, as far as it went, it served a useful purpose. He agreed that where the principle of the law was altered, it should be done by statutory enactment. But a long series of statutes was bound to contain many absurdities and anomalies. There was no reason why these should be preserved and perpetuated, and it was right that they should, if possible, be eliminated.

  229
  The defining of what, a newspaper really was should be left in the hands of sensible officials. It appeared that newspapers, registered as such, prior to 1859 had privileges which newspapers registered since had not. The Post Office at Cork had refused lo accept as newspapers certain newspapers in that part of Ireland which issued literary supplements. At last, after many communications between the proprietors and the Postal officials, the word "supplement" was abandoned, and—hey, presto !—the Postmaster General accepted it. If any large change in the law were made, it should be done by the House as a whole, but he contended that those who carried out the consolidation of statutes were entitled to make alterations in detail and remove absurdities and anomalies.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (SIR ROBERT FINLAY,)agreed with the hon. Member for Cork as to the importance of the consolidation of the law being earned out, and hoped he might join in the appeal to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis not to press his Motion. ["Hear, hear !"] The question before the House was far more important than any which related to this particular Measure, for it really was a question of whether the House should elect to adopt a course of procedure which would absolutely put an end to the useful work of the consolidation of the statute law of England. He admitted that every hon. Member had a right lo criticise any Bill that came before the House, but at the same time he thought the common sense of the whole House would recognise that if such a right were to be exercised to the extreme limit, and every Consolidation Bill were to be submitted to minute criticism, they might give up the attempt altogether to consolidate the law of England. ["Hear, hear !"] The consolidation of statutes required that careful attention should be paid to the language. It was work which could only be done round a table, and it was preposterous to suppose that in a Committee of that House work of that kind could be done which could, however, safely enough be intrusted to a Committee whose duty it was not to alter the law, but to consolidate and avoid any substantial alteration of the law, and put the enactments which at present existed in such a form that they would be of
  230
  some practical use to any lawyer nut familial with the work of the Department who had occasion to deal with the subject-matter. ["Hear, hear !"] There was one portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis which he really must notice. The hon. Member said that Consolidation Bills were introduced from lime to time for the purpose of carrying out series of changes which the Department thought desirable. That was a statement to which he must give the most emphatic contradiction, and he thought that in making it the hon. Member must have been insensibly under the bias of the series of controversies he had with the Post Office in past days, in which, according to his own account, he was always right and the Post Office always wrong. [Laughter.] The hon. Member said it was mil a Consolidation Bill because it did not consolidate everything. Could anything be more absurd? They must proceed by degrees in consolidation. The Bill dealt with 20 Acts relating to the Post Office, and put them in a form which would be useful to all who had occasion to inform themselves with regard to the law on these matters. Extreme care had been exercised in regard to the Bill to insure that there should be no alteration of the law, which had been left substantially as it was before. ["Hear, hear !"] The hon. Member for South Islington seconded the Motion, but at the same time said he was keenly alive to the importance of consolidation, and should deeply regret that the House should commit itself to any course of action which would prevent the passage of Consolidation Acts. But the hon. Member must feel that if such a Motion as this were accepted by the House, the death-blow would be dealt to consolidation. The hon. Member for Islington suggested that they should have consolidation in the sense of reproducing the Acts as they were, treating them consecutively. Would not consolidation such as that be mere waste-paper? There would be a series of confused and fragmentary enactments, one after another, and the public would have to pick out from that heterogeneous mass what the law was. The consolidation which the public and lawyers who were not specialists desired was consolidation

  231
  which put together enactments in a shape, which could be read and comprehended by anyone not familiar with all the technicalities. ["Hear, hear !"] Again, the hon. Member for Devonshire said that extensive alterations ought to be made in the Bill, and that the House ought to embark on the consideration of the whole subject of the Lands Clauses Acts and the power of acquiring land for Government and public bodies, he asked the hon. Member whether he did not think the last branch of the inquiry would seal the death-warrant to any such measures of consolidation? The Bill might as well be thrown out on the Second Reading as exposed to the tire of such Amendments and such vital alterations as the hon. Member for Devonshire suggested. The Statute Law Revision Committee in these matters of consolidation was careful to avoid any alteration in the law, but it was no use reprinting old statutes exactly as they stood. Language in the year 1830 had not the same meaning as in 1897. The circumstances had changed, and they must adapt the language of their consolidation to the circumstances with which they were dealing. The Committee having charge of this consolidation had taken a great deal of trouble to avoid any substantial alteration in the law while putting together the enactments in such a shape as to be of practical use. He hoped the House would pass the Second Reading of the Measure, and not allow the useful work of statute law consolidation to be interfered with. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES, having made his protest, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.

  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained
  232
  that it proposed to remove two difficulties which had arisen since the compromise on this subject in 1886. Part of that compromise was to the effect that, whereas extraordinary tithe rent-charge would only have been charged on that portion of the farm subject to extraordinary cultivation, the future tithe rent-charge should be fixed at a sum then arranged, and should apply to the whole, and not merely to part of the farm. Unfortunately, by a case which had been recently heard, that compromise had been upset, and so a part of the compromise—and a very important part from the title-owners' point of view—had not been effective. The other small change the Bill sought to make had regard to sales. When a property came for division in consequence of a sale, the Board of Agriculture had no power to apportion extraordinary tithe rent-charge as it had to apportion ordinary charge. The Bill sought to remove the injustice in the one case, and to give the Board of Agriculture the same power in the second case as they had in regard to ordinary tithe.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS (HOLIDAYS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  VOLUNTEERS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1,—

  EXPLANATION OF 26 AND 27 VICT. C. 65, SS. 24, 27.
  For removing doubts, it is hereby declared that the power under section twenty-four of the Volunteer Act 1863, to make rules with respect to a Volunteer Corps shall extend, and be deemed to have always extended, to rules for securing the efficiency of the members of

  233
  the Corps, and that a fine for the breach of any rule made under that power shall not be deemed to be a civil debt.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved to add to the Clause the following words:—
  "Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in section fifty-two of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, the provisions of section four of the said Act respecting the mitigation of penalties by the court, and that the corresponding provisions of section six of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1881, notwithstanding anything contained in the last-named section, shall respectively apply to proceedings taken under this Act."
  The hon. Member staled that his object was simply to bring the Bill into uniformity with the general law. If this Bill passed as it stood the power of mitigating penalties would be taken away; with regard to such offences as the Bill dealt with. It was very much worse when this power was given to Voluntary Associations such as Volunteer Corps. He ventured to make mi appeal to the Attorney General. He hoped he would preserve his independent judgment, which he feared was somewhat overborne by the War Office. He sometimes feared that that House had not that regard for personal liberty which had distinguished it in times past. He was a warm advocate of the Volunteer Service, but if they passed this offensive enactment they would not be doing it any advantage or increasing its popularity. For these reasons he begged to move his Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER,)said if the hon. and learned Member had an opportunity of ascertaining the facts in connection with the Act of 1879 he would see that it was not possible for him to advise the House to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member spoke of the Bill as an oppressive Bill, and said they should not have such a power in it. He thought the hon. and learned Member took a somewhat exaggerated view. What was here provided had been in force since 1863 and had worked well. It was found, however, that the existing Acts were not sufficient to carry out the object aimed at, and the Bill was simply a Measure to put the law into the condition which everyone believed it was in since 1863. Not a single word had been
  234
  said to show that the law had worked unfairly or that any injustice had been done. He must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
  MR. PICKERSGILLthought this was an extremely important matter, and said he must press the Amendment to a Division.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 201.—(Division List, No." 202.)
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Volunteer Act 1897.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved the insertion of the following new Clause:—

  TERMINATION OF IMPRISONMENT.
  If, before the expiration of the term of such imprisonment, such a proportion of the fine be paid that the term of imprisonment suffered is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.
  Clause Read a First time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALaccepted the clause, which was Read a Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, as amended; to be considered to-morrow.

  APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clause 1,—

  APPEAL IN CASES STATED IN CIVIL MATTERS.
  The jurisdiction and power to hear and determine appeals conferred by section twenty-four of the Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877, is

  235
  hereby extended and shall apply to any Order or decision made by the High Court in Ireland or any Judge thereof, under any of the enactments set out in the schedule to this Act, anything in any of the said enactments to the contrary notwithstanding.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYmoved, after the word "made," to insert the words, "after the passing of the Act." He said the Bill affected procedure only, and as it now stood it would operate re respectively, which he was sure was not the intention of the Government. The decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was final, but unless his Amendment were accepted, every decision given by the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Exchequer on a case stated in the past twelve months could he appealed against.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,)accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to;
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1897, and may be cited with the Judicature (Ireland) Acts 1877 to 1888.
  On the Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the lion, and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson)—[To move the following Clause,—
  The persons upon whose recommendation the Lord Lieutenant may make, alter, or annul rules, pursuant to section sixty-one of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, shall include the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland for the time being, and shall also include two persons (one of whom shall be a practising barrister) to be appointed for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland from time to time in writing under his hand, such appointment to continue for such time as shall be specified therein.]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he passed the Amendment over because it was out of order.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the title of the Bill was drawn apparently to exclude an Amendment of this kind. But if this were a Bill to amend the Irish Judicature Acts, as it purported to be by the short title, he submitted that the Amendment of the Member for Dublin University, being merely a proposal to amend the Judicature Acts, would be in order.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he had considered the matter very carefully. If the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University had been confined to the cases dealt with in the Bill, it would have been in order. But it went very much beyond that, and therefore it went beyond the scope of the Bill. The title was not the only guide to what was in the Bill, but the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University went beyond the subject-matter of the Bill, and therefore it was not in order.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether, at a later stage, it would be open to the Attorney General for Ireland to admit the principle which was advocated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and to get this principle into the Bill.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he entirely approved of the principle embodied in the Amendment, and should have been glad to accept it if it had been in order. If the opportunity arose on a subsequent occasion, on which such an Amendment would be in order, he would be happy to consider it.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  On the question "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House,"
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Attorney General whether, between this stage and Report, he would consider the advisability of allowing the appeal

  237
  granted by this Bill to be taken direct to the Court of Appeal instead of to the Court of First Instance. The effect of multiplying these appeals was really to increase the cost of litigation.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That Question hardly arises on the question that I Report this Bill to the House.
  Bill Reported, as amended; to be considered upon Thursday.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
  BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Thursday.

  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."—Debate arising;
  And it being Ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.
  Sitting suspended at Ten minutes to Seven of the clock.

EVENING SITTING.
Sitting resumed at Nine o'clock.

SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT.
MAJOR RASCHrose to call attention to the duration of speeches in Parliament, and to move:—
"That, the duration of speeches in this House has increased, is increasing, and should be abated."
He said that he rose with diffidence to move this Resolution, because he was aware that it was not for a humble agricultural Member of a dozen years' standing in the House to suggest a change in. the procedure of the House which had lasted for two centuries. He reminded the House that he and some hon. Friends had introduced a Bill having for its object the shortening of the duration of speeches in Parliament. He admitted that the Measure was crude, yet on a division he obtained a majority of 70 in favour of it. He thought that the majority of hon. Members, however conservative their views, would not deny that there was some necessity for a modification of the rules of procedure under which the Debates were carried on. Some hon. Members might remember a Debate, 14 years ago, when an hon. Gentlemán spoke from noon until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. [Laughter.] Last Session a right hon. Gentleman spoke on one occasion for three hours and ten minutes, and hon. Members who were Irish landlords and connected with Ulster constituencies were not likely to forget either the speech or its results, hi the Financial Relations Debate the other day an hon. Gentleman, known in two continents, made a speech which lasted for two hours and ten minutes, or, rather, he read a speech of that duration. [Laughter.] Then there were right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who never thought of speaking under an hour.[Laughter, and cries of "Name !"] They also knew hon. Members who made it their boast and pride that they never rose to address the House under 40 minutes. Such was the exuberance of dialectical ability in the

239
last Parliament, that one hon. Member spoke on a sub-head (B) of the Estimates for half an hour on every Estimate, or whenever Supply was taken. That hon. Member was a lusus natureœ, and the House was not likely to see many like him again. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen had said to him, "Why is it you cannot leave the rules of procedure alone? What was good enough for our predecessors is good enough for us."' That was rather a specious argument, but it admitted of a, straight answer. There was a Latin or Greek poet—he was brought up at Eton, but his education had been neglected—[laughter]—who said, "Times change, and we change with them." He recalled to the recollection of the House that in earlier years some names continually recurred in Debate like recurring decimals. The majority of hon. Members in, those days sat and listened, waiting, as the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire had said, their apotheosis, or translation to the House of Lords. [Laughter.] These Gentlemen did not speak, and the less they spoke the sooner they got their promotion. [Laughter.] Their descendants at the present time sat in the House of Lords, and they attended the sittings of that Assembly as infrequently and spoke as seldom as their fathers did in the House of Commons. But this was not the way in which the business of the House of Commons was conducted at the present time. Hon. Members had to attend, and to make speeches on behalf of their constituents, and to introduce Bills whether they liked them or not. He himself once introduced a Bill for the compulsory marking of shrimps—[laughter]—in obedience to the orders of his constituents, and he was bound to say that the Bill did not take its place on the statute-book. [Laughter.] There were several precedents for imposing a time limit on speeches. There was a reference in The Times the other day to what happened 50 years ago, when Lord John Russell proposed a Motion, to which Mr. Milner Gibson moved an Amendment, allowing hon. Members to speak only for an hour, though Mr. Milner Gibson said that he preferred 40 minutes. Two distinguished Members of the House who voted with Mr. Milner Gibson, were Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden, and the Amendment was only lost by 26 votes in a moderately full
240
House. Then in the House of Representatives at Washington the time limit, which was very short, was strictly carried out; it was only five minutes. [Cheers and laughter.] In the House of Convocation, in the United Service Institution, in the Poor Law Conference, the time limit, was strictly enforced. If hon. Gentlemen read Gibbon they would find that 2,000 years ago in Home, in the days of Julius Caesar—[laughter]—the Emperor was said to have been much annoyed at the exuberant verbosity of certain senators, and he ordered these senators to be imprisoned. [Laughter, and "Hear, hear !"] The majority of the Senate, however, did not wish to see members of their body shut in the Clock Tower, and, afterwards, according to the historian, such was the now of eloquence that decent debate was subsequently impossible. In moving this Resolution he did not address his remarks to the Front Benches. When right hon. Gentlemen chose they spoke as long as they liked, and as long as the House lasted this would always be so. He addressed himself rather to the private Member who was shut out of debate by the prolixity of right hon. Gentlemen. The Debate on the Financial Relations, for example, lasted three days; but scores of Members did not enjoy the chance of speaking. Then there was an agricultural Debate on a Motion made by the hon. Member for St. Helens. He did not think that was likely to bring about a millennium in the rural districts, and he should have liked to say, so, but it was impossible—the whole time was gone and the Debate was over. Although he and his Friends had taken particular care not to put any time limit in the Resolution, his own idea was that if right hon. Gentlemen could not liberate their soul in an hour, and if private Members could not say all they had to say in 15 minutes, then they did not know their trade and were not fit to occupy a seat in this House. [Laughter and cheers.] He and his Friends had not canvassed or button-holed any Members in the Lobby to support this Resolution; they had agreed to run the Resolution on its own merits, in the sporting phraseology which Lord Salisbury had adopted. If the right hon. Gentlemen would support the Resolution they would be received by their countrymen, when they went down

241
in the autumn to address them, with more gratitude than if they had brought in half-a-dozen Education Bills—[laughter]—and private Members would be received by their constituents in the words of "Alice in Wonderland:"—
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy,"
[Laughter.]
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE, in seconding the Motion, said no innovation either in principle or in practice was advocated. Those who had been long in Parliament had witnessed many changes all tending to the limitation of Debate. He need only refer to the different varieties of the Closure which in the last ten years had sprung into being, the reduction in the number of stages through which a Measure had to pass. In the Debates of 1849 Mr. Hume mentioned that in his day an hon. Member had 17 opportunities during the course of a Measure of speaking upon it; now the opportunities were reduced to about eight. The evil now lay not so much in the length of speeches as the frequency of some speakers in addressing the House—[laughter]—and the fact that they frequently repeated their own arguments and, perhaps, more frequently repeated the arguments of other Members. Private Members were not entirely to blame for the desultory character of the speeches. From the mode in which business was arranged, from the uncertainty which attaches to the time or the opportunity on which any given subject might actually come on for Debate, it was scarcely worth the while of any private Member who had anything else to do to get up the subject thoroughly, because he never knew whether he would be able to deliver his sentiments, whether the time would serve, whether the Debate would come on, or whether he would be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eve as it revolves in its orbit. [Laughter.] As was observed by the eminent Statesman who took part in the discussion of 1849, "it was the uninformed themselves who had not thoroughly considered the subject who make the long speeches." ["Hear, hear !"] It had been calculated that, taking the ordinary duration of the Parliamentary Session and making allowance for holidays, counts-out, and so forth,
242
the House spent in actual Debate something like 1,000 or 1,100 hours. Take it at 1,050. They might allot to the occupants of the Treasury Bench 300 hours and to Members of the Front Opposition Bench 150; that would leave 600 hours to ordinary Members, or, say, an hour a-piece. But they all knew that the bulk of hon. Members were not habitual speakers, and that the delays and redundancies and repetitions were inflicted upon the House by the comparatively few. ["Hear, hear !"] There were about 100 Members who were the regular speakers in the House, and he suggested that to the House generally, exclusive of the Front Benches, 600 hours should be allotted in the Session. The speeches of every Member might be recorded, and when he had occupied three hours of his time the fact should be intimated to him. [Cries of "Divide !"] Members of the Government could divide the time placed at their disposal among themselves; and if anyone wished for an extension of his time, he could borrow it from a colleague. [Cries of "Divide !"] He begged to second the Resolution.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that he could remember the House more than 40 years ago, and he thought it was a mistake to suppose that there ever was a golden age when there were no bores, and when there were no complaints of the length of speeches. In the olden days a prolix speaker, who did not command the respect of the House, was subjected to rather rude interruptions, which were, however, employed with discretion, and never without representing the feeling of the House. In those days just as much useful work was got through, though with a great deal less speaking, for it was not thought necessary for everyone to speak, nor for everyone who had prepared a speech to deliver it. [Cheers.] No doubt, on account of the fierce light which now beat on the proceedings of the House, hon. Members liked their constituents to know that they were not silent; but hon. Members could, surely, exercise some restraint in not prolonging Debate by repeating arguments which had been stated by others. ["Hear, hear !"] He did not think the time had come when any drastic or automatic machinery could be adopted to regulate Debate; and it

243
would be a great misfortune if such expedients were resorted to. The good sense of the House had hitherto been sufficient, without any precise rules, to enable the House to boast that it was the model and mother of Parliaments. The measures which had been taken within the last ten years had restored the order that obtained in times past; and the Debates were now conducted with as much regularity and decorum as he could ever remember. ["Hear, hear !"]
SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid that there was one person of whom complaint might justly be made, and that was the expert and specialist. Such a person had a right to be heard on the subject; but everyone had read his views beforehand in the magazines or newspapers. If such Members would only condense their arguments in the same way as they did in their letters to The Times, the Debates would gain considerably. ["Hear, hear !"] Some curtailment was necessary to restore the interest and brightness of the Debates. A real Debate was, indeed, seldom heard nowadays. It was generally a succession of essays. ["Hear, hear !"]
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that anyone who occupied a prominent position in the House, as did the right hon. Member for North-East Manchester, could always find an opportunity for taking part in Debate. But that was not the case with humbler Members, who on certain occasions ought to have more opportunity of expressing their views concisely. ["Hear, hear !"] He could not agree with the hon. Member for Hereford that there were no very recent examples of excessively long speeches. On the Third Reading of the Voluntary Schools Bill only 14 speakers were able to take part in the Debate, though it lasted the whole evening. The Financial Relations Debate occupied three days, on the first of which there were five speakers, on the second eight, and on the third only six. Yet that was a subject on which many Members felt a great interest. There were many many public bodies which had tried the experiment of limiting speeches, particularly the County Councils. On the Council with which he was connected, there was a particularly stringent rule, and the Standing Order had rarely to be suspended. The House might try the
244
experiment, in the first place, on private Members' evenings. It might be said that public opinion would do all that was necessary; but the methods which were once effectual in hinting to a speaker that he had exhausted the patience were no longer effectual. He asked the House seriously to take into consideration this growing evil. ["Hear, hear !"]
MR. R. G. WEBSTERthought that some of the blame for the prolixity of Members was due to the Press. If an hon. Member condensed his observations within 20 minutes—which was long enough for the statement of his case—the gentlemen of the Reporters' Gallery cut down his remarks to a two minutes' speech. [Laughter.] The result of that system was to encourage Members to speak at undue length. The bore who occupied the attention of the House for a long time got some at least of his remarks reported, while the Member who made a short, bright speech, without the aid of notes, was dismissed with the line: "After some observations from Mr. A. B., the House divided." [Laughter.]
*MR. WALTER MORRISONsaid that when he first entered the House of Commons there was a Rule against the Reading, in the course of a speech, of any printed matter except extracts from the Debates or from Reports or Papers presented to Parliament; but nowadays it was quite a common thing for Members to equip themselves with printed quotations from newspapers and read them at great length. ["Hear, hear !"] He thought that if the rule objecting to the reading of printed matter were revived, and if, in consequence, hon. Members had to write out the extracts they wished to read, the length of speeches would be considerably reduced. [Laughter and "Hear, hear !"] He also thought the House ought to set its face against the growing habit of reading speeches in manuscript. ["Hear, hear !"] If an unofficial Member could not condense what he had got to say into a quarter of an hour, or a right hon. Gentleman what he had got to say into an hour, he ought to go to school again. ["Hear, hear !"] He recollected that when Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli were the leading Members of the House and followed each other in Debate they usually occupied only one hour

245
each, and in that time they were both able to state their points with admirable clearness and force.
The House divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 24.—(Division List, No.203)

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY (JUDICIAL DUTIES, EXPENSE).
*MR. CHARLES HARRISON(Plyhoped the House would agree that the
"That this House is of opinion that a portion of the expenses incurred by the Incorporated Law Society in fulfilling the duties imposed upon it by the Statute 51 and 52 Vic. c. 65. should he defrayed out of public funds."
He said the Motion was in principle adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, but exception was taken on that occasion to the particular form in which the Resolution was moved. He hoped the House would agree that the grant should be made out of public funds without any interception. Solitors on being articled paid stamp duty, they paid duty on admission, and they paid a duty for the purpose of being at liberty to practise their profession; and the funds thus contributed to the public Exchequer amounted to no less than from £180,000 to £190,000 a year. If was not necessary for the professional solicitor to belong to any society, and he could not be expelled from the profession merely because the Law Society so desired. In former years the Rolls Court exercised jurisdiction, and cases of complaint were investigated by the Master of the Rolls, which resulted in great delays. In 1888 a, reform took place, and the judicial duty of investigation was imposed upon the Incorporated Law Society, whose Reports were acted upon. He believed about a thousand cases had been investigated, and large payments had been made in the performance of this statutory judicial duly. The Reports and the work which had been done had been most highly spoken of by the present Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls. The Lord Chancellor had written to the President of the Society, in which he stated the functions of the Society appeared to him "both valuable and well performed:" mid he recognised that they
246
do a public service and save time and expense in the Courts which have jurisdiction in the matters of solicitors. As this judicial work involved considerable expense it was just that it should be paid out of public funds instead of being paid out of the voluntary subscriptions of this society. He begged to move the Motion. ["Hear, hear !"]
MR. W. AMBROSEseconded the Motion. He was satisfied that it was founded upon justice and policy. ["Hear, hear !"] This was not an act of "trade unionism;' what they asked for was not for the benefit of solicitors, but entirely in the interest of the public, it was found that no one could do this work so well as the Law Society, and so long as they gave their services for nothing, as was the case at present, it was only just that the expense involved in these investigations, which he believed amounted to about £5,000 a year, should be provided by the State.
MR. THOMAS BUCKNILLsaid he had the permission of the Lord Chancellor to say that he agreed fully with the spirit of the Motion. That was a high authority to start with. The matter should meet with the sympathy of the House, if for no other reason for this—that, instead of the old-fashioned, dilatory process of proceeding in the first instance by affidavit, then the matter being referred to a master, proceeding before the master as if he were a Judge, and considering the report of the master, the modern and excellent practice had been created by statute of a committee of the Incorporated Law Society considering each case brought before them, and, if they thought fit, making a report of it to the Court of Queen's Bench. A great saving of time and expense had been effected by the machinery provided by the Act of 1888. When the subject was last before the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself favourable to the consideration of the matter. It had been said that, if solicitors chose to consider the ways of peccant members of that branch of the legal profession, they should be glad to do it within closed doors at their own expense. But this was not true. The Statutory Committee considered whether on the facts brought before them the matter should go further or not, and they often paid the

247
costs on one side or the other out of their own pocket. When the report of the Incorporated Law Society came before the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench the Judges had to say whether the report of the Incorporated Law Society was to be upheld or reversed. Everything showed that the present machinery for dealing with the matter was excellent. If it were so, why should the Incorporated Law Society be called upon to pay the expense out of their own pocket? If it led to a saving of public time and expense, ought not the Society to be reimbursed? He heartily supported the Motion.
*MR. MELLORsaid this was really a matter of simple justice. Not a large sum was asked for, and it was merely to reimburse the Incorporated Law Society for the expense they went to in discharge of a public duty. This had been extremely well performed since 1888, and it was a duty of great importance to- the public. It was very much to the advantage of the public that complaints against solicitors should be inquired into by a body of gentlemen well qualified and of experience in that branch of the profession, who had command of all the necessary machinery. The Lord Chief Justice spoke not only for himself, but for the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division, in favour of the proposal, and the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor also concurred. If these great authorities found the work of the committee of the Incorporated Law Society so valuable, surely the public ought not to allow them to be out of pocket, considering the hard work they undertook in the service of the public.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESheld that when a proposal was made to tax the country to get solicitors struck off the rolls it should be made by a Minister of the Crown in Committee of the whole House. When the matter was before the House in July last the Leader of the Opposition said the Incorporated Law Society kept the rolls clean for their own sake, and had no more right to be paid for keeping them clean than an Inn of Court had to be paid for disbarring a barrister. He himself submitted that there was no ground for this demand to give £4,500 a year to a very respectable trade union. He believed the Incorporated Law Society was put to no expense at all. It had been said that
248
until 1888 the duty of investigating complaints against solicitors was performed by the Court. If a man were to be driven out of his profession it should be by the Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is."] The examination of the solicitor was no longer conducted in Court, but in private by a private society. All that came before the Court was the report of the society. The late Lord Bramwell, speaking on this subject, said the proper way to deal with a solicitor's professional conduct was in open Court, not in the secret chamber of any society, however respectable. ["Hear, hear !"] What he wanted to point out to the House was this. It was said that a duty was imposed upon the Society by the Act of 1888. He did not think that was a fair statement of the case. What was done by the Act of 1888 was to give this Society all the powers and privileges which they themselves had asked for. The only duty imposed upon them was, when they had held their inquiry, and come to their conclusion, that of presenting their report to the Court. There was nothing expensive about that. A sheet of foolscap' paper and five minutes' time would suffice to make the copy that was presented to the Court. His belief was that no expense at all had been incurred by this Act. The Bill was introduced in the Autumn Session of 1888, and became law on the 25th December of that year. In the Report of the Incorporated Law Society of the preceding July, Sir Henry Watson Parker reported that—
"the Council were of opinion that it would be to the interest of the profession that such powers should be sought for. The present process for punishing delinquent solicitors is complicated, involves unnecessary expense and a waste of energy, and the functions now exercised by the Court, at a considerable cost to the Society, can be well exercised by the Council alone."
It was upon the ground of economy alone that the Society demanded the extension to them of the powers which were formerly exercised by the Court. In the

249
next Report, after the Act was passed, they proceeded to say that it was the opinion of the Committee that in ordinary circumstances a fee not exceeding three guineas should be sufficient to cover all professional charges of preparing and lodging; the complaint, and providing the affidavit in support of it. The House would be gratified to learn that since the passing of the Act an average of only fourteen solicitors per annum had been struck off the roll. That would come to a matter of 42 guineas per annum, according to the estimate made in 1889 by the Incorporated Law Society themselves. They said that a fee of three guineas would suffice, therefore it was not £5,000 a year they should ask for, but £42 a year. But his belief was that it did not cost them even that. He found that the law expenses of the Incorporated Law Society in the year 1888, immediately before the passing; of the Act, were £4,046, but in 1890 their law and Parliamentary expenses, including the cost of the Committee under the Solicitors' Act, 1888, were not £4,046, but only £3,767. It seemed to him, therefore, that the expenses had been absolutely less in the last year than they were in the last year before the Solicitors' Act, was passed, and that, instead of this matter costing the Society more, it had cost them absolutely less. He did not, therefore, know upon what kind of ground this claim could be made. He admitted that when solicitors ran away with clients' money, or otherwise misbehaved themselves, it was the duty of this extremely respectable trades union to see that such delinquents were struck off the rolls, but he believed the method of examination enshrined in this Act was an unfortunate one. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton thought so at one time, because he found, on reference to the history of the Bill, that when it was introduced the right hon. Gentleman announced that he should strongly object to a good many of its clauses.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: And the Bill was altered.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESfound no verbal record of the alterations in "Hansard." At any rate, it was not, in his opinion, altered sufficiently, and he only regretted that he was not earlier a Member of that Parliament, in which case, perhaps, he might have had a voice in the matter himself. He trusted it would not be thought he was an enemy of the honourable profession of solicitors, but he did not think, in the first place, on public grounds, that any private body whatever, for any purpose whatever, should receive a permanent charge of £5,000 from the taxpayers of this country. In the second place, he asserted that it had not in the least been made out that any case existed of extra expense having been incurred by this Society in consequence of the duties (as they were called) cast upon them by this Act; and, in the third place, he denied that any duties of an onerous nature had been cast upon them by the Act. The only duty was a duty of presenting a report, and all the rest the Act did was to give the Society privileges, advantages, and powers, which, he thought, it would have been much better not to have given, and which, when the Society asked for, they said not a word about their being likely to cause extra expense. On the contrary, the Report he had quoted showed that the suggestion was that, if this power were given to the Society, no extra expense would be incurred, but the cost would be less, and that was the one great ground put forward in the Report of the Society. In these circumstances, it did not be in the mouth of the Society now to come and ask for public money on this ground. This was an academic discussion, for, whatever the result of the Resolution might be, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not going to part with £5,000 except much better reasons could be given than had been adduced in the House that night.
*SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid so far as he was concerned as a Member of the Bar, it was a matter of absolute indifference whether the Motion was carried or not. His only interest was in seeing the discharge by a competent body of a serious and important public duty, and that was an interest common to all. But having had opportunities of judging of the value of this work, he would not be deterred by the sarcasm of the hon. Member for King's Lynn from saying a word about the matter. By the Act of 1888 an important public duty was transferred to the Committee of the Incorporated Law Society. Before that date it was necessary, in order that there should be an investigation into the conduct of a solicitor, that there should be a formal application to a, court of law; and a great many persons who thought they had ground of complaint were unwilling to take what seemed to them the dangerous and expensive course of making such an application. For that procedure had been substituted simply the necessity of a communication, almost an informal communication, to the Incorporated Law Society. Directly that communication was received a committee consisting of some of the most experienced and most trustworthy solicitors in this country, investigated the complaint. If they found that there was no prima facie reason for instituting proceedings against the solicitor they dismissed the case; if they found that there was a prima facie case, they thereupon proceeded to procure a full investigation. Before 1888 the expenses of these proceedings were in great measure borne by the State. Now, instead of being conducted by a Master of the Queen's Bench paid out of the public funds, it was conducted by a committee of solicitors belonging to the Incorporated Law Society, who received no payment whatever for discharging duties which involved great sacrifices of their own time. Surely it was unreasonable, when Parliament had agreed to the scheme which set up this
252
tribunal, and when, after nine years' experience, that tribunal was found to be far more effective and useful than the tribunal which existed before, to say to the solicitors: "You shall, in, your certificate, duly pay to the State a sum of £180,000 a year. We have put upon you the discharge of an important public duty. That, public duty being properly discharged by you, costs you a good deal of money, and we will not even make a rebate from the contribution, which you make to the State in order to pay the expenses of your investigations." The Law Society stated deliberately that the expenses of the investigations amounted to an average of nearly £5,000 a year. That being so it seemed to him a matter of elementary justice that they should be allowed such an abatement for the contribution that they made to the public funds as might compensate them for the expense they incurred in the discharge of a public duty. [Cheers.] He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give an assurance upon the matter. If he did he would secure the permanent, the effective, and the satisfactory discharge of these public duties, and would be discharging a debt and not in any way conferring a boon or a gift on a trade union. [Cheers.]
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had an encyclopædic knowledge of matters which came before the House. But there wore subjects outside his range, and one on which he was profoundly ignorant was that branch of the legal profession to which he (Sir H. Fowler) had the honour to belong, and the working of the Incorporated Law Society. The hon. Member had referred to the part which he (the speaker) took in connection with the Act of 1888. The hon. Member was misinformed. He objected to the form of the Act as it was originally introduced, and he strove successfully to secure that this body, as it was to have judicial functions conferred upon it by the State, should be appointed,

253
not by what the hon. Member, not happily, called a trade union, but by a public functionary. A clause was inserted providing that the power of appointment should rest exclusively with the Master of the Rolls, and that their procedure should be regulated by rules to be drawn up and approved of by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls. His view was that, if this Committee was to have judicial duties intrusted to it, the Committee ought to be appointed by an independent body of the highest ability and competence. He did not suppose that the Law Society had any idea at the time of what ultimately the quantum of this procedure would be; but the work had been very well done. Only the other day, in a case that came before the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls alluded in the strongest terms to the great assistance rendered to him and the Court by the careful and judicial investigation into the facts of the case by this Committee. Since 1888 nearly 1,000 cases had been investigated by it. The members of the Committee, whose time was emphatically their money, sat day by day during a long period of the year; they received no remuneration whatever, and the expenses which they asked the State to defray were payments to third persons. The amount of these payments averaged about to£5,000 a year. A poor man robbed by a defaulting solicitor often had no means with which to institute a prosecution in Chancery proceedings, and, of course, anyone who was appointed to act for him had to be paid. The costs winch the Incorporated Law Society paid to other people were solicitors' and counsel's fees. The Law Society were quite willing to discharge the duties intrusted to them, but they were not willing to tax themselves pecuniarily to the amount of £4,000 or £5,000 annually. That they should be expected to do so was not fair, for they were protecting the interests of the public and the State. The Judges, by the way in which
254
they had treated the Committee's reports, had shown that they were perfectly satisfied. The statement that the Committee's proceedings were costing £4,000 or £5,000 a year was not made haphazard. The figures had been verified before the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was a very careful guardian of the public purse, and not a man at all likely to listen to a sentimental or imaginary grievance. For his part, he was quite willing as a Member of that House to leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to determine what was the proper sum to pay to the Incorporated Law Society. The facts were very simple. Here was a body appointed by Parliament to discharge judicial duties entailing very heavy expenditure. Those duties had been performed to the satisfaction of the authorities and the public, and surely it was not reasonable that men who devoted their time, ability, and attention to these matters should also be called upon to defray the cost of investigations and proceedings out of their own pockets. ["Hear, hear !"]
*THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said that he was not prepared to agree expenditure simply because it was recommended by even such great personages as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls. Those legal luminaries did not always agree, and although they did agree on this subject, it was not on account of such agreement that he would be disposed to sanction this expenditure. Nor did he think that any society regulating any profession or trade for the advantage of its members, and also for the advantage of the public, was necessarily entitled to claim a grant from that House. But the Incorporated Law Society was in a peculiar position, because the profession of a solicitor was one in which it was necessary for laymen like himself to have implicit confidence, and if that confidence was misplaced and fraud was committed, it

255
often happened that the client was too poor to obtain tiny remedy himself or to take action to protect the public against similar frauds in the future. ["Hear, hear !"] Therefore, to a certain extent the Incorporated Law Society and the solicitors' profession did stand in a different position from that of most other professions or trades. This subject was brought before him last year, and he investigated it very carefully, and the result was that he felt himself justified in making a proposal to Parliament in the sense of the Motion now before the House. That proposal, however, was not accepted. It was opposed mainly on the ground that there would be an interception of a tax before the tax reached the Exchequer. He was not, however, acting without precedent, for under an Act passed not long ago the King's Inns in Dublin had received similar assistance for certain necessary work done with regard to the profession of the Bar in Ireland, and in making his proposal he had but imitated what Parliament had done in their behalf. He, however, felt the force of the objection, and did not press his proposal. The hon. Member for Plymouth had brought the matter forward again that evening with the object of obtaining from the House an acceptance of the view that at some way or other the assistance which was desired by the Incorporated Law Society should be given by Parliament. That was a matter which he would like to leave to the House. There was one point which appeared to him to differentiate this case from almost any other that could arise, and that was, that there was a special tax on the profession of solicitors—["hear, hear !"]—and that, as the profession was specially taxed, undoubted there might be a claim from it which could hardly arise from any other profession, that a portion, and not a large portion, of that tax should be allowed, so to speak, by Parliament to the Incorporated Law Society for performing statutory duties which every
256
one admitted were well performed, not only to the advantage of the profession itself, but also of the public. ["Hear, hear !"] He could only say that if it should be the pleasure of the House to affirm this Resolution, he should think it his duty to act upon it by submitting to the House a Vote for such a sum as, on investigation, might seem to him to be right. ["Hear, hear !"] He owned that he felt that it was placing this society perhaps in a somewhat invidious position; but at the same time it would unquestionably be a payment, not for any work they did for themselves, but for the necessary expenses they incurred in the performance of a public duty; and he did not think it would be a precedent which would be injurious to the Exchequer as forming grounds for similar claims on the part of anyone else, and therefore he was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 16.—(Division List, No. 204.)

ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) Bill.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 14th June.

VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*MR. PERCY THORNTONmoved, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." He explained that the Bill referred to vehicles used on country roads, and required them to carry lights during certain hours. In England bicycles were required to show lights at night, but in Ireland it was not so. Many accidents had happened and continued to occur owing to the present bye-laws being of a different character. A person might start in a county where lights were

257
enjoined upon all carriages, and yet find that the day's journey concluded where no such rule was in existence. The agricultural interest objected to having to provide these necessary lamps, and urged that they would involve a tax upon an already overburdened industry.
An HON. MEMBER called attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.
*MR. SPEAKER: There are 10 Members present.
*MR. THORNTON, resuming, urged that the purchase and the carrying of a lamp were not very expensive matters. The promoters of the Measure were prepared to meet any objection in a fair and comprehensive spirit. They did not propose to stand by every word, but were willing that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee so that its provisions might be carefully scrutinised.
MR. ARTHER JEFFREYSpointed out that a county council had power to make bye-laws requiring vehicles passing along roads at night to carry lights, and that many councils had already made such bye-laws, and very oppressive to agriculturists they had proved to be. It was absurd to suppose that carts or waggons going at a walking pace promoted collisions, and if his hon. Friend intended to persevere with the Measure he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would consent to the introduction of an Amendment exempting such vehicles from the necessity to carry lights. In Hampshire the County Council had passed a bye-law requiring all vehicles except those used for agricultural purposes and those going at a walking pace to carry lights. If the hon. Member for Clapham would agree to such an Amendment no harm could be done. The Bill as it stood had been considered by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the resolution was unanimously arrived at that the Measure would be very oppressive to agriculturists unless some Amendment of the kind he had described were inserted.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that the Yorkshire Union of Agricultural Clubs had unanimously condemned the Bill if it was intended to apply to agricultural carts going at a walking pace. It was alleged that agriculturists thought expense would be caused to farmers if they were required to light their vehicles. There was more in the Bill than that, because it must provide for the imposition of fines if it was to have any effect at all. He thought it was a pity, in the present state of agricultural depression, that this Bill, which was in the interests of those who lived in towns, should be introduced. He thought it was a perfectly unnecessary bit of legislation as regarded these particular carts and waggons, and he hoped the House would reject it.
MR. FREDERICK CAWLEYwas of opinion that the carrying of lights could only impose a small cost on anyone connected with agriculture, and he could assure hon. Members representing southern constituencies that people living near large towns, and especially those living near agricultural towns, had a great grievance in this matter. He thought all vehicles should carry lights. This would, he thought, simplify the case. A great source of danger was to be found in the milk carts which were left standing outside of a house while the milkman went to the house door. These did not carry lights, and he could assure hon. Members that if they were driving along the road when such a vehicle was left in the way, it was very difficult to prevent running into it. He thought this Bill would be of very great benefit to all members of the community.
*MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEthought this wax one of House matters in which the House should be cautious how it took out of the hands of local authorities powers which were already vested in them. There was a great difference of opinion as to the wisdom of a

259
rule like this. It was a subject constantly under the attention of different County Councils. It was quite true that some of them had recently made a bye-law in this direction, and it was equally true that others had qualified that bye-law by some such exception as had been proposed by the hon. Member for Basing-stoke. He thought, therefore, they might say that the time was not yet quite ripe for any general rule of this kind. At the present moment he thought the agricultural districts would rather be left to the tender mercies of their own County Councils, who knew the local needs and could make bye-laws when they were required, than have a rigid and unbending rule like this imposed on the country as a whole.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that Section 7 of the Bill applied to Ireland, and under the third Section an ordinary Irish tenant farmer's cart, no matter how small, in which he conveyed his produce to market, would have to provide a light when he was returning from market. This would be a great grievance to impose on the small tenant farmers in Ireland, many of whom were so poor that they could not afford to buy cart grease for their carts, let alone oil for lamps. Legislation like this affecting Ireland was absolutely unnecessary and tyrannical. It was quite proper that bicycles should be dealt with in large cities like London, where "scorchers" rushed along the streets at the rate of 20 to 30 miles an hour, but to apply a Bill like this in the country was to carry legislation to the verge of the farcical. He, therefore, strongly opposed the Bill.
MR. ROBERT ASCROFTspoke in the interests of young people who were cooped up in large towns, and who had few opportunities to escape from the smoke and the turmoil to enjoy the fresh air of the country. This Bill was not brought forward in the interests of those who could drive or ride, but in the interests of hundreds of thousands of young folks who were entitled after a
260
hard day's work to get out of the smoke and inhale a little fresh air in the country. The opposition to this Bill came with a very bad grace from the agricultural party—[cheers]—after the way they had been treated in the Agricultural Rating Act. As to the interference of the Bill in Ireland, he would advise hon. Members from that country to do everything they could to encourage everybody to go there with a bicycle, because for every 6d. spent in oil and lamp thousands of pounds would be spent in the country.
*MR. H. J. WILSONthought the Bill was entirely unnecessary. Its provisions would be most dangerous at harvest time, when carts were loaded with highly-combustible material. It would, besides, be very inconvenient to compel farmers to have their carts lighted up with a petroleum lamp, when they had, perhaps, only 100 yards to go along a high road (after traversing half-a-mile of private road or field) to get to the farmyard. He could not see the slightest necessity for the House troubling itself with such a mischievous Bill.
MR. F. G. BANBURYsaid his experience in driving was that heavy carts going at a walking pace along the road were the worst offenders, because they drove on the wrong side of the road, and nearly always the drivers were asleep. The annals of coaching days wore full of anecdotes illustrating this. He agreed that there would be a certain amount of hardship at harvest time, but this might be met by regulations extending the time during harvest operations. The cost of a lamp must be small, and oil was very cheap. It was not often that farmers sent carts along the road. The great offenders were the heavy vans of the brewers. The Bill could do no harm to agriculture, and might prevent many accidents.
MR. W. O. CLOUGHsupported the Bill on behalf of a large number of cyclists. On the Middlesex

261
roads, the market gardeners' carts fining to Covent Garden were a constant danger, and an accident had occurred to a member of his own family on account of them.
*MR. A. K. LOYDregretted that the hon. Member for Oldham had introduced into the Debate an antagonism between town and country in this question. The agricultural Members had as much sympathy with the cyclists as anyone else. He thought cyclists would agree that, considering the rough journeys farm carts had to undertake, and the inflammatory nature of many kinds of farm produce and of farm premises, often in isolated regions, the fewer un-necessary lamps and lucifer matches were called for, in connection with that industry, the better. These heavy carts went too slowly to be a danger to the traffic, and they made noise enough to be heard a mile off. It was not merely the desire to save the cost of the lamp-oil, but the desire to avoid any unnecessary duties and burdens, and to obviate the danger of fire, that led agricultural Members to ask for exemption from what might, in other respects, be a useful Bill.
MR. JAMES DALYopposed the Second Reading of the Bill, as it tended to curtail the liberties and privileges of the Irish people. It might be necessary to have lights on carts and carriages in the crowded thoroughfares of London, but in Ireland one might travel miles upon miles without meeting a single vehicle on the roads; and when one was met with it was almost certain to be a donkey's cart. Again, in England policemen were so few that if an English farmer were to neglect to light up he would escape detection; but in Ireland policemen were as thick as blackberries—they were to be met at every corner; and there was, therefore, no chance for an Irish farmer to escape if he neglected to show a light on a donkey's cart. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill meant no evil to Ireland. But then the hon. Gentleman
262
knew nothing about Ireland, and he would advise him in future to leave legislation to the Irish officials, who were paid for that sort of thing, or to the Irish Members, who knew something about the country.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.—Debate resumed.
MR. JOHN BRIGGobjected to the Bill principally because it proposed to override all the local regulations of the County Councils in regard to the carrying of lights by vehicles at night. In his own district the rule was that vehicles travelling faster than a walking pace should have lights. Again, in his district the roads were well lighted. There were 25 or 30 miles of roads lighted all the way with lamps, and there was no necessity that vehicles travelling on those roads should carry lights. The local authorities would consider it a great reflection on their action if any Act passed by that House overruled them, and he objected to the Bill, therefore, on their behalf.
Question put, "That the Bill be now Read a Second time." The House divided, and Mr. Percy Thornton, one of the tellers for the Ayes, announced the result as follows:—

Ayes

…

…

40

Noes

…

…

40

The announcement of the figures was received with laughter.
*MR. SPEAKERthereupon said: The numbers being equal, it is my duty to vote, and in accordance with the usual practice of the Chair in such circumstances, I shall give it in such a way as will afford the House another opportunity of taking a decision on this matter. I therefore give my vote with the Ayes, and declare that the Ayes have it.
The Division List—No. 205—as appended, shows—Ayes, 44; Noes, 40.

AYES.

Anstruther, H. T.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Stewart, Sir Mark J. Mc Taggart

Arnold, Alfred

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ascroft, Robert

Kearley, Hudson E.

Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)

Baker, Sir John

Kenyon, James

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Banbury, Frederick George

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Ure, Alexander

Cawley, Frederick

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Channing, Francis Allston

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Charrington, Spencer

Morton, Edward John Chalmers

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Clough, Walter Owen

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

Doughty, George

Pierpoint, Robert

Wortley Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fisher, William Hayes

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Thornton and Mr. Graham.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Goldsworthy, Major General

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

NOES.

Arrol, Sir William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pryce-Jones, Edward

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Billson, Alfred

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Brigg, John

Helder, Augustus

Rentoul, James Alexander

Caldwell, James

Hobhouse, Henry

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Walrond, Sir William Hood

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Crilly, Daniel

Macaleese, Daniel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Dane, Richard M.

McKillop, James

Davies, W. Rees- (Pembrokesh.)

Milward, Colonel Victor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Jeffreys and Mr. Daly.

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Bill read a Second time, and committed for to-morrow.

POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 20th May.
CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21st May.
TEIND COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 30th June.
TRAWLERS' LICENSING BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
SHOPS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
House Adjourned at Two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed us amended.—[No. 74.]
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee, without Amendment, and to be Read 3aon Thursday next.

QUARTER SESSIONS JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1,—

QUARTER SESSIONS JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SPECIFICATION OF DIVISIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.
  (1.) The Lord Lieutenant may, when it appears to him desirable for the relief of jurors from unnecessary attendance at Quarter Sessions, by Order in Council, declare the provisions of this Act to be in force in any specified Quarter Sessions division as from the dale of the Order, and the provisions of this Act shall, after the said date, be in force in such division, and that division shall be a specified division within the meaning of this Act.
  (2.) Any Order made under this section may be revoked by a subsequent Order made in the same manner.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2,—

  PROVISION FOR LODGING NOTICE OF BILLS OF INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL TRIALS.
  Where it is intended to present a Bill of Indictment at a Court of Quarter Sessions in a specified division, or to proceed at such Court with the trial of any person on a Bill of Indictment previously found, the prescribed notice of such intention shall be lodged by or on behalf of the person having the conduct of the prosecution in the office of the Clerk of the Peace not later than three clear days (exclusive of a
  186
  Sunday) previous to the day appointed for the trial of criminal causes before that Court.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3,—

  JURORS TO BE RELIEVED FROM ATTENDANCE IN CERTAIN CASES.
  (1.) Where in a specified division no such notice has been so lodged as aforesaid, the Clerk of the Peace shall forthwith report to the Sheriff to that effect, and the Sheriff shall thereupon notify in the prescribed manner all jurors summoned to attend the Court for the purpose of criminal business that their attendance will not be required.
  (2.) Every person so summoned and subsequently notified under this section shall be given credit for an attendance as if he had attended in pursuance of the summons.
  (3.) Where it is the duty of the Clerk of the Peace to summon jurors to attend at a Court of Quarter Sessions, the duties imposed by this section upon the Sheriff shall be discharged by the Clerk of the Peace, and it shall not be necessary to make a report to the Sheriff.
  *LORD MORRISsaid he had an Amendment to propose to the clause, with the object of providing for the expenses of the Sheriff in connection with the duties imposed upon him under the Bill. As the Bill stood, there was no provision; the matter was by the proposed Amendment left entirely in the discretion of the Grand Jury. It was necessary that some provision should be made in the Bill for the new duties east upon the Sheriff. He moved accordingly, as a new Sub-section to Clause 3:—
  (4.) The expenses of this Act, incurred in connection with the duties hereby imposed on Sheriffs and Clerks of the Peace, shall be defrayed out of the county cess, and it shall be lawful for the Grand Jury of every county, and for every Town Council empowered to make presentment, as the case may be, from time to time, at the next ensuing assizes or presenting term, and they are hereby required, without previous application at presentment sessions, or otherwise, to present all such sums of money as they may deem reasonable and necessary for defraying such expenses.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid there was no objection to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord except that it would be better, as a matter of drafting, that it should be moved as a, new clause.
  Amendment agreed to, and inserted as a new clause (Clause 4) after Clause 3.
  *LORD MORRISfurther moved, after the clause last inserted, to insert the following new clause:—
  Clause 5,—
  (5.) The Clerks of the Union shall, in compiling the lists of jurors each year for revision, set forth, as far as practicable, in a separate column on the said lists, after the name of each juror, the name of the post office nearest to his residence.
  The noble Lord pointed out that the Sheriffs' list did not require that the post town of the juror should be given, and it was obvious that without such a provision as that embodied in this Amendment the letter might miscarry and not reach a juror at all, and it might be impossible for the Sheriff to carry out his duty completely.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid the Amendment was somewhat out of order in connection with this particular Bill. It was really an Amendment to Section 9 of the Jurors (Ireland) Act, 1871, and, as such, it was outside the scope and not covered by the title of this Bill. It was the opinion of the Irish Office that it was not necessary to deal with the matter in a fresh Act of Parliament, but that it was competent to the Department to deal with it as an ordinary Instruction, if it were found necessary to do so, as a matter of general convenience to the Sheriffs of Ireland, and in consequence he regretted to say he could pot accept the Amendment.
  *LORD MORRISasked leave to withdraw the Amendment, intimating that he should bring the subject up again when the. Bill came before the Standing Committee.
  Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4,—

  POWER TO ADJOURN TRIALS.
  (1.) In the case of any person returned for trial, or whose trial has been adjourned to a Court of Quarter Sessions in a specified division where the jurors have been notified under this Act that their attendance will not be required, the Chairman or Recorder presiding over the Court shall adjourn the trial of such person to the next ensuing Court of Quarter Sessions for any division of the county in which the specified division is included, or to the next ensuing Court of Assize for such
  188
  county, and tiny recognizance entered into in respect of such trial shall, without renewal, be valid and binding in respect of the adjourned trial.
  (2.) Such Chairman or Recorder shall have, in addition to all powers already vested in him, power to admit such person to bail until the sitting of the Court to which his trial is adjourned.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "shall"—["shall adjourn"]—and to insert the word "may." The object of the substitution was that the Chairman or recorder presiding over the Court might have full option of discharging the prisoner if there should be any sort of idea that there had been wilful delay for the purpose of annoying the individual in question.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5,—

  RULES. 40 & 41 VICT. C. 56.
  The power of making rules and orders conferred by section seventy-nine of the County Officers 'and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877, shall be exercised for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6,—

  DEFINITIONS.
  In this Act—
  The expression "Clerk of the Peace" includes Clerk of the Crown and Peace where the offices have been united;
  The expression "Sheriff" includes Under Sheriff; and
  The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules and orders in pursuance of this Act.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7,—

  SHORT TITLE, AND EXTENT OF ACT.
  This Act may be cited as the Quarter Sessions Jurors (Ireland) Act 1897, and shall extend to Ireland only.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 75.]

LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House Adjourned at a Quarter before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.