Sitting of 7 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  SAINT THOMAS, SOUTHWARK, AND SAINT SAVIOUR, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  YEOVIL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  (Prince of Wales's Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified.) Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Ordered That Standing Order CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That in the case of the Cardiff Railway Bill, Standing Orders LXXXIV., CCXIV., CCXV., and CCXXXIX. be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders CCXXIII. and CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  (By order) Ordered, That in the case of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill, Standing Orders LXXXIV, CCXIV., CCXV., and CCXXXIX. be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Motion made—
  "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do insert in the Bill a clause or clauses providing that Members of the House of Commons may travel free of charge over the various systems of railway and steamer services affected by this Bill, when said Members are going to or returning from attendance on their Parliamentary duties."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name, to recommit this Bill, and I seek to do so for the purpose of instructing the Committee—
  "That they do insert in the Bill a clause or clauses providing that Members of the House of Commons may travel free of charge over the various systems of railway and steamer services affected by this Bill, when said Members are going to or returning from attendance on their Parliamentary duties."
  MR. SPEAKER: If that is the object of the Motion, to recommit, I may say at once that the Instruction will be out of order. The question of Members of the House of Commons travelling free of charge is not a matter for private Bill legislation—that can only be done by public legislation. If, therefore, that is the object of the honourable Gentleman's Motion, he is entirely out of order in moving it.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: As you have made that ruling, Sir, I may acquaint you with the fact that I have the authority of the original promoter of this Bill that if it passed the House of Commons, he would insert such a condition. I take it that the companies concerned in this Bill are bound by this condition of the original promoter as much as they would be bound by any other condition which they had accepted. I take these grounds that, for the first time in my experience, the British Treasury is investing in a public concern of this description £93,000 of pubic money, and I thought, Sir, that that being so, a Member of this House had the right to ask the Treasury to insert a condition enabling Members of the House of Commons who travel to do a public duty and who spend most of their time here, to travel free of charge over what I may call the public high-

  137
  ways of the country. Sir, I am aware that this is a novel proposition, but as my honourable Friend said the other night, everything is novel which is heard for the first time. Free travelling is not novel——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman is now discussing the merits of his Motion, which I have already ruled out of order. I am not aware as to what the views of the promoter were, and if I were that would make no difference at all to my ruling, neither would the fact of the investment of the money by the Treasury at all alter my ruling. The Instruction for which the honourable Gentleman wishes to recommit the Bill is out of order.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling, but you will allow me to give notice that when the Treasury comes to this House for power to allocate this money, I shall raise this question again.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope I may be allowed to say a few words by way of acknowledgment of the action of the Secretary to the Treasury in this matter. I think it only right, when a great public service has been rendered, that a fair acknowledgment of such service rendered, as in this case, by the Government should be made from these benches. We have had occasion in the past to complain of the Treasury—indeed, we have had very strong grounds for complaints against the Treasury. But, Sir, there never was an occasion on which the officials of that institution have come forward and rendered such a signal service to the country as they have on this occasion by their action with regard to this Bill. I do not merely refer to the £93,000 of public money which is to be invested in this scheme, but I refer to the action of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury all through this Bill, and to the help that he has given us, both in public and in private, to get this very valuable railway construction scheme piloted through the very difficult channels of this House. Had it not been for the right honourable Gentleman in the first place, I believe that this Bill would have been sent up to the Lords without there having been
  138
  this very valuable public inquiry which has taken place, and which has occupied so much of the time of many Members of this House. That Committee, Sir, was presided over by a gentleman who performed his duties with much dignity, and who rendered great service to the Bill by his conduct in the chair. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury all through has taken what I may call an Irish line in regard to this Bill. He has rendered, as I have said before, to the entire population of Ireland an enormous public service, and on an occasion like this I desire to make myself the mouthpiece of the expression of feeling which I know prevails throughout the South of Ireland as to his exceedingly commendable action in this matter. I only hope, in conclusion, that, as we are now nearing the end of the Session, both the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of the Committees on the Bill and the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury will use their influence with the House of Lords, so that the fortunes of the entire population of the south of Ireland are not imperilled by the fact of some Standing Order not having been rigorously complied with. I think we are entitled to ask that the House of Lords, in a matter of this importance, should give some little relaxation, if any is needed, in its rules, so as to enable this Bill to pass with as little delay as possible.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I quite agree that the hybrid Committer which sat upon this Bill have devoted a great deal of time and trouble to it, and this House is much indebted to many of the gentlemen who sat upon the Committee, and who showed such a grasp of the very intricate details of this Bill. Many of them were, of course, well acquainted with the locality, and were able to give the benefit of their local knowledge to those Members who were not possessed of such local knowledge. With regard to the action of the right honourable Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Treasury, we cannot forget that the promoters of this Bill offered to relieve the county of Waterford altogether of the tax of £14,000 a year which they

  139
  now spend; but the company have only been called upon to relieve us to the extent of £7,000. True, we get another £3,000 by means of the operation of the Local Government Bill; but even with that we are still left with a charge of £3,000 a year in the county and city of Waterford. We maintain that we were never allowed to avail ourselves of the legislation which helped other people—I refer to the light railways, and the assistance which they got towards the dividends on their capital. I say that when the remission was made it should have been made more in our favour than it has been, because, speaking broadly, I am quite sure that the £4,000 a year which we still have to pay will go largely to the advantage of other people. Speaking of the Bill as a whole, I think we may say that we welcome the advent of the Great Western, although, for my own part, I wish that company had come in better companionship, but, having selected their own companion, we, of course, must be satisfied with them; and we are grateful to the hybrid Committee for inserting that provision which makes it necessary that there should be four members of the board of the Great Western Company upon the board of this company, as against three members of the board of the Great Southern and Western Company. Now, Sir, I will not detain the House longer on this subject, but I wish to point out to the House, although it is probably aware of the fact—at any rate, the members of the Committee who sat upon this Bill will be aware of it—that from all parts of Ireland complaints were received as to the treatment which the traders and passengers using the Great Southern and Western line had to submit to from that company. I have in my mind a case in point which will, to some extent, indicate the policy pursued by this company. A relative of mine was travelling to Kingsbridge one morning last year. It was a wretchedly cold day in February, and my friend was travelling third class; and when the porter in charge of the foot-warmers came round, to my friend's astonishment, he ceased putting foot-
  140
  warmers in—no foot-warmers were put in the third-class carriages for the use of the third-class passengers. He asked whether it was by the order of the directors that he did not place foot-warmers in the third-class carriages, and he said it was. He was offered a little gratuity for the use of a foot-warmer, but he refused it, saying that he could not accept it, because if he did so and placed a foot-warmer in a third-class carriage he would be dismissed. He said, if you want a foot-warmer you will have to apply to the station-master. Of course, he was only performing his duties in accordance with the orders of his directors, but my friend did not consider that he ought to have to go to the station-master and beg for the use of a foot-warmer. I submit with every confidence that everyone who knows anything about travelling in this country would consider it a monstrous, and unheard of thing if a third-class passenger, because he was a third-class passenger, were denied the use of a foot-warmer. No doubt it is a small thing, but, as I said, it indicates to some extent the spirit which animates the Great Southern and Western Railway, and I trust that this proposed joint board, consisting of directors of the Great Western Railway and the Great Southern and Western Railway, when they come to manage this new line, will show a little more reasonable spirit to the traders and passengers who will avail themselves of the line. I quite agree that when this line is made it will be found to be a great advantage, and, with the qualification I first indicated—namely, that the company should be held to their original proposal to remit the whole of the £14,000 a year to the county and city of Waterford—I cordially approve of the Bill.
  Motion made—
  "That Standing Orders CCXXIII. and CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a third time."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  (Queen's Consent signified.) Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  LAND CHARGES BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 290.]
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Congresbury; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against: From Cupar; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Durham (4); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT 65).
  Return [presented 6th July] to be printed. [No. 279.]
  TRAWLER NELLIE.
  Return [presented 6th July] to be printed. [No. 280.]
  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868.
  Copy presented of Report of the Board of Trade under Part III. of the Act. Orders for Fishery Grants, 1897–8 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 281.]
  ARMY (PRELIMINARY RETURN).
  Copy presented of Preliminary Return of the British Army for 1897, with Abstracts, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICE (CANDIDATES).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 17th May; Mr. Provand]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the Nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 282.]

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the Nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Water Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 283.]

  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return ordered "of Street and Road Tramways authorised by Parliament, showing the amount of Capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of Tramway authorised, and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers, down to the 30th day of June, 1898; the gross Receipts, working Expenditure, and net Receipts; the number of Passengers conveyed and the number of miles run by Cars during the year ending the 30th day of June, 1898; together with the number of Horses,
  144
  Engines, and Cars at that date (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No 375 of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments to—
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
    SHERINGHAM GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    without Amendment.
WISHAW WATER BILL.
  CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.

    CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    EAST HAM IMPROVEMENT BILL,
    with Amendments.

    ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
    That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to regulate the immigration of aliens."
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Also a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Broughton-in-Furness Water, Hayling Water, Portsmouth Water, Ross Water, Saint Neot's Water, and Wrexham Water."
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No.. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
    Also a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Carlisle Tramways, Hartlepool Tramways, and City of Oxford and District Tramways."
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Also a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Colwyn Bay, Macduff, Medina River, Portsmouth Camber Quays, and Southwold."
    SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
    And also a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise the improvement of the existing harbour and the construction of a dock at Seaham Harbour, in the county of Durham, and works connected therewith; and for other purposes."
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]
    SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    FOLKESTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    FLOODS PREVENTION BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 294.]
  NEW BILL.

    ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS.
    Bill to amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 295.]

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH PIG-REARING INDUSTRY.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that in parts of England, Scotland, and Wales rules exist preventing the people from keeping Irish-reared pigs for fattening purposes, and that the enforcement in Great Britain of the rules referred to causes a serious loss to Irish farmers by keeping the price of store pigs and suckers much below their value; whether he is also aware that several pig-dealers have been fined in Great Britain for selling Irish-bred pigs intended to be kept for the purpose of fattening; and whether he will direct that in future Irish-reared pigs, if sound, may be sold for any purpose and in every market in Great Britain?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): Local authorities in Great Britain have in some instances considered it necessary to make regulations prohibiting or regulating the movement of swine from Ireland with a view to safeguard their districts against the

  147
  introduction of disease, and I believe that in some cases pig-dealers have been fined for breach of those regulations. I could not properly withdraw from local authorities the discretionary powers which they possess to thus protect themselves, but I should, of course, bring under their notice any representations made to me on the subject.

  FEMALE TELEGRAPHISTS AT CORK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN, on behalf of the honourable Member for Cork [Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien]: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there are five female telegraphists in the Cork telegraph office, employed in a temporary capacity for five years and over, who have obtained Civil Service certificates, passed the medical examination, and have served as acting telegraphists; will he explain why, although vacancies have recently occurred, these females have not been placed on the establishment, owing to transfers from outside stations; and, in view of the undertaking given by former Postmasters General that the interests of local officers would not be interfered with by transferees, whether steps will be taken to have the present female temporary staff placed on the establishment before any further transfers are sanctioned?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): There appears to be only one female telegraphist who has been temporarily employed for five years, although there are five others who have been employed for about four years. There has been only one recent transfer, on the female side, to the Cork office, and even that case was really one of exchange. A Cork telegraphist applied for transfer to Mallow, and by sending to Cork the officer intended for the Mallow vacancy it was possible to meet her wish. The officer who had been selected for Mallow had lost her former situation through a revision, and it was necessary to find another place for her. The Postmaster General does not recall the undertaking
  148
  said to have been given by his predecessors. All Postmasters General have reserved to themselves the right to transfer officers when they deemed it necessary or expedient to do so.

  WAIMA INCIDENT.
  MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the general negotiations which included the question of compensation in respect of the British officers and men killed at Waima have yet been completed; and whether he is in a position to state what the compensation proposed by the French Government may be?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): I stated in reply to a Question on the same subject on June 28th that the general negotiations, in which the case of Waima, with several others, is included, were now about to be resumed, the Niger negotiations having terminated. The answer therefore to both Questions of the honourable Member is in the negative.

BRITISH TRADE WITH MADAGASCAR.
MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has come to his knowledge that the French Government have lately prohibited the natives of Madagascar from trading in certain kinds of calico with English firms; and whether any representations have been made to the French Government on the matter?
MR. CURZON: The answer to the honourable Member's Question was contained in a reply which I gave to a Question on the same subject on Tuesday. The notice issued by the French Government contained a strong recommendation of French, but not a prohibition of British goods.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION IN IRELAND.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken by the Commissioners of National Education with the object of providing technical instruction in Irish National schools?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The final Report of the Commission on manual and practical instruction in primary schools under the Board of National Education in Ireland was laid on the Table of the House on Tuesday last, and was received by the Board to-day. Obviously, the Board will have to take the Report into consideration before taking any steps in the direction suggested in the Question.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS IN COUNTY MONAGHAN.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the county of Monaghan grand jury on Saturday last passed a resolution condemning the action of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) for keeping the gates on level crossings too long closed, and thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the public; whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company shunt trains over a level crossing at Castleblaney, which causes great delay to people entering or leaving the town with vehicles; whether he can state if the Great Northern Railway Company are acting legally in shunting trains over level crossings; and whether he will take any steps in the matter?
MR. MACALEESE: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade has he seen a resolution of the Monaghan grand jury, passed on Saturday last, condemnatory of the inconvenience caused to the public by level crossing gates on the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) being kept closed sometimes for so long as 25 minutes; and will he use his opportunities to put a stop to this practice?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade have received a copy of the resolution referred to. The law governing shunting of trains over level crossings is contained in section 5 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, and only applies to crossings authorised after the passing of that Act. As I understand it the Castleblaney crossing was authorised as far back as 1845, and the Statute would not therefore seem to apply. In cases governed by the Act it is open to parties aggrieved to take proceedings. The Board of Trade do not prosecute, but if the honourable Members desire to furnish the Department with cases in which there is shunting over crossings to which the Act applies, I shall be happy to direct the attention of the company to the complaint. As the honourable Members are no doubt aware, a footbridge has been erected, or is in course of erection, at Castleblaney.
MR. FLAVIN: Has the Board of Trade any power to compel a railway company to allow a level crossing to be erected across their line?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: What? To compel them to allow a level crossing to be "erected"?
MR. FLAVIN: "Constructed," if you wish.
[No Reply.]

REINSTATEMENT OF EVICTED TENANTS.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many separate applications and how many joint applications have been made under section 47 of the Land Act of 1896; what have been the results in the case of the separate applications and in the case of the joint applications; and how many tenants have been reinstated in their holdings under section 47?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: 533 applications were received by the Irish Land Commission under section 47 of the Act of 1896; 506 of these were made by the

151
former tenants alone, and in 27 cases the applications were joint applications within the meaning of the Statute. Of the 506 applications referred to, 112 were refused by the Commission, as the applications did not come within the provisions of the Statute; 10 were withdrawn; and in the remaining 384 cases the landlords objected to the proceedings, and the Commissioners were therefore unable to take any further steps on the applications. Of the 27 joint applications 20 were either dismissed or refused by the Commissioners, one was withdrawn, in two the sales have been completed, and the holdings have been vested in the former tenants, while four cases are still pending.
MR. DILLON: Then I understand that only two tenants have been reinstated by the operation of the clause?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At present that is so.

BULLETS FOR THE KHARTOUM EXPEDITION.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a special bullet has been manufactured to be used by the British troops in the Khartoum expedition; if so, on what grounds has it been found necessary to supply the troops with a special bullet; and whether the War Office has had any medical report as to the effect of the bullet on animals before allowing it to be used in war?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,): No special bullet has been manufactured for use in Egypt. The bullet sent is that which has been adopted for general use in the Army after experiment and medical report.
MR. MACNEILL: Is that the dum-dum bullet?
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No, Sir, it is not.

CUSTOMS BOATMEN.
MR. LAFONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the proposed reduction of boatmen in Her Majesty's. Customs, the Treasury will advise the Board to add five years to the term of the old boatmen who have been over 30 years in the service, and are over 50 years of age, as the superannuation is so small for these officers under the present rules?
MR. HANBURY: Under section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, the decision whether any term of years shall be added to the period of service, for superannuation purposes, of an officer retiring through abolition of office rests, not with the head of his Department, but with the Treasury. Since the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments the Treasury have limited the exercise of their powers under that section to cases in which certain conditions are fulfilled, chiefly in regard to the amount of saving to be effected by the change of organisation in view. The reductions in the number of Customs boatmen have already been effected to a considerable extent without any occasion arising for the application of that section. So far as can be seen at present, the remainder of the contemplated reductions may admit of being carried out without need for recourse to exceptional measures.

1ST BATTALION PRINCE OF WALES' OWN LEINSTER REGIMENT.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the great satisfaction felt in Canada at the return of the 100th Royal Canadian Regiment, and of the refusal of any Canadian public body or individual to recognise the regiment by its recently conferred War Office title, the War Office will restore its old and famous number and name to the battalion known as "The 1st Battalion Prince of Wales' Own Leinster Regiment"; and whether he will state what connection, if any, has ever existed between the 100th Regiment and the province of Leinster, or between the

153
100th Regiment and the 109th Bombay Infantry, now styled by the War Office "The 2nd Battalion Prince of Wales' Leinster Regiment" (Royal Canadians)?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. St. JOHN BRODRICK,): The question of the regiment's title will be considered when the results of steps now being taken to enlist men in Canada are apparent. The 100th and 109th Regiments have been linked together as the Leinster Regiment since 1881, but there was no previous connection.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that since this question has been raised it has transpired that enlistment in Canada is at a great disadvantage in consequence of the change of title? Does he know men will not enlist Unless the word "Canada" is restored?
MR. BRODRICK: It is obviously unwise to create a title unless there is some sort of connection between it and the place whence the regiment springs. It is necessary, to justify the suggested change, that there should be some disposition shown to recruit the regiment in Canada.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is the War Office aware of the long debate which took place in the Dominion Senate on——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now arguing on the Question.

RED SEA LIGHTS.
MR. C. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether answers have yet been received to the proposals for the better lighting of the Red Sea which he recently stated had been made to the maritime Powers?
MR. CURZON: Answers have been received, but the matter is still under discussion with certain of the Powers; and Her Majesty's Government are at the present moment awaiting a reply to a communication which was addressed by them to the French Government on the subject in April last.

WORMWOOD SCRUBBS.
MR. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to a letter from the War Department, dated 23rd May, 1898, to the London County Council, refusing them permission, as asked in a letter of the 10th of the same month, to make up and gravel an existing path across Wormwood Scrubbs; whether, referring to the Wormwood Scrubbs Act, 1879, and more particularly to sections 3 and 4 thereof, he can state the reasons of that refusal; and whether the Secretary of State will refer the matter to arbitration, as provided by section 4 of the said Act?
MR. BRODRICK: This question has been constantly under review by the War Department at the instance of those locally interested. Wormwood Scrubbs was obtained by public money for the purpose primarily of furnishing an exercising ground for the troops in the metropolis, and especially for the Household Cavalry, and it is clearly laid down in the Act that any rights of use conferred upon the inhabitants of the metropolis are to be subjected to the above condition. There is no right of way across the Scrubbs, and the substitution of a gravelled path for the track which the public is now allowed to use when troops are not on the ground would seriously diminish the value of the only exercising ground for cavalry in the neighbourhood of London. The Secretary of State has, however, offered an alternative route somewhat longer but comparatively free from military disadvantages. The Secretary of State does not admit that the proposal of the London County Council, which is opposed to the main provisions of the trust, is one which ought to be referred to arbitration under clause 4 of the Act.

BELTURBET AND BALLYCONNELL DRAINAGE.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that petitions have been recently presented by a number of the inhabitants of the districts around Belturbet and Ballyconnell, praying for steps to be taken to have the district properly drained; and whether any steps in

155
this direction will be taken before winter sets in?
MR. HANBURY: The drainage district is in the hands of trustees appointed under the Act 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 89, whose duty it is to maintain the works and to assess and collect the necessary maintenance rate. In case of default on their part, the Board of Works have power to carry out the necessary works, and to charge the cost upon the district. Complaints having been received as to the condition of the works, the Board's engineer inspected the district, and the Board called upon the trustees to remedy the defects. The matter was considered by the trustees at a meeting on the 12th May last, and they ordered a levy of £400, but as the Board's engineer estimated that it would take a very much larger sum to put the district into a proper condition the Board wrote to that body on the 28th May that if more Strenuous efforts were not made within a reasonable time to put the district into proper repair they would be compelled to carry out the works themselves. No reply having been received to this letter, the Board on the 29th ultimo wrote that unless a satisfactory answer was received within ten days from that date they would exercise the statutory powers as to maintenance.

ANNALY ESTATE, COUNTY LONGFORD.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the proceedings for sale of the Annaly estate, in county Longford, are not yet completed, notwithstanding the frequent promises of the legal agent having carriage of sale; and whether anything can be done to remove the deadlock which seems to have arisen in that matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court states that the proposal of the Land Commission to purchase this estate came before the court on Tuesday last, and was adjourned until the 13th instant, when, I understand, there is every probability the matter will be closed.

TREATMENT OF IMBECILE CHILDREN.
SIR M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that on account of insufficient accommodation for imbecile children suffering from epilepsy, the guardians of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, were recently obliged to admit an imbecile child so afflicted into a private lunatic asylum; that the Middlesex County Asylum on being applied to previously had refused to receive this case owing to the over-crowded state of that asylum; and, if so, whether it is intended to take any immediate steps with a view to provide sufficient accommodation for such cases?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I have made inquiry in this matter, and learn that the boy referred to is 8 years of age, that he was formerly an inmate of the Darenth Asylum, but was removed by his parents, and that when subsequently admitted to the Bethnal Green Workhouse the guardians found a difficulty in obtaining accommodation for him either at the asylums of the Metropolitan Asylums Board or of the Asylums Committee of the London County Council, and he has been sent to the Hoxton Licensed House. The managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District are considering the question of additional provision, and I understand that the London County Council are providing additional asylum accommodation.

MATAAFA, THE SAMOAN EXILE.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what is the latest Consular Report in reference to the exiled Samoan Chief Mataafa; and whether Her Majesty's Government still refuse to permit his return notwithstanding that the other Governments concerned, the United States and Germany, have expressed their willingness to terminate his exile?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government, the German Government, and the United States Government have all agreed to the return, under certain conditions, of the Chief Mataafa to Samoa.

MULLINGAR BARRACKS.
MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, can he state, approximately, the date on which the barracks at Mullingar will be reoccupied by troops?
MR. BRODRICK: The barracks at Mullingar will probably be reoccupied in the autumn after the drill season is over.

CIVIC ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland under what section or clause of the Local Government Bill it is proposed to fix the date of the election of mayors and sheriffs in boroughs?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): These dates are fixed under the Amendment put down by the Government to clause 67 of the Local Government Bill.

PROMOTION IN THE R.I.C.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although by rule 4 of the Circular of 17th January, 1895, head constables are eligible to compete for promotion to the rank of district inspector at special examinations if over 42 years of age, discontent prevails among them at the narrow limits of age; are there about 20 "P" head constables over 42, and is such number certain to increase yearly; and are men who could not pass these examinations eligible for promotion up to 48 by means of a qualifying examination; has he observed that only about ten head constables competed within the past two years, and that four failed two or three times; and, in view of the desirability of securing a larger range of choice, will rule 4 be modified and the age raised to 48 for all head constables who are physically fit?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under section 4 of the Circular mentioned head
158
constables, not exceeding the age of 42 years, can obtain promotion to the rank of district inspector by competitive examination. Those who merely pass a qualifying examination are eligible, under the general regulations, for promotion to that rank up to 48 years of age. This arrangement, which affords to young and clever men under 42 a better chance of promotion, is, it is believed, satisfactory to the force generally, though individuals who have failed and are now over 42 years of age may be dissatisfied with the arrangement. Fourteen head constables over 42 hold what is known as the P qualification; and it is possible that this number will be augmented in future. The answer to the third and fourth paragraphs is in the affirmative. It would be contrary to the intention of the Circular of January, 1895, to extend the limit of age as suggested, the object of the Circular being to afford men under 42 a better opportunity of promotion. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, all head constables are eligible for promotion up to 48 by means of qualifying examination.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it be fair to treat the competitive examination as equivalent to the qualifying examination?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not quite follow the honourable Member.
MR. T. M. HEALY: A man who passes only the qualifying examination has a right to become a sub-inspector up to 48 years of age, but he who passes the competitive examination loses the right after 42 years of age.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, I think that is an error. The right continues up to 48 years of age in every case. The right ceases at 42 only in consequence of non-success in the competitive examination.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why should not the competitive examination, which is the more severe, qualify a man up to 48 years of age?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The object is to give a special opportunity to comparatively young men to obtain promotion if they can show they are specially qualified by the competitive examination.

159
Although promotion by competitive examination ceases after 42 years of age, it still continues by means of the qualifying examination.
MR. T. M. HEALY: This is an important matter. I will raise it on the estimates.

LOANS FOR TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state under what Act and section thereof money can be obtained by local authorities to provide technical and industrial, institutions; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board recently refused to advance a loan to the Blackrock Commissioners for the purpose of building a technical and industrial institution; and whether facilities will be granted under the Local Government Bill to enable the erection and maintenance of technical and industrial institutions?
MR. ATKINSON: The enactment referred to in the first paragraph is the first section of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889. I am aware of the matter mentioned in the second paragraph, but since then the board have been advised that they have power to make such an advance, and the Commissioners will be so informed. No provision need, therefore, be made enabling the Local Government Board to deal with the matter.

FEMALE RATE COLLECTORS.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Clogher Board of Guardians have appointed as rate collector Anne Magill, whose qualifications satisfied the board; whether the Irish Local Government Board refuse to sanction, this appointment solely on the ground of sex, and propose to appoint a man instead; and whether several precedents for such an appointment as that made by the Clogher Board of Guardians already exist in England? In
160
putting the Question I should like further to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is aware that this lady has acted for five years, and that there are several lady collectors in England at the present time?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe that is the case, but the conditions in England and Ireland are not the same. As I am making inquiries I will ask my honourable Friend to postpone the Question till Tuesday.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I am sorry to say, Sir, I cannot put it that day, as on the 12th July I shall be in Ireland.

LABOUR IMMIGRATION INTO ASSAM.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now furnish Members with copies of the Triennial Report on Labour Immigration into Assam, which he received in March, 1897, but which has been withheld from the public until the India Office had received the comments of the Government of India and the local government upon it?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): No. The matter still stands as it was when I gave my answer to the honourable Member on the 9th May last.
MR. SCHWANN: There will not be much chance of debating the matter at the end of the Session.

NIGER CONVENTION.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether maps are in course of preparation showing the delimitations of territory made by the recent Niger Convention between England and France, and whether any such map will be issued as a Parliamentary Paper in view of the commercial interests such territorial arrangements affect; and is he aware that in the Royal Geographical Society's Journal for July there is a map of Raven-

161
stein's showing the northernmost limit of British territory as 11° 20′, and a similar map is issued in the journal, Le Tour du Monde, No. 27, of 2nd July?
MR. CURZON: A map will be presented with the Convention in the Treaty series. The honourable Member must have been misinformed as to the map in the Geographical Journal to which he alludes, for on looking at it I find that the northernmost limit of British territory is not drawn at 11° 20, which would have been incorrect, but is drawn at the distance of 50 miles to the north of Sokoto, and somewhat to the north of the 14th parallel, which is correct. I cannot speak for the map in the Tour du Monde, which I have not seen.

CLONES MAILS.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the late acceleration of mails from Dundalk has conferred no benefit upon the people of Clones, as the letters are delayed two hours after their arrival in the Clones post office, and are not delivered till commercial and other gentlemen have had to leave by train for their day's business; and will he take steps to remedy the grievance complained of without delay?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that there is at present no delivery of letters by postmen at Clones immediately following the arrival of the mails from Dundalk, which have recently been accelerated. The question of readjusting the deliveries at Clones is, however, under consideration.

BONDED STORES IN IRELAND.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many bonded stores are in county Armagh, how many in county Louth, how many in county Tyrone, and how many in county Monaghan; and, if there is no bonded
162
store in county Monaghan for the convenience of the merchants and traders of that county, will he cause one to be established?
MR. HANBURY: There are three bonded stores in county Armagh, 11 in county Louth, six in county Tyrone, and none in county Monaghan. For some years past it has been the policy of the Government to refrain from extending the number of small warehouses, and to concentrate the bonding business in large centres of trade and population. A bonded store could not be established in county Monaghan without departing from that policy; and there is the less reason for such a departure, as the people requiring bonding facilities in county Monaghan are very few, and they already have warehouses within reasonable distance.

SUGAR BOUNTIES CONFERENCE.
MR. BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information in reference to the present position of the Brussels Conference on the question of sugar bounties?
MR. CURZON: The present situation is clearly explained in the Report from the British delegates at the recent Conference, which is now in the printers' hands, and will very shortly be presented. The honourable Member will find therein the information that he desires.

PILLAR BOX REPAIRS AT WREXHAM.
MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the pillar box at the corner of Rhosddu and Grosvenor Roads, Wrexham, was recently closed to public use for five weeks for the execution of some small repair; and that, although the necessary work might have been done locally in a few hours, the defective portion of the box was sent to Shrewsbury for repair; and whether in future some course will be adopted which would prevent such public inconvenience?
MR. HANBURY: It is true that the letter box in question was closed to public, use while the aperture plate, which was broken, was sent to the makers for repair, and I am afraid that there was some unnecessary delay in returning it. I can only express regret for the inconvenience so occasioned. It is not necessary, however, to change the present system, which admits of repair being made locally when practicable.

GAMBLING IN GRAIN FUTURES.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has considered the advisability of arranging an international governmental conference with a view be prevent corners in food stuffs; and whether the systematic gamblings in futures and corn options carried on by combined operators in the principal exchanges of the world may be modified or counteracted by united co-operative governmental action to protect the producer and consumer?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have answered the honourable Gentleman many similar questions. May I ask him to accept from me this, that I do not propose to take any steps towards such an international conference as the honourable Member suggests. I do not consider that combined State action for moderating or counteracting the operations referred to would have any useful result.

CARRICKMACROSS MAILS.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the improved mail arrangements from Dundalk to Enniskillen recently made will also benefit Carrickmacross, Castleblaney, and Ballybay; and, if not, will he explain why?
MR. HANBURY: The accelerated day mail train from Dundalk to Enniskillen is to call at Castleblaney and Ballybay, but whether the postmen's delivery
164
should be made at once or wait, as before, for the arrival of the Scotch letters, is a matter which is being considered. In any case callers will be able to obtain their English letters earlier. Carrickmacross is not upon the main line, but upon one of the branches, and the railway company have not yet finally determined what the arrangements for the branch lines are to be.

ENNISKILLEN POST OFFICE.
MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if a site has yet been procured for the new post office in Enniskillen; if so, where, and when does the Department purpose to proceed with the work?
MR. HANBURY: The purchase of the old Presbyterian church, with two small houses in front, in East Bridge Street, Enniskillen, as a site for a new post office, has been authorised, and the necessary legal arrangements are now in progress. Until the conveyance is completed it is impossible to state when the buildings will be begun.
MR. JORDAN: Can the right honourable Gentleman say if it will be before the end of the financial year?
MR. HANBURY: I should think so.

BROTHERS NATU.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the movable property of the brothers Natu has not yet been all restored to them; whether he will cause it now to be restored without further delay; and whether he will grant them compensation on account of the illegal detention of their property for so many months?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have no information regarding the details to which the first Question refers, but if any part of the property has been illegally attached it must neces-

165
sarily be restored; and I am confident that quite apart from any legal remedies open to the Natu brothers, the Government of Bombay will give full and prompt consideration to any representations made to them on the subject.

FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, pending negotiations with the North Sea Powers for the international regulation of the North Sea fisheries, he will, looking to the strained relations now existing among the different classes of fishermen, consider the propriety of arranging with those Powers for the temporary suspension of all trawling in the Moray Firth?
MR. CURZON: However desirable such a prospect might be, Her Majesty's Government see no likelihood of being able to persuade the North Sea Powers to forego their rights of fishing outside the territorial limit in Scottish waters.

RECRUITING STATISTICS.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House of the number of recruits enlisted during the three months ending 30th June, specifying how many are specials for height or physique, and comparing these numbers with similar figures for the same three months of last year, and, if possible, giving the number of infantry recruits joining the territorial regiments of the districts to which they belong and the numbers not doing so; and if he will state the number of reservists in each of the three arms who have rejoined during this period of this year?
MR. BRODRICK: It is too soon after the close of the quarter for all, these figures to be available. If the Question is repeated a week hence, I hope to be able to answer it.

INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will inquire from the Government of India whether any and, if so, what proposals or recommendations have been made as to prolonging the period of Indian Medical Service officers in principal medical officers' offices to enable them to acquire a sufficient knowledge of military duties before their promotion to administrative military appointments after long years of employment in civil medical billets?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Government of India would forward to me any recommendations they considered necessary or likely to improve the general efficiency of the Medical Service, and I see no reason for making the inquiry suggested.

ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the exact strength of Army medical officers required for two army corps, this strength to include the number of Army surgeons of all ranks required on the staff for bearer companies, for field, stationary; and general hospitals, and hospitals on the line of communications?
MR. BRODRICK: Two army corps would require 226 medical officers, including administrative ranks; but this does not include the line of communications. The stationary and general hospitals would form a part of the line of communications. A stationary hospital of 100 beds has four medical officers, and a general hospital of 520 beds has 20. The number of these hospitals would depend on the length of the line, the climate, and the nature of the campaign.

BELFAST MAGISTRACY.
MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the large population of Belfast, the Government will put it on an equality with

167
other large towns of the United Kingdom by appointing the resident magistrates stipendiary magistrates for the administration of justice, and relieving the local justices of the peace of the duty of attending the courts, especially having regard to the fact that this course was strongly recommended by the Royal Commission of 1887?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Legislation would be necessary to give effect to this recommendation of the Commission of 1887, and the present Government, like previous Governments, have not seen their way to introduce legislation on the subject. I cannot give any undertaking to deal with the matter in the future.

EXPULSION OF MR. LILLIE FROM SIAM.
SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in 1890 Herr Goethe, a German subject, proprietor and editor of the Mercantile Gazette, published at Bangkok, was tried by the German Consular Court for having published articles against the King of Siam; and whether, that being the offence imputed to Mr. Lillie, the same procedure might have been followed in Mr. Lillie's case, in order that the justice of the allegations made against him might have been judicially tested?
MR. CURZON: We have no information with regard to the case mentioned in the first Question, and I am accordingly unable to offer any opinion as to whether it would have been practicable to adopt the same procedure in the case of Mr. Lillie.

POONA PRESS COMMITTEE.
MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a copy of the Government Resolution directing the appointment of a Press Committee for Poona has appeared in the Gazette of India; and whether he will lay a copy of the Resolution upon the Table of the House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: In my answer of the 28th ultimo I have given the honourable Member all the information I possess on the subject. I have not seen any Resolution appointing a Committee for Poona.

SPECIAL LEAVE FOR POSTMEN.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in the order of April, 1891, granting to postal employees special leave without deduction from pay up to three days in case of death, or urgent distress at home, or other exceptional circumstances, has been cancelled or modified; is he aware that when claims for such leave have been made postmasters have pleaded ignorance of the existence of the order; and should the order still remain in force, will he issue an instruction to postmasters on the subject?
MR. HANBURY: The privilege to which the honourable Member refers has not been cancelled or modified. The Postmaster General is not aware that applications for special leave under the circumstances contemplated when the privilege was first allowed have been refused. This being so, no fresh instructions appear to be needed.

ESSEX AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that two auxiliary postmen employed for five and six years respectively in a small sub-office in Essex, at wages of 9s. per week, have recently been called upon to refund a sum of 9d. per week as and from the 1st April, 1897; if so, on what ground is the demand made, and can it be legally enforced?
MR. HANBURY: It is not the case that these men were called upon to refund 9d. a week from their wages. As a matter of fact, while they used to be paid 9s. for their service on weekdays and

169
alternate Sundays, they will now receive 8s. 3d. for the weekdays and 1s. 7d. on each alternate Sunday, Sunday service under the Tweedmouth scheme being separately paid for. The postmaster seems to have misunderstood the facts, and led the men to believe that they might have to refund the 9d., but he was under a misapprehension.

DROMORE POSTMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the postmen at Dromore, county Down, post office are usually compelled to wait three months for the bank holiday pay; and what is the reason for the delay?
MR. HANBURY: It is feared that there has been some unnecessary delay in paying the postmen at Dromore, county Down, for bank holiday work. Inquiry is being made as to the cause of this, and steps will be taken to prevent any similar delay in future.

BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAINAGE.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it was provided in the Blackrock and Kingstown Drainage Act, 1896, that the Drainage Board should, within two months from the passing of the Act, obtain an engineer's certificate that the works legalised by the Act had been completed; and that Mr. Usher Roberts, the engineer nominated by the Local Government Board, has several times between October, 1896, and April, 1898, examined the works, but found them in such a condition that he refused to certify that they were efficient; and whether, in consequence of the failure of the Drainage Board to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1896, he will order an inquiry to be made by the Irish Local Government Board into the condition of the drainage works?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The powers of the Local Government Board in this matter are limited by section 4 of the Act to nominating the engineer who is to give the certificate required by the section, and the Board have no power to cause a local inquiry to be held, as suggested, or to take any further steps with respect to the certificate.

TWELFTH OF JULY IN BELFAST.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have not given him private notice; but, as the matter is very urgent, perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will be able to answer it without notice. It is to ask what measures have been taken by the Executive for the preservation of life and property in Belfast on the occasion of the Orange procession which is to take place on the 12th of July (Tuesday next); whether it is the fact that the magistrates of Belfast have decided to refuse to allow any extra police to be drafted into the city for that occasion; whether the commander of the military district has written to the magistrates remonstrating with them on this course, and declining to allow the military to be used in place of the police unless the police are overpowered; and, under these circumstances, what steps the Government propose to take to protect the property of Catholics and the lives of the citizens?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I must ask notice of that question.
MR. DILLON: I will put it down for to-morrow.

ENFIELD FACTORY WORKMEN AND THE EAST HERTS ELECTION.
The following Question appeared on the Paper:—
MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the occasion of the late election in East Herts the workmen employed at the Small Arms

171
Factory at Enfield Lock were promised time off to record their votes, and that notice to this effect was posted up in the factory, but on the morning of the election this notice was cancelled by the officials; that on the men complaining they were again informed that they would be allowed time off, and the order was cancelled again later in the day; and will he explain what was the reason for these instructions being changed?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the Question on the Paper standing in the name of the honourable Member for Walthamstow, and whether it is the fact that on the occasion of the late election in East Herts——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is committing a breach of the rules of the House. He is now reading a Question printed on the Paper.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps I would be in order in asking the right honourable Gentleman whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that any breach of faith was committed by the War Office with regard to the Enfield workmen who recorded their votes in the recent election in East Herts?
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The statements made in the Question on the Paper are entirely inaccurate. The fact is that such of the men employed in the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock as are voters in East Herts were allowed two hours' leave with pay to enable them to vote on the occasion of the late election, and 166 availed themselves of the privilege. The original notice on this subject posted in the factory was not rescinded, nor was it removed until after the election.

ESTIMATES.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: What Votes are to be taken to-morrow?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): First the four Votes for which the Secretary to the Treasury is responsible, and then the Law Charges Vote.
MR. DILLON: I understood that the arrangement was to take the Law Charges Vote—which is the most important—first.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: What are the four Votes it is proposed to take?
MR. HANBURY: Public Buildings, Railways, Valuation Office, and Office of Works.
MR. DILLON: Surely it would be only reasonable and convenient that the Law Charges Vote should be taken first. Last year we had no opportunity of discussing it, for it was closured.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I fully appreciate the motives of the honourable Gentleman in making the suggestion, and I will explain exactly why the order I have indicated was proposed. There is a good deal of work to be done in connection with the Local Government Bill by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, and it is desirable that it should be done when the draftsman can be present. It would be a very great convenience to the Irish Office if the presence of my right honourable Friends were not required in the House while the earlier Votes are taken. Perhaps the difficulty would be met by an undertaking that an opportunity for discussing the Law Charges Vote shall be given, and, if necessary, the Debate on the other Votes shall be adjourned.
MR. DILLON: At what hour?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall be glad to consult the views of honourable Gentlemen opposite.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the Debate on Irish Supply be taken on Friday next week?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir.

BRITISH RESIDENT AT RAROTONGA.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had brought to his notice the report of the Chief Justice of New Zealand, as Com-

173
missioner sent to inquire into the position of the British Resident in the Island of Rarotonga; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any decision in regard to Sir James Prendergast's recommendations?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes; I have considered the report of Sir James Prendergast. It has been decided that the existing arrangements shall continue, but that Mr. Moss, the British Resident, shall retire, and that on the appointment of his successor provision shall be made for the constitution of a court for the trial of cases in which persons other than natives are concerned.

BRITISH NEW GUINEA.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is fully satisfied as to the validity of the Ordinance conferring upon the British New Guinea Syndicate the right of acquiring land to the extent of 250,000 acres in that dependency, in view of the fact that clause 20 of the amended Act for the administration of British New Guinea makes it mandatory on the Government of Queensland to consult the Governments of the other contributing colonies on all matters other than those of ordinary administration, and that this provision has admittedly not been complied with?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The provision to which the Question, of the honourable Member refers is part of an agreement between the Imperial Government and the Governments of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, which was scheduled to a Queensland Act. Assuming that the provision is applicable to the grant of land in question, the omission of the Government of Queensland to act upon it would not affect the validity of a British New Guinea Ordinance, but I understand that the Queensland Government considered that they were entitled to decide the question as an act of ordinary administration.

CALLIOPE DOCK, AUCKLAND.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided to subsidise the Calliope Dock, Auckland, from Imperial funds; and whether Auckland will in future be officially regarded as a second naval station in Australasian waters?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): It has not yet been decided to subsidise the Calliope Dock, but negotiations are in progress with the Auckland Harbour Board on the subject, and certain proposals have been made to them. The second Question is obviously premature. Perhaps it is safest for me to answer it in the negative.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Another clause, as amended, further considered—

  "(1) The following regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon any bicycle, tricycle, velocipede, or other similar machine, which are in this section included in the expression 'machine': (a) During the period between, one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, every person riding or being upon such machine shall carry attached to the machine a lamp which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the machine; (b) upon overtaking any cart, carriage, or machine, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger being on or proceeding along the carriage way, every such person shall, within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart, carriage, or machine, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the machine.

  "(2) A council of a county borough may make regulations for regulating the use and speed of machines in the streets and roads within the county borough, and for preventing any nuisance, obstruction, or danger being caused by the same; and the provisions of sections 219 to 223 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, with respect to by-laws, shall

  175
  apply to all regulations made under this section as if the same were by laws authorised by that Act.

  "(3) Any person summarily convicted of offending against the regulations made by this section or any regulations made under the powers by this section conferred shall, for each and every such offence, forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding forty shillings."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)

  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: This clause, Sir, follows this lines of the 85th section of the English Local Government Act. At present there is no law regulating the lighting of bicycles and machines of that character in Ireland, and it is well known that there is no part of Europe in which there are so many bicycles, in proportion to the population, at the present time as there are in Ireland. It used to be said in Dublin, in a slang phrase, that it was "the most car-riding place" in the world. It now may be said to be the most "biking" place in the whole Empire. The two sub-sections are copied from the 85th section. The object of sub-section (a) is to compel riders of bicycles, and vehicles of that sort, to carry lights between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise; and the object of the second clause is to compel cyclists to sound a whistle or bell, so as to give notice to foot passengers of their approach. We read every day of the most dreadful accidents occurring to foot passengers through being ridden down by cyclists, especially at night. I do not know what the views of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary are, but I anticipate that there will be no serious opposition to assimilate the law in England and Ireland in this respect. I do not think I need occupy the time of the House in discussing what is so obviously reasonable—namely, that these machines should have lights, and also bells, by which to give notice of their approach. There is a further provision in the section referred to, enabling large cities and boroughs to make by-laws and regulations governing the speed and use of such vehicles. That also appears to me to be a most useful provision, and I may say that very great interest is taken in the success of this proposal in different parts of Ireland. I understand that some honourable Members of this House are not satisfied with the expense to which cyclists will be put in providing
  176
  these lights, but I confess that I do not think that that ought to be taken into account at all. It would be only a few shillings, at the very outside, that these lamps and bells would cost, and if persons do indulge in bicycles, and are able to purchase them, I do not think they can complain of having to pay a few shillings in addition, in order to ensure, not only their own safety, but the safety of the general public.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I desire to support the proposal of the honourable and learned Gentleman opposite, and I should like to propose now the Amendment to this clause, which I have on the Paper——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question now is that the clause should be read a second time. The honourable Member may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment after it has been read a second time.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This is not an unimportant or trivial matter, for I believe some millions of persons in the United Kingdom are interested in this matter. The meaning of bringing in an Amendment of this kind is simple. The clause which the right honourable Gentleman has moved is precisely the same as the Statute law of Great Britain at the present time, and it was, as a matter of fact, introduced into the Local Government Bill for England, and became a part of the Statute law. Now, that part of the Statute law is not at all satisfactory, and it has not proved to be the exact solution they desired. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that some reform in the condition of the law with regard to bicycles in Ireland is essential. The right honourable Gentleman proposes to protect the public who do not use bicycles, and I most cordially support that part of his proposition; but I do hope the right honourable Gentleman who represents the Government on this Bill will allow the existing Statute law of England and of Scotland to be extended to Ireland, as it is a very important matter. If this clause is accepted, as I trust it will be accepted, I think I can give the House conclusive reasons why the Amendment I wish to add to it should also be accepted.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I hope the Chief Secretary will not accept the clause proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone. I do not myself see why we should have a miniature coercion Act imported into this Local Government Bill which is being passed through this House. For my own part, I am not a cyclist. I once tried the experiment of trying to ride, but I was so unfortunate that I did not try it again. I do not think that we should do anything to prevent the spread of cycling among the people of Ireland. It is a healthful exercise, largely availed of throughout the counties of Ireland, and I am not aware that any accident of any serious character has ever resulted from the fact that cyclists did not carry lights and lamps a certain length of time after sunset and before sunrise, or from the fact that they did not blow their whistles or ring their bells. I do not think that there is any place in Ireland where the danger of cycling to the public is anything like what it has been represented to be. I sincerely hope the right hnoourable Gentleman will declare himself against putting into this Bill anything to meet imaginary grievances, which can only have the effect of rendering the work of the county councils cumbersome and impossible of execution. I shall most certainly oppose the Second Reading of this clause, and if the Member for North Tyrone persists in his Motion, I shall vote against it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I certainly think that this is not the time and place to make a proposal of this kind. My objection to it is a two-fold one. In the first place a proposal of this character should have been brought in at the Committee stage. I may be told that there was no opportunity to bring this in before, but certainly we ought to have had notice that the Government intended to accept it. Anybody with the experience of the honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone——
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think my honourable and learned Friend has made a mistake. There was an Amendment on the Paper in Committee to precisely the same effect, and by the arrangement which was come to it was suggested that a number of these Amendments should
  178
  be put in the shape of new clauses. I only mention that as explaining why it now appears as a new clause. This new clause is in precisely the same words as were contained in an Amendment in Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am aware of that, but we are now dealing with an important matter upon the Report stage. I do say that if this is to be considered the Bill ought to be re-committed, and notice given to us so that we could have an opportunity of discussing this penal clause in Committee. We should have some information in advance from the Government as to whether they intend, if they do intend to accept this proposal, as I am afraid, from the ominous silence of the Chief Secretary, and the fact that he brought in a Bill of the same mischievous character a year ago, that we have some grounds for a lurking suspicion that he is going to accept it. We should have notice of it, for this reason. The first thing I would suggest is that after the word "bicycle" to insert the words "or carriage." We could then discuss the entire question of vehicular traffic, which is practically what it amounts to. The cyclist has just as much right to be protected from being run down as a carriage. Why should I be run down in the dark by a carriage which carries no lamps, or by a car that refuses to carry anything? Carriages with indiarubber tyres are become very popular, and they are becoming noiseless like bicycles; therefore, I think it is essential, if this law is to be applied to one section of the community on wheels it is only right to apply it to all sections. We have had no notice of this because I do not think a penal clause has ever been proposed at the Report stage of a Bill without some notice to the House of the intention of the Government to accept it. That is one of my objections, but there is another. I object to the people of Ireland being fined £100,000 for the benefit of Birmingham manufacturers. There are something like a quarter of a million bicycles in Ireland, and lamps are made at Birmingham, and no lamps are made in Ireland, and no bells are made in Ireland. Now, I believe that no bicyclist, unless he is a fool, rides without a bell, but, generally speaking, lamps are not necessary in Ireland. I would not object to this proposal

  179
  so much in the case of Dublin or Belfast, and I would not object to cyclists being compelled to carry lights if it is also made to apply to the grocer's cart and the milkman's cart, as well as to every cyclist. But so far as the general country is concerned, you might go ten miles without meeting a car, a cart, or anything what-ever, either on wheels or on legs, in many of the remote parts of the country. Therefore, to legislate for Ireland, as a whole, as if it was all to be treated upon the same basis, is, in my opinion, an absurdity. There may be a case for it in Belfast and Dublin, but there certainly is no case whatever for it in a great many of the rural districts of the country. But in addition to these points I think this view should be considered. If a man is driving a car, or a cart, he is not often injured in case of accidents, although his horse may be injured; but the bicyclist is nearly always injured if anything runs into him. He is riding at his peril, and that is far more than can be said of the man on the car or cart. If you consider the way in which bicyclists are treated as a rule by those in charge of cars or carriages, I venture to say that the necessity for regulations is in the opposite direction, for the danger is rather the other way about. On the magisterial bench in Ireland there seem to be a number of old gouty gentleman who themselves are unable to ride, and they seem to have the very strongest prejudice against any cyclist who happens to be brought before them, and this Amendment will give them a chance of coming down on cyclists in general with a very severe voice. As a matter of fact I do not think that there has been any invention of recent years, for men and women, which has given such excellent and healthy enjoyment to the population. Certainly, as I understand it, this clause might fairly take up five or six days, if it is to be considered in a proper spirit and from a thorough point of view. Why, every line of it is reeking with matter upon which Amendments ought to be moved. If the Government are determined to shut out every other type of vehicle from their consideration, and confine this law to bicycles, then, of course, we shall have a very enjoyable afternoon. But I would ask the Government to remember this: we brought
  180
  before the House in the Committee stage the very important question of traction engines, and we pointed out that there was some necessity for some provision being made in regard to the cutting up of roads by traction engines, and we showed how, in the county of Cork, a road was thrown out of use from this cause, because the grand jury were unable to do anything more to the road. It appears that a pneumatic tyre is to be put under a penal law, while you allow a traction engine to cut up the roads with impunity. It does appear to me that this is a class of traffic which requires regulating, and you do not propose to give favourable consideration to an Amendment of that kind. This proposal has nothing whatever to do with the scope of the Bill, and it is a proposal to transfer from the grand jury for their existing powers entirely new legislation, not germane to the Measure of the Government, and which ought to be introduced in a special Bill dealing with the subject.
  MR. DAVITT: Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that there are people in Ireland besides gouty judges who do not ride bicycles, and who cannot afford to buy them, and on behalf of that section of the community I beg to support the adoption of this clause. In deference to what has been said, bicycling has become a kind of tyranny. Now, to draw a comparison between a bicycle and another vehicle in a matter of this kind is ridiculous. A bicycle is absolutely under the control of the rider, and can be stopped whenever the rider pleases. ["No, no!"] Well, it is in 999 cases out of 1,000. With reference to the other vehicles, their construction and character give a warning in the traffic to the walking public, whereas a bicycle does not. I think, Sir, that it is a very reasonable proposal which is contained in this Amendment, to provide that county councils in Ireland shall have the power to give some protection to the non-bicycling portion of the community.
  MR. BUTCHER: I entirely sympathise with the views expressed by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth in regard to the question that all vehicles should carry lamps, but

  181
  I do not see why we should not take this opportunity of doing what everybody admits to be the proper thing—namely, to make a provision that bicycles should carry lights now. That is a proviso which I should like to see added to the Bill. But as regards some of the other provisions in the clause I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman realises that if this clause is carried out in its present form it would cause a pandemonium in Ireland. We should have every bicyclist going through a town in Ireland either continuously shouting, or blowing a whistle, or ringing a bell, to the great annoyance of his fellow creatures. If this be part of the law in England, it is one which cannot be enforced, otherwise than by causing us to suffer an intolerable nuisance. Now, what is the law as laid down in the clause? It is that whenever a bicyclist is passing through a town, before he passes
  "any cart, carriage, or machine, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger,"
  he is bound.
  "by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise to give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the machine."
  I quite agree, if he is in any danger of running over a passenger, or into a cart, that he should give warning, but if he is right away on the other side of the road what is the necessity for blowing his whistle or sounding his bell? I am in favour of some reasonable regulations for bicycles passing through towns so as not to annoy passengers, or horses, or anything else; but to pass it in this form, to say that, whether near or far away, or in such a position as to cause alarm or not, you must blow your whistle or sound your bell, to enforce that in its entirety would reduce towns to a pandemonium. I would, therefore, ask if the right honourable Gentleman intends to accept this Amendment, that it should be modified.
  MR. TULLY: I think it is very unfair for the Government to bring in such a penal clause, and to endeavour to rush it through in a Local
  182
  Government Bill on the Report stage. I happen to be a cyclist myself, and have been one for the last 14 or 15 years, and I know as a rule it is more dangerous in a country like Ireland, where you have not a light on every vehicle, to have a few bicycles carrying lamps than to have no vehicles carrying lamps at all. At present they drive without lamps, and when they are not used to lamps a bicycle lamp flashing along the road at night frightens the horses. I have been frequently knocked off myself in consequence of my lamp frightening horses. I think the present state of affairs is far better than if you are merely to apply this coercion Act to cyclists. If there is to be legislation on lights, I should like it on universal lights, and compel every man who uses a vehicle at night to use a lamp. You have in this House been following the custom of the Continent in your Criminal Evidence Bill, and why not follow the Continental procedure in the case of a coercion Act towards bicycles. In France the costermonger with his barrow has to carry a light, and every vehicle has to carry a light, but there horses are used to lights, and consequently there is not the same danger as there is where these lights are applied simply to bicycles. Then there is the question of the speed of these bicycles. The right honourable Gentleman proposes to restrict the speed of bicycles on roads. I do not think there can be very much complaint in Ireland in this respect. It might be so in England, where you have good roads, where you can ride 16 or 17 miles an hour, but it could not be so in Ireland, where the roads are in a bad condition. I do not think the police should have power to arrest a man simply because of their idea as to the speed at which a bicycle is going. I remember, in the city of London I was arrested myself, and taken up, and the policeman who arrested me told the magistrate that I was riding at 50 miles an hour. I told him that I wished I was able to do so, and that if that was the case I should not be a Member of Parliament any longer. I think it is really not a necessary provision in this Bill. I hope the Government will bring it in as a separate Bill, and give us a chance of debating it clause by clause. There will

  183
  be time enough before the next general election to pass an Act like that. If you are going to pass an Act like this, make the Bill a universal Bill, and apply it to public vehicles generally, as well as to bicycles, and have the same law as they have at the present time in Continental countries. On these grounds I wish to enter my objection to this clause, and I shall oppose it in every possible way.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I wish to say a word or two upon the point which has been raised, that this is the law which exists in England and Scotland. Now, I know there is a great deal of tyranny in England in reference to regulations of this kind, and the same thing will occur no doubt in Ireland if this clause is passed. A slight offence cannot be disposed of summarily in the village where it has taken place. The name of the offender is taken down in England, and you may have to go 150 miles to attend the cumbrous procedure which has to take place in the case. Now, in some Continental countries where these regulations are enforced, arrangements are made for dealing with your offence in the town where it is committed. The matter is disposed of at once, and the offender, especially if he is a tourist, is put to no great inconvenience. But if a drastic clause of this character, which, I venture to say, is not sufficiently clear, is passed, I believe it will affect the tourist traffic very materially in Ireland. Mr. Speaker, it would be reasonable that a county council should have power to make regulations of this kind, and the second clause gives this power to county councils.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, to boroughs.
  MR. LOUGH: Well, I think that would be a judicious compromise. I hope my honourable and learned Friend on the Front Bench will just give a little more consideration to that point. Clause 2 gives everything that is necessary in the concluding part of the clause. The proposed new clause suggests that—
  "A council of a county borough may make regulations."
  184
  I would suggest that it should also provide for the council of a county. It would then read that—
  "A council of a county or county borough may make regulations for regulating the use and speed of machines."
  That would abbreviate the discussion, and give everything which is necessary.
  MR. RENTOUL: There are two sub-clauses—(a) and (b). With regard to sub-clause (a), it seems that there is a concensus of opinion that it would be advantageous if lamps were carried by all vehicles. That is no doubt so, but, at the same time, here is a new species of traffic being introduced, and a new class of vehicle being introduced, and it is a common habit for everyone buying a bicycle to buy a lamp along with it, and this provision would be only forcing a few people who neglect that necessary precaution to do it. With regard to this class of vehicle, it is different to all other vehicles. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Louth spoke of cars with india-rubber tyres, but the sound of the footfalls of the horses enables the people to hear in nine cases out of ten that something is coming, and therefore, if it is right to have lamps on vehicles of all sorts, why not allow lamps to be brought in here with regard to this new species of vehicle, and then an Act might be passed to compel all vehicles to have lamps. So much for the sub-section (a). But, coming to sub-section (b), that is another matter altogether. With regard to sub-section (a), it is, of course, a totally different thing. A bicycle is a luxury altogether, which costs £14 or £15 to buy, and it is a totally different thing to compel that man to have a lamp than to compel every poor man to put a lamp on his little donkey-cart. Therefore, it is most absurd to ask that lamps should be put on all round if you put them on bicycles. With regard to subsection (b), the honourable and learned Member for Louth spoke of the clause as if it were necessary to have vehicles such as cars, and wagons, and carts, and so on, protected against the bicycle. Surely no vehicles require any protection whatsoever with regard to bicycles. It is quite the other way about, and it

  185
  seems to me that as far as sounding the bell is concerned in the case of either a cart, carriage, machine, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, the bell is to be sounded for the protection of the bicyclists themselves, and never for the protection of the vehicles, horses, or mules. It is entirely impossible for a bicycle to injure a vehicle, but we know vehicles injure bicycles, and we know they treat bicyclists very badly sometimes, in not affording them opportunities for passing in the road. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that in reference to foot-passengers it is a totally different matter. I agree with the honourable and learned Member for York that if it were possible to enforce it with regard to foot-passehgers it certainly ought to be enforced. I sometimes am on a bicycle myself, and sometimes on a vehicle, but I am very much more frequently on my feet, and I have more interest in foot-passengers than either the bicycle or the person riding in the car or carriage. Now, with regard to the second clause, I think if it were made compulsory to ring the bell in case of passing passengers that it would not be necessary to apply it in all those other cases, as the honourable Member for York pointed out, when going along any village road, because if that condition were imposed you would never cease sounding your bell for one single instant, because you are always passing something, either some horse or vehicle, from start to finish. There are frequently on roads at one and the same time quite a dozen bicycles, and a dozen bells ringing perpetually the whole of the time would be a source of danger, and the drivers would be very confused by the sound of those bells. It is an open question, but many people who have had practical experience, both as foot passengers and bicyclists, say that it is difficult to know whether you should or should not abolish bells altogether, but in my opinion they do more harm in startling people, for people often run in the wrong direction. However, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the sub-section (a), I do hope that the Government will, at any rate, support the Measure with regard to that question. And, with
  186
  regard to the second part, I think it might be modified, and might be applied to foot-passengers, and foot-passengers only. The other parts might be left out altogether; then, I think, it would be a beneficial clause for all sections of the community. It does, as I understand it, protect bicyclists and foot-passengers, and it certainly does not aim at protecting carts and cars along the road.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps it will be well to state what view the Government take upon this proposal. Sir, it is within the knowledge of the House that a clause almost identical with this was inserted in the Local Government Act of 1888, and I myself last year proposed a Measure embodying, almost verbatim, the same provisions. Under these circumstances, the House will of course see that, so far as the substance of the clause is concerned, the Government have no suggestion or criticism to make against it. Though the question does not appear very germane to introduce in a Local Government Bill, I think that objection is met to a very large extent by the fact that, as a matter of fact, such a clause was introduced into the English Local Government Act. But, Sir, though I take that view of the clause, I did not myself put this clause into the Bill, nor did I put it down as an Amendment subsequently, because what I thought was this: I was aware that there were considerable objections and considerable opposition coming from various Members of the House to the Bill which I put down last year, and I did not wish to encumber the present Local Government Bill with more than was necessary.
  MR. DALY: But that was only with regard to vehicles.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Well, I did not feel justified in inserting in a Bill of great complexity and magnitude a clause which was likely to meet with protracted opposition; and, in view of what has been said this afternoon, I do not feel justified in throwing the weight of the Government influence into the scale in favour of this Amendment, I would suggest a compromise, however,

  187
  which will meet the case if it is accepted by the right honourable Gentleman, at the conclusion of the clause, which might, I think, serve the purpose for the time being until the Government are afforded an opportunity to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject. I would suggest that the debatable provision in the first sub-section should be omitted; that we should retain sub-section 2, with certain alterations, so that the sub-section will read—
  "A council of a county borough may make regulations for regulating the use and speed of tricycles, bicycles, and velocipedes, or other similar machines in the streets and roads within the county borough, and the carriage of lights there, and the warning and approach to be given by the persons using the same."
  I would suggest that a provision of that sort would not be open to the objections which have been taken to the clause as proposed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why not apply it to all vehicles?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot agree with the honourable and learned Member for Louth that there should be no distinction drawn in this respect. Other vehicles apparently do give warning by their noise, but the velocipedes are noiseless vehicles, and therefore it is evident that it is desirable to regulate their use. If the clause is adopted in the form I have suggested it will also meet the suggestions of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for York. At the same time I cannot help thinking that as this has been the law of England for a considerable period, and has not given rise to the objections which have been raised, my honourable and learned Friend's observations are somewhat irrelevant. It can also be met by the making of such by-laws as will not involve any change in the circumstances which I have described. I am anxious that the House should not spend more time than is necessary over a clause of this kind, and I venture to suggest to my right honourable Friend that, if he will accept it, the clause may be brought in, which might be passed without opposition from any quarter.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will allow all county councils, instead of merely the councils of county boroughs, to make bylaws respecting these matters, because if he would do that I would not hesitate to accept the offer.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot consent to that, because if you have different by-laws being made in different counties with regard to the carrying of lights, and so forth, I am afraid bicyclists would be often placed in a very awkward position. Such regulations as are made, so far as the counties at large are concerned, should, in my opinion, be uniform.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he approached the matter from a bicyclist's point of view, and if the right honourable and learned Gentleman carried his clause to a Division he should vote with him. At the same time he suggested to the right honourable and learned Gentleman that he might accept the compromise, because there was some-thing to be said in favour of having the Government battalions behind one, and it was always better to get something in place of nothing at all. He looked at the question as a bicyclist. He was not in the fortunate position of half the honourable Gentlemen of the House, who, being railway directors, could travel wherever they liked without paying. His only substitute for that was a couple of days in the country on his machine. As a cyclist he supported the right honourable and learned Gentleman for his own protection, and sometimes self-preservation went a long way, even with honourable Members of the House. He did not feel safe in running up against a bus without ringing his bell, nor did he think he had a right to run down people. At the same time, he would not go the length of saying that vehicles in Ireland should be obliged to have a lamp after a certain hour. He thought the clause was necessary for the protection of cyclists, and if the right honourable and learned Gentleman went to a Division he would receive his hearty support.
  MR. PINKERTONfavoured the clause as it stood, for the great reason that it would give employment to the police. He spoke on the part of those interested in dogs, and thought the police would be better employed in looking after cyclists than in hunting unmuzzled dogs. If the right honourable and learned Gentleman went to a Division he would support him.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICEremarked that it was admittedly a most interesting discussion, but he pointed out that the Session was nearing its end, and everybody in the House desired to see the Bill become law. He thought his right honourable and learned Friend would be inclined to accept the Amendment offered by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but with guarantees. Before that took place, however, he would like to press upon the Chief Secretary the consideration of the variety of practices which might be expected from the different county councils in regard to the making of the by-laws, supposing that that power was left to them. He would suggest that powers might be given, which had an equivalent in the English Act, whereby the county councils were empowered to make by-laws in
  connection with various matters, such as lights on carriages, etc., none of which came into force until confirmed by the Home Office, which exercised a very careful supervision in the matter. Whatever was done, there should be uniformity, so that a bicyclist should not find himself in the position of having broken the law upon passing a boundary line, when in the county he had just left he was strictly within his rights.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he was willing to accept the compromise suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, provided the clause were read a second time.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Certainly not.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I will ask the House to read the clause a second time upon the understanding that I shall then accept the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 36.—(Division List No. 189.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Aird, John

  Biddulph, Michael

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Bill, Charles

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Arnold, Alfred

  Billson, Alfred

  Charrington, Spencer

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Coddington, Sir William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Colville, John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Baird, J. G. Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Caldwell, James

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)

  Cameron, R. (Durham)

  Cox, Robert

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Crean, Eugene

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Carlile, William Walter

  Crombie, John William

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. G.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Barry, F. T. (Windsor)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Curzon, RtHnG.N.(Lanc., SW)

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Cawley, Frederick

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

  Dalbiac, Colonel P. H.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

  Daly, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Pease, A. (Darlington)

  Davitt, Michael

  Jeffreys, Arthur F.

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Perks, Robert William

  Dillon, John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pinkerton, John

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

  Drucker, A.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Kimber, Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Purvis, Robert

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Knowles, Lees

  Rankin, Sir James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Laurie, Lt.-General

  Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leighton, Stanley

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Leng, Sir John

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Round, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lloyd-George, David

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Fry, Lewis

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lowles, John

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Qu'n'sC)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Gordon, Hon. J. E.

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm,N.)

  Spicer, Albert

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  McEwan, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Greene, W. R. (Cambs)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Stock, James Henry

  Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Marks, Henry H.

  Strachey, Edward

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Monk, Charles James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Hardy, Laurence

  More, Robert Jasper

  Wayman, Thomas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morris, Samuel

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrison, Walter

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Murnaghan, George

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Newark, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Holburn, J. G.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wylie, Alexander

  Holden, Sir Angus

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Holland, Hon. L. R.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hornby, William Henry

  O'Kelly, James

  Young, S. (Cavan, E.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  O'Neill, Hon. R. T.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Orr-Ewing, Charles L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  192

  193

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  McLeod, John

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Tuite, James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Price, Robert John

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Souttar, Robinson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  McDermott, Patrick

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out sub-section (1) of the proposed clause reading as under—
  "During the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise every person riding or being upon such machine shall carry attached to the machine a lamp, which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the machine."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. T.M. HEALYsaid the Government had announced at the commencement that the clause would not receive their support. The right honourable Gentleman had distinctly stated that he was not prepared to throw in the weight of the Government in support of it, and asked the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, to accept a modified proposal. The right honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone, in his wisdom, had not seen fit to accept the Amendment. He did not accept the proposal to withdraw the clause.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think the honourable Gentleman misunderstood me. I distinctly stated, and intended to convey, that I accepted what the right honourable Gentleman said.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is what I thought.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, as he understood, the right honourable Gentleman
  194
  certainly intimated that he was not prepared to throw in the weight of the Government in favour of the clause. He was unable to support the clause as a whole, and, not being able to support the clause as a whole, it devolved upon the right honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone to bring it in as a new clause. Had that been done honourable Members of the House would have been in the position of being able to bring in Amendments upon it. But the result of what had taken place was that a new clause was sprung upon the House by Her Majesty's Government without time being given for its consideration so far as the House was concerned. It was one thing for Her Majesty's Government to bring in a new clause of a non-contentious character, but quite a different thing for a private Member's clause to become a Government clause in the manner in which this clause had without the House having an opportunity of discussing it. For his part, he should oppose it to the utmost of his power.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question is not the clause, but whether some portion of it shall or shall not stand part of the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he wished to point out that they were told it was necessary to pass the clause in order to protect the public from the infamous cyclists. Either the clause as a whole was necessary or it was not. For his part he did not see why the House should pass the clause. The suggestion was that it was absolutely necessary, and the honourable Gentleman who supported the

  195
  proposal that during the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise every person riding a bicycle was to have a lamp, and who went with such enthusiasm into the Lobby to support that proposal, were now, he assumed, going to vote the very reverse. If that was so, what was the object of the right honourable Gentleman's proposal? Was the legislation, he respectfully asked, to lose the provision that upon overtaking any cart, carriage, or machine, and before passing such carriage, machine, horse, mule, or beast of burden, everyone was to sound his bell or whistle, or otherwise give sufficient warning of the approach of his machine? Was that to be lost? Was it not on the faith of a proposal such as that that his honourable and learned Friend received the enthusiastic approval of Members of these benches? The position was that all through Ireland, except in these six county boroughs, there was to be no protection of human life from bicycles. Was it to depend upon the question whether one lived in a county borough or not? It would be very unfortunate for his honourable Friend the Member for Tyrone or the Member for Galway. That showed the absolute necessity for this clause. But if a man like himself lived in a county borough was he to get protection which others did not? He offered his deep sympathy to the Government for the predicament in which they were placed, and he appealed to the Government to admit that the position was a reasonable one in regard to the objection. The House had had no notice of this except the undigested and ill-considered provision which the honourable Gentleman had brought forward, he was rather afraid, in collusion with Her Majesty's Government; because, as Lord Randolph
  Churchill once observed, "if you see the two Front Benches in collusion look out for squalls." It was a great pity that the Government itself did not claim the paternity of this as their own proposal, and then they would have known exactly how they stood. It appeared to him that a clause of that sort, that the Government was proposing to omit, was the very one which was the raison d'être of that part of the legislation. It would give him great pleasure to go into the Lobby in order to get this clause in the Bill for the protection of human life in Ireland. He hoped the honourable Member for North Tyrone and others would rise to the occasion and go into the Lobby in support of the proposal to protect human life against bicycles.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he was one of those who went into the Lobby, and he thought he was voting for sub-section 2 of this clause. He did not quite understand where he was. He hoped the Government would throw a little light on the subject, so that when they were going into the Lobby the next time they might know what they were doing. In supporting the Government he was merely supporting sub-section 2, which gave to county boroughs a power which, in his opinion, they had now. They had it in Cork. He would vote for the subsection.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the question before the House was to omit the sub-section.
  Question put—
  "That sub-section (1) stand part of the proposed clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 279.—(Division List No. 190.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Dunn, Sir Wiliam

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Billson, Alfred

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Caldwell, James

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Lough, Thomas

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasg.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  McDermott, Patrick

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  McKenna, Reginald

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  McLeod, John

  Crilly, Daniel

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Morris, Samuel

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Tuite, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  O'Kelly, James

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Pinkerton, John

  Strachey, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.

  Price, Robert John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Aird, John

  Colville, John

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hamond Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cox, Robert

  Hardy, Laurence

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Crean, Eugene

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Crombie, John William

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Helder, Augustus

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Baird, John George A.

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. GN. (Lanc, S.W.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Daly, James

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Davitt, Michael

  Holburn, J. G.

  Banes, Major George E.

  Denny, Colonel

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dillon, John

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, Joseph

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Howell, William Tudor

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Drucker, A.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Bill, Charles

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Blake, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lafone, Alfred

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Butcher, John George

  Fry, Lewis

  Leighton, Stanley

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leng, Sir John

  Cameron, R. (Durham)

  Garfit, William

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Gilhooly, James

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. Geo's)

  Lowles, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Gretton, John

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Coddington, Sir William

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  MacDonnell, Dr.M.A.(Qn's C.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gunter, Colonel

  McEwan, William

  198

  199

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  McKillop, James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Stock, James Henry

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Purvis, Robert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Milton, Viscount

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Monk, Charles James

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Walton, J. (Barnsley)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Morrison, Walter

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Mount, William George

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

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

  Murnaghan, George

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Myers, William Henry

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Williams, J. C. (Notts)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (H'dd'rsf'ld)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Pease, J. A. (North'mberland)

  Souttar, Robinson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Perks, Robert William

  Spicer, Albert

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'a county borough, and insert the words 'an urban district' instead thereof."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I move the Amendment on this ground. The Dublin police, Mr. Speaker, have at this moment in the metropolitan district a right by Statute to regulate the speed of particular vehicles. Now, Sir, I am amazed at Her Majesty's Government proposing to deprive the Dublin police, an important body as they are, by this clause, of the powers which they now have under the Act of the 6th Victoria. I must, Mr. Speaker, describe this is an ill-digested clause, and I venture to say that those who drew it and those who accept it have not the smallest idea at the present moment of what they are at. Now, Sir, will it be believed that from the Phœnix Park in the north down to Bray in the south the rate of vehicular traffic is already regulated by Statute to eight miles an hour; and that Statute, Mr. Speaker, not only regulate bicycles and outside cars, but four-in-hands and carriages of every class
  200
  of moving thing that may go upon the road. Sir, the Government, as I understand, now propose to make an implied repeal of that very useful provision, so that it will be possible to have this state of things, that outside the metropolitan district you may be run over by a car going at the rate of ten miles an hour, and inside the metropolitan district the law will be altogether different, so that all over the metropolitan area of Dublin you will have different jurisdiction. At one moment it will be that of the county borough or the corporation of the county and the city, and at another moment it will be the police from the exterior of the metropolitan area; and this glorious result will follow, that in Rathmines you will be under the police, but if you cross the bridge over the canal—presto! you are under the jurisdiction of the corporation. Therefore, you may be under all these different jurisdictions under the noble clause which my right honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Tyrone has drawn, and that is the proposal that Her Majesty's Government, without a moment's consideration, have thought it good to accept. And observe that this clause is to apply to

  201
  machines. I presume a vehicle includes a machine, and a vehicle has been defined as including anything on wheels, from a car to a perambulator.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, Sir, I will not go on further with those points, but already there is by Statute a power in the Dublin Corporation to regulate electric traffic, but they have no such power in regard to other traffic. Bills at this moment are passing through this House for the very purpose of regulating speed, and although for the moment, Mr. Speaker, it might appear that my remarks were not in order, they are in order in this sense, that we are considering what is to be the body to which we are to give these powers. What is the body which is to get these powers? I want to know whether the 6th Victoria is now to be considered as being impliedly repealed, and I expect to get an answer upon that point. Why is the Rathmines citizen to have no protection when the Pembroke citizen has protection? Why is the man of Drumcondra to be at the risk of his life, while the man inside the municipal area is to have ample protection? I ask for a reply on those points. Sir, we all know that there is at this moment a very keen desire for an extension of the borough boundaries of Dublin, and this clause will have this good effect, I may say, in one aspect of it, that it will reduce Dublin to the most ridiculous position under which it will be possible for any city to exist. Because a man living in the metropolitan area of Dublin will, as regards the speed of his vehicle, be under three separate jurisdictions. I do not hesitate to characterise this clause as the most ridiculous clause that has ever been accepted by a Government. It is a clause put down without a moment's thought or consideration, a clause which will be an actual blister on the capital of Ireland, because, as I have pointed out, from the time you leave your house on a machine or a oar, you will never know into what area you are going unless you take a map in your hand, or under what authority you are having your jaunt. Sir, I think the Government ought to postpone this
  202
  clause. I think I have shown them sufficient reasons for bringing up a well-digested clause. It was the course which originally I humbly submitted to them. Anybody who considers the matter for a moment will see that you may make a mistake, as the present First Lord of the Admiralty found something like ten years ago, when you touch upon questions that will arouse the citizen and make him consider what his position is. Now the Government have arrived at what I call the crux of this Bill. We have not proposed this Amendment. I am very glad to think that no such Amendment has been proposed from these benches. I believed that this Amendment might have been drawn by the Government, but I accept their shake of the head as a repudiation of that suggestion. It must have been a snare laid for them by the front Opposition bench. I have for some time been considering——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is going beyond the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Very well, Sir; I will not pursue that topic. There are a great many important questions that have to be considered in this Bill. There is a series of important questions to engage our attention on the remaining clauses of this Measure. This Bill is to be re-committed. Let the Government state before we come to those questions that they will advise with the right honourable and learned Gentleman who in this matter has suddenly assumed the Leadership of Her Majesty's Government. The proper course is that the draughtsman should be consulted, and that we should have well-considered clauses before us. I will go farther, and say that if they do that, I myself will not oppose any well-considered clause brought up upon this question. I am quite willing to admit that in certain of our large cities it is desirable that there should be some regulation dealing with this question, but they should be brought in on the responsibility of the actual administration under which we live in Ireland. Now, Sir, the Government in this matter have snares thrown out to them by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, and are evidently

  203
  determined to accept the clause. The action of the Government so far has been one of great disappointment, not to myself, but to some of my honourable Friends upon these benches. I propose to omit the words "council of a county borough," in order to insert "prescribed body." I admit that, on the spur of the moment, my words may be open to exception, and I quite agree that there may be some of my friends who may think it is bad drafting; but how can I, on the spur of the moment, do anything else than I have done—namely, give all the assistance which is in my power for the improvement of this clause? If any honourable Members on this side of the House, who have hitherto given the Government their valuable support, can suggest better words, I shall be very happy to amend my Amendment. If, however, the clause is passed in its present form, its effect will be that it will include Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and the city of Deny, while freezing outside in the cold will be left the important towns of Galway, Clonmel, Enniskillen, Newry, and other places. It appears to me that, on the whole, a very strong case has been made out for the acceptance of my Amendment. Surely the time has come when we should claim, on behalf of the urban districts, which do not happen to come within the magic circle of county boroughs, the powers which it is now proposed to confer upon them. They are quite as much entitled to have protection from dangerous riders as the inhabitants of other places. As the clause stands it will strike a blow at the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who have hitherto exhibited great fairness in regulating the traffic, and who, I venture to say, are the last persons who ought to come under the spur of the Unionist Government.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand the words "prescribed body" as coming under the Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There are a number of prescriptions in it, Sir, but with your permission I will move to insert "urban district" for "county borough."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It is impossible to accept the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. No difficulty whatever will arise in practice under this clause. The city of Dublin is the only place in which there will be more or less divided authority. The police have power to regulate traffic, but not cyclists; and nothing will be easier than to provide that in Dublin the Chief Commissioner of Police shall approve of the regulations drawn up by the council, so that there shall be no conflict. There is no reason to apprehend, therefore, that any difficulties of boundaries such as were mentioned by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth will arise.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I should not rise to occupy further time if it were not for the tone of the speech of the honourable and Learned Member for North Louth. I confess that I have been taken rather by surprise that it should be imputed to me that I have laid a snare for Her Majesty's Government, and that I should be charged with being armed with some sort of thorn to plunge into the side of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I cannot sit silently by and be the victim of such insinuations. This is the first time during the course of my not very short life that I have ever been represented as a sort of Parliamentary leprechaun, loving mischief for mischief's sake, and delighting to occupy the time of the House out of "pure cussedness." This clause is a well-considered and perfectly good clause. I, of course, regret that the force of circumstances compels me to abandon the earlier sub-section; in which I placed great faith, but as the clause stands it in no way conflicts with the Act of 6 Victoria. I beg to assure the House that I am in no sort of collusion with the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. I do not think it is necessary to insert the words "with the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Police," because we all know when there are public assemblies, public levees, and other gatherings, how the vehicles are to be marshalled in making their way up to the Castle, or in making their way to the Park, or to some other place where

  205
  assemblies meet. This section will enable the corporation of the city of Dublin and other corporations to make provision for the safety of passengers. It was stated in the course of the Debate that there had been no accidents in Dublin. Why, you hardly take up a morning paper without finding that there are accidents, not only to cyclists——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Amendment before the House is to sub-
  stitute the words "urban district" for "county borough."
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I will not occupy the time of the House any further. I have been led away by bad example into a sort of pleasant fooling on this subject.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 62.—(Division List No. 191.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Aird, John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gordon, Hon. J. Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coddington, Sir William

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bagot, Capt, J. FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Baird, John George A.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Gretton, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colville, John

  Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manc'r)

  Cox, Robert

  Gunter, Colonel

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Crean, Eugene

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A H Smith- (Hunts)

  Crombie, John William

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S.W.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Davitt, Michael

  Helder, Augustus

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dillon, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Blake, Edward

  Drucker, A.

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Hornby, William Henry

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Finch, George H.

  Howard, Joseph

  Burns, John

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Howell, William Tudor

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Campbell, J. M. H. (Dublin)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Jeffreys, Arthur F.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Forster, Henry William

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. B.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Fry, Lewis

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Garfit, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Knowles, Lees

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Langley, Batty

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Spicer, Albert

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Stock, James Henry

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Lowles, John

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Warkworth, Lord

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Purvis, Robert

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  McEwan, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  McKillop, James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Maddison, Fred.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Marks, Henry H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Milton, Viscount

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Woods, Samuel

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

  Monk, Charles James

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wylie, Alexander

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wyndham, George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Mount, William George

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Myers, William Henry

  Souttar, Robinson

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Price, Robert John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Randell, David

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Billson, Alfred

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Strachey, Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Qu'n's C.)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

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

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Daly, James

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Tuite, James

  Denny, Colonel

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morris, Samuel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Parnell, John Howard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pinkerton, John

  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Line 21, after the word 'the,' omit the words 'use and'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not know how the Government proposed to regulate the speed of bicycles, but he understood the Government proposed at an early stage of the Bill to introduce the words "bicycle, tricycle, velocipede, or other similar machine." The result, he took it, would be that they would make regulations for the use of the bicycle by one man, and for the use of the tricycle by another. He contended that he ought not to be compelled to use a tricycle if he chose to use a bicycle; or he might want to use a perambulator; but the clause as it was proposed left him no option. Therefore, it did appear to him that these words "the use" in line 21, page 21, were absolutely and utterly superfluous. He trusted his right honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Tyrone would explain the meaning of the term. Was a man to ride a particular saddle, or to use a spring frame? What meaning could they possibly attach
  to these words: "for regulating the use of a machine." It might mean that they were not to use their machines between one and four o'clock in the afternoon. Or a regulation might be brought in with respect to ladies riding machines. The regulation thus introduced might confine people to the use of their machines in May. They were the strangest words it was ever his experience to see in this qualification. They seemed to have been introduced without the smallest consideration by the right honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone, and words of this kind were really of most dangerous import and should be avoided. He would also point out that the English of "regulations for regulating the use of" was very bad; so that, both on the point of draughtsmanship and of utility, he submitted that such words were inadmissible.
  Question put—
  "That the words 'the use and' stand part of the proposed clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 283; Noes 48.—(Division List No. 192.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Aird, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colville, John

  Arnold, Alfred

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cox, Robert

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline F.

  Caldwell, James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Baird, J. G. Alexander

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Crombie, John William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Carew, James Laurence

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, SW)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Davitt, Michael

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Denny, Colonel

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Dillon, John

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Drucker, A.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bill, Charles

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.

  Billson, Alfred

  Coddington, Sir William

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Blake, Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Kemp, George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Finch, George H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Purvis, Robert

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Knowles, Lees

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Langley, Batty

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lees, Sir. Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Fry, Lewis

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Garfit, William

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Lowles, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Souttar, Robinson

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Spicer, Albert

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  McEwan, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Steadman, William Charles

  Gretton, John

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Stock, James Henry

  Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Gunter, Colonel

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Milton, Viscount

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Monk, Charles James

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Helder, Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

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

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Mount, William George

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Murnaghan, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Myers, William Henry

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hornby, William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woods, Samuel

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

  Howard, Joseph

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Wylie, Alexander

  Howell, William Tudor

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Wyndham, George

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Young, Commander (Berks, K.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Pierpoint, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Burns, John

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Carvill, P. G. Hamilton

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Daly, James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  212

  213

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Parnell, John Howard

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pinkerton, John

  Tuite, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, Robert John

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Lough, Thomas

  Randell, David

  Yoxall James Henry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Qu'n's C.)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.

  Morris, Samuel

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Strachey, Edward

  Another Amendment proposed—
  "To insert in line 21, between 'of' and 'machines' the words 'bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, I protest against the right honourable Gentleman interposing with an Amendment of this kind at this stage. I cannot see any good whatever in proposing an Amendment of this character to the clause. It is most unusual, I respectfully submit, for words of this kind to be introduced by a Member of the Government without notice. The Government, as I understand, accepted this Amendment upon given terms. No doubt they considered the Amendment. And what have they done with our Amendment? What they do is this: they put down our own words, if they adopt the principle of our Amendments, and then we have the advantage of seeing on the Paper what it is the Imperial Government propose. But the course on this Amendment is this. They take it up in patchwork fashion and cobble it into shape. There is a great deal to be said for leaving this clause as it is, and I am strongly in favour of leaving it as it is, and I will give the House the reason why. As the clause stands at present, the councils of the county boroughs will obtain power to regulate the speed of all machines—I think a most desirable power to give to those county boroughs. Why am I to be ridden over by an outside carriage at a speed of 15 miles an hour? Is it not most essential that power should be given to regulate machines of this character? Is it not most desirable to give county councils the power to regulate vehicular traffic in their own districts? And here is the right honourable Gentleman, striking a blow at local government under the name of a Local Government Bill by taking
  214
  away from county councils power to regulate traffic within their own streets in their own city. Sir, I am amazed at the Government proposing such a reactionary and restrictive Amendment as this clause. Is this to be the law now, that every other class of vehicle can go at any pace it likes through the streets of a city except the bicycle? The right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, at all events, was consistent, because his proposal was, Sir, to deal with the bicyclist in the first sub-section of his clause. Am I not right in that? And, having dealt with the bicyclists, and disposed of them in his first sub-section, his second sub-section was drawn in order to meet the general question of vehicular traffic. That was his proposal; and, now, Sir, what the Government propose to do is this—to make a kind of consolidation clause—consolidation worse confounded—by proposing not to deal simply with vehicular traffic at all, but to confine the restriction to the case of the bicycles. We all know how the courts will consider this clause. They will do it in this way. We shall be told by the courts that all other vehicles can go at any speed they like, and that will be plain warning to the hackney car man that he can drive through the city at any speed he likes, and that there is no one to restrict his pace. That is the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government. I agree, if you take the case of Dublin, Dublin is provided for as regards the entire metropolitan area by the general law, which forbids any horse or car, or any vehicle whatever, to go at more than eight miles an hour. But the moment you leave Dublin and go into the other cities of Ireland, there is no such provision to regulate the traffic at all. I would respectively submit to Her Majesty's Government to leave the clause as it stands. If

  215
  they leave it as it stands it will have this very important effect—it will enable these bodies, for instance, to regulate the speed of tram cars. At the present time two Committees of this House have been considering the speeds of electric trams in the city of Dublin; and there is a most valuable proposal by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, which would undoubtedly save the House these long inquiries that it undertakes in regard to tramway Bills. Sir, I do suggest, therefore, that the clause might very fairly be left to stand as it is. In the case of Belfast it is very well known they are considering at the present moment the question of tramway speed. It has been decided that "machine" includes a bicycle of any kind, and I presume the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone, in using the word "machines," did so in consequence of the decisions that had been given regarding the use of that word. Then, Sir, may I ask the Government if they would say how the county borough is to provide for the case of committing a nuisance? That is the clause. Of course, no doubt, the words have been well considered by the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone; but I do say that so far as the bicycles are concerned, they are somewhat ill-chosen. No doubt if you leave the words in—if you are contented—the word "nuisance" may have some application; but if you limit the clause, and as the right honourable Gentleman proposes, by inserting "bicycles, tricycles, or velocipedes," I cannot conceive any phrase more inapplicable to those machines than the word "nuisance." Therefore I say it does seem to me to be a somewhat tangled clause, and that it has not received the consideration which it is entitled to, and which it would have received if the draftsman who generally acts for the Government had not been displaced by the right honourable and learned Gentleman. In these circumstances I would appeal again to the right honourable Gentleman to leave the clause as it stands. Much has been said, but I am anxious to save the time of the House, as we have a great deal to do this evening. But it does appear to me that Her
  216
  Majesty's Government are reckless about the way they spend time. We have given the Government a promise that we will pass the Bill in six days, and they seem determined to spend that time considering Amendments of private Members to which no adequate consideration has been given.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I should be very glad if the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would give the House some idea of what is meant by the words "or other similar machines." That is a very indefinite sort of phrase, and, if adopted, would allow magistrates a very wide discretion as to what "other similar machines" are. I do not know, but, perhaps the right honourable Gentleman intends to include a bath-chair, or, perhaps, a cradle. I should also like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Attorney General for Ireland, when they expect to bring this Bill into reasonable shape? Since the Chief Secretary for Ireland has led the House on the bicycles and tricycles he has certainly taken his supporters over a zig-zag path. The House is in such a difficulty that sometimes the right honourable Gentleman does not know where he is himself.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman must confine himself to the Motion before the Chair.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Sir, I rise, not for the purpose of occupying the time of the House, but I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to give us some idea as to what these "other similar machines" are. For my part, I should very much like to know what they mean.
  MR. ATKINSON: The words are taken from the English Act, and are proposed in order to carry out an arrangement arrived at.
  MR. TULLY: I wish to understand from the right honourable Gentleman; what this Amendment exactly conveys. Do the words "regulating the use and speed of bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes" mean that people using them must pass an examination

  217
  before they are allowed to ride on the public street? That is the law on the Continent, that any lady or gentleman wishing to ride a machine on the public street must pass an examination to satisfy the chief of police. What guarantee have we, if inserted, that a similar test may not be applied in Ireland?
  MR. PINKERTON: I rise for the purpose of asking, my Friends on
  this side of the House not to force us through the Division Lobbies any more. I think the Government are disposed to treat us in a fair manner.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted in the proposed clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 44.—(Division List No. 193.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Aird, John

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Garfit, William

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gedge, Sydney

  Arnold, Alfred

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gilhooly, James

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Colville, John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Crean, Eugene

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Crombie, John William

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Gretton, John

  Barry, F. T. (Windsor)

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, SW)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Halsey, Thomas Fredk.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Davitt, Michael

  Hardy, Laurence

  Biddulph, Michael

  Denny, Colonel

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Billson, Alfred

  Dillon, John

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Birrell, Augustine

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Blake, Edward

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Boscawen, A. Griffith-

  Doughty, George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Brigg, John

  Drucker, A.

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dunn, Sir William.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Burns, John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Holburn, J. G.

  Butcher, John George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Caldwell, James

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Finch, George H.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Cameron, Robt. (Durham)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Howard, Joseph

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Howell, William Tudor

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Carew, James Laurence

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir. A. B.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fry, Lewis

  Kemp, George

  Kilbride, Denis

  Mount, William George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Khowles, Lees

  Murnaghan, George

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Langley, Batty

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Myers, William Henry

  Spicer, Albert

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stock, James Henry

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Parnell, John Howard

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lowles, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Pinkerton, John

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Qu'n's C.)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  McEwan, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  McKillop, James

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Maddison, Fred.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Marks, Henry H.

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Woods, Samuel

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir St. M. W.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wyndham, George

  Milton, Viscount

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Monk, Charles James

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Young, Commander (Berks, K.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Randell, David

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Lough, Thomas

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Carvill, P. G. Hamilton

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

  Strachey, Edward

  Cawley, Frederick

  McKenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  McLeod, John

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Daly, James

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Morris, Samuel

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Tuite, James

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, A. (Donegal)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.

  Healy, T. J. (Wexford)

  Price, Robert John

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move to omit the word "nuisance" and I feel quite sure the Government will accept that. Upon the whole, I think that word might go.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) has given notice of comes first.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Line 22, after the word 'borough,' insert 'and the carriage of lights on such machines, and the warning of approach to be given by persons using the same.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Now we have come to a difficult portion of this clause, and it has not become a question whether or not we might persuade the right honourable Gentleman to withdraw the clause, so that we can have an opportunity of considering the words of the clause. This is a penal clause to be administered by the magistrates and enforced by the police, who are in the hands of that department. The right honourable Gentleman is proposing the adoption of words to enforce a law which has not been even before the House upon the Paper. I do think this is most unfair, most unusual, and most unbusinesslike, because words of this kind may have the most important effect upon Ireland, and it is not right in a penal clause like this that words should be put before the House of Commons without due notice. I myself have been unable to follow the words or take down the Amendment which has been moved by the Attorney General for Ireland. Is that the way, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to do business in this House? If so, you are imperilling the liberty of the subject without giving notice of the words which are to be inserted, and the subject is to be placed in peril without having the words before the House. [Laughter.] It may be a laughing matter with honourable Gentlemen opposite, but those who have to deal with magistrates and policemen, most of whom are hostile to the people, do not think that it is a laughing matter. I venture to prophesy, Mr. Speaker, that some of the gentlemen who are advocating this clause will suffer sorrow by getting in contact with the policemen from something that has nothing to do with bicycling. I think the Government might reasonably be asked, through the right honourable Gentleman, to postpone this clause until we have an opportunity of seeing his words upon the Paper. It is not an unusual demand to make. I was unable to follow, the words of the right honourable Gentleman, and he has no doubt been closeted in the Lobby engaged in drafting these words; but we
  222
  were not palled to that conference, and I think we should have had the opportunity of seeing the words upon the Paper, or have been taken into consultation as well as the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone. I cannot see why the pilotage of this clause should not have been taken in hand by the Government, and I cannot see why the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone should have been placed in that very important position by——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not in order in discussing that point.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, I think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone should really have given us the advantage of his counsel in respect to these words which have been proposed. If you search this Bill from top to bottom there is not a single penal clause in the Measure, and now the right honourable Gentleman, by words which we have not seen before, proposes to make this alteration by the addition of a penal clause, and in taking that course, in a Bill which had been generally cheerfully received, I am bound to say that I am surprised that the Government should have imported, at the request of my right honourable Friend, this clause, and why they should have accepted this foreign importation into the Bill I fail to conceive. But, having done so, do give us these words upon the Paper. The right honourable Gentleman may no doubt think that they are good, but even the most choice words sometimes are none the worse for a little criticism in the House. Therefore I do appeal to the right honourable Gentleman for the postponement of this clause, because there are a number of important topics to be dealt with. There is the question of summary conviction in the next clause, and a number of other questions as to what the nature of the penalty shall be. I do ask the right honourable Gentleman to allow us to have the clause on the Paper as a whole, and I appeal to him to give us these words; and if he will I will therefore ask him to withdraw the clause and bring it up again on Monday next in a non-contentious shape.
  MR. W. REDMOND: As I understand the question, an arrangement was come to by general consent, that the discussion upon this stage of the Bill should be completed upon the 18th of this month. A great many most important matters have yet to be dealt with as evidenced by the large number of Amendments on the Paper, and if the arrangement for this Bill is to be completed in its present stage altogether by the 18th of this month it does seem to me rather a pity to take up time discussing this point when there are so many other matters of greater importance, the discussion on which must necessarily be curtailed if the undertaking that the Bill is to be through on the 18th is to hold good. With regard to the merits of this clause I agree with the honourable Gentleman who spoke last to this extent, that it would, in my opinion, have been a great deal better if the Government had, with due notice to everybody concerned, taken charge of this matter themselves. But certainly, as the clause stands, as one interested very much in cycling, and having had a number of communications from other people, and from many organisations interested in cycling, I welcome the change which is being made, because it is not only, in my opinion, in the interests of the public, but it is absolutely in the best interests of those who enjoy the sport of cycling.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I quite agree with the honourable Member who has just spoken that it is a pity that the time of the House should be wasted in reference to a matter of so little importance. But while I agree with that I wish to say that this clause which has been inserted or accepted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a whole Bill in itself, and it is, moreover, a coercion Bill, and a Bill which the right honourable Gentleman himself knows very well was very much opposed by Members on these benches, and now the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has accepted a clause which embodies principles which he knows very well himself were hotly contested by honourable Members from Ireland. I do not think it would be in the interests of the House,
  224
  and it would allow us to get on to the business, if this clause were postponed. I support the request of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. I do think that there are so many contentious points in this clause that it ought to be held over till a more convenient time, and I do hope the right honourable Gentleman will allow the House to get on with the Measure, and I aim sure if he will only consent to withdraw the clause it will allow us to proceed with the business.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I explained upon the Second Reading, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Tyrone asked that this clause should form part of the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then why did you not put it down yourself?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Because I was anxious to see what the opinion of the House upon it was. That portion of it—namely, the first clause, formed the substance of the Bill of last year. It is not true to say, as the honourable Member who has just sat down stated, that the Government were aware of the opposition to this clause. I for one generously accept it. If the opposition had been reasonable opposition I might have been able to accede to the honourable and learned Member for Louth's request. I cannot help thinking that the Opposition has not been reasonable, or I might have given way, but as it has not I cannot.
  MR. DILLON: I only rise to say that I do not think, in the opinion of a very large majority of the Irish Members, this clause is favourably received. It is only fair, in view of what has been said from these benches to the right honourable Gentleman, to say that, as far as I have been able to gather, the views of the majority of the Irish Members are strongly in favour of this clause.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted in the proposed clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 28.—(Division List No. 194.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Howell, William Tudor

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Arnold, Alfred

  Daly, James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Davitt, Michael

  Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Denny, Colonel

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. H. H.

  Dillon, John

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Baird, J. G. Alexander

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Kemp, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Drucker, A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Knowles, Lees

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lafone, Alfred

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Finch, George H.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Beckett, Ernest William

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Leng, Sir John

  Biddulph, Michael

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Bigwood, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bill, Charles

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Billson, Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Blake, Edward

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fry, Lewis

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Brigg, John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lópes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lowles, John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Burns, John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Gilhooly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's C.)

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  McEwan, William

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  McKillop, James

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Maddison, Fred.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Milton, Viscount

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

  Gretton, John

  Monk, Charles James

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gunter, Colonel

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Mount, William George

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murnaghan, George

  Coddington, Sir William

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Myers, William Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Colville, John

  Henderson, Alexander

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Holburn, J. G.

  Phillpotts, Captain A.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.).

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S. W.)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Pierpont, Robert

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Howard, Joseph

  Pinkerton, John

  226

  227

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Souttar, Robinson

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Purvis, Robert

  Spicer, Albert

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts).

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Williams, J. P. (Birmingham)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Stock, James Henry

  Woods, Samuel

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wyndham, George

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Roche, Hn. James (E. Kerry)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wayman, Thomas

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  McDermott, Patrick

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  McKenna, Reginald

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Tuite, James

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. James O'Connor.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Randell, David

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Further Amendment proposed—
  "To omit the word 'nuisance' in line 22."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word with regard to what the right honourable Gentleman has just stated, that he made a fair and reasonable proposition to me earlier in the evening which I declined to accept. I must enter a contradiction to that statement. What he suggested was that the right honourable Gentleman should withdraw this clause, and that the Chief Secretary should bring it up again.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman is not speaking to the question before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will simply move that the word "nuisance" be omitted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In line 27 of the proposed clause, to leave out the word 'summarily.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg leave to move the omission of the word "summarily." I think we are entitled to know what is the exact nature of the proposal under this Bill. In all other penal clauses we have had the advantage of a First Reading, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, and a Third Reading. The only clause in this Bill dealing with penal matters is one which the Government propose to introduce containing the word "summarily." It reads—
  "Any person summarily convicted of offending against the regulations."
  If I may point out that it will explain to him what is the meaning of the word. There is a curious distinction, drawn which I think is not very apprehendable, and it seems to me that the word "summarily" is really not required. Now, Sir, owing to the first sub-clause being entirely omitted, you have these extraordinary words of perambulation put in. The author of these words might be able to explain them. For a long time

  229
  he has remained modestly silent, and the defence of his words has fallen upon the Attorney General for Ireland. I should be much obliged if he will tell us what is the meaning of the words. I do think, Sir, the Irish Members and the Irish people will be somewhat startled to find that a Bill supposed to confer local government will put them under a bench, of magistrates, not one of whom is appointed by the people in this portion of the Measure, and I would further point out that by a provision of the Bill itself in the borough of Kilkenny it proposes to abolish the borough magistrates as well. In the borough of Kilkenny it makes the borough magistrates county magistrates; therefore the result will be that all the popular magistrates will lose their jurisdiction under this Bill, whereas persons in Carrickfergus are apparently to remain county magistrates. I think "summarily" is a somewhat strong word, and I think, at all events, that there ought to be an appeal. A fine of 40s. in Ireland is a very serious matter, and I understand that when you fine a man 10s. he would have an appeal. There are very strong reasons why he should not give this power.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is moving to omit the word "summarily."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would suggest that it would be only doing a fair thing to omit this word, for it will be unfair if this word is now to be retained in the clause. If the Government have a desire, which I am sure they have, to proceed with this Measure regularly and in order, they will withdraw this clause, and give us an opportunity of discussing it later on. I beg to move to omit the word "summarily."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have not ventured to intrude in these discussions on the Bill except upon one or two occasions, but I venture to speak on the present occasion in order to respectfully make an appeal to the honourable and learned Gentleman. With regard to the word "summarily," I think it is easy of interpretation, and it is Understood to mean as under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which I think
  230
  is a procedure which is perfectly well understood, and which gives the right of appeal. I think that is perfectly understood by everybody. I do hope, Sir, that the honourable and learned Gentleman will not press this Amendment, and I would respectfully put before him that great concessions have been made in deference to his opposition to the clause, and in view of the limited time given for the discussion of this Bill, by agreement on both sides of the House, I trust that the honourable and learned Gentleman will feel that perhaps his opposition to this clause has been sufficient for all practical purposes. I am sure as the clause has been modified and limited, as it now has been, even if the honourable and learned Gentleman has that anticipation, at all events a large part of his objections must have been now mitigated, and I do trust that he will allow it to pass without any further discussion, and let us proceed with matters which I think he will be the first to admit are of far greater importance.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have never refused any appeal which the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House has made, because I have always found, in the course of public business, that he has treated even the humblest Member of this House since he became its Leader with uniform courtesy. Therefore I will accede to his appeal, and will not press my opposition further. But I take leave to say that, from a constitutional point of view, nothing worse has been done in any Bill with which I have had to deal than to introduce in a Measure at this stage a clause dealing With penal matters which has never had a First Reading, a Second Reading, or a Committee stage, and it is being inserted without us even knowing that the Government were going to accept it.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I may say that this clause about summary conviction is taken from the English Act.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable Member for Louth ask leave to withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, Sir.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the proposed clause, to add the words—
  "Bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If the Government do not accept this Amendment of course I shall hardly feel justified in pressing it, and I may be told that there is no necessity for it, insomuch as a bicycle has been declared to be a carriage; but I think in practice there is a real need for this Measure in Ireland, and I would point out that unless we have something of this kind a bicyclist has no claim at all to his right on either side of the road. It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House at any length, and I merely ask the right honourable Gentleman if he will accept this most reasonable proposal.
  MR. SPEAKER: What is the honourable Member's Amendment?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is to add—
  "Line 30, after the word 'shillings' insert the words 'bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Act.'"
  MR. ATKINSON: I think that as bicycles have already been declared to be carriages they will be entirely in the same position. I cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, because, as the honourable Member will see, it is entirely unnecessary.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Under these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That this clause be read a second time, and, as amended, added to the Bill."
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, cannot be moved in the Report stage, but can only be moved in Committee.
  Another clause—

  "(1) It shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, if he shall think fit, on the application of the county council of any county (including any county borough) to direct the Commissioners of Valuation to make a general revision or partial revision, at request of county council, of the valuation of all rateable tenements and hereditaments within any county union or borough; provided that where such direction is given with respect to a borough (whether a county borough or not) the revision shall extend to the whole of every union comprising any part of such borough.

  "(2) The Lord Lieutenant may by Order in Council make such rules and regulations as may be necessary or expedient for carrying out any such general revision, or for partial revision, at the instance of the county council, and for that purpose may adopt and modify the provisions of the Valuation Acts as to revision of valuation or incidental thereto."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think this clause is a valuable one, and one which will have to be moved in the Committee Stage, because there is no machinery for the working of the clause in its present form, because I could not introduce such, machinery in it at the present stage. I would respectfully make an appeal to the Government whether towns like Dublin, which feel very strongly on the question of valuation, are not entitled to have some procedure by which a valuation can be obtained. I am sure that the matter has not escaped the attention of the Government, and it has been before many Governments. Although I know that this Bill has taken up a great deal of the attention of the present Government, perhaps they have given some consideration to the question of providing some machinery which will meet the case, and do so in a more effective manner that I have been able to do. I move pro formâ that this clause be read a second time.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The whole question of valuation is surrounded by many difficulties, although I recognise that the object of the honourable and learned Member is a very desirable one. I think it is impossible for the Government to accept this clause, but when the Bill has been recommitted the Government will undertake to put down a clause for the consideration of the Committee, which I do not say will absolutely meet all the difficulties connected with the

  233
  question, but which will enable a valuation to be taken of a county borough. At all events, I think we shall be able to put down such a clause, although I will not promise that it will satisfy the honourable and learned Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Under the circumstances I beg to withdraw the clause. I put this clause down at the request of the Corporation of Dublin, and I think the answer of the right honourable Gentleman will give satisfaction to that body.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another clause—

  "(1) It shall be lawful for the councils for the county of Dublin and county borough of Dublin, respectively, to license any theatre, room, or building within their respective counties for the performance of stage plays and other dramatic entertainments, such licence not to be in force for a longer period than one year from the granting thereof without being renewed, and while any such licence is in force it shall be lawful to perform stage plays and other dramatic entertainments, whether for reward or otherwise, in any theatre, room, or building so licensed, anything in the Act of the Parliament of Ireland, of the twenty-sixth year of the reign of George the Third, chapter fifty-seven, intituled an Act for regulating the Stage in the city and county of Dublin, to the contrary notwithstanding.

  "(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, to grant letters patent under the said Act."—(Mr. J. J. Clancy.)

  MR. CLANCY: I beg to move this Amendment, and I do so at the request of the Dublin Corporation. I may say that not only is the Corporation of Dublin interested in seeing this Amendment carried, but the other authorities in the suburban districts are equally interested. Sir, I do not intend to trespass upon the time of the House at any great length, but it is necessary for me to say a few words in explanation of the clause in regard to the licensing of theatres. In the first place, I would refer to the law as existing in England, for the purpose of drawing attention to the contrast between the two countries in relation to this matter. As every lawyer who has gone into the subject knows, the English law, up to 1832, practically restricted the per-
  234
  formance of stage plays and other dramatic performances to houses or theatres which were licensed by patent from the Crown. Since 1833, however, free trade in licensing theatres has been the rule in England. I believe there are still theatres in England which are licensed by patent from the Crown, but, even in the suburban districts, other theatres licensed by the local authorities exist and carry on business. I think the House will be rather surprised to hear that the system which was commenced to be abolished in 1832 in England is still in full force and effect in the city and county of Dublin. In the city of Dublin there are three theatres, every one of which is licensed by virtue of a patent from the Crown, obtained at very considerable expense—an expense of £200 or £300, and after lengthened inquiry. In the county of Dublin there is complete prohibition, and I wish to explain to the House how it comes to pass that that is the case. By an old Act of 1786, passed by the Irish Parliament, it was expressly forbidden that any theatre in the city or county of Dublin should be opened, except those licensed by patent from the Crown, and the penalty for violating the law was £300 for each performance. Well, that law is exactly the law at the present moment, and I wish to modify it slightly. I do not propose to extend the operation of the clause to any part of Ireland except the city and county of Dublin. It is not necessary to do so. In Belfast, I believe, the Lord Mayor is the licensing authority, and in Cork I think the Cork Corporation is the licensing authority, but in all the rest of the country there is absolutely no law regarding this matter at all, with the result that anybody can set up anywhere theatres for the performance of stage plays. Well, I do not want on this Bill to introduce a general change in the law. I do not, in the first place, desire to do such a thing, because I am afraid it would tend to lengthen the discussion. I do not want, for my own part, to delay the progress of this Bill; there are a great many matters to discuss, and I should be sorry to take up time by attempting what I know the Government would

  235
  resist. I do not want, therefore, a change in the law of Ireland, as a whole, regarding the licensing of theatres, and I may say that I do not want, in the second place, to injure any of the theatres in Dublin by proposing such a change in the law as would be likely to raise opposition by them in this House. I may say that I think gentlemen who live in Dublin, as I do, must feel considerable satisfaction that within the last six or seven months an enterprising firm have re-opened the Theatre Royal in that city, and have made it a very beautiful playhouse. It is certainly one of the finest theatres in the three kingdoms, and up to the present time nothing but high-class plays have been produced at that house. I should, therefore, be sorry if anything were done to injure the present management of that theatre, although, at the same time, I must protest against the idea that any theatre has any vested rights outside the house in which it carries on its business. But my proposal, I contend, will not hurt a single theatre in Dublin. I will go farther, and say that not only will it not hurt any of the existing theatres in Dublin, but that possibly, in the long run, it will very much help them. Now, the object of this Amendment which it is my desire to move is merely to enable amateurs to perform plays in Dublin, either for charitable objects or for the purpose of amusement, and especially Celtic plays, in the production of which a large and increasing class of Irishmen are interested. It is strange, but true, that a statutory enactment is necessary to enable them to do so. A few months ago there was a society in Dublin, called the Amateur Elocutionists' Society, which applied for leave to perform a play in the Molesworth Hall in Dublin. Now, the Molesworth Hall is a hall which can contain only about 200 people, and probably I would exaggerate if I said that a £10 note would be the amount of the proceeds; in all probability it would not be so much, because I am sure the performers on the stage would probably have their own particular friends there free. An application was made to have this performance, and the
  236
  House will probably be interested to hear the answer. This was the answer—
  "Chief Secretary's Office, Dublin Castle.
  "Jan. 22nd, 1890.
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge your letter, asking on behalf of the president and council of the Association of Elocutionists for permission to give a dramatic performance in the Molesworth Hall, on the 25th inst., and to inform you that His Excellency is advised that he has no power to give the permission asked for."
  Well, it appears that the Great Seal of Ireland could not be used on this occasion in order to get permission to perform on this single occasion a single play in the Molesworth Hall, which probably would not contain 10 or 12 paying members in the audience. The promoters of the entertainment would actually have to go before the two honourable and learned Gentlemen whom I see opposite—the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland—and state their case; and perhaps at the end of three or four months they might or might not get a favourable decision. That case is not the only one. There was another case of a bazaar, for some Protestant charity, which was known by the comprehensive title of "Cosmos." There was an application in that case for leave to perform a one-act play, which would have lasted exactly a quarter of an hour. It was absolutely found impossible to get permission to perform that one-act, quarter-of-an-hour play, and I believe the attempt was given up. That is not the only fact I could mention, and I am sure the Attorney General who is opposite will be interested in listening to one other fact, which I will mention, not for his information, but to refresh his memory. A few years ago, in the Mechanics' Institute of Dublin, a gentleman named McNally thought he would get up some amusement for the members by organising a play, to be performed in a room in that institute, under the name of "The Spirit of the Lake, the Squire, the Valet, and the Mermaid." Now, I am not well acquainted with theatrical literature, and I cannot say whether this is a famous play or not; but, at all events, Mr. McNally and his fellow-members of the institute determined to have that play, and they played it for a certain number of nights. I do

  237
  not know at whose instance it was that action was taken, but Mr. McNally was sued solemnly in the High Court of Justice, under the old Act of 1786, for penalties amounting to a total sum of £10,789 14s. 3d. I notice there two names at the bottom of this serious document, and probably one of them will be recognised by the right honourable Gentleman who sits on the Treasury Bench. One signature is that of Mr. Ernest G. Swift, and the other is that of Mr. John Atkinson. I do not know whether Mr. McNally paid any attention to that writ, but I rather fancy he did not. I believe he let judgment go by default, and judgment was solemnly entered against him. I am aware that nothing was recovered and nothing was gained at all, except the contempt of the public for the law and for the administrators of the law who drew this document and filed this information. Now, I contend that cases like this are really ridiculous, and ought to be prevented, and that it is high time to stop this nonsense and to allow occasional performances in the city of Dublin. I said just now, in moving my Amendment, that I did not desire to make a change in the general law of licensing theatres. I do not propose any enactment devoted to the whole of Ireland, because I know that it would be outside the scope of the Bill, and that, of course, I could not carry it. I do not want, I repeat, to do any injury whatever to the existing theatres in Dublin, and consequently if the Government think that this new clause would have this effect of injuring the existing theatres in Dublin, I would propose to amend this clause very slightly by inserting before the word "performance," in the third line, the word "occasional." I may say at once that I have in contemplation only the allowance of stage plays for charitable objects, such as in the beautiful new town hall at Rathmines, the town hall at Kingstown, and the town hall at Black Rook, or in any other townships round about Dublin, in which we hope to have town halls erected before long.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the clause would go much further than the honourable Member intended and beyond his avowed object. There were three patent theatres in Dublin, and the patentees had been
  238
  required to conform to certain strict conditions. Thousands of pounds had been spent on Dublin theatres by holders of patent rights on the faith that those rights would not be arbitrarily interfered with. At the same time, we shall remove the apprehensions of the executors of the performances, if the honourable Member will accept the suggestion to set down a clause which will deal with this matter.
  MR. CLANCYasked to be allowed to say a few words. He accepted the compromise which had been suggested by the right honourable Gentleman, but he might say the argument that was advanced now was the same as that which was advanced in 1832. The Licensing Act was disregarded in 1832 and 1843. The state of the land in England was just the same now as it was then, but if the right honourable Gentleman undertook to insert a clause to the effect he had suggested he was quite content.
  MR. W. REDMONDwas glad to hear the right honourable Gentleman had taken the course which he had, which, in his opinion, was a very fair one. It would be very unfair to the gentlemen in Dublin who had taken these theatres, and invested their capital in them, upon the faith that the law would continue the same as it had when they put their money into them, if the law was altered. The theatres in Dublin were excellently managed, and gave the greatest satisfaction to the public.
  MR. W. FIELDentirely endorsed what had been said by the honourable Members who had preceded him, who had accepted the offer of the right honourable Gentleman. But he wished to point out that the Amendment was put down by reason of the Amateur Dramatic Society of Dublin, which was in the habit of encouraging amateur performances, found a difficulty in carrying on dramatic performances, principally for charitable purposes, in the Town. Hall of Black Rock; they had done so, but encountered police difficulties. Had those difficulties not arisen, it would pot have been necessary to move the Amendment. He thought the difficulty had, however, been met by the

  239
  proposal of the right honourable Gentleman, and he hoped in the future difficulties would not be put in the way of amateur performances organised for charitable purposes. These people did not wish to enter into competition with the legitimate theatres, but in Dublin a very strong feeling existed in the matter, and he himself had received deputations asking him to move the Amendment.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another clause proposed—
  "Stamp duty shall not be payable in respect of any receipt given by any body created under this Act, or any contract with or between any such body."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Amendment is, substantially, the law already. The right honourable Gentleman seems to be in doubt about it. I will explain why I take this view that it is the law: my Amendment is very little more than the existing law. According to the existing law no receipt is required for poor rate in Ireland; in fact, it is not poor rate at all; it has been previously known as county cess. Therefore it follows that the rate which will be known hereafter as poor rate will be free from stamp duty, and no receipt for poor rate—even though it be only technically a poor rate—may be stamped. The contracts for works, now excluded by the grand jury, are exempted from stamp duty. Therefore, the only matter in respect of which this clause will work will be for contracts such as those made by boards of guardians or some such body. Here is another difficulty: a corporation, because it is a corporation, must make its contract under seal, and, by an absurd provision of the law, it requires a 10s. stamp. It appears to me that the Government are bound by either one of two things—either the contracts made by a county council need not be under seal, which will save the ratepayers 9s., or else the contracts can be freed from this stamp duty. It may be said, what claim is there for remitting the stamp duty in cases of this kind? The claim is that it is a labourers' contract, or for work done under the Sanitary Acts. They are largely labourers' contracts. Therefore, for the mere sake of making the law regular and uniform, it is most desirable that Amendments
  240
  like this should be accepted. Of course, it is very unfortunate that the Treasury took strong views in regard to this matter; therefore the Treasury may not be in a position to accept my Amendment. That is simply because the Treasury do not understand it; they did not hear the matter argued, they simply instructed the head office that this Amendment was not to be accepted. Yet I cannot conceive that the Government could oppose an Amendment of this kind. A town commission can make contracts not under seal. It can make contracts by any two of its members; therefore, instead of a 10s. stamp, they only require a 6d. stamp. Is it not absurd to say that one contract should require a 10s. stamp and another a 6d. stamp? That, to my mind, brings the law into discredit, and it does not bring into the Treasury any large sum of money. I am sure the Government can see no answer to my demand that the county council shall be able to make a contract without requiring a seal. There is no value in sealing-wax at all, except this, that if you put on a bit of sealing-wax it requires another 10s.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government was not able to accept the Amendment. He thought that the exemptions the honourable and learned Gentleman had mentioned were of very ancient date: one such exemption was, if he was not mistaken, under the Public Health Act of 1878.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  New clause proposed—
  "The proceeds of any licences payable under the Dublin Hackney Car and Carriage Act shall, after the passing of this Act, be paid to the corporation of Dublin."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I must say that the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given great care and attention to this Bill, and I think he will, in principle, accept this Amendment. Let me call attention to one or two facts. The Government get from Dublin

  241
  by means of the existing rate of 8d. in the £, in the metropolitan area, the sum of about £35,000 a year. Now, that is altogether outside the hackney car and carriage duty and outside the pawnbrokers' licence duty. I will deal in a moment with the pawnbrokers' licence, which is probably the most extraordinary case in the United Kingdom. Here are two taxes which have no parallel throughout Her Majesty's dominion. This 8d. tax, as I said, brings in £35,000 a year; therefore, the city of Dublin contributes towards a force, in respect of which it has no power to appoint or remove a constable, the sum of something like £40,000 a year. Now take the case of Belfast. Belfast is a far richer city than Dublin, and it is a far more disturbed city than Dublin. There the police are constantly on the move, and constantly getting their heads broken. How much does Belfast contribute to the Royal Irish Constabulary? That city of great manufactures contributes towards the Royal Irish Constabulary the noble sum of less than £15,000 a year. Not only is that true, but we have made recently a handsome gift to Her Majesty's Government: we built Richmond Gaol at a cost of £120,000. The Government took over that gaol and converted it into a bar racks, and the citizens of Dublin did not get one penny-piece of compensation; while, on the other hand, we gave you Pigeon House Fort for a nominal sum, and when we required it back for our main drainage scheme you charged no less than £60,000. At the moment the Corporation of Dublin are carrying out a main drainage scheme for the greater health of the troops. The Royal barracks at Dublin were for years in a most insanitary condition, and you spent large sums on the barracks in order to bring them out of that condition. In 1870 Her Majesty's Treasury issued a peremptory mandamus to the Corporation, telling them that if they did not carry out a main drainage scheme an Act would be passed taking the powers out of the hands of the Corporation, and calling upon the Board of Works to do it at the public expense. An offer was made by the Government of that day of a very large sum as a loan to the Corporation. An estimate was made that
  242
  the sum needed would be something like £900,000, and the Government themselves were shocked at this large amount. Pressure was brought to bear by the Board of Works, and the Corporation came forward with a great scheme of sanitary reform which will take seven years to carry out, and the expense of which will have to be borne by a little town like Dublin, though the benefit is shared by the troops. What is it we are asking by this proposal of mine tonight? We are asking for the interception of two taxes, neither of which have any parallel in any city, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the habitable globe. You put on, first, 8d. in the £, which, I believe, is an unconstitutional tax, under the Act of Union, upon the metropolitan area, and not content with your 8d. in the £ you, in addition, place the car and carriage tax on Dublin. The pawnbroking case is a worse case still. By an Act of Parliament intended to create a watch for the city of Dublin the sum of £100, Irish, was levied on the pawnbrokers within the metropolitan area in Dublin. The English Parliament was kind enough to step in, after the passing of the Act of Union, and, by a private Act, made it £100 Irish, thereby putting an increased tax upon the subject. You have no more claim to these sums than you have to the coats on our backs. That has no parallel in any country over which the British flag flies. Why should Dublin pay more than Belfast. That city of riot and disorder pays £15,000 a year for its police, and poor, quiet-loving Dublin has to pay £40,000. The more shame on you for that. It is an extraordinary thing that we have to debate this matter without the presence of a single Treasury official. The right honourable Gentleman has no answer to my case, historically, financially, or comparatively. It is an extraordinary thing that he does not take up what I call the Irish view of the case and say to the Treasury that they ought to make this remission. Let me remind you of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday. He promised that if the Irish Secretary made any demand upon him he would be most happy to honour him. His led us to believe that. That was a statement in the House. Upon that the Government obtained a very

  243
  large majority. The right honourable Gentleman did not hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, that is a great misfortune. There is a plain case for justice. This pawn-broking tax is not enforced in any other city in the kingdom, and neither is the hackney car duty. Every city is allowed to retain the tax themselves. I have given you most powerful reasons for saying that the Corporation of Dublin is entitled to an exemption and abatement. I will revert to the subject again and again, for the treatment of Dublin by the Government has been most unhandsome; and I think the right honourable Gentleman has failed in his duty as Irish Secretary in not representing this case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not know what goes on behind the scenes, but let him, I say, if he finds the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not yield, come forward in this House, and we will support him against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a result that will satisfy the House and force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to yield. But the Irish Secretary, instead of speaking with an Irish accent, which, I think, he might very easily acquire by paying greater attention to the debates in this House, simply maintains what I would call a Downing Street drawl.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the tax was, as the honourable Gentleman had said, not, indeed, remitted, but intercepted. So far as the Treasury was concerned the result would be the same, because, if this tax was no longer devoted towards the expense of the Dublin metropolitan police, it would have to be supplied from another source. The distinction drawn by the honourable and learned Member between a tax remitted and a tax intercepted did not appear to him to have very much force. If the Amendment was carried the result would be that the tax would go on. He could not undertake in the Local Government Bill that the present arrangements should be revised. Whether they ought to be revised or not was a matter on which he did not feel called upon to express an opinion.
  MR. CLANCY: It was not to be expected that the right honourable Gentleman would give way on this subject. They never give way on the Trea-
  244
  sury bench, except under extreme pressure, and unfortunately we are not able to exert that extreme pressure. But, really, I thought myself that he must have taken heart of grace on this matter at least, because the tax which the honourable and learned Member for Louth purposes to transfer to the Corporation is quite analogous to the produce of local license duties, which he, himself, has transferred by this very Bill to the local authorities in Dublin. Consequently I really heard with amazement the right honourable Gentleman making a point of order that an Amendment of this kind was not to be moved. It was entirely analogous to his own proposal in this Bill. The precedent thereby established, I beg to warn the right honourable Gentleman, will be taken advantage of, and private Members will renew the attempt made this evening. On the last occasion on which this subject was discussed in the House of Commons his reference to the matter was very disingenuous. He stated, in answer to a question, that these local license duties went in aid of local rates in Dublin, because they went to keep the metropolitan police. Nothing could be more mistaken. The arrangement between the Corporation and the Government is that the Government shall pay a certain stipulated proportion of the cost of the metropolitan police. I presume that what every honest man took to mean by this is that they have to pay the stipulated proportion out of Imperial funds. But they do not pay it out of Imperial funds; they pay part of it out of this local fund and then, in addition to that, they get the full proportion of 8d. in the £ besides. I do not intend to be offensive, but I thought his reference to that subject the other night was extremely disingenuous, whether he knew it or not. The arrangement as carried out by the Government is absolutely dishonest. ["Oh!"] Who says, "Oh!"? If I were talking about a thing which the honourable Gentleman knew anything about I might accept that interruption, but I hear him interrupting on a subject of which he knows nothing at all. I suppose there is no use in discussing the matter any further. The right honourable Gentleman will not give way; and I assure him he has not heard the last of this by any means,

  245
  and that, Session after Session, attempts will be made to get justice done to Dublin in this matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present to have the authorised Treasury view on the subject. I think he would have had some difficulty in getting up and defending the present arrangement. In the first place this tax does not exist in any part of the United Kingdom—so I am informed. In addition to that fact there is this further, that Dublin City, by a 8d. rate, contributes something like £35,000 towards the upkeep of the police, over the management of which they have no control whatever. I quite understand it being argued that Dublin should contribute something to the upkeep of the police force, but the Dublin. Corporation ought to have some control over it. I trust that the Government will reconsider this matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Mr. Speaker, this is not an ordinary Excise licence, for if it were it would be transferred under the Bill to the local authorities. It is a licence imposed under the Dublin Carriage Act, in which it was provided that a certain licence fee should be imposed in order that the expense incurred by the inspection and licensing of cabs should be paid. That is the reason for the tax.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The corporation are willing to take it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I daresay, but I do not think the corporation would do it as well. But, if honourable Members will allow me to explain, I will say that this is not, as they suppose, a matter confined to Dublin, but it is precisely a similar system to that which now exists in London. I think they will see that they cannot complain of unfair treatment in the matter. I have explained under what Statute the charge was made, and for what reason it was made, and as to the question of cost, I believe, roughly speaking, that the amount produced is about as much as the system cost to maintain. Very well; but in the metropolis of London a precisely similar system exists, and the London
  246
  County Council have no more to do with the licensing of carriages than the Dublin Corporation have under this Act. The whole thing is done by the police, and the annual sum involved is ten times as much as in Dublin. As for the receipt from this licence in London, it goes, not to the London County Council, but in relief of the police expenditure, which is borne by the Government. The amount is something like £36,000 a year, and it is paid on precisely a similar tax and for a precisely similar reason that this tax is paid in Dublin. It is so much in diminution of the actual cost of the police, and Dublin is upon the same footing as London in that respect.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What about the pawnbrokers' tax which the right honourable Gentleman mentioned?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not know that that question had been raised.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I cannot reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but I assure the right honourable Gentleman that we take a very different view of the matter from that which he has put forward.
  Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.
  Another clause—
  "Nothing in this Act relating to the name by which any rate is to be known shall affect the existing qualification for the parliamentary franchise, and the non-payment of any rate bonâ fide, made for the relief of the poor, and not of any other rate, shall work a disqualification as heretofore, and the amount of such rate shall be separately shown on every demand note."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This is an Amendment in regard to the franchise which I do not think the Government can refuse. The right honourable Gentleman admitted yesterday that this Bill deals with the Parliamentary franchise, and by an Amendment which he incorporated in his Bill he provided that the power of electorate shall not be affected by a certain alteration of the register. Sir, the question now is this: are they really going to impose an additional disability on voters in

  247
  Ireland which is not at present imposed upon them, by doubling the rate, by including what is not the poor rate, but a county rate? That seems to me to be a very strong thing indeed to do anywhere. Throughout England, as I understand, it has never been suggested that anything but the payment of the poor rate should be made the qualifying or disqualifying right for the exercise of the franchise. This Bill for the first time conglomerates, under the name of the poor rate, other rates, the non-payment of which would be a disqualification, for the purposes of the Franchise Act. It is, of course, inevitable that that must be the result of the construction of the Statute. But that state of things, as I understand, does not exist in England. The right honourable Gentleman is well aware that it does not exist in England to the same extent, at all events, as may be the case here. I quite agree that there are rates which are not poor rates which are called-poor rates, but I have never seen a decision that, by non-payment of those rates, which were other than poor rates, the right of exercising the franchise was affected. You may say that it is not an inevitable conclusion under the Statute that by the non-payment of rates other than poor rates the exercise of the franchise will in future be affected; but I think that is the inevitable conclusion. I may be wrong, but I gather from the intimation of the right honourable Gentleman that I am right. If it is admitted that I am right, it follows that you are now attaching a disqualification which never previously existed, and doing that by means of a Local Government Bill which never was intended to have that operation. This may have been done in the Parliament of 1867, which was not a democratic Parliament. It was a Parliament elected upon a very high franchise, and that Parliament required that payment of the poor rates should be a qualifying condition of the franchise. Are we now in a Parliament which has been returned upon the existing qualifications going to allow the franchise to be affected because we are getting a Local Government Bill for a wholly different purpose? It seems to me a most reactionary proposal, for it will impose a
  248
  disability by requiring that the whole tax shall be paid in order to obtain the franchise. Observe the effect in the case of a man under £4. His poor rate is now paid by the landlord, but in future he will have to pay it himself, and if he gets any deduction his vote is gone. It will be the same with regard to the county cess, of which he only pays half. Therefore, I say this Bill strikes a blow at the franchise which, it was never intended it should do. In the city of Derry, in Tyrone, and in all the Ulster constituencies, the effect of this Bill must be to diminish the vote in a substantial manner, and to practically affect the balance of Parties. My right honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Tyrone, who succeeded in getting a very small majority for his last Amendment, will find that it will have a far greater effect upon his career than any Amendment about bicycles. He resisted me a few moments ago, but I think I have now come substantially to his relief, and I trust he will show his gratitude accordingly.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Gentleman has told us that he must be either right or wrong, but I may be allowed to point out that if he was right in one part of his speech he was wrong in another. He is perfectly right in supposing that the provision we have introduced into this Bill will cause a change, but, in spite of that, he is wrong in supposing that it does not include charges similar to those which in Ireland have been hitherto paid under the name of the poor rate. As a matter of fact, in order to obtain the franchise it is necessary in England that a person should pay the poor rate, which in county districts includes almost the whole of the rates. Therefore, so far as we are by this Bill making any change at all, we are doing very little else than assimilating the law of Ireland in this respect to that of England. But, Sir, I must ask the House to observe this. We propose in our Bill, and everybody admits that it constitutes a great boon, to consolidate the poor rate and the county cess, and we cannot consolidate those two rates unless both are included under the head of poor rate. If the

  249
  Amendment of the honourable and learned Member was to be accepted, it would be impossible to demand payment of the poor rate and the county cess. If the consolidation we propose is to be a real and true consolidation, we believe it is absolutely necessary that we should make the provision we have made with regard to the poor rate. Sir, I would remind the House of this one fact. At the present time the payment of a tax required in Ireland in order to qualify for the franchise is the poor rate; but, Sir, in future, the amount to be paid for the poor rate and the county cess taken together will be very much less than what is at present paid by the tenant. I think it is only fair to recollect that fact, and to recollect at the same time that we are only doing in Ireland what has long ago been done in England. Act after Act in England has included similar taxes in the poor rate, and in providing that that tax is to be paid in order to qualify for the franchise in Ireland, we are only following the precedent already established in England.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I quite agree with my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Louth, with whom I am in the most friendly relations, that this is one of the most important questions we have to consider. Now, the Chief Secretary has very fairly and candidly admitted that the object of this Bill is to render it necessary in order to qualify for the franchise that the voter should pay not only the rate in support of the poor, but also the county cess. But that is an altogether new departure in Ireland from the registration law, and it is a most unjust and most unreasonable attempt to disfranchise a large proportion of the community. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the franchise in England. I have carefully looked over the Act of 1888, which is the model for this Act, and I cannot find in that Act anything at all equivalent to the consolidation of the poor's rate and the county cess which appears in the present Bill. What is the effect of this clause? The occupying tenant will have to prove that he had paid the half of the county cess, and also that he has
  250
  paid half the poor's rate in order to qualify him to be put upon the register. That is altering the whole foundation upon which the constituencies are entitled to send representatives to Parliament. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the light thrown upon it by the admission of the Chief Secretary, such an alteration is within the purview of this Bill at all, because it affects the general law of registration. As I have been reminded by my honourable and learned Friend, the northern constituencies of Ireland will, many of them, be practically disfranchised. That may be a great benefit to some Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House, but in regard to those who sit on this side, I say it is most unfair. I do not qualify the expression. I think it is most unfair and unjust to alter the whole of the representative system of Ireland by a side wind like this. Let it not be misunderstood. The tenants in Dublin and other towns will now have to prove that they pay the whole of the consolidated rates. I happen to have present to my mind the case of a citizen of Dublin, who is not very far off from where I am now standing, who pays in round numbers £35 for the municipal rate, and about £17 for the poor's rate and water tax. Now, under this Bill, in order to entitle him to the franchise, he will have to prove that he has paid the whole £50 before the 1st of January in any year, whereas at present he would only have to prove that he had paid the £17. In Dublin, and other places, the poor's rate is not one moiety of what I may call this consolidated rate; and in the country it is practically the same thing. The tenant now has to pay half the poor's rate in substance in order to qualify for the franchise. Well, we are not complaining of that, because we cannot deal with the question, although it has always been a blot upon the representative system of this country that it should be made auxiliary to the collection of the rates, because the right to send representatives to Parliament to express the will of the people, and to voice the opinion of the people, should be altogether independent of these fiscal arrangements for the maintenance of the poor-house or any other

  251
  institutions. But the law is so. Those who have read the history of legislation in this country will know that for years it was contested that registration should be made merely an auxiliary of the payments of the poor's rate, but now we are going a step further. We are going to effect in this indirect way what I respectfully submit to this House is a revolution, because we are saying that whereas hitherto it was only necessary to pay the poor's rate in order to obtain the right-to the franchise, you must henceforth prove payment of all rates necessary for the maintenance of roads and lunatic asylums and infirmaries, and various county authorities. I respectfully and most strongly appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. The subject was mooted before on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I made a few observations upon it, but I was then under the impression that although the words "poor's rate" were used, the effect of the Act would be that the collector would discriminate the poor's rate into its component parts, and that the liability of the voter would still remain the same, independent of pounds, shillings, and pence. I wish to state that there would be no difficulty in doing that, because the collector would only have to take the trouble of putting two columns in the manner with which we are familiar in Ireland, in order to distinguish the poor's rate from the water rates and the police rates, and the other different constituents which make up the consolidated rate. What difficulty would there be? It would be a mere clerical matter. There is no magic in the words "poor's rate," and there is no difficulty in discriminating between so much of this rate as would be equivalent to the old poor's rate, and so much that was equivalent to the county cess and other rates. I do confess that, in my opinion, if this Bill now becomes law, and it is to be declared and understood that in order to qualify to be placed upon the list of voters you must prove the payment of the entire rates imposed by this Act, the grossest injustice will be done to Ireland, and it will create such a clamour as will completely overwhelm any advantage that might be derived from this Measure; because, after all, whether we sit in this
  252
  Parliament or in a Parliament on College Green, what we prize and treasure most is the right of the people to send into the Senate their representatives to proclaim and, if possible, to remedy the grievances of their fellow-countrymen.
  MR. FLYNN: It is obvious that if the Government pass this clause as it stands, they will make a serious change in the position of the ratepayer in regard to the Parliamentary franchise. I have always thought that there was no necessary connection between the payment of rates and the right of the occupier to the Parliamentary franchise. At present the landlord pays a portion of the poor's rate, and this clause will have the effect of disfranchising a large number of working men in Cork who have paid their part of the rates regularly, and are entitled to the franchise. This Bill may disqualify them because of the non-payment of the consolidated rate, but, surely, it has been made quite clear that they ought not to be placed in a worse position with regard to the exercise of the franchise.
  MR. JORDAN: Allow me to say that I think the ratepayers must be placed in a worse position under this Bill than they have been in previously. The average poor's rate is 8½d. in the £, and the county cess 2s., which would be 2s. 8½d. in all. The rural ratepayer has to pay half that amount, 1s. 4¼d., in order that he may qualify for the franchise, as against having to pay only 8½d. previously. In fact, the rural ratepayer will have to pay double what he has had to pay in order that he may have the franchise, and I protest, in the strongest possible manner, against the rural ratepayers in the county which I represent having to pay double the former amount, even if the total is diminished by the consolidation of the rate, before they can obtain the franchise.
  MR. FIELD: I do not intend to prolong this discussion, but I should like to have a further explanation from the right honourable Gentleman, or from the Attorney General, as to the effect of this proposed change upon those whom I represent.
  MR. ATKINSON: All ratepayers in the county will be in exactly the same position, except for this, that the rural ratepayer will get the agricultural grant and the town ratepayer will not. It is quite obvious that, inasmuch as the county council will administer both the poor rate and the county cess, no person can have a vote unless he pays the conjoint rate. If the Parliamentary voter and the Irish Local Government voter have different qualifications, it necessarily follows that there must be two revisions. Is it worth while to involve the delay and expense of finding out, first, who has paid the poor rate and who has paid the poor rate and county cess in addition? I submit that it is hardly necessary, for the sake of meeting the case of a comparatively few persons, to incur the cost of a double revision.
  MR. M. HEALY: I must say that the argument of the Attorney General is a very remarkable one. It amounts to this: that there is no hardship upon rural districts, because of the assistance provided by the agricultural grant. Yes, Sir, but the towns are not benefited by this grant at all, and it is the areas which derive no benefit whatever from the agricultural grant which the Government have selected to inflict this additional expense upon. A clause in the Bill provides that, whether a rate is analogous to county cess or not, the borough council can make that rate a poor rate, and consequently make the payment of it a condition of exercising the franchise. In other words, where there is a Conservative town council the Government provide it with a fresh weapon for disfranchising the Nationalist Party. Now, I can understand a proposal which would apply equally all over Ireland, and equally in rural districts, but to place this power in the hands of a particular corporation, and to make that corporation the judge of what should and what should not be essential for obtaining the Parliamentary franchise is the most startling proposal I have ever heard. When the proposal was introduced I confess that I took it to be merely introduced for the purpose of facilitating the collection of rates, and of making the business of town councils easy; but it is evidently a device for
  254
  the further disfranchisement of the Nationalist Party in cities like Dublin and Derry. I do not think that the Government can seriously contemplate a proposition of this kind, and I will only say, in conclusion, that, having carefully read the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper on the Report stage, it is, in my mind, calculated to make the Bill worse in this respect than it was before, because the effect of the consolidated rate now proposed will be to make it harder for the poor to obtain the Parliamentary franchise. It seems to me a most iniquitous proposal, and I really am surprised that the Government should have introduced it in this Bill.
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I should like to say a word in opposition to this clause, but I would like, in the first place, to point out the fallacy which appears to exist in the minds of honourable Members opposite as to the effect in the city of Dublin of this clause, or, rather, of the proposal contained in the Bill itself. It seems to be the idea of the right honourable and learned Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Tyrone, and also of some other honourable Members who spoke on the same side, that the effect of this clause in the city of Dublin will be to disfranchise a number of Nationalist voters. Let me say that, so far as this clause is concerned—and I speak against this clause from purely disinterested motives—if it has any effect at all in that way, it will be to disfranchise the constituency which did me the honour to support me, and for this reason—I can give the actual figures to my honourable Friends opposite if they wish them—that in the three divisions of Dublin 80 per cent. of the voters are half-occupiers, who do not pay one shilling of the rates; and in the St. Stephen's Green division no fewer than 50 per cent. of them are occupiers who live in tenement houses, and who do not subscribe directly one shilling towards the rates. I know it may be said they pay indirectly, but certainly, in the majority of cases, the occupiers of those tenement houses do not contribute one shilling directly to the rates. Therefore, so far from the clause having the effect of disfranchising the Nationalist voters in the city of Dublin, the effect will be to disfranchise the Unionist voters, only

  255
  a small minority of whom possess the property franchise. But it is not fair or proper to discuss the effect of this clause upon particular constituencies. I think, however, both sides of the House are agreed as to the difficulty of having one consolidated rate and one collection. Now, as I understand the suggestion of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Louth, it is that without sanctioning the demand for a consolidated rate, the collector should distinguish between the original portion of the poor rate and the new portion which has been added to it, for the purpose of making the consolidated rate. But what advantage will that confer on the ratepayer unless he is at liberty to discharge his obligations in full by paying only the portion that represents the poor rate? If he pays a sum equivalent to the old poor rate, is he to be entitled to get a receipt on account? If he is, what will be the result? For the purpose of qualifying for the franchise he will insist that he was paying poor rate, but when the collector calls for the balance he will say it was not the poor rate at all, but the new portion which was consolidated with the old poor rate. It is quite true that in the present practice the rate collector serves a notice which distinguishes the different portions that make up the consolidated rate, but he does not accept, nor has he any authority to accept, a portion of the rate. It will lead to most extraordinary confusion, and it will render the collection of the consolidated rate a practical impossibility in many parts of Ireland. I do not believe the clause will have the effect of disfranchising a single vote in the interests of honourable Members opposite; any effect it will have will be in the opposite direction. Certainly, if this clause is adopted, it will render the collection of the consolidated rate a practical impossibility, and it will lead to the utmost confusion, not merely in the segregation of the two franchises, as has been pointed out by my right honourable Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, but it will also necessitate additional expense, while it will render impossible the collection of the consolidated rate in many parts of Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I must say that I have heard with great alarm the statement from the Treasury Bench. I think
  256
  it conveys to the ordinary mind the fear that if the clause is added to the Bill a considerable portion of voters in Ireland will be disfranchised. Hitherto there have been a collection for the county cess and a collection for the poor rate. Neither of those collections clashed; they were all at separate times, and in that way it was much easier to meet the obligations imposed by Statute. But under this Bill, Sir, the occupier will be presented with a bill for the whole amount, and I say, Sir, that that will give to landlords who are not very desirous, perhaps, of having numbers of Nationalist voters on the roll an additional chance of disfranchising them. Of course, it is quite natural for the honourable Member for St. Stephen's Green to make a good case in his own interest, but the operations of this clause will affect other divisions of the city of Dublin, because there is no power of compulsion in respect of the poor rate. I certainly enter the strongest protest against this proposal.
  MR. DILLON: I have always opposed the mixing up of two things which have no natural relation to each other in the slightest possible degree—namely, the payment of rates and the right to the franchise. If a tax collector can make a man pay his rates, he ought to do so apart altogether from the question of the franchise. It is, I suppose, to be regarded as one of the compromises arrived at since the franchise has been broadened in this country, that a man cannot have the franchise unless he pays the rates before certain dates. Now, what will happen in Ireland? In many of the northern constituencies in Ireland the rate collector will abstain from putting any pressure on the ratepayers until after an election, in order that the voters shall not be disfranchised; so that, while you are making an attempt to delude the House of Commons into the notion that this provision is to assist the collector of rates, in many cases it will act in an opposite direction. The Attorney General attempted in his speech to put forward the proposition that men were not compelled, as the price of their disfranchisement, to pay their rates. Sir, they are compelled. They are under an obligation to pay their rates, whether they are on the voters' list or not. I may point out that the payment of these rates depends a good deal upon the

  257
  activity of the rate collectors. I object strongly to the extension of the principle. The proper course would be to abolish absolutely the condition that the payment of this consolidated rate conferred the franchise. Some arrangement ought to be made by which it shall not be made more difficult for a man to get the Parliamentary franchise in consequence of the non-payment of rates.
  SIR J. COLOMB: The honourable Member for East Mayo has called the attention of the House to the fact that the rate collector may have it in his power to disfranchise a large body of people, but I would point out that these rate collectors will be the servants of popularly elected bodies, of bodies elected on a broad franchise——
  MR. DILLON: My remarks referred only to districts where one political party or another may be in power.
  SIR J. COLOMB: These rate collectors will be the servants of popularly-elected bodies, and I do not see how there can be any foundation for the honourable Member's suggestion that they will be allowed to use their power for political purposes.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: If the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland refuses this clause he will disfranchise about one-fifth of the whole of the county of Tyrone. I listened to the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman, and I must say he placed the matter in a more roseate light and in a different light from what I know to be the case. Supposing the Government proposals are passed, an occupier in the county of Tyrone, instead of paying 6d. in the £, as has hitherto been the case, will have to pay something like 2s. 3d. or 2s. 6d.—an increase of 500 per cent.—before he is entitled to exercise the franchise. This is a very serious matter, and one which honourable Members on this side of the House ought to protest against. It is not a political question, it is a question that goes to the very roots of the rights of the people, and we will be neglecting our duty if we sit silently here and allow the Government to disfranchise one-fourth or one-fifth of the Nationalists of Ireland. I
  258
  take it that these people will not be able to contribute this large amount of money, and the result will be that they will be disfranchised. The right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might take this matter into consideration, and postpone it until perhaps Monday or Tuesday, when he will have had time to work out some remedy which will not go in the direction of disfranchising people.
  MR. CLANCY: The honourable Member for Cork [Mr. M. Healy] has suggested that clause 47 of the Bill is a mere clause for facilitating the collection of rates, and he thought also that he was justified in saying that it had a political object. I desire, therefore, to test the intentions of the Government, and I suggest that they should put into the Bill a provision in regard to municipal taxes as apart from non-municipal taxes, such as occurs in clause 68—
  "A council levying a separate rate for the purpose of this section shall make, levy, and collect the same upon the same basis and in like manner as the poor rate, and all enactments relating to the poor rate shall apply accordingly, with the exception that a person shall not be disqualified for being registered as a Parliamentary or Local Government elector by reason of the non-payment of any such separate rate."
  A rate may be struck by the Corporation of Dublin for the expenses to be incurred under this section relating to the collection of general rates, but by adopting such a provision as this the payment of that rate shall not be a condition of the franchise. If the Government have no intention of disfranchising anyone, but merely desire to facilitate the collection of rates, they ought to insert in the Bill a provision for the collection of municipal rates as distinct from non-municipal rates, and that will afford some protection to the electors.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Bill as it stood merely assimilated the law of Ireland to the law of England. He opposed the clause on the ground that its acceptance would prevent the consolidation of the poor law rate and the county cess.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I do not think the House will have cause to regret

  259
  that at a rather late stage of this Bill we have had a discussion upon this important point.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: When the Bill was brought in I do not think the effect of clauses 47 and 68 was fully apprehended. We have heard a good deal from the law officers of the Crown with regard to the practice in England, but I cannot help thinking these honourable and learned Gentlemen rather under-estimate the difficulties. It is true that the poor rate in England, in country districts, is practically made to include everything. It is a consolidated rate, but in urban districts that is not so. Attention has been specially called to the possible effects of clauses 47 and 68; unless the clauses have been entirely misread by honourable Members of this House, power is given to local authorities to consolidate poor rates and urban rates together, and in that case it will become a condition of a person being a Parliamentary voter that he should pay not only one set of rates, but also the other. As a matter of local government, that arrangement is a sound one, but why should you treat an improvement in local administration as a means of curtailing the Parliamentary franchise? We are told it is very difficult to obviate it, but surely some means might be devised whereby these rates might be charged separately. I cannot help thanking that some arrangements might be made. These difficulties cannot be got over if that is not done. In Ireland now, in order to obtain the Parliamentary franchise, the ratepayer only has to pay the poor rate, properly so-called, whereas if this is passed he will in future have to pay poor rate, including the county cess, and any other item which may be included. If Ireland obtains the control of its own police force, as in England, he will also have to pay a police rate, and then there will come to be included the house and highway
  rate as distinct from the county main roads, sanitary rates, parochial rates, and any others which Parliament, in its wisdom, may include in local rating powers, and may be ordered to be collected in that way. I think we have arrived at a point where, I will admit, most unintentionally——
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Intentionally.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary says intentionally. I did not wish to say that. I wished to give him the credit of not desiring to curtail the Parliamentary vote in Irish towns. I think we have unintentionally stumbled on a difficulty, and if the Government, in their wisdom, cannot hold out some hope with regard to clause 47, which must end necessarily in the curtailment of the Parliamentary franchise, I am afraid there is only one course to adopt, and that is to carry the matter to a Division.
  MR. POWER: I think this raises an important point; it raises in certain cases a new complication. In rural districts it makes little difference, but certainly in towns the effect is considerable. Those who are on the Parliamentary franchise now only have to pay the poor rate, but in future they will not only have to pay the poor but the police rate, and any other rates which are collected in this manner. It will confer very few advantages on ratepayers in the towns, and it will make the franchise more difficult for those who live in the counties. It will make it almost impossible in some cases for those who are on the franchise now—they would have a very great difficulty in getting upon it in the future.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be read as second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 180.—(Division List No. 195.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Billson, Alfred

  Caldwell, James

  Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Carew, James Laurence

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brigg, John

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Colville, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Randell, David

  Crilly, Daniel

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Daly, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Dillon, John

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Qu'n's C.)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  McDermott, Patrick

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Steadman, William Charles

  Field, William (Dublin)

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  McLeod, John

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Fred.

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Tuite, James

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Gilhooly, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woods, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Holburn, J. G.

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. James O'Connor.

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pinkerton, John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  NOES.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curzon, RtHonGN(Lancs, S.W)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Helder, Augustus

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Denny, Colonel

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manc'r)

  Doughty, George

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Drucker, A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Bill, Charles

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Kemp, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenrick, William

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fisher, William Hayes

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Knowles, Lees

  Butcher, John George

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lafone, Alfred

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Flower, Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Carlile, William Walter

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Garfit, William

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. G'rg's)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Lowles, John

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  McCalmont, Maj-Gn. (Ant'm N)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  McCalmont, Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

  262

  263

  McKillop, James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tomlinson, W. E. Marray

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Monk, Charles James

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mount, William George

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Orr-Ewing, Charles L.

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stock, James Henry

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. C.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Purvis, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  Another proposed Amendment—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall authorise any alteration in the existing boundaries of the borough of Clonmel, as defined by the Clonmel Corporation Act, 1895, and as amended and extended by the Clonmel Corporation Provisional Order, 1897, confirmed by the Act of the 60th and 61st years of Victoria, chapter 82.
  "Nothing in this Act shall alter the provisions of section 58 of the Clonmel Corporation Act, 1895, as amended and extended by the Clonmel Corporation Provisional Order, 1897, confirmed by the Act of the 60th and 61st years of Victoria, chapter 82.—(Mr. Condon.)
  MR. CONDONsaid that the clause he now proposed was a very simple one, and he trusted the Chief Secretary would have no objection to accept it. There appeared to be some doubt whether the privileges enjoyed by the corporation of Clonmel under the special Acts referred to in the Amendment would not be interfered with by this Bill, and the sole object of the Amendment was to secure existing rights.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can assure the honourable Member that there is absolutely no intention whatever to alter the existing boundaries of Clonmel or any other borough, and there is nothing in the Bill which can affect rights or privileges conferred by Special Acts. Under these circumstances, I think, it would be very unwise to put in the Bill clauses which were absolutely unnecessary. By inserting clauses spe-
  264
  cially conserving the rights of Clonmel, some doubt might be thrown upon the position of other boroughs; it might be suggested that there is something in the Bill altering the terms of other local Acts. In that way this effort to do special justice to Clonmel might lead to injustice to other boroughs. We cannot accept the proposed clause.
  MR. CONDON: After the assurance of the right honourable Gentleman, I do not desire to press the clauses.
  Motions and clauses, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another clause—
  "In the construction of the Poor Law Acts (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1890, the local authority levying the poor rate shall be substituted for the board of guardians, and sub-section 2 of section 2 of the said Act shall have effect only in cases in which the local authority have come to such determination as in the first sub-section of the said section is mentioned."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALY: This clause is of a rather technical description; and if the right honourable Gentleman will give some sign that he intends to accept it, it will not be necessary for me to lay the matter fully before the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: As the clause stands we cannot accept it. By section 19 of the Bill the county council are already substituted for the board of guardians

  265
  for the purpose of levying the poor rate. With regard to the other portion of the clause, I have no objection to it.
  MR. M. HEALY: Then I will move the clause, omitting the words—
  "The local authority levying the poor rate shall be substituted for the board of guardians, and."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to Bill.
  Another clause proposed—
  "So much of the 38th section of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, as provides that such approval or disapproval as therein referred to shall have no effect unless it is determined on by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALY: Under the Bill as at stands power is given to a county council to construct a tramway by a bare majority; whilst, under the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1860, in the case of county boroughs, it is necessary that there should be a two-thirds majority. I see no ground for that distinction, and I do not suppose that the Government will at this hour of the day attempt to support it. The two bodies are elected under exactly the same franchise, and exercise exactly the same powers, and why there should be a distinction in this matter of tramway construction I cannot imagine.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This clause makes a material amendment of the Tramway Act, and I notice that there are a number of new clauses on the Paper which propose to alter that Act. I admit that this is really a very small matter, and I do not object to the clause proposed, on the understanding that this shall not be taken as a precedent in respect of the other clauses amending the Tramways Act.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  New clause proposed—
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the receipt of a collector of rates appointed by the council of any county borough for rates paid to him, or of the cashier of the borough or other officer appointed by the council to receive same for moneys paid to him, shall be a good discharge to the person paying the same. And the moneys so received may be carried to the credit of the separate fund or account to which the council are by law entitled to carry the same."—(Sir James Haslett.)
  SIR J. HASLETT: The Bill, as now framed, makes the receipt of the treasurer alone a good receipt or discharge for the payment of any rate. That would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out in a city like Belfast, and I propose to make the receipt of a rate collector, or borough cashier, or other properly appointed official a good discharge. Then, under the Bill, as framed, all the money received in county boroughs goes to one general fund. If we lock up all our rates in the borough fund, we are only able to get them out again for borough fund purposes. That would be utterly impracticable in the city of Belfast. I therefore propose that rates should be paid to a separate account.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The first part of the honourable Gentleman's proposal is covered by an Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, to add to clause 41 the following proviso:—
  "Provided that the receipt given by a collector of rates in the case of payment of rates, or, where the treasurer is a banking company, by the secretary or clerk of the council in the case of any payment unconnected with rates, shall be a good discharge to the person making the payment, but the amount of the payment shall be forthwith paid by such collector, secretary, or clerk to the treasurer."
  With regard to the second part of the proposed clause, I confess I hardly followed the honourable Gentleman's explanation of it, but if any provision of the kind is necessary it would be better, I think, to embody it as an Amendment to a subsequent clause.
  SIR J. HASLETT: The words read out by the right honourable gentleman are satisfactory, so far as they go, but they do not cover the second branch of my proposed clause.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would rather look into the matter before accepting the proposal of the honourable Gentleman. If any words are necessary I will move an Amendment to a subsequent clause.
  SIR J. HASLETT: I am content with that assurance.
  MR. M. HEALY: I had intended to raise this question when the clause was before the House, but these financial provisions are so complicated that I did not feel myself competent to express an

  267
  opinion as to whether the Government proposals were right or not. I trust before section 41 is finally parted with the Government will consider whether something in the nature of the second branch of the honourable Gentleman's proposal is not necessary. In Cork and Belfast and other boroughs the borough fund is a very small part of the total income; other rates to a very large amount are levied, and it appears to me inconvenient and even dangerous that all these rates should be put into one common fund.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR, who had on the Paper the following new clause—
  "In any town where the Act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter 82, shall be in force then, from and after the commencement of this Act, the said Act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth shall no longer be in force therein, and the commissioners for the time being appointed under said Act shall be deemed to be the first commissioners appointed under the Act of the 17th and 18th years of Victoria, chapter 103, and said Act of the 17th and 18th years of Victoria, chapter 103, shall be deemed to have been adopted, and shall be in force in any such town"—
  said that as this proposal was embodied in section 31 of the Bill, it was unnecessary for him to move the clause.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYhad on the Paper the following new clause—
  "Where any ancient monuments or remains are being dilapidated, injured, or endangered, the county surveyor of any county shall report same to the county council, and if wilful injury has been done the county council may prosecute the same as if for a trespass to property in their own possession, and a conviction or injunction may be had and enforced accordingly, and in such case, or where injury results, or is threatened, from accident or decay, the council may authorise the county surveyor, with the consent of the owner or occupier, to repair same: Provided that the expenditure on repairs under this section in any year shall not exceed in any county the sum of two hundred pounds, and such expenditure shall be levied as a county at large charge. The report of the county surveyor shall be conclusive as to what are ancient monuments or remains within the meaning of this section."
  The honourable Member said he proposed to leave untouched the question of reparation or expense of repairs, and to move the clause down to the words "and a conviction or injunction may be had and enforced accordingly." This would leave it simply as a proposal that the county
  268
  council should have the right to prosecute for any wilful injury to ancient monuments, and he trusted the Government would consider that a very harmless proposal. Some very grave and glaring instances had occurred (he hardly liked, for the credit of the country, to particularise them) of ancient ruins and monuments being injured or defaced. At present no local authority had power to bring the law to bear upon the Goths and Vandals who acted in this way. He thought that the county surveyor, of some independent person, should have the power to step in and prosecute. These ancient monuments belong to us all; they are common property; they are part of the history of the land, and in the case of wilful injury being done to that property some public official should be empowered to prosecute. He admitted that great service had been done by the efforts of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and also by the Bill passed a few years ago, but something further was needed.
  New clause proposed—
  "Where any ancient monuments or remains are being dilapidated, injured, or endangered, the county surveyor of any county shall report the same to the county council, and if wilful injury has been done, the county council may prosecute for same as if for a trespass to property in their own possession, and a conviction or injunction may be had and enforced accordingly."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no objection in principle to this clause, but I am not certain that it will not require some amendment inform. I am not clear why power is required to obtain an injunction, and the clause does not state whether the prosecution is to be instituted under the Malicious Injuries Act, or some other Act. If the clause is read a second time, we will consider whether its form is sufficiently clear.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am quite in the hands of the Government, but it appears to me that, in addition to prosecution for an act already committed, there should be power to obtain an injunction against continuing an injury in course of committal.
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
  New clause proposed—
  "From and after the passing of this Act there shall be added to the Local Government Board four members elected by the county councils of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, respectively, as hereafter provided, and the said elected members shall have the same powers and duties as the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLON: By this Bill a very great and almost unprecedented change is to be effected in the system of Local Government in Ireland. The government of counties is to be transferred into the hands of councillors who shall be elected on a popular franchise, and who are to be entirely representative of the people; but these new bodies are to be brought into contact with, and controlled by, the Local Government Board, a body which, as has been pointed out in this House, is not under the same popular influence as the Local Government Board is in this country. It seems to me that one of the greatest problems the Government have to consider is how they will overcome the friction between the new popular bodies and the old Local Government Board. The Government Bill proposes to make this great alteration in the local governing bodies, but does not propose any substantial alteration in the Local Government Board. It is true the Government have a clause in the Bill by which they propose to add, I think, one member to the Local Government Board for the special purpose of bringing this Act into operation, but that member is to be nominated by the same machinery as that by which the present members of the Board are nominated, and is not to be in any way popularly elected. Now the proposal I venture to put forward is that there shall be added to the Board four members elected by the county councils of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. I have not put upon the Paper any clause providing the machinery for election because I thought I could easily do that when I found that the Government assented to the principle involved. Now what is the object of this proposed Amendment to the Bill, and how do I suppose that it would work for good? The object I have in view is this: that these elected members would bring the Local Government Board into direct touch with the wants and views of the local governing bodies. It would be per-
  270
  fectly competent for the Government to add one or two more members, if they held the view that the nominated members should be in a majority on the Board. I put it to the Chief Secretary that there are many questions which will inevitably arise under the working of these new Local Government institutions in Ireland, and that it would be of advantage if there were upon the Board itself men who were in touch with the local governing bodies and who could express their views and act as channels of communication between the local bodies and the central Board. It has been the great evil of Irish government, and I am sure that the right honourable Gentleman, and every Irish Secretary who has been over Ireland, must have felt it, that there has been no channel of communication between the central authority and the popularly elected local bodies of the country. That difficulty will be increased under the present system, because the popular bodies will be stronger and will have a wider sphere of action, and will be concerned with many more matters, and there may possibly be more friction between them and the Local Government Board than has taken place in the past. I think the proposal I have put forward is a very moderate one, and I hope it will receive from the Chief Secretary fair consideration. I think the success which has attended the operations of the Congested Districts Board, which, although not an elected body, is constituted on totally different lines from the ordinary local governing bodies in Ireland, is some ground for the proposal I make. There is one point in connection with the principle to which I ought, perhaps, to refer, and that is the question whether the four elected members I suggest should be salaried members. My idea is that they need not be salaried members, but that it should be within the power of the county councils to provide them with reasonable expenses while attending to these duties in Dublin to be calculated on the number of days they spend in Dublin. It would not be necessary for the elected members to attend so constantly as the other members, but in the event of any matter coming before the Local Government Board in which the county councils of a particular province are concerned the member representing that province should

  271
  be able to attend the Board and represent the views of his local bodies. I think this would considerably facilitate the work of the Local Government Board and would afford the means of overcoming some of the friction which may naturally be expected to rise in the course of the working of this Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that we are making by this Bill what the honourable Member has described as a revolution in local government in Ireland. We are transferring to popularly elected bodies the duties of local government, and I do not hesitate to say that with such an experiment it would be extremely unwise if there was not a strong central body to control the action of these local bodies. Now the honourable Member proposes that four members should be added to the existing members of the Local Government Board, and that those members should be elected by the different county councils of the four provinces. The effect of that would be, first of all, to paralyse the action of the Local Government Board. There would be a very great risk of differences of opinion rising between the elected members and the nominated members of the Board, and the fact that they are appointed in different ways would be enough to set one section against another section. If you are to have a really powerful central controlling body, that body must have all the freedom of an ordinary Government Department. Complaint has been made in this House more than once that the Local Government Board in Ireland is not sufficiently responsible to Parliament. I have never taken that view. On the contrary, I hold that the Local Government Board is responsible to Parliament through the Chief Secretary. But if you have the elective element introduced into the Local Government Board it would be impossible to say that it was responsible to Parliament in the present sense.
  MR. DILLON: I distinctly said that I should offer no objection to the Government amending the clause so as to provide that the nominated members should have a majority on the Board.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: However that may be, one can conceive cases in which questions might be decided against the view of the Minister
  272
  who was at the head of the Department, and represented it in Parliament. It would be a complete innovation to apply the elective principle to a Government Department, and for these reasons I cannot accept the clause.
  Clause put and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 18, to leave out clause 26, and insert the following clause—
  "There shall be transferred, subject to the provisions of this Act, to every urban district council the business and powers respectively of the guardians and of the grand jury respectively as regards making, levying, collecting and recovering the poor rate and grand jury rate within the districts of such council, and the like powers shall extend and apply to all other rates leviable by such councils within the said districts."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  MR. PLUNKETT: The object of this Amendment is to clear up a doubt that has arisen among the members of the Urban District Councils which I represent, as to exactly what their powers are in the collection of rates. The last words of sub-section 1 (b) of section 25 leave it uncertain whether the urban district councils have power to levy rates for the maintenance of certain public works, and section 26 only provides for the collection of the poor rates within the district. The Government are quite conversant with the difficulty which has arisen about the half rates in the case of hereditaments leased to the Government or to charitable institutions. In my constituency some of the councils have been able to assess the owners and levy their proper contributions, but in some districts that has been found impossible. The matter has been carried into the courts, and as a matter of fact the townships are not able to levy the rates on the proper persons. The municipal authorities are only able to levy from the occupiers, and in the case of these particular hereditaments, which are the only ones which will be affected by my Amendment, it is necessary to levy, not upon the occupier, but upon the owner, and that, so far, has not been found possible. All I want to do is to clear up any doubt in the matter. If the Government can satisfy me that the difficulty would not arise, I shall not press the Amendment. I believe they are as anxious as I am that the matter should be put right.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that no practical difficulty of the nature sug-

  273
  gested could arise. The charge for the maintenance of roads would in future be levied by the county councils. The general rate would be looked after by the county, but the urban district council would have power to levy rates within its own area. Power was given under section 54 for the collection of the rates. As to the collection of rates upon charitable institutions, there was no doubt whatever; the owner was exactly in the same position as the occupier, so far as regarded liability for rates.
  MR. PINKERTON: Would this apply to county towns like Galway?
  MR. ATKINSON: It would apply to all county towns.
  MR. PINKERTON: It will apply to the powers transferred from the Towns Commissioners.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes.
  MR. T. M. HEALYdrew attention to the refusal of the Government to pay rates upon certain property in Kingstown, whereby the Government had in the last five or six years wrongly benefited to the extent of about a thousand pounds.
  Clause put, and negatived.
  Another clause—
  "The following provisions shall have effect in the case of petitions to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order under section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878—

  "(1) The advertisements mentioned in subsection 2 of the said section need only be published in two consecutive weeks instead of three consecutive weeks;

  "(2) Where the Provisional Order sought may be confirmed without the authority of Parliament, the said advertisements may be published in any month, and in such case the notice referred to in the said sub-section 2. instead of being served in the month referred to therein, shall be served in the month following the month in which the advertisements are published;

  "(3) Where the Provisional Order does not affect demesne lands, it may be confirmed without the authority of Parliament in manner provided by section 12 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885, and that section, and any enactment amending the same, shall apply with the necessary modifications;

  "(4) This section shall apply in any case where the said section 203 is incorporated with any Act, or to which it applies, and section 8 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, shall apply in any case where a Provisional Order is made under the said section 203 as so incorporated, or made applicable."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

  MR. M. HEALY: This clause relates to the procedure for obtaining Provisional Orders. By the Public Health Act of 1878 it is necessary to insert advertisements in three newspapers for three weeks running. I propose that insertions for two weeks shall be sufficient. Then, by sub-section 2, I propose an amendment of the law, which is, I think, absolutely necessary. Under the Bill as it stands the Government propose to dispense with Parliamentary sanction in the majority of cases, but still they preserve a provision in the Act of 1878 that the advertisement shall be published in one particular month of the year, November. It is obvious that the advertisements in the month of November are only required because of the necessity of coming to Parliament, and that is the month in which Parliamentary advertisements are generally published; but when you have to go, not before Parliament, but before the Local Government Board, you will greatly cripple the county council if you enact that the advertisements must be inserted only in one month of the year. The clause I propose will greatly tend to simplify the procedure under the Bill, and by lessening expense will add to the usefulness of the Bill.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the main objection he had to this clause was that it would modify the procedure under the Public Health Act, and that was a large general matter that should not be dealt with in this way. It was certainly very desirable that it should be done, if at all possible, and the Government would see whether some modification could not be introduced.
  MR. M. HEALY: I will not press the clause, but I trust the Government will take the whole matter into consideration.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause proposed—
  "The guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, may make regulations for—(a) the conversion of workhouse hospitals into district hospitals; and (b) the transfer of the duties and powers of the guardians as regards such hospitals and the administrative control thereof to a committee of hospital governors appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body; and (c) the payment and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted.
  "The guardians, acting through the said committee and subject to the regulations of

  275
  the Local Government Board, shall properly manage and maintain such district hospitals, and may appoint and remove officers and regulate expenditure, and may receive and apply for the benefit of such district hospitals any endowments or subscriptions given by private persons for such purposes.
  "Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians."—(Sir J. Colomb.)
  SIR J. COLOMB: I need not detain the House at any length in explaining the general effect of this clause. The honourable Member for North Dublin had practically the same clause down on the Paper, but, as his was obligatory and mine was permissive, he very kindly gave way in order that the principle might be discussed upon this clause. I regard this as a matter of very great importance. In districts in Ireland in which the only hospital accommodation is the workhouse hospital the necessities of the workhouse poor are, of course, provided for, but no suitable provision is made for those who are not paupers and object to taking workhouse hospital relief. In such cases the medical officers find very great difficulty in properly treating the patients at their own homes and affording them proper nursing and attention. My proposal simply is to authorise the guardians, if they see fit, and with the permission of the Local Government Board, to constitute the workhouse hospital a district hospital. That would, at all events, get rid of a sentimental objection which is very strong. Then it authorises the guardians to work the hospital by a committee appointed by themselves, consisting of hospital governors who may or may not be guardians.
  [The honourable Member was still speaking when, it being Twelve o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.]

  SUPPLY [1ST JULY].
  Resolutions reported—
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1898–9.

  CLASS II.
  "1. That a sum, not exceeding £9,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries
  276
  and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices."
  "2. That a sum, not exceeding £20,479, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland, and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
  "3. That a sum, not exceeding £3,241, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in Scotland."
  "4. That a sum, not exceeding £7,698, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and for Expenses under the Public Health Acts, Infectious Diseases Notification Act, Vaccination Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."

  CLASS III.
  "5. That a sum, not exceeding £62,046, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
  "6. That a sum, not exceeding £28,951, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."

METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
MR. CRILLY: I object.
MR. SKEWES-COX: May I appeal to the honourable Gentleman not to persist in his objection? This is a non-controversial Measure. It simply enables boroughs within the metropolitan area to apply for a scheme to have the same powers as a vestry or local board possesses for the regulation and maintenance of commons. The Bill has the approval of the Commons Preservation Society, and is not objected to by the Board of Agriculture.
MR. CRILLY: I object.
Second Reading deferred.
House adjourned at 12.5.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his Seat on the Woolsack at a quarter past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  LLANELLY AND PONTARDULAIS RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn. The Orders made on the 30th of June and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
  PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  NORTHAM URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ILFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with a consequential Amendment.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Clinton; and that the Earl of Camperdown be Chairman of the said Committee; read and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (PRELIMINARY RETURN).
  Preliminary Return of the British Army, for 1897, with abstracts, etc.; presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL), 1898.
  No. 230. Turks and Caicos Islands (Report for 1897); presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MANUAL AND PRACTICAL INSTRUCTION COMMISSION (IRELAND).
  Final Report of the Commissioners, with minutes of evidence and appendices, presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SOUTH-EASTERN DIVISION).
  General Report for the year 1897, by T. W. Danby, Esq., Chief Inspector; presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Treasury Minute, dated 27th June, 1898, declaring that James Turnbull, examiner, Inspection Department, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department; laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, appointing the places at which examinations shall be held for 1898; laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Rules made by the Lord Chancellor and county court judges under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897; laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868 (ORDERS FOR FISHERY GRANTS, 1897–98).
  Report of the Board of Trade under Part III. of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868; laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time To-morrow.
  SOLICITORS' BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time To-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  House to be in Committee on Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Monday next.
  COMMONS REGULATION (RUNCORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read, and discharged.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  EDINBURGH IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  VIGORS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.

  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I need only detain your Lordships a single moment, I think, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill is very clearly set forth in the Memorandum. It is non-contentious, it has passed the House of Commons, and has received the approval of the Lord President of the Council. I hope your Lordships will allow it to be read a second time.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I beg to postpone the Question of which I have given notice for next Monday, upon the subject of Secondary Education, until Tuesday, the 19th instant.

BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in asking you to read this Bill a second time, I must make a special claim on your indulgence. This Bill deals with a portion of the very difficult and complicated ecclesiastical law of this country, and in your Lordships' House sit so many special experts on the subject of this law that I have special need of your indulgences It is now 24 years ago since the late Archbishop of York (then Bishop of Peterborough), in a speech equally remarkable for its historical learning and for its eloquence, brought before your Lordships' House the subject of the condition of the patronage laws, and he so impressed your Lordships with the fact that there were evils which existed, and there were remedies which were practical, that he induced you to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into these laws, and to report. That Select Committee was composed of some of the strongest lawyers in your Lordships' House, and it was altogether what is known as a strong Committee. Its Report has always been looked to as one of special authority on this subject. That Select Committee reported, and the attention which their Report called to this subject resulted in the appointment in the year 1878 of a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission again went over the ground which your Lordships' Select Committee had travelled. It endorsed all the conclusions of that Select Committee, and added other recommendations of its own. Since that period no less than 20 Bills dealing with one branch or other of this subject have been introduced in one or other House of Parliament. These Bills have had, in their respective Houses, varying fortunes, but they have all enjoyed the common lot of never having passed into law. Therefore, my Lords, whereas this question was proved to your satisfaction by Dr. Magee to be urgent 24 years ago, I do not think anyone will dispute that within those 24 years that have passed the subject has become more urgent still. The Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time is founded mainly on the Reports of that Select Committee

89
and that Royal Commission, and I would ask your Lordships' special attention to this fact: that neither in the reference to the Select Committee nor in that to the Royal Commission was there any reference to questions of doctrine or ritual. Just as that Committee and that Commission were not concerned with those phases of Church discipline which are comprised within the terms "doctrine and ritual," so this Bill, which is mainly founded on the Reports of that Committee and Commission, does not deal with doctrine or ritual either. Neither, my Lords, can I pretend that in those departments of ecclesiastical law which are outside doctrine and ritual this Bill attempts to deal exhaustively with the whole field. It does attempt to deal with changes which seem most urgent, for which remedies are most possible and most practicable, and on which public opinion has almost unanimously set its mark of approval. There are three branches of this Bill. The first deals with the transfer of rights of patronage of a benefice, the second with the powers of bishops to refuse institution, and the third with the Amendment of certain provisions of the Pluralities Act of 1838 as amended by the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act of 1885. In the first place, I would ask your Lordships' attention to those provisions of the Bill which deal with the transfer of rights of patronage of a benefice. Your Lordships are familiar with the distinction between an advowson and a presentation. An advowson is the perpetual right of presenting to a benefice as often as vacancies occur. It is a right which may be sold or transferred like any other property. Thus, one presentation, or more, may be, as it were, cut out of the advowson and transferred. A next presentation, on the other hand, is the only interest which is usually sold or transferred separately. The object of this Bill in this respect may be stated to be to prohibit any subdivision of the right of patronage, to prevent any temporary transfer of responsibility inherent in the ownership of an advowson—in short, my Lords, to stop the sale of next presentations, but not to stop the sale of the whole advowson. Now, this proposal is met with criticism from two opposite quarters. One class of
90
critics assert that such a proposal is merely tinkering with a great evil, and that the sale of advowsons should be prohibited altogether. Now, my Lords, if such a critic proposes merely to do this and nothing else, I have no hesitation in saying that the consequences would be simply deplorable. Consider, a man may be the owner of a certain amount of property in a parish, and the owner also of the advowson. He becomes impoverished and sells his property, but he is not, according to the proposal of this class of critics, allowed to sell his advowson. He may become a pauper, he may go into the workhouse, he may emigrate and go to the uttermost bounds of the earth, but the advowson clings to him. His family may lose all connection with the parish, all interest in it, yet they cannot sell the right of advowson, and I think there is no one in your Lordships' House who would not agree that the last state of patronage in that parish would be far worse than the first. If that critic, on the other hand, proposes to remodel and recast the whole patronage system of the Church of England, I think I may say with confidence, even in the presence of the great experts on ecclesiastical law in your Lordships' House, that that critic's task would be neither easy nor simple. All I have to say on that point is, that it is entirely outside the purpose or purview of this Bill, and I am expressing my own opinion only in this matter when I say that public opinion is very far from having arrived at the point at which such a change is possible, even if, which I am not prepared now to admit, it were otherwise desirable. The other class of criticism is to the effect that such legislation as is proposed in this Bill is an altogether unnecessary and inexpedient interference with the rights of property. Now, my Lords, I think that that criticism, which has been heard very frequently and rather loudly throughout the country, can be most fully met. I will quote, first of all, from the Report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House of 1874, who expressed the opinion that—
"All legislation effecting Church patronage should proceed upon the principle that such patronage partakes of the nature of a trust to be exercised for the spiritual benefit of

91
the parishioners, and that whatever rights of property originally attach or in process of time have attached to patronage must be always regarded with reference to the application of this principle. All exercise of the rights of patronage, without due regard to the interests of the parishioners should, so far as possible, be restrained by law, and the law should also aim at imposing such checks on the exercise of his choice by the patron as should prevent, as far as possible, the appointment of unfit persons to the cure of souls."
Now, those words were in their entirety endorsed by the Royal Commission of 1878–79, who added further—this is the exact substance of what they added—that—
"They found that while the sale of the right of patronage had been from ancient times allowed with a greater or less degree of freedom by the Legislature, yet the Legislature had from time to time interfered to regulate the conditions of such sale on grounds of public policy, and they referred in particular to the Statutes 31 Eliz., c. 6, and 13 Anne, c. 11."
I will quote briefly from that Statute of Elizabeth, because I think that Statute by itself a complete answer to this kind of criticism. Section 5 of that Statute enacts—
"That if any person or persons, bodies politick and corporate, shall or do at any time after the end of forty days next after the end of this Session of Parliament, for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit, directly or indirectly, or for or by reason of any promise, agreement, grant, bond, covenant, or other assurances, of or for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit or benefit whatsoever, directly or indirectly, present or collate any person to any benefice with cure of souls"—and so on. "That the presentation shall be void, and penalties shall attach."
The Statute of Anne referred to is only a completion and addition in the same sense. In short, my Lords, the law has indicated this to be its view: that the right of presentation is a trust and a property, but the property is incidental to the trust and not the trust to the property. Now, my Lords, the sale of next presentations contrives to combine the enjoyment of the property with the evasion of the trust, and that is the reason why, in the Bill proposed for your Lord-ships' consideration to-day, it is intended to make the sale of next presentations Impossible. Do not imagine, my Lords, that this is only an abstract and theoretical evil. If you were to refer to the elo-
92
quent speech of the late Archbishop of York, delivered in this House 24 years ago, you would see with what words of caustic indignation he portrayed the abuses of the present practice. I will draw your Lordships' attention to two paragraphs out of the Report of the Royal Commission. Paragraph 11 says—
"We regret to say that many flagrant cases of abuse connected with sales of advowsons and of next presentations, as well as with exchanges of livings, have been brought before us."
And Paragraph 22 says—
"We are informed that clergymen of good character and repute have been parties to transactions considered by the law as simoniacal."
Your Lordships might well inquire how it is possible that clergymen of good repute should have been parties to practices which the law considered simoniacal. But I think I shall be able, in a very few words, to show you in what a state of chaos the law has got in that respect. The ecclesiastical law has always denounced in the strongest way any traffic in the cure of souls; and the Statute law has enforced that, as I have already shown you, on more than one occasion. I will now quote from the speech of the late Archbishop of York, who said—
"By a process of subtle evasions on the one hand, and of subtle and nice distinctions, such as English law delights in, on the other hand, the laws against simony have been brought into such a state, that it is hard to know what is and what is not simony; and, when we do know this, harder still to say why one particular transaction should be legally simony and another not so. It is simony, for instance, to buy an advowson or presentation when the benefice is vacant, but not when it is full; and yet it is not simony to buy either advowson or presentation, when the incumbent is actually in urticulo mortis. It is simony for a spiritual person to buy the next presentation to a living, and present himself; but it is not simony for him to buy the advowson, then present himself on vacancy, and then to sell the advowson. Nay, it is simony for a presentee to contract to marry a patron's daughter, but not simony for him to contract to marry a patron's sister or niece, or widowed mother-in-law. The force of legal absurdity could hardly, I imagine, go beyond this last distinction. But, my Lords, the practical results of these absurd distinctions are most seriously mischievous. In the first place, they completely destroy all moral sanction for the law of simony. The difference between what this law allows, and what it forbids, is, in most cases, so purely technical

93
and conventional, that it touches no man's conscience; and consequently evasions of a law so utterly unreasonable come to be but lightly regarded. In fact, simony as a legal offence has completely lost its original meaning—as that of the 'execrable and detestable offence of buying or selling spiritual things'—and has come to mean simply the buying or selling of benefices under conditions forbidden by law."
If your Lordships have agreed with me in the answers I have endeavoured to give beforehand to the two classes of critics that we have to meet, I will briefly explain to you the provisions of this Bill, in respect of this question of patronage. The first clause, and part of the second clause, are devoted to stopping the sale of next presentations, and making impossible the various methods of evasion by which illegal sales of livings are effected; and the schedule is devoted to rendering definite and precise the declaration against simony, to be taken by a priest on presentation. It is further provided that if any person knowingly makes any false statement in this declaration, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable to the punishment attaching by law to perjury. I have only ventured to explain these provisions to your Lordships in a very cursory manner, but what I have stated is, in brief compass, the intention of this Bill. I now come to the second purpose of this Bill, which is, of course, largely involved in the question of presentations—the power of the bishops as to refusal to institute. I think he would be a very rash man who would endeavour to present to your Lordships an exact statement of the law in this respect now. One thing only is quite certain, and that is that the clergyman presented must be what is known as an idonea persona. What idoneity consists in is not certain, but it certainly involves that the clergyman presented must be an ordained priest, or capable of receiving ordination before institution, that he should be orthodox in his views, of good morals, and of sufficient learning. But to show you how complicated the whole of this law is, I may say that no lawyers are exactly agreed as to how the case is to be tried if a bishop refuses to institute on the grounds of insufficient learning. At any rate, I may say with the utmost confidence that the law is not clear. It is very complicated, and the processes to which the bishop is liable
94
for the bare performance of his duty may be to him extremely costly. This subject was fully dealt with by both the Select Committee and the Royal Commission, and I think again, with your Lordships' permission, I can best show you the present state of the case as it presents itself to a bishop endeavouring to perform his duty, by quoting from the speech of the late Archbishop of York. He presumed a case where a clergyman has been presented by a patron, and where the bishop and the parishioners of the parish have fair primâ facie grounds for doubting whether the proposed incumbent is a fit man for the cure of souls, and he supposed that the parishioners have come to the bishop and asked the bishop to refuse institution. This is what the archbishop says—
"Such a bishop must tell the complaining parishioners that there are, indeed, certain specified grounds on which he may refuse to institute a clerk—as, for instance, heresy, immorality, or ignorance; but that the proof even of these is extremely difficult, and that to attempt it he must begin by making himself the defendant in a costly lawsuit; and that when he had done this—when he had braved the terrors of duplex querela and quare impedit—the most likely result will be that he will be saddled with heavy costs, and the parishioners with an obnoxious minister. In addition, however, to this, difficulty in the way of the bishop's discharge of duty, there is this further one, that physical incapacity forms no legal ground of objection."
There are, however, some lawyers who dispute that. Continuing, the late Archbishop said—
"A patron may present a clerk of eighty or ninety years of age—deaf, blind, and with a stutter—to the largest and most important parish in the diocese, and yet the Bishop cannot refuse, on that ground, to institute him. And here I touch on one of the most grievous evils and scandals connected with patronage—I mean the practice of putting into a vacant living the oldest man the patron can find, in order to sell the living over his head."
Such being the state of the law, this Bill, in clause 2, endeavours to find a remedy for this most serious evil. It enumerates—it does not pretend to do so exhaustively—some of the more important grounds on which a bishop may refuse institution, and it adds also the ground of "physical and mental infirmity or incapacity," also "pecuniary embarrass-

95
ment of a serious character." And it provides that in every case the bishop, before collation or institution, shall send a notice to the churchwardens of the parish as to the man that it is proposed to collate or institute. I must say, my Lords, that I attach the greatest importance to that small sub-clause; for the first time it gives the parishioners a distinct and legal opportunity of bringing to the notice of the bishop any just cause, of which he might otherwise be ignorant, why the proposed incumbent should not be instituted. Clause 3 provides a court of appeal, to which either the patron or the presentee may go, against the refusal of the bishop to institute. The court is to consist of the archbishop of the province, and a judge of the supreme court appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The archbishop and the judge have special functions assigned to them. The judge is to find whether a fact sufficient in law has been alleged by the bishop as the reason of his refusal to institute. If the judge finds that no such fact sufficient in law exists, then the archbishop is obliged, by this Bill, to direct institution. If the judge does find that such a fact in law does exist, then it is left to the discretion of the archbishop to decide whether that fact is in itself or not sufficient reason for the refusal to institute. Sub-clause 5 abolishes any remedy henceforward in such cases of quare impedit, or duplex querela. Quare impedit, I may remind your Lordships, is the process by which the patron can appeal to the court of Queen's Bench against the refusal of the bishop, with a final appeal to the House of Lords. Duplex querela is the process by which the presentee can appeal to the archbishop's court, with a final appeal, if necessary, to the Privy Council. I now come to the third portion of this Bill—that part which deals with the Amendment of Section 77 of the Pluralities Act of 1838, as amended by the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act of 1885. By section 77 of the Pluralities Act, 1 and 2 Vic., c. 106, it was enacted that if a bishop had reason to believe that the ecclesiastical duties of any benefice were inadequately performed, he might issue a Commission, consisting of four beneficed clergymen of the diocese, to
96
inquire into the matter and report. The incumbent of the benefice in question might add to the Commission one more beneficed clergyman of the diocese of his own nomination. If the Commissioners, or a majority of them, reported that the duties of such benefice were inadequately performed, the bishop was empowered to require the incumbent to nominate a curate, with sufficient stipend, to perform, or to assist in performing, such duties. If, however, the incumbent did not so nominate a curate within three months, the Bishop was empowered to nominate one himself, and to appoint him a stipend, which, however, was not, except in the case of negligence, to exceed half the net annual value of the benefice. An appeal within one month, either as to the requisition or to the appointment, lay to the archbishop of the province. By the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, 48 and 49 Vic, c. 54:, "ecclesiastical duties" were, for the first time, defined, and they were defined to mean all duties which the incumbent is bound by law to perform, or which he promised at his ordination to perform, and the performance of which has been required of him in writing by the bishop. The constitution of the Commission is changed, and is to consist of the archdeacon or rural dean, of a member of the cathedral body elected by the dean and chapter, of a beneficed clergyman of the archdeaconry elected by the beneficed clergy of the archdeaconry, and a layman, being a justice of the peace of the county, nominated by the chairman of quarter sessions, or, in default of him, by the Lord Lieutenant. The incumbent may also add to this Commission either a beneficed clergyman of the diocese or a justice of the peace of his own nomination; and there are other provisions for strengthening the authority of this Commission. Clauses 7 and 8 of this Bill propose materially to strengthen those provisions. Clause 7 adds to this Commission two more laymen, one of them being either justices of the peace for the county or barristers or solicitors of not less than 10 years' standing. They are to be nominated by the chairman of quarter sessions, or, in default of him, by the Lord Lieutenant. Clause 8 is of some importance. It proposes to enact

97
that where this Commission has reported that an incumbent of a benefice has been negligent in the performance of the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice—I may, in passing, mention that there is no direction, except by implication, in any of these Acts that the Commission is to report whether an incumbent has been negligent; but such a direction is contained by the implication which I read to your Lordships in the Act of 1838, and that implication is emphasised and made more definite in this present Bill—if the Commission reports that the incumbent has been negligent in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, the bishop may at once appoint a curate himself to do the work, without first requiring the incumbent to do so; and, further, he may, if he thinks proper, inhibit the incumbent from taking any part in the performance of those duties. Sub-clause 4, of clause 8, proposes to enact that if such an incumbent is inhibited under this Act he is not to interfere with, or control, the curate in the performance of the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice. There is an appeal against any such inhibition to the same court as is constituted under this Bill to deal with appeals against refusals to institute. Now, my Lords, I do not think it will be difficult for me to show your Lordships that these Amendments of the law are necessary. There can really be only two classes of cases under which such a Commission as this may be appointed. One is the case of an incumbent who is not properly discharging the duties of his parish by reason of physical infirmity. Now, in that case, the Commission will not report that the incumbent has been guilty of negligence, and the appointment of the curate, if the bishop so directs, will still rest with him; and there is no reason that I can see why he should not be as equally competent a chooser of the curate as any other man. But the other case is quite different. That is the case of a man whom the Commission find has been negligent; and I do not think that I am going beyond the mark when I say that a case of negligence of this sort is certain to have been both wilful and persistent. In the case of an incumbent who has been wilfully and persistently negligent in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, is it likely that, on com-
98
pulsion by the bishop, he will appoint the best curate to fulfil the duties of the benefice? It is obvious, my Lords, that such an incumbent is not likely to choose the best possible curate, and in the working of these Acts it has been found that as a matter of fact he does not do so. But, beyond that, it has been found, in those cases where a negligent incumbent has refused to appoint a curate himself, and where the bishop has done so, that sometimes an incumbent, who has refused properly to discharge his own duties, is willing and able to prevent the curate properly discharging his duties either. I may say there have been some scandalous cases, in which proper access to the church has been attempted to be denied to the curate by the incumbent who has been found to be negligent, and I believe in one case the incumbent insisted on continuing the services in the church, and forbade the curate to enter it, and the curate had to erect a temporary building just outside the churchyard. Now, my Lords, it is quite evident that such a state of affairs must be detrimental to the spiritual interests of any parish. This Bill proposes that the bishop should have power to inhibit the negligent incumbent from the performance of his ecclesiastical duties; and it proposes to enact that where an incumbent has been so inhibited he shall not interfere with, or control, the curate in the performance of his ecclesiastical duties. The other provisions of this Bill, my Lords, are fit subjects for your careful consideration in Committee; they are subsidiary and supplementary in character, and I will not trespass further on your Lordships' time by attempting to describe them. All I would say, in conclusion, is that this is a bonâfide attempt to deal with needs that were urgent 24 years ago, and which are still more urgent now, and to deal with them by remedies which are practical and possible. I claim also for this Bill that it has obtained for itself the practically unanimous approval of all parties in this country. The claim on the Church of England to fulfil her spiritual functions is ever increasing, and she is ever feeling more and more the deep responsibility of the duties that lie before her. The demand for this Bill has come from the Church, because the

99
Church has felt that unless she was allowed to keep the machinery through which she has to operate in a condition to enable her to perform her duties she was not having a fair chance. The public conscience of this country has responded to this appeal, and public opinion generally, whether of Churchmen or of Nonconformists, has allowed that the claim of the Church to have the machinery through which she has to operate brought into an order in which it can operate is a just and reasonable one. Hence the genesis of this Bill. My Lords, if this Bill is destined to work for the good of the people of this country and for the Church, there is one man more than any other to whom the credit will be due, and that is that famous ornament of your Lordships' House, the late Dr. Magee, to whom I have several times, in the course of my remarks, alluded. It was he who roused the Church to demand the readjustment of her machinery. It has been due to his efforts and his eloquence that the public conscience has been stirred. He has passed to his rest, but his influence is living with us yet, and if this Bill performs these functions, which I believe it will perform, it will be a lasting monument to his work on earth. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is not necessary that I should make any long speech on this Bill, because the Bill, after all, is the result of a great many discussions in this House. It follows after several Bills that have passed the House and gone down to the Lower House and have been lost simply from lack of time to discuss them. The bishops have again and again expressed their opinions upon this matter, and again and again have asked this House to consider how very seriously the Church was hurt by want of being able to deal with the abuses now sanctioned by law. The Government at last have been good enough to take up this matter, and I am very grateful to them for what they have done. I do not rise, therefore, to criticise the Bill, but to express my strong sense of the value of it, and my certainty that if it is passed it will work exceedingly well. The Bill certainly does not
100
go so far as many would wish it to go; it does not go as far as to provide for the total abolition of the sale of livings; and I wish with all my heart it were possible to make any such provision; but I do not think that anything more is possible than what the Bill now proposes. I do hot think that the country generally would accept anything beyond what is here laid down as the best mode of dealing with the transfer of patronage. The time may come, perhaps, when the country at large will look upon this question in a somewhat different light, and will say that the mischief, though it be nothing more in appearance than sentimental mischief, to allow so solemn a trust as the trust of a patron to be sold, ought not to continue any longer. However, there can be no question, say what we will about it, that the practice of the sale of livings does lower the clergy in the opinion of their own parishioners very much indeed. We can easily find, if we choose to look, expressions of that feeling in very many parts of the country. But, my Lords, it cannot be denied that the sale of livings is very much less than it used to be, and that the great body of patrons unquestionably do their very best to put proper men into the livings which they hold in trust. I do not know that I can find better appointments to livings than those generally made by the landowners of this country; but there are still a certain class of livings which are perpetually in the market. I wish very much indeed we could keep them out. As it is, this Bill goes a long way to put a stop to some of the abuses which do most harm. As, for instance, it puts a stop to sale by auction. Sale by auction is a kind of insult to the parishioners. It is an evil thing that they should feel that they are put up to the chances of the market. Again, it stops the sale of next presentations, which have been constantly used for the purpose of making the living not subservient to the interests of the parishioners, as it ought to be since it is a sacred trust, but subservient to the interests of the patrons and the patrons only. These things have done harm, and are doing harm, and the Bill goes a very considerable way in the direction of preventing them from doing mischief in the future. I do not know

101
that there is any provision in that part of the Bill which I should wish to alter, in the present state of the feeling of the country; in any particular. I may just mention in passing, that in clause 1, sub-section 3, in the first page, and line 25, there are these words, "or for the resignation of a benefice in favour of any person." That seems to me to abolish or repeal the Act 9th George IV., chapter 94, which is referred to as the Act of 1828 in the schedule. I merely want to point out that there is a discrepancy there, which ought to be set right. I wish to point out the difference in order that attention should be called to it. I have no remarks to make on the rest of clause 1. But clause 2, which deals, not with the transfer of livings, but with the institution of unfit persons, is really the most important clause in the Bill. It is for the first time made possible for a bishop to refuse institution on definite grounds, and on grounds which everyone would at once accept as sufficient to justify such a refusal. In all this I find nothing to criticise or amend, accept that it is a little hard upon a bishop that in such cases on an appeal he should be made a party to the proceedings. The result is, if he does his duty, which is unquestionably quite clear before him, any mistake on his part renders him liable to costs, and the costs may be very considerable. Now, I do not care very much, I confess, to remove the liability of the bishop to costs in all those cases in which the judge pronounces that the facts are not sufficient in law to justify the bishop's refusal. But it seems to me that when a judge does pronounce that the facts are sufficient it is very hard upon a bishop that he should be liable in costs, because the archbishop on appeal thinks that he has not rightly used his discretion. If he has discretion, as he must have in the nature of his office, I think he ought to be free from any consequences which might follow in consequence of the archbishop differing in opinion from him. There is nothing else in clause 2 that I should like to call attention to, except sub-section 6 at the bottom of page 3. It is there proposed that—
"Where the presentation is made to an archbishop the archbishop of the other pro—vince, whether Canterbury or York, and such judge as aforesaid shall constitute the court."
102
It is quite out of accordance with all ecclesiastical precedents that there should be an appeal from one archbishop to another, and I think the form in which it stood in the beginning is very much to be preferred—namely, that if the appeal is from the archbishop himself, acting as bishop, it should be to a court consisting of the judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor and three bishops of the province, appointed by the Queen. It is a pity, I think, to depart from ordinary precedent in a matter of this kind. It disturbs the clergy a great deal, and it is not worth while to disturb them. This appeal, the form of the appeal, is not sufficient to justify the change from that which has been previously suggested, and I hope that I may be allowed to move an Amendment to that particular subsection. The last part of the Bill has to deal with cases of neglectful clergy—clergymen who neglect their duty. Clause 7 seems to me excellent. I have no criticism to make upon it. Clause 8 is a little wanting, I think, in clearness, because it is not anywhere indicated that there is to be a special report upon negligence in the performance of ecclesiastical duties. If there is a distinction made, which the noble Lord has just now put before us very clearly, it is between cases where the duties are neglected by no fault of the incumbent and in cases where the duties are neglected by his own fault. I think that distinction is perfectly sound, and it is quite right that it should be made, but I think it ought to be more clearly made than it is here. The law as it at present stands gives an appeal to the archbishop, and the appeal is still continued, and I think rightly continued; but it is not to the archbishop, but to the court, and I confess I rather regret that there should be a change in this respect, because the reference of such a question as negligence to the judge is quite a different thing from the reference of such a question to the archbishop, because the archbishop, from the nature of the case, must be well aware of what is meant by "negligent incumbent," and is a far better judge of such a matter than a judge can be. Negligence, strictly speaking, is not a question of fact; it is very much a question of opinion, and the tendency of leaving these things to the judge is very much to create what is often called judge-made

103
law—that is, a series of precedents which settle that this thing is negligent, and the other thing is not negligent, and so on. It is a matter which ought never to take that shape. I should prefer very much indeed that this appeal were to the archbishop alone, as it is in the present law. The fresh power that is given—namely, to inhibit an incumbent, and not merely to require him to appoint a curate, but to appoint a curate without reference to him, is really absolutely necessary. The present law works ill, especially in that respect. The appointment of a curate by the incumbent is very often used as a mere evasion of the sentence of the bishop. He requires a man to appoint a curate, and the man appoints a curate who is not very much benefit to the parish after he has been appointed; and so, too, it is necessary that the bishop should have the power of giving a curate authority to discharge the duty independent of the incumbent, because there are cases—I am speaking from personal experience—in which an incumbent having been required to appoint a curate appoints one and then thwarts him in every possible way. The present law has been, to my personal knowledge, entirely made useless by the power which the incumbent retains of preventing the curate from doing the work for which he was appointed. I remember once that an old clergyman emptied his church and his school by his neglect of his parish. I put it to him, and he said to me—
"My Lord, I am the best reader and the best preacher in your Lordship's diocese, and if the people will not come to hear me it is their fault, and not mine."
The people, however, judged that it was of no use to go and hear an elderly man who could not, with all his pains and care, enable them to follow what he was saying. They said that when they came to attend his church they could not tell in what part of the service he was, and they declined to go. When I issued a commission, and a curate was appointed, the man refused to abide by the result, and then everything that could be done was done to prevent the curate from doing anything whatever in the church. To continue that state of things is obviously absurd, and I am very glad the Bill proposes a remedy in the way it does.
104
I have nothing to remark upon in the rest of the Bill. It seems to me exceedingly well adapted for its purpose, and I am very grateful to the Government, on behalf of the whole Church of England, for having taken up this question, and for having dealt with it as they have. For myself, I have only to say that, though I propose to move certain Amendments, yet I would very much rather lose the Amendments than lose the Bill; and if I am told that the Bill cannot go on with any Amendments, well, then, I shall certainly consent to their being rejected, because I think the Bill is so well worth carrying that even though we might make it better it would be a great mistake to try to make it better at the risk of wrecking it either in this House or the other.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I certainly do not rise with any intention of opposing this Bill. I think some of its provisions, especially the main provisions in clause 2, are likely to be useful and beneficial; but I confess that for myself I am profoundly dissatisfied with the provisions of the first part of the Bill, which relate to the sale of the rights of patronage. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, divided the critics upon that subject into two classes, for neither of whom manifestly did he entertain much respect. He regards them as a somewhat preposterous people, who did not know anything of the subject. I will deal with his criticism in a moment, but I may be allowed to say that, if I have arrived at certain conclusions on the subject, they have not been hastily arrived at. The late Archbishop asked me to serve on a Committee, which met many times at Lambeth Palace, to consider this subject of the sale of benefices and the best means of altering the law. The present Archbishop of York, and the most reverend Prelate who has succeeded to the See of Canterbury, and the father of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, were members of that Committee, and we had much discussion on the subject. My Lords, the foundation upon which the provision rests forbidding, so far as it does forbid, the sale of rights of patronage, is that it is a scandalous thing that the sale of the right to present to a benefice should be matter of traffic and barter, that it offends the consciences

105
of many, and is to the great majority of the laity of the Church, as well as of the clergy and the episcopate, a thing highly objectionable and likely to lead to scandal. Now, my Lords, I am unable to see any distinction in point of morals between the sale of the right to present once and the sale of the right to present many times. If it be a wrong thing to receive money for the transfer of the right to present on one occasion, in my view it is a wrong thing of precisely the same character to sell the right to present in perpetuity. And it seems to me that it is an evil thing, because it is, as far as I know, the only case in which the sale of the right of appointment is permitted by law. A trust of this description cannot be made matter of traffic and barter ordinarily, but it is allowed to be made so when it is a trust of the most sacred description, when it is the right to appoint a man who is to be, for many years perhaps, the spiritual guide and pastor of a parish. It was a right which grew up in evil times. No one to-day would dream of giving sanction for the first time to such a right as that. But it seems to me that when you, as is done extensively, draw a distinction between the sale of the right to present on one occasion and the sale of an advowson, you give a fresh legislative sanction, by the very distinction which you draw, to the sale of advowsons. So far from its being a step in the right direction, it seems to me to run dangerously near confirming and sanctioning by legislative authority a practice which no doubt has been submitted to so long because it had grown up in ancient times, but which does not, I believe, accord with the general sentiments and feelings of the people of this country. The most reverend Prelate said that, though the consciences of the British people had arrived at the point that they were prepared to abolish the sale of the right of next presentation, they have not yet reached the point at which they would be willing to abolish the sale of advowsons. I venture to think he is mistaken. I believe the area of opposition to the sale of next presentations is just about as broad as would be the area of opposition to the sale of advowsons. It was a limited opposition, and I doubt very much whether that limit would be enlarged if this Bill had been extended so
106
as to prevent the sale of advowsons. In a vast majority of cases patrons do not want to sell their advowsons, they do not regard them as part of their property to be disposed of in the same manner as any other part of their property. That is not the light in which the vast majority of private patrons regard advowsons. They wish to be able to transfer that patronage to their family, and to those to whom their estates go, but they do not wish to bring it into the market and sell it. Consequently my impression is that, except from those who object to putting any limitations on the exercise of the rights of property in respect to advowsons, you would not find any very large area of opposition to a reform of that description. My Lords, I know that the difficulty was very much discussed, in the Committee to which I have referred, of making a reform of this sort without any compensation to the owners of advowsons. Indeed that was a difficulty which chiefly impressed those who thought it possible to go so far, although the views which I entertained met with some substantial report on that Committee. My Lords, the difficulty, no doubt, is a real one, but at the same time it must be remembered that this Bill does deprive the owner of an advowson of rights which he now possesses at law without giving him any compensation at all. The right of selling a part is as much a right as the right of selling the whole, and therefore the Bill does not steer clear of the difficulty of interfering with the rights of property without giving compensation. I do not say it should give compensation, because I believe the right is one which may be freely interfered with under the circumstances, without a demand for compensation. But, my Lords, if you were to prevent the sale of advowsons altogether, I believe that there, again, you would interfere with property in such a way and to such a degree, following only the lines and principles of this Bill, that might justly be done without giving compensation. There are only a very limited number of owners of advowsons in the country who would think that they had been wronged in the least if there was a provision preventin the sale of advowsons. I admit there is a difficulty which would have to be met, but it seems to

107
me that the kind of equitable treatment which might be meted out in such a case would be to allow a certain number of presentations, say two presentations, to elapse before you forbade the sale. The objection which weighs most with me with regard to this clause is that it seems to give a sanction to that which I cannot help feeling is an evil. Of course, as I have said, the Bill, so far as it deals with sale, goes in the right direction, but I cannot help remarking upon one provision in it which, it seems to me, will wholly fail of effect, and that is subsection 2—
"It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage, save in the case of an advowson to be sold in conjunction with any manor or hereditament."
Now, my Lords, no doubt it may be thought to be something more scandalous if a living is sold by public auction than if it is sold by private contract. But this Bill does not condemn a living being sold by public tender. Under this Bill you may have a place absolutely placarded with bills that a certain living is "for sale," and accompanied by an announcement that tenders will be received by Mr. So-and-So, at such and such a time, and at such and such a place. That is not made illegal by this Act; and it is only the auctioneer with his hammer that is made illegal, and there, again, there seems to me to be a distinction which is not worth drawing. What I want to call attention to is this: that you do not forbid the sale of an advowson if it is sold with a hereditament. What is a hereditament? Any piece of land, however small, is a hereditament. A perch of land—half a perch of land—is a hereditament for the purpose of selling an advowson by auction. Why are these things sold by public auction? Because they get the best price by that means. Do you suppose that any man who wants to sell by auction after this Bill is passed will fail in so doing? What has he got to do? He has only got to find a hereditament to sell with the advowson. Very well! A perch of land, at £10 per acre, costs 3s. 9d. He has only got to sell three-and-ninepenny worth of land with his advowson, and where is your prohibition? He may, perhaps, offer a 40s. freehold with the advowson, and then he
108
would be able to offer as an inducement a vote for the county. Surely, if this thing ought to be prohibited, it ought to be prohibited in some effectual fashion. It is an idle pretence of prohibition when you first of all suppose a man is anxious to do a thing, and you still leave him in a position to do it without the slightest actual impediment. An auctioneer in the habit of selling advowsons would probably buy an acre of land which he would keep on hand for purposes of this sort. He would arrange it out in half-perches, of which there would be 112 to the acre, and which he could arrange to be sold at 1s. 10d. each to the intending seller of the advowson, and he would be in a position to tell the intending seller that he will always be able to sell an advowson even after this Bill passes. I am quite convinced that such a state of things is not the intention of those who framed this Bill, but that seems to me to be the way in which it stands. Of course, I understand what is meant by this clause. It was intended to allow an advowson to be sold in the case of an estate being put up for auction connected with which estate there was an advowson. But that is not what has been done. I quite admit the difficulty of defining what is an estate, and what size of estate you are to define for the purpose of the Act; but it would be far better to do that rather than leave it as it is now, because, as the Bill stands, you could drive—not a coach-and-six, but the whole of the traffic of London through that section of the Act of Parliament the first day it passes into law. Now, my Lords, with reference to the objection of the noble Earl that if you did away with the sale of advowsons you would have cases in which a man sold his estate, and the advowson would be vested in someone unconnected with the land in any way, and would, therefore, be likely to get into the hands of persons who could not well be entrusted with the gift of a living. I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal of exaggeration in that. A vast amount of the patronage of this country is in no way connected with the ownership of land, and the livings are nevertheless given, I believe, by these lay patrons from excellent and good motives, and with excellent results. It need not be land in the parish, or connected with

109
the parish in any way, because, as we know, that although the owner of an estate has not in his hands an advowson in connection with his own estate, he may have in his ownership several advowsons in different parts of the country, and therefore it is not really, as I think, essential to the ownership of patronage that he should be connected always with the ownership of land, and then, after all, you are going to sell to—you know not whom—somebody, perhaps, not friendly to the Church—somebody not likely to care whether a good man is put into the living or not. I do not see that you get any security that the advowson is likely to be better used by the man who purchases than if it were left in the former hands, and if he does not care about it, when the disposition of his property takes place, there is nothing to prevent his divesting himself of it, and making it over to the person who is to be his successor in the estate. You do not forbid the transfer of it. He may not sell it, and bargain for its sale, but in all cases of that sort it is possible that it may be considered in the price paid for the estate. I do not dispute that there are cases in which a man would say, "If I am to possess the estate I will give something more for the estate because I want the living." That would be quite an exceptional case, but, at any rate, it would not give rise to the scandal which the sale of an advowson at present does. The difficulty which the noble Earl suggested is not by any means a sufficient reason for not proceeding further with this reform. That is all I have to say about the first part of the Bill with regard to the sale of advowsons—that it seems to me that it might have excluded the sale of all advowsons, with some such equitable provision as I have already sketched out to your Lordships, if it be thought advisable that you should permit the sale in connection with an estate. It was one of the proposals made in one of the previous Bills—that you should allow the sale where it was sold in connection with, I think, no less than 100 acres of land in the parish. That was one way in which the difficulty was met, to which the noble Earl has alluded. I would far rather see it made in that way than on account of the difficulty arising in these cases—considering it as a means to deal thoroughly with
110
this question of the traffic in the rights of patronage to benefices. With regard to the second clause, I want to call attention to a result which cannot have been altogether foreseen when it was framed. This second clause allows the bishop to
"refuse to institute or admit a presentee to a benefice if, at the date of the vacancy, not more than one year has elapsed since a transfer, as defined by the first section of this Act of the right of patronage of the benefice, unless it be proved that the transfer was not effected in view of the probability of a vacancy within such year; or on the ground that at the date of the presentation not more than three years have elapsed since the presentee was ordained deacon."
That is to say, if there has not been more than one year between the transfer and the vacancy, then the bishop may refuse to institute. Supposing a person presented within the year. The bishop refuses to institute. The patron appeals to the archbishop; the archbishop confirms his refusal. He presents somebody else, and the same process may be gone through, as far as I can see, any number of times, because the fifth section says:—
"In reckoning the date for lapse no account shall be taken of the period between a presentation by the patron and the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit the presentee; or the period between the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit, and the decision of the court upon such refusal."
That is the decision of the archbishop's court. There is no lapse going on, and as soon as the archbishop has confirmed the refusal another presentation is made—the process goes on. How long the living is to be vacant I do not know, and what becomes of the unfortunate benefice which remains vacant because the bishop is unwilling to institute I do not know. I do not see that any provision is made to meet the objection in the Bill. The same objection applies to sub-section (b). By that subsection it is provided that the bishop may refuse to institute or admit—
"on the ground that at the date of the presentation not more than three years have elapsed since the presentee was ordained deacon."
There, again, the same state of things arises. You have a presentee in whose case not more than three years have elapsed; the bishop refuses to institute, you appeal to the archbishop, you

111
have got a month for appealing, and the archbishop confirms the bishop's decision. Time is running on then, he is getting beyond the three years, and the patron may go on presenting, as far as I can see, the same person over and over again, and when the three years have elapsed the bishop would be bound to institute him, because he cannot then say that "not more than three years have elapsed since the presentee was ordained deacon." There is no provision that you shall not present the same man more than once, and it seems to me that the clause can be rendered entirely nugatory in that way. I thought it right, my Lords, to call attention to these defects, as I consider them, because it seems to me that the effect of these provisions must not be overlooked.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The noble and learned Lord seems to have entered upon rather an academic discussion. He said at the beginning that he did not intend to oppose the Bill—nor has he opposed the Bill, nor has he suggested in what way he would make the Bill satisfactory. He attacked the sale of next presentations as much as he did the sale of advowsons, and yet he has coupled that attack with this reservation, that there ought to be two occasions on which the presentations might be allowed to lapse before the sale was forbidden. Now I cannot help thinking that these objections savour rather more of the attorney's office than of my very noble and learned Friend's higher views of the Chancery Court, a remark which also applies to his criticisms with regard to the sale of advowsons with an estate. The noble Earl has just put it as if the advowson is the chief thing, and is to be sold as an appendage to the land. That is obviously not what is meant. The advowson is to be sold in conjunction with the estate, and the manor, and the hereditaments. I do not know how lawyers might interpret it, but for my own part I assume they would take it to mean something in the nature of a manor. At any rate, that is one of the objections which I cannot think would be found to exist in practice. I repeat that the object of selling by public sale is for the estate and not for the advowson. That is the reason why people in the case
112
of large estates seek to sell them by public auction—that the advowson is an appendage to it.
LORD HERSCHELL: In the great majority of sales by auction they are sales of advowsons separately.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Yes; but in the case of a sale to which the noble and learned Lord adverted, I think it is a case of sale together with land—what he calls a hereditament. In these cases it is almost always the estate that is being sold, and the advowson is attached to it, and adds to the value of the property. I should like to know when we are considering certain duties which the noble Lord's Government imposed upon the country, whether the advowsons do not form a considerable part of the value of the estates, and while the State does not hesitate to take these duties, it also does not hesitate to take away the property on which they have been founded. This Bill goes as far, probably, as public opinion will go, and the only proposal with regard to the sale of advowsons is the one proposed by Lord Westbury—which proposal was for the sale of endowments to private patrons, and the money was to go for the increase of the livings. Thus you have the thing done openly and by Statute passed through both Houses of Parliament—that is the most recent Statute on the subject of sales enabling certain clauses of advowsons to be sold, and, as I believe, to great advantage. I am not going to enter into the question of private patronage or public patronage, but I venture to say this, that in looking back into the history of patronage of a public character—episcopal patronage, dean and chapter patronage, and other patronage—you will find that the private patronage of this country will bear fair comparison with it all, and that there are instances in connection even with episcopal patron, age, which would not bear so close an examination as many of the cases of private patronage. But that question is not before us, and the noble Lord opposite is not opposing the Bill on that ground. Nor do I understand that it is the intention of the noble Lord to move that it be extended in that direction. If it is his intention not to move for its extension in that direction,

113
then let us be thankful to have what we have, and after 24 years of waiting at least let us put something into operation which will relieve us from many of the great scandals and rid us of some of those evils of denature which have proved one of the greatest curses of the Church.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: In common with all your Lordships I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who spoke a few minutes ago. I do not think the noble Lord does more than justice to himself when he claims to be one of those who took an active part in the early stages of the preparations made for arriving at the result which I hope we shall now at last attain. The efforts in this direction have been continuous for many years, and I can speak from my own personal knowledge of the active part taken a few years ago in our private consultations by the noble and learned Lord himself. I think that amid the tributes that have been borne to-night, and rightly borne, to the work of Archbishop Magee in bringing public attention to bear on this subject, we ought not to forget the yet greater work of Archbishop Benson. Year after year he brought this matter forward, and spent long months beforehand in working with others in preparing for the various Bills which were successively introduced, and if to Arch-bishop Magee is due the credit of having first focussed public opinion on this subject, to Archbishop Benson may be attributed the credit of having maintained that interest at a high level, and for having looked after the subject perseveringly from year to year. In regard to the noble and learned Lord's criticisms of the Bill, there are some of them with which I am personally prepared to agree; there are others which I confess I was surprised to hear from him. The argument, for example, which he used as to there being no difference between the sale of an advowson and the sale of the next presentation seemed to be to me false in this way. The difference, surely, lies in this, that in the case of the sale of an advowson it is, at all events, possible—nay, it is even probable—that the interest of the parishioners and not the interest of any individual may be foremost in the
114
purchaser's mind; but, in the case of the next presentation it is presumably in order that some individual may be appointed to the post that the purchase is made. I can hardly think of any other circumstances under which the next presentation is likely to be bought, and this seems to me to lie at the root of all our proposed legislation. In regard to the point upon which the noble Lord dwelt at some length—the possibility, under clause 2, that a long series of bad presentations might be made with the intention that in the interval that arises between these presentations the young candidate who was to be presented might grow to mature years—I wonder whether the noble Lord considered what had to be done in order to carry out his idea. First of all, there must be a series of unfit men provided who are to be brought forward one after another—
LORD HERSCHELL: The same man might be presented time after time.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: And in case of an appeal the costs follow, and would have to be paid time after time by the patron whose nominee is again and again rejected. But these are mere details, and, my Lords, I would rather say a word or two about the Bill as a whole. To-night is to some of us, who have watched and cared for these things for many years, a somewhat memorable night, because we have come within reach of the fruit of what has been the unfructuous labour of so many sessions. The fact that Bill after Bill—amounting to nineteen or twenty in all—has been presented on this subject, and that there have been Select Committees and Royal Commissions deliberating over and over again about some such Measure, has at all events had this advantage, that the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out from all points of view, from side to side, and from top to bottom, and to-night we have the product of the immense amount of thought which has been spent in considering the subject—a product which, I believe, will thoroughly stand the test. Personally, I believe that this Bill goes as far as public opinion is yet prepared to go. For my own part, I agree with the noble and learned Lord in desiring that the time may come when we shall

115
see the sale, not only of next presentations, but of advowsons absolutely abolished, but the day, I feel, is not come yet. We have been looking for it for long. It is many years ago since a bishop, the senior in years among all those now on the Bench, said—
"I hold that the sale of livings deserves unmitigated condemnation, and ought to be clean swept away. The thing is an offence in God's sight, and a blot on the character of the Church of England."
I am not sure that I could personally use such strong language on the matter, but while I believe in the main the principle is a sound one, I am convinced that we have not nearly reached the stage at which public opinion would enable us to effect so drastic a change. I realise, too, that there is not a little to be said upon the other side. It is because I believe in the enormous value resulting to the Church from the existence of private patronage that I want to see abuses of this kind swept away. It has been said that Bills of this sort are an attack upon the rights of the private patron. I do not believe that they are. I believe that Bills such as this are the best security for the private patron. It is by removing the abuses which attend the sales of advowsons that the legitimate rights and privileges of the private patron will be placed upon a firmer basis than they have ever yet stood upon. This Bill can do no harm at all to the private patron who desires to exercise his trust in a proper way. It is simply with the object of preventing those who desire to exercise their rights in an improper way from doing so that these provisions are inserted, and I trust and believe they will be effective. To the first part of the Bill, which deals with presentation and with the bishops' refusal to institute, there are, I suppose, two lines of objection. One has been alluded to to-night, the other has not. The first objection is that it interferes with the rights of patrons; the second is, that it increases the power of the bishops. So far as regards the interference with the rights of patrons, I agree with the words of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill to-night, when
116
he said that the property is incidental to the trust, and not the trust to the property. Whatever else the ownership of an advowson is, it is a trust for the public good. In what way can the provisions of this Bill be supposed to injure those who desire to exercise that trust in a right manner? It is said, first, that we are fettering the discretion of the patrons. Not so; we are helping the patron who desires to execute his trust rightly to have a really trustworthy investigation. We are doing for the patron that which he finds is difficult to do for himself; we are helping him to reject the unworthy man, and to find the man he desires to find—that is, the man best fitted for the benefice to which he desires to appoint. Then we are told that it will decrease the sale-value of advowsons. I do not care if it does. If that be so, it is because the advowson has acquired a fictitious value owing to the facility with which the patron can, if he likes, evade the law. The law has laid it down that a man shall not be able to buy an advowson or presentation with immediate possession. The Bill is intended to render impossible what has, by the exercise of a little evasion, been quite easy in the past. I venture, with great respect, to differ a little from the most reverend prelate in what he said as to the sale of advowsons having very largely decreased. I have here with me a list—the latest edition of the circular pamphlet issued by the principal agent in these matters. It is prefaced by a plaintive appeal as to the harm which will be done to his cause and to his clients by the passing of this Bill, and he goes on to show by the list of advowsons and next presentations that he has for sale that we are far indeed from having reached the point in which a Bill like this is unnecessary. He now advertises some 230 benefices and next presentations. He has himself told us in the evidence he gave before the Royal Commission that the vast majority of those, however they may appear in the eye of the public, are practically sales of presentations with immediate possession—the very thing the law intends to prevent, or, at all events, to hinder. His

117
own words before the Royal Commission are—
"Three-quarters of my transactions are with immediate possession, and, strictly speaking, they are nearly all illegal."
And then a little later he says—
"The reason for secrecy is this: the centre point of simony is the immediate possession."
Now, it would be very much more difficult to flout the law in that way if, as I trust will be the case before many weeks are over, this Bill had passed your Lordships' House, and had become the law of the land. It is not the rights of property but the wrongs of property, if I may so call them, that the Bill will damage if it passes in its present form. Then it has been said, and said very loudly, that the Bill is mischievous because of the increase of the power it places in the hands of the bishops. It is perfectly true that the Bill gives the bishops some increase of power—that is, an increase of responsibility, though not, I am glad to say, of patronage. That responsibility is a burden which the House and the country desire that the bishops shall carry. What are the bishops for but to exercise responsibility? It is what we are called to do, and what we mean to do if you place these new duties in our hands and give us the power of discharging them. We are not afraid of accepting responsibility. Bishops have to live and act under a fierce light of public criticism. We know that if the power be exercised wrongly in the case of an individual bishop by his refusing a duly qualified presentee, the Bill gives the presentee a right of appeal. We are not afraid of exercising the responsibility which the Bill desires to lay upon us. We ask the House and the country to strengthen our hands in the endeavour to safeguard the threshold of the entry upon the cure of souls, because it is there that the real peril lies. Once a man has crossed the threshold and been inducted to his benefice, he may go very far astray without it being possible for us to remove him or pull him up. Every bishop knows how he has received letters time after time, complaining of the inefficiency or the wrongdoing of this man or that; and, as a general rule, the ending of the letter is—
"Whatever happens, do not mention my name";
118
And then, a few weeks later, we find that our correspondent has been saying—
"The bishop has all the facts in his possession; why on earth does he not act? It is just like those bishops, just what they always do!"
This is a mere commonplace which is within the daily experience of all of us. What we try by this Bill to do is to safeguard the threshold of entry upon the cure of souls. Do that, and the perils that follow will be far less than they are now, because we shall be able to check at the outset that which might have become an unrestrained evil if we had allowed that threshold to be crossed. One word about the second part of the Bill. There was great difficulty some years ago in regard to the provision inserted in one of the former Bills, which appeared to result in this, that an old man, simply because he was old and weak, might conceivably be turned adrift on no other ground than that he was not able to do what he had been able to do 20 years before. I think that danger was very greatly exaggerated. The discretion lay with the bishop, and his responsibility would have been exercised for the protection of such a man. Whether that provision was a wise one or not, it has now gone, and therefore that difficulty which encumbered the question before does not now beset us. The Church and people of England, so far as we can judge, want the bishops to have the extra power this Bill confers, and, as I said before, we will do our best to use it. There is danger in all discussions of this kind lest we seem to imply that our scandals—the wrong-doings that exist among the clergy—are greater and more numerous than they are. They are real, but they are few, and the reality of them is what calls for this Bill. It would be a sad thing indeed if it were to be supposed that we were parading these scandals as things of constant and daily occurrence. I believe there is no body of men in the world so large in number—we have in the Church of England 25,000 clergymen—in whom moral wrong-doing is as rare as it is among the clergy of the Church of England, and the reports which gain currency, sometimes from lack of information, sometimes from malice,

119
are often worth running to ground, because it will be found how feeble and false they are. A year or two ago, for example, I noticed in the Press a letter in which the statistics of the criminal wrong-doing of the clergy of the Church of England as actually proved in Court during a single twelvemonth were elaborately tabulated, amounting to some 300 gross cases of moral misdemeanour or criminal conduct; and the writer gave at the bottom, what the newspapers would call a guarantee of his good faith, his full name and address. I wrote to him, and asked him for information as to the statistics upon which his table was based. After some little delay I received my letter back again. It had wandered all over England—no such person was known. I wrote to the editor of the newspaper, but owing, as I was afterwards told, to a change of editorship, no notice whatever was taken, and many other papers continued to copy those so-called statistics. I will give one more instance. Only a few months ago I saw a strange statement, bluntly and plainly made, that at a gathering for the relief of decayed sandwich-men in East London, it was discovered that a considerable portion of them—half at least—had once been in orders in the Church of England. I wrote to the editor of the newspaper, and with a candour which I had hardly anticipated he favoured me with his grounds, and they were these: that a correspondent told him that he remembered once hearing it said in the smoking-room of a club that of those present at an entertainment of the kind described, a large number of men had been clergy of the Church of England. I simply notice these things to show how often it is the case that scandals which become current, if traced, are found to be devoid of foundation, and it would be a sad thing if it were to be supposed, because we are dealing in this Bill with wrong-doings, that those wrong-doings are many. I hope that your Lordships will read this Bill a second time to-night. Among the infinite varieties of opinion upon subjects, sacred and secular, which are to be found among the clergy and laity of England, there is practical unanimity in asking for this Bill, and the clergy of the Church of England, and I fully believe the people
120
of England also, trust to your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: With regard to the criticisms which have been made upon the observations of my noble and learned Friend beside me, I think they were hardly deserved, because what he pointed out was that in framing the Bill there were loopholes left, which would lead to results which everyone would entirely deplore. That was the whole object of his criticism, and it was not mere carping criticism. It was made with the view of pointing out that if certain portions of the Bill were not amended it would not be as efficient as its supporters would desire it to be. Turning to what the right reverend prelate has said, I heard with considerable pleasure one of his later remarks, in which he said that for his own part, and I think he added that it could be said for others in his high position, he would not shrink from the responsibility of carrying into effect the provisions of this Bill in regard to inefficient and unworthy clergymen, if it should pass into law; and he further made this remark, which struck me as exceedingly to the purpose, that it was best to stop these evils at the threshold. I do not wish to import into this discussion subjects which are not in touch with the Bill, but I may say that I am convinced that on the part of the laity—and it is for the laity, let me observe, that the Church exists—there has been a feeling that those who are entrusted with high positions in the Church have not taken upon themselves all the responsibility which they ought to have taken, and that in many respects they have not interfered at the threshold with evils which have grown up further than they would have grown if they had interfered at the proper time. My Lords, the Bill gives an opportunity which I greatly welcome, by notice being given to the churchwardens of the parish of the intended appointment of a clergyman, of enabling those who may have anything to allege against the appointment to make these allegations—an opportunity and a provision which, I think, will be most valuable. In that respect I think the Bill is exceedingly useful; but, my Lords, the Bill, whilst it stops negligence in the performance of ecclesiastical duty,

121
carefully excludes from that negligence a considerable portion of the duties of the clergymen, and those portions consist of those duties which should be so performed by the clergyman that in their performance he shows whether he is a loyal and true member of the Church of which he forms a part. My Lords, I am not at all disposed, in mentioning this matter, to press what may be called, if your Lordships will forgive me for so calling it, the high Protestant view too far. I am quite certain that any who have paid any attention to the history of the Church of England, and all who look at it fairly and with an unbiased spirit, must, whatever their personal opinions may be, be well aware that the original foundation of the Reformed Church was so made as to leave a very large and wide liberty within the Church to those who might hold opinions which were somewhat divergent to each other. It always seems to me that that is to the best interests of the Church of England, and if you depart from the original compromise, and draw too tightly either way the bonds which are laid upon the clergymen, I do not believe that the Church of England would continue very long to exist. But, on the other hand, there is very great danger lest in certain matters, to which I do not wish to refer especially, you should stir up a feeling in the laity of serious discontent, and I am quite certain that the right reverend prelates must be aware that it is especially in the rural parishes that this feeling most exists. Of course, in the large towns, where there are a great number of places of worship, it is easy to find places of worship which, are congenial to the opinions of any church worshipper, but in a rural parish, if it so happens that a clergyman—no doubt, probably, a perfectly conscientious man, and, being a conscientious man, believing that it is his duty to do so—introduces certain changes which are unsatisfactory to his parishioners, I can assure the right reverend prelates that I do not think they can calculate the injury done to the Church and the injury done to religion, which is of more importance than the Church, when such things as that occur. I have known myself of a case some years ago, when practices which I have in my
122
mind were by no means carried so far as they are now. A very worthy clergyman, because he neglected the feelings of his parishioners, which happened to be in the direction of the stronger Protestant feeling, created a state of things in that parish which was most detrimental to religion, and most unfortunate in every possible way, and it led to the secession of a great part of the parishioners for a long period of time. That might have been avoided if the bishop had been in a position to take care that the clergy who are appointed are, on the whole, men congenial to the parishioners whose interests are to be committed to their charge. This always seemed to me to be the duty of a patron, independent of any personal view he may have, to select a clergyman who is likely to be most acceptable to the parishioners with whom he is to be connected. That seems to me to be one of the most essential and important duties of a patron, and a duty which I believe a conscientious lay patron is well adapted to perform. He is likely to know what is the temper of the people in his parishes, and I can assure those who are not well acquainted with the inhabitants of some of our rural parishes that they can scarcely be aware how dangerous it is to tamper seriously with the views that they hold. There are many attached members of the Church who through certain practices, although they do not create anything but a feeling of indignation and of dissatisfaction in these parishes, feel that they are very prejudicial to the interests of religion. I have ventured to make these few observations, and I have founded them upon that particular remark of the right reverend prelate, without which I do not know that I should have said anything at all, and it is for this reason that I trust that those who are at the head of the Church will take courage, and will endeavour to do all that they can, in their high office, to prevent an extension of practices which, no doubt, are exaggerated, which do not probably exist to the extent which some persons represent them, but which still have created a feeling of disquietude and a feeling which I am sure every member of the Church in this House would desire not to see prevail any further. I have made these observations in perfect good faith. I

123
will not, for one moment, disguise that that which I am about to state is a mere opinion which has no practical effect, but I do not believe that, speaking generally, it is a permanent advantage to the Church to be connected with the State. But that is not the question before us now. The question of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church is not a practical question at the present moment in this country, and whilst the Church exists, whatever may be one's opinion, in the cause of that which every right-minded man must cherish, the cause of religion, this we must desire—that the Church should be so administered as to give contentment to the people of the country, and to do the work committed to it in the most efficient and satisfactory manner.
THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: It is impossible to listen to the remarks of the noble Earl without feeling that they are of a character which, in their scope and in the strictly studied moderate language in which he expressed them, will excite the sympathy not of one side only of your Lordships' House. The danger to which he has pointed is a real danger. There is—I do not think it exists very largely—a certain alienation from the Opinions of the Church of England which is deeply to be lamented. I will not go so far as to express any opinion at all equal in strength to those which I have seen expressed elsewhere. To my mind, many of the opinions on which excitement has arisen are on trivial matters, on which, on one side or the other, I should not have thought it was worth while for Christian men to quarrel. But they have caused a very serious objection on the part of many of the members of the Church of England, especially in the remoter districts of the country, and it seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, to be one of the most important duties of the bishops to exert themselves so far as they can, by the exercise of the power they possess, to bring the clergy more into harmony with the population in those places than at present exists. But I demur to the blame being cast upon the bishops. There is one important matter which the noble Lord has passed over, and which was so vulgar
124
that the bishops themselves could not mention it, but which I can allude to; and that is the frightful cost incurred in getting rid of a clergyman who has broken the ecclesiastical law—not only with respect to the matters not dealt with in this Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, but also with the matters which are dealt with in this Bill. It is, really a heavy undertaking to rid his diocese of men who are a disgrace to the Church and a serious impediment to all spiritual administration. I remember a case—the noble and learned Lord will remember it very well—which happened in a district with which I am acquainted. The bishop issued whatever process was necessary to set the machinery in motion for getting rid of a drunken parson, The evidence was, in the first instance, thought to be sufficient, and the bishop passed the requisite condemnation. It was appealed against, and the evidence in the Privy Council was thought not to be sufficient. I think that the Privy Council only had the printed depositions before them, and did not have the witnesses examined before them, but that is, of course, not a matter with which I am dealing and is Outside the question. The point is this, that in doing what was absolutely his duty, which was no profit or pleasure or advantage to the bishop whatever, he was loaded with costs to the extent of £1,600. How are you to expect, if your law is constructed in this manner, that with these tremendous fines the bishops can perform their duties, and that the law, however excellent it may be, can be adequately put in force by men of whom you require so vast a sacrifice? I believe that the existence of this state of the law is not entirely accidental. We are dealing in the whole of this Bill with two popular currents running in opposite directions. The noble and learned Lord called our attention to the fact, which I believe is absolutely correct, that in no other case is any office with an emolument appoint-able for money. But that is the survival of a very extensive system, when in all parts of the State large numbers of offices were, according to the ideas of the time, purchasable for money. In all other cases the steady trend of opinion, which has run ever against a system of that kind, has removed

125
such blots from every other portion of our civil or ecclesiastical dominion. But in this case there has been a formidable impediment. It has been called attention to more than once in this Debate; it is a curious state of feeling which exists with respect to the episcopal office in this country. I believe that the bishops at the present time, more perhaps—certainly as much as at any previous period—command the affection and the respect of the laity by their high character and their devotion to their work; but, greatly as the bishops are respected, there still lingers behind a dread and distrust of the episcopal office which prevents us from putting it to the purpose for which it really exists. We have no discipline in the Church of England. It is quite true that whether in morals, in efficiency, in doctrine, or in ritual, there is no discipline in the Church of England; and why is that? In any other department you would say that proper powers must be vested in the superiors. If you want discipline in public offices, you have to give great powers to the head of an office; if you want discipline in the Army, you must give great powers to the colonel or to the commander-in-chief; if you want discipline in the Bar, you must place great powers in the hands of the Benchers of the Inn; if you want discipline amongst solicitors, you give to the courts the absolute power of crushing them by removing them from the rolls. But at the Church you stop—you give no powers to the bishops, and the two popular currents have met each other—the public distrust, not of the bishops themselves, but of the episcopal office, meeting that unhappy remnant of bygone error in another age, which allows spiritual functions to be sold and bought for money. My Lords, I believe this Bill is a step forward out of this unhappy state of mind; it is distinctly an increase of the power of the bishops, but I do not accept it as an end of the journey which we must ultimately take in that direction. If you mean to have better discipline in the Church, to have the laws more fully observed, to have greater security among the laity against any arrogance or excess of power or deficiency of devotion on the part of the clergy, you must entrust more
126
power to the bishops, and put aside the prejudice which has prevented the growth of this movement; and men will see that they cannot have the Church governed as we should wish it, and as a Christian Church should be, and all the duties of the Church properly performed by those to whom they are entrusted, unless you will give to the bishops a power, I do not say equal, but in some degree corresponding to the power you give to the superiors in every other department of activity, where duties have to be performed to the community or to the State. My Lords, to my mind, the most important part of this Bill is that it is a step forward in a direction that we must follow. I do not agree with many criticisms of the noble and learned Lord. I think that all he said about the sale of advowsons, though it may be logically correct, is absolutely inconsistent with that institution of private patronage which, as we believe at this present day, public opinion is decidedly favourable to maintaining. So long as you have private patronage, I think you must, to a certain extent, tolerate the sale of advowsons. After all, you always talk as if the possession of patronage was an advantage. I am bound to say, having some little experience of it, that I consider it is an intolerable nuisance, and I want to know what right you have, to fasten upon me and upon my descendants this function, giving me none of the ordinary powers of getting rid of it, that is possessed in any other hereditament. This power is fastened upon us; but I do not believe that you can have a hereditament that you cannot sell; you may attach conditions to it, but you must allow persons to get rid of it if they like. You cannot prevent a man from withdrawing himself from the burden of it if he feels it to be a burden, and when you once allow transfer, sale is not very far off. It would be perfectly impossible to forbid the sale so long as you permit a transfer. I do not believe that the evil of selling advowsons, so far as it is left by this Bill, is a practical evil. It has been said more than once this evening that what we are dealing with is a scandal. The great scandal which gives offence to men is the sale of the next presentation. The sale of advowsons merely in connection with other land

127
existing in the parish, whether it is logically right or wrong, is not a thing which offends the mind or the conscience of the country. Let us go as far as necessary for the purpose of clearing the Church of the admitted blot, and let us leave to the solution of other times problems which are really academical in themselves, warned by our own experience of the length of labour which any removal of any deficiency or defect in the ecclesiastical laws requires. When I first came in this House, 28 years ago, this question was then a burning question. I am very glad that so far we are able to part with it, but I should be very sorry to begin another pilgrimage for the attainment of a similar end in respect of matters which really do not require the interference of Parliament, in order to remedy any evil that has been proved to exist.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to continue this Debate, but I would venture very humbly to ask the noble Marquess who has just sat down in what sense he used the words "there is no discipline in the Church"?
THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I did not say there was absolutely none, but I said there was not nearly enough.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: If the noble Marquess had said there was no military discipline in the Church, it would have been true; but I confess I find myself in a position in which I am constantly called upon to exercise discipline, whether I like it or not, and I very humbly venture to protest against the latitude with which that proposition was stated.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

POOR LAW UNIONS ASSOCIATION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: formally moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
LORD NORTON: I beg leave to enter my protest against this Bill. I really do not believe that many of your
128
Lordships know what the contents of it are, and I cannot help thinking that the authorities on the bench below me, if they had had time to see this Bill, would not, I think, have approved of them. The fact is that at this time of the Session a great number of one-clause Bills slip through Parliament which hardly gain any attention at all, and which are supposed from their size to be of little importance, though they may be full of great mischief. This is simply a Bill of one or two clauses to enable the Poor Law Unions to form representative associations for the purpose of conferring on the subject of the Poor Law, and to enable boards of guardians to charge their expenses—travelling and other expenses for coming up to London—upon the poor rates. I very much object both to the association and to the charge upon the rates. It is becoming a growing fashion in the country for all bodies, great and small, to whom anything like executive functions are entrusted by Parliament, to try and turn themselves into a sort of legislature. Not content with the small executive functions assigned to them, they want to give themselves legislative functions also. I think the danger is very great, because their own functions are very much neglected for the more agreeable share in the association—a Parliament, as it might be called—and discussing general questions. But still more do I think that it is very dangerous to charge the cost of attending such functions as these upon the rates. I have inquired during the short time I have known, accidentally, of the existence of this Bill, as to what precedent there is for it, and I find that there are two precedents which this Bill follows. There is the Act of 1890, which enables county councils to associate and to discuss county council matters, and to charge the expenses of their conferences upon the county rates to a certain limit—as this Bill also proposes a certain limit of these conference expenses—and there is also an Act which enables municipal corporations to associate in the same way for the same purpose, and also to charge their expenses upon the borough rates. I think, after eight years' experience, it will be difficult for your Lordships to say what good has come from

129
either of these Acts. This Bill has passed through the other House. It took two days' discussion in Standing Committee; therefore it was thoroughly discussed. But, in the course of discussion in Committee in the House of Commons very considerable checks were inserted against what everybody allowed to be a very questionable and dangerous proceeding. In the first place, the limit of expense was very much reduced, and, in the second place, there were a great number of checks as to the mode in which these expenses should be incurred. The thing that created most opposition was the reduction of the limit of expenses, which, in the first draft of the Bill, was £10, and in the Bill now before your Lordships was reduced to £5; and a similar reduction was made in the travelling expenses. Now is it not quite clear that, it having been the main point of discussion in the House of Commons to get rid of this limit, the limit will not last long, whether it be in a reduced form or any form at all? That limit will very soon give way, and, if it is necessary to do so, another little one-clause Bill will be introduced, which will slip through as easily as this one will. Therefore do not suppose that the limit is worth, anything at all. The other checks introduced by the Committee of the House of Commons are equally in vain, for they will only require alteration in the regulations. I cannot see that there is any reason at all to justify our going on with further proceedings of this kind. The principle is simple, it is the general principle of associating bodies of all kinds in order to give them status and the position of national and representative institutions, the expenses of which are charged upon the public funds, and so endow bodies which Parliament has constituted as executive bodies with quasi-legislative functions. Your Lordships must know that there is hardly an institution which is not pressing for similar associations. The head-masters of public schools are pressing for association of this sort, and there are other bodies all trying to form themselves into associations. The only reason that I can assign is the desire for securing uniformity of procedure; but do your Lordships suppose that this mode of conference will produce uniformity of
130
procedure throughout the country; or, even if it did so, would your Lordships think it desirable that, by methods of this sort, the administration of the poor law in Lancashire should be made absolutely uniform with the administration of the poor law in Wiltshire? I always understood that a great want about the poor law was its power of adaptation to what is wanted in any particular district, and anything like a rigid uniformity would be very undesirable. However, I do not think that the conferences of such associations would result in anything like uniformity. Even now representatives of the poor law unions do confer from year to year, only they do not charge their expenses on the public. What advantage would the public derive from these gentlemen coming to London at the expense of the public? Their hotel bills would be paid, and their other amusements no doubt. They would confer upon the subject of poor laws for a certain time before the dinners which would be charged upon us. The power of conferring exists now, and that power is all that they can possibly want. Anything in the nature of extending the power and making these bodies representative would, to my mind, be detrimental to the usefulness of their present conferences. I think we should be very cautious in allowing this sort of thing, the demand for which is increasing from year to year. At this late stage of the Bill it is not possible for me to do more than most strongly protest against the continuance of this kind of legislation; and I feel convinced that if I could get your Lordships to consider this subject you would take the view I have taken of it.
LORD HARRIS: Perhaps, in courtesy to the noble Lord, I ought to say that the Local Government Board—although this is not a Government Bill—so far approve of the objects of it as to accept certain responsibilities under the by-laws which govern the conditions under which these moneys may be spent, and under which these visits to conferences may be made by the representatives of the boards. The noble Lord has already given, one very good reason why the Local Government Board should have taken the line that they have done—namely, that Parliament has

131
already shown its approval of the principle by agreeing to the Act of 1890, to which the noble Lord referred, empowering county councils to have an association, to the expenses of which they may contribute. There is also a Municipal Corporations Association, to which boroughs and municipal governing bodies are allowed to contribute, so that Parliament has actually approved of the principle, and therefore I submit that the Local Government Board was justified in presuming that Parliament would not object to the principle being extended to boards of guardians; and the Local Government Board approve of the principle themselves, because, from their own experience of the County Councils Association, they find it a very great advantage that the county councils should have an opportunity of meeting and conferring together as to the effect that legislation may have upon their administration of the affairs placed under their charge. Exactly the same advantages are anticipated from giving similar powers to boards of guardians. Parliament may decide to legislate, and it is desirable that these bodies should have an opportunity of meeting together and conferring as to whether the proposals of Parliament are of such a practical character as they will be able effectually to carry out. As regards the expense, it is true that the sum mentioned by the noble Lord is correct, but that sum is the maximum; it is compulsory that £5 and no more shall be subscribed by the board, but only as a maximum, and it is very possible that it will not be such a sum as that that will fall upon the rates. The principle has been already approved by Parliament, and there can be no doubt that the Local Government Board was justified in anticipating that Parliament would proceed upon the same lines with regard to this Measure.
EARL STANHOPE: I have only one word to say. My noble Friend assumed that every board of guardians would send representatives to this central association. They may, or they may not. The subscriptions may be £1 or 10s., but an no case will they exceed £5. This, Association of Poor Law Unions will be of great use, and I can speak from, experience, as I have assisted at former
132
conferences of the same character. I hope your Lordships will agree to confer this power now.
Question put—
"That the Bill be read a third time."
Motion agreed to, and Bill passed.

BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
LORD MACNAGHTENformally moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (LORD ASHBOURNE): I cannot allow this Bill to be read a third time without expressing my pleasure at its having reached its final stage, and I look forward with a confident hope that it will tend to the good government and to the real advantage of the profession.
Question put—
"That the Bill be read a third time."
Motion agreed to, and Bill passed.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
Read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 143.]
GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
To be read the second time to-morrow. (The Lord Privy Seal [V. Cross].)
NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill relating to national monuments in churches was presented by the Earl of Camperdown; read the first time; and to be printed. [No. 144.]
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    BOLTON, TURTON AND WESTHOUGH, TON EXTENSION BILL.
    WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection: That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the above Bills: viz., E. Grey, V. Falkland, L. Ribblesdale (chairman), L. Methuen, L. Muncaster; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Monday next, at half past Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
    House adjourned at 7.0.