Sitting of 18 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [H.L.]
  (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with). Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
    (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with.) Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.—

    FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
    ABERDEEN CORPORATION (TRAM- WAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAIL- WAY BILL. [H.L.]
    (Queen's Consent, and Prince of Wales' Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified); Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    FOLKESTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
    As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
    NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL.
    On the Order for the consideration of the Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Bill, as amended.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Thursday!
    MR. SPEAKER: Thursday.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: On the question of this Bill standing over till Thursday I would point out that it is very necessary that the Bill should pass as soon as possible. The proposal in the interests of which I believe the progress of the Bill is delayed is of so extraordinary a character that I venture, as one concerned in the Bill—that is, as an Irish Member—to protest very strongly against the progress of the Bill being delayed on account of such a proposal. That proposal is actually this: there is an English association of manufacturers who make railway and tramway carriages. There is no private person making railway or tramway carriages in Ireland, but the Dublin United Tramway Company do make in the city of Dublin tramway carriages. The proposal on which this Bill is delayed is that the Dublin undertaking shall be prohibited from supplying carriages to any new tramway outside the city of Dublin, in order that such tramway company outside the city of Dublin may be compelled to go to the English association of tramway carriage manufacturers. Now, I do protest, in the interests of public business in this House, that it is almost a discreditable thing that such a proposal can be brought forward in this House of Commons. This proposal is one which is brought forward solely in the interests of the association of English manufacturers, and entirely against the interests of the public. As a matter of fact, on this occasion I am authorised by the promoters to say that under no circumstances will they get their tramcars from any member of the British association, and if they are to be prevented by Parliament from getting their cars in the cheapest and nearest market, which is Dublin, they will go to America, and get them there. The House will see,

    65
    therefore, that it is most futile for the association to attempt to impose these conditions upon this company, and I again venture to enter my very strong protest against the progress of this Bill being delayed in any way, in order to give any further consideration to so extraordinary a proposal.
    Deferred till Thursday.

    HEYWOOD CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.
    NEWCASTLE - UPON - TYNE CORPORA- TION BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.
    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.
    SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.
    VIGORS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H)
    Colonel GUNTER reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That Lord Milton, one of the Member of the said Committee, was not preset; during the sitting of the Committee this day.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
    Colonel GUMTER reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, Chat, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

  PETITIONS.
    DOGS REGULATION BILL.
    Against, from Fulham and Regent's Park; to lie upon the Table.
    EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
    From Bristol (4), against State Regulation; to lie upon the Table.
    PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    From Elgin, against; to lie upon the Table.
    POOR RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION.
    From Merthyr Tydvil, for Alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    From Airedale, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    From Peterhead, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    VIVISECTION.
    From Brighton, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.)
    Copy presented, of Calendar History and General Summary of Regulations for for the year 1899 (with Tables) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
    Copies presented of Minutes sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act for the following counties—
    County of Middlesex (Third Minute), dated 9th June, 1898;
    County of Derby (Sixth Minute), dated 28th June, 1898;
    County of East Suffolk (Fifth Minute), dated 7th July, 1898.
    [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
    Copy presented of Scheme for the Management of the Foundation known as the Grammar School, in the Borough of Colchester, in the County of Essex, founded by Charter or Letters Patent of King Henry VIII., dated the 12th November, 1539, and rebounded by Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth, dated 6th July, 1584 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
    CIVIL SERVICES (ADDITIONAL ESTI- MATE, 1898–9).
    Estimate presented of the Amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1899, to repay to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain Miscellaneous Advances [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 304.]

    NAVAL DEFENCE ACTS, 1889 and 1893.
    Copy presented of Account prepared by the Admiralty, under the Acts, showing the Amount of Money provided to
    68
    meet the Expenditure for the purposes of the Acts, and also the amount of money expended for the purposes of the Acts, distinguishing each Purpose on which such Money was expended, and the Expenditure on each of the Vessels and its Armament, on the 31st March, 1895 (Revised and Shortened Edition of Parliamentary Paper, No. 104, of Session 1896) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]

    LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1897–8.
    Copy ordered "of Return of the Amount received in respect of each Administrative County and County Borough in England and Wales for Local Taxation Licence Duties and Penalties, under the Local Government Act, 1888, in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1898."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

    POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Return ordered "of statement of the amount expended for In-maintenance and Out-door Relief in England and Wales, during the half-year ended Lady-Day, 1898.
    "And similar Statement for the half-year ended Michaelmas, 1898."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

    LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND) ACCOUNT, 1897–8.
    Return ordered "showing in respect of the financial year ended the 31st day of March, 1898 (1) the total amount of the Local Taxation Licences and Estate Duty paid into the Local Taxation (England) Account and the amounts paid out of such Licences and Estate Duty to, or on behalf of, the Council of each Administrative County and County Borough; (2) the amounts paid out of the proceeds of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties to each Police Authority in aid of Police Pension Funds; and (3) the amounts paid out of the residue of the proceeds of those Duties to the Council of each Administrative County and County Borough."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

    LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
    Return ordered "showing, according to the Accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1898, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894—
    (1) The sanitary authorities to whom payments under the Act were made in the year by the London County Council.
    (2) The total amount of the sums so paid to every such authority.
    (3) The total amount of the expenses incurred by every such authority (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and
    (4) The amount expended by each authority under each of the above headings out of the sums paid to such authority under the Act."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL, TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL, DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL, MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,
with Amendments.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Solicitors Acts as to Solicitors struck off the Roll and suspended from practice."
BILL WITHDRAWN.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [13th May] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
QUESTIONS.

  LIFE-SAVING AT SEA.
  COLONEL SIB H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the fact that loss of life at sea is now more frequently due to collision and sudden foundering, as in the case of La Bourgogne, than to storms, any regulations are in force on British ships, or on ships seeking clearance from British ports, as to the hanging of the boats and exercise in launching them, or as to notices to passengers, sailors, firemen and stewards with regard to boat stations in case of alarm, and similarly with regard to life-belts, life-rafts, and other life-saving gear; and if obedience to such regulations is ever the subject of inspection by the Board of Trade?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURT,): My right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade has requested me to answer in his absence. The statutory rules and regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act require the boats and other life-saving appliances of all British ships to be kept so as to be at all times fit and ready for use, and in the case of passenger steamers such appliances are inspected, and the boat-lowering gear tested, by the Board of Trade Surveyors at each survey for renewal of the Passenger Certificate. In the case of emigrant ships, notices are posted in each compartment suggesting that crews should be assigned to the different boats, and that they should be exercised as opportunity arises. The Board of Trade officers also

  71
  thoroughly inspect boats and all life-saving appliances while an emigrant ship is being fitted for a voyage; and, in addition, when clearing vessels exercise the men in lowering one or two boats with the proper crew assigned in each case—the boats selected for lowering and manning being varied at each inspection.

  CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES AND TRANSIT OF CARTRIDGES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that cartridges manufactured by the Normal Powder and Ammunition Company, Hendon, are very much delayed in transit by the Customs authorities; whether he can state the cause of the delay in delivering the cartridges sent by the company to Mr. Henry Brannigan, Castleblaney, on 20th May; and if he will see that in future cartridges sent by the company to Ireland will be promptly delivered?
  MR. HANBURY: This is a Customs Question. The cases of alleged delay in the delivery of the manufactures of the Normal Powder and Ammunition Company have not come under the notice of the Board of Customs. There was certainly no delay on the part of the Department with respect to the cartridges mentioned as having been consigned to Castleblaney. These were not presented for shipment at Holyhead until the 27th May. They left that port, by the Connemara, at 1.56 a.m. on the 28th, and were passed by the Coastguard at Greenore on the same day.
  MR. DALY: How was it that it took from the 20th to the 27th May for the cartridges to reach Holyhead?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot say. The Customs are not responsible for that.

  ESTATE DUTIES.
  MR. GEDGE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the follow-
  72
  ing case: A.B. died in January last, leaving a large sum of money to his nephew, CD., on his attaining the age of 21 (which he will do in October), but in the event of his dying under age the money is to go to three other persons, the share of one of those persons being directed to be settled. Estate Duty on A.B.'s death is being paid. If CD. lives to October next no part of the money will be settled, and if he dies in November Estate Duty will be again paid on the whole sum; but the Controller of Inland Revenue has claimed settlement Estate Duty also in respect of one-third of the amount, on the ground that it is contingently settled; and whether, in view of the fact that the injustice of this claim has been recognised by him, and prevented in the cases of persons dying after the 1st July instant, the day on which the Finance Act, 1898, commenced, he will give directions that the claim shall not be enforced in such cases?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. H. BHACH,): Section 14 of the Finance Act of this year was intended to meet cases such as that put by the honourable Member. But it applies only in the case of deaths occurring after the commencement of the Act, and I cannot give directions which would make it retrospective.

  NEW SCIENCE AND ART BUILDINGS AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  SIR F. POWELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what decision has been arrived at with reference to the disposition of the new buildings for science and art at South Kensington; and whether the art buildings are to be placed on the east side of Exhibition Road and the science buildings on the west side, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): No decision has yet been arrived at. I have on several occasions given to the House my assurance that directly a decision has been come to

  73
  I will at once inform the House of its nature. I regret that the honourable Baronet seems indisposed to accept this assurance.

  CULLIOVILLE TRAIN SERVICE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ha is aware that on the Great Northern. Railway (Ireland) no passenger train leaving Dundalk for Enniskillen stops at Cullioville Station from 9.32 a.m. to 7.51 p.m. any day of the week except Monday; whether he can say if the Great Northern Railway are acting legally in leaving Crossmaglenn and a thickly-populated neighbourhood without rail way accommodation for over 10 hours whether he can state if any other station on the Great Northern system is without railway communication for over 10 hours, excepting Cullioville; whether he is aware that during the management of Mr. Robertson the 4.15 train from Dundalk stopped at Cullioville; and if he will make representations to the company to stop this train at Cullioville in the future?
  MR. HANBURY (for the President of the Board of Trade): The Board of Trade cannot give a legal opinion as to whether adequate facilities are afforded by the Great Northern Railway of Ireland—the jurisdiction is in the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The Board of Trade feels strongly, however, that the company should improve the train service, and representations to that effect have been and are being made to them.

  LLANSAMLET (GLAMORGANSHIRE) BURIAL DISPUTE.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the recent burial of one William Griffith Jones in the churchyard of the parish of Llansamlet, in the county of Glamorgansihire, on an application being lawfully made to the vicar for his interment in a family grave, the vicar, on receiving notice of requirement
  74
  of a Nonconformist burial service, pointed to a corner of the churchyard then unused for burial purposes, and so situated that reasonable objections might be taken to the site by the relatives of the deceased; and that the vicar told the applicant, pointing to the place, that it was there that he buried the dead of such that bring him these papers; whether he is aware that in this case the relatives of the deceased submitted, in consequence of the vicar's words and actions, to the burial of the deceased in accordance with the rites of the Church of England; and whether he will take steps to compel the Vicar of Llansamlet and other priests of the Church of England in Wales to observe the law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I gather from a letter I have received from the vicar that the facts of this case are substantially as stated by the honourable Member. An incumbent has a discretion as to the part of the churchyard in which a body shall be buried, but I apprehend he cannot lawfully use his discretion for the purpose of compelling persons to waive rights conferred upon them by Statute. Whether the conduct of the vicar in the present instance was or was not illegal appears to depend on facts on which I can pronounce no opinion. It seems, at any rate, a matter for regret that he should have acted as he did.

  WELSH MAERIAGE AT MONTGOMERY.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, at a marriage at the Presbyterian Chapel at Montgomery on the 18th of May last the registrar (who does not know Welsh) required the ceremony, or part of it, to be repeated in English after the whole (including the declarations required by s. 20 of 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 85) had been solemnised in Welsh, although the Welsh language was preferred by the parties to the marriage and by their friends; whether, if the facts are as stated, the action of the registrar was legal, having regard to

  75
  the provisions of the statute 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vic, c. 22, s. 23; and whether he will issue instructions to registrars explaining their duties in such cases?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I have no information as to the facts of the particular case referred to, but if the honourable Member will be so good as to inform the Registrar General of the case, and the name of the official referred to, he will make inquiries into the matter.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN PRISONS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the number of offences and corporal and other punishments in prisons under the control of a chief warder have been proportionately three times as many as those in prisons controlled by a governor; and whether he will give legislation on the lines of clause 5 of the amended Prisons Bill
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J., POWELL WILLIAMS,): During 1897 the prison offences committed in military prisons under governors gave a percentage of about 16 on the number of prisoners. The corporal punishments were.07 per cent. In the prisons under chief warders the offences were 24 per cent, and the corporal punishments.2 per cent. The rules for the infliction of corporal punishment in military prisons are nearly identical with clause 5 of the amended Prisons Bill, and it is intended to alter the rules so that they shall conform to the Act when passed.

  MONASTERBOICE HIGH CROSS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, the Science and Art Department having obtained permission from the Board of Works to take a cast of the High Cross at Monasterboice, the workmen have been engaged in scraping
  76
  the stone surface of the cross with sharp instruments, and that the surface of the cross has been disfigured by this process; and whether, in the opinion of some experts, there is not serious danger that the elaborate carving may be injured?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works gave permission to the Science and Art Department to take a casting of the cross for the Dublin Museum. Before the plaster could be applied it was necessary to remove the moss and lichen from the hollows of the cross. This work was entrusted by the Department to a skilled Italian workman of artistic training who has been for some time in their service and has always done his work with the greatest care. He at first used a steel instrument to clear the surface, but attention was usefully called by Mr. Pentland, a local antiquarian, to the risk of injury by that process, and it was at once discontinued, and the remainder of the growth removed by washing. Skilled officers have been sent down both by the Science and Art Department and the Board of Works, and they have examined so much of the surface as is not already enclosed in plaster. No signs of injury appeared, and it is hoped that, when the plaster is removed, the remainder of the surface will be found to have taken no harm.

  SUN YAT SEN.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has made the promised inquiries into the reasons which induced the Government of the colony of Hong-kong to issue an order of banishment against Sun Yat Sen; whether he can now say what the grounds were upon which this order was issued; whether any application had been made to the Governor of Hong-kong by the Chinese Government for the expulsion of Sun Yat Sen; and, if so, was this application submitted to the Colonial Office before being acted upon; and whether, if no breach of British law has been committed on British territory by this Chinese reformer, the decree of banishment from Hong-kong will be withdrawn?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The promised inquiries have been made, and I have to supplement my previous answer as follows. Sun Yat Sen, not being a natural born or naturalised subject of Her Majesty, was, under section 3 of the Banishment and Conditional Pardons Ordinance of 1882, prohibited from residing in the colony for five years from the 4th of March, 1896, on the ground that he was, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, dangerous to the peace and good order of the colony. No application was made by the Chinese Government for his banishment, and he left the colony prior to the issue of the order; but there seems to have been no doubt that he was implicated in a conspiracy against that Government, which made and makes his presence in Hong-kong undesirable. I see no reason to interfere with the temporary prohibition of his residence in Hong-kong.
  MR. DAVITT: I wish to ask the right honourable gentleman whether he is aware that no opportunity has been given to Sun Yat Sen to meet the charges made against him.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I cannot answer that question without notice; but I think I have seen in the papers that this gentleman is now leading the rebels in China, and—
  MR. DAVITT: I hope he will be successful.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: If that be true it will confirm the opinion of the Government of Hong-kong.

  CANADIAN COAL FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the increasing output of steam coal from the coal fields of Nova Scotia suitable for coaling Her Majesty's North and South American Squadrons; whether he is aware that this coal is
  78
  used extensively by foreign navies and British and foreign merchant vessels calling at Halifax and Cape Breton, Canada; and if steps are taken to supply British men-of-war at Canadian stations with this coal and also to replenish the coal supply at Bermuda from these coal fields.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): These coals have been used from time to time in Her Majesty's ships and for yard services at Halifax. They are bituminous and smoky, and their general use in Her Majesty's ships was discontinued in 1887, when the use of bituminous coal mixed with Welsh was given up throughout the Service and Welsh coal only used. In the present year purchases of Nova Scotian coals have been made for issue at Halifax to Her Majesty's ships for trial, and reports have been called for. With regard to the second paragraph, it is known that stocks of local coal are kept at Halifax and other local ports, which it is presumed is supplied to ships requiring replenishment thereat.

  HOLCOT SEWERAGE.
  SIR J. PENDER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any precedent under section 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for declaring a district Council in default with regard to sufficient sewers in the case of a village such as Holcot, with a steadily decreasing population, now about 300, which is exceptionally healthy, and where there has been no epidemic, and over whose sanitary arrangements the district council has recently spent between two and three hundred pounds; and, if not, whether he will withdraw the order that the rural district council shall undertake further sewage works within six months?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In the case referred to the facts were fully inquired into, and as the result of that inquiry the Board were satisfied that the district council have made default in providing their district with sufficient sewers, and this being the case it

  79
  became the statutory duty of the Board to issue the Order in question, and the Order cannot be withdrawn. As regards the question as to what course has been taken in other cases, the decision of the Board is arrived at in each case in connection with the particular circumstances of that case.

  LAGOS AND GOLD COAST SETTLE- MENTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of extending the scope of the commission of Sir D. P. Chalmers to enable him to conduct an inquiry into the grievances of the native population in the Lagos and Gold Coast Settlements against the levying of the hut tax, and the cruel measures adopted for its collection?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: There is no hut tax in either of those colonies. There is a municipal house rate in the town of Accra, but no cruel measures have been adopted for its collection.

  PENIT PIER.
  MR. DALY: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from several bodies in Kerry in connection with Fenit Pier; and whether, considering that Fenit Pier has been constructed entirely at the cost of the ratepayers of the several baronies in the county, some provision will be made in the Local Government Bill giving the county council adequate representation on the Harbour Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr GERALD W. BALFOUR,): I am looking into the question of the constitution of the Fenit Harbour Board but cannot in any case hold out any hopes that the matter will be dealt with in the Local Government Bill.

  CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to carrying out his promises with respect to the Customs catchers, he will further consider he advisability of recommending that he former rate of overtime—namely, eightpence per hour—be restored o the watchers when requested by the merchant, dock company, or wharfinger to attend in excess of the legal warehousing hours, seeing that watchers practically cannot now make overtime chargeable to the Crown; whether he will allow the watcher to receive the cab allowance when remaining on duty up to midnight, or when attending at 6 a.m. on the merchant's request, as was formerly the practice, seeing that the concession made in this respect as to attendance it 5 a.m. will not benefit more than about 20 men in the port of London; and whether, in lieu of the uniform cap now provided, he will cause he watcher to be supplied with a similar uniform to that issued to the new class of messenger (temporary) now being appointed to the Customs and taking the place of watchers and boy messengers?
  MR. HANBURY: The present conditions of employment have been carefully considered, and I cannot hold out any expectation that those relating to rate of overtime payments, or night employment, will be altered, except in respect of attendance at 5 a.m. or earlier, for which two hours' overtime will be allowed for disturbance instead of one. The number of watchers who remain in Customs employment for only short periods is so large that the proposal to give uniform cannot be entertained.

  ANNSBOROUGH POSTAL ARRANGE- MENTS.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the grave inconvenience to the linen manufacturers of Annsborough, the business men of Castle-wellan, county Down, and to the gentry of the surrounding neighbourhood, that

  81
  London or English letters cannot be answered in time to reach, their destination next forenoon; whether a mail train leaves Newcastle, within a few miles of Castlewellan, daily about two o'clock p.m. carrying mail bags for limited mail from Belfast to Dublin, and whether London letters carried this way reach London and principal English towns early on the following morning; whether he is aware that arrangements could easily be made whereby a mail bag could be sent to this train by car from Castlewellan; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter with the view of giving further postal facilities to the residents of the district?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that letters from England to Castlewellan and Annsborough cannot be answered by the day mail of the day on which they are received. No doubt this may cause some inconvenience. A train carrying the English mail leaves Newcastle at 2.30 p.m., but it would be impracticable under existing arrangements for answers from Castlewellan and Annsborough to English letters of the same day to be sent by that train, because such letters do not reach Castlewellan until 1 p.m., or Annsborough until 1.45 p.m., and some time must then be occupied in delivery. The Postmaster General is making inquiry whether the arrival of English letters at Castlewellan and Annsborough could be accelerated, perhaps by sending them viâ Newcastle instead of viâ Newry as at present.

  JURY BOXES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the serious physical discomfort to which jurymen ere subjected owing to the construction of the jury box; and whether, as the pattern of the jury box has come down to us unaltered from a time when criminal trials seldom, if ever, lasted more than one day, whereas trials now frequently extend over a week and upwards, he will, by means of a Home Office circular or otherwise, communicate with the local autho-
  82
  rities having the charge of court houses, with a view to remedy this unnecessary inconvenience suffered in the discharge of an imperative and important public duty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have never, I think, received any complaints on this subject which would justify my taking such action as the honourable Member suggests, but I shall be ready, of course, to give attention to any representations that may be made to me.

  KERRY GRAND JURY AUDIT.
  MR. DALY: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kerry I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John H. Calvert, Local Government Board auditor, has stated in his declaration of audit of the Kerry Grand Jury on the 3rd March, 1898, that the following sums of money are outstanding as arrears on former warrants: barony of Corkaguiny, £267; barony of South Dunkerron, £229 15s. 2d.; barony of Glanerough, £806 2s. 7d.; whether he can give the names of the baronial constables and their sureties in these three baronies; and whether steps will be taken against the parties concerned for the recovery of this large sum of money outstanding?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts, as disclosed at the recent audit of the accounts of the Kerry Grand Jury, are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The name of the constable for the barony of Corkaguiny, who> made default in 1891, and has since died, was Mr. Hilliard. His sureties are Mr. Hewson and Colonel Rowan. Out of a sum of £1,615 for which Mr. Hilliard made default, the sum of £1,415 has been paid, leaving a balance still due of £200. The constable for the other two baronies mentioned was Mr. Hutchins, and his sureties were Mr. M'Gillicuddy, now dead, and Mr. Bateman. Mr. Hutchins made default in 1884 for £2,484, of which £1,573 has been paid, leaving a balance of £911 still due. The grand jury are

  83
  secured by life policy, mortgage, and promissory note against loss, and the debts are being paid by the sureties in half-yearly instalments.

  AN ARTISTIC DISCOVERY.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take the necessary steps to have the specimen cartoons which are at present hung unframed in Committee Room 10, and which are understood to be of considerable merit, restored, framed, and suitably hung; may I be allowed to say that I am well aware that the credit for the discovery of these cartoons belongs to the right honourable Gentleman?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I do not propose to have the cartoons touched for the present, but their framing, which presents certain technical difficulties, is under consideration. Directly a decision is come to I will inform my right honourable Friend.

  NIGER COMPANY.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangement is in force between Her Majesty's Government and the Niger Company with regard to their respective contributions towards expenditure upon military and exploring operations now being undertaken in those territories in the neighbourhood of the Niger which have formed the subject of recent arrangement with France; whether any date has yet been fixed after which the duties collected by the Royal Niger Company on their own imports and exports will be collected for the account of the Imperial Government; and whether the Government will be able before the end of the Session to make a statement on the subject of the proposed acquisition of any portion of the Niger Company's territories by the Crown?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The answer to the last two
  84
  questions is in the negative. There is an understanding by which the Royal Niger Company will practically be recouped for the services of the kind rendered by them at the request of Her Majesty's Government since January 1st last. But this matter will form part of the general settlement with, the company.

  CLONMELLON POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain on what grounds an official of the General Post Office has been, for some weeks placed in charge of the sub-post office, Clonmellon, county Westmeath; why the conduct of that office was taken out of the hands of Miss Higgins, the sub-postmistress; and how long is the existing arrangement to continue?
  MR. HANBURY: An investigation into the conduct of the office disclosed serious irregularities on the part of Miss Higgins, and it became necessary to put the officer in charge. It was only after much hesitation that the Postmaster General felt able to allow her a further trial on the understanding that, if she should give any further cause for complaint, there would be no alternative but to take the office out of her hands. Miss Higgins was restored to duty on the 13th instant.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL BOOKS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the practice under which national teachers in Ireland have been for a considerable period compelled to buy reading books and all other school books from the Dublin stores of the Commissioners of National Education, whether he is aware that for sometime the teachers have been allowed to buy all their school books, except the reading books, from shops throughout the country, thereby encouraging the sale of books throughout the country districts; whether it is in contemplation to

  85
  prepare new and more drastic regulations; and if a copy of the proposed regulations for the purchase of school books will be laid upon the Table of this House before such regulations are finally adopted by the Board of Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question has been referred to the Board of National Education, by whom it will be considered at their meeting to-morrow.

  CONSTABLE DEEVY'S COMPENSATION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Wednesday last the County Cork Grand Jury awarded constable Thomas Deevy, Royal Irish Constabulary, £400 compensation to be levied upon the county for injuries sustained to a finger while acting in his capacity as peace officer; whether ratepayers in England are compelled to compensate police constables who may receive injuries in the discharge of their duties; and whether steps will be taken to relieve Irish ratepayers from a burden which is not placed upon English ratepayers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that the Cork Grand Jury have unanimously awarded a sum of £400 to the constable named, as compensation for injuries sustained by him whilst acting in the discharge of his duty. It is, of course, open to the ratepayers to traverse the award before the judge of assize, and as the assize is still proceeding it would be obviously improper to discuss the matter at the present stage. I believe there is no power to award, similar compensation to police in England. I have no information as to the second paragraph. As to the third paragraph, I may remind the honourable and gallant Gentleman that it is proposed by Amendments passed in the Local Government Bill without a Division to extend the power to grant compensation to police officers for malicious injuries inflicted in the discharge of their duty to the cities of Dublin and Belfast, which were the only parts of Ireland in which such com-
  86
  pensation could not hitherto be obtained. It is not proposed to deprive the Irish police of this power.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Why are the Irish ratepayers saddled with a burden which is not placed on the English ratepayers?
  [No Reply.]

  YANG-TSZE VALLEY RAILWAY CON- CESSION.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the provisions of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and to the assurances given by the Government of China in respect of the Yang-tsze provinces in which British commercial interests are so predominant, Her Majesty's Government will demand from the Chinese Government full information as to whom and on what terms and conditions the concession for a railway from Pekin to Han-kau in the Yang-tsze Valley has been granted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CUEZON,): Application has already been made to the Chinese Government for this information.

  ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if officers of the Army Medical Staff are obliged to retire at an earlier age than combatant officers, although they enter the Army several years older on an average; whether the rule regarding promotion to the rank of major-general has been applied to medical officers to the extent that they are ineligible for promotion after attaining the age of 57; and why the rule permitting all major-generals to serve on to 62 is not also made applicable to all surgeon-generals, seeing that such an

  87
  extension of service would be economical to the State?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In the combatant ranks colonels retire at 57 years of age, and major-generals at 62. In the Army Medical Staff the age of 60 holds for both ranks. The medical officers have, therefore, the advantage of three years in one rank, while they lose two years in the other. Medical officers are not ineligible for promotion to the rank of surgeon-general after the age of 57, if recommended by the Promotion Board as possessing exceptional abilities. As a general rule, however, promotion to the rank of surgeon-general is only given to officers who have at least three years to serve. The Secretary of State is advised that, having regard to all the conditions involved, it would not be desirable to extend the rule under which major-generals are allowed to serve on to 62 to all surgeon-generals.

  ROYAL LABORATORY, WOOLWICH.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether stokers working night shifts in the Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, finish their shifts at 5.30 a.m., and, if not relieved at that time, are compelled to work till 8 a.m. before they can see a foreman to inform him of the fact; will he explain why the stoker gets no extra pay for the two and a half hours, and yet the man who fails to turn up at 5.30 a.m. gets stopped two and a half hours' pay; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to remedying the grievance complained of?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: A similar Question to this was asked by the honourable Member on the 23rd May. The stokers referred to receive a rate of pay which covers an occasional necessity to work extra time, such as that mentioned in the Question. A man who gives less than his proper attendance, and thus oblige another man to do his work, is, of course, mulcted.

  CARPENTERS IN THE GENERAL POST OFFICE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the carpenters employed in the General Post Office, North, have to work in underground rooms, so dark that they have to use the electric light all the year round; and whether steps can be taken to give them rooms to work in where they can have daylight at least during the summer months, as most of them are not entitled to any pension if they have to give up their employment through failing eyesight, which entails great hardship upon them and their families?
  MR. HANBURY: The carpenters working in the General Post Office, North, are employed by the Office of Works contractors. The accommodation provided for them is in the basement, but it is fairly well lighted throughout, having windows on each side opening into areas lined with white glazed bricks. The men are largely occupied elsewhere, and it is not considered that there is any reasonable ground for complaint. No other accommodation can be provided for the purpose.

  POST OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why a memorial from London postmen, relating to a question of discipline affecting all postmen, was returned to the memorialists, contrary to the custom hitherto observed in such matters, and in spite of repeated assurances to the House that the Postmaster General is always open to receive petitions from members of the staff?
  MR. HANBURY: The memorial to which the honourable Member no doubt refers was one praying for the modification of the punishment inflicted on a postman for falsification of dates and absence without leave. The postman was dismissed in November last, and the memorial, which was received only a month ago, was returned to the signatories with an intimation that while it

  89
  has been, open to the dismissed man himself to make any appeal on his own case, a right of which he had already fully availed himself, the Postmaster General was unable to receive a memorial from the staff respecting the exercise of his discretion in administering the discipline of the Department.

  POST OFFICE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Post Office employees who are members of volunteer corps and attend various military camps for training, do so at a loss of wages, while War Office employees are given leave of absence without any such loss; and whether the Postmaster General will see that Post Office Volunteers are not treated less generously in this respect than those employed in another branch of the Civil Service?
  MR. HANBURY: Post Office servants who are Volunteers do not always incur loss of wages by attending camps of instruction, as a considerable number take a portion of their annual leave for the purpose, when it can be so arranged, but others, it is true, have to pay for substitutes, and the Postmaster General regrets that he has not the power to allow all to attend free of expense. The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the practice which is pursued in the War Office.

  LUNACY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state when the Lunacy Commissioners will issue their Reports for 1897 for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have made inquiry of the different Departments concerned, and am informed that all the Reports are in the printer's hands and will be ready for issue within the next two or three weeks.

  INDIA OFFICE STATIONERY.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India by whose authority writing paper for official use at the India Office has been purchased abroad, to the exclusion of British and Indian manufacturers and workmen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): All writing paper used at the India Office is procured from the Stationery Office, and the India Office has no control over the sources of supply. I have, however, ascertained that it is all manufactured in the United Kingdom,' with the exception of what is used for typewriting purposes. This has hitherto been of a pattern which, I believe, is supplied only by the American firm which makes the typewriting machines that are used in the public service generally; but if the Stationery Office can supply a satisfactory article of British manufacture, it will be readily accepted by the India Office.

  COUNTERVAILING DUTIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended by the Government to impose a countervailing duty on all agricultural produce assisted with bounties imported into Great Britain and Ireland; and whether any bounty system on the principle of the proposed grant to the West Indian sugar, planters, to relieve native producers and agriculturists, is under consideration?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir.

  SOUTHERNDOWN POST OFFICE.
  MR. S. EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the quarter's salary, due on the 31st December, 1897, to the late sub-postmaster of Southerndown, has been withheld for over six months; and why the auxiliary postman attached

  91
  to the same office has been doing duty since the 5th April, 1"97, to the 30th April, 1898, without making the usual declaration when accepting service under the Department; whether he is aware that the post office is at present inconveniently situate at the extreme end of the village; and that, before its removal to this position, a petition was sent from the inhabitants of Southern down to the Postmaster General praying that the new office should be placed in a central position; and what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants at an early date?
  MR. HANBURY: The salary due to the late sub-postmaster of Southern down for the quarter ended 31st December, 1897, was withheld pending the final closing of the account between him and the Post Office, and through some oversight this item was subsequently not included in the settlement. The mistake is regretted, and the sub-postmaster has now received, payment of the amount due to him. The auxiliary postman referred to in the Question made the usual declaration on the 30th April last. His previous employment without having made the declaration appears to have been due to some neglect on the part of the local officials. The present sub-postmaster was appointed on condition that he provided a new office in a central position as soon as possible. The new office is being built, and it is expected that it will be ready for occupation in the course of a few weeks.

  BELFAST RIOTS.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Samuel M'Keown, who, early on the morning of the 12th of July, while in discharge of his duty as a reporter on the staff of the Northern Whig, was surrounded by a number of Nationalists in York Street, and when he said that he had never done anything to offend them, exclaimed that he was a Protestant, and inflicted such injuries upon him that he is still lying in a dangerous state in the
  92
  Royal Hospital; and whether the perpetrators of the outrage have been discovered and brought to justice?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph, except that Mr. M'Keown was not detained in hospital. Whether he was attacked because he was a Protestant, or a newspaper reporter, or because, as has been alleged, he was mistaken for a police detective, I am unable to say. Two girls witnessed the assault on Mr. M'Keown, but neither he nor they are able to identify the guilty parties.

  REPORTED MURDER OF MR. F. S.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received official confirmation of the reported murder by Pathans on the 12th instant of Mr. F. S. Wilde, an engineer employed upon the extension of the Bengal-Assam Railway, in the North Cachan Hills; and whether he has any information as to the circumstances under which the murder took place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Mr. Wilde was not in the service of Government, and I have not received, and am not likely to receive, any official information, as to his death. But, having communicated privately with the Assam-Bengal Railway Company, I regret to say that I have reason to believe the report of his murder by Pathan workmen employed on the railway to be true. The company have no information as to the circumstances under which the murder took place.

  REBELLION IN SOUTHERN CHINA.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the rebellion in China, and as to the recent severe defeat sustained by the Imperial troops; whether he has an official corroboration

  93
  of the report that 1,000 troops, of the Imperial army were slain on that occasion; and what steps the British Government are taking to safeguard their interests in the regions affected by the rebellion?
  MR. CUBZON: According to a telegram just received from Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, the rebels, who are said to be badly armed, and to number about, 6,000, encountered the Imperial troops on July 4th, and retreated westward with loss. The rebellion is not yet put down, but Her Majesty's Consul reports that it is difficult to obtain reliable information.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right honourable Gentleman say where this defeat of the rebels is alleged to have taken place?
  MR. CUEZON: I do not know.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. A. MOETON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that many of the constables in the Metropolitan Police Force are natives of Ireland and Scotland, and that, necessarily, the journeys to and from their native places occupy a considerable period of time, he would be good enough to give his sanction to a regulation under which any constable, desiring to spend his leave among his kinsfolk in Ireland or Scotland, might have permission, at his option, to accumulate two years' leave in one—taking, e.g., a leave of 20 days in one year instead of 10 days in each of two following years, as provided by the regulations now in force?
  THE SECRETABY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have considered whether it would be practicable to give effect to this suggestion which the honourable Member has already made to me by letter, but I fear there are administrative difficulties which make it impossible. It is the case already, as have informed my honourable Friend, that officers who cannot reach their destination in 24 hours are allowed two days extra leave.

  SCAWBY (LINCOLNSHIRE) POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. ASCEOFT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although the parish of Scawby, in Lincolnshire, is only 88 miles from Shaw and Oldham,, it takes two days for the delivery of a letter; and whether, considering that numerous complaints have been made in the past, and the difficulty from time to time removed by the postal authorities, and that it has been proved that the letters can be satisfactorily delivered in 24 hours, he will make inquiries with a view to the delivery being regularly carried out in the future?
  MR. HANBURY: Letters posted at Shaw before 8.12 p.m. and at Oldham before 9.30 p.m. should in the ordinary course be delivered at Scawby, in Lincolnshire, on the following morning. In the reverse direction letters posted at Scawby before 5.42 p.m. should be delivered at Oldham or at Shaw on the following morning. As the honourable Member was informed by a letter from the Post Office in November last, the delays which have occurred in the delivery of letters passing between the places in question have been mainly due to the late running of trains, and it is impossible to avoid occasional delay from this cause. It is found, however, that in one or two recent cases letters have unfortunately been mis-sorted in the Post Office, and the Postmaster General has caused proper notice to be taken of the errors.

  BRITISH CONSULS' DUTIES.
  MR. ASCEOFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the duty of a British Consul, stationed in a foreign country, in case of danger to the lives of British subjects under his jurisdiction and registered as such at his office, to give them notice of all arrangements made by him for their safety in case of a bombardment of the place in which they are residing; whether he has received information that the British Consul at Manila on the 29th May made

  95
  such arrangements, and on the 30th May gave notice of the same to the members of the Manila Club; whether he is aware that on the attention of the British Consul being called to the fact that there were large numbers of poor British subjects in Manila who were not members of the club, and would not know what had been done for their safety, he declined to give any notice to such individuals, and said they must call upon him; and whether, considering that the consulate office is only open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and that the Consul lives four miles away, he will wire out instructions that every step must be taken to inform all British subjects of the provisions made for their safety?
  MR. CURZON: It is the duty of the Consul to take such steps as may be in his power to make the arrangements to which my honourable Friend alludes generally known to British residents. We have not heard of the incidents mentioned in the Question; but Her Majesty's Consul at Manila will be asked to furnish a Report on the subject. In the meantime telegraphic instructions have been sent to him to be careful to give full publicity to any notices which he may issue for the guidance of British subjects.

  LUNACY IN IRELAND.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since provision is made in Great Britain for the admission and care of private patients in public lunatic asylums, he will extend in the Local Government Bill or by other legislation this useful provision to Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: By an Amendment to section 9, sub-section 6, of the Local Government Bill, introduced in Committee, power is given to county councils through the Asylums Committee to make regulations respecting the conditions as to payment and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted and detained in the asylum.

  NEW HEBRIDES
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any ground for the alarm now being felt in Australia and New Zealand at the unusual massing of French troops in New Caledonia; and whether any change is contemplated in the dual control of the neighbouring groups, the New Hebrides, by the joint British and French Commission?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have received no information with regard to the matter referred to in the first paragraph of the Question, and no such change as that indicated in the second paragraph is in contemplation.

  EXILED SAMOAN CHIEF.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any objection to stating the conditions under which the exiled chief Mataafa is to be permitted to return to Samoa?
  MR. CURZON: The conditions are a general declaration of loyalty to the Government of Samoa as established by the Berlin Treaty, and a specific pledge as to the locality of the chief's residence.

  NEW PUBLIC OFFICES IN WHITEHALL.
  MR. ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government have chosen the architects who are to prepare plans for the new public offices in Parliament Street and in Whitehall, provided for in the Act of this Session?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: Yes, Sir, Her Majesty's Government have made a selection. They have requested Mr. J. M. Brydon to prepare plans and drawings for the new Public Offices on the Parliament Street site, and Mr. W. Young to prepare plans and drawings for the new War Office on the Whitehall site. These plans when completed will be considered by Her Majesty's Government,

  97
  and before orders are given to proceed with the buildings the drawings will be exhibited for the inspection of Members. In selecting these gentlemen the Government have received invaluable assistance from the Royal Institute of British Architects.

  BANTRY LAND SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the fair rent application of Timothy Leary, tenant on the estate of Robert H. E. White, heard by Land Sub-Commission at Bantry on 12th January last, and dismissed on 8th May last, whether he is aware that the point raised by the landlord was that the applicant was a labourer and paid part of his rent in cash, for which the receipt was produced and the balance in labour, when the Chairman of the Commission held it was open to pay part of the rent in labour, whether he is aware that months afterwards the application was dismissed because the tenant was a labourer; whether the lay Commissioners visited the holding to fix the amount of rent; and why the expenses of their inspection were incurred when the case was dismissed on merely a legal point?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me on Monday last by the honourable Member, and I have no power to call upon the Land Commission to give an explanation of any action they may take in the exercise of their judicial functions.

  DUNDALK LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many cases heard before the Chief Land Commissioners at Dundalk on 23rd and 24th June the rents were raised and lowered respectively from the valuations made by the court valuers on farms from the Shirley and other estates in county Mona-
  98
  ghan; whether the court valuers were present in court when decisions in above cases were given, and if they gave any evidence; whether the chief Land Commissioners only accept the court valuers' valuation when in favour of the landlord; and whether he will make any change in the present method of fixing rents before the Appeal Court in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It has already been pointed out to the honourable Member that the court valuers did not make an estimate of the fair rent in the cases referred to, but only of the fair letting value of each holding as it stood; the first paragraph cannot, therefore, be answered. The court valuers were not present in court on the occasion. The reply to the third and fourth paragraphs is in the negative.

  DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the suction dredger sent by the Board of Works to Donaghadee Harbour, in June, 1896, with the object of removing the silting there almost entirely failed in doing so; whether he is aware that at present from five to six feet depth of sand and loose stones now render the harbour very dangerous to vessels; whether he is aware that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners can with one of their ladder or bucket dredgers remove from the harbour and channel of Belfast about 12,000 tons of dredging per week, at the cost of about £100, notwithstanding that the stuff has to be taken away about seven miles from Belfast; and whether he will make inquiry with the view of having a ladder or bucket dredger sent to Donaghadee to remove the sand and stones which could easily be deposited within about half a mile of the harbour?
  MR. HANBURY: The dredger was sent in 1896 as an experiment. In the course of trial about 5,000 tons of accumulation were removed, but it was found that the remaining material was not of a kind on which that dredger could be usefully employed. The Board of Works

  99
  are aware that there is a considerable accumulation of sand and stones in certain parts of the harbour, but they do not regard the harbour as at all dangerous for the class of vessels which make use of it. The Board have no particulars as to the dredging plant or the dredging operations of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, but they have now under consideration the expediency of further operations at Donaghadee, and in connection therewith they will pay regard to what is done at Belfast and elsewhere.

  HAYLING BEACH COMMON.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty under what authority and for what purposes a piece of Hayling Beach Common, Hampshire, 100 feet square, has been enclosed by the Admiralty; whether any, and, if so, how much compensation has been paid to the commoners for the extinction of their rights over the land enclosed; and whether, seeing that the local authority is opposed to the enclosure and in view of the action taken by Parliament in 1886 in preventing the proposed enclosure of portions of this common, due regard has been taken to the interests of the public by the substitution of land equal in area and value to that now enclosed, or otherwise?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN,): The land in question has been leased from the Lord of the Manor for a term of 21 years for coastguard purposes, one of the conditions of the lease being that the Admiralty should fence in the site. My information is to the effect that there has been no encroachment upon the rights of the commoners and no compensation has been made to them in money or land. But if there is any dispute upon this question, it should be settled between the commoners and the Lord of the Manor. The Admiralty are only tenant, and are bound by the conditions of the lease.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: Then has the Crown come to the conclusion it is not common land?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The conclusion is that there is no encroachment on the rights of commoners.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: That it is not, in fact, common land?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that may be the inference, but it is rather a legal question.

  LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Attorney General if there is any age at which recorders, county court judges, and stipendiary magistrates are required to retire; if it is usual for one individual to hold the positions of county court judge and recorder in the same district; if there is any rule, written or unwritten, concerning the practice of a lawyer's son before a father sitting as county court judge or recorder; and if there is any power of revising a criminal sentence if the public sense feels that it has erred on the side of excessive leniency?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. E. WEBSTER,): As far as I know, there is no age fixed for the compulsory retirement of recorders, county court judges, or stipendiary magistrates. There is no uniform practice, but of late years it has not been usual for the same person to hold the office of county court judge and recorder in the same district. There is no written rule applicable to the question of a son practising before his father, but the Bar has always set itself steadily against such practice, and discouraged it in every possible way. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  NEUTRALITY ORDINANCES.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether the Order in Council passed on 9th July, 1864, condoning offences against neutrality on the part of British subjects in China, is still in force; and, if so, whether this ordinance

  101
  will apply to British subjects who may be engaged in the present rebellion against the Government of China, as it did originally in favour of British subjects who fought on the side of the Imperialists against the Ti-Ping rebels; and whether he can state why the ordinance of 17th January, 1855, known as "Sir John Bowring's Ordinance of Neutrality," was so modified by the Order in Council of July, 1864, as to justify Englishmen who fought for the Emperor of China, and condemned British subjects who took part in the Ti-Ping rebellion?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Order in Council of July 9th, 1864, is no longer in force; it was repealed by the Order in Council of March, 1865, which at the same time repealed Sir John Bowring's Neutrality Ordinance of January 17th, 1855. The reasons for the modification of Bowring's ordinance will be found fully stated in the speech of Mr. Layard, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons, on April 22nd, 1864. I shall be pleased to give the honourable Member any further information he requires.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, owing to the failure of the Old Age Pensions Committee to recommend any scheme for old age pensions, he will give a day to discuss the Old Age Pensions (Friendly Societies) Bill, or other Old Age Pensions Bills now on the Order Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Even if there were time at this period of the Session to debate the subject, I do not think anything would be gained to the cause the honourable Gentleman has at heart by discussing the Second Reading of the Old Ace Pensions Bill.

  BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector to the Local Government Board, on his recent inspection of Belfast Workhouse, suggested large changes in the management of that institution; whether he can say if these changes recommended by the inspector are due to the fact that the landlords in the future will not have to contribute to any increase of the poor rate; whether he can state if the inspector who advised these reforms has been long inspecting Belfast Workhouse; and whether he can explain why this gentleman waited so long to complain of the insanitary and dilapidated state of the laundry, lavatory accommodation, bad food of the inmates, overcrowding of the infirmary, insufficient water supply, and increase of the staff of nurses?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is not as stated in the first paragraph. The changes suggested by the inspector are such as are rendered inevitable from time to time in a large establishment like the Belfast Workhouse. The inspector has been five years in charge of the district which comprises Belfast, and he has constantly drawn attention in his Reports to the growing need for improvements in certain departments of the workhouse. The guardians have expended large sums in making extensions and carrying out improvements, and it should hardly be necessary to observe that the inspector, who, in the discharge of his paramount duty, suggested the carrying out of necessary alterations and improvements which have been largely undertaken in the past by the guardians, was not influenced by considerations of the incidence of the poor rate.

  MECCA AND MEDINA ROADS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kilkenny I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the danger to persons travelling between Jeddah and the interior of Arabia in consequence of the lawlessness of the

  103
  tribes and the incompetence of the Turkish authorities; and, if so, what steps would be taken to protect unarmed British subjects whilst journeying to Mecca and Medina for the Mahomedan festival of the Meolood?
  MR. CURZON: The latest report received from Her Majesty's Consul at Jeddah, which arrived upon June 13th, speaks of a revolutionary movement in the Yemen, and of the despatch of Turkish troops, but does not refer to danger upon the Mecca and Medina road.

  TURKISH FORCES IN CRETE.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state what is approximately the total numerical strength of the Turkish forces in Crete; and whether it is intended that the decision as to the general question of the retention or withdrawal of those forces shall rest with the Admirals, or merely that they shall settle the details connected with the method of withdrawal, in accordance with principles already laid down, or shortly to be laid down, by the Powers chiefly concerned?
  MR. CURZON: The total numerical strength of the Turkish forces in Crete is believed to be approximately 18,290 men, being 13,520 soldiers and 4,770 gendarmerie. The general question of the retention or withdrawal of these forces is a matter for ultimate arrangement by the Governments of the Powers concerned with the Porte, but the views of the Admirals on the subject will be, of course duly considered.
  MR. LEGH: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether all the Powers are now represented in Cretan waters with the exception of Germany and Austria?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir, I believe that is the case.

  FINANCES FOR CRETAN ADMINISTRA- TION.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial resources the proposed provisional Executive Committee for Crete will have at its disposal for the purpose of carrying on the government of the island?
  MR. CURZON: The question is under the consideration of the four Powers; but is no step can be taken in the matter without the consent of all of them I am unable at present to make any statement with respect to future action.

  CLONMFX POST OFFICE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Tipperary, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the site for the erection of a new post office for Clonmel has for some time past been selected; and, if so, when the building of the post office will begin?
  MR. HANBURY: On the 27th of May last Treasury authority was given for the purchase of a site for a new post office at Clonmel, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made in regard to certain easements over the property. Negotiations with this object are in progress, but until they are completed it is impossible to state when the building will be begun.

  ST. PETERSBURG EMBASSY SECRE- TARYSHIP.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. C. Hardinge has been appointed Secretary of Embassy at St. Petersburg over the heads of 10 senior secretaries; and whether Mr. Hardinge either possesses special qualifications or has rendered special services justifying his exceptional promotion; if so, whether he can state these qualifications or services?
  MR. CURZON: The fact is as stated. Mr. Hardinge was in charge of Her Majesty's Legation at Teheran from January 14th, 1897, to March 31st of this year, in the absence of Sir Mortimer Durand, and performed the duties of a somewhat difficult position to the entire satisfaction of the Secretary of State, who is of opinion that he is specially qualified for the post to which he has now been appointed.

  INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE.
  SIR H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has come to any decision on my application that the evidence taken before the Indian Currency Committee should be laid before Parliament before the Prorogation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am quite ready to agree to the suggestion of the Committee upon Indian Currency, of which the right honourable Gentleman is Chairman, that the evidence and information which up to the close of the Session they will have collected should then be published.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

    MOTION.
    At the commencement of public business, on the Motion—
    "That for the remainder of the Session Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. Balfour.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name upon the
    106
    Paper on 15th July last year. I made a general statement about business and moved a similar Motion at the same time, and the House may recollect that on that occasion the right honourable Gentleman opposite recommended that the date named was, perhaps, rather too early to abrogate for the remainder of the Session the Twelve o'clock Rule. We are now three days later than the period at which a similar Motion was carried last year, and I hope the House will assent to it. I have, of course, no general statement to make about business; I made that statement last week, and, so far as I know, since then nothing has occurred in our proceedings, calling for any modification or change in that statement. I hope, therefore, the House will consent, with as brief delay as possible, to assent to the Motion as put down upon the Paper, which is entirely for the general convenience of the House, and in order to enable us at a reasonable hour to adjourn with a good conscience for our holidays.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right honourable Gentleman has taken credit to himself for the exact date at which he has fixed this Motion being three days later than that on which the Motion was made last year. I do not know whether that has any connection with the heading on the Notice Paper, representing that this is the 19th of July, an alteration of the calendar by antedating it 24 hours, but I do not suppose that the House will be disposed to take advantage of that curious technical error to insist that this Motion should not be brought on until the 19th. I know very well by experience on both benches that to oppose this Motion at this period of the Session is not possible, but I hope we shall receive from the right honourable Gentleman an assurance that the powers to be given to him under this Motion will be exercised with moderation and discretion—
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Hear, hear!
    SIR W. HARCOURT: And that it is not intended in important Debates to compel the House at this time of the year to discuss them at very late hours. There are still remaining some very

    107
    important matters to be discussed. For instance, there is a question I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman, and that is with reference to the Navy Estimates. There is no doubt that that is a very important matter, and one which the House would desire very fully to discuss. But it has become more important by a statement on the part of the Government that they are intending to introduce a Supplementary Estimate. Questions have been asked of the First Lord of the Admiralty as to what was the intention of the Government as to the nature of this Supplementary Estimate. I understood, and I think the House understood, that when the regular Estimates came on on Friday we were only then to be informed with regard to' the Supplementary Estimate. When is it intended to ask the opinion of the House on this Supplementary Estimate? It is clear that the decision of the House on the Supplementary Estimate cannot be had until we have had the statement of the Government and the full particulars of the Supplementary Estimate; indeed, we ought not to be asked to come to a decision upon it until then, and I hope the House will have a definite statement on that matter. There are other matters which certainly require a full and adequate discussion—questions connected with the Home Office Vote, for example—and as the House takes a deep interest in them I hope there will be no desire and no attempt made to compress discussion into an inadequate period of time. I presume we may take it for granted, after a Motion of this kind has been made, that no new Bills which have not been already mentioned are to be brought in; that is an essential condition of a Motion of this kind. I do not mean, of course, that this remark should apply to the case of what we may call unexpected emergency which might arise, but rather to the general assurance that no now Measures shall be introduced this Session, but only those mentioned in the right honourable Gentleman's statement. The Government have given a long list of Measures which they hope in this period to pass. Those are Measures which have, more or less, come to birth and some of them are in their infancy, but the right honourable Gentleman has
    108
    never referred to Measures of great importance which appeared in the Queen's Speech, and which have not come to birth at all. One of the earliest Measures hat appeared in the catalogue of the Queen's Speech was the London Municipalities Bill. That was to be a Bill for "the creation of municipalities for the administrative county of London," and he reference was contained in an early paragraph of the Queen's Speech. It was not only an early paragraph of the Queen's Speech, but it had the unusual distinction of being the principal subject of a speech by the Prime Minister before the opening of the Session. We were old that was one of the main objects of the legislation of the Government during the present Session, and the population of London was invited in the month of March to pronounce definitely in support of the scheme, in order that the Government scheme may be carried into effect. What has become of the Bill to facilitate the creation of municipalities in the administrative City of London? The County of London has pronounced its opinion on that subject, and I suppose, in consequence of that pronounced opinion, we have heard, and I hope I may anticipate we shall hear, no more of the Bill. There is another Bill we are considering now in the very short time at our disposal. We have seen how the Session has passed, and we have seen that the London Municipalities Bill has gone. But there is another Bill of far greater importance than the Municipalities Bill promised in the Queen's Speech—namely, a Bill for secondary education. We have been pressing throughout the Session that, even if it were not carried into effect, at all events, the House and the country should be placed in possession of the views of Her Majesty's Government upon secondary education, and if they did not desire that a Bill of that kind should be introduced by the Vice-President of the Committee of Education, the head of the Education Department is in another place, and it would have been possible to introduce a Measure of this transcendent importance in the House of Lords. Nothing has been done, however, up to this time. There is another Measure which I should refer to which was promised, and that is the Bill for the better

    109
    ascertainment of the rights of landlord and tenant. In hot haste, and on an interim Report, we were to be called upon to vote a million and a half of money, which has gone in a direction which I think the country has fully appreciated for agricultural interest, in the hope that at least justice was to be done to the tenant farmers of England, before whose eyes this Bill was dangled so long. We have, therefore, a right to ask whether the tenants of England are to receive this Measure of equity and justice embodied in the recommendations laid down in the final Report of the Agricultural Commission. What has become of that Bill, and why have the House and the country not been put in possession of the views of the Government as to whether they are prepared to carry into effect the recommendations of the Agricultural Commission? I see before me the right honourable Gentleman, who may be called the motive power of that Commission, and I think it would be very satisfactory if we could learn the views of the Government, not only on an interim Report, which the right honourable Gentleman was so successful in carrying into effect, but on the well-considered Report which deals with other and more important interests which were recommended by the Commission. There is another question which I am desired to ask, and that has reference to Scotch business. Is it possible for the right honourable Gentleman to mention a day on which the Local Taxation Account Equivalent Grant will be taken and the Government Bill for the attendance of children at school? I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman will give any further attention to the subject. Though I am not in a position to oppose the Motion of the right honourable Gentleman, I must say that I think the time of the House in the past might have been well spent upon some of the Bills which have not been introduced, and to which I have referred, in preference to some of those to which the Government has devoted the time of the House.
    *MR. J. LOWTHER: The right honourable Gentleman says at this time of the Session it is impossible to oppose a Motion of this character. Now, I venture to ask for
    110
    some assistance from both sides of the House in attempting to do the impossible. I do not follow the right honourable Gentleman into the résumé of the Session with which he has indulged the House. I would rather prefer to show the effect of the Motion now before the House. The Motion proposes, as I understand, for the remainder of the Session to allow business to be conducted without any regulations whatever as to our hours. My right honourable Friend takes credit to himself for his extreme moderation in not making this Motion upon Tuesday last. He, however, omitted to remind the House that the interval of relaxation and leisure which was thereby secured to us was used in such a manner that my right honourable Friend kept the House sitting upon one of the days in question until five o'clock in the morning. It is necessary that it should be borne in mind what led to the adoption of the Standing Order which we are now asked to abrogate. The sittings of this House had become a public scandal. They were so described by no less an authority than the late Mr. W. H. Smith, who was himself, unfortunately, a victim to the system, which he too late brought to an end. Mr. W. H. Smith said, in February, 1888—
    "The prolonged Sittings of the House during the last two or three years had had a serious effect not only on the health of honourable Members, but on the mode in which the business of the House had been conducted. … There must have been many honourable Members (probably a large majority of the House) who had duties to perform before coming to the House in the afternoon. In these circumstances, it was clearly impossible for an ordinary human being to continue to devote his powers of mind and body to the discharge of his duties in the House. Honourable Members were practically too exhausted to do so.….It was, however, highly desirable that Ministers should be in a condition to devote the best of their intellect and physical powers to the discharge of their onerous duties. At present, owing to the prolonged Sittings of the House, it was practically impossible for Ministers of the Crown to be in that condition; and therefore, the Government had framed these Rules with the object of meeting earlier in the day and rising earlier at night."
    Therefore we have it upon the high authority I have quoted that it is a question not only of the health of Members, but of the credit of the House. After quoting these telling sentences, which were generally assented to by all sides of

    111
    the House while experiences were fresh in their recollections, I will not trouble the House with any opinion of my own as to whether this system of unlimited hours had resulted in discrediting the deliberations of this House, and in serious injury to the health of honourable Members themselves, and in impairing the efficiency of Parliament, as well as of the Executive Government of the country. If, however, it has been so, I think I may be allowed to ask why we are to recur to a system which was unanimously discarded ten years ago. I am told it is only for a short time—only for the most, I would say the least, four weeks of Parliamentary time. I would also ask whether in principle any distinction can be drawn between one month and two, and whether if a similar Motion was in a future year to be made in June, or even earlier, there is any solid principle upon which it could be resisted? We may now be told that the Motion only involves our sitting late to the early days of August, but we have known Parliament to sit much longer than that, and if we suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule now we may be establishing a principle binding ourselves for longer than four weeks of Parliamentary time, and thus this safeguard for the credit of Parliament, as well as the health of the Members, is set aside. But my right honourable Friend may say there is no business of universal importance, there is no great question remaining to be discussed, and it really does not matter whether it is debated at seven o'clock at night or seven o'clock in the morning. There may be times, and I would remind my honourable Friends around me of this, when circumstances may convert them into opponents of endless hours of legislation, and then they may find their hands tied with those of my right honourable Friend by the precedent it is now proposed to establish. It may be further said that as when there was no particular business the House did not hesitate to suspend this Twelve o'clock Rule, of course when there is important business to be transacted, it stands to reason you must do so. The argument of there being no particular business is an argument rather against, than for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule. I regret to say the House has, no doubt, been in the habit of granting certain facilities in respect to matters urgent and Measures which
    112
    have reached their final stage; but what we are asked to do now is not to afford extra time for any urgent Measure or any particular business which has to be done, but to sanction a wholesale suspension for at least one month of Parliamentary time. The right honourable Gentleman opposite expresses dissent. I hope he may be right, but the estimate formed in well-informed quarters, so far as my information goes, is that it will take about four weeks of Parliamentary time before the Session comes to an end. One word I would desire to add from a personal point of view—namely, that I am not urging anything with a view to affording relief to myself individually, as I will at once say that I have no intention whatever of assisting at any of the discreditable orgies which my right honourable Friend proposes to institute. I would also venture to remind the House that after a certain hour our proceedings, are not reported, and it might some time or other be of very great importance that the country has an opportunity of making itself acquainted with the legislation of this House. A suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule of the House practically means sitting in camera. Bills have before now been forced through Parliament under such conditions as are now sought to be imposed upon us, which the authors themselves had subsequently reason to regret; measures passed through a jaded House when Members were not in a condition to give proper attention to what was going on. I would, as an example, remind the Government of the Irish Land Act, for which they were responsible, which was, so far as a great portion of it was concerned, passed at a very late hour, and which has not added to the contentment of their minds or the popularity of the Conservative Party in the country. It was, if I remember rightly, under similar conditions that my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade saddled himself with the so-called Conciliation Provisions which had landed him in so much difficulty in connection with labour disputes. That was also passed when the House was jaded and unable properly to discuss the matter. Now, I do hope that the House will, at at any rate, enter a protest against this departure from the established rules. We were told that when what was called the

    113
    gagging process was introduced it would obviate the necessity of late sittings if the Minister had power to enable the House to come to an immediate decision at any time, and that we should have reasonable hours for our Debates. Now, however, we find ourselves with the gag but without the reasonable hours we were promised. I hope the House will enter a very strong protest against a departure from a rule which has been found to work exceedingly well, and against establishing a precedent under which for weeks at a time the House of Commons may sit to these late hours and re-establish the monstrous system which we hoped we had brought, to an end 19 years ago, and which I hope will not be reintroduced.
    *SIR C. DILKE: When the Leader of the Opposition appealed to the Leader of the House that he would not make a destructive use of the power which would be given to him, and that he would consider the health of the Members, the Leader of the House, of course, gave the assurance for which he was asked very readily; but last year, although he volunteered that assurance, the House will remember, in spite of that assurance being given, the House for some 15 days sat for extra ordinarily long hours, and the very first evening after the Standing Order had been suspended the House sat to an hour which was a positive scandal; and therefore I cannot look upon the right honourable Gentleman's assurance as being worth very much. The Government have, of course, a number of Bills before the House which must take a large amount of public time. There is one Bill we have not yet seen which I understand is to be passed this Session. It is a Bill which will meet with general approval from both sides of the House, a very important Bill—I allude to the Teachers' Superannuation Bill. It is a Bill which will involve a very large sum, of public money, and although, as I say, it will meet with the general approval of the House, it will require a great deal of supervision and discussion. Then, again, within the last day or two, the Government have introduced a highly contentious Measure in the shape of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. That is a Bill which bristles with contentious
    114
    matter, and certainly will require to be discussed at length in the presence of the reporters. Then there are some Bills which are coming down from the House of Lords which I know are to be dropped if they are likely to be fought; but some of those are Measures which if not fought will take some considerable time if they are to be adequately discussed. I believe it is still the intention of the Government to go forward with the Companies Bill, which will certainly require considerable discussion before it can pass. Now, among the Bills that are actually before the House at the present time, and which will press upon the time, are the rest of the Prisons Bill, the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Bill, which has been kept back for months in its last stage, the Vaccination Bill, which must take a considerable amount of time, if one may judge from the amount of time it was before the Committee, and the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, a Bill to which I personally am favourably disposed, but which is fought by a powerful minority. I am also told the Government are going to assist in the Nonconformists' Marriages Bill, which has been recommitted at the request of the Roman Catholic Members of the House. There is one other Bill which the Government have announced their intention of going forward with which will take no time—I mean the Lodgers' Declaration (Ireland) Bill, as it is a wholly useless Bill which they must drop. The other Bills are all of considerable importance, and are Bills which must take up a good deal of Parliamentary time, and I would urge the Government not to make this demand upon the House to pass all these Measures. I would urge them not to bring forward all these Bills. They ought to make a selection from among them, and decide what they think necessary to ask the House to pass. There are at least nine Bills to which the Government is still pledged which will take time, and I urge the Government to drop some of them and say it is not their intention to force them through the House in this manner and under these conditions. To do so would be cruelty.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When we entered this House a new Parliament, behind the Government was

    115
    a large and increasing majority of 140 Members, and we all expected that the business of this House would be conducted in such a way as to obviate the necessity of such an appeal as that which the right honourable Gentleman has made being made at the end of the Session to a jaded House by jaded Ministers. We expected that they would bring forward a considerable number of Measures and do their business in a reasonable time. These Ministers come down with 27 Bills remaining on their list, 27 monuments of their ambition, which will very soon be 27 monuments of their incapacity. [Government cries of "Withdraw!"] I used the wrong word. I should have said inability to pass those Bills within the time allotted by Parliament. We are now face to face with a demand that the Twelve o'clock Rule shall be suspended. My honourable Friend below me has reminded the House how this Rule came to be instituted. It was introduced to enable the House to perform its work and enable Ministers to do their share of the work of the country under the best conditions possible. With regard to the Twelve o'clock Rule, Mr. W. H. Smith said that if this Twelve o'clock Rule were not instituted it would prevent Ministers from giving the best of their intellectual and physical capacity to the work of the House. Notwithstanding that fact, we are now asked to suspend this Rule and assist the Government to pass 27 Measures, and, what is worse, to keep the House at work until they are passed. Let me remind the House of the arrangement which was made in 1888. The late Mr. W. H. Smith said that the arrangement was that the House should rise at 12 o'clock, and that the House should agree to meet an hour earlier; in other words, it was to meet at three o'clock instead of four. The Government now comes down in the last month, when we are all hoping to get away—having taken its share of the cake, it proposes to take ours away, and to withdraw the privilege which we have had of rising at twelve o'clock. There are several other Bills among the 27 he has alluded to that will bring about serious discussion. I only mention one—the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill. On the last stage the Bill was discussed inadequately; it was put down on a Wednesday, when
    116
    the Government knew the lawyers could not be here. There are a certain number of Members who are determined to resist as much as they can what they believe to be a most dangerous revolution in the criminal law of the country. I want to point out specially the state of Supply. Perhaps the most important subject with regard to Supply this year is the Navy. It is recognised to be so important that the Government have tardily come to the conclusion that they will bring in a Supplementary Estimate. There have been two-and-a-half days in discussing the Navy Vote, and we have still to discuss the Supplementary Estimate. There are a number of subsidiary subjects with regard to the Navy that will certainly require discussion. It is to be expected that every Member of the Front Bench, whatever objections he had before, should feel himself bound to do what he can to save the wrecks of the Government proposals at the end of the Session. But we private Members are, nevertheless, bound to do what we can to protest against the proceeding—to protest, above all, against making it a precedent. That is the one point I wish to make, and on that point I wish to end. We allow that the Government should have the right of having, on special occasions, a suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule; but we feel bound to protest against such a wholesale suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule. If it passes without protest it will become a regular precedent.
    MR. DILLON: I heartily support the views put forward by the honourable Member for the Isle of Thanet. The Ministry comes to the House at the end of the Session and asks for a universal suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule until the end. I hold that, in common courtesy, they ought to place before the House a reasonable programme to justify such action; and I do say that on the present occasion the Leader of the House has not placed before the House a reasonable or rational programme for the remainder of the Session. I venture to say that, even if we did sit up till three o'clock in the morning until the 13th August—which is, I understand, the date fixed for the end of the Session—it would be impossible to carry out the programme. I think, therefore, the right

    117
    honourable Gentleman has not taken the first step necessary to justify the statement he has made to the House. Allusion has been made by the honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and others to the Bills that are expected to pass. Two or three have not been mentioned in this long list. There is the London University Bill; there is the Irish Charity Loans Bill, which I understand the Government desire to press on, and which will undoubtedly take up a long discussion, for it is a very contentious and complicated Measure. There is, furthermore, the Criminal Evidence Bill, which, in its future stages, will, from the experience we have had already, lead to a very prolonged discussion indeed. I say, therefore, that until the Ministry show that their programme is a fair and reasonable demand on the resources of the House, they have no right to ask us to trust them with a suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule until the end of the Session. My opinion is that the original idea of the Twelve o'clock Rule was that it should govern the proceedings of the House, excepting when the Government, desiring to carry through a specific Measure, asked for a suspension of the Rule. But this system of suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule for an indefinite period at the end of the Session is a growing evil, and tends, unquestionably, as the honourable Member for the Isle of Thanet contends, to abolish the Rule altogether; and if it is to become a precedent, what is to prevent them going back into the Session, until we find the Rule suspended in March, or at a very early date? I would ask any honourable Member who remembers the history of the last 10 years whether I am right in saying that there has not been a Session during that time in which the Government work has been so light, in which the Government have not had, practically, one single great contentious Measure to pass through the House of Commons. If the Government find it necessary to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule in the middle of July, a Government with a great and contentious Measure might be reasonably justified in suspending it in April, or March. As the question of Supply has been touched upon, I desire to say a word with regard to the date of Irish Supply. Last year
    118
    four days were allotted to Irish Supply, and the Irish Members thought they had very good grounds for complaining that the time allotted was very insufficient. The First Lord of the Treasury distinctly told us that he would use every exertion in his power to see that adequate time was given to the discussion of Irish Supply. I need not go into the fact that the need of discussing Irish Supply is greater than it was. We have only been given three days, and from what I hear as to the future disposition of the remainder of the Session, it would appear as if it was contemplated to give no more time during the Session to Irish Supply. If that be so, I say that the Irish Parity will certainly have a great grievance to complain of. There are two questions, not to mention many others. First of all, there is the question of the Queen's College Vote. After the Debates which took place on the Address, it would be nothing short of an outrage to deny us the opportunity of discussing university education in Ireland this year. The second of these matters is the discussion of the intentions of the Government as regards some Measure of permanent relief to the west of Ireland. That is undoubtedly a question for which time ought to be found, and I would press upon the right honourable Gentleman that he should take these two questions.
    *MR. GEDGE: The Motion which stands in my name is not affected by the Twelve o'clock Rule. My constituents attach great importance to it. It is for an address to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners with regard to the principal schools in my constituency. If the Twelve o'clock Rule be suspended, that Motion, which, in the ordinary course, would come on after twelve, will probably be postponed till three or four o'clock in the morning. Some years ago a similar fate befell my Motion for an address against the Charity Commissioners' scheme respecting Christ's Hospital, and my failure to upset it is now almost universally deplored. I shall be glad if the First Lord of the Treasury will so arrange matters that this Motion shall be taken at a reasonable hour. We are indebted to the

    119
    honourable Member for King's Lynn for once more impressing on the House the very great loss the Government have sustained in intellectual power, capacity, and ability, by not offering him a seat on the Front Bench. The Twelve o'clock Rule is answerable for much waste of time and obstruction. Notwithstanding the remarks about it which have been quoted of the late Mr. W. H. Smith, whose memory we all hold in honour, I should like to see it rescinded and always vote for its suspension. It was passed in a fit of fright after the terrible experiences of 1887, but they were brought about by abnormal causes, and are not likely to occur again. The House did without the Rule admirably until that year. By it every day is made like Wednesday: Bills are obstructed and talked out. Business, which would be finished before one if there were no such Rule, is stopped at midnight, and lasts another evening. Therefore, hoping that the Government will give fair time for discussing my Motion, I heartily support the proposal of my right honourable Friend.
    MR. BRYCE: There are two Votes for which I hope the right honourable Gentleman will find time for a short discussion. In the first instance I trust he will find time for a short discussion on the Board of Trade Vote. There are two or three questions arising on that Vote which it is desirable to have discussed, and it would be a slur on the right honourable Gentleman's plan of taking the Estimates if these questions were allowed to be passed without discussion. There is an important question arising also on the Science and Art Vote. I do not, however, think the discussion in this case would take more than an hour, but it is a question of so much importance that I hope the right honourable Gentleman will find time for its discussion.
    COLONEL MILWARD: There is one matter which has not been mentioned this afternoon, and it is the question of giving time for the discussion of a Measure for the relief of the West Indies, and also an opportunity for discussing the Papers relating to the Sugar Conference. I trust the House will give time for the discussion of these matters, because there
    120
    is a great deal of interest taken in them, not only in this House, but outside.
    MR. S. EVANS: I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment I proposed two years ago. I beg to move the insertion, after the word "Session" in the second line of the Motion, of the words "except on Wednesdays." Two years ago, if not last year, he accepted such an Amendment, and if he makes it the exception in favour of Wednesdays there still remain four days a week for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule. Moreover, with Wednesdays free, the tension and the strain of the work can be relieved; it is in the middle of the week, and everybody, I am sure, would be delighted. I do not think you would find any difficulty at all in carrying what programme you desire for the remainder of the Session. The work done after half-past five on Wednesdays is practically valueless, and I think we ought to have Wednesday evenings, for I have had no intimation from the Government on the present occasion, but in 1896 the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House said in response to my Amendment—
    "He was quite willing to recognise the force of what the honourable Gentleman had said";
    and he went on to say—
    "But it was never the intention of the Government to take the time of the House-after half-past five on Wednesdays."
    I therefore hope I shall have the support of honourable Members opposite in the very reasonable proposition I beg to make.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Member who has just moved the Amendment quoted, as he was perfectly justified in doing, the precedent of 1896. But, Sir, as he, of course, is perfectly well aware, this question was discussed in 1897, and the House, by a large majority, agreed to the Rule in the form in which I now propose it. We have had the experience of 1897, and the House, therefore, has had some means of testing the use which the Government make of their privilege in this respect. As a matter of fact I find that on no occasion were honourable Gentlemen deprived of Wednesday evening by the operation of this Rule. It enables business to be done at a most

    121
    inconvenient hour, and, on the other hand, it prevents one single evil-disposed person from stopping the progress of a particular Measure. The actual hours of rising were:—July 21st, 6.45 p.m.; July 28th, 7 p.m.; August 4th, 6.15 p.m. That is, no doubt, a slight increase on the ordinary hours, but it is not an increase of which the House need be afraid. Now, Sir, I come to the criticisms which have been passed on the Resolution.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to order. Can the right honourable Gentleman on the particular Amendment before the House answer the general objections that have been raised to his Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right honourable Gentleman can only do so with the general consent of the House.
    The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 222.—(Division List No. 225).

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Hogan, James Francis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Holburn, J. G.

    Price, Robert John

    Ascroft, Robert

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Asher, Alexander

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-T.)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Billson, Alfred

    Knox, Edmund Francis V.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Labouchere, Henry

    Souttar, Robinson

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Lambert, George

    Spicer, Albert

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Steadman, William Charles

    Burt, Thomas

    Lloyd-George, David

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Caldwell, James

    Lough, Thomas

    Strachey, Edward

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

    Clough, Walter Owen

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

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Colville, John

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    McCartan, Michael

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Crilly, Daniel

    McEwan, William

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Daly, James

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

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Davitt, Michael

    Mendl, Sigismund F.

    Vhittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitech'l)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Dillon, John

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Morley, C. (Breconshire)

    Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

    Duckworth, James

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Paulton, James Mellor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Gold, Charles

    Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

    Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr.Channing.

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    Perks, Robert William

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Hedderwick, T. C. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Brist'l)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

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

    Bethell, Commander

    Arnold, Alfred

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

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Banbury. Frederick George

    Biddulph, Michael

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bigwood, James

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Brassey, Albert

    Greene, W.Raymond- (Cambs)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    O'Kelly, James

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Gunter, Colonel

    Pender, Sir James

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Carew, James Laurence

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Helder, Augustus

    Purvis, Robert

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs)

    Rasch, Major Frederic C.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Howard, Joseph

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Howell, William Tudor

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Coddington, Sir William

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Kemp, George

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lafone, Alfred

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Cox, Robert

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Scott, Sir S. (Mary'bone, W.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Smith, James P. (Lanarks)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lowe, Francis William

    Talbot,RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Thorburn, Walter

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Drage, Geoffrey

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Usborne, Thomas

    Drucker, A.

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Verney, Hon. Richard G.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    McCalmont, M j.-Gn. (Ant' mN.)

    Vincent, Colonel Sir C. E. H.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    McIver, Sir Lewis

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

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Waring, Colonel Thomas

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Manners, Lord E. W. J.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

    Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

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

    Finch, George H.

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Milner, Sir Frederick G.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Monk, Charles James

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Moon, Edward Robert P.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Fry, Lewis

    More, Robert Jasper

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

    Garfit, William

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

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of L.)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALPOUR,): As the Amendment has now been disposed of, the House will turn its
    124
    attention to the main question, which, I frankly admit, is one of those questions upon which, from my experience and observation, honourable Members take

    125
    views according to the side of the House upon which they happen to be sitting at the moment. I notice that two honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who have spoken against this Motion—the honourable Member for East Mayo and the right honourable Member for the Forest of Dean—both voted for a Motion almost identically similar in its terms in 1894. I am not complaining of that; I only use that as an illustration of the difference of view we may be expected to take, according to the situation in which we happen to find ourselves. Three honourable Members have complained of the insufficiency of the time allowed to Supply. All these gentlemen ought consistently to vote for this Motion. The number of days allowed to Supply cannot be increased at the will of the Government, but the amount of time given to Supply can be increased to some extent by suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule. Therefore every honourable Member who thinks the remaining days of the Session not sufficient for the discussion of Supply ought to support the Motion to increase the amount of time. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen [Mr. Bryce] asked that time should be given to the Vote for the Board of Trade and the Science and Art Vote. I believe we shall be able to allot time to the Board of Trade Vote, but I should not like to pledge the Government as to the Science and Art Vote. With regard to the Irish Votes, I stated on Friday night that I would do my best to find time for a discussion on the means to meet the distress in the west of Ireland. The honourable Member for King's Lynn intends, I gather from his speech, to employ against us all the obstruction which the forms of the House will allow on the Criminal Evidences Bill. I hope my honourable Friend will not stretch that term unduly, and that his undoubtedly conscientious objection to that Bill will be kept within strict limits, or strictly limited at least in its expression. My right honourable Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet always comes forward upon these occasions, and opposes any modification of our Standing Orders. I have always admired, not only his consistency, but his disinterestedness in
    126
    these matters. The right honourable Member comes forward as the apostle of short hours and easy conditions of work in this House. My right honourable Friend certainly has no personal object to gain in this, for, so far as I have observed, he has never felt it his duty to sacrifice his health by any undue labours in regard to legislation. I believe my right honourable Friend has, in the course of the present Session, divided 25 times out of a possible 224 Divisions. That is not an excessive amount, and will not tend permanently to sap the health or the vitality of my right honourable Friend. After all, for what object are we asking the House to sit up a little later during the last three or four weeks of the Session? It is in the interest of the early rising of this House. Again, my right honourable Friend is quite disinterested in this matter, for I am convinced that if it were found, unfortunately, necessary to sit beyond the 12th, 13th, or 14th of August, my right honourable Friend would survey our proceedings from a convenient distance, and would regret that his friends were subjected to so inconvenient a prolongation of the labours of the Session. My right honourable Friend has, I think, some reason on his side in his objection to this Motion which cannot be urged for the objection taken by the Leader of the Opposition. My right honourable Friend has a conscientious objection to legislation in all its forms. He not only dislikes, as he is bound to dislike, the legislation of honourable Gentlemen who sit opposite, but he dislikes, with a hatred scarcely less pronounced, some of the legislation proposed by the Party to which he belongs.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Hear, hear!
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In these circumstances, my right honourable Friend appears to be absolutely disinterested and consistent and reasonable in the course he has taken to-night. But I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition objects to the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule. What is the great gravamen of his speech against the Government?

    127
    The right honourable Gentleman's complaint—
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: He supported it.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Did he support it? I was for a moment betrayed into thinking that the right honourable Gentleman had joined honourable Members opposite in opposing the Resolution. I had forgotten that there were divisions among honourable Gentlemen opposite; but I am glad we have among our supporters the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and, that being so, I will not accuse him of inconsistency in complaining of the fact that there are certain Measures of the Government mentioned in the Queen's Speech which are not passed into law, and which are not likely to be passed into law in the course of the present Session. But let me say that I do not think there ever has been a Session in which the general programme of legislation foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech has been so completely carried out as we may expect it to be in the course of the Session. I do not say that that implies merit in myself, or in the Government of which I am a member. The House, I think, has done its best to help us to pass legislation which it thinks is, in the main, not of a party character, but believes to be generally useful to the country. But the result obtained, however—and I make no boast of it—is one which is eminently satisfactory, and one on which the House may well take some credit to itself for achieving. I think, Sir, that the right honourable Gentleman opposite particularly complained that he had not seen the Secondary Education Bill. He did not, however, complain that we were not going to pass it, because he exacted a pledge from us that no Bill not yet introduced should be passed this Session. But the right honourable Gentleman desired to see the Bill, and I believe that his desire will be gratified, because I understand that my noble Friend the President of the Council is, at an early day, going to introduce the Measure in the House of Lords this Session, in order that it may be laid before the House and before the country. The right honour-
    128
    able Gentleman asked for a pledge from the Government that we were not going to introduce any further Bills. That pledge I cannot give in a precise form, because there are certain annual Bills, such as the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Public Works Loan Bill, which will, of course, have to be dealt with before we separate for the holidays. But the right honourable Gentleman alluded to Bills of quite a different character, and as regards those Bills which do not come within the category of the ordinary annual Measures I can give him the pledge for which he asks, and I am prepared to say that I do not propose to introduce any Bills which have not been already announced. But, Sir, as I informed the House last Tuesday, there are two Irish Measures which, of course, must be dealt with in the course of the present Session. But the spirit of the pledge which I have given to the House I think will be understood by the House, and honourable Members will not desire to press it technically in one direction, just as I should not wish to abuse it in the other direction. The right honourable Gentleman complained that we had not introduced the London Municipalities Bill, but he has apparently forgotten the statement which I made to the House to the effect that the Government pledged themselves to introduce it early next Session, and that if we are not ready to introduce it at this late period of the Session it is because it could not possibly be passed.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What about the Navy Estimates?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As to the Supplementary Naval Estimate I think there has been some error. My right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said that he was going to announce a supplementary programme on Friday next and make a general statement as to the naval policy of the Government. But there will be no Supplementary Estimate, certainly not in the course of the present Session; and when my right honourable Friend makes his statement as to the supplementary programme of the Government, it will be felt that he is perfectly right in not introducing a Supplementary Esti-

    129
    mate. But that is hardly a point which we can discuss now, and it must wait until next Friday to be dealt with. I think that about completes my statement.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: There is the Scotch Bill.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As to the Scotch Equivalent Grant Bill, I am afraid that I cannot mention a time for its discussion, but it will not be in the course of the present week. I hope the Scotch Bill will be reached to-night. As to the Habitual Inebriates Bill—[Laughter]. I have now endeavoured to answer all the objections which have been urged against the Motion and all the questions which have been asked with regard to it, and I hope the House will now consent to come to a decision on the Motion.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I always admire the right honourable Gentleman when he is in a tight fix, and he has my special admiration to-day, for his reply was simply magnificent. But he has appealed to the House to do an unconscientious thing. Now, he says, "For conscience sake let us begin early with business after 12 o'clock," when we are tired out, body and mind. However, I am not going to support this proposal, for it is an outrageous attack upon the liberty of Parliament, and also upon our right of discussion of matters of the greatest importance in this House. The right honourable Gentleman said that in all probability we should have plenty of opportunities for discussion, but we do not care to discuss matters after 12 o'clock at night, because then our proceedings are not reported. The right honourable Gentleman himself is well informed about the wrong-doings of Dublin Castle, but we also want to know something about them, and the public will not know anything about them if we discuss the matter at one or two o'clock in the morning, when the proceedings will not be reported. I also on high moral grounds object to the discharge of very serious business in the small hours of the morning. We should not discharge our own private business
    130
    at that hour, and why does the right honourable Gentleman desire to discharge public business at such a late hour? Now, why should the business of this House be accommodated by the right honourable Gentleman to the tune of the old song, "We won't go home till morning"? I do not see why the important business of the House should be conducted at a late hour of the night, which has been a long scandal. Will the right honourable Gentleman make, after 12 years' experience, a compromise with me? He says that this is done in order to have an early rising, but why not let us have an earlier sitting of the House? Why should we not meet at nine o'clock in the morning? Parliament used to meet earlier in times gone by, when financial shocks were unknown. The House always then met at eight o'clock. In 1641 there was a rule—
    "That the House shall sit at seven o'clock in the morning."
    In 1642 there was a rule, which will appeal to the charitable, to the effect that—
    "Whosoever cannot be here at eight a.m. every morning shall pay one shilling to the poor."
    Now, I do ask the right honourable Gentleman to make a compromise with me. Everyone knows that with these prolonged sittings it is impossible for a man to distinguish between one day and another, for it is utterly impossible. We go home, and we have no real rest, and the Order Paper is even dated wrong as the result. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman wishes the business to go topsy-turvy. He has a majority of 150, by which power he can force anything he likes through the House. Now, the only corrective we have got to that majority is independent discussion in Parliament, whereby we can affect public opinion. When the Debate rolls on between two and three o'clock in the morning, nothing is reported of the proceedings of the House of Commons during these discussions. Of course, when the Division bell is rung, honourable Gentlemen rush in, and most of them very often do not know what they are voting for. Very

    131
    often I have seen honourable Gentlemen come in and ask which are the Ayes and which are the Noes, because they know nothing about the matter. That is a very queer way to discharge our Parliamentary duty and our trust to our constituency; and for all these reasons I will plead to the right honourable Gentleman to make some compromise, and have early sittings of the House, instead of late sittings. We have heard a good deal about Church disestablishment by law lately. All I can say is that I happened to be in a country church last Sunday, and the whole of the service was against the 12 o'clock Rule, and by the dispensation of that 12 o'clock Rule, it had a lamentable effect, for someone fell out of the window. Now, I am not sure that someone may fall over the embankment from the Terrace into the Thames if we have these late sittings. On all these points I would submit that there should be in Parliamentary life some slight appearance of decency in matters involving great interests, and business should not be transacted in such a way as to cause scandal to the public, as they would undoubtedly do, by transacting business after 12 o'clock. It is all very well, even with a majority of 150, to endeavour to spring these things upon us. The right honourable Gentleman knows perfectly well what is right and what is wrong, and he is acting unconscientiously for conscience sake.
    MR. LABOUOHERE: Mr. Speaker, I object to sitting up all night, and I object equally to coming down here at seven o'clock in the morning. Whatever the House may decide, I certainly shall do neither. There is a great deal more than meets the eye in the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman. It seems a harmless little proposal, but it is part and parcel of an insidious attempt on the part of officialdom to bring this House of Commons absolutely and entirely under the control of the Executive, instead of the Executive being under the control of the House of Commons. Sir, this Session commenced later than last year. Now, the right honourable Gentleman said that last year he had proposed on the 15th July the same Motion that he has proposed this day; but then we had sat longer, and the
    132
    Session commenced sooner than in the present year. Therefore, it seems to me that that parallel does not hold. Sir, what is the right honourable Gentleman doing? The right honourable Gentleman has, we on our side of the House say, somewhat wasted the time of the House on small and unimportant Bills; but be that as it may—and the right honourable Gentleman has not passed any great controversial Measure this Session—the right honourable Gentleman, a few days before he proposes this scheme to make us either sit up all night or let things pass without discussion, informed us that he was going to introduce a new Bill into the House in regard to colonial matters—the Colonial Loan Bill. I cannot go into the Bill at present, but I gather from the right honourable Gentleman that it is a Bill that will require to be opposed, and very strongly opposed, by everyone on this side of the House. The right honourable Gentleman has no right to come down at this time of the Session and say, "We want to get through the business of the Session"; and suddenly to propose a Bill of this importance, and then, after having proposed it, to make us sit till two, three, or four o'clock in the morning in order that the public outside may not have an opportunity of learning from the newspapers next morning really what takes place in regard to the discussions. The right honourable Gentleman told us that the only way we could get more discussion on the Estimates was by sitting up later, because there is a limit of days. But I would point out to the right honourable Gentleman, with all respect, that he is entirely wrong, and he has shown by his own action that he is wrong. What did the right honourable Gentleman tell us the other day? He told us that there was some additional Estimate to be proposed for the West Indies, and that this was to be an extra day. How is this to be done? It is done simply by putting down a Bill nominally before the Committee, and not taking it, and so not counting it in the days given to Estimates. If the right honourable Gentleman can do that for his own good pleasure, in order to introduce an additional Estimate, surely he can do it equally well in regard to Irish or English Estimates. The reason why we oppose this Vote at the

    133
    present moment is because the right honourable Gentleman is pushing forward too many Bills at the present time. If he did not put forward all these Bills it would not be necessary for him to ask for this additional time. If he goes on with these Bills—and he told us he intends to do so—either we shall have to sit up till a late hour of the night, or the discussion of them will be of a very perfunctory character. The right honourable Gentleman opposite me cited nine important Bills which the right honourable Gentleman said he is going to push through, on which there will be a good deal of discussion. But there is another Bill. I see in another place a great many changes have been made in the Benefices Bill, and, judging from what took place at the previous stages of the Bill before this House, it seems that the Benefices Bill, when it comes back, will require a great deal of time for discussion. Sir, the right honourable Gentleman said he did this in order that he might go away with a good conscience at an early day in August. I do not want to interfere between the right honourable Gentleman and his conscience—with any of the quarrels that may take place between them, but if he will give up this Measure and accept me as his conscience, I shall be glad to give him a certificate that he has done his duty. Then the right honourable Gentleman spoke of exercising the power with moderation. But what is his idea of moderation in exercising this power going to be? People differ on this essential. I do know this, that last year there was no moderation in practice by the right honourable Gentleman. And I doubt very much whether the right honourable Gentleman will act this year with more moderation; whether his view of moderation will be precisely in accordance with our view on these matters. The right honourable Gentleman complained of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Thanet because he has not taken part in all the Divisions that have taken place in this House. He has taken part, as I gather, in very few, and the right honourable Gentleman seemed to imply that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Thanet has scarcely the right to speak on this matter, because he did not come down to the House to vote.
    134
    I can only tell the House what happens to myself. I never waste my time in voting in a lot of twaddling Divisions that take place with a great number on one side and a few on the other. I know people publish in the newspapers the number of Divisions that Members have taken part in. I remember once telling my constituents when a Member goes to the House, like a sheep, he votes with one side or the other; but a man who represents intelligent men, like you, does not act in that manner. It may be he pauses—he hesitates, he abstains. And that is what I have done. Then, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House was surprised when he found that people sometimes voted in and out in regard to these Measures. He finds the Opposition always vote against a Measure like this, and directly they come into office they vote for it. There is nothing surprising in this, for when one's party is in office one is ready to make a sacrifice of one's time and health to assist the Government. But when one's party is in opposition one does not consider that the Government passing Bills is an adequate cause for sitting up at night; on the contrary, you think the fewer Bills they pass the better. When your own side is in, when they bring forward Bills, when you have come to the conclusion that a Bill is a reasonable and legitimate one, then the Member is ready to give the Government all the time they need. I, and I daresay many others, may have been open to the charge of voting in and out on this matter. I always vote against it when it is brought forward by the Conservative or Unionist Government, and occasionally for it when it is brought forward by the Liberal side, and that I intend to do. Mr. Speaker, my views on this matter are perfectly clear. I assure you I have not the remotest intention to sit up to a late hour, whatever happens in this House. My conscience will allow me to go to bed. Equally, I have not the remotest intention of stopping here during the whole of the month of August. There will come a day when with a good conscience and the habit of a body given to gout I shall go to drink some nauseous waters. Therefore it is perfectly indifferent to me, speaking for myself, whether the House chooses to sit till October or

    135
    whether the House chooses to sit till seven o'clock in the morning. It will not have me; and I think many other Members will take the same course. But, Sir, I do say that the right honourable Gentleman should not introduce fresh business into the House; he should not come forward with a programme of a kind which, having regard to the lateness of the Session, if it is carried out, necessitates that these Bills must be inadequately discussed. If the right honourable Gentleman, had come forward and said early in August, "We come for ward with a modest programme; we do not think it will be necessary that these Bills should be discussed longer than perhaps one o'clock one night, or two o'clock another," one would, perhaps, not have objected; but when he comes forward with this programme, and will not sacrifice one—
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I said nothing in my speech on the subject one way or the other.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right honourable Gentleman shook his head. That conveys very often a good deal more than a speech. I do hope the right honourable Gentleman, whatever his views at the present time, will look thoroughly into these Bills, and will not try to force down a programme that he cannot carry out properly, if he is going to bring the Session to an end at the beginning of August. Then those who, like myself, are unable, through their health, to sit up till an early hour in the morning, and are unable to stop very long in August, may go away with a feeling that they have conscientiously, adequately, and fully performed their duty.
    DR. CLARK: I have always been opposed to the Twelve o'clock Rule, and would heartily support the Government in abolishing it for the remainder of the Session, if they only proposed to abolish the Twelve o'clock Rule. But they propose to go very much further, and I want to get a promise from the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, otherwise I will move an Amendment to leave out the last clause of the Motion. We say the Twelve o'clock Rule has been tried for the past 10 years, and
    136
    it has been a failure. Our Session has, as a rule, only five working months; now they are proposing to abolish it for one-fifth of the time. What I want to point out is what you are doing if you carry the Resolution. The House, year after year, because of the limitation of its time, instead of doing work itself and passing Bills, hands over to Departments like the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board, and a number of Statutory Commissioners, the power to make laws, and our only control is that the laws made by these Commissioners and by those Departments lie on the Table for 40 days. Now, if 30 out of the 40 are to be taken away, I want to point out to the right honourable Gentleman the danger of his Motion as it stands at the present time. You will not always have a Conservative Government in power; by and bye there will be a Radical Government in power. The democracy is not very consistent; it swings first to one side and then to another very frequently. If a Radical Government come into power they, through their Departments and their Commissions, will make very important changes in the legislation, and you will be prevented, by Resolutions of this kind being passed in the House, from having any voice at all in regard to them, though perhaps you may be able to say something in another House. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, there will be very important Resolutions which will be practically Acts of Parliament, and there will be no means of making the House or the country aware of the character of the legislation before it. I want to get a pledge from the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject. I would like to get it, because the last portion of the Motion seems to me valuable in one way and bad in another. It is valuable, as you will be able to adjourn the House without the mere mechanical trouble of running over the Bills and giving a day for them; but you are also taking away the old right which never, during my experience, has been misused, the right of raising a question on a Motion for the adjournment, and asking for information—the right that has enabled us to know and control the legislation of Departments and Commissions. I want to know if during the next 30

    137
    days any of these Bills—like the one the honourable Member for Walsall intends to bring on—come before the House from his own side, if a Member does bring opposition to legislation by Commission or Department, that the Government will star that, and make it Government business, and give the House an opportunity of expressing its views regarding it. Otherwise it will be necessary to move the rejection of the last clause, in order that that right of the control of legislation by Departments and Commissions may not be abrogated as is done by a side wind in this Motion.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, etc.): The honourable Member below me [Sir C. Dilke] referred to the Nonconformist Marriages Bill, and rather assumed that it would take up some time in discussion. I do not think that is so. I do not think it will take up any time. My honourable Friend the Member for Louth has assured me that he does not intend to discuss the matter at all, and the Amendments are such as I think commend themselves to the bulk of the honourable Members; at any rate, they will not occupy much time. For my part, I rely absolutely upon the understanding of the Government upon the subject. There is, however, one question which I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I was not present when a question was put by the right honourable Member for Aberdeen [Mr. Bryce] with regard to the Board of Trade Vote, but I think it is a very important subject, and should be fully discussed. With regard to the abrogation of the Twelve o'clock Rule, my objection is that time is to be devoted to the discussion of matters which appear to me to be rather trivial. There is a subject about which everyone is talking, and for the discussion of which the Government should certainly find time—I mean the Report of the Old Age Pension Committee. If honourable Members will look at the number of Bills which the Government have starved, they will find in the list the Parish Fire Engines Bill and the Circuit Clerks of Justiciary (Scotland) Bill. Surely a discussion upon the Report of the Old Age Pensions Committee is much more important than a
    138
    discussion upon either of these two Measures. The honourable Member for King's Lynn has referred to the fact that the Government has a majority of 150, but if there is one question more than another which is responsible for the existence of that majority, and for bringing the Government into power with so great a preponderance over the Opposition, it was this question of old age pensions. In view of the extraordinary Report of the Committee, practically throwing over the scheme, time should be allowed for discussion.
    MR. BROADHURST: As I am partly responsible for inducing the Government to introduce the Parish Fire Engines Bill, I desire to say a word or two in its defence. I admit that it is a subject that does not loom very large upon the political horizon, but it is, nevertheless, a question of some importance, and the absence of such powers as are proposed in the Bill has led to disaster, and often to great destruction of property. For some two or three years I have been endeavouring to induce the Government to take up the question, and I think it my duty to defend their action in this matter. I desire also to join my honourable Friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs in asking the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he can allow two or three hours for the discussion of the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions. That is a subject that has occupied a great deal of attention in the country, and feeling has been running very strongly in favour of some scheme or other. It would be advised on the part of the Government to adjourn this Session without some Debate upon this question. I trust the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to give us that opportunity, without neglecting, of course, the passing of the Parish. Fire Engines Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 127.—(Division List No. 226.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ (Manc.)

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

    Finch, George H.

    McIver, Sir Lewis

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bagot Capt J FitzRoy

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Manners, Lord E. W. J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Baldwin, Alfred

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Fry, Lewis

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Garfit, William

    Monk, Charles James

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C. of Lond.)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Biddulph, Michael

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh)

    Bigwood, James

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bill, Charles

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

    Bond, Edward

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Brassey, Albert

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Gunter, Colonel

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Butcher, John George

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Carew, James Laurence

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    O'Kelly, James

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Pender, Sir James

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.

    Haslett, Sir James H.

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Helder, Augustus

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Houston, R. P.

    Purvis, Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Howard, Joseph

    Pym, C. Guy

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Howell, William Tudor

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Kemp, George

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Cox, Robert

    Lafone, Alfred

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Llewellyn. E. H. (Somerset)

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Strauss, Arthur

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S

    Lowe, Francis William

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Lowles, John

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Drucker, A.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Talbot.RtHn. J.G. (Oxf'dUny.)

    Thorburn, Walter

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

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Wyndham George

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Usborne, Thomas

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Wyvill Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Verney, Hon. R. Greville

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    NOES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Gourley, Sir, E. Temperley

    Philipps, John Wynford

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

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hedderwick, T. C. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Ascroft, Robert

    Hogan, James Francis

    Price, Robert John

    Asher, Alexander

    Holburn, J. G.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Baker, Sir John

    Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

    Billson, Alfred

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Birrell, Augustine

    Kay-Shuttleworth.RtHnSirU.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Kitson, Sir James

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Knox, E. F. V.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Labouchere, Henry

    Souttar, Robinson

    Bunt, Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Spicer, Albert

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Langley, Batty

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Strachey, Edward

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lough, Thomas

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

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Clough, Walter Owen

    MacDonnell,Dr.M.A. (Qn'sC.)

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Colville, John

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    McCartan, Michael

    Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

    Crilly, Daniel

    McDermott, Patrick

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    McEwan, William

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Daly, James

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

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Daziel, James Henry

    Mandeville, J. Francis,

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Davitt, Michael

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

    Dillon, John

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Duckworth, James

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Yoxall, James Henry

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

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

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Oldroyd, Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    Mr. James Lowther and Sir Charles Dilke.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Gold, Charles

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
    [THIRD READING.]
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose, Sir, to offer any opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill. We never were opposed to the Bill itself; but I do not think we ought to allow this opportunity to pass without entering our protest, our final protest, against this im-
    142
    position upon Ireland; because, after all, it is the British Members who are responsible. They practically put the Irish Members in the position of saying, "We must either reject the whole Bill or take it with the objectionable clause in it." As British Members I think we ought to protest against any position being taken up of that sort. But, first, I think we ought to clear up one matter that was dealt with last week in regard to the

    143
    financial proposals of the Bill. The Conservatives, and, unfortunately, the honourable Member for Waterford, as well as some other Members of this House, have charged us with obstruction to the Bill. But anyone who looks at the Bill, and who knows anything about the forms of this House, must know that the charge is untrue, nay, more, it is perfectly absurd. What is this Bill? It has 93 clauses, with seven schedules in it. It is practically the Irish equivalent to four English Bills rolled into one. It is a Municipal Franchise Bill. It is the English Local Government Bill of 1888; it is the English Local Government Bill of 1894; and it is the English Agricultural Rating Bill of 1896—practically all rolled into one. Now, if we really desired to obstruct a Bill of this kind I think I might venture to say—without the application of the closure—it would be absolutely impossible to carry a Measure of this kind through. The contemplation of this Bill makes one's mouth water because of the infinitude of its provisions. There has been nothing like adequate discussion of the Bill. We have confined ourselves to the salient points of the proposal hitherto, and the whole of the discussion on the First Reading, the Second Reading, and I think I might venture to include the Report stage, did not occupy more than three days, and to call that obstruction is absurd; and I venture to say such criticism is insincere. We, as Liberals, should like to get this Bill passed through the House. It is a large Measure of self-government and a very comprehensive Measure; and I think also it is a very liberal Measure. It is so liberal, indeed, that the English criticism levelled against the Measure itself has really emanated from honourable Members on the other side of the House rather than from this side. For instance, I have seen long articles in the Globe all in the same strain, complaining that the Bill is opposed to the Protestant minority in Ireland and that it tends to smooth the way to the establishment of Home Rule. I think one very strong reason why the Liberal Party should be anxious that this Bill should be carried through is that it may have the effect of postponing, as a problem of immediate practical politics, the consideration of a larger measure of self-government. But still, I think, in the long run it will have
    144
    the effect of accelerating or of facilitating the passing of such a Measure. There are some persons who believe that this Bill practically takes Home Rule off the political menu, so far, at any rate, as the next electoral spread is concerned. I do not know so much about that. Speaking as a Welsh Member, I think that the Welsh people are prepared to concede self-government to Ireland. But the English people are, I venture to assert, more prone to be guided by experience than by logic. They are eminently a practical race. And they may decline to entertain;—if a Bill of this kind is passed through the House—the question of extending its scope until they see how it has worked out in Ireland. Therefore I do not know what the effect may be as far as its connection with Home Rule politics is concerned, and as a Measure of practical politics. But I am thoroughly convinced that it must, in the long run, assist in the favourable consideration of the provisions of self-government as contained in the present Bill. I will tell the House why. I think this Bill does away, once and for all, with the most substantial objections to the extension of self-government to Ireland. What is the strongest objection in the English mind—the strongest fear in regard to this self-government in Ireland? It is the root of the distrust of the capacity of the Irish people to govern, and is proverbially known as the Hottentot argument. But I think that has been disposed of for ever. It has been discredited by the author of the same doctrine. This Bill confers an exceedingly large Measure of self-government on the Irish people, and a large Measure of self-government is far more dangerous than the Measures of self-government proposed by Mr. Gladstone ever were. Every Bill, every Act of an Irish Legislature, passed in broad daylight, in the presence of the whole of the Irish people, will be a safeguard and a guarantee of good faith by the very publicity which will be attracted towards it. The case is altogether different with the proceedings of a small parish council like Ballyhooley or Ballykilbeg. Hundreds of these councils carry on their discussions all over Ireland. But the British public, with its many and varied interests, its enormously weighty enterprises to think about and control all over

    145
    the world, will not scrutinise and watch every action of these little parish councils. Lord Salisbury, in a remarkable speech which he delivered at Newport some time ago, said local authorities were more exposed to the temptation of unfair criticism by the minority than those authorities whose operations covered a wider area, and he added that it was much more dangerous to experiment with self-government on a small scale than on a large one. That is an admission of Lord Salisbury himself. If the majority have made up their minds to utilise the powers vested in them for the purpose of persecuting and irritating the minority there are a thousand and one ways in which they can do it, and as many ways in which they cannot do it. For instance, an Imperial Parliament cannot do it. You have the Press, with its organs all over the country to call attention to it, and the force of public opinion, once roused, would be so strong as to terrify and hinder the action of any majority, however strong, which might be utilised for persecuting purposes. But that is not the case which arises here, as Lord Salisbury has pointed out. But I would also point out that this Bill, containing large and extensive powers, is without a single real safeguard. I know the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that there are safeguards in this Bill. Where are they? The only thing he could characterise as a safeguard was the financial clause; but what sort of a safeguard is that? I submit to the House, Sir, that it only aggravates the situation. It only refers to one important power which is conferred upon these authorities. What is the danger which the right honourable Gentleman endeavours to guard against? The only danger which he seems to guard against is that these authorities may possibly incur reckless expenditure, that they may overtax the wealthy classes, that being poor themselves, they may try to plunder their wealthy neighbours. But, Sir, what is the safeguard of the Government? They exclude one class alone from the possibility of anything of that kind, but what about the other classes? What about the large farmer, the tradesman, the professional man? These are left even in a
    146
    worse position than they were before. Because, what is the effect of this Bill? It is this: you do not merely subsidise one class and say, "We will give you £300,000, so as to give a margin, to these authorities in case they do incur reckless expenditure; at any rate, there will be £300,000 between you and your rates." The Government go further than that. So far as one class of rates is concerned, one class of people are to be exempt—your tradesman, your farmer, your professional man, your manufacturer is to pay more, in order that one class may be exempt; so that not only is it not a safeguard as regards a most thrifty and deserving class of the community, but at the same time it deprives them of the support of the one powerful class in fighting against reckless expenditure. Not only that, but the extra burden that would have fallen upon the landlords will, under this Bill, fall upon the people. There is no safeguard—things are worse than they were formerly. Either the Government do not believe that there is any danger of these authorities incurring any extra expenditure, or they have been guilty of a most shameless abandonment of those classes in Ireland in order to protect their own friends. Then there is another argument which has been disposed of once and for ever so far as this. Bill is concerned, and that is the fear that if any powers of Home Rule or self-government were conferred upon the Irish democracy, who are mostly Catholics, the Catholics might persecute their Protestant fellow-citizens. I do not mean persecution in the mediaeval sense of the word, that Protestants would be put to torture at the stake, but in the sense of withholding fair treatment from them. The danger apprehended is the danger that the Catholics of Ireland might treat the Protestants in exactly the same way as the Anglicans of England treat their Nonconformist fellow-citizens—that they would exclude them from participating in power or position—that is the danger apprehended. Of course, the Unionists have been always more sensitive about the Protestants of Ireland than about the Nonconformists of this country. What safeguard, I ask, has he Government introduced against a possibility of that kind? If there were any danger of that sort, it is ten times worse

    147
    under this Bill than under any Bill for Irish self-government. These councils will have more power of patronage than any Irish Parliament would ever possess; every public position in Ireland is transferred to the council, from the clerk of council to the lowest scavenger. There are hundreds of these positions to be handed over to these Catholic councils in Ireland. What guarantee have the Government introduced that the Protestants will have fair play—that they will have any share of the promotions—if these powers are handed over to the councils? Where is the clause? The Catholics of Ireland may treat the Protestants as the Protestants of Belfast treat their Catholic fellow-citizens, and exclude them, from all positions except that of scavenger. There is not a clause to protect your Protestants. Then come the demands of your Irish friends, and "they point out, "How are you going to protect the Protestants?" and the Unionist Government says, "We are not electioneering now—how much; what are you going to take?" They discuss preliminaries, the Government write out a cheque, and the keys of every Protestant citadel throughout Ireland have been handed over to the Catholics, and if we are to believe all the electioneering talk those keys are handed on transfer to Rome by a payment of £350,000 to the champions of the Irish Protestants. This lesson is not going to be lost on the English electorate. The next time we hear you cannot trust the Irish people with Home Rule we will say, "What safeguard had you against the industrious tradesman of Ireland being debarred from occupying a position under the Local Government Board?" When there is talk of persecution of Protestants in Ireland the English people will see that we paid you £350,000 a year for that cry, and they will not give a second mortgage. The result of this Bill has been to work a distinct progress in the Home Rule controversy; it has deprived Irish landlords and the Unionists of their best arguments, and they cannot advance them in the future in view of their attitude towards this Bill. Sir, I find in the book of the honourable Member for Islington that the Irish rates have gone up from 2s. to 3s. in the £ to 16s. in the £.
    MR. LOUGH: 17s. 6d.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I am very moderate. The only protection is that you exempt the Irish landlords, and the English people will draw their own conclusions.
    MR. LAMBERT: With my honourable Friend, do not in the slightest degree object to the proposals of this Bill so far as it confers, local government on Ireland, but with him I join issue with respect to the financial proposals. I say here to-day, as this is the last opportunity we will have of speaking on it, for my own part I cordially welcome this measure of Local Government for Ireland, but I regret it has had to be carried with a taint of corruption which runs through the grant of something like £730,000 to the landlords. Now, honourable Gentlemen opposite—there is not a single one of them has made the point that this is a good provision, or that it is a provision that they have recommended to their constituents. And further, I do not think there is a single Member on the opposite benches who stated at the last election that he intended to vote for proposals to give money to the Irish landlords. If they had done so there would not have been that magnificent majority behind the right honourable Gentleman which at present supports him. Sir, on the contrary, honourable Gentlemen opposite did not say that we were going to pay more money to Ireland, but the whole cry was that Ireland did not pay enough. They denounced Mr. Gladstone's proposals. Now, I have in my hand a small leaflet—it was afterwards printed as a placard—and this leaflet was disseminated amongst the voters of this country. It deals with the work of the right honourable Gentleman opposite, when his supporters said that Ireland did not pay enough towards the Imperial Exchequer. It is headed, "Britons, don't be cheated. This bag shows"—here there is a bag with £7,700,000 printed on it—"what Ireland ought to pay every year towards national expenses according to her population." That is a very big bag. Then, Sir, they had another bag, a bag representing £3,700,000, and it shows

    149
    "What Ireland ought to pay every year towards national expenses according to her wealth, as shown, by the death duties, which Mr. Gladstone said in 1886 were the best possible test." Then they have a very tiny bag at the bottom, with £1,550,000 printed on it, and this bag shows "What Ireland would pay every year towards national expenses under the Home Rule Bill." ["Hear, hear!" from the Unionist benches.] I am very glad indeed that honourable Gentlemen opposite cheer that—they recognise this leaflet—that is the test, It is not £1,550,000, but it is £1,365,000; so that this leaflet, which was circulated all over the country, shows that Ireland did not pay enough, but under the Bill of the Chief Secretary Ireland's contribution will be decreased. These figures and facts were brought home to the English electorate not only by speeches like those to which I have referred, but by others. The honourable Gentlemen opposite when they went down to their constituencies and made these speeches were probably not aware that they were making speeches to their constituents which they would be unable to sustain or make again when they came before them again. For I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable Gentlemen in private life would never descend to such petty tactics as to say one thing upon the platform and another in the House of Commons; but when it comes to a question of politics, political morality seems to fall to a very low ebb indeed, and I can only say that it shows this, that the policy of the present Government is the most bare-faced hypocrisy that ever existed. Under this Bill Ireland will pay £7,700,000 less than the leaflet says she ought to pay towards the national expenses if she were taxed according to her population, £3,700,000 less than if she were taxed according to her wealth, and she will pay £700 a year less than she would have had to pay under Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill. And what is the conclusion? The difference must come out of the British people. British electors refuse your consent to such an unfair bargain. I think we shall make a good deal more of these figures and facts when the next election comes, and for honourable Gentlemen of the Conservative party to
    150
    descend to such petty tactics as these is to perpetrate political dishonesty. There are sins of commission and sins of omission, and one of the sins of omission of this Government is that they are not going to give old age pensions to this country. It was only the other day that the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said that he thought the resources of civilisation were not exhausted. I am afraid that the Exchequer itself will be exhausted if the Government pursue their present financial policy. With regard to old age pensions the Government had not performed their pledges. But in regard to this Irish Bill they had gone further than that, they had done that which they said they would not do. The Chief Secretary said the arrangement was made, but who between? An arrangement was certainly made by somebody, but in this case the expenses must be paid by the hard earnings of the taxpayer here. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University refers to this practice in his History of England in the 18th century. I am very sorry it has not even yet been exterminated, because some of the descendants of the self same families who were largely bribed to carry the Union—the descendants of these noblemen and others are the very men who are receiving large sums under this grant to the landlords in Ireland for their acquiescence in this measure. We know that under the union £75,000 was given for seats in the Irish Parliament. Lord Downshire was a vehement opponent of the union with England, and he had seven seats at his disposal. He was paid £750 for those seats. What does his descendant get now? He gets £2,290 for his poor rate, he gets that directly, and indirectly, in the shape of county cess, he gets £3,437, so that altogether he gets £5,700 for ever and ever in order that his silence may be purchased when passing this bill into law. At the time of the Union he received £52,500. Mr. Lecky, if I may allude to him in that way, says Lord Ely received £45,000 for six seats at the time of the Union. What is his descendant going to receive now? £595 for poor rate, and £867 county cess, so the Marquess of Ely obtains something like £1,400, and

    151
    he has had the interest of his £45,000 which was received by him as a bribe for carrying the Union. There are many other noble lords that I could quote, the Duke of Abercorn, the Duke of Devonshire, and Lord Clanricarde, and they each received £750 as their share for bringing about the Union, and they are receiving now £300 and £1,000 a year out of the grant, and £500 and £1,500 a year with regard to the county cess in Ireland. It is a most monstrous thing that these noble lords and their ancestors should be bribed first of all to barter away Irish liberty, and secondly in order that Irish liberty may be restored. The right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, speaking upon the proposal of Mr. Gladstone in 1893, said it appeared to him to be a distinct feature of Irish patriotism that it was a plant of such tender growth that it could not thrive unless it was plentifully watered with British gold. It might well be said the Irish landlord's patriotic sympathy was a plant of such tender growth that it could not thrive without being plentifully watered with British gold. Under the Union bribery was not confined to mere money, peerages were given. I should not have objected if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary had taken that line in this instance—if he had given them peerages to get their consent to Local Government for Ireland, should not have minded if he had packed the peerage of this country with Irish landlords, and I would suggest to him now that the honourable Member for North Armagh, in addition to what he will receive under this grant, should be made a peer because he was originally one of the most vehement opponents of this Bill. The cruel irony of the thing is this, that at the time of the Union the Irish peers were made British peers, and were put in a position to levy blackmail when any proposal was made to give local government back to Ireland What had the Government gained by this enormous expenditure of money? £730,000 a year to Ireland. They had falsified their financial pledges to pay this money. The demands of Ireland are two: first, she suffers under a financial grievance because she is taxed over and above her means, because she is a poor country, and that being so there is not a
    152
    single Irish Member on those benches who will regard this £730,000 per year as a set off against their claim. Then, again, Irish National members demand a measure of Home Rule or self-government for Ireland. Personally speaking, since this debate commenced I am more and more convinced of the necessity for Home Rule for Ireland. We English members have been discussing things, that we know nothing whatever about. I beg pardon, we have confined our discussion to the financial portions of the Bill of which we have some knowledge, and our constituents will have to have a much greater knowledge of them. I think it is a monstrous thing that we should be supposed to discuss matters of which we have so little knowledge. But this Bill will not satisfy the financial grievance of the Irish Nationalist. Honourable Members opposite, if a Measure of Home Rule were brought before this House, would naturally vote it down, but fortunately there is one thing which they cannot vote down, and that is the Septennial Act, and probably in three years we shall have a General Election, if we do not have one before, and if it goes anything like the by-elections [laughter], well we give you Durham. The great majority of by-elections have shown that the Government had not the confidence of the people which they had in 1895, and if the great parties of the State, the great Liberal Party and the great Conservative Party, are evenly balanced I say the question of Home Rule is bound to come up again when the 80 Irish Members of this House from those benches demand it and make their will felt upon the legislation of this country. Personally, I say Ireland should have a fair trial of Home Rule, and this Bill cannot be taken in the least degree as a settlement of her legitimate national demands. The system which has been in operation in Ireland has been most wasteful, and is most wasteful and extravagant to-day, and it has been barren of any progress. Because I am absolutely convinced that no man who goes back and reviews the events of the last hundred years can honestly say that English rule in Ireland has been a success. Ireland is dominated by policemen and

    153
    officials of every kind who, like the Chinese Mandarins, batten upon the blood of the country and the misery of the people. There is another thing which the Government will have to consider in settling this question. We were told the other day by the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary that, however terrible war might be, he would welcome war if it resulted in the English and American flags waving side by side over an Anglo-Saxon Alliance.
    MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: They never will.
    MR. LAMBERT: But I recollect listening to the honourable Gentleman the Member for South Durham when he stated that a friendly feeling was growing up between the United States and Great Britain, but it was being actively combated by the Irish in America, who were determined that until the Irish grievances were redressed there should be no understanding between the two countries. I think it would be better to remedy the grievances of the Irish people and to give them self-government.
    *SIR J. COLOMB: The object of the two speeches that have been delivered by the two honourable Members to whom we have just listened I have not been quite able to gather. The honourable Member for Carnarvon did not explain how, if in a simple case of local government, such horrors were produced that were not equally produced when poor little Wales got local government for itself. He cried out in horror and asked where the protection of the Protestants was under this Bill. He seemed to forget altogether that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with the religious convictions of the people. Then with regard to the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, I fail to see what object he had in his mind. With the exception of his dissertation upon Irish history, I think we have had very much the same sort of speech all through the agricultural grant debate two years ago. We have heard this tirade against landowners before, but upon this occasion I do not really know what his
    154
    object is. It appears to me that the only thing he is driving at is to make the population of Great Britain believe that some great injustice has been done to Great Britain by this Bill, because he talked about rewarding the landlords out of the pockets of the taxpayer of Great Britain. But he must remember that this £750,000 is the Irish portion of the grant, and the question of the way it goes or what becomes of it when it gets over to Ireland has nothing to do with that point. There is no question of robbery so far as Great Britain is concerned, and under those circumstances I do not see what his reference to the "deplorable conditions" has to do with it. Now, I would like to say just one word upon the Third Reading of the Bill. I certainly wish to congratulate the Government upon the despatch with which they have passed up to this particular stage a most complicated and, as I believe, as great a Bill as ever was passed by this House. This Bill finally disposes of the control of the grand juries over the fiscal arangements of the country. I approve of the Bill as a whole and in detail, but at the same time I do not want it to be thought for one moment that the grand juries failed to discharge their duties during the years that are passed. Speaking as a grand juror myself, and I have watched grand juries for many years longer than I like to recall, although I feel, and always have felt, that the principle of government by grand juries was bad, still I say that the grand juries did work honestly, truly, and well. I feel that the system, which this Bill when it becomes law is to terminate, could not continue under the light of public knowledge. What is the system which this Bill is to terminate? It is to make a change really inevitable, because under the fiscal system existing in Ireland one class of people administered the money produced by another. English members would find, no doubt, some little difficulty in following it, but to illustrate what I say, the county cess was administered by the landlord and produced by the tenant, but when you come to the poor rate, it was the tenant who mainly administered that, though found by the landlord in the main. I

    155
    can only say that is my personal experience in many districts in Ireland. The other point I wish to make is with regard to single member constituencies. I have no personal desire to discuss this, but I have a very strong hope that the principle of single member constituency will remain. I hope so, because I think it has an advantage over the system of a dual constituency. I have looked thoroughly into the question, and I would say broadly and briefly that I do not think any greater misfortune could happen to this Bill throughout the length and breadth of Ireland were dual constituencies now adopted, and that any excuse for opening this large controversy is to be avoided. I think, in whichever way you look at it, dual constituencies would not attain the object that is sought by its advocates. I would give an instance of one union within my own knowledge. There are 16 electoral divisions, one of which has dual representation, so that there are 17 elected guardians. Now, if you search that union up and down from end to end you certainly will not find 32 moderately large ratepayers. And, in my opinion, if in that union you applied the principle of the dual constituency, although you attained all the advantages which the advocates of that system seek to attain in that particular union, you would not get enough suitable men to elect. You might get five; that would be the practical result of it, and to obtain those five you would have to add eleven members to the district board who would be necessarily very small ratepayers, who would have no knowledge, and could have no chance of acquiring any knowledge, of the management of public affairs. I wish to raise my voice and express my strong opinion that the Government were extremely wise in framing the Bill in the manner in which they did, so as to only allow single member constituencies, and I hope it will not in any sense or form be altered. I hope that when this Bill becomes law criticism as to the working of it will, at all events, not be too premature. You cannot change and reverse a policy which has existed for years and years, and expect to get no friction and no confusion when a new system takes its place. We must remember that at first, by reason of the effect of
    156
    the last system of administration, Irish people have had no real experience of the management of their public affairs or dealing with their finances, and therefore it would be too much to expect that at first there should not be many errors and many difficulties. We have all been trained in a bad school, owing to the system which has been in force, and I think also that those gentlemen who live in the mountainous districts of Ireland cannot be said to have any knowledge of the management of public business, for the reason that the money which they have administered was money which mainly belonged to other people and not to themselves. Therefore, in making this change we must recollect that the people who have to administer it and make it work well will 'have to acquire a knowledge of public affairs in order to ensure its success. I am quite sure that the common sense of the Irish people will gradually rectify all the mistakes which it is only natural will be made in the first instance, and that by and by, when it comes to a question of electing their representatives to these bodies they will not be asking whether a man is a Protestant or Catholic, or whether he is a big or small ratepayer, but who is the best man to do the business of the constituency. I do not in my own mind expect that this Bill will produce a sort of fairy land in Ireland, because we must expect a great many mistakes, but of this I am absolutely confident, that under the admirable regulations in the Bill it will work out in the end with great and entire success, and I think it is the greatest Measure given to Ireland by this House in this century, except, of course, the Catholic Emancipation Act. I think the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary—one the author of the Bill, and the other the statesman who carried it through—will, in generations to come, be recognised as having taken for the first time a step based upon broad statesmanship, and I look forward to the most beneficent results to Ireland from it.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: The honourable Gentleman who has just spoken was almost the last man I hoped to see converted to the belief

    157
    that, in the matter of management of local affairs, the Irish people were capable of being trusted.
    *SIR J. COLOMB: I have held my present opinion for years and years.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I am glad we have been able to ascertain the opinion always held by the honourable Gentleman. We stand in a very fortunate position. We have seen the conversion of both political parties. In one case the conversion took place 13 or 14 years ago, and in the other case it has been of more recent date. It is a mystery to me why English Members are so anxious to charge one another with inconsistency. They have all been inconsistent—they have all changed their opinions; and I venture to say that it is nothing against one Party any more than it is against another to admit that they have changed their mind. It is said that the Irish are a missionary race, and we never lose hope of converting either Party in this country by our arguments to our view. One very remarkable case came to my notice the other day. Mr. Palmer, at one time a Member of this House, went down in 1892 to fight an agricultural constituency in Berkshire, where there were no Irishmen, and he was not in favour of trusting Irishmen with the management of their own affairs. He is at the present moment fighting a constituency, in which there are Irishmen; and so great is the missionary effect of Irish arguments that he has been converted from the opinion he held in 1892, and he has pledged himself to Home Rule. I think there is no reason to despair in any case of bringing English Members who at one time were opposed to our views to another opinion, and I venture to hope that, in the course of some few years, we may find both Parties joining and giving the assent to a measure o Home Rule for Ireland in just the same way as they are joining in giving the assent to a measure of local government My honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon has recited the various terrible effects to Protestants which he supposes might follow from a measure of Home Rule proposed by honourable Member opposite. I will go so far as to say, with my knowledge of Ireland, that a great
    158
    number of my fellow-Protestants also believed that all those terrible effects would follow Home Rule. But there are a great number also of Protestants in Ireland who believed that terrible effects, would follow from this Bill. But they are wrong; their representatives in this. House admitted they are wrong, because no such terrible effects are expected. We must complete the conversion of those if our fellow-countrymen by proving that, they are wrong—by proving that no terrible effects will follow trusting the Irish people to govern, not merely themselves, but those who may be living among them, who belong to another religion, and even possibly, in some cases, o another race. That is the best means by which we can convert even the honourable Member for South Belfast to Home Rule, when he sees in the future years the Irish local bodies conducting their own affairs, I do not say absolutely without, making any mistakes, but as well as local bodies do in any other country. He will have learnt that these local bodies, that can be entrusted with such powers should be trusted further to use their powers in a combination of local bodies, or in some other way in a national assembly dealing with the affairs of the whole of Ireland. We do not expect honourable Members opposite to announce that they have any expectation of any such change of view. It will be for us in Ireland, and those who send us to this House, to enable such a change of view to come about. If Home Rule meets with the general assent of both parties in Ireland and in this House, such Home Rule will have a more powerful influence in improving the condition of Ireland than Home Rule ever could have been if it was carried merely by the vote of one party against the strenuous, opposition of a large section of the community. I am glad the speeches which have been delivered to-night enable us, in the final stages of this Measure, to give to the Liberals who have helped us at earlier stages of our conflict that measure of thanks which is rightly due to them in this matter. This Bill is mainly due to the strong fight which the Liberal Party have made on behalf of the Irish cause within the past 13 years. If it had not been for the great work Mr. Gladstone did in converting the

    159
    mind of the English people to look upon Ireland in a different way—a work which in some degree cannot be said to have failed—we should never have had this Bill; we should never have had the agricultural rating part of the Bill if it had not been for the help of my honourable Friends on these benches. It was their votes, given unanimously, that showed that we had not merely the support of all sections of Irish representatives, Conservatives as well as Nationalists, but also the support of the Liberal Party, which convinced the Government that they would have to yield. I fail to see why my honourable Friends above the Gangway should take up this carping position now that this is to be carried into effect, instead of joining, as they might have done, in congratulating Ireland on the result of their own efforts on Ireland's behalf. It is true when they made this proposal that they did not expect that the money would be divided between the different classes of Irishmen in the way proposed by this Bill. They must have expected that some part would go to the landlords, because it would have been impossible to have paid half the Irish rates without allowing a very large part of the money to go to the landlords, who at present pay half the poor rate. It would have been impossible to have carried out any measure of agricultural rating relief in Ireland without giving a very large measure of relief to the landlords as well as to the tenants. That is a fact which those of my honourable Friends who voted last year in favour of this measure of agricultural relief cannot altogether overlook. They may fairly urge that still more was given to the landlords than was demanded by many of us last year, or than Members on this side of the House would have proposed in the drawing and framing of this Bill if it had been in our hands. But, after all, is it necessary to withhold assent to that part of the Bill which concerns agricultural relief? There can be no doubt that it is, from the point of view of the position of parties in this House and the other House, a great thing to get a general assent to the passing of this Measure into law; and there can be no doubt, from the point of view of the successful working of this Measure in
    160
    Ireland afterwards, that it is also a great political advantage to have it carried by general assent. It is not a question of paying so much blackmail to one man or another in the other House. It is a question really of securing the general assent, and reconciling the classes in Ireland, who have hitherto been opposed to every Measure of extension of popular power to a Measure larger than, any which has been passed by Parliament. That, I think, is a great political object, and if a larger part of this money has to go to the landlords than was contemplated by any of us when we joined in demanding a larger agricultural grant last year, that is no reason for opposing the Measure. My only fear is that the action of a small number of Members above the Gangway, and the ill-considered utterances of a section of the Members who have dealt with this matter, will create an impression on our people in Ireland. In one of the Liberal newspapers—the Daily News—there was a statement that there never had been agricultural depression in Ireland. So absurd a statement, put forward as the view of a newspaper-reading section of the Liberal Party, will give the people in Ireland an entirely false impression of the attitude which the Liberal Party here adopt towards us in Ireland. I venture, therefore, to thank the honourable Member for Carnarvon for the speech he has made to-night, and to tell him that, in allowing this Measure to pass its Third Reading without opposition, he will be ratifying generally the agreement which was arrived at last year, when this Measure was first considered in outline. Since some question has arisen as to whether there was any agreement made, I would venture to refer to what fell from the lips of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. He said there was obviously a great advantage in forestalling the lapse of time and bringing forward these proposals in a Session previous to that in which they were to be introduced. He went on to say there was an admirable opportunity for the Government, to place the proposals before the country before they came to be dealt with in Parliament, and he declared that it was gratifying to know that there appeared to be something

    161
    like agreement among the different sections of Irish politicians on the subject.—
    "not complete agreement, perhaps, but still an agreement in aim and intention. I am sure,"
    —he went on—
    "I am justified in saying that we shall treat the proposals of the Government, as foreshadowed by the right honourable Gentleman, in no carping or grudging spirit."
    That was the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs, speaking on behalf of the Opposition. He said there was something like agreement in aim and intention on both sides of the House; therefore, I venture to hope, in spite of these threats of agitation, that must necessarily lead to bickering between the Irishmen and the Liberal Opposition, that it will be admitted by the country that this Measure has been passed through all its stages by a substantial agreement in aim and intention between all parties in this House.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I will not keep the House more than a moment or two. The honourable Member who has just sat down believes firmly in his own mind that the support that we have given to this Bill is an indication of a process of conversion towards that Home Rule policy which he believes to be the policy best fitted for Ireland. He says that we Irish are a missionary race. Are they sending down missionaries to Grimsby, I wonder? At any rate, they do not appear to be very successful in that direction. If I, for my part, could see that this Bill would have the remotest possible effect in bringing about Home Rule for Ireland, I should certainly have been found among its most strenuous opponents. I say it is in exactly the opposite direction. If the Government had not brought in this Bill, at the next General Election there would not have been one Liberal or Home Ruler who would not have stumped the country and said, "You are treating Ireland in a totally different way from the rest of the Empire, and have refused in the Imperial Parliament to do her justice; therefore, you ought to give her a Parliament of her own." Now, Sir, you are going to treat her as you treated Scotland, to whom you do not propose to give Home Rule; as you treated Wales, to whom no sane man would propose to give Home Rule; as you treated
    162
    England, which has not got Home Rule. I wonder what sort of argument they will be able to bring before the country at the next election, in order to break up the Constitution, and make one of the most desperate experiments that has ever been made in any country in the world. I cannot see any analogy between the Local Government Bill and the Home Rule Bill. Honourable Gentlemen opposite say that if you trust the Irish people with local government, of course the natural sequel of that is Home Rule. I cannot see the sequel. I could trust Irishmen to make a road, or build a bridge, or make a sewer, but I would not trust them to make laws under which I could peacefully live. I quite agree with my honourable Friend the Member for York when he says we must expect mistakes to be made and a certain amount of confusion to arise in the early councils of Ireland. That is only natural. No one can blame the Irish for not having at once a grasp of public affairs, of which at the present time they have had no experience. I admit that. I myself have been very much blamed by many of my own party and friends in Ireland for supporting this Bill. They do not appear to believe that it is possible to trust Irishmen, even in matters of county government, to manage their own country. I think the Irish are just as intelligent as other people, and when an Irishman is left outside the region of eccentricity, into which he will undoubtedly wander if he is left to spend other people's money, and confined within the lines of common sense, and shown that if he chooses to indulge in eccentricity he will find it an expensive enjoyment, that Irishman is seen to be as sensible as any other man. The ordinary Irishman would see that if he had to pay for it he would carry out county government in the best and cheapest way. There is another thing I should like to say. I think there is one means at the present moment of establishing a very fair means of comparison with the future expenditure of county government. The honourable Gentlemen throw stones at the grand jury system. I venture to say that no man who knows anything about Ireland and speaks honestly his mind will fail to say that, however successful county government may be in the future, it will never be done as cheaply as county

    163
    government under the grand juries. Not only that, but it has been efficiently done, because, however much you may object to the system, no one can deny that the Irish roads, which are the principal cause of expenditure, are a credit to any European country, so that the Irish people will be able to test the future expenditure of the Irish county councils by a very fair gauge, that will enable them to come to a conclusion as to whether their representatives are carrying out that business well, efficiently, and cheaply. Now, Sir, I should never have supported this Bill unless I believed that it would be a success. I believe the Irish people are perfectly capable of taking the common sense view of how to manage the country's affairs; above all things, it will be the means of bringing classes together in Ireland who, up to the present moment have been separated; they will forget the difference between the classes and the difference of politics, and agree to stand upon the same ground, and carry out as effectually as they can the affairs of their counties. That I look upon as an immense benefit, especially to Ireland, and looking upon this Bill as I do, though believing that it is a great experiment, I am convinced that the people of Ireland will be able to adapt themselves to the management of their own county affairs. I supported the Bill all through, and I support it now, and wish it all success.
    MR. DILLON: The honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh has drawn a most attractive picture of the future of Ireland under this Bill. I cannot go so far as the honourable and gallant Member, as to suppose that this Bill will cause the Irish people to forget classes and all distinction of politics and religion. The honourable Member for South Belfast will take very good care that that era is postponed. I find myself to my great surprise heartily in accord with the honourable Member for Great Yarmouth in the views he takes. Everybody who has taken an interest in the passage of this Bill through the House must realise that it will be most interesting to watch how it will be worked, and what effect it will have upon those class hatreds and distinctions which have rent and disfigured Irish society to its very foundations for more than one century.
    164
    I find myself heartily in accord with the view put forward by the honourable Member for Great Yarmouth. The honourable Member renewed his protest against the attempt to set up an artificial system of introducing the representation of minorities. I protest against the proposal to set up two members for these constituencies in the hope thereby to enable minorities to be represented. I warn the Government that if in an evil hour, and under such influences as may assail them in the other Chamber, they are led into introducing into this Bill a proposal unanimously negatived in this House, to give two members to these constituencies, instead of it working in the direction of eliminating class hatred and antagonism, it will have the opposite effect. If you introduce into the House of Lords any Amendment having one object only—to secure the representation of grand juries and ex-officio guardians—you will find, on the part of the Irish people, a determined resistance to that attempt. You will have a great deal more of partizan struggle to overcome than you otherwise would have. I say that the one chance of affording the so-called minority in Ireland to obtain a fair share in the control of county government is that they should cease to be foisted before the public as a minority—that they should stand upon their merits, throw in their lot with the people, and work among the people, and endeavour to carry on the business of the country. Sir, it has been said that I have declared my intention of using any little influence I exercise in Ireland for the purpose of excluding all who disagree with me from the county and district councils. I have never made any such statement, nor have I any such intention, but I say that my desire would be to see men coming forward in these county councils simply and solely, not as representatives of a minority, but as men who have a desire to do the business of the country, and I am convinced that if men of the politics and of the class of the honourable and gallant Member opposite come forward in that spirit they will get their full and fair share of representation on county councils. Well, Sir, the honourable Member for Londonderry said that it rested with the Catholics to prove under this new Local Government Bill that they could be trusted not to oppress

    165
    the minority, and he pointed out that such a proof would largely forward Home Rule. But the Catholics of Ireland have already proved that. Catholics have had local government in Cork, Limerick, Galway, and the city of Dublin, and I defy any man in this House to point to a single case, ever since the Municipal Corporations Act came into operation 60 years ago, where the Catholics have exercised intolerance to the Protestants. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the Catholics of Ireland have to prove their tolerance. Let the Protestants of Ulster set an example to the southern provinces of Ireland. Let Belfast, Lisburn, Derry, and Portadown give fair play to the Cathoic minority, and I promise that the Catholics of the south will more than reciprocate. Meanwhile I protest against men who alone have been guilty of the crimes—and I call it a crime—of boycotting men from positions, and shutting them out from employment, because of their religion—preaching the doctrine of tolerance which we have always practised where we have had the power. One other point has been mentioned to which I attach great importance—namely, the question of double-member constituencies. I said on a former occasion that if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary introduced a provision for two-member constituencies it would undoubtedly provoke class war, because it would put the people on their mettle throughout many districts in Ireland, where they would be willing to extend the hand of friendship. It seems to me to be an unheard of proposition, that a man should vote once as a politician, and in the second place for a political opponent. Let me draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to what the Belfast News Letter has to say about this matter as recently as Saturday—
    "The double-barrelled member project also came on for discussion on Monday evening, on the proposition of Mr. H. Plunkett. We must say this method of securing a fair minority representation on district and county councils strikes us as one of the feeblest and most inept ideas ever conceived."
    That is the view of the chief journal of the Unionists of Ireland. There is one other consideration I desire to mention. I deeply regret that the Government have persisted in keeping in this Bill the
    166
    provision excluding the priests. This will deprive the people of the remote western and north-western districts of candidates whom they might bring for ward, and whom they would be glad to have. When that unfortunate position was persisted in the other day, I stated my conviction—and I hold a totally different view from honourable Members opposite in that regard—thai the priests of Ireland would be most unwilling to go on the county councils. I know the priests much better than they do, and I believe that the number of priests who would have come forward would be exceedingly small, because they already have plenty of work to do. Therefore you are fighting an evil which is purely imaginary, and does not exist, and in order to fight the imaginary evil you are putting on this influential class in Ireland an insult which they deeply resent, and at the same time are raising a difficulty which, if the Bill had been drawn on the English lines, would not have existed at all. You have, indeed, planted a sore in the minds of those men which they are not likely to forget in the near future. But, Sir, the only districts in Ireland where the priests might have acted on the county councils or the district councils are in the remote western and north-western districts, where it is very often exceedingly difficult for the people to get a representative, and in those places it is a great misfortune to keep them off. On the district councils, as well as on the poor law boards, I believe that they would be most useful. Why, therefore, exclude them? In this regard I desire to express my gratitude to the members of the Liberal Party who have frequently been held up to the country as anti-clerical. I desire to thank every Member in the House, including the honourable Member for Flint, whom I have always regarded as a good friend of the Irish people whenever they wanted a friend to vote for a disability which was deeply resented by the Irish people. Now, Sir, I want to say one word in conclusion in reference to the agricultural errant and the attitude of the Radical Party towards it. I listened with great attention to the speeches made from the Radical benches as regards the agricultural grant, but I never gathered that the Radicals were opposed to giving this grant to Ireland; what

    167
    they were opposed to was the mode of the distribution of the grant. I think the Radicals were perfectly right in maintaining that position, and I think that the trouble which arose a few nights ago was due to the fact that the Radical Party had not had the opportunity to speak on the subject, though, undoubtedly, they have as much right to be heard as we have. Sir, their position is that they object to the distribution of the grant. So do I. Looking back carefully at the Debate which took place last year on the remarkable proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury, I find that I most carefully guarded myself against committing myself to the distribution of the grant. I said that when we saw what kind of local government was going to be given, I, for my part, would not be unwilling to make a large financial sacrifice to secure it; not because I approved of a financial sacrifice, but because I preferred to get a good Bill, even at heavy cost, rather than wait for an indefinite period; and knowing, us we did know, that we had no power to force it from the present Government, I never committed myself until I saw the Bill introduced. When I did see the Bill I thought, rightly or wrongly, it was a great measure of local self-government for Ireland. There are bad points in it, such as the exclusion of the priests, and one or two other matters, such as the too great control of the Irish Local Government Board; but, admitting these to be blots, it is a great Measure; and because it is a great and liberal Measure, amounting to a revolution, so far as it goes, in the control of local affairs in Ireland, I believe it will be followed, if the Irish people use properly the rights about to be conferred upon them, by the concession of larger and wider powers of national self-government. It is for these reasons that I made up my mind, much as I disliked the grant to the landlords, to accept the Bill, and I am perfectly convinced that in so doing I was expressing the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the Nationalists of Ireland. I only want to say one word more. I think the weakest spot in the Bill, which I am convinced will be laid bare, is the absence of a board like the English Local Government Board. I fear there will be mischief there in the future. However, this is a matter which will come up for discus-
    168
    sion at some other time. I have only to say in conclusion that I, for my part, share in the views expressed by some honourable Members on these benches as regards our indebtedness to the Liberal Party in this respect. Sir, it has been the fate of the Liberal Party in England to see most of the reforms which they have asked for carried by their opponents. That, I imagine, is the fate of all reforming parties. At the same time it is not always agreeable to see a reform which has been denounced by the opposite Partial revolutionary when in opposition, carried by them when they come into power. Does anybody suppose for a single moment that had it not been for the two Home Rule Bills and the Home Rule campaigns, we should have ever had local government in Ireland? The idea is preposterous. For my part, I desire, as the honourable Member for Derby has already done, to thank the Liberal Party for their assistance in the past, and for the steady and loyal support which they have given to this great measure of local government.
    SIR W. LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad, judging from the speeches we have heard this afternoon, that everybody thinks this is a good Measure. I remember the words of the Leader of the Opposition on a former occasion, "We are all Socialists now." It seems to me we may say after the speeches we have heard to-night, "We are all Home Rulers now." I think on this occasion we ought to thank the Irish Secretary for having allowed us to make the remarks on the Third Reading stage. At the same time I submit that it is only right that we should have this opportunity, because this is the Bill of the Session, a Bill which the Government consider their great Measure, and I think it is only fitting that we should be allowed to say some farewell words to the Bill before it leaves the House. It has been said that the passing of this Bill will ensure Home Rule. I think circumstances point very much that way, and so far, we on this side of the House are delighted at such a Bill having been brought forward. But this Bill is just 12 years overdue. I suppose it may be called the outcome of the new policy of killing Home Rule by kindness, but I do not believe it is likely

    169
    to be killed by kindness to the landlords. We all know that the real reason why the large sum of three-quarters of a million a year is to be given to the Irish landlords is because they object to the Measure. This is the first occasion we have sent a Bill to the Lords which we consider just and necessary with a bribery clause tacked on to it. We all know that the real reason why this large sum of money is voted for Irish landlords was because the Government could not get the Bill through the House of Lords in any other way. This money is given, as an honourable Member said, to reconcile those who were formerly opposed to the passing of the Bill. Well, we have had a great deal to do with the Lords in this House. We have generally yielded to them, but we have never bribed them. We have heard talk of the abolition of the House of Lords, but now it looks more like the abolition of the House of Commons, since it is impossible, without the consent of the Lords, and at the cost of the taxpayers' money, to pass an important Measure of local government.
    MR. BROADHURST: I only rise for the purpose of saying that, had there been a Division against the Third Reading of this Bill, I should have taken no part in it. I am in favour of local self-government in the highest degree in Ireland, as I am in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the only opposition I have taken part in respecting this Bill has been to the financial clauses, and that opposition was on all fours with the opposition we offered to the English Rating Bill two years back. Even then, however, the discussion of the financial clauses occupied a very little more time than was occupied by some of the Irish Members in discussing the control of bicycles in the different localities. Surely, if that was permissible and reasonable, it was much more justifiable that we should have an hour or two to discuss the question of the financial arrangements, and even then the discussion would not have been anything like so prolonged had we not been badly treated by the occupants of the Ministerial benches. I am not sure that I would have opposed the grant to Ireland had the grant been used for other purposes. The Chief Secretary has been
    170
    always opposed to every movement, as far as I can remember, to give aid and relief to the starving poor of Donegal. If he had taken some portion of this money and provided a fund against deaths by famine in Ireland, I am certain that no opposition would have been offered to any such scheme from the benches on this side of the House. This Bill is giving to Ireland its share of a grant from the Imperial Exchequer; but we have objected altogether from the very first to the grant being made from the Imperial Exchequer, either in relief of the rates of Great Britain or of Ireland. We are, therefore, perfectly consistent in this matter, and have no explanation to make and no apology to offer; neither have we any conversions to express, as some honourable Members have had to do on the other side of the House to-night. I distrust this system of legislation by bribery. The admissions made by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, again and again repeated, that this scheme of local government was the subject of arrangement with this side, a part of the arrangement being this system of bribery—that is my interpretation of it—are not correct. So long as you legislate on those terms I hope to vote against your legislation and oppose it by every legitimate means in this House. I cannot but think that the conditions made by the Government will have the most ruinous effect upon the people of this country, because other classes will want similar conditions, and so you will go on until the whole system of legislation from top to bottom is permeated with corruption as bad and as far-reaching as the corruption which existed at the time of the Union between Ireland and this country. I agree with the honourable Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs that this Measure has undoubtedly delayed the cause of Home Rule and will delay it for a number of years. Had this Bill not been passed I do not think we should have had the defections from the cause of Home Rule which are now being heard of from day to day. That it is the Home Rule of tb.9 future, the foundation of a great Home Rule scheme in future years, there can be no doubt; but this temperate Measure has undoubtedly postponed it for a considerable time. The honourable

    171
    Member for Derry complained that the honourable Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had made him complain because there was no security for the Protestant minority in various parts of Ireland under this scheme. The honourable Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs said nothing of the kind. What he said was that the promoters of this Bill were the authors of the complaint against the want of protection to the Protestant minority in Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, and now he said—
    "You are passing a Measure giving immense control of local affairs in that country, and you do not give any guarantee whatever for the security of the Protestant minority. No one can more heartily join than I in the wish that this Bill may be wisely and well used, and that it may prove a great blessing to the Irish people. I welcome the passage of the Bill, and I sincerely wish it all the success that its authors and friends anticipate for it."
    *MR. S. YOUNG: We have come to the last stage of this Bill, a Measure which is far reaching and of the greatest importance to Ireland, and will confer a boon upon the people equal to that conferred by Emancipation or the Land Act of 1881. As an Irish Member sent to this House six years ago to promote Home Rule for Ireland I hail with no ordinary pleasure the passing of this Bill, which if not spoiled in another place will afford ample opportunity for the Irish people to give evidence of their fitness for self-government. If I take an imaginary distance of 100 miles to the goal at which the Irish people aim I consider this Bill is about 80 miles of the journey. The Bill is a democratic measure, and it is not overloaded with safeguards, which would have produced dissatisfaction and discontent. It will break down the wall which separates the masses from the classes in Ireland, and I have no doubt it will create an interest in civic and political affairs among the people. It will be an education to Ireland and will prepare the people for the goal at which, I think, they all desire to arrive. I wish also to say that I think very great credit is due to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for his laborious, painstaking, and anxious work in the preparation of this Measure, and for his patience and courtesy in conducting it through this
    172
    House; and I desire to add that the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland deserves our sincere thanks for his assistance in the conduct of this Measure.
    MR. POWER: Although this Bill removes some of the grievances of the Irish people, yet we Irish Members maintain that it falls very short of the local government that was demanded. My object in rising just now is to make an appeal to the Irish Secretary. At half-past four on Friday morning I ventured to propose a new clause, asking that the Allotments Acts should be extended to Ireland, and I pointed out that although the Government had done a good deal for the agricultural labourer they had done nothing for the artisans living in the towns. Anyone who knows anything of the Irish people knows that they are tolerant to a degree—too tolerant in many things—and that if they have one characteristic more pronounced than another it is their love for the right. The Irish landlords, the ex-officio guardians, and the grand jurors have been to some extent excluded from public life owing to their own action, and if these gentlemen will only show the Irish people that they have their interests at heart every possible help that the people can give will be placed at their disposal. There are lines beyond which we cannot expect the Irish people to go, and if these gentlemen take up a position which I may describe as being like that of a foreign garrison in a town they cannot expect the people to give them positions on these councils. The people will be glad to recognise them and give them positions. We are anxious for the co-operation of those who have leisure and wealth and knowledge. With regard to the effect of this Bill upon Home Rule I do not believe it will lessen by one iota the demands for Home Rule in Ireland, but will rather increase the demand.
    DR. CLARK: I desire to congratulate the Government on the fact that they have made great progress since they passed a Bill of the same kind for Scotland some years ago. Following upon what they have done in Ireland they will no doubt give us in Scotland

    173
    the same rights and privileges as in the other country. When this Bill is passed the Irish people will have control of their own money, and will not be placed, as we are in Scotland, at the mercy of the Commissioners of Supply, whose consent we require for all new works and for police purposes. When the Scotch Members voted last year for the Motion to give Ireland a larger share of the grant we did so thinking that the same principle would be applied to Scotland, and that the grant would be made permanent. If we had known that we were voting to give £330,000 out of the pockets of the British taxpayer to the Irish landlords we would not have been in our places. I must therefore warn the House that we will fight this question again as we fought it before. The Government have made the grant permanent for Ireland. We are no parties to that permanence, and we will fight it when it comes up for reconsideration.

    COLONIAL LOANS FUND.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    "Resolved: That it is expedient to authorise the creation of a Colonial Loans Fund for the purpose of granting of loans to Colonies, out of money to be raised—(a) by the issue of Colonial Guaranteed Stock, the dividends on which are to be paid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, and, in default, out of the Consolidated Fund; or (b) by the issue of bonds, the principal and interest of which are to be paid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, and, in case of default, out of the Consolidated Fund.
    "That it is expedient to make provision for securing the repayment, with interest and expenses, of such loans out of the revenues of the Colonies; and to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the sums necessary to meet the guarantee in respect of the Colonial Guarantee Stock, or Bonds, such sums, so far as not repaid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, to be repaid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. H. BEACH,): The Committee will remember that a few years ago the attention of Parliament was directed to the system under which loans were made by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, under the authority of Parliament, for local purposes in the United Kingdom. It was considered that the system which
    174
    had prevailed up to that time was a very considerable public evil, and by the Local Loans Act a new system was inaugurated by which a Local Loans Fund was constituted, out of which the Public Works Loan Commissioners were authorised from time to time to lend certain sums of money for such purposes. The funds themselves were raised on the guarantee of the State, and accounts were kept of income and expenditure, so that Parliament should be fully acquainted with the working of the system of local loans, with the loans made to different public bodies, with the rates charged for these loans, and with the whole question of profit and loss to the State through the operation of that system. I think everyone will agree—
    DR. TANNER: I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    Committee counted; 40 Members being present,
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (resuming): I think everyone will agree that the change of system that was inaugurated in regard to local loans has resulted in a great public advantage, and that the matter is now conducted on conditions which are advantageous not only to the State, but to local bodies themselves. Now, Sir, the object of the Resolution which I place in your hands, is that the principle of the Local Loans Fund should be applied in the case of loans to the Crown Colonies; that a Colonial Loans Fund should be constituted precisely in the same way in which the Local Loans Fund is constituted, that it should be administered by the Crown agents under the authority of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, and that that fund should be secured in the first place upon the revenues of the Colonies to which loans might be made, and further, of course, as the Local Loans Fund is secured, by the Consolidated Fund and by moneys provided by Parliament. The object of this Bill is not in any way to make loans to Colonies. It is simply to form the machinery under which loans should be made. Whenever a loan is applied for by a Colony, the process would be this: the application would be made to the Secretary of State

    175
    and would be considered by him and the Treasury, and if they were prepared to recommend a loan the rate of interest and the terms of the loan would be fixed by them, and the Colony would be required to pass an ordinance imposing a charge upon its revenues for interest, for certain annual sums for management, for repayment of capital by instalments, and so on. There is a provision in the Bill under which a Colony taking the advantage of any such loan would be precluded from interfering in any way with the priority of that loan upon its revenues, or in fact dealing with its revenues in any way which would lessen the security of the loan. Well, Sir, when that process was gone through, the particular loan would then have to be submitted to Parliament by a clause in the ordinary Public Works Loans Bill of the year. Parliament would have before it the purpose for which the loan is required, the term for which the money is to be lent, and the interest to be charged on the loan, and all particulars connected with it, and full Parliamentary sanction would be required in every case just as it is required under the present system. The Committee will perceive that there is a material difference between the proposals I have to make and the scheme of the Local Loans Fund, because, under the latter, it rests with the Public Works Loans Commissioners to sanction loans and fix the terms on which they are to be made, and Parliament has practically no authority whatever in the matter beyond providing the Public Works Loans Commissioners, from year to year with the required sum, out of which the loans shall be made. The fund which I propose to institute by this Bill for this purpose will be, as I have said, first secured on the Colonial revenues—secured by an Act of the Colonies—and principal and interest will be repaid from time to time to the Crown agents, and by them invested in certain limited classes of securities so as to secure the repayment of the loan.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: Will the Crown agents be a corporate body?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not necessary, I under-
    176
    stand, to place them in that position. They already have the power to take the custody, so to speak, of the repayments which I propose. Then I should say that it is proposed that the rates of interest charged should be in all cases sufficient to cover a charge for management, besides the interest at which the Colonial Loans Fund would have to be borrowed, and also to give a certain margin as a safeguard to the Exchequer against possible losses. All that will be provided in the Bill. This Bill is strictly limited to those Colonies ordinarily called Crown Colonies, over whose finances the Imperial Government has full control. We do not intend in any way to include in this Bill Colonies possessing responsible Government—and for reasons, of course, on which I need not dwell, but which I am quite sure the House will feel—when a colony has taken upon itself the responsibility of its own finances, it is better for the Colony and for us that it should bear that burden without any assistance. With regard to Crown Colonies the case is different. I think that Parliament has always felt that we have a considerable responsibility for those Colonies whose finances are under the control of the Imperial Government at home; and Parliament has borne that responsibility time after time when such Colonies have come into financial difficulties, by voting grants in aid of large amount, or by making loans to aid them to escape from such difficulty. The practice has hitherto been that with every fresh loan to an individual Colony a Bill has been passed through Parliament, either making provision for that loan to be made by the Government, or making provision for the Government's guarantee under which the loan might be raised in the market. I need hardly point out to the Committee that the result of that process is that the credit of this country is not put to as good use, so far as the Colonies are concerned, as if the loans were made out of what I may call a common stock, such as the Colonial Loans Fund, which I propose to establish by this Bill. And, further, although Colonial loans in the past have been rare, and although unless it is possible to consolidate the loans of the Crown Colonies under the provisions

    177
    of this Measure, which, is a matter entirely for the future, I do not anticipate that Colonial loans under this Measure will be common, yet I think it will be felt that if you establish a system akin, as I have said, to the Local Loans system, under which Parliament will have from time to time a full Report before it of the loans made to the Colonies, of the repayments that have been made, and of the general condition of the fund. Parliament will really be in a better position to control the matter than it is now, when such loans, if made at all, are made by separate individual Bills, and when there is no power to take a general review of the whole matter. I think, Sir, I have now explained the provisions of this Bill. I feel that I need not reiterate what I have already said, that it does not authorise the grant of any loan to any Colony.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Does it state an amount?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no amount, I am afraid the honourable Gentleman entirely misapprehends—I am sure it must be my own fault—what the intention of the Bill is. There was an amount named in the original Local Loans Fund Act. There is no necessity for naming an amount, because the amount of the Colonial Loan Fund would vary according to the demands upon it from the Colonies, and, as I have endeavoured to explain, no loan can be made to a Colony without the authority of Parliament for each individual case.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: By a clause?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, no; by the Local Loans Act for the year. I have only to add that honourable Members must not exaggerate the importance of my scheme, as I think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the West Monmouthshire Division is inclined to do; but I propose it to the House, not only as an assistance to the Colonies, but also because I think it will place on a proper and legitimate basis a system which may be of considerable advantage to us financially here. The Committee will remember that, this stork will be
    178
    guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund, and therefore it will become a stock in which savings bank deposits may be invested at a better rate of interest than can possibly be obtained from Consols, to which the investment of such funds is now mainly limited. Therefore, in endeavouring to help our Colonies, we shall also, I think, help ourselves; at least, we shall help those whom all of us desire to help—namely, the industrial classes, who deposit money in our savings banks. I do not mean that I anticipate, for some time to come at any rate, that this fund is likely to assume any large amount; but, as far as it goes, it will make an opening of the kind, and if it should be possible, as I think it will be, in the future, through this process to consolidate the debts of our Crown Colonies, many of which have been borrowed at interest which in these days seems excessive, then I think we shall really have done a very great advantage to our Crown Colonies, at no loss to ourselves, but to the considerable advantage of those classes of the community which deposit money in savings banks.
    MR. BUXTON: Sir, the Bill does not go as far as many of us anticipated when it was first announced, but I have one very serious objection to make to it, and that is that it should have been introduced at this period of the Session.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: May I, perhaps, explain? I have been very desirous to introduce this Bill before, because I felt it was a Measure which it would be advisable should be known and discussed in this House and the country; but our singular Rule, under which the youngest private Member in the House may introduce any Bill he likes, prohibits the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing forward a Money Bill unless he is able to obtain time between the commencement of public business and 12 o'clock at night. That is what has prevented me.
    MR. BUXTON: I quite admit the validity of this argument, but I do not understand why it was only two or three days ago he found he could introduce the Bill in this shape. The first thing we heard about it was subsequent to the

    179
    declaration of the Leader of the House that, with the exception of those Bills already introduced, he would not introduce any fresh legislation at the end of the Session which would be likely to lead to any prolonged Debate. I think this Bill is a matter which ought to be fairly considered, but I think it is likely to give rise to a considerable amount of contention, and therefore I think it comes within the definition of the First Lord of the Treasury. Therefore, I do not think it is quite fair to this House at this period of the Session—when a very large number of Members desire that the Session should come to an early close, and have made their arrangements to get away—I do not think it, is fair that this Bill should be introduced. I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will be able to see his way to allow this Bill—because I think it is an important and far-reaching Bill—to allow this Bill to be introduced, no doubt, this Session, but not to be pressed at this, the fag end of the Session, and so allow us to consider it in the Recess. If I understand the Bill, it is this: up to now any Crown Colony—and I am glad the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confined it to the Crown Colonies, because that makes a great deal of difference to this Measure—as I understand the Bill, up to now any Crown Colony, which desired to borrow money through the credit of the Imperial Government, had to obtain that credit by the introduction of a Bill which had to go through its ordinary course; but now the right honourable Gentleman proposes to place every Crown Colony on this footing, that by adding a mere clause, to an existing Act, which will be introduced, of course, always at the fag end of the Session—by a mere clause in that Bill, any Crown Colony will be able to obtain any amount of money, subject, of course, to the control of the Colonial Office and the Treasury; and the ultimate, risk in regard to the loan will not, fall upon the Colony as it does at present, but will fall upon the Imperial Government. That aspect of the position, I think, the right honourable Gentleman slid over with very few observations at all. I am rather surprised that he being Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have pointed out to the House that the real result and the
    180
    whole result of this Bill is that if there is a deficit in regard to any of these loans it will fall on the British taxpayer. Now I do not say in regard to certain Colonies it may not be necessary, as the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary has more than once said—I do not say it may not be necessary on occasion to assist certain Crown Colonies, both in regard to subsidies, and also possibly in regard to their credit in connection with loans, but I think that is a very different matter altogether from that propounded by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, because if he and the Colonial Secretary come to this House in regard to any impoverished Crown Colony, as they did the other day with regard to Dominica and Antigua, those are matters which the House will consider on their merits, and I for one will certainly not be loath to give assistance to those Colonies which are really in need of it; but I am bound to say that I think every case of that sort ought to come before this House specifically, and ought to be discussed on its merits; and the House ought to have a proper chance of considering whether or no it will assist that Colony with Imperial credit. If I understand the Bill proposed by the right honourable Gentleman, it is only necessary for the Colonial Office putting, perhaps, in certain cases, great pressure on the Treasury, as in the past no doubt they have done—putting great pressure on the Treasury to induce the Treasury to assent to a loan to a particular Crown Colony, perhaps not in very grave straits, and that Crown Colony will be able to borrow money, the ultimate liability for which falls on the Imperial Government.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So it would now.
    MR. BUXTON: So it would now, under the Bill. That is perfectly true; but what I venture to point out to the right honourable Gentleman is this: that, in the first place, it seems to me that it will encourage the Crown Colonies to endeavour to place themselves in the position of obtaining an Imperial grant, much more than they did before, because this is a distinct encouragement to apply to the Treasury to obtain their sanction to the loans; and, as I have endeavoured to point out, where they did obtain that

    181
    credit, it was necessary for the Colonial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come before this House to induce them to pass a Bill; but all that is necessary now, as I understand it, will be that in the annual Bill, under the Public Loans Act, the only Bill which is never introduced till really practically the fag end of the Session, when Members have left this House, under that Act, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Secretary agree, any Crown Colony may be able by importunity to obtain the assistance of the Imperial credit in a way that at the present moment is quite impossible. I think the right honourable Gentleman will admit I am not exaggerating the effects of his proposal, because I think he will admit he said, two or three minutes ago, that very likely, under this Bill, all present and existing loans of the Crown Colonies may, in a sense, be consolidated, and they might be able under this Bill to obtain the assistance of the credit of the Imperial Government. Therefore, I think it is quite clear this is not a matter affecting one or two Crown Colonies, but that, if it is passed now, it is likely to effect a very much greater object than is at the present done under separate Bills. I, for one, should be very glad if by some process some of our Crown Colonies might be able to utilise their credit to greater purpose than they do at present; but I do not think it is quite the way in which that credit should, be used, that all knowledge of the transaction should be practically, as it would be under this Act, taken out of the purview of the House of Commons. If we are to improve their credit by the help of the Imperial credit, if we are to consolidate their debt, and give them the advantage of the low rate of interest at which we can borrow, those are matters which ought to be introduced by separate Bills or by a Government Bill, and ought not to appear by a mere clause in a Bill having other objects in view. The right honourable Gentleman said there would be complete Treasury control in regard to these matters, but I am bound to say this, that, as I understand it, there will be no control of the Public Loan Commissioners themselves. As far as they are concerned, there will be no control on their part over the question whether there shall be loans at all. It really
    182
    comes back to this, that if you have a powerful Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is determined that these Crown Colonies shall receive what are practically doles from the Imperial purse, and if you have a somewhat lax Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I am glad to say we have not now, it will entirely depend on the Secretary for the Colonies, and on the pressure he brings, whether or not the particular Crown Colony can obtain the credit of the taxpayer in this country without the control of the House of Commons, and without any such control as there is at present. I was rather alarmed when I heard what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the savings bank deposits. He said, and I think we shall all agree, that it will be an advantage if there were further facilities given to our savings bank depositors to invest their money; but, after all, unless he is going to make a very big thing of this new process of lending our credit to the Colonies for loans, the amount that will be available for savings bank depositors, who deposit millions annually in the savings banks, will be very small indeed, and if it is going to be a real source of advantage to savings bank depositors, it is evident that this single clause, which is to appear in an annual Act of Parliament, will be far-reaching, and will involve many millions of money annually. Well, Mr. Lowther, my chief objection to this Bill at the present moment is as I said, that I do not think it ought to be introduced at the present moment; and I think it is obvious from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, it is a far more far-reaching Bill than he—no doubt, not having given any particular attention to Colonial questions—than he himself was aware. We have had warnings from the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he is going to inaugurate a system for the development of our Colonies. I think I am not averse to that proposal, but I do think it ought to be done under the greatest possible care and the greatest possible precaution, and it ought certainly to be done with the full knowledge and check of the House of Commons on every proposal that is made. I, for one, cannot consent to a proposal which seems to me to give a free hand to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to this matter. The Chancellor

    183
    of the Exchequer said that it is only advancing money to Crown Colonies over whose finances we have full control, but that only shows that he himself has not studied the question of the Crown Colonies. He must be aware that the bulk of our Crown Colonies, while unquestionably they have not got the full measure of self-government that our greater Colonies possess, have in a very large number of cases very considerable, control—in some cases almost all the whole control of the finances of the Colony.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then the Bill would not apply.
    MR. BUXTON: DO I understand the Bill would only apply to those Colonies like Dominica and Antigua, which, the other day, to obtain advances from the Government, consented practically to the abrogation of their Constitution? If the right honourable Gentleman means that, I take much less objection to the Bill than he has raised. But what he surely said in his speech was that this would affect all the Crown Colonies.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
    MR. BUXTON: Well, a very considerable number of the Crown Colonies. At all events, he gave us to understand that it would affect a very considerable sum of money. If he will look through the constitution of our Crown Colonies, he will see that a very large number of them practically have a fair amount of control over their finances. It is only one or two, like Malta and Gibraltar, which are practically fortifications, and a few like Dominica and Antigua, which the other day were willing to give up their Constitutions, to which the Bill would apply. It would really apply hardly to any Colonies at all. I trust the right honourable Gentleman will explain to the House exactly what he does mean in regard to the matter, because it does seem to me it may make a very great difference in regard to this Bill—whether it will pass or not. My objection to it also goes to whether it applies to the Crown Colonies which have control of their finances, or not, because in each case in which we have to give Imperial credit and assistance to a Crown Colony
    184
    I think the House of Commons ought to have full control.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Sir, I rise to speak only on the ground that, for good or ill, I have been a Public Works Loan Commissioner. What the functions of those Commissioners may be in regard to the matters affected I do not know.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, may I explain? These loans will be subject to the sanction of Parliament in each individual case, and will not come before the Public Works Loan Commissioners at all.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Sir, I was unfortunately absent from the House when the right honourable Gentleman read the terms, as I understood he did read the terms of the Resolution. Might I ask if he would be good enough to read the terms of the Resolution to the House again?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have read them once, but I will read them again if the honourable Member desires it.
    "Resolved: That it is expedient to authorise the creation of a Colonial Loans Fund for the purpose of granting to Colonies, out of money to be raised (a) by the issue of Colonial Guaranteed Stock, the dividends on which are to be paid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, and, in default, out of the Consolidated Fund; or (b) by the issue of bonds, the principal and interest of which are to be paid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, and, in case of default, out of the Consolidated Fund.
    "That it is expedient to make provision for securing the repayment, with interest and expenses, of such loans out of the revenues of the Colonies; and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, and the sums necessary to meet the guarantee in respect of the Colonial Guarantee Stock, or Bonds, such sums so far as not repaid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, to be repaid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament."
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: That is to say, Sir, in any conceivable case of failure of repayment, the Consolidated Fund or money voted by Parliament is to make good the deficiency. It appears to be a matter material to this, that we should know what has been the history of the financial relations of the Colonies sought to be assisted by the Exchequer in times past, because, if you are first of all to make advantageous terms with some of these Colonies, and afterwards have

    185
    to vote a large sum of money Parliament to meet your necessities, your loan becomes a grant and in many cases grants have necessarily been given to some of these Colonies by reason of their financial straits. Now, during a number of months past, at meetings of Public Works Loan Commissioners, we have been advancing very large sums of money, sometimes a quarter of a million in a fortnight, at 2¾ per cent, interest, repayable in 30 years, and we have been, given to understand, I do not say with authority, but at any rate it has been conveyed to us, that there is practically no limit to the amount which may be so advanced, because the Treasury are anxious to find an investment for the moneys which are placed in the savings banks. How much that money is I do not know, but a certain percentage is being paid on the savings bank money, and the Government being responsible for the capital, are anxious to invest the capital so as to recoup themselves from their liability to the depositors. And large sums of money, I am afraid to say how much in the gross, are now being advanced to enable the Government to cover their liabilities to the depositors in the savings bank. Well, with regard to the works within the ken of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, I do not think there is very much risk. We, are able to judge of the soundness of the security, and we can proceed with a considerable amount of discretion and caution, and if any applications are not sound they are not entertained, though a large number have been entertained in the last three or four months. But when it comes to a question of advancing large sums of money on nominal security in order that the accounts of the Treasury may be kept perfectly sound in regard to their liability in respect of savings bank depositors—and the advances are to be made to Colonies which are not necessarily, not in all cases, in the soundest possible conditions—then the question arises whether it may not be found that these moneys are advanced to borrowers who, in that event will be found unequal to meeting their obligations, and in that case application will be made to Parliament to make good out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of voted moneys, the amounts which are deficient. Before this House there-
    186
    fore is asked to sanction this proposal, which I am not myself prepared to oppose, I think it ought to be informed as to the amount of money which the Government are anxious to invest—as to the amount of money that they have on hand in respect of the savings bank deposits, as to the amount of interest payable on those deposits, as to the amount which they are able to invest out of those deposits, and the amount they are obtaining from them, and consequently—and this perhaps is more important in regard to the immediate proposal before us—what is the financial history, or, what is the history of the financial relations of the particular Colonies, seriatim, to which it is proposed to make advances, because there are Colonies which have not been particularly prosperous in the past, which may become borrowers, and then find it exceedingly difficult to meet their obligations, and in respect of which it is almost certain that some application will be made to Parliament, or some grant made by Parliament. I do not propose to go into more detail, but I do think that the points I have mentioned are material to the matter, and deserving of the consideration of the House.
    *MR. COHEN: I listened very carefully to my honourable Friend opposite, but I was quite unable to follow his argument. He spoke of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, with whom, as such, I do not understand this Resolution in any way interferes. My right honourable Friend in his very concise, and I thought most perspicuous, statement on this Resolution told the Committee not to exaggerate its importance. I think it is quite impossible to exaggerate its importance. In my opinion this is a most important Resolution, not because of the amount which immediately would be involved, but because I think it is laying the foundation for a new system, the importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate both in its beneficent effects on the Colonies and in its applying the security, too long delayed, of the Imperial guarantee to the finances of our Dependencies—I use the word advisedly, because I do not wish it to be confined to the Colonies over which the Executive Cabinet in this country has direct and constant control.

    187
    My right honourable Friend opposite, the Member for Wolverhampton, perhaps may do me the honour to remember that two or three times in this House I have argued that our greatest of all Dependencies, the Indian Dependency, should have the advantage of the Imperial guarantee for the loans it wants to contract, and while I rejoice that my right honourable Friend's proposal does not touch in any way the self-governing Colonies, with whose financial affairs the Imperial Parliament does not interfere—while I rejoice that my right honourable Friend has excluded these Colonies from the operation of this new Colonial Loans Fund—I am pleased that he has made what I venture to predict will be the beginning of a system which will give the Imperial guarantee to those Dependencies, although, in the present instance, it is only to apply to Crown Colonies, in whose finances the Government of the day institutes a very searching, and, as I believe, beneficent investigation and control. And, Mr. Lowther, I do not share the regret which my honourable Friend the Member for Poplar expressed, that my right honourable Friend has introduced this Motion this year, instead of leaving it over for next year. If any fault is to be found it is not with my right honourable Friend, but with his predecessors. My right honourable Friend is to be congratulated that at last he has introduced a Bill to found a fund which would have been of enormously greater advantage if introduced in the year 1888, or in the year 1878, or, better still, in 1868 or 1858, and this without the least possible charge to the Imperial Exchequer. I believe that all these Dependencies are perfectly capable of meeting their engagements. I hope and I believe that this Colonial Loans Fund will not relieve them of the least bit of the weight of their responsibility for their engagements, which they are perfectly capable of satisfying. All we do is to come to their aid and to offer the advantage of the Imperial guarantee, which will enable them to borrow at a much lower rate, and not entail one farthing's expenditure on the Imperial Exchequer. I do not think that at the present stage I should be justified in detaining the Committee any longer.
    188
    I welcome this project because I believe it is laying the foundation of an exceedingly useful assistance to our Colonies. I do not believe it will in the least induce them to be extravagant. I believe, on the contrary, it will be a stimulant to economy, because it will make more certain the control—certainly the investigation—of the Imperial authorities over their finance; and although I share very willingly in the tribute which has been paid to the vigilance—if he will let me say so, to the strength—of my right honourable Friend, whom I hope long to see adorning the position he now occupies as Chancellor of the Exchequer, my loyalty to my Party does not go to the length of believing that his successor, if he happened to be from the opposite side, would be in the least degree less rigid in giving the Imperial guarantee to the aid of the Crown Colonies for whom alone this proposal is at the present moment introduced.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I really have never understood why a Money Bill should not be introduced and explained at First Reading, and why it should be necessary to have a Resolution in Committee before. But, Sir, if that is to be so, surely common sense ought to tell us that the Resolution which is proposed ought to be in the hands of Members before it is submitted from the Chair. You, Sir, have read the Resolution, the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has very lucidly explained the matter; but still there is a difference between your reading and the explanation of the Minister in charge, and having the Resolution before us, I do hope that on the first occasion a change is made in the Rules we shall at least put an end to this absurd Rule, or whatever it may be, that precludes the Resolution being put on the Orders of the day. What is this Bill? Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us what the Bill is. It is a Bill to make loans to Colonies more easy than they are at present. That, I think, is a fair explanation of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to do; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer urges that, as there is an easy and automatic system of granting home loans, therefore there ought to be the same automatic system

    189
    for granting Colonial loans. I disagree entirely with that. I think there ought to be difficulties in the way of any Minister and any Treasury granting loans without the direct control of Parliament and the fullest opportunity for Parliament to consider them when moneys are advanced to the Colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly says that it would be necessary to have a clause in the Public Loans Bill that is presented each year. The Public Loans Bill is practically a renewal Bill. The Public Loans Bill is always presented at the end of the Session, at some time when it is not discussed, and we know very well what a difference there is between a Bill which is submitted to Parliament, which has a day fixed for it, and. over which there are long discussions on Second Reading and in Committee, and a renewal Bill with one special clause giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Minister power to make these advances. I confess I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been rather indisposed to agree to this scheme, because we know perfectly well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always being bullied by his colleagues—so I have always heard—who want to get money from him. He likes to be able to say, "I would like to do it, but you know there is no time; in the House those wretched Radicals would oppose it, and we cannot waste day after day"—and so he puts off his pressing colleague; whereas now he would hardly be able to do so, because the Colonial Secretary would reply, "Well, you have got to bring in a Bill; put in this little clause, and the whole thing will be carried." Now, what is our present position with regard to the Colonies? We have, as the Member for Poplar says, a very useful and energetic Colonial Secretary at the present moment. He has told us that his mission in life is to develop our estates that were going to the bad in the Colonies. We know perfectly well—the right honourable Gentleman is an agriculturist, and he knows perfectly well—that it is impossible to develop rotten estates without risking the capital upon which you develop them, and I very much fear if this Bill was passed a large number of Colonies would apply for
    190
    money through the Secretary for the Colonies, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although a firm man, would not be able to resist the applications. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took some credit to himself because the money was only to be advanced to Crown Colonies and not to other Colonies. That makes the Bill all the more serious. Crown Colonies are generally rotten Colonies. I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer why. Naturally, everybody desires self-government—a Colony like anything else—and yet these Crown Colonies are such poor creatures that, having been connected with this country for a long time, they allow themselves to be ruled over by us, instead of asking independence from us. A Crown Colony is a Colony which is thoroughly rotten.
    SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no!
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes. We have heard a great deal about the West Indies. Are those promising possessions? They may promise, but they do not fulfil. I will take the case of Dominica. The other day the Dominican people were told that they were to have a loan on condition that they gave up their independence. They had got certain powers. They were deprived of those powers as a condition of obtaining this loan. They sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage. But who sold them? Every elected member of the Assembly of Dominica, or whatever the Legislature is called, voted against this proposal, stating that they preferred their liberties to this money which was to be offered to them, and the resolution reducing their liberties was carried by the official members. If that be so, it is very evident that Crown Colonies have no voice in the matter. Honourable Gentlemen said that these Crown Colonies are all most excellent possessions. Take Dominica. Why do we advance money to Dominica? Because Dominica has got into debt; because Dominica could not pay its own way. Now, suppose Dominica came for one of these new loans. It would be said, "Oh, this is a poor country; let us advance it." Why should we suppose Dominica would

    191
    be able to pay interest and sinking fund on the loan any more than she is able to pay the grants that we have temporarily made to her, on condition that she will return them? She cannot do it, and yet we say, "Let us adopt a new system, making easy the advance of money to Dominica, or other such Crown Colonies that are in the same position." The right honourable Gentleman says that one of the advantages of his Bill is that money can be invested by poor persons in this country in savings banks and post offices at a higher interest—that we must find some security which will give a higher interest than Consols. Then, I say, find a security in England; spend the money of the taxpayers in England amongst the taxpayers them selves. Do not go about lending money to Colonies, giving, for a bad security, this guarantee which will make the loan a good security, and doing this because you get a little higher interest for savings bank investors. I was surprised at the Chancellor of the Exchequer descending to an argument which was one of the most astounding I have ever heard. If you back a bill for a poor relation, it is everybody's experience—at any rate, it has been my experience—that you have to pay it; and if we go backing the bills of all these poor Colonies, you may be perfectly satisfied that when the bills become due they will pay for a year or two, in order to get more, but when they cannot pay any more we shall be told that there is a famine, or disaster, or something, and it would be monstrous for this rich, wealthy nation to cause these poor people to give back this money; that it must be a gift. That is what is called a union of hearts. A union of hearts between the Colonies and this country seems to me to be a sort of financial union, in which the taxpayers of this country have to pay for the Colonies. As long as you are ready to pay they will have a very great affection for you; but I want an affection which is based upon something more than getting a little money out of us. Now, Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wanted to carry this Bill before, and he explained that he was not able to do so because he could not bring it in before Twelve o'clock. But no sooner was
    192
    a Resolution passed to abrogate the Twelve o'clock Rule for the rest of the Session than the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought it in. His colleagues all wanted to brine in their Bills. Now they can be civil and friendly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They can let him bring in his Bill at half-past nine o'clock, and they will bring in their Bills later on; they will be likely to do it in the dark hours of the night. For my part, I shall oppose this Bill. I shall oppose it from the first day, and this is the first day. I do not know how other gentlemen will vote. For my part, I shall give them an opportunity to vote against the Bill. The honourable Gentleman behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that he delighted in this Bill, because it inaugurated a great principle. It was one of the most important Bills he knew that had ever been brought into this House. A great principle! Why? Because he looks forward to a glorious period when all sorts of securities are to be accorded the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund, while our own security shall simply be these more or less rotten Colonies. After all, there are business men. They know what the security of a Colony is worth. Many gentlemen make a living by issuing loans. They might advance money to these Colonies; but they do not do it, as everybody knows. As no sensible, practical business man will advance the money at the interest which is offered, the Colonies will come immediately to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "You come and help us." That means practically backing the bill of these Colonies. I shall divide the Committee upon this Resolution, because, as we have been told, this Resolution binds us to a certain extent, and restricts our efforts in other stages of the Bill. It is as well from the very beginning to register our protest by means of a vote against any Bill of which we disapprove. It is late in the Session, and we have a good deal to do. It appears that everybody is anxious to get away. I do not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in any great hurry to lend this money; and, after having explained this Bill, having brought in the Bill, and laid it on the Table of the House, let

    193
    him give us an opportunity during the Recess, of considering the matter; let him give the country an opportunity of considering this important principle, and at the beginning of next Session I am sure that his colleagues will agree that he is justified—and we will support him if necessary—in asking for a little time to be given, in order that the Bill may be brought in, and we may have a fair, and perhaps a somewhat lengthy, discussion upon it.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: I agree with much that has been said as to the good reasons that exist for having such Resolutions as this put on the Paper, and I hope that, although the system of bringing in money Bills after a Resolution passed in Committee is founded upon very ancient precedent, at any rate the Government, when opportunity offers, will not mind altering the system hitherto in use, and putting these Resolutions on the Paper, as has been urged by the honourable Member. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his speech that under existing conditions, when Colonies wanted to borrow under the guarantee of the Imperial Government, that had to be done by a Bill. I believe that is the case, and my honourable Friend opposite argued from that that the House has better control over these loans than they would have under the proposal of my right honourable Friend. Under his proposal, the loans are to be put in a clause in a Bill which comes on at the end of the Session. Am I not right in saying that the Government may, if they choose—and do sometimes—make loans in Supply? Only last year a loan of £750,000 was voted in Supply, and, of course, the Bill to appropriate that sum was put in the Appropriation Bill at the end of the Session. I infer that if the Government choose—I do not exactly know—the Chancellor of the Exchequer can, in Supply, make a loan to a Colony, as grants are made to a Colony—by bringing it in in Supply, passing it in the ordinary way, and finally appropriating it in the ordinary Appropriation Bill at the end of the Session. As I understand, there is an opportunity to discuss these proposals—
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is an opportunity in this House on the introduction of the Public Works Loans Bill, on the Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, in Committee on the Public Works Loans Bill, and on the Third Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: What I was going to say is that I could quite understand objection being taken to this proposal, if it is to be confined to a clause in the Public Works Loans Bill at the end of the Session. My right honourable Friend possibly may see his way, if there is any strong objection to that, to introduce these loans in a separate Bill somewhat earlier in the Session. That, I think, would very likely remove some objections which honourable Gentlemen may feel. But I think my honourable Friend opposite was rather exaggerating the dangers of this proposal, seeing, as I have pointed out, that the Government can, if they like, apart from any Bill, make a loan or grant in Supply, and finally appropriate it in the Appropriation Bill. So, as far as I am concerned, it seems to me, without passing any very definite opinion on the subject, to be a convenience to the House to have some system by which loans of this sort may be consolidated in the same sense in which the local loans 10 years ago were consolidated. If there are no greater objections than those which have already been made in the short discussion we have had to-night, I certainly should not object to the proposal that has been introduced. I admit that I think my right honourable Friend might possibly be well advised if he were to make such an alteration as would permit him to place the proposals in a Bill by themselves, which might be brought in earlier than the Loans Bill, and give Parliament, perhaps, a more complete and fuller opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them than can be done at a time in the Session when a great many honourable Members have gone, and the House is not in a very good position for such discussions.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing this proposal on its merits, but rather

    195
    of joining in the protest which has been made, and made too late, against a system of procedure into which we have drifted in matters of this sort. I will explain what I mean by drifting into the present system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it has always been so. In my belief, the system is much worse now than it was when I entered the House. We are now discussing a most important Resolution, the terms of which, I venture to say, are not exactly known to more than two or three Members of this House. It has been read, but it is an elaborate Resolution; I have read it twice myself, and even now I do not carry in my mind the exact effect of the proposal before the House. The honourable and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down says he does not know for what reason money Bills are begun in Committee of the House.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: No, I did not say that. I said I did know the reason.
    MR. ROBERTSON: I beg my honourable Friend's pardon. The reason why money Bills begin in Committee is, I suppose, that the House of Commons should have a certain control over these proposals, but the result is not effective, because the Committee has not the Resolution before it. But the point I was coming to is this: I venture to think it is rather new law, or new practice, that has now become the recognised doctrine in this House, that the terms of a Resolution which we pass in the dark bind all subsequent stages of the Bill, that every word that we authorise to-night binds our hands during all subsequent proceedings. If I had any special interest in this Bill, I should have recommended the Committee to take the course which was taken the other night, on the last occasion when such a Bill was before Committee of the whole House—that is, to report progress as soon as the Resolution was read from the Chair. That took place but 10 days ago, when a money Bill relating to Scotland came before the Committee. It was a grant to Scotland, and instead of discussing a proposal, the terms of which Members could not possibly know, but which were necessarily binding on all subsequent stages of the Bill, it was decided that
    196
    the proceedings should be suspended, and progress reported. That seems to be a good course. I think it ought to be done on all occasions, and unless you change the procedure altogether, and print the Resolution before proceeding with the Bill, I venture to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should deal with these Colonial proposals as the Government dealt with the Scotch proposal. I do not know why not. We put before the Government exactly the case I am urging now. We cannot pretend to discuss these things now. We know that if progress is reported, and the discussion is resumed to-morrow, we shall have the Resolution in print before us, and know what we are talking about, and not bind our hands in the dark for the rest of the proceedings on the Bill. If that was a good reason 10 days ago on a Scotch Bill, it is an equally good reason on this Bill. I do not profess to have a sufficient connection myself to propose that course now, but if that is not done, it is too late. That, I think, is the course which the House ought to take on all occasions when a Resolution is proposed in the dark, every word of which will bind us in subsequent proceedings. I think we ought always to report progress until we have the Resolution before us. But hints have been thrown out which would seem to make it quite unnecessary to have recourse to that expedient on this occasion. It has been suggested, and I am not sure that it was not almost openly stated by my honourable Friend who sits opposite, that there is no keen desire on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed effectively with the Bill this Session. If that course is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall have nothing more to say. If that course is not taken, I once more protest against this practice. I say it is a recent practice, by which the terms of Resolutions quite unknown to us art passed, which terms are binding on the House in every subsequent proceeding of the Bill.
    MR. S. HOARE: I think the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one which will have the sympathy of both sides of the House, for, if any scheme can be brought forward by which

    197
    well approved loans to our Crown Colonies can be granted, on the best terms, with, the guarantee of the Imperial Government, it is an advantage to our Colonies, and an advantage to the Imperial Government. At the same time, there are one or two points which are somewhat difficult to understand in the short discussion which we have had this evening. If I understood my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, he stated that when a loan to a Crown Colony was approved of, it would come before the House as a clause in the Public Works Loans Bill. I think I am right. Now, I would venture to suggest to my right honourable Friend, and the Committee too, that some difficulty will arise if this is the course of procedure, in order that a Crown Colony may borrow, with the approval of this House. We should remember, as the honourable and learned Member for Donegal reminded us this evening, that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are a body of gentlemen, 18 in number, selected for their special qualifications, not only from the City, but from other great interests, whose duty it is to pass loans for public works, and the Act, as it is passed year by year, has this description—
    "An Act to lend moneys for purposes of certain local loans and for other purposes relating to local loans."
    Now, it is true that this Bill is often passed without much discussion—I fancy sometimes without any discussion at all; but the Committee should remember that the reason of this is that these loans have been sanctioned by this experienced body of experts, who have satisfied themselves, as the honourable Member for Donegal has said, that the loans were well secured, and that the security might be looked upon by the House as satisfactory. I am somewhat afraid that if these loans to Crown Colonies are dealt with in the same way, we shall be somewhat misled when we come to consider them. They will not be loans of the description which have been contained in the Public Works Loans Act in past years. This Act comes to us with the responsibility—I may say, with the authority—of the Public Works Loan
    198
    Commissioners, and we take it as such. But this Act, which really recounts what they have done during the past year, will now have another clause, which they have nothing, as I understand it, to do with. I should have been myself glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed that this same trustworthy authority that now presides over the other loans might have also come before them for consideration the loans which are now proposed to be introduced by another clause in future Public Works Loans Acts.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: That would be dividing the responsibility.
    MR. S. HOARE: It seems to me that it would have been well, if it had been possible, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have intimated to the Committee that we should have a short Bill for any loans to the Colonies, rather than a clause added to a Bill which is intended solely for loans for public works in the United Kingdom. Each year the amount that is lent in England, in Wales, and in Scotland is put down, and the amount that is lent in Ireland, and it will require a Bill on somewhat different lines in the future if it is to embrace loans to our Colonies as well. I would say, before sitting down, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal has my warm sympathy, as far as the scheme suggests that there should be a Colonial Fund, from which the Crown Colonies should, when there are satisfactory reasons, be able to receive advances, but I am sure he will allow me to criticise the point as to whether it is possible to graft these loans upon our Public Works loans system; and if he thinks that is the only course, then I should myself, and I daresay others would, express the hope that there might be some equally critical body of Commissioners for these loans to come before, as is the case with our loans to public bodies at home. It seems to me, if I may venture to suggest it, that it would be a simpler and more satisfactory scheme that advances to our Crown Colonies should form the subject of a Bill to themselves, which could be considered from the point of view of Colonial and Imperial interest rather than

    199
    mixed up with loans for good objects at home, be they lighthouses or other local matters, so that then such a Bill could get that consideration which I believe the grant of loans which have the Imperial guarantee to our Crown Colonies should have from this House whenever they may be necessary.
    DR. CLARKI regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not accepted the suggestion which has been made to-night, because we require to consider very carefully this new Resolution. I have only heard it read.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have explained it.
    DR. CLARK: I have only heard it read, and it is assumed that it is limited to Crown Colonies. But that is not what you are passing. You are passing a Resolution for all Colonies. It is not limited, as far as the Resolution is concerned, and by and by, in the Committee stage, you may make it applicable to self-governing Colonies, because you are taking powers which equally apply to them. I think it is very desirable that we should not have two Debates; that we should do all that is necessary on this stage, and not have a renewed Debate on the Report stage, with the Speaker in the Chair. I think, Sir, we know clearly, from the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the Government intend to do, and what their policy is. Well, now, I want to get at the motive behind it. No Bill is introduced in this House unless some interest is affected, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer may tell us that this Bill is brought in for the purpose of aiding the Crown Colonies. Some of their public loans will shortly become due. They are mostly four per cent, loans now. Probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lend at three, or two and three-quarters, or two and seven-eighths, or something of that kind, and then they will be able to get their money, not at four per cent., but at, say, two and seven-eighths, and so save one per cent, or more to the Colonies. Has pressure been brought to bear on the Treasury by the Colonial Office for the purpose of doing this, or is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself
    200
    desires to find another investment for moneys of savings bank investors? You cannot get investments on home securities; you cannot get the Public Loans Commissioners to lend sufficient money; and you want another source of investment for yourself. I think the House ought to know. Is the origin of this Bill pressure brought to bear by the Crown Colonies to get money cheaper, or has it arisen spontaneously from the Treasury for the purpose of finding outlets for their money? If we can read between the lines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's public statement, in order to get up the rate of interest he requires a further method of investment. If that is the case, let us understand it. We are not conferring any boon on the Colonies; we merely, for our own purposes, wish to invest our money there. At the present time you are competing with insurance companies, and with a large number of business firms, and you have brought down the rate of interest, while, by the Bill passed last year, you have seriously affected the stability of several insurance companies, because these offices have based their business on a three per cent, valuation, and now they require to change their premiums in order that their premiums may be equal to the liabilities they have incurred. By the Bill of last year you have brought about considerable changes. I am not in favour of the Bill, nor am I against it, because until we see the clauses we do not understand it. We merely have the principle laid down, and we are asked to-night that the principle applied to public works loans, for purposes of building harbours and improvements, shall be extended to the Colonies, only in that case the Commissioners, who are a body of responsible gentlemen, look at proposal put before them as rigorously as would a banker lending money to clients. In that Bill every year—I think almost without exception, as far as my memory goes—you have to weed out some loans, incurred even under those conditions. What functions will the Bill perform in regard to the Colonies? We shall see when the Bill comes before us; but before I give a vote I want to know, and the House ought to know, why this Bill is brought in. Is it for an individual purpose, or for joint purposes? I would

    201
    cordially support the suggestion made by two honourable Members on that side of the House—that you really ought not to link together the Colonies with our own municipal institutions. At the present time they can borrow at 2½ per cent., which is evidence of their business capacity, and shows that they are generally fully qualified to inquire into and negotiate the terms upon which the loan should be secured. You will have no body of the character which generally comes in in these matters, acting as a buffer between you and the Colonies. They all get 2¾ per cent., plus what goes to the Sinking Fund. Now, there are Colonies and Colonies, and if you put some of these securities in the market you would not be able to borrow at less than 4½ or 5 per cent. I want information at the present stage, why the Government brought in this Bill—whether it is for their own purposes, or whether the Colonies require it, or whether it is a joint concern. Of course, when the Bill is before us we will see its machinery set up. If you are setting up machinery distinct from that of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, you ought to have people who can test its practicability, and who can advise the Treasury whether it should be accepted or not, and whether the terms proposed are proper.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think the complaint of the honourable Member for Dundee is in any respect a fair one, because the difficulty he anticipates does not arise in this case. The Resolution moved by my right honourable Friend the Lord Advocate limited the purposes to which the Scotch local taxation grant could be applied, whereas this is purely an enabling Resolution. It is a Resolution enabling the House, if it should deem fit to do so, by Bill to impose certain liabilities upon the Consolidated Fund, for a Colonial Stock to be raised under the provisions of the Bill. I really do not see why I should be called upon to explain all the provisions of the Bill on this Resolution any more than any honourable Member who brings in a Bill during the course of the Session. This is purely a preliminary stage, and has always been considered to be so. Honourable Members,
    202
    when the Bill is brought before them, will see how its provisions are to be worked out, and can then decide how and in what manner they may be dealt with. Now, Sir, the honourable Member for Poplar was good enough to read me a little lecture upon the different characteristics of the Crown Colonies, and appeared to attribute to me ignorance of the subject. With all deference to the honourable Member, I think I have forgotten more than he ever knew. I was Secretary of State for the Colonies three years before the honourable Member came into this House; and it does seem a little strange that he should lecture me in the way he did. I am perfectly well aware that some of the Crown Colonies are almost as free in the control of their finance as Colonies possessing responsible Government; and I have informed the Committee already that this Bill is limited in its application to those Colonies over whose finances the Imperial Government, through the Colonial Office, has complete control.
    DR. CLARK: The Resolution does not say so.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not know how many times I am to be called upon to repeat that this is purely an enabling Resolution. The honourable Member for Poplar says that under the provisions of the Bill, if there were a deficit on any of these loans there would be a call upon the British taxpayer. Well, so there would be, and so it is now; and one of the objects in introducing this is really to give the British taxpayer a better safeguard through a general stock than he has now. If one of these Colonies requires aid, it comes to us for it, whether it be for a grant in aid, as Dominica did, or for a loan. Under the present system the only Colonies that apply to us for loans are the Colonies who cannot raise loans for themselves at a good price in the market. Now, I confess, I want to make this Colonial Loan Fund apply to Colonies whose credit is good, as well as those whose credit is of an inferior character. I know that some honourable Members have the Colonial Secretary on the brain—so to speak—in this matter; and they think that the House will be

    203
    asked by this proposal to make all sorts of loans to every bankrupt, or semi-bankrupt colony throughout the world. That is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government at all. I have not contemplated in this Bill a loan at the present moment to a single West Indian Colony; therefore the Committee will see that I look upon this as a purely financial transaction. I believe it will prove an advantage, to the Colonies as well as to the Mother Country. We shall be able to utilise our credit to the best advantage in making loans to them, and be able to make advances to those who are in straitened circumstances as well as to those whose credit stands higher. My honourable Friend the Member for Norwich pointed out that there might be an objection to the sanction required from time to time for individual loans to the Colonies being included in the Public Works Loans Bill, as such loans would have nothing whatever to do with the Public Works Loan Commissioners at all. If the House desires it, I shall be quite willing to consider the suggestion of bringing in a separate annual Bill, which will include all the Colonial loans which may be made under this Bill during the course of the year. I do not at all wish, as my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury said, to press this Measure on an unwilling House this Session; but I trust, after the discussion which has taken place, that I may be allowed to obtain the Resolution on which the Bill can be brought in; and I am sanguine, after honourable Members have seen the provisions of the Bill, and disabused their minds of the erroneous impressions they have conceived in regard to them, they will look upon the Bill with much greater favour, and that even in the present Session we may be able to make what I believe will be a very valuable reform.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I would like, Sir, to ask the right honourable Gentleman for information on two material points—the first in regard to the provision relating to the Colonial savings bank balances; and the other as to the
    204
    past financial relations of the particular Colonies to whom it is contemplated grants may be made. If information is given to us on these points it will enable the House to come to a definitive judgment.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In answer to the first question of the honourable Member the annual Returns show the amount of deposits and the manner in which those deposits have been dealt with; but if the honourable Member would put the question on the Paper I shall possibly be able to give him greater satisfaction with a fuller reply. With regard to the second question, I think it is hardly possible to answer; because one cannot tell which Colonies might apply for loans, or to which Colonies loans might be granted. I could, however, give the honourable Member a list of the Colonies to which the Bill would apply.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: And the grants they have obtained?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, I have no doubt that could be given in the shape of a Parliamentary Return.
    MR. S. BUXTON: I had no intention, Sir, of giving offence to the right honourable Gentleman in what I said before, and, so far as I am concerned, I may say that my objections to the Bill are considerably removed. I understood, in the first place, that the right honourable Gentleman intended to limit it to those Colonies over whose finances the Colonial Office had full control: and that, secondly, instead of including it in the Public Loans Bill, it could be introduced in the form of a separate Bill each Session. My objection was founded on the fear that there might be no opportunity of discussing it. But by introducing it in the form of a separate Bill each Session, there will be an opportunity of discussing it, and my objection is largely removed.
    The Resolution was then agreed to, and reported to the House.

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    SIR W. FOSTER: Before this Bill passes I should like to say a few words upon it. When the Bill was under discussion for the Second Reading, some honourable Members took exception to it upon certain grounds. Now, I do not wish to press those points in connection with the Third Reading of this Bill, but I do desire to emphasise another point which does arise in connection with this—namely, that under certain circumstances the facilities for the sale of land are likely to interfere with the housing and the subsistence of the poor in many of our rural districts. From time immemorial colleges have been letting their land, on life leases, and these life leases have been renewed on the payment of adequate sums, and the owners of these particular lands or houses have gone to create a custom or kind of security in the occupation of small holders of land or tenants. The habit, however, has now become common of not renewing those life leases, and the refusal has been causing great hardship and has been resented in many villages. There was the case of a small village with a population of some seven or eight hundred, a large number of whom were dependent on the particular college in giving them life leases for their little homes. They were not agricultural labourers, but they carried on occupations in this particular locality, and they lived in houses which they themselves and their predecessors had held for many generations. It was determined to sell this land, and the whole of this population would practically have been driven into the neighbouring towns, and would have been rendered homeless by the selling of this land to a private owner. A neighbouring landlord was, however, able to come forward and plant them on another particular piece of land. Now, what happened in that case might happen in other cases without a neighbouring landlord being willing to provide for the inhabitants of the locality in a similar way to this. The question of rural housing is a very important one, and we have all over the country instances of a most discreditable character, and the tendency is when
    206
    estates pass into private ownership to pull down the dwellings as old houses and not to spend money on them, as their only desire is to maintain so many houses as are just necessary to accommodate the people who cultivate the land. But when you have other persons living there by other means it is very often not to their advantage to keep those tenants in the villages, and so they swell the large population of our towns. In a Bill like this we should endeavour to put into it some clause that will stop this practice. A similar question was raised 10 years ago, and a clause to this effect was introduced in another place, and to that clause I want to call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman who has charge of the Bill, in order to elicit from him some pledge that he will make a similar provision to stop the process of rural depopulation. In the Glebe Lands Act of 1888 there is a clause for facilitating the acquisition of land by cottagers, labourers and others, and it would be advisable to insert it in this Measure. It prevents them from sustaining any loss, and it gives these occupiers or tenants on the estate security that they shall not be dispossessed of their means of livelihood, and thus be driven into the towns. Proposals like this are worthy of encouragement, because they are the means of sending people into the rural districts, and are also the means of keeping up that peasantry which we have endeavoured to keep up by passing the Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act. There is also another point which I should like the right honourable Gentleman to give us information upon. Some colleges are charged alike for charitable purposes, and the land may not be sold without the consent of the Board of Agriculture. I think that in the sale of ail lands connected with charities it would be well to consult the Charity Commissioners and to obtain their sanction to the sale before any lands specially devoted to charitable purposes on the college estates could be sold. This is not provided for in the Bill of which the right honourable Gentleman is going to ask the House to pass the Third Reading.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG, Liverpool, West Derby): The remarks of the honourable Gentleman appear to

    207
    apply to any Bill dealing with the question of the land, and I think it would be unfair to the owners of this particular property to impose upon them any special disabilities in regard to the sale of their properties which do not come under the general law for other owners. The honourable Gentleman has suggested that a clause should be added from the Glebe Lands Act. Now, in the first place, I may point out that the object of the Glebe Lands Act was totally different from the object of the Bill now under consideration. The object of that Act was to facilitate and encourage the sale of those glebe lands to which the Bill specially referred, but the object of this Bill is not to encourage colleges and universities to part with their estates. Now there is no such desire on the part of the promoters of this Measure, and it is intended that in cases where it is thought that educational objects for which they exist will be promoted by the sale of these estates either partly or wholly the difficulties which now stand in the way of the sale of these lands should be removed by this Bill. The clause from the Glebe Lands Act would practically have no effect, for there have not been any cases in which land has been sold for the purposes for which that clause provides. Therefore I do not think there is any evidence before the House which would justify me on the part of the Government in putting in such a clause. It would not be just to the universities and colleges to allow such a clause, which has been rejected by the Standing Committee, to be inserted in the Bill. The honourable Gentleman referred also to the liability existing at the present time in connection with colleges in respect of their estates which will remain after the passing of the Bill, but it will be the duty of the Board of Agriculture to take care that those liabilities are discharged out of the money received for the land sold in the same way as they have been discharged previously out of the rents received for the land. I could not undertake under these circumstances the insertion of this clause, because I think it would be doing a very great injustice to the universities and to the colleges, and in view of this I hope the House will be prepared to give this Bill a Third Reading.
    *SIR C. DILKE: I really think there is a strong reason why we should divide against the Third Reading as we did against the Second Reading. This Bill, as the first clause distinctly states, is to increase the facilities for the sale of what are quasi-public lands at the present time—lands not in the possession of private owners. It would be unjust and unfair to regard them as private lands, as Parliament has got power over them, and can impose conditions. The point which my honourable Friend raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and again before the Standing Committee upstairs, where he was defeated, was that special regard should be had for allotments. We have the power here to make provision with regard to these lands, and the House is departing from its previous principle with regard to such Bills by increasing the facilities for sale without making any provision for allotments, such as the clause of my honourable Friend would make. A great many years ago the Members of the House fought out this whole point with great determination. Previous Universities and College Estates Bills were fought in this way. There is no principle to which it is possible to attach greater importance than that of keeping public rights over such lands. John Stuart Mill and the late Professor Fawcett always maintained that the public ought not to part with control over property of this kind. Many gentlemen interested on behalf of the colleges wish to have these powers, but we look beyond the colleges to the public interest, and I am bound to say that I think the clause of my honourable Friend is a proper clause, and would protect public interests, and it having been refused I think we ought to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill.
    COLOXEL KENYON-SLANEY: The right honourable Baronet has said that one reason why these powers should not be given is because of the interest attaching to allotments. Let me point out to him that it was quite optional on the part of the colleges that these allotments were made at all. There was no inherent right on the part of the occupiers of these little tenements to have any allotments. Yet he now proposes to fetter the sale of

    209
    these lands, with, the result that they will fetch a smaller price because of the allotments on them. If any arrangement of that sort were carried out it would have the effect of preventing the owners of similar estates giving the advantage of allotments at all. We all desire to see owners extending the benefits of allotments us far as possible, but if we now make a provision that when allotments have been granted the fact of their being granted will militate against the sale of the estate we will do a great deal more harm than good. The provision advocated by the right honourable Baronet would certainly decrease the price of estates, and would militate against the creation of new allotments.
    DR. TANNERsaid that the House should consider the fact that there was a
    difference between land held by universities and colleges and land held by private persons. Again, if a private individual granted a university or a college a certain sum of money, and if that sum were spent in connection with allotments, he did not see why they should be done away with now. The present Parliament would do nearly anything, but it was an extraordinary thing that gifts to universities and colleges should now be spent in a manner never conceived by the fivers, and he hoped that matter would be carefully considered before the Bill was passed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 64.—(See Division List No. 227.)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Kemp, George

    Baillie, J E. B. (Inverness)

    Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

    Kenyon, James

    Baird, John George A.

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

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

    Fergusson,Rt.HnSirJ. (Manc.)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Finch, George H.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Barton, Dunbar Punket

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM.H. (Brist'l)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Bethell, Commander

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Bill, Charles

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Bond, Edward

    Flower, Ernest

    Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Folkestone, Viscount

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

    Brassey, Albert

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lowles, John

    Butcher, John George

    Garfit, William

    Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Godson, Sir A. Frederick

    McKillop, James

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goschen,RtHn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Charrington, Spencer

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    More, Robert Jasper

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gretton, John

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Greville, Captain

    Mount, William George

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Houston, R. P.

    Penn, John

    Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc,S.W.)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Phillpott, Captain Arthur

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Purvis, Robert

    Pym, C. Guy

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D (Strand)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Strauss, Arthur

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

    Round, James

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

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

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    NOES.

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Hedderwick, T. C. H.

    Rickett, J. Compton.

    Baker, Sir John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

    Holburn, J. G.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Billson, Alfred

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kitson, Sir James

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Labouchere, Henry

    Steadman, William Charles

    Burt, Thomas

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Strachey, Edward

    Caldwell, James

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lough, Thomas

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Colville, John

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Daly, James

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsfl'd)

    Davitt, Michael

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dillon, John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Sir Walter Foster and Sir Charles Dilke.

    Duckworth, James

    Pearson, Sir Weetman, D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    First Two Resolutions agreed to.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Read the third time, and passed.

    ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS BILL.
    (Second Reading).
    MR. DILLON: This is an extremely interesting Measure to us in Ireland, because we have been told over and over again that it is absolutely impossible to have a separate Customs system applied to any particular part of the United Kingdom, and we find now that there is a separate system for the Isle of Man. I should like to have some explanation as to the present, Customs system of the Isle of Man, and the reason for this separate legislation in regard to it.
    *MR. HANBURY: The object of this Bill, far from creating sepa-
    212
    rate Customs, is to assimilate the Customs of the Isle of Man to those of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill proposes to reduce the tobacco duty in the Isle of Man to the same level as that to which the tobacco duty of the United Kingdom has been reduced by the Budget of this year. This reduction will entail a loss of revenue to the Isle of Man of somewhere about £2,000, leaving only a very small surplus on the year's accounts. That loss it is proposed to compensate by adding sixpence a gallon to the customs duties on spirits. The spirit duties are, and will still be, lower than in the United Kingdom. The changes of duty have already been brought into force under resolutions of the Tynwald Court, which however, will only have effect for six months unless continued by the sanction of Parliament.
    MR. DILLON: The spirit duty, I understand, is still below the duty on spirits in the United Kingdom.
    DR. TANNER: I do not think we have yet heard the end of this question. With reference to these Bills, which are brought in in this peculiar way, we have nothing to say, it must be left to the English Members to discuss that; but, in connection with this question of Customs, it is altogether a maze to my mind. Perhaps the House will agree with me upon that point, and perhaps it will not. But, at any rate, how came it that duties are now existing which have never been levied before?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the honourable Member to be more relevant in his remarks.
    DR. TANNER: I merely wish to ask for some sort of answer to a very ordinary question: why, in connection with the Isle of Man and the House of Keys—which, I believe, is the House of Parliament of that island—the matter has not been raised before, and left to a Commission of the House of Parliament under its jurisdiction? I only want to see why—
    MR. SPEAKER: The question is that this Bill be now read a second time.
    Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

    TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
    The House then went into Committee. [Mr. T. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question is—
    "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: I only want to say—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! You are too late; I have put the question.
    DR. TANNER: I only want to say—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I report this Bill, without Amendment, to the House.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
    MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Caldwell.
    MR. CALDWELL: I do not move.
    As Amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

    PARISH FIRE ENGINES BILL.
    The House went into Committee; Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.
    Amendment proposed upon clause 1.
    MR. CALDWELL: I rise to move an Amendment. This is a Bill which is to enable boroughs to make arrangements with parish councils to enable fire engines and appliances to go out of the district in case of a fire breaking out outside the district. It would be a very important power to confer upon these bodies, because a borough might make an arrangement which might, in, the first place, extend over a limited number of years. The Bill makes no provision for any particular time within which this agreement should terminate. It might be made for an indefinite period of time, whilst the constable of the borough is only elected for a short time. In a matter of this kind it is very important that some authority should be vested with, the power to act in a case of this kind on behalf of the district. In the first place, there is always a difficulty, if you wish to send a fire engine and appliances outside a borough, and there is also another difficulty, which is this: a fire might take place in the borough while the fire engine is away. It is very important, in my opinion, in a case of this kind, that the arrangement should only be made with the consent of the Local Government Board. Another reasen is that, if the consent of the Local Government Board were required, the Local Government Board would have to take particular care that no station in a borough was without sufficient appliances for the purpose of going outside. That is to say, the Local Government Board might reasonably withhold its consent unless such arrangements were made by the borough as would ensure that it

    215
    should be provided with fire engines and appliances sufficient to safeguard a larger district than the borough itself served. That is one of the things upon which the Local Government Board would have to insist. There is another reason. Suppose the district outside bought a fire engine and appliances of its own; it might not be expedient that the Local Government Board should then go to the borough and get its assistance, and the Local Government Board should then insist upon their using their fire engines and appliances as against themselves. There is one very remarkable thing about this Bill, and that is, it makes no limit whatever with regard to the distance as to which the fire engine may be sent; it might be one mile or 10 miles or 20 miles. There is no limit whatever, and I think there certainly ought to be some limit with regard to distance outside which the engines may go. That must be taken into consideration. Therefore, under all these circumstances, I consider that the consent of the Local Government Board should be obtained to these arrangements being entered into, and I move the Amendment—
    "That any agreement that is entered into should have the consent of the Local Government Board."
    Question put.
    MR. S. HOARE: I think the honourable Member who has just moved the Amendment to this Bill scarcely appreciates the object of this Measure. It is all based upon a voluntary arrangement between the borough and the parish which may be in its immediate neighbourhood. Great and serious fires have broken out from time to time just outside the borough—only a few miles off—where there has been a great loss of life, and property, and the matter has been brought before the Local Government Board to allow boroughs, if they think fit, to make voluntary arrangements to meet that necessity of the district outside in case of a fire occurring in the district. The first Amendment put down is absolutely unnecessary, having regard to the fact that the arrangement is entirely a voluntary one. It is hardly necessary in a matter of this kind to have a long delay, as would inevitably
    216
    occur in obtaining the leave of the Local government Board during the time the fire is taking place. The great object is that the arrangement should be easy to make, and I hope the honourable Member will not press his Amendment. If he does, when we come to the second I shall have something further to say to the lommittee upon that. I think the authorities who are to be the parties, to the arrangement should have a free hand to make the arrangement, so that they should be able to meet the necessities of the case.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I quite appreciate the honourable Gentleman's reference, to the Local Government Board, but I also hope that he will not press his Amendment. If the honourable Gentleman's views are carried out there will be a local inquiry by the Local Government Board to meet the case, and in a simple matter of this kind I think the authorities concerned might be allowed to act for themselves.
    MR. BROADHURST: I do most sincerely hope that my honourable Friend will not press this Amendment further. He, I am sure, can thoroughly rely upon the fact that the local authority will not make any arrangement which is in any way injurious to the local authority itself, or to the local authority which owns the engine. This arrangement will only be made with such parishes as are immediately adjacent to the borough or town which possesses the engine, and will not be made with boroughs or towns which are a considerable distance off. To place the arrangement under the control or supervision, or to make it subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, would be to throw immense difficulties in the way of its being arrived at, and we are anxious to throw off the leading strings of the Local Government Board. They are very interesting bodies, no doubt, and we are always very glad and very pleased to see them at all times, but at the same time, when we have their inspectors coming down to hold inquiries, with their train of lawyers, solicitors, and other professional men, it always seems to me that those gentlemen always get a considerable share of the pickings that

    217
    are going about, and that the expense is largely increased. From what I know of local inquiries, and I have had considerable experience of them, and the delays and vexation of all kinds that are attendant upon them, I am not at all inclined towards them. If I may do so, I would suggest to my honourable Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, as I think the local authorities can manage this matter very well without danger to the public interest. I think it would be very much better to allow the Bill to go through in the shape in which it is drawn.
    DR. CLARK: I have been trying very hard to understand this clause, but it is past my comprehension. It sets out a lot of other clauses of other Bills, and before one can understand what it is to do he must go through the clauses to which it refers and see what powers are provided. I have been trying to see what the effect of the Amendment would be, but I have not got an hour or two to spare to go down to the Library to look up the various Acts which this clause incorporates, and I confess, that without doing so the matter is quite beyond me, and I give it up as a hopeless conundrum.
    SIR J. BRUNNER: I am heartily glad to hear the honourable Gentleman refer to this clause in the manner in which he did, as I am of opinion that every Bill which is introduced into this House should be understanded of itself, and should not have any references to any previous Acts. I have repeated in this House a good many times the remarks of the noble Lord the head of the Government, whose help I regret we cannot have in this House with reference to this practice, and the advice he has given, upon this subject. He has said in another place that our methods of legislation in this particular are not a credit to us. I have repeated that in this. House very many times, but. I regret to say without a sign of repentance or amendment being shown by those who represent the country in this House. I consider the draughtsmanship of this Bill is neither a credit to the draughtsman nor to the—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The draughtsmanship of the clause is not now under consideration. The question which is under consideration is the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman.
    SIR J. BRUNNER: Instructed by you, Sir, I trust I shall keep in order for the rest of the short period I shall occupy the attention of the Committee upon this question. I am obliged to my honourable Friend below me for having moved this Amendment, because it has brought from the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board another acknowledgment that his Department is very much overworked, and he agrees with my honourable Friend the Member for Leicester that the local authorities might be left to manage this matter for themselves, and that the Local Government Board would do well to divest itself of work of that kind. I am not inclined to agree with the honourable Member for Leicester in his criticisms as to the Local Government Board inquiries concerned. I have attended a good many of them, and I have admired them very much, and I will say this for them, that they are, as compared with inquiries conducted before lawyers, very cheap, far cheaper, in point of fact, than any of that kind. I have nothing to say against their method or their procedure, but upon the merits of local government I certainly believe in the policy of letting the local authority conduct, its own affairs, and I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
    DR. TANNER: In connection with thia matter I cannot altogether understand what is the use of buying fire engines when the fire is alight or the house burned down. I am speaking merely in the interests of common humanity.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The honourable Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
    DR. TANNER: The clause provides for the purchase of fire engines, and includes powrer to agree with the council of any neighbouring borough or district. Now, I am taking the line that the fire engine would be absolutely at the demand of any particular district, I sincerely hope

    219
    every honourable Member will agree with me on this, merely to succour human life.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The honourable Member is not applying himself to the Amendment before the Committee, and I must call upon him to discontinue his speech.
    DR. TANNER: I appeal to you, Sir.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: I appeal to the Chair.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: Then I leave.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regard this clause as a beneficial one—
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Yes, to lawyers!
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should disagree. There are very few sections in Acts of Parliament less beneficial to lawyers than this particular section. The words are perfectly clear, and anyone can understand them. I simply rise in order to appeal to my honourable Friend, whose leadership I am glad to avow and follow as a rule, not to press this Amendment to a Division. I know something about the cost of local inquiries. As a rule they are conducted very efficiently and very economically, but however well and economically conducted there must always be a great deal of expense. I am not sure that these inquiries would not cost more than a fire engine, and that it would not be better for a parish to purchase an ergine for itself than bear the expense of an inquiry. I appeal to my honourable Friend not to press this matter to a Division.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I venture to give one reason to the Committee why this little Measure should be passed as rapidly as possible. In my own immediate neighbourhood one of the most beautiful and stately places in England was lately burned to the ground.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved—
    "Page 1, line 13, at end, insert—
    "And that the area of such parish, or such-part thereof as may be agreed upon, shall be included within the area to be served by such fire engines and appurtenances, the parish council paying a sum not less than such a proportion of the annual expense of the fire engines and appurtenances as the rental of such parish, or part thereof, as the case may be, bears to the rateable value of the total area to be served by such fire engines and appurtenances."
    He said the object of the Amendment, was that the area outside the borough should be included in a district to be served by the fire engines.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the Amendment would tie the hands of the parish councils. It would also be most, unfair that the rateable value of land should be taken into account when fixing the amount to be paid, and he thought it would be much better to leave such a small matter to the two councils making the contract.
    MR. BROADHURST: I think my honourable Friend will not occupy the Committee in considering this Amendment at length. What my honourable Friend is concerned for is that parish councils should not have the use of the fire engines without paying above and beyond the cost of a particular service. If my honourable Friend were to insert this Amendment it would render the Bill inoperative, because a large charge at the commencement would make it impossible to apply.
    MR. GODDARD: I hope my honourable Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division. It seems to me unnecessary. My honourable Friend seems to have a great fear that local authorities will leave their own districts in danger by allowing their fire engines to go outside their boundaries. My experience is that local bodies are particularly careful not to let their engines beyond the bounds unless they are properly remunerated. I hope my honourable Friend will not press the Amendment.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved—
    "Page 1, line 18, at end, add—

    "(3) No fire engine shall be sent beyond the limits of a borough or district, unless at least one fire engine with appurtenances is left within such borough or district."

    "(4) If a fire engine or fire engines be sent beyond the limits of a borough or district under the powers conferred by this Act, and if a fire breaks out within the limits of such borough or district, and loss by fire can be shown to be due to any fire engine or fire engines and appurtenances being at the time outside of such borough or district, the council of such borough or district shall make good, out of the local rates, the loss so sustained to the party sustaining such loss."

    We have taken into consideration that the inhabitants of every borough are entitled to have some protection in the case of fire breaking out in the borough. The object of getting contributions from outside the district is with a view to increasing the number of fire engines and improving the appliances. In the case of a borough with only one fire engine, it would be very hard on a ratepayer within the borough if the engine were three or four miles away when a fire broke out in his own house.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid if the Amendment were passed no one would take the risk involved.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question put—
    "That this clause stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.

    PARISH FIRE ENGINES BILL.

      CLAUSE 2.
      Question put—
      "That this clause stand part of the Bill."
      Agreed to.
      *THE CHAIRMAN: The question is chat I report this Bill without Amendment to the House.
      Agreed to.
      The House resumed.
      The Bill was reported.
      Question put—
      "That the Bill be read a third time."
      MR. SAMUEL: I think an important change will be made in the law by this Bill. The Commissioners, under the Town Clauses Police Act of 1847, have the power to send fire engines beyond the limits of their jurisdiction, and in that case they can charge a fair cost to the owner of the property on which the fire was extinguished. Under this Bill a very serious change is going to be made, and I should like to warn country Members of its serious nature Under sub-section 2 of clause 1 it is proposed to charge the whole cost, of extinguishing a fire on the parish council or the ratepayers, who are more or less interested. In many of our large towns we already send our fire engines beyond the limits of the borough, and we are able to recover the actual cost of sending them from the insurance companies or the owners of the property, but this Bill proposes to transfer this cost to the poor ratepayers. I am afraid the honourable Member for Leicester, who I understand is the father of this Measure, who has induced the Local Government Board to introduce it, has not read this very important change. He will find in the future that, instead of the owners of mansions or the insurance companies bearing the full cost of extinguishing a fire, it will fall upon the poor ratepayers within the parish.
      DR. CLARK: I do not think my honourable Friend understands the subsection. It is only when an agreement is entered into that an alteration is made. Where there is no agreement the old law stands. It is the result of not knowing what we are doing. It may please legal Members to have the Bill dished up in this form, but it is very difficult for lay Members, and results in the time of the House being wasted. I wasted it myself to-night, so did my honourable Friend. If the Bill were drafted so that the man in the street could understand it then we would know what we were doing; but

      223
      drafted as it is, in an obscure legal form, we do not know what we are doing.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The old Act is as stated by the honourable Member, but surely if a parish makes an agreement with a council for the supply of a fire engine, and money is paid under that agreement, there is no necessity for charging a second time.
      MR. SAMUEL: How many parish councils are aware of this sub-section?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They have asked for it.
      Question put—
      "That this Bill be now read a third time."
      Agreed to.

    HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
    as amended.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTmoved—
    "Page 4, after clause 11, insert the following clause—

    "(1) If it is made to appear to a judge of county courts that any person detained in a State or certified inebriate reformatory has any real or personal property more than sufficient to maintain his family, if any, the judge may make an order for the payment of the expenses incurred in relation to the detention of that person, and the order may be enforced against any property of that person in the same way as a judgment of the county court.

    "(2) The order may be made on the application—(a) in the case of a person detained in a State inebriate reformatory, of such person as may be authorised by the Secretary of State in that behalf; and (b) in the case of a person detained in a certified inebriate reformatory of the managers of the reformatory."

    Question put—
    "That this clause be read a second time."
    Agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTmoved—
    "Page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out 'and is proved,' and insert 'if the court is satisfied
    224
    from the evidence that the offence was committed under the influence of drink, or that drunkenness was a contributing cause of the offence, and the offender admits that he is or is found by the jury.'"
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTmoved—
    "Page 1, line 21, at end of clause, add—
    "Provided that, unless evidence that the offender is an habitual drunkard has been offered before he is committed for trial, not less than seven days' notice shall be given to the clerk of the court and the offender that it s intended to charge habitual drunkenness in the indictment."
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTmoved—
    "Page 6, line 3, leave out 'and is proved,' and insert 'if the court is satisfied from the evidence that the offence was committed under the influence of drink, or that drunkenness was a contributing cause of the offence, and the offender admits that he is or is found by the jury.'"
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTmoved—
    "Page 7, at commencement of line 19, insert 'references to a judge of county courts shall be construed as references to the sheriff."
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right honourable Member, is not in order on the Report stage.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Then, Sir, I hope I may move the re-committal of

    225
    the Bill. The Amendment is necessary through an omission in drafting. Words were inserted in Committee for extending the Bill to Ireland, but power to enable money to be paid out by Parliament was inadvertently omitted. I beg to move that the Bill be re-committed.
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    The House went into Committee.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTmoved—
    "Page 7, line 36, after 'Board,' insert 'and any expenses incurred under this section shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.'"
    *MR. W. JOHNSTON: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the right honourable Gentleman for extending this Bill to Ireland. I think that the expenses should be paid by Parliament. There has been an almost unanimous wish in Ireland in favour of the Bill, and I thank the right honourable Gentleman most heartily for extending it.
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That this Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    Agreed to.
    The House resumed.
    The Bill was reported.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I hope the House will now agree to read the Bill a third time.
    Question put—
    "That this Bill be now read a third time."
    Agreed to.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION (EXPENSES) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    "Resolved: That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to any persons employed by the Commissioners who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the University of London, and of all expenses incurred in the execution of such Act."—(Sir John Gorst.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a point on which I should like to ask your ruling, as to the matter of order which is involved, and also as to the consequences of departing from the ordinary custom of the House, and taking the Committee Stage on the money part of a Bill after it has been for some time before the Standing Committee. Now, Sir, this Bill, which is to establish a commission for the University of London, contains a main clause, and a portion of that clause, and a portion only, is in italics. It was outside the competence of the House of Lords to put in the money portion of the clause, and it came down to this House in italics, and is supposed by the custom of the House not to be in the Bill at all. The whole of the clause, of course, turns on the words in italics, the ether portion of the clause giving power to the Commissioners to employ, with the consent of the Treasury, any person they may think it necessary to employ. I believe it is contrary to the unbroken custom of the House, so far as I can discover, to consider any portion of a clause in Committee until the money Resolution is obtained and reported to the House; but the Standing Order is vague on the point, and not sufficiently definite. My contention is that the whole of the first clause, which is really the main portion of the Bill, is substantially of a financial nature. I have heard that it is the intention of the Government, after the Bill is reported, to recommit it, not for the purpose of introducing these words at present in italics, as a

    227
    portion of clause 1, but for the purpose of re-introducing them as a new clause. I do not know to what extent an irregularity has been committed, but I should be glad of your direction.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: As Chairman of the Grand Committee which considered this Bill I should like to say that in my opinion the money provision in the subsection underlined is not exactly on all fours with a Bill which goes up from this House containing a clause in italics. The money provision is not an integra; portion of the clause. The clause was complete in itself, and it came from the Lords without having any money provision. It would not be necessary, I apprehend, that a Commission set up by Act of Parliament should necessarily foe paid out of public money. There is no provision for the Scotch University Commission being paid. Accordingly, when this Bill came before the Grand Committee, and the point was taken by the right honourable Gentleman that, it being a money clause, it was not competent for the Committee to pass it, it appeared to me that the clause having been passed by the Lords, that it was competent for the Committee to pass it without inserting the money provision. I thought it best, Sir, that I should put that view of the case before you as chairman of the Grand Committee, and I may add, that it is well known to the House that the money clause was not moved in the House. The point was without exact precedent, and I ruled it to the best of my judgment.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I should have waited before answering the right honourable Gentleman until the Report came up, but as the Committee have already allowed the clause as amended by them and their proceedings on the clause to be printed, I thought after that it was unnecessary that. I should delay answering. No breach of order has been committed, as it appears to me, in what has been done. The only Standing Order which relates to the matter is that Standing Order which says that no charge shall be made upon the public Exchequer except
    228
    by Resolution in Committee of the House made on the Motion of the Minister of the Crown. That Standing Order has not been broken, and it is not too late for the necessary Resolution to be passed before the clause as to salaries is inserted in the Bill. As regards the other question as to whether there is any settled practice of the House which would prevent a Committee from acting as this Committee has done, I am not aware of any such settled practice or rule. That must be a matter of convenience depending upon, the particular clause. Whether, when a Bill goes before a Standing Committee, containing a blank, it would be better as a general rule to pass the necessary Resolution before sending it there may be worth consideration, but I am of opinion that there has been no breach of order here.
    Resolution to be reported.
    The House went into Committee [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair].
    House resumed.

    SUPPLY [15TH JULY].
    Resolutions reported—
  CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1898–9.
    CLASS 4.
    "1. That a sum, not exceeding £626,734, 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 Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
    CLASS 3.
    "2. That a sum, not exceeding £79,341, 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 Office of the Irish Land Commission."

    CLASS 7.
    "3. That a sum, not exceeding £13,792, 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 other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries.
    "4. That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for certain Expenditure, including sundry Grants in Aid, in connection with the Relief of Distress in Ireland."

    CLASS 2.
    "5. That a sum, not exceeding £2,835, 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 Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
    "6. That a sum, not exceeding £1,261, 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 Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."
    "7. That a sum, not exceeding £3,940, 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 Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."
    "8. That a sum, not exceeding £10,596, 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 in the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., said the Expenses of Collecting Agricultural and other Statistics in Ireland."
    "9. That a sum, not exceeding £7,100, 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 and Expenses of the Genera] Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland.
    Resolutions read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question put—
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Third Resolution—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,792, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum
    230
    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 other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries."
    *SIR C. DILKE: When the House was told on several occasions that Irish Supply was to be taken on last Friday I do not think that any Member of the House thought that the Temporary Commissions' Vote would have been included among the Votes to be taken. The Votes were so put down on the Paper that no Member who had not a very accurate acquaintance with the numbers of the Votes could possibly have imagined that the Temporary Commissions' Vote was to be included. I think, therefore, that there must have been an oversight, for though it does apply to Ireland, it is not an Irish Vote. We were told that Supply of Friday last would only include Irish Votes, and there must have been some misapprehension which caused the taking of this Vote amongst the Irish Votes on Friday last. I do not intend to detain the House upon the Vote to-night. There were two or three items in it of a very curious description, as to which it is always well that we should know what we are doing. There is the Colonisation Board Vote. We should like to know how long this Vote is going on. Will it be a permanent charge, or will it go on for some long time, or will it be stopped shortly? It is universally admitted that the Colonisation Board has been a complete failure, and yet we do not know for how long the Vote is going on. I am, however, glad at least to infer that there seems to be some prospect that it will be ultimately extinguished. There are several other Commissions the charge for which we always regret year by year, because we cannot help thinking that they are really Commissions which have been grantedl for the purpose of postponing action in various matters instead of promoting it. There are the Liquor Licensing Laws Commission and the Metropolitan Water Supply Commission, which I think would come under the category of having been granted for the purpose of postponing rather than of promoting action. There is, however, one Commission which

    231
    is not of that nature, which no doubt was granted for most excellent purposes, and which has been alluded to during our most recent Debates. Will the Secretary to the Treasury kindly say how long it is to be before the Local Taxation Commission reports, because that is a Commission which we hope means business, and we trust that the effect of the Report will be to remove, or, at any rate, to ameliorate, some of the mischievous inequalities which exist under the present system of rating, and which have been alluded to in recent Debates. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that the Report of that Commission is being most anxiously awaited by many of us.
    DR. CLARK: I was entirely unaware that that Vote was to be taken, or I should have been in my place for the purpose of discussing it. I am prepared now to move a reduction in consequence of the Vote for the Colonisation Board still being on the Estimates.
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is too late to move an Amendment for reduction now.
    DR. CLARK: If I cannot do it in the way of moving a reduction, I will do it as a whole as a protest against the Government knowingly misleading the House. I was here on Friday; I made inquiries; I was told in the usual fashion that there were only the Irish Estimates to be taken by the Conservative Member who pressed me for a pair, and I paired with him for the night. My absence was due to the fact that I was misled. I object to this Vote on other grounds. When this Vote was before the Committee last year I got a pledge from the Treasury that it would no longer appear in the Estimates, and it is a breach of that pledge that it again disgraces our Estimates. Here we have a Colonisation Board formed 10 years ago for the purpose of sending out a few crofters to Manitoba. I think two little settlements were formed, and I suppose by now that nine-tenths of the people have left their holdings. I remember going to one of these settlements myself, and finding that every man had left. Some had been sold up for not paying their taxes, and others had gone away; but there can
    232
    be no doubt that the thing has been a complete failure—a fact which the late Government admitted. The present Government have been in power for three years, and still keep up this miserable Board. They have not sent anybody over because the Report of the Select Committee was dead against them. We are keeping up this Board, we are paying a secretary here £100 a year, and we are paying an agent in Canada £250 a year, with an allowance of £25 a year for expenses. I have no objection to paying money where work is being done, but here is a Board which is practically dead, which has done no work for about 10 years, and yet you have not only a secretary over here whom you are paying for doing nothing, but you have an agent, in Canada whom you are paying mort; than double the amount to help him do nothing. And notwithstanding that, here we are asked, year after year, for a grant for this Board which both the late Government and the present Government admit is a dead failure, and a distinct pledge has been given that it should not be carried out any further. What reason on earth can there be adduced for keeping it up? The reason is this. You lent money to some of these people that you sent out. Do you expect it back? Very well, then! If you think that your excuse for spending £500 a year for the purpose of getting this money which you lent back again, it is a very bad one, for it is like spending 10s. to get back a penny. The Treasury knows from the Reports that there is not the slightest likelihood of getting it back. All these people are hopelessly bankrupt. They have all, or nearly all, been failures, and most of them have been turned out of their holdings for not paying their rates, or they have been turned out in some way or another. We had a full discussion last year on the Committee stage, and we got a practical pledge from the Treasury that this Vote should be abandoned and should not appear any further, because it was agreed on all hands that we were throwing good money after bad. I do not know why this Vote was sandwiched amongst the Irish Votes. It looks rather curious that that should have been so, notwithstanding the pledge that this Board should not be proceeded with further.
    *MR. HANBURY: I am quite sure that I gave no pledge that the Colonisation Board should not appear upon the Votes again. What I did say, with very great respect for the honourable Gentleman who has just spoken was, that I agreed with him that the Board had not been altogether a success. But it is necessary to keep up at least the framework of the organisation, because, while we do that there is some chance of recovering some portion of the money which has been lent. It may be said that the money recovered will not amount to what we are actually spending in order to recover it, but I confess that that is a method of looking at the matter which does not appeal to me. I can only hope that this is the last year in which it will appear. With regard to the statement as to this Vote for Temporary Commissions being taken with the Irish Votes, the difficulty arose in this way: as the right honourable Baronet knows, there is no numbering of the various divisions under this Vote, and we had very strong pressure brought to bear upon us by Irish Members who particularly wanted to discuss the Congested Districts Vote, and the only possibility of affording them an opportunity of doing that was to put down the Vote for Temporary Commissions. I presume that it was concluded that no portions of the Vote would be discussed except the Irish Congested Districts Board, and it was only when I saw this particular Vote put down in the name of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the place of my own name that I saw what had happened.
    DR. TANNER: Is not the right honourable Gentleman absolutely aware of the fact that the habitual custom of the House of Commons has always been to try and tiring the Irish Votes in connection with Irish business, in order to
    suit the habit and the custom of us who have to come from a very long distance in order to do our habitual duties in connection with the House of Commons? The right honourable Gentleman is one of those on the opposite side of the House whom I respect. There is no harm in saying that. If you like a man you may as well say you like him. I like the right honourable Gentleman, but I would ask him that, when he deals with Irish matters again, he should be more thoroughly informed, so as to put the House of Commons right.
    *SIR C. DILKE: The right honourable Gentleman did not answer my question as to the Local Taxation Commission.
    *MR. HANBURY: Perhaps the right honourable Baronet will put the question on the Paper—that will be the best way.
    MR. WARNER: I am not at all satisfied that I understand now how this apparent breach of faith arose. You cannot call a Commission an Irish Vote, and it is most important that these Commissions should be discussed. In this House, unfortunately, it is the custom of Governments, and I am afraid in this respect there is little difference between Liberal and Conservative, to refer things to Commissions that they want to put off, and the only way of pointing out the evils attaching to these things is to have the Vote for the Temporary Commissions discussed in this House. On this occasion the House has been utterly precluded from discussing the Temporary Commissions, because it has been put down as an Irish Vote. We do not recognise it as an Irish Vote, and inasmuch as several honourable Members have been deceived, and I myself have been deceived, I hope my honourable Friend will go to a Division.
    The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 36.—(Division List No. 228.)

    AYES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Carlile, William Walter

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H. (Bristol)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbysh)

    Baird, John George A.

    Bethell, Commander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

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

    Brassey, Albert

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

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Helder, Augustus

    Purvis, Robert

    Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pym, C. Guy

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Hornby, William Henry

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Howell, William Tudor

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hutchinson. Capt. G. W. G.

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Round, James

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Kemp, George

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kenyon, James

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lafone, Alfred

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll)

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Fergusson,RtHnSirJ. (Manch.)

    Llewelyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Finch, George H.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. B.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Garfit, William

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gedge, Sydney

    McKillop, James

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

    Gilliat,, John Saunders

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Milton, Viscount

    Wentworth, B. C Vernon-

    Gordon, Hon. John E.

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

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

    More, Robert Jasper

    Wodehouse. E. R. (Bath)

    Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

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

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

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Morrell, G. H.

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Gretton, John

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Greville, Captain

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    NOES

    Baker, Sir John

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

    Philipps, John Wynfor

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Joicey, Sir James

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Billson, Alfred

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Brigg, John

    Lough, Thomas

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Brunner. Sir John T.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Souttar, Robinson

    Caldwell James

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Colville, John

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Tennant, Harold John

    Daly, James

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Duckworth, James

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Dr. Clark and Mr. Cour-

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    tenay Warner.

    ERRATUM
    Thursday, 14th July 1898.
    Local Government (Ireland) Bill (No. 221.) Page 1016. In the Ayes insert Phillpotts, Captain Arthur.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION AND OTHER ANNUITIES AND ALLOWANCES).
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Superannuation and other Annuities and Allowances to Elementary School Teachers certificated by the Education Department (Queen's Recommendation signified), this day.—(Sir John Gorst.)
    House adjourned at 12.30.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet To-morrow.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAM- WAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNA MAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
TURNCHAPEL WHARVES AND WARE- HOUSES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION 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 said Bill, viz.—

E. Craven,

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Windsor,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (chairman),

L. Monk Bretton;

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet
6
To-morrow, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) 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 said Bills, viz.—

    M. Bath,

    M. Hertford,

    L. De L'Isle and Dudley,

    L. De Mauley,

    L. Rathmore (chairman);

    Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Friday next, at 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.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
    Report for the year 1897; Vol. XXXIX.

    SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
    Calendar, history, and general summary of regulations, for the year 1899; with tables.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
    Minutes of Committee of Council on Education, sanctioning the subjects to

    7
    be taught under clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for counties of—

    Middlesex (third minute);

    East Suffolk (fifth minute);

    Derby (sixth minute).

    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
    Scheme for the management of the foundation known as the Grammar School, in the Borough of Colchester, in the County of Essex, founded by charter or letters patent of King Henry VIII., dated the 12th November, 1539, and re-founded by letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, dated the 6th July, 1584, Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 157.]
  BILLS ADVANCED.
    METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
    Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 158.]
    VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 159.]
    MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    Read the first time, to be printed, and to be read the second time on Friday next (The Earl of Cranbrook). [No. 160.]
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIR- MATION (No. 1) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
    LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
    Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
    House again in Committee (according to order).
    The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl of MORLEY)in the Chair.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, lines 15 and 16, leave out 'and his decision thereon and his finding,' and insert and find.'"
    "Line 17, after 'disqualification,' insert 'and his decision on such questions of law and his finding as to any such fact.'"—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not think I shall occupy your Lordships' attention very long in moving this Amendment, because I rather hope that my noble Friend and I are at one with regard to the principle. The Amendment which I move is really for the object of making the intention of the clause clearer than it is, and with the object of making the language more direct. The language as it stands now appears to infer that the lay judge is to decide all matters connected with the fact of the unfitness or disqualifications of the presentees. What I want to do is to alter the clause so that there can be no doubt upon that point. I believe that to be the intention of the clause as it now exists, but I much prefer my version, inasmuch as I consider it to be more clear.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that the noble Lord's words are more clear, and I am prepared to accept them.
    Question put.
    Amendment carried.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 32, after 'justice,' insert 'provided that the bishop shall not be ordered to pay costs in any case in which the judge's finding is in his favour.' "—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
    *THE ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, it appears to me and to my brethren on the bench that it was not
    10
    unreasonable, inasmuch as we were abolishing the quare impedit and duplex querela in all these cases, that the bishops should be made a party to the proceedings, and consequently be liable to the payment of the costs as they would have been if these two modes of proceedings had still remained. In a suit for quart impedit or duplex querela, the bishop is liable to be cast in costs, but it did not seem quite just that when the bishop had been proved to be right upon the question of law and the question of fact that he should be liable to costs because his discretion was not confirmed by the archbishop. If the matter comes to a question of discretion it is obvious that the bishop is on the same footing as the judge, and ought to be set free from any consequences of his action, and I therefore propose to add—
    "Clause 3, line 32, the following words after the word 'justice,' 'provided that the bishop should not be ordered to pay costs in any casa in which the judge's finding is in his favour.'"
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I feel some difficulty in combating the argument that is in the most reverend prelate's mind, because his experience of costs in these matters must be so much, greater than my own. But I must ask him whether this Amendment of his is not somewhat dangerous? Does it not follow by implication that if these words were adopted that the bishop should always be ordered to pay costs in cases where the judge's findings were not in his favour? Is it not really better to leave the provision as to costs as it stands in the Bill? According to the Bill the question of costs is to be decided by the court—the whole court—that is, the judge and the archbishop sitting together. Personally, I think it would be wiser to leave the judge to correct the archbishop and the archbishop to correct the judge than to put in any specific directions of this kind which might possibly be double-edged. The Government have considered the most reverend prelate's Amendment, and I am bound to say that they prefer not to insert the Amendment, but to leave the Bill as it stands at present.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am bound to say that I am not convinced by the argument of the

    11
    noble Earl, but I do not feel that the point is of sufficient importance for me to press it upon the House against the decision of the Government, and therefore I will consent to its being withdrawn.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I cannot allow this short conversation to pass without pointing out that it raises really the great difficulty of this Bill—who is to pay? As I understand, if the bishop is wrong he is to pay. That is reasonable enough; but, also, if the bishop is right he is to pay—there is nobody else to pay. I believe there is nobody to pay for the room in which the proceedings are held; there is no way of paying for the judge who is to come, down; in fact, as an eminent legal authority said to me in almost a pathetic tone of voice, there is nothing to pay for even a clerk. I have no suggestion to make at this point, but I would earnestly commend this matter to the consideration of noble Lords, whether some means of paying for these expenses must not be provided, otherwise the Bill will become a dead letter.
    LORD HERSCHELL: As regards the Amendment, I quite agree with the noble Earl, because I do not know that anything will be gained by inserting it, and it is not necessary for any practical purposes. Of course, these costs could only be imposed upon the bishop, notwithstanding his success, by an agreement of opinion between the judge and the archbishop. I think it must be some very extraordinary case in which the judge and the archbishop should agree that though the bishop is right he is to pay the costs. I do not know that the case is of great importance; there is no practical danger in it, and therefore the matter can be left as it is. With regard to the observation of the noble Marquess, there is no doubt that the Bill does need serious alteration in the way of providing for the payment of expenses. Under this Bill all cases in the province of York are to be heard before the Archbishop of York. Therefore the judge must journey to the province of York in order that the case may be heard. But there is no provi-
    12
    sion for his expenses in going to the province. Whether he is expected to pay them himself I do not know, but I think some machinery is wanted, because, so far as I can see, there is not even any method as to how the court is to be called together. Is the archbishop to summon the judge, or is the judge to summon the archbishop? Some provision must be made or some machinery devised whereby the court can be brought together, and undoubtedly there must be some more machinery inserted than is to be found in the Bill.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think in respect of some part of the machinery—I am afraid I cannot say the same with reference to the question of expense—the objection might be obviated by making the learned judge, daring the time he occupies the position of a person nominated, a member of the Rule Committee of that particular body.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 41, leave out from 'archbishop' to the end of line 42, and insert 'a bishop of his province to be nominated by the Queen under her sign manual.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Amendment down in my name is of some importance. As the Bill stands at present, in the case of an appeal in the matter of a diocese belonging to either of the archbishops, it is obvious that the archbishop interested cannot sit in the Court of Appeal, and therefore the Bill provides that the other archbishop can take his place. I do not think that that provision is historically defensible, and I have accordingly put down an Amendment to the effect that the archbishop's place should be taken in that case by a bishop of his province, to be nominated by the Queen under her sign manual. The most reverend prelate has put down as an Amendment a provision that has been considered in connection with these Bills previously, and that is that the archbishop's place shall be taken by three bishops of his province. The question therefore, for your Lordships to decide is not as between the archbishop and the archbishop of the

    13
    other province, but as between one bishop of the province or three bishops of the province appointed under the Queen's sign manual. A very strong expression of opinion was given in the House of Commons against entrusting this system to three bishops of the province, the ground taken being that it was quite an unnecessary abstraction of the bishops from their already too onerous duties, and that to direct three bishops to do the work that one man could properly perform was undoubtedly trespassing upon their time. I do not think it is necessary to follow that argument at length. It is sufficient to state that it was thought of very great weight in the House of Commons, and it was that argument that made the majority so large when the Division took place. But there is really sound ground for objecting to the three bishops in the place of one. Three bishops have to be substituted for the archbishop, and the vote of the majority, I think, would have to reckon as the vote of the archbishop. But, my Lords, there are cases where it is not possible to say whether there is a majority at all. Take the question of costs. Each bishop might have a different view as to costs, and you would have the sitting archbishop and the archbishop divided into three, having between them four different opinions as to what the costs ought to be. It is quite obvious that in that case no order could be made, and, therefore, on the ground of convenience—and it is obvious that that found weight with the House of Commons—and on the grounds of detail connected with the work of the court, Her Majesty's Government, after very long deliberation, have come to the conclusion that they cannot accept the Amendment of the most reverend prelate, and that they must support the Amendment that is down in my name. I need scarcely say that the Amendment having been put down in the name of the most reverend prelate the greatest consideration and deference was given to it, and if the decision of Her Majesty's Government does not command the assent of the most reverend prelate I can only express my sincere regret for it; but after, as I said before, prolonged consideration, the Government are not able to accept his view of the case.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The argument which the noble Earl has just presented to us seems to me to be hardly consistent. He finds that to keep the Bill as it stands and to have an appeal from the archbishop of one province to the archbishop of another is without historical precedent and it certainly would be quite impossible to find any historical reason for allowing the archbishop of one province to intrude into the province of another; but he will, I think, equally find that there is no historical precedent for an appeal of this kind from an archbishop to one of his own suffragans. The idea of the Church generally was always that the appeal should be from the archbishop to his Synod—that is, all of his suffragans put together. But it is obvious that that would be too large a body, and that the proposal to have three of them is a proposal really to represent that body, and that is in accordance with the work of the Church in past times. But this proposal is certainly not in accordance with any such workings; and I think that in all these matters, when you are dealing with a Church which goes back so many centuries, it is of real importance that you should, if possible, make the clergy feel that the machinery used is machinery of a kind which harmonises with all the traditions of the Church in the past. I cannot say that the argument used by the noble Earl, that we might have these three bishops each with a separate opinion of his own as to what the costs are to be, and, therefore, there being, with the archbishop's opinion, four separate opinions upon that point, is a very powerful argument. They could talk it over till they came to a conclusion, and I have very little doubt that when you get three bishops talking it over together there would be two of them at least that would come to a harmonious conclusion, and thus they would outvote the third, and the decision of those two would be the decision of what would in other cases be come to by the archbishop. I do not deny that there are impossible things that may happen. You have always, of course, in legislating to bear that in mind; but I must say that I think these things are impossible. But it cannot be denied that the Government have introduced something which is totally at variance with our past history and alien to

    15
    our past traditions. I am quite sure that the clergy will dislike it, and I am quite sure that the bishops, as a rule, will also object to it very much.
    LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Earl said that the question was whether the matter should be left where the archbishop may not act to one bishop of his province or to three; but there is the preliminary question whether the matter is to be left as it is to one or other of the archbishops, as the case may be. That is the first question which is to be determined. Personally, I very much prefer the Bill as it stands to either of the amendments. It is quite true there is no historical precedent for an archbishop intervening in the case of an appeal with regard to a benefice not in his own province; but, then, the whole of this procedure is new. You are creating a new court, with new jurisdiction; and the question is, how can you best constitute it under the circumstances. The noble Earl's proposal sins against historical precedent; but there is no historical precedent for submitting the determination of an archbishop to an appeal heard by one of his own bishops. That is equally unsupported by historical precedent. Now, creating as you are this new court, is it not much better to put it in this way—that the Court of Appeal consists of the two archbishops, each acting for matters in his own province when he is qualified to act, but either archbishop acting when the archbishop of the province concerned happens to be not qualified to act because it is an appeal from himself. That seems to me to form a very proper and intelligent tribunal, and that is really the effect of it. You make the two archbishops members of the Appeal Court and one of them only acting, always for his own province when qualified; when disqualified, then the other archbishop acts in his stead. That seems to be much better than leaving it to one bishop in the province. It seems to me that there is something hardly seemly in the fact of an appeal from an archbishop to a bishop.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the most reverend prelate prefers the Bill as it stands, the Government are quite prepared to accept that view of the case. What they are not prepared to accept is the substitution of three bishops.
    *THH BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I very much prefer the archbishop's amendment. I believe it would work perfectly easily, and I cannot say that what the noble Earl has said has tended to diminish my belief in that regard.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Earl, I think, has carried deference to the most reverend prelate rather too far. I have much respect for the highest dignitary of the English Church; but this is one of the Houses of Legislature, and I do not think the question can be, or should be, decided simply upon the opinion of the most reverend prelate. We have to determine for ourselves, exercising our own judgment as to what will be best. I have no great qualifications to give an opinion; but where the question lies between the archbishop of one province and the bishop of the province, it seems to me far more seemly and dignified that the archbishop should act.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I do not think that there is any doubt about our wish, so far as the most reverend prelate is concerned, to carry conciliation as far as we possibly can. As it appears to the Government that the amendment they propose is unacceptable to the most reverend prelate, and as they cannot accept the most reverend prelate's amendment, they would much rather stand by the Bill as it is.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Is it my Amendment that you are putting?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Your Amendment and the Amendment of the noble Earl are both the same, and the Amendment has been put and lost.
    Question put—
    "That clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I should wish to say a very few words on a matter connected with this clause. This is one of the chief disciplinary clauses of the Bill: but I should be very sorry

    17
    if it were supposed that this is the beginning of discipline in the Church of England. On the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Marquess the head of Her Majesty's Government used the expression "There is no discipline in the Church of England," and a few moments afterwards he repeated, with considerable emphasis, "There is no discipline in the Church of England." I feel quite sure that the noble Marquess must have used this expression in some very limited sense, but at the same time it has given a good deal of offence and caused a good deal of anxiety to both clergy and laity. No one who has studied the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer can fail to see that a very considerable amount of discipline is entrusted to the bishops of the Church, and when we consider the Statutes now standing in the Statute Book giving power to the bishops to enforce that discipline—and the last of those Statutes we owe in a very great measure to the support and the guidance of the noble Marquess himself—we can hardly accept such an opinion as that "there is no discipline in the Church of England." It is quite true, my Lords, that we do not profess to exercise discipline of that despotic character which prevails in some other branches of the Church. We do not forget the injunction of the Apostle, who tells us that we are not to be lords over God's heritage, but to act as fathers and counsellors and brethren, and in that spirit we have always endeavoured to exercise our powers of discipline; and even in the extremest forms of discipline we are not without experience, I am sorry to say, both of the necessity for it, and of the power to use it. Within the last twelve months I have been obliged, I regret to say, to deprive a clergyman not only of his benefice, but of all authority to exercise his ministry under any circumstances whatever for all time to come; and within the same period I have on an appeal from a priest, similarly sentenced by one of my own suffragan bishops, supported the bishop's judgment and confirmed his sentence. In all of these ways I trust it may be understood, not only by your Lordships, but by the public outside these walls, that there is a very real and very effective discipline in the Church of England, that it has been exercised for
    18
    centuries, and is being exercised now from day to day.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The most reverend prelate, I am sorry to say, failed, no doubt through my fault, to understand the drift of the observation that I made. I never denied that the law of the Church of England was very distinct and quite adequate for its purpose, whether it be expressed in rubrics or in statutes or in canons; but discipline as expressed in rules and regulations is of no use unless those rules and regulations can be carried out; and the point of weakness in the present position of the Church of England which I desired to draw attention to was that it was gravely lacking in the means of carrying into effect the very wholesome rules and regulations that exist. The most reverend prelate apparently did not do so in words, but he traverses that contention, and says that there is an adequate discipline in the Church of England.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I did not say adequate. What I said was that there did exist discipline, and that that discipline was being constantly enforced.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Then we are very much agreed. My contention is that the discipline is inadequate, and is not such discipline as the Church ought to have. I do not confine this to questions of ritual and doctrine, in regard to which there is so much difference of opinion in the Church of England that too rigid a system of discipline might produce far greater evils than it would cure. We must look to the growth of greater agreement to allow discipline in that respect to assume a more effective form; but the experience of the most reverend prelate is very different from mine. If he will say that in all parts of England there is an adequate power of correcting and removing from their opportunities of exercising a pernicious influence men who are sinning not against rules of ritual and of dogma, but against those more primitive rules, the force of which we are all convinced is the misfortune of a great spiritual and moral machine like the Church of England, it is not my experience. I have heard to the contrary, all my life, on good authority, in many parts of England.

    19
    I am very willing to believe that the evil is steadily tending to disappear, though tending all too slowly; but still it is a great evil, and I think that the Church is unhappily distinct from all other services which are rendered to the community, in that the officers of it have not the power which they ought to have to secure an adequate performance of the duties imposed upon them by their Church. It is a matter upon which each man must form his own opinion. If any man is of opinion here, knowing the various parts of the country, that discipline is adequate, I have nothing further to say beyond saying that I have been led to form a different opinion. I am quite convinced that the right reverend bench is wanting in no effort in order to remove all cases of scandal or of evil influence, and I feel certain that they often make exertions which we have not a right to expect of them. My object was to impress upon the House that you must not only furnish the bishops with adequate regulations, but you must furnish them with adequate means of carrying them out before you can boast that there is sufficient discipline in an institution of such momentous importance as the Church of England.
    Motion agreed to.

    Question put and agreed to—
    "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners may, if they think fit, repay the costs incurred by any bishop in proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, or in a court constituted under this Act, and any costs which he may be compelled to pay to any other party in any such proceedings, and shall defray them in like manner as if they had been incurred by those commissioners in legal proceedings to which they were parties."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The observations just made by the most reverend prelate rather lead to the clause which I have ventured to put upon the Paper. It is not entirely my own idea, I have met noble Lords in other parts of the House who feel very strongly that
    20
    some means of relieving the difficulty which attaches to the working of this Bill, on account of the fact that there is no fund for carrying it out, is an evil that we ought to meet. Unless the bishops have sufficient power to carry out the authority reposed in their hands, that authority will be of little use. All law is very costly, and it is increasingly costly day by day; and ecclesiastical law is more costly than any other. I quoted instances the other day, and other instances will occur to every man's mind, of the enormous sacrifice which is imposed upon any bishop who wishes to exercise the powers that are reposed in him for the purpose of purifying and regulating the great and useful body that acts under his command. My Lords, you cannot expect that when the costs run to such figures as I have named—I mentioned one case where £1,600 was the penalty imposed upon the bishop for exercising his disciplinary powers—that the bishops will exercise their authority with that vigour and energy which is undoubtedly to be found in any public authority, if they were able to do so without inflicting upon themselves so enormous a private burden. I repeat that the Church of England is the only authority of a public kind where the superiors can only exercise discipline on their inferiors at their own most serious and grievous cost, and I am sure that the efficiency of the law must be affected by such a want. Unfortunately there is no other fund, as far as I know, excepting that to which I shall draw your attention, from which the costs of the bishop can be obtained. In all secular matters the State would pay the cost in every instance. I saw the other day that even the Incorporated Law Society, in order to maintain due discipline amongst the solicitors, received £5,000 a year from the Treasury in order to pay its expenses. There is no probability of any such liberality being exercised towards the bishops, and therefore I have suggested to the House the Ecclesiastical Common Fund. I am not proposing thereby the alienation of any properties from their ancient purposes or the abandonment of any ancient practice. Within our own lifetime Bishop Blomfield and Sir Robert Peel took the property belonging to the bishops and the cathedrals and used it for a most excellent purpose—for

    21
    the purpose of multiplying incumbencies in the Church. I do not for a moment depreciate the great value of the work which they then did; but when it comes to be a question whether you shall suppress scandals in the Church or whether you shall multiply incumbencies I am unable to say that the multiplication of incumbencies is in itself so superior an object that I should be content to pass the other by. I do not believe that the burden on the Common Fund would be great, but I think it would be quite as germane to the object for which these properties were anciently acquired and endowed as the object of creating new incumbencies in other parts of the country. I put it in that way merely out of consideration for the fact that there is really no other fund from which we could set this Bill in machinery at all. There is no other fund from which we could pay the expenses of the judge or the expenses of the court, or all the numerous expenses of machinery which the erection of a new court, of a new tribunal, and of a new system of jurisprudence must necessarily involve. There is no other means of getting the machinery into work, there is no other fund to support it; and if you refuse access to this fund I have no doubt that your new tribunal and your new jurisprudence will be a dead letter. Of course some doubt as to details has necessarily arisen. I have proposed that the determination as to whether the money shall be advanced or not in each case shall rest with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, but I gathered that such a provision would be distasteful to the Commissioners, and that in the minds of some persons it would perhaps be giving suggestion for invidious comment if a body so largely consisting of bishops as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to determine in each case whether a bishop was to be assisted. Without acknowledging the entire justice of such comments, I feel that perhaps it might be tending more to the acceptance of this proposal if another arrangement were made. I think I should prefer to make the application of the common fund, in paying the costs of the bishop, dependent in each case on a certificate from the judge that the proceedings were such that it was the duty of the bishop to undertake. If the
    22
    judge is willing to give that certificate, I think the common fund would be saved from any extravagant expenditure or from any action of a litigious bishop. On the other hand, you would give sufficient support to the action of the bishop as to ensure that our new legislation should not be entirely without effect. I do not of course deny that I would much rather not obtain it from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if I could get it from any other source; but there is positively no other source. It seems to me a most unwise proceeding to allow the maintenance of the discipline of the Church of England and its purification from such rare blots as occasionally occur to depend upon the willingness of the bishop to pay enormous sums out of his own private income. That does not seem to be wise; and, as I have said before, there is no other alternative left but to take this money from the common fund. I do not believe you are alienating it from any purpose to which it was originally destined, and I believe that with the precautions which I have suggested you may avoid any serious diminution of activity which has hitherto been shown in the most beneficent application of its authority.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very sorry that it appears to me to be my duty to deprecate very much the insertion of this clause, although there is so much to be said for it on the ground of logic. I do not dispute that the funds in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are derived from such a source that it would be quite consistent with the original purpose for which the money and the property were given to assign a part of the income of that property to the purpose which the noble Marquess proposes to assign it to. But we have to consider, I think, what is actually done with the money which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now have at their disposal. The purposes for which that money is used now are three. In the first place, the Act of Parliament requires that the money shall be used in the places where it is raised to provide those places with sufficient ministration, and those are called "local claims"; and those local claims are very far from being exhausted. We still have a very

    23
    considerable number, and we still find that there are a good many cases that we simply have to pass over because we have not funds as yet to deal with them. The work to be done there is to raise the income of benefices of very small value up to £300 a year. All these benefices are very small, and they have become very much smaller in consequence of the depreciation of the tithe-rent charge, and of the rents of the glebe lands. Now, here the Commissioners are acting under a very clear Act of Parliament and they are using this money as fast as they can use it for the purpose which the Act which governs their proceedings distinctly appointed. In the course of 1896 129 such applications were made; 51 cases received grants, 78 were declined for lack of funds. In 1897, 111 applications were made; 36 received grants, and 75 were declined for lack of funds. In 1898, 115 applications have been made; 44 have been granted, and 71 have not been granted for lack of funds. You will see, my Lords, how this works upon the poor clergy. That is one of the purposes for which the money is used. The second purpose is that of the augmenting; of small livings, for the augmentation of which benefactions have been made. There are a great many small livings where the landowners in the neighbourhood or other benevolent persons who know something about the parishes are ready to contribute considerable sums towards raising their incomes, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners meet these as far as they can. One hundred and fifty-two applications were made in 1896, and 102 were granted; 154 applications were made in 1897, and 96 were granted; 180 were made in this present year, and 103 were granted. In all of these cases the clergy were poor, and the grants were for the purpose of increasing their incomes. The third purpose for which the money is used is to provide ministration for large populations. For that purpose a number of new districts possessing a population of 4,000 and upwards have been endowed, and in the last three years there have been 50 cases of such endowment. They are dealt with in chronological order of application. There are only eight or nine which it is possible to deal with each year, because we have not funds to deal with more. Now, my
    24
    Lords, it certainly is by no means desirable that the bishops should have their expenses paid out of a fund which is being used to alleviate in some degree the great distress which has fallen upon a very large number of the incumbents of parishes. It may be that you may say the large parishes can wait; and the noble Marquess may possibly consider that it is better worth while to provide for the discipline of the Church under this Bill, than to provide for new churches and for new clergy for the growing populations of its country; but I cannot even agree with that—though it is really a different thing. But when you come to think of all these poor clergy who are now getting slow but real assistance year after year, considering how much they suffer and how heavily the blow has fallen upon them, considering all these things, it does not seem to me to be wise to relieve the bishops at the cost of prolonging the sufferings that these poor clergy have to bear. We are everywhere calling out upon the country to assist these poor clergy; and the bishops know better than anyone else can know how very seriously the clergy are suffering. They are men who from their position are naturally exceedingly unwilling to make their privations known to the public at large, and the bishop, as a rule, only knows them by learning incidentally what they are giving up. To give up the education of their children, sometimes to give up necessary recreation, sometimes to give up the maintenance of any servant at all, and all the time still to be maintaining the position which an English clergyman ought to maintain before his people, are indeed evidences of privations; and, knowing of the existence of these privations, it is very hard indeed that one of the funds which is now being used for the purpose of alleviating them is to be taken away, and taken away in order to take off the burden of this discipline from the bishops. It must be borne in mind that whilst the clergy generally have suffered so very severely from the depression in agriculture in both its forms—both rent of glebe and tithe-rent charge—the bishops have not suffered anything. Their incomes remain the same. You cannot wonder, my Lords, under these circumstances, that we should deprecate most earnestly anything being done at

    25
    such a time as this to relieve the bishops, in order to work this Bill at the cost of so many of these poor men. I cannot help hoping that even if it be said that you ought to provide for the mere machinery such as the cost of the judge and the cost of the room where he holds his court—even if you provide for those things and call upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to pay for them, it would come to no great charge; but to go on and say that the bishop himself is to be relieved out of such a source as this, I cannot in conscience bear even considering, although it is true that the expenses are heavy and that a bishop often finds himself severely pressed in consequence of those expenses. I do not deny it. I have suffered it myself, and I know perfectly well what it is, and I also know perfectly well that it is a real burden; but I would rather, far rather, bear the burden twice over than be relieved by anything which would diminish the means that are now used for the alleviation of the sufferings of our poor brethren in the ministry, and for that reason I deprecate the insertion of the clause; and if the noble Marquess still thinks there ought to be some sort of provision made for the mere machinery, that is, for such expenses as he mentions—the payment of the judge, the judge's travelling expenses, payment for the room, for the light, and for clerks—they would be necessary expenses, they would not be a very great amount, and I should not object to see them charged upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But I very earnestly hope that if the noble Marquess would take these matters into his consideration he will withdraw this clause now and consider still further what had better be done, and bring the matter up again upon the report stage.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Everybody, I think, must sympathise with the feelings which have dictated the speech which the most reverend prelate has just made. Undoubtedly from time to time complaints have been made of the burden which falls upon the bishops by reason of the necessity of their being called upon to enforce discipline and to punish offenders against the existing law; and the noble Marquess has endeavoured, in consequence of these complaints which have
    26
    been heard from time to time, to meet them in the manner provided for by this clause. Undoubtedly the principle of the burden of enforcing discipline falling entirely upon the bishop whose duty it is to enforce it is an unsound one. There can be no doubt about that. I do not for a moment suggest that any bishop would conscientiously refrain from enforcing the law for fear that he might cause a pecuniary burden to fall upon himself; but at the same time one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that it is impossible to doubt that at times there may be a tendency, perfectly unconsciously, to be less vigilant in seeing what is wrong and in endeavouring to put it right, when it means really that in putting it right a pecuniary burden is cast upon the bishop, and perhaps this would not be the case if the burden did not fall upon him personally. My Lords, I do not think that that can be doubted, and therefore it cannot be questioned that the existing law as it is fails and has a mischievous tendency in relation to the discipline which we all desire to see enforced for the purpose of preventing scandals occurring in the Church. The most reverend prelate objects to this particular source from which the expenditure is proposed to be derived on the ground that there exists only so much money, and that so far as it is taken for this purpose some of the poor clergy will be deprived of that assistance which they would otherwise receive. The most reverend prelate's objection does not go beyond that. There is no contention that they have a vested right to participate in these funds. I think the most reverend prelate has admitted that it would be perfectly allowable to use them in what seems to be the best interests of the Church. No doubt it is true that at the present time many of the clergy are hardly pressed. I think myself that that is largely the fault of the laity. If the clergy are so hard pressed in a Church consisting of laity possessed of such great wealth as the laity of the Church of England possess, it is a shame upon the laity that there should be no means of relieving the necessities of that depression, except by relying upon a fund which it is suggested might be usefully used for other Church purposes. Let the laity come forward and provide the means that are wanting for preventing the clergy from

    27
    starving. Nobody can be more conscious than I am of the immense distress to which some of the clergy are put, because I do not suppose any patron has such a number of miserable livings—you can hardly call them livings at all—to give away as the Lord Chancellor. The last time I was Lord Chancellor I had at my disposal ten livings, the best of which was £180 a year, and from that sum they reached down to £90, and therefore I am personally conscious of the bad lot of many of the clergy. No doubt, as far as I am concerned, it would seem impossible to press a proposal for the relief of the bishop, when the bishops would themselves gallantly rather bear the burden than see this fund drawn upon for such a purpose. I would venture to suggest whether, if that is the view of the right reverend bench, something might not be done in another way. The total amount of this burden is not a very great one. Of course, upon any individual question and during a particular year it might press very hardly indeed; but could not something be done in the way of a provision of a common fund out of which expenses of this description might be met. One can imagine that with an individual contribution from the several members of the right reverend bench to that fund you would create a fund of such dimensions that the burden would be fairly distributed and would prevent it falling with disastrous effect upon a particular individual in a particular year—in short, to create a mutual insurance fund. I would very respectfully suggest that to the consideration of the right reverend bench, if the matter is to remain upon their shoulders rather than to be thrown upon this common fund. "With regard to the expenses, however, it is obvious that unless they are provided for somehow, the provisions of this Bill are a dead letter. They must come out of some Church fund or other, and no Church fund has been suggested from which these expenses could be drawn, excepting it be that to which allusion has been made, and therefore, so far as these necessary expenses are concerned, I understand that the most reverend prelate admits that if these provisions are to have practical application, painful as it may be, there is no alternative but to draw from that fund.
    THE PREMIEK AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am very sorry to hear of the view taken by the most reverend prelate. I think that the sentiments which he expressed were sentiments with which everyone of us deeply sympathises, but I do not think they were connected logically with the argument which he was supporting. If I understood him aright, there are three purposes to which the common fund is now devoted, but the whole weight of his deprecatory argument reposes upon that part of the fund which is given for the relief of the poor clergy.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Two out of the three.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Then let the third purpose bear the burden of this Bill. I agree with him most earnestly in not desiring to increase the burden which now rests upon the poor clergy, or to take from them any relief which they can hope for from the common fund; but the mere multiplication of incumbencies, though a very desirable object, does not raise the considerations upon which the most reverend prelate dwelt with so much feeling, and it does not seem to me to be in itself a matter of such supreme importance as the proper execution of the disciplinary parts of this Bill. What I should suggest, however, as there are points upon which we agree with the most reverend prelate, and as there are some differences of opinion also, is that at a further stage of the Bill power should be given to the rule-making body in words, which would have to be very carefully considered, what expenses for the carrying out of the Bill and for the relief of the bishops should be charged upon the common fund, and inserting most distinctly that no part of the common fund is to be devoted to paying those expenses which would otherwise be given to increasing the incomes of the impoverished clergy. I think these things should be inserted in clause 9, which is the rule clause; and we may at least get some assistance towards the carrying out of this Bill from that common fund. I certainly think that if that assistance is refused the disciplinary part of the Bill would be of no service whatever.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 4, line 8, omit 'of.'"
    "Page 4, line 9, omit '(a) the period,' and insert 'in the case of the first and second presentation by the patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period."
    "Page 4, lines 10 and 11, omit 'or (b),' and insert 'or of.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBOBNE: I have an Amendment, which is not on 'the Paper, to come in at line 7. This clause as it stands at present effects a very important change in the laws in the matter of lapsing. I believe the present state of the law is this: that if a patron presents on a vacancy, and the bishop refuses to institute, and the patron then seeks for a remedy at law known as quart impedit, if the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench is given in the patron's favour, of course the patron holds, and if it is given in favour of the bishop all that period goes towards that lapse of six months at the end of which time the bishop may himself present. There is an exception to this, and that is if the bishop can be shown to have been negligent in taking proper steps for examining the presentee, and performing his duties, as it were, to have rather obstructed the presentation in order to obtain the advantage of the lapse, then that period is not allowed to count towards the lapse. But in ordinary cases—in the case of a quare impedit—if it were given in favour of the bishop after an interval of six months, the presentation would have lapsed to the bishop. That, I believe, is, generally speaking, the present state of the law. Clause 5 of this Bill makes very great and important changes in that respect. You lordships will notice that under it the whole period between a presentation by the patron and the decision of the court on the appeal against the refusal of the bishop to institute is no longer to count for lapse. Allow me to give an illustration under the present law. If a benefice became vacant on the 1st of January, and the patron was to present on the 10th of January, and the bishop refused to institute, and the patron were then to have recourse to quare impedit, if the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench were given in favour of the bishop on the 1st of July the presentation would then have lapsed to the bishop. We
    30
    will now take an illustration of what is proposed by this Bill. We will suppose again that the benefice became vacant on the 1st of January, and that the patron presented on the 10th, and that the court constituted under this Bill gave its decision in favour of the bishop on the 1st of July, none of that six months excepting the first 10 days of January would count towards the lapse. That you will see, my Lords, at once is a very great change of the law in the patron's favour. But it is conceivable that this sort of thing might occur twice, and, the same history of the case being repeated at the end of the year, the benefice might still be vacant and only 20 days would be possible to be counted towards lapse. I admit that it is almost inconceivable that there should be a patron who should have a list of incumbents whom he would present one after another and whom the bishop would in duty bound refuse to institute, and whom the court would also consider unfit persons to hold an incumbency; but it is just conceivable that a man might be so perverse that he would make no attempt to find a suitable man for the living; rather on the contrary: or the patron—and there are many thousands of them—migh the really incompetent to make a proper choice; and therefore I think, as the noble and learned Lord opposite pointed out upon the Second Reading, some provision is necessary to prevent a series of presentations ad infinitum with only a few days counting in each case towards lapse. The Amendments I am proposing are to this effect: that the provisions in favour of the patron which are now in this Bill should hold good as in this Bill for the first two presentations to any given vacancy, but after two presentations have been made and the refusal of the bishop to institute has been upheld, these special provisions against lapse should not continue, and that the present law should be allowed to have its way. Your Lordships will observe that still the advantage to the patrons under the present state of the law is very considerable. The first Amendment that I have to move is—
    "Page 4, line 8, omit 'of.'"
    "Page 4, line 9, omit '(a) the period,' and insert 'in the case of the first and the second

    31
    presentation by the patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period.'"
    The clause would then run—
    "In reckoning the date for lapse, no account shall be taken in the case of the first and second presentation by the patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period between a presentation by the patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee.'"
    If your Lordships consent to that Amendment I shall propose—
    "Lines 10 and 11, to omit 'or (b),' and insert 'or of.'"
    "Line 13, omit '(c),' and insert 'nor.'"
    The whole clause would then run—
    "In reckoning the date for lapse, no account shall be taken in the case of the first and second presentation by a patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period between a presentation by the patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee; or of the period between the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit and the decision of the court upon such refusal; nor in case of a bishop having a right to collate to a benefice the period between the provisions of this Act and the expiration of a month from the said service."
    LORD HERSCHELL: I think I can give my opinion upon this Amendment of the noble Earl's, that is, so far as I could gather what it meant from what he said, and I do not think it is an unreasonable one. The noble Earl has alluded to the alteration made in the rights of patrons as regards lapses, and to the advantage derived by patrons by means of the present Bill. I think it is quite right that there should be an alteration in that direction, because it must be remembered that previously there were only two or three causes for which the bishop could refuse to institute, and they were causes in which the patron could have no doubt that he was presenting someone who ought not to be presented. In the present case a considerable discretion is left to the bishop, and, obviously, therefore, a patron acting in good faith may send someone whom the Bishop might, on consideration, properly refuse to institute under the powers given to him in this Bill. That being so, it is perfectly proper that you should not count the period for the purposes of lapses in the same way as you do under the existing law,
    32
    but, at the same time, if you allow a patron to present twice to the same vacancy and you give him the benefit of this clause you have done probably quite as much as you can reasonably be called upon to do. I do not think, however, that there would hardly ever be a case where a patron acting in good faith and reasonably would really present more than twice to the same vacancy, and after two refusals confirmed on appeal it seems to me not unreasonable that from that time you should begin to count for lapse as you do now under the existing law. Therefore, personally, I think without, any prolonged consideration I do not at present see any objection to the Amendment.
    Question put.
    Amendment carried.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I have an Amendment down on the Paper to meet a point of mine which I raised on the Second Reading with reference to the repeated presentation of a presentee; but I see that the noble Earl has proposed an Amendment much to the same purpose. It meets the same point in another way, and as I have no particular love for my own way I am quite content that the noble Earl's Amendment should be adopted in preference to my own.
    "Provided that a patron may not present again a person who has been refused by the bishop in respect of the same vacancy, and any such second presentation shall be void."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think, with the permission of your Lordships, I will move this Amendment to follow the next clause.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Will it be right in the next clause? That only relates to a clerical patron.
    Question put, and agreed to—
    "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    "Page 4, line 20, leave out 'though,' and insert 'if.' "—(The. Archbishop of York.)
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: This Amendment is only an Amendment of drafting. I am not very familiar with

    33
    the English used by draftsmen, but the proper expression seems to be "if he were a lay patron," and not "though he were a lay patron."
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to know what the most reverend prelate supposes the distinction to be.
    *THE ARCHBLSIIOP OF YORK: There is, I believe, a distinction, but the noble and learned Lord must know.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the most reverend prelate move it?
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: If the House is satisfied with the grammar, I am.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg now to move the Amendment which I had intended to move to follow line 16 of clause 5, only, instead of beginning, as it is on the Paper, "Provided that a patron," I beg to move it in the following form—
    "A patron may not present again a person who has been refused by the Bishop in respect of the same vacancy, and any such second presentation shall be void."
    That Amendment, my Lords, is to meet the case that the noble and learned Lord put to you on the Second Reading, to prevent a man going on presenting a young clergyman till he had attained an age which would prevent the Bishop from any longer denying him institution.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I would suggest that that had better be the first subsection, because if it comes in after the clerical patron it might be thought only to apply to clerical patrons. If it were the first sub-section it would be perfectly clear; besides, it is more logical to do it in that way when you are going to put the presentee of a clerical patron in the same position as the presentee of a lay patron.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put, and agreed to—
    "That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    "After clause 6 insert the following new clause—
    "(7) So much of the Statutes 3 and 4, James I., cap. 5, sect. 13, and I. William and Mary, cap 26, sect. 2, is hereby repealed as prevents the chancellors and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from presenting or nominating to the benefices and livings there mentioned persons already holding any benefice with cure of souls, provided that nothing be done in contravention of the other Acts regulating the holding of benefices in plurality. And, further, the said Universities shall be permitted to elect to such benefices, and to exercise any other rights, that they may possess in respect to them in any way that they may hereafter, by statute or ordinance of the University, made in the ordinary manner from time to time determine to be expedient."—(The Bishop of Salisbury.)
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I hope I may ask your Lordships' indulgence to this clause, for although it takes up a certain number of lines on the Paper, it is an exceedingly simple one, and it raises no question of principle or controversy whatever. It is simply administrative, to enable the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to have, in the first place, the same rights as other patrons have for nominating to a certain class of benefices, which rights are now denied them under ancient Statutes made when there was reason for making them, but which reason has now passed away. The second part of the clause allows them to do what, I think, I heard your Lordships assent to the other night as the right thing to do when there is a very large elective body of some thousands of people, to elect by means of a committee instead of giving everyone who has the franchise power to exercise his vote. Let me explain what happens. These benefices, which are here touched, are benefices in the hands of Roman Catholic patrons, which they do not think it worth while to put in trust or to deal with otherwise. They are generally very small benefices as regards income—a sort of derelict benefices of which I have three or four in the diocese over which I am called to preside. Directly these become vacant I am in the greatest possible anxiety as to what is going to happen, judging by what has happened

    35
    in the past. I do not wish to say anything unkind of the class of men who have attained these benefices, but I cannot honestly say that it is one to which any small body of patrons or trustees would naturally look. They are men who do not mind standing the test of a contested election, and who, not having generally held any benefice, may be considered unlikely to be very useful. No man who holds a benefice can offer himself for election to one of these benefices unless he is willing to resign it. I will not say anything about the second part. That does not take away from the Convocation of Oxford and the Senate of Cambridge any privileges, but leaves them free to regulate their right to election in their own way. This clause does not in any way touch the interests of the Roman Catholic patrons at all. It is neither for nor against them; it merely enables the Universities to exercise the powers which Parliament has thought fit to give them in a better way, and I very sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will be good enough to allow this clause to pass, because I can honestly say that, as a bishop trying to exercise discipline—very imperfectly, no doubt, but still honestly trying to exercise it—I have found it exceedingly difficult to work the present system.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is rather a technical matter that is contained in the clause brought forward by the most reverend prelate. I understand that there are two cases to be met—the case where the universities are debarred from presenting the holder of a present benefice, and the fact that there is no real provision for a university to establish machinery to exercise its patronage. The Government have no objection to the clause.
    LORD HERSCHELL: So far as the second part of this clause is concerned, I quite approve of it, because the present mode of election by universities to benefices is both inconvenient and undesirable, and it is better that the universities should determine how their rights should be exercised, but I do not understand the first part. The Plurality Acts provide against a person holding more than one living, except under certain circum-
    36
    stances. Is this to allow a person to hold any number of livings?
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY:
    "So much of the Statutes," and so on, "is hereby repealed as prevents the chancellor and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from presenting or nominating to the benefices and livings there mentioned persons already holding any benefice with cure of souls, provided that nothing be done in contravention of the other Acts regulating the holding of benefices in plurality."
    I may say that I have had two neighbouring benefices in my diocese recently vacant. One is worth £30, and the other is worth £200, and it is most desirable that these two should be held together; but under the present law that could not be done, except through the fact that owing to an accident the university was able to elect first to the Roman Catholic benefice, and then the patron was able to present to the second. If it had been the other way, these two little benefices, which ought to be joined together on every ground, could not possibly have been held together.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not at all understand this clause. There is a general law against pluralities, and I understand that it is very inconvenient in certain cases of small livings, to which the universities present, that that law should prevail.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: The universities are under a disability which has never been repealed through an accident. As your Lordships are aware, no Act of Parliament is repealed excepting in distinct terms, and this was overlooked by accident when the Pluralities Acts were amended.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: By the Act of William and Mary, the universities cannot present a person actually in the occupation of any living. I do not imagine that if you pass this clause a man will be able to go on holding the two livings, but he will be capable of being presented; he must then resign the other, of course, unless it is within the limits of distance allowed by the Act.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: The remarks of the noble Marquess quite explain the matter.
    Question put—
    "That the new clause stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.
    *LORD CLINTON: There seems to be an Amendment required in this clause. As it stands the commissioners who are to be appointed are to be nominated by the chairman of quarter sessions of the county. In some counties there are more chairmen than one. In the county to which I belong there are three all of equal rank, and, therefore, if the necessity should arise of appointing a commissioner under this clause, it will not be known by which of those chairmen the nomination should be made. The same question arose under the Benefices Resignation Act, and I think an Amendment was made that the words "chairmen of the quarter sessions of the county" should be struck out, and these words were inserted—
    "nominated by a person who presided as chairman at the last preceding sessions, or, if there be no such person, then by the lord lieutenant of the county."
    Those words removed that difficulty. I have given the noble Earl private notice of my intention to move this Amendment, and, if he has no objection, I would move that those words be inserted.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Will that quite meet the case of Yorkshire? In Yorkshire, I believe the East Riding and the West Riding are different counties, and there are, of course, different chairmen for the sessions; I believe in Lancashire it is the same. I do not think that the words of the noble Lord would meet the case of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Of course, it is another thing when you have distinct divisions of a county.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Would it not be simpler if you made it "senior standing chairman"?
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The cases mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—the West Riding and the East Riding—are separate counties.
    LORD HERSCHELL: There are separate sessions, but, of course, they are all the same county. The clause says—
    "The chairmen of quarter sessions of the county."
    Probably the difficulty might be met by a definition applicable to such cases. I do not think the noble Lord will find much difficulty in getting a definition clause.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, I will consider it on Report.
    LORD CLINTON: Certainly.
    Question put—
    "Page 4, clause 7, line 23, strike out 'Act,' and insert 'Acts.'"
    Amendment accepted.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have an Amendment to clause 8 which is substantially the same as the Amendment proposed by the Earl of Selborne, and I think that his Amendment, if it be accepted, will cover all the ground covered by both of mine, and I am very well content that his should take precedence.
    "Page 4, line 33, leave out from 'reports' to 'himself' in line 36, and insert 'that the ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that this is due to the fact that the incumbent of the benefice has been negligent in the performance of those duties (which report the commission is hereby required to make), the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will move the Amendment on the Paper with a slight change in the wording. If your Lordships will look at this Amendment on the Paper, the wording there runs—
    "Leave out from 'reports' to 'himself,' in line 36, and insert 'that the ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that this is due to the fact that the incumbent of the benefice has been negligent in the performance of those duties (which report the commission is hereby required to make), the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall.'"
    I propose to alter that, so that it should run—
    "That the ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that that is due to the negligence of the incumbent of the

    39
    benefice in the performance of those duties, which report the commission is hereby required to make, the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall."
    I think I can explain briefly why this Amendment is necessary. Hitherto the question of negligence has only been treated by implication. Negligence was only mentioned in the Act of 1838 quits incidentally. The whole clause, and the question of the appointment of a Commission, was based on the question as to whether the ecclesiastical duties of the post had been adequately performed. Negligence was not mentioned. Then when it came to the question of the salary which the bishop was entitled to allow to the curate out of the income of the benefice, these words were inserted—
    "That the stipend was not to exceed more than one-half, excepting in cases of negligence, which, of course, by implication, would lead the court to suppose that they would have to report on negligence."
    That is the reason why we have inserted here that the Commission is empowered to report on negligence if it think fit.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 21, after 'after,' insert 'such appointment or.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I now come to an Amendment of some importance, and I am sorry that in moving this Amendment I shall find myself not wholly in agreement with the Amendment of the most reverend prelate. As this clause left the House of Commons it might have given rise to a conflict of jurisdiction. I should be glad if your Lordships would bear in mind that this clause is dealing with the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act of 1885. As this clause left the House of Commons, it is possible that an appeal against the appointment of a curate in case of negligence might have laid to the archbishop under the old Acts, and also, on the subsequent inhibition of the incumbent, to the new court, constituted under this Bill; and it was possible that the archbishop might have found in the case of his appeal that there had been negligence, and the
    40
    court might have found on appeal that there had not been negligence. Her Majesty's Government desired to avoid any possibility of conflict of jurisdiction. I think, so far, I should carry the most reverend prelate with me. The Government desired that there could be no possibility of the same case coming up for revision, both before the archbishop under the old Acts and before this new court under this Bill, and we have met that desire by words, which, taken together, have this effect: that no case of a report of negligence could henceforth proceed under the old appeal, and in no case where there is a report of negligence can the bishop proceed under this Bill. Therefore, the old Acts will be the Acts, under which the bishop will proceed with an appeal to the archbishop in any case where a Commission has been appointed, and that Commission does not report that there has been negligence, but reports that the inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties is not negligence, but physical infirmity or physical incapacity. This will go on appeal to the archbishop, and cannot by any possibility come before this new court; but if the Commission report that the inadequate performance of these ecclesiastical duties is due to negligence, then the bishop will have to proceed under this Bill, and the appeal will lie to the court constituted under this Bill. Now, my Lords, so much, for the way in which the Government have endeavoured to avoid the conflict of jurisdiction. The question remains whether the Government have been right in adhering to the court proposed under this Bill, and not referring to the court of the archbishop, which was the court, of appeal under the old Acts. I do not deny, my Lords, that there is room for a conflict of opinion in the matter, but I can say that it has received the very careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and on review of the details and arguments pro and con the Government came to the conclusion that it was distinctly in the interests of the smooth working of this Bill, and if its effect upon the efficiency of Church discipline, that the court established by the Bill should be adhered to. A great deal will be done in the future if this court works effectively. If all that is hoped by the promoters of this Bill from

    41
    this court is achieved, Parliament may be inclined to give further powers to it in connection with Church discipline; but in. order that there may be a possibility of such a development of the duties and functions of the court, it is absolutely necessary that it should be a court that should command the whole confidence of the country, whether it is looked at from the point of view of the clergyman, or from the point of view of ecclesiastical discipline. Now, I have mentioned that the constitution of this court gets over the inherent difficulties of this case. It leaves to the judge, who is trained to balance evidence, which never can be, or has been part of the training of the bishop or of the archbishop, to see whether the incumbent has been guilty of negligence as aforesaid. If the judge finds that such negligence has in fact existed, then it leaves the administration and disciplinary decision in the hands of the archbishop. I cannot think, my Lords, that it would be easy to find a court that would really solve the difficulties of the problem more perfectly than this one. It has been the subject of very prolonged Debates in the other House of Parliament, and it represents a compromise which differs from most compromises in that I believe it wholly satisfies all parties to the argument—that is to say, in the other House; and I would go further, my Lords, and say that this court not only may prove a strong court to which further functions may hereafter be given, but that this court will be a great protection to the bishop in the exercise of the powers entrusted to him under this Act, because, just consider, such a case as this may possibly arise: a bishop might, proceed against a clergyman on grounds which afterwards became the subject of a libel action. The bishop would send the case to the Commission. The Commission would report that there had been grounds in the incumbent's conduct that warranted the bishop taking action. The incumbent might appeal, and the archbishop might find that in fact the grounds alleged against this incumbent were sufficient to justify the appointment of a curate, and the inhibition might hold good. But, afterwards, on an action of libel arising exactly upon the same facts on which the bishop and the archbishop
    42
    had proceeded, a judge and jury might find that in fact those facts had not been proved, and that the grounds of action did not exist, and then there would be a danger of a very serious cry against the capacity of such a tribunal as that, which was supposed to balance and weigh legal evidence, when, on the other hand, it would be a case in the public estimation of the opinion of a judge of the High Court endorsed by the opinion of a jury against the opinion of a bishop or an archbishop. According to the plan of the Government, even if such an action arose, and such a different view were taken by the judge and jury of the High Court, it would not be the archbishop that would have to bear the brunt—it would be the judge; it would be the case of one judge against another judge, and I think that the shoulders of the judge are much more able to bear the brunt in such a case as that than are the shoulders of an archbishop. I can quite conceive, in such a case, that the popular outcry would arise against the ability of an archbishop to weigh questions of evidence when such evidence was seriously affecting the position of an incumbent; because, my Lords, you must remember that this inhibition is a new provision in this Act; it is not one that exists in the Pluralities Acts. Inhibition, to my mind, is no more than depriving an incumbent of his living who wilfully and persistently neglects his duties, and possibly does all he can to prevent a curate, who is put in, from discharging his duties for him. Such a man deserves inhibition, but he only deserves it if the means by which he is proceeded against are without flaw in law, and it would be a very serious thing indeed for Church discipline if such a stringent provision as this were not carried out with the utmost care, because inhibition is the most dreadful thing that can happen to a clergyman, and the greatest harm would be done if it could even be thought that he could suffer inhibition on grounds that would not bear examination before a judge of the High Court and a jury. Therefore, for these reasons combined, the Government have decided to abide by the tribunal, which is provided in this Bill as it came from the House of Commons. I can assure the most reverend prelate that his Amendment has received

    43
    the most careful and earnest consideration, but the Government are not able to adopt it. I move the Amendment to line 21, as an instalment in consolidating the position of this court, from the working of which Her Majesty's Government really expect beneficent results to the discipline of the Church.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have not been able to follow at all the logic of the noble Earl's speech, and it seems to me, I must confess, that a great deal of it is directed against the wrong thing. According to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, the archbishop will still be the appellant judge when the Commission does report negligence, and the appeal, therefore, on the question of fact brought before the Commission will be to the archbishop alone, and will not go before the judge; but if the bishop inhibits on the ground of a report of negligence, then the appeal is to lie to the court. It does seem to me, I confess, that it ought to be quite the other way. The question of fact is one that may be very well referred to the judge, but the question of negligence is really a professional question, and in every profession the professional question is always dealt with by professionals. What is right conduct for a clergyman will be a matter which the archbishop will be able to judge of, or he is not fit for his office. Whether or not the man was negligent is precisely one of the things which he, more than anyone else, is capable of deciding, and the result, of referring it to a judge will very speedily be this, that the judge will, little by little, surround the question of negligence with subtle decisions, and you will very soon find that a distinction has arisen, both in men's minds and in the courts, between negligence and legal negligence, and you will happen to say, "Yes, he was an idle man, he did not do his work certainly, but he was not legally negligent; he has kept himself within the law." That is really not a very good way of working such a clause as this. If there is anything that ought to be referred to professional judgment, it is precisely this very question of negligence. I should not at all object to reversing the proposal, and letting the court judge
    44
    of the facts of the case, and leaving the archbishop to judge of the question of negligence, because that is precisely parallel to what you do in regard to a man who is presented to a living, but who is to be refused on certain definite grounds, and after it has been settled that those reasons are sufficient to justify the bishop, it is within the discretion of the archbishop to say whether, although the bishop had sufficient reasons to use his discretion, he had used it rightly. This is precisely a parallel case. The appeal upon that question is in clause 3, upon a question of the suitability of the man for the place, and his character, and the question as to his fitness for the work, is left to the archbishop alone. When once the facts have been ascertained, then the archbishop is to confirm or over-ride the discretion of the bishop. Well, as I say, that is a parallel case to this. Here is a man who is found by the Commission to have performed his duties inadequately. He has not done what the parish has a right to require from him to do, and then comes the question—is that due to negligence? The obvious man to decide that is the strictly professional man, and I cannot help thinking that we shall very seriously hamper the work of this Bill if we allow decisions to be made, and reasons given, and substitute a sort of rule-made law by successive judges for the judgment of the archbishop as to whether or not this man has really neglected his duty. My Lords, it is obvious that in any profession whatever an outsider will take a very different view as regards what is professional duty from those who are inside the profession. In all cases where there is a judgment of professional work to be made, to the profession it is left to make that judgment. Questions of fact are totally different questions. Under this Bill it is proposed to leave questions, of fact as they are now left, to a Commission, with an appeal to the archbishop, and when the strictly professional question comes forward, it is proposed that the judge shall step in, and that he shall decide whether or not the fact of negligence exists. "Negligence," my Lords, is a very loose sort of word. It is not like a fact that you could find by simply putting together evidence,

    45
    "Did this man do this or did he not?" but it refers to the whole spirit of the man's conduct in his parish. Of course, if the Government insist upon their way of doing it I cannot hope to alter their opinion, but I venture to think, nevertheless, that the proposal of the Government is a mistake, and that my proposal is a very much better one.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I think that the most reverend prelate has argued against himself without knowing it. The question of negligence is, perhaps, rather a loose phrase, but if you analyse it into its elements it really means the neglect of some duty. Let me remind the most reverend prelate that judges and juries have to decide cases in which professional questions are involved. We have constantly, in our courts, questions of the negligence of medical men; and other most difficult questions for investigation relating to professional matters come constantly before our courts. No doubt what the most reverend prelate said is true. The phrase is a loose one; but if you resolve it into its component parts, it is in the strictest sense a question of fact, and I do not anticipate that any learned judge who sat with the archbishop would hesitate to consult the archbishop upon any subject that might be appropriate as to the consideration of what was, or what was not, the duty of the clergyman in a particular case. After all, there are definite duties which a clergyman has to perform, and which duties can be definitely stated, and proof can be given whether they have been performed; and, if they have not been performed, the reason or excuse for their non-performance would be a question for the judge to consider. I doubt whether there is any part of the inquiry which is not in the strictest sense of the word a question of fact, and, under those circumstances, it appears to me that these tribunals, which have been in the habit of administering justice, are very appropriate and proper tribunals to enter into a consideration of all these matters.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble and learned Lord says that the duties are definite duties, but I think every bishop will tell him that a great
    46
    many of the duties which a clergyman ought to perform in his parish are very indefinite duties.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If that is so, I do not know what tribunal could deal with them. If the duties of the clergyman are so indefinite that they are incapable of definite; expression, I quite fail to see how any tribunal can deal with them.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: These clergymen have first to go into a court, and before a carefully chosen jury of persons who know them, and then before the bishop. In my opinion, it is very undesirable that judges should have more power in reducing the standard of clerical morality than they have already. I beg your Lordships' pardon, but if that is not so, will you kindly tell me why the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, was required? It was because the judges had gradually reduced the standard of punishment for clerical immorality that it had become necessary.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is rather a serious principle at stake in this matter. It has been the practice of this country for a long period that in matters of this kind we do not constitute strictly an ecclesiastical court; what we do is, that when a man is to be judged upon points of fact, we say that he ought to be judged by a lay judge, and it seems to me that in this respect the clause is properly framed. The judge will find upon the facts, and then the archbishop, on the finding of the judge as to the facts, will say what penalty shall be inflicted. I hope the Government will abide by the clause as it stands.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 26, leave out 'inhibition,' and insert 'appointment and inhibition, if any, or either of them.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 28, after 'thereof,' insert 'the said appointment should have been made, and also whether.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 33, after 'Act,' insert 'with respect to procedure.'"
    Insert as a new clause*—
    "(9) It is hereby enacted that all articles of agreement relating to the patronage of churches or chapels (under section twenty-three of the Church Building Act, 1845) shall be recorded in full in the registry of the diocese within two months from the execution thereof, and a certificate thereof shall be endorsed on the same, and signed by the registrar of the diocese before the articles of agreement can be legally acted upon."—(Lord Ludlow.)
    *LORD LUDLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of the clause, which stands in my name. There are some verbal matters in the clause, as it appears on the Paper, about which I should wish to say a word presently. But I will shortly state what the object of this clause is. By the Church Building Act, 1845, articles of agreement are authorised—
    "Binding articles of agreement may be made between the patron, the bishop, and the incumbent, for the purpose of recording the rights of patronage in the future."
    That Act was passed in 1845, and in 1848 an amending Act was passed. That Act recited that certain difficulties, existed as to whether or not more than one nomination might be governed by these articles of agreement, and the Act went on to state that the articles of agreement might govern the right, of patronage in perpetuity. It is obvious that these articles of agreement, are most important documents. In point of fact they are the title deeds to the patronage of the benefice, but there is no particular place of deposit for these very important documents. Generally they are left in the hands of the patrons, and very often they are lost; and I have known cases which I could state, if it were necessary, where they have been lost, and where very great inconvenience and confusion has arisen in consequence. Now, the object
    48
    that I have in view in my Amendment is that these documents should be registered, and I may tell your Lordships, that Dr. Tait, when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, was strongly in favour of a provision of this kind. Sir Francis Jeune, who has had great experience, having been Chancellor of many dioceses, also approves of a provision of this sort. I have also letters from other people who are concerned in such matters, who approve of this provision, and I think I may venture to state that the occupants of the Episcopal bench are not only not opposed to a clause of this kind, but I may go further and say that they heartily approve of it. That being so, I take it that the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill will be willing to accept the clause. Perhaps I may add this, that I should be very glad indeed myself to see some comprehensive plan for the registration of important ecclesiastical documents. I have not ventured to go so far as that with the clause I am now proposing, and my reason is this, that it might be urged that I was travelling beyond the scope of the Bill; but I think everybody will agree with me that the clause which I am endeavouring to introduce is really within the ambit of the present Bill. The clause is this, and I will read it with the verbal alterations that I desire to make—
    "It is hereby enacted that all articles of agreement relating to the patronage of churches or chapels (under section twenty-three of the Church Building Act, 1845, amended by section 4 of 11 and 12 Viet., cap. 37), shall be registered in full in the registry of the diocese within two months from the execution thereof, and a certificate thereof shall be endorsed on the same, and signed by the registrar of the diocese before the articles of agreement can be legally acted upon."
    I venture to say that not only in my own opinion, but in the opinion of those most competent to judge, a provision of this kind will be extremely valuable, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will be willing to accept it.
    *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: It is, I am sure, the desire of all the bishops to see this clause form part of the Bill. It is an anomaly that such important documentary matters as those connected with the patronage of advowsons should not be protected against the danger arising from lack of registration. It is most desirable that it should be made necessary to register in every case the deed of patronage. Grave difficulty has arisen from the absence of such documents in particular cases. I can see no objection to this clause. I hope it will be passed, and I think I may go so far as to say that such is the wish of the whole Episcopal Bench.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNIE: I do not mean to say that this Amendment, so far as it goes, does not meet a want, but I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is really in place in this, Bill. This Bill makes no attempt to establish a complete registration of title to advowsons. I quite admit that it is a most extraordinary thing that there is no such official registration. I speak under the correction of the reverend prelates present, but I believe that no reverend prelate has any means of knowing whether a patron who presents to a living is in fact legally the patron of that living, excepting by common report, and by referring to the clerical directory. To such an extent is that true that in the form used on institution the bishop uses the words "who alleges that he is the patron." I only mention that to show that there is no real registration in existence of advowsons. What the noble and learned Lord proposes is that in this Bill we should enact that certain titles under the Church Building Act of 1845 should be registered; but I would point out to him that there is no provision in his Amendment for this, that having once been placed on the register they should remain there. Supposing there was a transfer by change of trustees. That is not provided for in his Amendment. The old names would remain on the diocesan register, and the new ones would not take their place. In fact, this is only nibbling at a very big question. This Bill only proposes, to enact that no transfer, with certain exceptions, should take place without
    50
    registration. It makes no attempt to establish a complete register, and I do say, with great respect, that it is not in place in this Bill to enact that in the case of an infinitesimal proportion of the whole number of benefices, that in their case only there shall be registration apart from transfer. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will not think it, necessary to press this, Amendment.
    *LORD LUDLOW: I can scarcely follow the noble Earl. He says it is a great misfortune that there is no regular registration of advowsons, of ecclesiastical documents, which all admit are important ones. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, but because there is no such registration can it be said that it is not desirable that provision should be made in cases of this kind for certain agreements with regard to patronage? Patronage is clearly within the ambit of this Bill. Take the title of the Bill—
    "'An Act to amend the law relating to the Patronage of Benefices and to amend the Pluralities Acts, 1838 and 1885."
    I do not desire to press the Amendment if Her Majesty's Government are not willing to accept, it, but I should much like to have a better reason given for not embodying it than anything that has fallen from the noble Earl. I again say that it is a great misfortune that there no general register kept of important ecclesiastical documents, and I should be glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government that in future they propose to bring in a Measure which would make registration in certain cases imperative. But that may be. for anything I know, a long time hence, and I ask them most seriously to consider this matter, and not to say, because the whole of the thing is not feasible, that they cannot give a part of it which is admitted to be required.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord move this Amendment?
    *LORD LUDLOW: Yes, I press the Amendment.
    *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I desire to support the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I think every

    51
    bishop has experienced the difficulties arising from the absence of due registration, it has been impossible to ascerand the like. There are two or three cases in recent years in which, for lack of any provision enforcing such registration, it has been impossible to ascertain officially who is the patron of a particular benefice. I earnestly hope the noble and learned Lord's clause will be inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 36, after 'prescribed,' insert 'and for defining the duties of the officials by whom registration is to be effected.'"
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 41, after 'inhibition,' insert 'or appointment of a curate.'"
    Agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had intended to move that the lay judge who acts with the archbishop should be made a member of the Rule Committee acting in this matter. I think, however, as the clause will have to be amended on the Report stage, it will be more convenient that I should move it then.
    Question put—
    "That clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 13, after 'Crown,' insert 'or of the Duchy of Cornwall.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 17, after 'institution,' insert 'nor to any private chapel.'"—(The Earl of Selborne)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 22, at the end of the clause; add—
    "(3) In section 8 of this Act and in the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885,, the expression 'ecclesiastical duties' shall include those duties mentioned in section 2 of the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, and also the observance of the promises, not referring to matters of doctrine and ritual, which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination; and the expression 'negligence' in the performance of ecclesiastical duties shall include wilful default in the performance of such duties."—(The Viscount Knutsford.)
    *VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Your Lordships will feel satisfaction in coming to the last Amendment on the Paper. I venture to say, however, that though it is the last it is not the least in importance, because there has been a considerable amount of feeling entertained on the subject of this Amendment, and there is great hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it. During the course of this Debate the noble Lord who is moving the adoption, of this Bill has clearly stated the procedure that is taken in cases where the inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties is considered by the bishop to be sufficient to be tried by the Commission; and he has also pointed out the difference that exists were simply inadequate performance is found by the Commission, and those cases where the inadequate performance is found to be owing to the negligence of the incumbent. But the point which I desire to raise upon this Amendment does not turn upon procedure. The words "ecclesiastical duties." have been defined, as your Lordships are aware, by section 2 of the Act of 1885 (48 and 49 Vic, c. 54), and I will venture to read it to your Lordships. The definition is—
    "The term 'ecclesiastical duties' shall include not only the regular and due performance of divine service on Sundays and holidays, but also all such duties as any clergyman holding a benefice is bound by law to perform, on the performance of which is solemnly promised by every clergyman of the Church of England at the time of his ordination."
    Now, my Lords, there are certain cases of misconduct which certainly ought to be dealt with, both in the interests of the Church and of the parishioners who are

    53
    members of that Church, and yet there is a very grave question whether these cases of misconduct can be dealt with under that definition of "ecclesiastical duties." There are cases of conduct, or, I should say, of misconduct, of which I will venture to give your Lordships two or three concrete instances, and I am sorry to say that there is good reason to believe that they are not very unusual cases. In the one case a clergyman, irreproachable in his morals, is so intemperate in his language and conduct that he succeeds in alienating from himself tall his congregation and all his parishioners, and all those entrusted to his care. He has not only succeeded in, setting one part of his congregation against the other, but he bas emptied his church and has driven his congregation into Nonconformist chapels. That is one of the cases which I hope your Lordships will think ought to be dealt with in some way or other. There is another case of a clergyman who is never found guilty of drunkenness, and who is not immoral in the ordinary sense of the word, but who does frequent public-houses and falls under the influence of disreputable and shady companions, and who has lost all influence, as would naturally be the case, over his parishioners, and his church is empty. That is another case which I bring to the notice of your Lordships. There are other cases which are most of them of a similar kind, but varying in their extent and also varying in their effect. Now, as I have said, a very grave doubt has been entertained for many years whether these cases of conduct come under the definition of "ecclesiastical duties," and this doubt my Amendment is framed to remove. This Amendment is not the first of this kind. An Amendment really similar in terms to the Amendment I am now submitting for your Lordship's consideration was passed in a Bill in 1895 by the Standing Committee on Law, to which that Bill was referred; and I am told, but I have not verified it, that in 1896 another Bill also got to the Report stage in the other House in which the same point was dealt with, though not in precisely the same terms, but in more general terms. I will assume that these cases are cases which, in the opinion of your Lordships, should be
    54
    dealt with by the bishops. If it is not so, if these cases which cause scandal and as much injury to the Church as cases of more grave misconduct are not to be dealt with, then this Amendment of mine may be withdrawn. I should, however, be very loth to assume that your Lordships should not think these cases should be dealt with. If they are to be dealt with I ask your Lordships to remove the doubt that has been entertained whether these cases come under the head of ecclesiastical duties or not. I will now point out to your Lordships how it is proposed to remove this doubt. I propose to insert after the last sub-section the following words—
    "(3) In section eight of this Act and in the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, the expression 'ecclesiastical duties' shall include those duties mentioned in section two of the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, and also the observance of the promises, not referring to matters of doctrine and ritual, which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination; and the expression 'negligence' in the performance of ecclesiastical duties shall include wilful default in the performance of such duties."
    I will not at this moment refer to the latter part of the clause. I believe that I shall not need to trouble you on that point, because it is accepted by Her Majesty's Government. It is the first part which I wish to impress upon your Lordshios, and I will take the two cases that I have referred to, the one where the clergyman, in other respects good, is so intemperate in his language and conduct that he has ruined himself with his parishioners, lost all his in fluence with them, and is driving them out of his church. Now, one of the promises a clergyman makes on ordination is—
    "To maintain and set forwards as much as lieth in him, quietness, peace, and love among all Christian people, and especially among those who are or shall be committed to his charge."
    I should say that where that duty has been negligently performed by a clergyman, where he has exhibited the conduct I have referred to, he has been guilty of the neglect of ecclesiastical duties, as defined by this Amendment. Take the other concrete case, where a man has fallen under the influence of

    55
    bad or disreputable company, and free quents places that he had better keep out of. Now, one of the promises on ordination is—
    "To make both himself and his family as much as in him lies wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ."
    This, promise such a clergyman has clearly failed to perform. Those two cases show very clearly the advantage of removing all doubt from the question by inserting these words, which, provide beyond doubt that the ecclesiastical duties, or the performance of ecclesiastical duties, is to include the performance of the promises which the clergyman has made at the time of his ordination. My Lords, I have pointed out that this is not a new proposition, but is simply following a decision arrived at after full discussion in the House of Commons, and I have only heard two objections made to this Amendment. One is the extension of the power of the bishops by giving them a very much wider discretion. As I have said before, if these cases create as great a scandal as the many more serious cases to be dealt with, I am quite sure that the bishops will exercise this power with great care and consideration. But to those who have doubts upon this matter I would point, out, and I would remind your Lordships again of this, that the decision does, not rest with the bishops absolutely; it rests with the commission which the bishop appoints to examine into these cases. Surely we may trust a commission which is so constituted as to command the confidence of all. I have not heard a single question raised against the constitution of the commission, and surely we can trust to them to examine into these cases carefully and considerately. The other objection is that some of these cases may possibly be dealt with under the Clergy Discipline Act. My Lords, assuming that they would come under that Act, I venture to think that it is very much more desirable that they should come distinctly under the Pluralities Acts as amended by section 8 of this Bill. The penalties under the Clergy Discipline Act are too heavy, if I may say so, and are not very suitable for cases of misconduct such as I am bringing under the notice of your Lordships.
    56
    One of the penalties is depriving the incumbent altogether of his living, and has been described as—
    "turning out an innocent wife and children on to the road without any means of support."
    Now, another alternative is suspension. Well, I speak under the correction of the bishops, who know exactly what has been the working of this penalty, but I have always understood that it has had very questionable results. The term of suspension may be short or long, but all the time over the parish there is hanging the possibility after an incumbent has been suspended of his returning to that parish. In such cases, moreover, a clergyman would very seldom get back again the confidence of the parishioners. The third alternative is admonition. Well, my Lords, undoubtedly admonition is very satisfactory in some cases, but there is still this difficulty with the clergyman, that he is almost sure to fail to regain his influence with the parishioners. Now, if we can bring these cases under the Pluralities Acts as amended by section 8, the clergyman will be inhibited from acting, but he will have a part of the stipend. I will not at this time trouble your Lordships at any greater length. I do, however, desire to impress upon your Lordships the necessity with regard to such cases of making some provision for them, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment. As I have said, the noble Earl below me has accepted the latter part of it on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and I need not dwell upon that point.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I believe that it has already been urged by some authorities that the definition of ecclesiastical duties in the Act of 1885 does cover all those promises which are made by a clergyman at the time of his ordination. But the Amendment of my noble Friend is directed to making that point quite certain, and to see that they are all covered. As he has shown your Lordships, there is a class of case that lies between neglect of duty, which is mainly aimed at in this Act, and those moral offences which are aimed at in the Act of 1892. It is within the experience probably of your Lordships that in cases

    57
    such as those suggested by the noble Lord, who proposed this new clause, the whole influence of the clergyman in his parish is absolutely destroyed. He may technically be performing the ecclesiastical duties of his office, but his general life and his conduct to the parishioners to whom he performs these duties are such as to deprive him of any of the influence or merit which those duties should have when he performs them. Therefore, it amounts to negligence in effect, though not in technical fact. Now, my Lords, it would be idle to conceal that the definition of offences such as my noble Friend wishes to introduce into the scope of this Bill is no easy task. It may be said that that class of offence is so vague that it may not be brought into the purview of an Act of Parliament or of the court constituted under that Act Now I fully admit the force of that criticism, but, on the other hand, you have to place against it the immense misery, the utter spiritual destitution of the parish in which the clergyman possessed of that unhappy character which my noble Friend has described is placed, or who, by his general conduct, has so deprived himself of all possibility of influence for good. My Lords, if I might say so, with all respect to the most reverend prelate, this is exactly one of those cases where the court constituted under this Bill comes in. Would it be possible to ask Parliament to embrace these offences under this Bill if the appeal was to the archbishop, who, however high his character or however great the respect which his fellowmen might have for him, is not trained in those methods of sifting evidence which training can only give confidence in the carrying out of an Act like this? The more vague the offence the more difficult it is to decide and the more necessary it is for a judge of the high courts to say whether an offence of this kind has been committed or not. Now your Lordships have agreed to the constitution of this court as proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and in view of the confidence they have in the constitution of that court; in view of the fact that this principle has been accepted in the House of Commons, certainly on two occasions in Grand Committee, I
    58
    believe also, though I speak with less certainty of knowledge with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill on which these Grand Committees sat; in view of these facts Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept this clause as proposed by my noble Friend. As regards the financial position of that clause it has been held to be just conceivable that wilful default might not be technically legal negligence, and that would indeed be a catastrophe—and that being so, we accept the latter portion of this Amendment as well as the first.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Clauses 12 and 13 added to the Bill without discussion.
    Schedule and title agreed to.
    Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received on Friday next.

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
    The House resumed; and the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack.
    A Bill to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals, presented by Lord HERSCIIELL.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to call attention to the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals, and to present a Bill. I need detain your Lord ships but a few moments in presenting this Bill to call attention to the present state of the law and the change which it proposes to make. As your Lordships are aware, the Acts for the prevention of cruelty to animals are at present limited to domestic animals. Now, a number of cases have arisen during the last few years from time to time in which prosecutions have been instituted with a view to checking some gross acts of brutality and cruelty, but those prosecutions have

    59
    been unsuccessful because the animals were not domestic animals, although I believe that in every case the tribunal before which the case came expressed great regret that it was impossible to punish because the offences were precisely of the same character as those which were punished under the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In one case gross acts of brutality were committed on caged lions. The question was considered by the count, and although it was argued that the lions had been for a considerable time in confinement and deprived of their liberty, it was nevertheless held that they were wild animals, and not domestic animals, and therefore did not come under the Act. The other cases were one of gross cruelty to a performing bear, and another was a tame sea gull which for several years a person had tamed with such success that it would come and feed out of her hand. It followed the owner about, and was used in her business as a photographer. Now, this sea gull was brutally ill-treated, and there was a prosecution, and the court held that it was a wild animal, although she had it tamed in this way for some years; and it was held that by law cruelty could be inflicted with perfect impunity. There are other prosecutions in the case of parrots, and also a swan, which was horribly ill-treated; but the man who owned it insisted upon pursuing his ill-treatment because he knew perfectly well that he could not be punished for it. These cases are enough to show the nature of the mischief with which it is intended to deal. There has been a wide consensus of opinion that cases such as these should have the same protection as applies in the case of domestic animals. Undoubtedly it is obvious that such a Measure as this has no chance of passing into law if any attempt were made to extend it to all animals under all situations. I mean all wild animals. The Bill, therefore, proposes to deal with cases of this description by limiting it to cases in which animals are deprived of their liberty, or tamed, or kept upon ornamental waters. Those will meet all the cases to which I have called your Lordships' attention. Of course one is quite aware that if you were to extend the Bill as many would desire you
    60
    would meet with difficulties in two directions. You would touch upon the region of what is commonly called legitimate sport, and you might touch upon another region in which certain agriculturists are interested. It is therefore very necessary to be careful to safeguard these provisions if it is intended to pass it into law, so as to limit it to the particular class of cases in which the evil has been found to exist, without seeking to have a general and more sweeping provision which might be more logical, but which it would be perfectly impossible to pass into law. Therefore the Bill which I have introduced at the instance of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal's is limited in this way. I have no doubt some will find fault with the Bill in its limited scope, but I think it is better to deal with it in this way, because there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of it, and any attempt to introduce a wider Act would be certain to give rise to a great difference of opinion. I do not think, limited as this Measure is, there is likely to be any difference of opinion with regard to it. This is a matter in which it would be hopeless to attempt to legislate in advance of public opinion, and it would be very undesirable. I believe as the Bill is now framed it will not do otherwise than follow the course of public opinion, and although I cannot hope that at this period of the Session the Bill will pass into law, I have thought it desirable to introduce it in order that its terms may become public and subject to criticism, and it is possible there may be some extension of it in the spirit which I have indicated, although personally I should deprecate any attempt widely to extend its operation, for I am quite sure that the only result would be to destroy all chance of amending the law to the extent to which public opinion I am satisfied is prepared for it. I must say that on more than one occasion I have been very much impressed by the circumstances that the uncompromising and enthusiastic advocates of a cause are often more deadly foes to it than some pronounced opponents. My Lords, although I have said that the Bill is limited in its scope, I think it will cover these cases which have been shown by public opinion to be desirable, and which it has

    61
    been found impossible to deal with under the present law.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I have no doubt the House will be sure to give the most careful consideration to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. I think, however, it is trespassing upon rather dangerous ground, and I would mention for his consideration the following cases—those of bagged foxes, a deer-buck kept for the spout of the buck-hounds, and the pigeons which are shot at Hurlingham. All these three cases would be cases of animals kept in confinement, and would come under the Act of the noble Lord. I think I should recommend the noble Lord, if he goes on with this Measure, that he should refer it to a Select Committee, where it could be fully considered.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I am inclined to think that this Bill will not touch those cases which have been referred to by the noble Marquess, because in the case of the bagged fox it is not deprived of its liberty.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Not when it is in a bag?
    LORD HERSCHELL: That is the reason why I wish to avoid all questions of sport, and so it provides for them when deprived of their liberty.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have no sympathy whatever with people who hunt the bagged fox. I hunt foxes, but they are not bogged, and I think if the practice of hunting bagged foxes were terminated it would not be regretted by any true sportsmen. I agree that there are serious difficulties, but that should not prevent us from framing some Bill which will put an end to it.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am afraid the noble Earl is one of the extreme advocates of a cause which has been denounced by the noble and learned Lord.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the cruelty is just the same to the bagged fox as to the wild fox when once it is being hunted.
    Bill read a first time.

  NEW BILL.

    TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897, and the Post Office Acts, in relation to the Channel Islands; was presented by the Duke of Norfolk; Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time To-morrow. No. 161.]
    House adjourned at 7.25.