Sitting of 21 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  (By order.) Order for consideration, as amended, read.

  CLAUSE 67.
  "Page 32, line 26, after 'and,' insert 'also for the supply under any agreement for the tramroad being worked and used by the Dublin United Tramways Company.'"—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)
  *MR. LEWIS FRY: The Amendment which I have on the Paper raises a very important question as to whether a tramway company ought to be empowered to manufacture rolling stock and to supply such rolling stock to another company over whose lines they have no working agreement. This is a Bill to incorporate, a company for the purpose of making a tramroad connecting the existing tramways of the Dublin United Tramways Company with Howth. Perhaps I need hardly say that if I did not think that the Bill as it stands would

  597
  be treated as a precedent of very far-reaching effect, I should not be here to say a single word about it. I halve no hostility towards the Bill. The new company has, indeed, my heartiest wishes for its success. I understand that it is to be an electric tramroad, to be worked by electricity supplied from the generating station at Clontarf, and by the Bill the Dublin United Tramways Company are empowered to enter into an agreement with the Clontarf Company to supply motive power, and beyond that to supply rolling stock, and it is in connection with this latter power that I ask the House to accept the Amendment which I have put down on the Paper. This question, as to whether a railway company could manufacture rolling stock for sale or for any other purpose than that of being used on the lime belonging to the company, or worked by themselves, was very much discussed in 1875. The matter was brought before the courts in the case of the Attorney General v. the London and North Western Railway Company. The London and North Western Railway Company had agreed to supply 25 locomotive engines to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and the Association of Locomotive Engine Manufacturers brought the matter before the Master of the Rolls, who granted an injunction restraining the company from manufacturing engines or rolling stock for any other purpose than that of being used on their own lines or lines worked by them. The grounds of the decision were that it was not the intention of the Legislature that railway companies should become rolling stock manufacturers and enter the open market in competition with those engaged directly in the business. In consequence of that decision various railway companies sought Parliamentary powers to enable them to manufacture and sell rolling stock, but the clauses conferring this power were in all cases struck out in the House of Lords by the then Chairman of Committees—Lord Redesdale—and their power to manufacture and supply rolling stock was confined to such stock as might be required for the purposes of the company or for the use of any line on which that company had working powers. Since 1875 this clause containing these restrictive words has
  598
  appeared in every Bill of every railway company, and in fact the words of that clause are contained in the Amendment which I have submitted to the House. It appears in this form in the Dublin United Tramway Companies Act of 1896. It has been universally applied, not only to railway undertakings, but to tramway undertakings in England and in Ireland, and to railways in India. The Tramways (Ireland) Act contains no power whatever which would enable the Lord Lieutenant to grant such powers as are sought by the Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramway Company in this particular clause. The words of my Amendment were inserted in the Bill in the Upper House because, as it was originally introduced, they were not there. The limitation as contained in my Amendment was inserted by the counsel to the Chairman of Committees, and not by inadvertence, as suggested by the statement of the promoters. But when the Bill came to be dealt with in this House those words were omitted. Of course the parties who take the view which I am representing here to-day were not in the room when that was done, and I have the authority of the Chairman of Committees to state that his attention was not drawn to this omission. There are one or two statements which are made by the promoters in their statement, to which I should like to refer. I believe that statement is in the hands of honourable Members. On page 2 the second paragraph runs—
  "It is submitted that, even as applied to railways, the proposed amendment is contrary to the usual policy of Parliament (which now allows railway companies to carry on many subsidiary businesses for the public advantage), is a restriction upon free trade, and ought to be carefully considered before it is inserted even in an Irish Railway Bill."
  As far as I know, the only subsidiary businesses railway companies are empowered to carry on are hotels and steamboats, but I submit to the House that these matters are entirely different from the manufacture and sale of rolling-stock. Those powers are conferred by Parliament upon railway companies for the purpose of their own traffic and for the purpose of promoting their own business, and it would be a totally different

  599
  position if they were allowed to enter into the open market as manufacturers and sellers of locomotive engines and other rolling-stock. Another statement made by the promoters is that electrical motor cars cannot be obtained at a reasonable price from any maker in the United Kingdom. These cars are being manufactured now at Leeds for the Leeds Tramway Company; they are also manufactured in other places, so that the allegation that they cannot be purchased in the United Kingdom is, I think, going beyond the mark. The reasons why I submit that my Amendment should be accepted is that this proposal is an entirely new departure from the practice of 25 years of both Houses of Parliament, and that it is contrary to the policy which has been acted upon by the authorities ever since the year 1875, when the Master of the Rolls gave the decision and granted the injunction to which I have referred. I also submit that if this Amendment is rejected the House will have admitted that railway and tramway companies are not to be confined to manufacturing their own rolling-stock, but may enter into the open market as makers and sellers of locomotive and other stock—will, in fact, enable them to sell to other companies and persons with whom they have no connection. I think that the change of policy will be of a very far-reaching character. If this Bill is passed as it now stands it will necessarily form a precedent for every undertaking of the same description, and gradually it will be found that railway and other great companies will endeavour to obtain this power, and will use their capital and the great power conferred upon them for special purposes by Act of Parliament to enter into competition with other companies who have embarked a large amount of capital in the business of rolling-stock manufacturers, and the House will set up a competition which, I venture to think, will act injuriously to the interests of the country. The result will be that the manufacture of rolling-stock will get into the hands of a few companies, and such a thing as that would be unfair to private persons who have embarked private capital in these industries. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment which I have set down.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I venture to earnestly appeal to the House to reject this Amendment, which is solely for the purpose of preventing Irishmen from making tramway carriages for an Irish tramway. The honourable Member who has moved the Amendment has referred to the fact that there is a sort of standing clause in existence which he is now seeking to incorporate in this Bill. I shall therefore have to trouble the House as to the history of that clause; and I think the House will agree that it ought not to go on from year to year without receiving consideration, especially when it applies to exceptional circumstances. As a matter of fact in 1878 this great carriage manufacturing association in England petitioned the House against the great number of Railway Bills, and it was decided by the Court of Referees that that association had no locus standi. I venture to bring that fact before the knowledge of the honourable Member, because he says that these things were done behind his back in Committee of this House, so that his friends the railway carriage manufacturers would in no case have been present before any Committee. They could not be, because it was decided, and properly decided, that this association of railway carriage manufacturers had no right to be heard before any Committee of this House. It is quite true that in 1878 Lord Redesdale in the House of Lords did settle a clause which prevented any railway company from supplying rolling-stock to another railway company, excepting under working agreement. The effect of that clause in Ireland has been most disastrous. It has never been discussed in this House, it has never had the consideration of this House, but it has been inserted by the officials in a number of Irish Bills with the most unfortunate effect. What has been the effect? In Ireland the demand for railway carriages is not sufficient by itself to support the private railway carriage manufacturers, consequently all the smaller Irish companies have been compelled to go to England—to the gentlemen whom the honourable Member represents, and to pay the members of this association much larger prices for their rolling-stock than if they had been permitted to buy it from the railway com-

  601
  panies which make their own rolling-stock in Ireland. Therefore the effect of the clause has been to prevent this work being done in Ireland, and to compel Irishmen to pay larger sums than they ought to have done. I trust that where the matter comes up for consideration the House will not consider itself in anyway bound, so far as Ireland is concerned, by the Redesdale clause of 1878. There may be an argument against the London and North Western Railway Company competing with other manufacturers in England in this class of work, but that is a separate question which I hope the House will not allow to weigh on this occasion. But now it is proposed to go a step further, and it is proposed to apply this rule, not merely to railway's, but to tramways also. This Bill proposes to authorise a short tramway route of five miles in length, continuing the line of the Dublin United Company and bringing it out to Howth. The line will be in every sense a tramway, excepting that part of the way it will run along private land for about a mile or so. It will be operated by electric energy friction, and the cars will be of the type so common in America, but which are almost utter rarities in this country. Now, Parliament has not, contrary to the statement of the honourable Member, uniformly enforced this provision against the tramways. In the case of the North Metropolitan Tramways Company in London, that company was authorised to make rolling-stock not merely for itself, but for other companies. It did so for years, it does so still; and I have a number of other precedents in which tramway companies have been authorised to supply rolling-stock to other companies. Therefore it is not the case that the policy of Parliament has always been to enforce this provision in the case of tramway companies, and it is ridiculous, therefore, to say that any capital has been invested anywhere on the faith of the expectation that this clause would always be inserted in Tramway Bills. Parliament has not inserted it in the case of the chief Metropolitan? Tramways Company; and I fail to see why Parliament should enforce it in Dublin. The honourable Member sought to show that this power could not be obtained in England. He has referred to the case of the Central London Railway,
  602
  but the Central London Railway is a railway, not a tramway—it will run in the bowels of the earth; it will have a special form of power not used anywhere else, and as there was that special form of power not used elsewhere, it is true that that special form of power had special means taken to deal with it. In this case the tramway will be operated by motor cars of the type which is used on the trolly lines of America. It is an absolute fact that it is impossible to get a motor car in England at any sort of moderate price. It may be owing to the operation of the Tramways Act, 1870; it may be owing to labour difficulties, but the fact remains, and when the Dublin United Tramway Company were authorised to equip their line with electricity, they invited tenders from numerous manufacturers in England, and found that they could not get anything of the sort from any English manufacturer, unless they paid the extra price which is required by all English manufacturers who attempt to make a new article which they have not been accustomed to make before. The first cars for the Dublin line were brought across the Atlantic from American manufacturers who keep them on hand as ordinary articles of commerce. Now I am authorised by the promoters of this extension to say that they are not going, under any circumstances, to pay the extortionate extra sum which the railway carriage manufacturers in England will ask them to pay. The only effect therefore of having these words in, will be to send these orders to America, and I ask whether it is the object of legislation in this House to send work to be done in America instead of getting it done at home. Now the Dublin United Company not wanting to send any more work to America, is putting up tramcar works in Dublin, where they will be able to make tramcars very much cheaper than they can be made anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I may say that Dublin has a very much larger electric tram system than any other city in the United Kingdom, a fact of which, as an Irishman, I have reason to feel proud. There are no other works in the United Kingdom, and all the promoters ask, is that they should be allowed to buy from this company without entering into a working agreement, and thereby sacrificing their in-

  603
  dependence—that they should be allowed to buy their oars from a company whose lines actually join, their own, and which can make the stock cheaper than it can be made anywhere else. Parliament has inflicted wrongs in the past upon Irish industries and prevented the development of Irish manufactures. I do most earnestly hope now that we are given the chance of developing these electrical industries—perhaps the only industry in which we are a few steps in advance of England, that the House will not strangle it in its birth. We do not ask that the Company should have general power to supply these currents to anybody. If an application is made, that will be a separate affair to be considered by itself. All we ask is that we shall be allowed to supply the currents to a neighbouring company outside the city of Dublin whose lines will actually adjoin its own. I do appeal to the House therefore to reject the proposal of the honourable Member as one of the most selfish that has ever been brought before the House of Commons.
  MR. WOLFF: This line from Clontarf to the Hill of Howth does not in any way affect the district with which I am connected, but I ask the House not to take any steps which would in any way affect any industry to be started in Ireland. I can quite understand why such large companies as the London and North Western, should not be allowed to enter into the market in competition with ordinary manufacturers, but I cannot say that that in any way applies to the United Tramway Company of Dublin. That is only a small company in itself. It is not a railway company at all, and therefore it strikes me that the ordinary rules do not apply to it. We who are connected with Ireland in manufactures are anxious to see manufactures growing, and whatever is done in that way helps other manufactures which happen to be begun. I can speak personally of the difficulty which we experience in getting skilled workmen to assist us. We have to go to Scotland and elsewhere, and under these circumstances if there is to be a branch of industry which will employ skilled workmen, and which will enable engineering firms to keep skilled workmen, I hope that the House will be
  604
  only too glad to throw no difficulties in the way of such a thing being done. On the contrary, I hope the House will consider that this Amendment, if carried, will do considerable harm to us in Ireland in the way of preventing an increase of our manufacturing industries, and I hope that this rule, which only applies to English manufacturers, should not be made to apply to Ireland.
  *SIR W. WILLS: I think that the House is always disinclined to depart from rules which have previously been laid down without sufficient reason, and I do not see as yet that any reason has been advanced why we should depart from this policy which has been deliberately pursued for many years.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: It has not been pursued in the case of the North Metropolitan Tramways Company, and in a number of other cases.
  *SIR W. WILLS: If this Bill passes through, it will only be fair to the great railway companies in this country that they should be allowed the same liberty of making engines and carriages for sale. I am quite sure that they do not wish to enter into competition with manufacturing firms in that line of business, but the principle is one which involves very important considerations, and I sincerely hope that the House will look at the matter all round before resolving to favour this Irish Company to which we all wish prosperity, and to all other Irish industries. I do not think, however, that it is right that a great principle which has been long adopted by the House should in the case of an individual company be sacrificed for their convenience and for their benefit. There is sufficient competition amongst English manufacturers, to enable this Clontarf Company to secure good rolling stock at a moderate price.
  MR. COURTNEY: It is very unfortunate that this discussion is degenerating into any question between Ireland and England, and I do hope that the House will not listen to the suggestion which hails from Bristol. I do not know whether there is any particular interest connected with that city with which this tramway would interfere, but I think from

  605
  lines of general policy that it is quite out of place to suggest that the tramway companies of Dublin, and the subordinate companies which are to be made, should not be enabled to enter into an agreement which suits both of them, that one should be able to buy from the other the requisite rolling-stock. The suggestion of the Amendment seems to me to be that this company should be compelled to go to a dearer market in order to get what it can get cheaper anywhere else, and to add to the anomaly it is suggested that the United Tramway Company of Dublin may supply the rolling-stock to the subordinate company if it enters into an agreement to work the subordinate company, but it may not do so if it does not enter into that agreement. Surely there is no principle in this, with all respect to the authorities, and at this time of day, I hope the House will altogether refuse to assent, to this limitation of the freedom of its committees in enabling a subordinate company to enter into an agreement with a company like the Dublin United Tramway Company. It is not a general power which is sought for this latter company to enable it to go into the markets of the world, and to supply them wholesale. If that question were raised it might be a question for discussion, but it is only a question whether those who make a continuation of the existing lines, should be enabled to get their machines next door instead of being compelled to go to another country for them. I hope the Amendment will be rejected.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: This carriage industry is one of the oldest in Dublin, and it is one of the few industries that has been left to that city, and I believe that anything which would discourage in any way the building of carriages there would be a very great loss to the working men. They have had a very difficult struggle to maintain. There are very few industries left in Dublin now, and the adoption of this clause would be a great advantage to the city because it would necessarily give a large amount of employment to the working men. I consider that the Amendment is of a very selfish character. It is an obstacle in the way of developing
  606
  a most legitimate trade, and I trust that the House will not vote in favour of it.
  *SIR T. ESMONDE: After what has fallen from both sides of the House I trust that the honourable Gentleman will withdraw his proposal. I think that the proposal which he asks the House to accept is one which would inflict a very serious injury on Ireland, and is one which does not meet so far as I can see, with the approval of the vast majority of the House. I was not here when this Debate was begun, and I did not hear what the honourable Gentleman had to say on the matter, but I certainly think the feelings of the House, and certainly the advantage of public business, would be consulted if the honourable Gentleman withdrew his Amendment. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of the Committees if he has been consulted in this matter. Perhaps he would have no objection to giving us his views upon this point. I am perfectly certain that whatever his opinion is it will carry great weight, and possibly it may enable us to come to a definite decision. But so far as I can see at present this is simply a proposal which will inflict very great injury on Irish trade. It is a proposal which is rather in favour of monopoly, and, I hope, in the interests of Ireland and in the interests of Irish artisans that the House will not agree to it.
  *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): After giving full consideration to this matter, I have come to the conclusion that this clause might very fairly stand as it is, and therefore I should, if I had thought it necessary to continue the discussion, have risen for the purpose of urging upon the House the desirability of not accepting this Amendment. All that is proposed by the Bill is that the Dublin United Company should have power to serve the Clontarf and Hill of Howth Company only—not that they should sell rolling-stock to the whole world. Under the circumstances, considering that their power of sale is strictly limited, I see no reason why the clause should not pass in its present form.
  *MR. FRY: I think the general sense of the House is against this Amendment, and therefore I do not propose to put

  607
  the House to the trouble of a Division, especially after the remarks that have fallen from the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. At the same time I think it is a somewhat bad precedent that we are about to set up.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  (By Order),—read a second time, and committed.

  SAINT MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of five Members, two to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
  "That all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel be heard in support of the Bill.
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  "That three be the quorum."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: In proposing that this Bill be referred to a hybrid Committee, I am not adopting either an unusual or an unreasonable course. I see it stated as an objection that it would create an undesirable precedent, but I am really only following precedent; for, though I have not had a very lengthened Parliamentary experience, I can recall several instances in which private Bills of special importance, or raising questions of great public interest, have been referred to hybrid Committees, instead of to ordinary private Bill Committees. As to the reasonableness of the proposal, no one who was present at the Debate on the Second Reading can regard this Motion as being either frivolous or merely
  608
  obstructive. I am not entitled to repeat the objections stated during that Debate, but I may name certain important questions which were then raised. The first was the all-important one whether the rate to be commuted by this Bill is valid in law. That is a point which I leave to legal Members who may follow me; and I, therefore, only say that if it is found that the rate is illegal, then the case for the Bill is completely destroyed. A second question is, whether, though the rate may be valid, it should be commuted into a perpetual endowment, and an endowment of only seven out of the twenty-four episcopal churches in the parish. A third question is, whether the churches built at the cost of the parishioners should be handed over to the incumbents, and the vestry lose their present powers over them. And, lastly, there is the question whether the ratepayers have expressed such an opinion in favour of the Bill as to justify Parliament in placing it upon the Statute Book. When objection is taken to the Second Reading of private Bills it is constantly urged that the objections ought to be considered by a Committee upstairs, but that plea is available only in the case of Bills which can be opposed. But this Bill is not, technically, an opposed Bill; because the rules which govern private Bill legislation give the inhabitants no locus standi in cases where there is a local body which is supposed to represent their interests. It is stated that no petition has been presented in time against the Bill, but I may inform the House that that is the result of accident, a petition having been lodged, but lodged informally. But even if it had been presented within the prescribed time it would have had no effect, because the locus standi of the petitioners would have been disputed and have been disallowed. What will happen if this Motion is rejected? Why, the Bill will be treated as an unopposed Bill, and be subject to the usual treatment of such Bills. The Committee to which it will be referred will probably be composed of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the honourable Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire, and Mr. Chandos Leigh; and when it reaches their hands it will be sanctioned without any inquiry into the facts of the case, or any consideration of the objections urged

  609
  against it in this House. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that will inflict great injustice upon a large number of the inhabitants, of Marylebone. And what are the reasons assigned for the rejection of this Motion? One is that the Bill has passed the Lords without opposition, and has not been petitioned against; but the obstacles in the way of opposition are the same in the Lords as those existing in this House. Another objection is that the provisions of the Bill have been fully-placed before the ratepayers; but, in fact, they have never had an opportunity of objecting to it, and even in the vestry it has been approved by but small majorities. Next, it is alleged that the adoption of this Motion will throw increased expense upon the ratepayers; but, surely, when as much as £80,000 is at stake, that is a risk worth the running, and I cannot help thinking that, if there had been a regard for the pockets of the ratepayers, which is now professed, no Bill containing such extravagant proposals would have been submitted to Parliament. Then, finally, it is stated that delay will imperil the passing of the Bill this Session. That, in my opinion, is not a serious contingency; for if the Bill goes back to the vestry it will certainly not be reintroduced in its present shape. I am not in favour, as has been suggested, of any confiscatory measure; on the contrary, I am desirous that this sore, which has been running for so many years in Marylebone, should be healed; but, then, it should be healed by equitable and reasonable means, and it is because I regard this Measure as being both unjust and unreasonable that I ask the House to adopt the Motion which I now move.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I think I am justified in describing the Motion made by the honourable Gentleman opposite as a dilatory Motion. It is quite clear that the object that he has in view to-day is to defeat the Bill, and being unable to attain that object upon the Second Reading of the Bill, that having been carried by a majority of this House, he now comes down and asks that a Special Committee shall be formed in order to consider all kinds of subjects that may be brought before it. I think I am also justified in describing
  610
  it as a dilatory Motion, because, if the House will look at the Motions which are on the Paper, it will be seen that it will be practically impossible for this Committee to get through the matters which will be brought before it in time for the Bill to pass into law this Session. There are all kinds of subjects which are to be introduced before the Committee, ranging from pew rents to that of the incidence of taxation. I object altogether to this Bill going before a hybrid Committee. I object on general grounds, and we know quite recently that the right, honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a very strong appeal to the House not to send a private Bill to a hybrid Committee. The reasons why the right honourable Gentleman objected to that was that a hybrid Committee was a partisan Committee, and that members of that Committee could be approached by their friends outside the House, and that it is not really in a sense a judicial tribunal. There is no reason why this particular Bill should not follow the usual course. It is an ordinary Bill, and should go in the ordinary way to an ordinary Committee. I admit that because it is an unopposed Bill it will go in the usual way to the Unopposed Bills Committee, consisting, as has been described, of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and other Members of the House who are associated with him; and I know of no better tribunal to which to refer Bills of this kind than that presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Objection has been raised that there was a petition presented which was informal, and was, therefore, unable to be lodged. Was that petition signed by a large number of the ratepayers of Marylebone? I doubt if it was signed by a single ratepayer of Marylebone; and let it not he forgotten this is a matter for the ratepayers of Marylebone. They wish to be relieved of a rate which has been imposed upon them upwards of a thousand years, and they say, "We are prepared to pay a certain sum of money in order to get rid of this perpetual encumbrance." The honourable Gentleman who moved this Motion stated that the inhabitants of Marylebone had had no opportunity of considering this question. I stated to the House on the occasion of the Second Reading, and I do

  611
  not wish to repeat the arguments which I used then—for I wish to be as brief as possible upon this question, which, after all, is a very small matter—that the inhabitants have had this matter before them for something like two years, and that the decision of the vestry was given on a Motion, "Yea" or "Nay." It was said that there have been no elections upon which the opinions of the inhabitants could be given. My honourable Friend is mistaken in that. An election was held in May last for a third of the vestry, and not one syllable was expressed upon the platforms upon this subject. That, I think, indicates whether there was any strong feeling upon this subject in the parish. We all know how easy it is to get up a strong feeling when people think they have a fair opportunity of attacking the Church, and the absence of any reference to this matter shows that there was no antagonistic feeling in Marylebone against the Bill. Again, I must correct the honourable Member upon a matter with regard to the vestry itself. This Bill has been promoted by the vestry, and I have already informed the House that the principle of the Bill was settled by the vestry after a long deliberation, and was passed nemine contradicente. It is not fair to say, therefore, that it was carried by a small majority. I do object that the ratepayers of Marylebone should be put to the large expense which they will be put to if this Bill goes before what may be called an opposed Committee, because that expense is not warranted. All sorts and conditions of men would be brought before this Committee—anybody might come in, not necessarily ratepayersi—and I think it would be extremely hard that the parish should be put to the expense of employing counsel, and going through the whole business of an opposed Bill when there is really no opposition whatever to the Bill from the parish of Marylebone itself. I will only allude to one more instance, in order that the House may reject the Motion of the honourable Gentleman opposite. There was a small Bill about Liverpool brought in last Session, which was practically on all fours with the Bill now before the House. A Motion for the rejection of the Bill was made on the Second Reading, which was rejected by a very large majority. A
  612
  Motion was subsequently made to refer the Bill to a hybrid Committee, and that also was defeated. I ask the House to follow the precedent which was set in the Liverpool case, and to refuse to send this Bill to a hybrid Committee. Let the Bill go before the Committee for unopposed Measures, and so relieve the inhabitants of Marylebone from, a charge they have no right to pay.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I do not desire upon this occasion to repeat any of the observations which I made on Thursday last when this Measure came before the House for Second Reading, but I do wish to urge upon the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, the Bill is of so special a kind as to justify the request which is being made by my honourable Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division. The first ground upon which I would make that appeal to the right honourable Gentleman, who, after all, must bear the burden for the House, is this: I assert that it is unjust to apply our private Bill procedure to a Measure of this kind. You, Sir, have ruled that it can be, and having regard to the number of precedents which I see cited in Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," I cannot complain in the slightest degree of your ruling that this is a Bill which may, according to the Rules of the House, be introduced as a private Measure. But that being the case, what I respectfully urge for the consideration of the Leader of the House is this: that the question whether any particular Bill ought, or ought not, to be introduced and carried on as a public or private Measure, is one that has to be determined by the circumstances of the case. If the right honourable Gentleman will look at the large number of decisions of the House—and will look at the comments thereon—he will find that for many years past it has always been the practice to treat Metropolitan Bills in a somewhat different light from Bills dealing with other parts of the country, and that is because of the vastness of the population of any parish in London, and the number of interests involved in any Bill of this kind, and other general considerations. I therefore assert that it is unjust and inexpedient that a Bill of this kind, which

  613
  deals, first of all, with the rights of the parishioners of Marylebone, a very large and fluctuating parish, which deals with the rights and duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which deals with the rights of the Crown, and the preamble of which declares that the right honourable Gentleman himself has had to consent to its provisions before it could be brought in, ought not to be dealt with as a mere matter of private Bill legislation. This private Bill takes away from no individual any property which belongs to him, except in regard to pew rents and rates. It affects no interests in the parish—no individual interest; but it does affect the interests of a very important class in that parish. They are not the classes who live in the highest-rated houses; they are not the great people of the parish; they are the poor people of the parish. This Bill affects the Roman Catholic voters, the Roman Catholic ratepayers who elect the vestry; it affects the Nonconformists of the Protestant denominations; it affects the Unitarians; and it affects those who are perfectly indifferent to matters of religion, and yet who pay their rates from day to day. Yet there is not one of them—there is nobody who can get a locus standi, so far as I can see, a necessary locus standi before the Court of Referees in regard to this matter. But, notwithstanding that, I say that the interests of these people are matters that ought to be investigated. The Member for East Marylebone said that the matter had been before us for some time, that it had passed through the House of Lords, and was now before us as an unopposed Bill. Very well, take it that it is so; and then I say that, having regard to the special character of the Bill, we ought to set aside in such a special case as this the Standing Orders relating to private Bills, or, at any rate, we ought to depart from the ordinary procedure, so as to allow the classes I have referred to, and who are very poor ratepayers, an opportunity of investigating the expediency of this bargain before a Select Committee of some kind of this House. That is my first reason. My second reason is this: that if it is perfectly true that the vestry brought this forward, I am able to state from my own knowledge of the circumstances, that no parish meeting has been held in regard
  614
  to this matter. I do not say that is necessary as a matter of law, for I am bound to admit that if you look at the matter from a merely technical point of view the vestry is right in promoting this Bill. My honourable Friend opposite said that the Resolution was properly carried. A Motion, I think, was carried as late as Tuesday last, as a mere matter of law, that the vestry have a right to promote this Bill; but even vestrymen are men elected by the rate-payers, and when a matter of this kind is sprung upon us the vestry should have given us some opportunity of discussing its details. The honourable Member opposite says it has been before the parish for two years—that it is two years ago since the bargain was first made. All I can, say is, that I have never heard about the preamble of this Bill till about three months ago, and then I could find no proper or authoritative source as to what he provisions of it were. Well, Sir, what ought the vestrymen to have done? The vestry ought to have convened a meeting of the parishioners. I know nothing of this proposal, and my honourable Friend the Member for Brecknock, who is a very large ratepayer in the parish, he knew nothing about it. I daresay they did let people like the Great Central Railway Company—the Metropolitan Railway Company—who are the biggest ratepayers in the parish, know all about it. But, as I say, I myself received no notice whatever of this proposal, and I do contend that the vestry should have taken Rome course of this kind, when important—not important from an Imperial point of view, but very important from the point of view of the parish of St. Marylebone—questions of this sort were coming on, and that they should have brought the matter to the notice of the parishioners. A petition has been presented, signed by ratepayers in the parish, at the Private Bill Office, in accordance with law, but as I understand it, after the time that, according to the Standing Orders of the House, a petition ought to have been lodged in order to make this Bill an opposed instead of an unopposed Bill. In the next place—I am still appealing to the right honourable Gentleman, who, according to my view, occupies in this matter a judicial position, he is not promoting this Bill, it is

  615
  not a Government Bill—the promoters of the Bill are the vestry of the parish of St. Marylebone, who are represented by my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. Seeing, then, the position of the right honourable Gentleman, I want to ask him this: has the right honourable Gentleman noticed this fact, that the Bill has been materially altered since it was introduced? I will not venture with my not very long experience to say whether this is an entirely unusual thing, but I have been informed by a very eminent Parliamentary agent that Bills do not, in the course of their passage in the two Houses, materially alter during that progress. What I find in regard to this case is this: that a very material alteration indeed has been made since the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, and since the time it came down to the House of Commons. It was introduced to the House of Lords at a very early period of the Session, and there is not one word in the Bill as introduced in the House of Lords about the sum of £2,700 that we have got, according to the present Bill, to pay for the repair of the fabric of the churches, I should like to know, as a ratepayer of the parish of St. Marylebone, what has taken place between the time that the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords and the time when it came down from the House of Lords to justify the increase in the liability placed upon the ratepayers of this parish. According to the way in which the Bill was introduced, out of the £80,000 which it is proposed to raise by this Bill, £1,000 was to be paid under the Incorporated Church Building Society's Act. Since the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons there is a material alteration in that part, and our liabilities are increased by a sum of £2,700. Now, I ask the right honourable Gentleman, as occuping an impartial position in this matter, whether it is fair that this Bill should be passed as an unopposed Measure, and whether, seeing that the arrangements have been altered since the Bill was first introduced, we may not justly demand that the matter should be investigated by a Committee of this House. That is my second point. For my third point I must ask the serious attention of the Attorney General. The Bill as it stands infringes
  616
  the general law. I am afraid that I can not, without trespassing unduly upon the time of the House, explain the matter so clearly and so fully as I should like, but I think a very few words will put the House in possession of the point. The Bill as it stands infringes a general law, and therefore it ought to be sent to a Select Committee. It infringes the general law in this way, that it enables a rate to be made in respect of a matter—an ecclesiastical matter—under the Church Rates Abolition Act, 1868, which has been declared to be by a court of law illegal. I have got the Attorney General's opinion here, and now I must mention to the House this: that the rates which are dealt with by this Bill depend sub stantially upon the Act of Parliament of
  1811, which deals with the parish church and the other smaller churches or chapels, and also the Act of 1820 or 1821, 1 and 2 George IV., which deals with four other very considerable churches in this parish. Now, the circumstances of the passing of these Acts were, of course, somewhat different. After the passing of the Church Rates Act, 1868, a point was taken in regard to the first Act, the Act of 1811, which dealt—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These matters were mentioned on the Debate upon the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. The honourable Member must confine his remarks to the Motion before the House.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I am not discussing the merits, but the general law of the land, as regards a private Bill, because my second point is that, if it alters the general law of the land, it ought to go to a Select Committee. I am not going to argue the thing at length; I am only supporting that line of argument by saying that the opinion of the Attorney General, which was given by him with the then Mr. Jeune, now the President of the Divorce Court, was absolutely confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeal to which I referred the other day. In substance, the effect of his opinion is this: that so far as any rate levied under the Act of 1811 is levied for ecclesiastical purposes it is not covered by the exemption in section 5 of the Church Rate Act of 1868. With

  617
  regard to the other four churches, both the Attorney General and Mr. Jeune were of a contrary opinion. They thought that the case of those four churches did come within the exemption in section 5 of that Act of 1868, and that, therefore, the rate was good, and the Court of Appeal supported it. That is quite in accordance with my expectations that the opinion of the Attorney General should be upheld by the Court of Appeal. That being so, any rate levied in Marylebone, so far as it is to be applied to the repair of the parish church, is, according to the opinion of the Attorney General, illegal. Under this Bill—the Bill that we are asked to-day to pass as an unopposed Bill—this money is to be applied to the repair of the parish church in respect of which no rate can be levied.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Member, but no rate has been levied in the parish of Marylebone under the Act of 1811 since the opinion given by the Attorney General.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I am quite aware of that. That is exactly the point, and the honourable Gentleman, having got the control of the vestry, and finding himself in a House in which there is a preponderance of Conservative and Unionist Members, wants to alter the situation which has been created by the decision of the Court of Appeal. I will read it—
  "And whereas the vestry, by resolutions passed at vestry meeting duly held for the purpose on the sixteenth day of June, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, hare agreed, in addition to the said sum of eighty thousand pounds, to pay to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a sum of two thousand seven hundred pounds, to be applied in, or towards effecting, such immediate repairs of the said churches and chapels, and of the residence of the minister of St. John's Chapel, or in or towards such other purposes as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may, with the approval of the Lord Bishop of London, determine."
  Why, the sum of £2,700—and this part of the preamble has been inserted since the Bill was introduced—is to be applied to the repair of these very churches which the decision of the Court of Appeal has said no rate can be levied in respect of. Therefore I say it is a monstrous thing to treat this as a mere matter of private legislation. The right honourable
  618
  Gentleman ought not to allow it, because he is in an impartial position. I repeat that, notwithstanding that he has got certain rights, he ought not to allow this Bill to go as an unopposed private Bill, but ought to give us an opportunity of ranging this question before some Committee or other. If you are going to raise this £80,000, I should like to know why. If that £80,000 is to be raised on the basis of these old Acts and these old-fashioned principles it is only to be given to six churches. If you are going to raise £80,000 at the expense of all the people of the parish, why should not every Established church share in the benefits? There are many other anomalies in this Bill—anomalies of a most remarkable kind—but I will mention one, and one only. Why are the clergy to be ex-officio members of the vestry? If this Bill passes unopposed, there will be no opportunity of raising any contention with regard to this matter. I think, Sir, I have made my points. I do think that, as this is a matter of general public principle, and quite apart from any consideration of the merits of the particular proposal, I have a right to look upon the right honourable Gentleman, as the Leader of the House of Commons, that he will not lend himself to an intrigue such as is embodied in this Bill, and not to assist the honourable Member to dominate the electoral judgment in the way in which the honourable Member for East Marylebone has been doing in regard to this matter.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: I do not intend to inflict myself upon the House for a very long time, but I would ask permission to say a few words of comment upon what has fallen from the honourable Member for East Marylebone. He has described this Motion as a dilatory Motion, and has presented to the House a plea for its Vote on that account. But if the House can really realise what has been the course of this Bill to the Legislature, I think it will excuse us if even at this last moment we are unable to bring our arguments before a tribunal to get the Bill amended as we desire it. The Bill was brought first into the other House, and read a first time on the 15th of February. It received the examiner's certificate the day before it was read a second time on the

  619
  29th of March, and it got into Committee unopposed on the 30th of June. It was reported on that day, and was read a third time on the 4th of July. Now, Sir, I will ask the House to contrast that leisurely method with what has happened to the Bill since it came to us. The Bill was read a first time on the 4th of July; the examiner's report was dated on the 8th of July. It was read a second time on the 14th of July; so that, whereas the other branch of the Legislature has had from the 15th of February to the 4th of July to consider and determine upon the provisions of this Bill, this House has had 10 days between the first and practically last stage during which it appears before us. Mind, I do not blame the honourable Member for the delay at all. It may have been necessary, but surely this House is entitled to more than 10 days to consider a matter containing provisions so important as the provisions of this Bill. The honourable Member cited the case of the Liverpool Bill, and said that the House refused to accept the Motion, which would have defeated the Bill entirely—that is to say, the postponement of the Second Reading for six months. But there was an excellent reason for this refusal of the House. That Bill was not a Bill containing alone provisions with regard to the churches of Liverpool. It was an omnibus Bill of enormous importance to that great city. Perhaps it is presumptuous on my part to say that I think that, the House did right to grant the Second Reading in order to enable that Bill to go upstairs. But that Bill went before the Opposed Bills Committees—it was capable of being examined upstairs; it was exposed to the attacks of petitioners—whereas this Bill, which touches the interests of Marylebone, and which is being rushed through this House, will not go before an opposed Committee, but will be disposed in 10 minutes on technical grounds alone. Now, I am going to present to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons a statement which I make in good faith. I asked him the other day whether, before he had given his consent to the Bill on behalf of the Crown, he had been made aware of the decision in the Court of Appeal. His answer was a reference to the learned Attorney General, and the Attorney
  620
  General, whose opinion, as far as my uninstructed knowledge of the law and intelligence permits me to form an opinion, I quite agree with, and that opinion given in 1889 was exactly on all fours with the decision in the Court of Appeal in 1895, which decision, I take it, was a declaration that the rate was bad. Now, I have to appeal to the right honourable Gentleman. I am credibly informed that the vestry of Marylebone has already acknowledged that this rate is bad in law, and, under those circumstances, I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will not interfere to protect the honour of this House. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, the honour of the House demands that there shall be a reference to a Committee where the petitioners may be heard. I recommend the Members of the House to read this decision, and to study this Bill, and I am firmly of the opinion that those who like this kind of Bill will find it exactly the kind of Bill they like.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think that some words ought to be said from this side of the House as to the grounds which have been advanced for departing from the regular procedure of this House. On the occasion of the Second Reading, the opponents met the Bill by a direct negative, and now we have a suggestion of another kind to delay the Bill by indulging in the irregular proceedings of referring this unopposed Bill to a hybrid Committee. The honourable and learned Gentleman who spoke last but one acknowledged that there was no right or obligation whatever to depart from the usual proceedings. He referred, it is true, to certain bodies, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and others, who were interested in the matter, but those are people who have a locus standi in this House, and they had no objections whatever to the terms of a Bill which concerned their interest. But no one who has any locus standi against this private Bill has appeared against it or petitioned against it, and therefore the ordinary procedure that this Bill should go through is that of the unopposed procedure of this House, and it should not go before a Select Committee. The

  621
  vestry are the best and proper guardians of the interests of the ratepayers. They have, after full consideration, resolved that it is a good thing for the parish of Marylebone that this old rate should be commuted and the parish relieved of the burden, and now two honourable Members come forward representing nobody in the parish of Marylebone—
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I myself and the honourable Member for Brecon are ratepayers.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Not parishioners of very old standing; or representative in authority. The honourable Members have no locus standi of a representative character, and they wish by a new procedure to set up a tribunal which has no regular position in the case according to the constituted rules of the House. If this is not a matter for the ordinary private Bill procedure of the House I do not know what can be. It has only a reference to a single parish and to a particular business connected with the parish and the promoters of the Bill having fulfilled every legal obligation, the Bill having been examined by the proper constituted authorities, and there having been no opposition by anybody who has a locus standi, it will be most unfortunate if this Bill is to be sent to a hybrid Committee. A hybrid Committee, as has been said before, is a partisan tribunal. Matters are brought before it, not by those who have the right to do so, but by those who are opposed to the Measure. This is simply an opposition to this Bill intended to delay the interests of the Church in an important parish of this metropolis, and I trust that the House will not lend itself to the sending of such a Bill as this to such a tribunal.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think there is a very simple question for the House to consider. Is this a Bill which, on the circumstances which have been stated, requires further examination? As an unopposed Bill, there may be very good grounds of complaint by the parties affected that there ought to be further inquiry. What is the allegation? This is a question of the commutation of a rate for a large sum of money—namely, £80,000. The allega-
  622
  tion is that that charge in itself is either an illegal or a disputable charge, and part of that rate, at all events, was held by the court of appeal to be an illegal charge under the operation of the Church Rating Act. That, I think, is the position; at all events, as regards the principle involved I understand that to be the case. We wish them to hear an. explanation on that point, and I am confirmed in that impression by what the honourable Member has said, that since the opinion of the Attorney General was given, and since the decision of the court of appeal confirming that decision, the parish has not levied a rate affected by that decision. The allegation of my Friend behind me is that this Bill does cover that rate, which has not been levied hitherto, but which, under this Bill, will be commuted as if it were a legal rate. That is the allegation which is made, and we wish to hear the answer of the Attorney General to it. If that is the case I feel quite confident that if the Bill in any shape covers a rate which has been declared to be illegal and the commutation of which rate would be equally illegal, this is a Bill that the House ought not to authorise, and if there is any doubt upon the matter it seems to me that there should be an inquiry into it. As for the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, saying that this is a manœuvre on the part of the ratepayers of Marylebone to complain of such a transaction, because they happen to be recent ratepayers, I may point out that it is the recent ratepayers who will have to pay the commutation; therefore, the more recent they are the more they will have to pay. Suppose there is a particular kind of fish which has for a long time been accustomed to be skinned and does not mind it; but if you apply that process to a new kind of fish it might perhaps feel it. Therefore, I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman's argument is of an effective character. The probability is that it is the introduction of the Bill which has led to the inquiry into the validity of that rate in consequence of the magnitude of the sum which is to be raised to commute it. All that I venture to say—and I do not pretend to pronounce ex cathedra on the subject—is, that if these allegations are in any way true, if the

  623
  Attorney General is doubtful whether or not the moneys raised under this Bill do cover rates which can be fairly questioned, then I think there ought to be a proper inquiry; otherwise there may be a very gross injustice done, and that will be simply because, under the rules of the House, the parties who object to it have no locus standi. I may say those rules are frequently in such cases as these relaxed, so as to give others a right to appear and to state their case in order that, at all events, no reasonable grievance may be constituted. A Bill of the description we are now discussing which deals with a very large sum of public money seems to me to be a very proper question for the House to consider, and I shall be very glad to hear from the Attorney General that the Bill does not permit any grievance or hardship to the ratepayers of the parish of Marylebone.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I should have risen earlier, but I desired to see whether there was any real ground for the Motion that my honourable Friend has made, and I can quite satisfy the House from facts with which I am intimately acquainted that the honourable Gentlemen opposite are under a misapprehension as to this Bill. It is perfectly true that I advised that, if any part of the 4d. rate levied under the Act of 1811 was for ecclesiastical purposes, that rate was bad; and if this Bill was going to set up that 4d. rate at all, or commute the 4d. rate at all, I should quite agree that this was a question which ought to be considered. But it does not do anything of the kind, and I will state the facts, which are not at present known to the honourable Gentlemen who have spoken, and I can assure the House that the difficulties which they have raised do not exist. There are two Acts of Parliament to be considered. The first, the Act of 1811, allows a 4d. rate; and the second, the Act of 1821, allows a 2d. rate. I advised, and the Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed my advice, that, whereas the 4d. rate was bad, or might be bad under certain circumstances, the 2d. rate was perfectly good. That view the Court of Appeal upheld. In addition to that there was raised a sum for burial fees which
  624
  was leviable upon the poor rates, and it is in respect of these two charges, these two particular items, that the Bill was brought in. The 2d. rate nobody has ever questioned in any proceedings whatever, and the burial fees, which amount to £1,273, have been held by the Court of Appeal to be absolutely legal. The 2d. rate, "leviable upon the poor rate and to be handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities," produced £2,777, which, together with the £1,273 for burial fees, make a total of nearly £4,000 a year, and these two perfectly legal charges, which have been decided by the Court of Appeal to be legal, involve a liability of £4,000 a year, and this Bill commutes that amount at 20 years' purchase; or, in other words, all that this Bill proposes to do is to sanction a legal scheme for the commutation of two legal payments that are now made—one a 2d. rate, and the other the burial fees. Inasmuch as there are still purposes for which the 4d. rate might still be lawfully levied, but which never have been levied, it is desirable to get rid of that rate once and for all, and the clause in which reference is made to that rate is for the purpose of discharging any liability under that Act of 1811. That which the honourable Member has objected to is a protective clause, and for the purpose of freeing liability to the rate under any Act of Parliament. I hope that I have made my meaning clear. I have endeavoured to answer the question of the right honourable Gentleman, and, as I have told the honourable Member, he is perfectly willing to see my opinions upon these subjects. The 2d. rate is a legal rate, and the 1d. rate has not been levied since 1889. I say without fear of contradiction that, notwithstanding the zeal of the newborn ratepayers, those gentlemen do not represent the ratepayers. They represent themselves; they are not the Parliamentary representatives of the ratepayers of Marylebone. Their newborn zeal discovered, or thought it had discovered, that the 4d. rate was to be reestablished, but that is not so. This schema will save the parish many thousands a year. It is a scheme to commute two perfectly legal payments which have been pronounced perfectly valid, and there is not the slightest ground for raising any constitutional

  625
  question, and I hope the House will not consent to this Motion.
  The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 193.—(Division List No. 234.)

  AYES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.J.B.(Clackm.)

  Hazell, Walter

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Birrell, Augustine

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Price, Robert John

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Holburn, J. G.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, W (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Spicer, Albert

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  McCartan, Michael

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Daly, James

  McEwan, William

  Warner, T. C. T.

  Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Davitt, Michael

  Maden, John Henry

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

  Dillon, John

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Woodall, William

  Duckworth, James

  Norton, Captain C. William

  Woodhouse, SirJT (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Mr. Carvell Williams and

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Harwood, George

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  NOES.

  Aird, John

  Carlile, William Walter

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Anstruther, H. T.

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Drucker, A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

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

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

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

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Cook, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

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

  Cornwallis, F. S. W.

  Fry, Lewis

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col E. T. D.

  Garfit, William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Bethell, Commander

  Cox, Robert

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Godson, Sir A. F.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Goschen, George J. Sussex)

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Curzon,Rt.HnG.N.(Lanc,SW)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Brodnick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Gretton, John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greville, Captain

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  McKillop, James

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Manners, Lord E. W. J.

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hardy, Laurence

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Stock, James Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Monk, Charles James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  More, Robert Jasper

  Start, Hon. Humphrey N.

  Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, Joseph

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Howell, William Tudor

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Myers, William Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kenyon, James

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Usborne, Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Valentia, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Verney, Hon. R. G.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

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

  Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Loder, G. W. E.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

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

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn. E.R. (Bath)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lowles, John

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

  Lowther,Rt.Hn.J.W.(Cumb.)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Mr. Boulnois and Mr.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Knowles.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Resolution agreed to.

  The Motions standing in the names of Sir John Branner and Mr. Brynmor Jones were ruled out of order, whilst those of Mr. Harwood and Mr. Lloyd George were ordered to stand over till Monday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PRO-VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
PETITIONS.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Carlisle, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from New-castle-on-Tyne and Bristol (2); to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Inverkeithing, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  From Liskeard, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Paper [presented 19th July] to be printed. [No. 308.]
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (COUNTY OF LONDON).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th March; Sir Albert Rollit]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 309.]
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th April; Mr. Lough]; to lit upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 310.]
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,158 to 2,160 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 470 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 6, 1898).
  Copy presented of Correspondence respecting the Abolition of the Legal Status of Slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Memorial of Glebe Loan Borrowers in Ireland presented to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in December, 1897, and subsequent Correspondence in reference thereto between the Irish Government and the Most Rev. Dr. Healy, Bishop of Clonfert."—(Mr. T. D. Sullivan,)
  AUSTRALASIA (BOUNTIES, ETC.)
  Address for Return showing the Bounties, Subsidies, or other aid afforded by Australasian Colonies to agricultural produce common to the Mother Country and Australasia.—(Sir John Colomb.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Committee:
  "That, in the case of the Forres Water Bill [H.L.], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Reported, with an amended Title Provisional Order relating to St. Marylebone not confirmed; remaining Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL,
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL,
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL,
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CON- FIRMATION (No. 1) BILL,
  without Amendment;

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL,

  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION GAS BILL,
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,
  LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL,
  LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL,
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL,
  with Amendments.
  Amendments to—

FOLKESTONE WATER BILL [H.L.],
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.],

    LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL [H.L.], HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
    without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892." [Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
    And also a Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the redemption of the Mersey Railway Redeemable First Debenture Stock; and for other purposes." [Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]

  BILLS ADVANCED.
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions of Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]
    MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BILLS WITHDRAWN.
    PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    COMMON EMPLOYMENT ABOLITION BILL.
    Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  NEW BILLS.

    OUT-DOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg leave to introduce this Bill, which is a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of distress in Ireland. This Bill is practically identical with the Bill which was introduced in 1895, and a Bill which was introduced last year, in order to cope with the distress in Ireland, and it is necessary in order to prevent boards of guardians being surcharged with such expenditure.
    MR. DILLON: Might I just ask the right honourable Gentleman to say that this Bill shall not be taken before Wednesday next, as I should like to have an opportunity of reading the Bill and becoming conversant with it before he takes the Second Reading?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
    The Bill brought in and read a first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

    SEED SUPPLY AND POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I also beg leave to introduce another Bill; a similar Bill has been introduced on previous occasions when distress existed in Ireland. This is a Bill to provide for the supply of seed potatoes, seed oats, and spraying machines and material to occupiers and cultivators of land in Ireland, and for the employment of instructors in the use of such machines and material. The only difference between this and previous Bills is that this applies not only to seed potatoes but to the other matters which I have mentioned.
    Leave being given, the Bill was brought in and read a first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

  QUESTIONS.

    LONDON SCHOOL BOARD SCHOOLS.
    MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will give a Return showing the number of schools erected, or taken over, by the London School Board, which have been wholly or partially closed, or used as special departments; and the number of vacant places in existing Board schools in each division of the metropolis, with the name of each school?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST,): A Return can be given of the number of schools closed, but the Department does mot think that any reliable Return could be given of those partially closed, or used as special departments. The number of vacant places will appear in the annual Report.

    MUZZLING ORDER IN HAMPSHIRE.
    MR. MYERS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a Resolution passed in the month of
    634
    May last by the Hants County Council praying for a relaxation of the muzzling order within the county of Hants; and whether, as there has been no case of rabies in that county for over six months, he will consider the advisability of relaxing the Order, at least in the inner portions of the county?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I have received the Resolution to which my honourable Friend refers, but I regret that at present I am not in a position to give effect to it. A serious case of the disease occurred at Chichester some three weeks ago, the origin of which could not be traced, and there are other indications to show that, although the position has very greatly improved, the disease still lingers in the home counties area. I am naturally very anxious to avoid the necessity of re-imposing any of the Muzzling Orders now in force when once they have been withdrawn, and under existing circumstances, there must be a great danger that this would be the case, so far as East Hampshire is concerned.

    ENGLISH PRISONS DEPARTMENT CLERICAL STAFF.
    MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are some members of the clerical staff of the English Prisons Department at the Home Office who are over 65 years of age; and, if so, how long it is intended that they should retain their posts?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I am informed that there are no such members of the clerical staff of the English Prisons Department.

    WOOD PAVING IN THE MALL.
    MR. MONK: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been decided to lay down wood pavement between Buckingham Gate and Marlborough House; and, if so, when the work will be completed?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No decision has yet been arrived at as to laying down wood pavement between Buckingham Gate and Marlborough House. The matter is now under the consideration of the Treasury.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Will the right honourable Gentleman remember that if wood paving is laid down—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is suggesting an argument.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, if it is decided to lay down wood pavement, he will consider riders on horseback, and allow a space for them outside the wood pavement?
    [No Reply.]

    FACTORY ACTS PROSECUTIONS.
    MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any cases have been brought to his notice in which women and children have been dismissed by their employers in consequence of evidence given by them in support of prosecutions undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories; and, if so, whether he purposes taking any action in the matter?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, cases of this sort do from time to time come to my notice. As the law stands, however, I have no power to take any action in the matter; and in view of the great difficulties in regard to proof which are experienced in cases of a similar kind under the Witnesses Protection Act, 1892, it seems very doubtful whether the matter can be remedied by legislation. Much more good can, I think, be done by the voluntary action of such a committee as, I am glad to see, is in process of formation for the very purpose of rendering help in these cases.
    MR. WOODALL: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if there have been many cases of the kind in the Potteries?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I cannot say whether there have been any in the Potteries.

    RIVER PLATE CATTLE TRADE.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can inform the House of the number of cattle lost by death from disease in recent cargoes from the River Plate; whether he can inform the House of the nature of the disease; whether, in the case of those arriving in the Thames alive, and slaughtered at Deptford, a careful examination is made of the carcase to prevent suspected meat finding its way to the markets?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I have made inquiries on this subject, but I find no reason to believe that any losses occur amongst cattle brought from the River Plate by reason of disease. The examination of the carcases with a view to the protection of the public health rests with the local authorities, who, in the particular instance referred to, have appointed a special inspector for the purpose; but, in addition, the Board's veterinary officers are instructed to call attention to any carcases which, in their opinion, are unfit for human food.

    TUBERCULOSIS IN DAIRY HERDS.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has reason, to believe that tuberculosis is prevalent in the dairy herds of the country; and, if so, whether any steps are being taken to warn the consumers of milk of the danger to young children drinking milk from cows so effected?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: With regard to the a prevalence of tuberculosis among dairy stock, I would refer the honourable Member to the very full statement on the r subject contained in the Report of the recent Royal Commission. I do not myself think that the issue of any warning on the subject is necessary, but the matter is one for the consideration of the Local Government Board rather than of myself.
    MR. BROADHURST: Do the Government contemplate any action arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: No, Sir; it is not contemplated to take any action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission until there is some evidence on the part of the agricultural community that they desire it.
    MR. CHANNING: In connection with that reply, I would like to ask whether his attention has been called to the want of knowledge or practical experience as to the test shown by English agriculturists examined by the Commission, and whether he would issue, in leaflet form, information such as that contained in the Report of the Royal Commission as to the success of the eliminating test in Denmark?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: If the honourable Member means, will I circulate the Report in a cheaper and condensed form, I shall be ready to consider that, but I cannot undertake, on behalf of the Department, to circulate the information referred to, for which the Department might be held legally responsible.

    POSTAL DUTIES AT WOODFORD GREEN.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why town postman Paul, now of Enfield, has been refused payment of the arrears of pay for doing two duties, a midnight collection, and a station duty
    638
    on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings at Woodford Green between April and October, 1897; and is he aware that the claim for payment is based on the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, that no period of duty should be reckoned at less than an hour; and that, although Paul has repeatedly claimed the arrears and been refused, his successor is being paid at the rate of two hours for doing exactly the same duties?
    MR. HANBURY: The postman referred to by the honourable Member performed at Woodford Green a station trip occupying 30 minutes on four Saturday nights between April and October, 1897, in turn with other postmen, as part of his regular duty. The period of duty was reckoned as one hour; but, as the postman's total attendence for the week did not exceed the regulation limit, his claim for extra payment was properly refused. On a revision of the duties in October last, the duty in question was assigned to an assistant postman, as part of his regular duty, and paid for accordingly.

    WAR MEDALS ON MILITIA PARADES.
    MR. LOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that on 26th May last Private White, of the 7th Battalion Rifle Brigade (formerly of the Royal Horse Artillery and Army Service Corps), while on parade at Milton Camp, Gravesend, was ordered to take off the Egyptian medal and clasp and the Khedive's star he was wearing sewn on his best clothes; that the said medal and star were publicly cut off by his colour-sergeant in the presence of the whole battalion of 600 men; that later in the day, having been ordered to appear at a ceremonial parade, he wore his medal and star, which were again removed; and that, because he protested against their removal, Private White was made a prisoner and confined to the guard room; whether the commanding officer s would have sent Private White to prison but for the intercession of the adjutant, who gave him an excellent character,

    639
    whereupon he was fined only; whether he is aware that Private White made respectful application to the War Office on 31st May and 7th June last, without receiving any reply to his communication; and seeing that Private White has worn his medal and star at previous trainings without any complaint being made, and has now been warned that he must leave the battalion owing to the incident referred to, the Secretary for War will prevent this soldier being driven from the service merely for wearing decorations honourably obtained?
    MR. E. G. WEBSTER: Is it not the fact that the regulations provide that no medals shall be worn on undress uniforms?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): By the regulations medals are worn in review order, i.e., on tunics, and ribbons only are worn when troops parade in "marching" or in "drill" order. Several men in this battalion have medals, but Private White alone appeared on parade in marching order wearing his medals, and was consequently ordered to remove them. The colour-sergeant of the company cut them off, Private White lending him a knife for the purpose. In the afternoon the battalion paraded again in "drill" order, when Private White, having replaced his medals, refused to take them off, and was confined for disobedience to orders. Nothing is known as to what the adjutant said to the commanding officer, but the man went before the bounty board, by whom he was fined 1s. Private White's communications have necessitated various references in order to verify the facts. No communication has been made to him that he should leave the battalion. The commander-in-chief holds that a serious act of indiscipline was committed, and that some punishment was necessary. At the same time, he considers that militiamen should be allowed to wear their medals on ceremonial parades and when walking out; and regulations will be issued providing that in the case of militia regiments which have not got tunics medals may be worn on these occasions.

    QUICK-FIRING GUNS FOR THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
    LORD C.BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information as to the progress made in supplying quick-firing guns to the Royal Artillery; how many batteries have already been equipped with quick-firing guns; how many are expected to be so equipped before the end of the current financial year; and whether any steps are to be taken to bring the reserve forces up to a similar standard of efficiency by gradually equipping the volunteer batteries with quick-firing guns?
    MR. BRODRICK: As my noble Friend is aware, the increased rapidity of fire exhibited by these guns is due partly to the mechanism of the gun itself, and partly to modifications of the gun carriage. Experiments with the new equipment have been and are being pressed forward by every means at the disposal of the War Office, and the Secretary of State hopes that the Ordnance Committee will shortly be in a position to recommend a suitable design for adoption.
    LORD C. BERESFORD: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?
    MR. BRODRICK: It is impossible to equip volunteer batteries before the regular troops.
    SIR C. DILKE: The right honourable Gentleman talks about experiments. Is he aware that the French and German armies had quick-firing guns nine years ago?
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, but it is not possible for us to adopt a gun until it has been recommended to the Secretary of State for War by the experts.

    DYSENTERY AT ASSOUAN.
    MR. LECKY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government in Egypt has made any inquiry into the causes of the epidemic of dysentery

    641
    which broke out at Assouan last February and led to the deaths of three ladies; and, if so, whether the Report can be obtained; and what authority in Egypt inspects and is responsible for the sanitary conditions under which hotels and postboats in Upper Egypt are conducted?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): No information has been received at the Foreign Office as to the cases of dysentery at Assouan last February, but Mr. Rodd will be asked to obtain a copy of any Report which may exist on the subject, and also in regard to the inspection of hotels and postboats.

    LLANDRILLO-YN-RHOS.
    MR. W. JONES (Carnarvon, Arfon): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an attempt is being made by some land speculators to change the Welsh name of Llandrillo-yn-Rhos to Rhos-on-Sea, a mixture of Welsh and English, without history or association, thus ignoring the historic Welsh name known ever since the thirteenth century; and that there is a strong feeling in the district amongst all classes of the community in favour of the retention of the existing name; and whether the Post Office authorities will refuse their sanction to such a change?
    MR. HANBURY: An application was made last year for the name of the post office at Llandrillo-yn-Rhos to be changed to Rhos-on-Sea, but in the absence of a general expression of opinion in favour of the change the application was not acceded to. A change of name is not, as a rule, adopted until the new name has been brought into use in the address of the great majority of the letters, and in view of the strong feeling in the district this condition is not, I think, likely to be fulfilled.

    FEMALE RATE COLLECTORS IN IRELAND.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is
    642
    aware that the Clogher Board of Guardians have, en the 16th instant, re-elected Miss Ann Eliza Magill as rate collector for the parish of Errigal; whether he will re-consider the decision to refuse the confirmation of this appointment, the duties of which she has efficiently discharged for five years; and whether, if there exists any difference between the laws of Ireland and England, to the disadvantage of Irish women, he will consider the advisability of amending the law in justice to the women of Ireland?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): I am aware of the fact mentioned in the first paragraph. In reply to the second paragraph, I must remind my honourable Friend that if this lady had been discharging the duties of the office for five years she can only have done so by virtue of an irregularity on the part of the rate collector, as collectors have no power to act by deputy. I do not think that the Irish law could with advantage be altered with the object of enabling women to hold the position, and I am afraid I cannot undertake to re-consider the decision arrived at. Of course my honourable Friend will understand that this decision is in no way intended to reflect upon Miss Magill in particular, but is dictated by general considerations.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: But will not the right honourable Gentleman take into account that Miss Magill has held the office for over five years?
    [No Reply.]

    BELFAST SUMMONS COURT.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James M'Cann, one of the magistrates who was on the bench in the Summons Court, Belfast, on the 6th instant, and who signed a certificate for a spirit grocer's licence, is traveller for a firm of wine and spirit merchants in Belfast; and, if so, has such action made him liable to a penalty of £100, under the

    643
    provisions of the 35th and 36th years of Victoria, chapter 94, section 60?
    MR. MCCAETAN: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that the facts mentioned in the Question do not disclose any violation of the Act referred to, and whether, in such cases, if penalties are incurred, they can only be recovered by action in the High Court of Justice in Ireland?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no informaion whether the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. If the provisions of the enactment referred to have been violated, it is open to any person to proceed for the recovery of the penalty.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
    MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, between the 24th of February and the 18th June, 1894, contracts were entered into by the Admiralty with certain contractors for the delivery of sis torpedo boat destroyers for sums amounting in the aggregate to £227,535, the dates of delivery for the several vessels falling between the 3rd December, 1894, and the 30th March, 1895; had any such vessels been delivered on the 31st March, 1897; how many of such vessels have been delivered up to the present time, and at what respective dates were the vessels in question delivered to the Admiralty; how much has been paid to contractors in respect of their construction, and what proportion of the amount voted for that purpose remains in the hands of the Admiralty; what is the total amount of the penalties for delay in delivery incurred under the terms of the contracts; and how many of such penalties have been enforced, and what is the amount recovered; and whether, in deciding upon the acceptance of tenders in contract work of this kind, the Admiralty regard time as an important element, and whether, if one contractor undertakes the delivery in a shorter period than another, the difference in time may, in the estimation of the Admi-
    644
    ralty, be an equivalent for paying a much larger price?
    THE SECERTARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Contracts were entered into for six torpedo boat destroyers for delivery as stated in the Question. Only one of these vessels, the Zebra, has been delivered—namely, on the 22nd October, 1897. £196,672, including extras, has been paid to contractors, the balance now outstanding being £32,329. The penalties incurred amount to £81,915. The question of remission of penalties has been considered only in the case of the Zebra, in which they have been remitted. Time is an element in the acceptance of tenders, and exceptional cases may occur where earlier delivery justifies the acceptance of a higher tender, especially where time is the governing condition of the contract.
    MR. LEWIS: Will the right honourable Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a copy of the ordinary form of contract—including the penalty clauses?
    MR. MACARTNEY: I should like to have notice of that Question.

    POST OFFICE ELECTRICIAN-IN-CHIEF.
    MR. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the amount of salary paid to the electrician-in-chief to the Post Office; and whether he is allowed to do other work for electric or telephone companies?
    MR. HANBURY: The salary of the engineer-in-chief and electrician to the Post Office is £1,200 a year. Mr. Preece also receives varying sums every year for services rendered to the Colonies. Mr. Preece is not allowed to do other work for electric or telephone companies. There are a few municipalities which were obtaining advice from Mr. Preece on their electrical undertakings before he became engineer-in-chief, and they have been allowed to continue to consult him in regard to these works, but Mr. Preece has not entered into any fresh engagements of the kind.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Arising out of that Question, may I ask does the right honourable Gentleman consider it conducive to the good of the public service that this official should—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

    IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish Government has yet given permission to the Commissioners of National Education to pay in full the arrears of fee grant, as calculated in the Education Office, to those National school teachers who elected in 1879 to remain outside the provisions of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, and who have, in consequence, no pecuniary interest in the solvency of the Pension Fund?
    ME. HANBURY: The Irish Government have not given permission, to the National Education Commissioners to make such payments. No claims of the kind have been brought to the notice of the Treasury.

    TYRONE ESTATE OF THE IRISH COM-MISSIONERS OF EDUCATION.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Education in Ireland have yet decided to sell their Tyrone estate to the tenants; and, if so, can he state at what price respectively to first term judicial tenants, to second term judicial tenants, and to non-judicial tenants; and whether, in the case of the last class, they will wipe out the arrears which resulted mainly from their inability to pay unreduced rents and costs of legal proceedings?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners of Education have not yet decided to sell the Tyrone estate to their tenants, nor have they decided to remit the arrears due by non-judicial tenants.

    WAIMA INCIDENT.
    MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have definitely refused to consider the representations that have been made by Her Majesty's Government with a view of securing compensation for the families of the British officers and men killed at Waima?
    MR. CURZON: A communication on the subject has been addressed to the French Government, but no reply hag yet been received.

    NEW BOROUGH REGISTERS FOR IRELAND.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether all aldermen and councillors in the boroughs of Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo, and Waterford will, under the provisions, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, vacate their seats before the elections on 25th November next; (2) by what date must the new borough registers be revised and by what date must the revised registers be published; (3) is he aware that most elective public bodies in Ireland are in favour of having the elections once in three years, and will that system be adopted; (4) and will he inform the House how casual vacancies occurring through death, resignation, or disqualification are to be filled up under the now Act?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the provisions of the Bill aldermen and councillors of the boroughs mentioned will not vacate their seats until the middle of January next. The Local Government register will be printed and come into force along with the Parliamentary register—that is to say, on the 1st January. Many of the local bodies are favourable to the triennial system, but the majority of them are not in favour of its being applied compulsorily. As regards the last paragraph, I must refer the honourable Member to the provisions of clause 91 of the Bill.

    NEWBLISS PETTY SESSIONAL BENCH.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Newbliss Petty Sessions bench of magistrates consists of five gentlemen, not one of whom is a Roman Catholic, although the Roman Catholics number two-thirds of the population; and, since the County Lieutenant does not recommend any Roman Catholic for the commission of the peace, will the right honourable Gentleman draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this case, with the view to the appointment of at least one Roman Catholic to the Newbliss magistracy?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that nine magistrates have been appointed to attend the Newbliss Petty Sessions, and of these three are believed to be Roman Catholics. The resident magistrate of the district is also of the same religion.

    ARREST OF A WAR CORRESPONDENT AT PORTO RICO.
    LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any confirmation of the statement that Mr. W. T. Halstead, special correspondent for the New York Herald was re-arrested and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment by the Spanish authorities at Porto Rico, not, as at first alleged, for a repetition of the offence of photographing the fortifications of San Juan, but for the original offence for which he had previously been arrested and discharged; and whether, if this statement be confirmed, Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to procure the release of Mr. Halstead; and, if so, what success has attended their efforts?
    MR. CURZON: No official confirmation of this statement has been received, but telegraphic instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's Consul at San Juan that if the report is true he is to apply to the Captain-General at once for Mr. Halstead's release on the ground that he has been sufficiently punished and
    648
    that it is contrary to usage to re-arrest and sentence a prisoner for an offence upon which he has already been discharged. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has also on more than one occasion represented the case to the Spanish, Government, who are inquiring into it.

    VOLUNTEER BRIGADES AT ALDER-SHOT.
    COLONEL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Volunteer brigades encamped this year at Aldershot cannot be supplied with the usual amount of transport in consequence of the autumn manœuvres, and will therefore be put to extra expense in providing transport for themselves, he will make some allowance to cover such outlay?
    MR. BRODRICK: The allowances granted to Volunteer corps are intended to cover the cost of moving baggage to and from their camps. When Army Service Corps wagons are available at Aldershot they are lent for the purpose. If it should be the case that owing to the manœuvres special expenditure which is not incurred at other camps is occasioned this year at Aldershot, Lord Lansdowne will consider whether some assistance can be given.

    NAVAL SUB-LIEUTENANTS.
    MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a sub-lieutenant, who at Greenwich and Portsmouth has obtained two first classes and three second classes, receives no earlier promotion than one who has passed third class in all five examinations?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): Promotion of sub-lieutenants is not governed, as the honourable Member appears to think, by classes only, but also by the marks which

    649
    they obtain in the various examinations. An officer who obtained the classes referred to in the Question might or might not get earlier promotion than another who obtained no class higher than third class, according to whether his class in seamanship and marks in navigation came up to the prescribed standard. Certain changes in the present conditions of promotion of sub-lieutenants have, however, been proposed by the Committee on the Training of Junior Naval Officers, which are now under the consideration of the Board.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask when the right honourable Gentleman anticipates being able to announce to the House the decision of the Committee?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I will give it at the earliest possible time. The work done is very heavy.

    OXFORD VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
    VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give any information as to the result of his inquiry into the accommodation provided in the various Voluntary schools in Oxford; and whether the already adequate accommodation for the number of children attending these schools will be recognised as such by the Department?
    SIR J. GORST: I am unable at present to give an answer to the noble Lord's Question, as the census of certain parts of the city, which is being taken by the School Board, at the request of the Education Department, is not yet completed. No change will be made in the practice of the Department in regard to the subject mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question.

    ARGENTINE CATTLE TRADE.
    MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the losses of cattle from the Argentines
    650
    amount to 80 per 1,000, as compared with 8 and 3 per 1,000 from Canada and the United States; whether there has been any improvement in the carriage of Argentine cattle to this country since the issue of the Report of the Board of Agriculture, 1896; and whether he can state if he is taking any or what steps to see that properly appointed ships are used in the service?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The losses of cattle shipped from Argentine, Canada, and the United States during 1897 were substantially those stated in the Question. During the first six months of the present year the losses in the Argentine trade have been at the rate of 67 per 1,000, a figure which indicates that some improvement in the position has recently taken place. The vessels engaged in the trade are continuously under inspection, and we have in several instances prohibited the carriage of animals by ships which in our judgment were unsuitable for the purpose. We shall continue to keep the matter steadily in view, for, in my opinion, the trade cannot be said as yet to be on a satisfactory footing.

    CYCLES FOR THE POST OFFICE.
    MR. WARNER: On behalf of the honourable Member for Stafford, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a contract for upwards of 2,000 cycles has been placed by the Post Office authorities without due notice having been given to the trade generally, and tenders publicly advertised for; and whether such contract, if given, has been confirmed; and, if not, whether fresh tenders will be called for before such confirmation be given?
    MR. HANBURY: No, Sir, no such contract has been placed, but the Postmaster General has under consideration tenders from 14 leading firms for a supply of 300 cycles to a specification specially prepared by the engineer-in-chief to the Post Office. He does not at present propose to call for fresh tenders.
    MR. WARNER: Has the contract been advertised?
    MR. HANBURY: I gather it has not.

    STAR CLASS LIFE PRISONERS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of star class life prisoners who were released since 1883, and the number of such prisoners who were released at the expiration of 10 years, 11 years, and 12 years respectively; how many life prisoners during the same period were sentenced to death and reprieved, and were since 1883 released; and how many star class life prisoners are now in prison (exclusive of treason-felony prisoners) who have served more than 15 years?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The answer to the first paragraph is 65, of whom 10 were released at the end of 10 years, six at the end of 11, seven at the end of 12. The answer to the second paragraph is 152, of whom 44 have been released. These figures do not include convicts sentenced at the present assizes or those transferred to asylums or Scotch or Irish prisons. The answer to the last paragraph is six. I should add that, In deciding when a convict under a life sentence can properly be released, the question whether he has been placed in the star class or not, which is purely a matter of prison discipline, is not taken into consideration.

    HORSE-BREEDING IN IRELAND.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to carry out the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the improvement of horse-breeding in Ireland, that greater aid should be given by the State to improve the breeding of horses in Ireland?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A discussion took place on this subject in another place on Tuesday last, and Lord Denbigh then stated that the Lord Lieutenant was considering the desirability of creating an authoritative body in Ireland similar to the Commission existing for that purpose in England, for the encouragement of pure and sound thoroughbred horses, and that the question of the financial arrangements was also being considered.

    FRAUDULENT COMPANIES.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of my honourable Friend the Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of Milner re Beall and Singleton, where it is stated that a large sum was invested in worthless securities or bogus companies which, although registered, never carried on business nor purchased the properties for which they were formed; whether the Public Prosecutor has been instructed to act in the matter; and whether the Board of Trade will prosecute the promoters of fraudulent companies on the application of shareholders who have been victimised by false promises?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have seen a newspaper account of the case referred to. The Board of Trade have no power in regard to the prosecution of promoters of fraudulent companies. Where, however, a company is ordered to be wound up, and the investigations by the Official Receiver disclose primâ facie evidence of criminal offences, the Board cause a statement of the facts to be prepared and laid before the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has asked

    653
    the Lord Lieutenant to add expert outsiders to the Vice-Regal Commission on Intermediate Education; and whether he can state what was the reply?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant on this subject. In view of the fact that the subject of the inquiry is the system which the Commission have to administer, and not the procedure which they have adopted, His Excellency does not think that sufficient reason exists for adding any additional members to the Commission as now constituted.

    DUBLIN SCIENCE AND ART BUILDINGS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can state what has been done with the money set aside for the new Science and Art Buildings, Dublin; and whether he can say when they will be commenced?
    MR. HANBURY: The only money set aside for science and art buildings in Dublin is the provision made in the Public Works and Buildings Estimate for sundry minor works there specified, and these are being proceeded with in due course. The honourable Member presumably refers to the proposed new College of Science for Dublin. No definite scheme for that institution has yet been before the Treasury. The Departmental Committee of last year did not propose any plan for its construction, thinking it desirable that another Committee, differently constituted, should inquire into that question. No financial provision can be made until a scheme has been decided upon.

    IRISH PIG INDUSTRY.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will take steps with local authorities in Ayrshire and Lancashire to allow Irish-reared pigs to be kept for fattening
    654
    purposes by the people in counties mentioned?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The Ayrshire local authority have within the last few days made amended regulations in pursuance of which swine brought from Ireland will, under certain conditions, be admitted into their district, for fattening purposes. I am not aware whether the matter has recently been under the consideration of the Lancashire local authority, but I will bring under their notice the representations which have been made to me by the honourable Member respecting it.
    MR. DALY: Will the right honourable Gentleman see that the Lancashire authorities do admit pigs for fattening purposes?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: It does not rest with me. I will communicate with the Lancashire authority, and as soon as I have received a reply will inform the honourable Member.

    TOURMALINE PRISONERS.
    MR. DUCKWORTH (Lancs, Middleton): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the long delay of their trial, the hardships and sufferings they have already undergone, and the fact that had it not been for the information supplied by the British Foreign Office they would probably have escaped, the Government will now use its best offices with the Moorish Government to secure the pardon and release of Mr. Harry Grey and the other three British subjects who were recently condemned in the Consular Court in Tangiers to terms of three and four months imprisonment?
    MR. CURZON: The sentences were pronounced by the Chief Justice at Gibraltar, and Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier has informed us that the time during which the prisoners had been in detention was taken into consideration in allotting the sentences. I am afraid that the fact that the service in which the prisoners were engaged was in

    655
    deliberate disregard of the repeated warnings given, by the Foreign Office can hardly be accepted as a ground for mitigation of sentence. It is proposed, however, that the imprisonment shall, if possible, take place, not in Morocco, but in Gibraltar.

    TRADE VEHICLES.
    MR. BRASSEY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the justices of the peace for the petty sessions holden at Chipping Norton, in the county of Oxfordshire, on 29th December, 1897, when Sidney Lewis was convicted on the prosecution of the Queen at the instance of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for conveying in the way of his trade some of his workmen from their place of work to home, together with some of his trade plant, in a vehicle used solely for the purpose of his trade; and whether the Statute 32 and 33 Vic, c. 14, ss. 19 and 27, under which the prosecution was instituted, sanctions such a decision; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of proposing an amendment of the law to prevent a great hardship on small traders?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): By the courtesy of my honourable Friend I have seen a report of the case referred to in his Question. The conviction was in accordance with the Statutes which govern the matter. It has always been found necessary to enforce the law strictly; and as at present advised I do not think there is any necessity for an amendment.

    CELTIC GOLD ORNAMENTS.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any progress has been made, since the Debate on Friday week, in the negotiations for the restoration to Ireland of the Celtic gold ornaments now in the British Museum?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have been making inquiries on the subject, and I find that the only two circumstances which permit the British Museum to give up any part of its collection are either that the part of the collection is a duplicate, or is useless for the purposes of the collection; and I am afraid that under neither category can be ranked the golden ornaments referred to by the honourable Baronet. No merely administrative act on my part can alter the conditions; and I am disposed to think that the best plan will be to institute a general inquiry into the relations of the authorities of the British Museum with those of Edinburgh and Dublin, with a view to preventing the removal of characteristic Scotch or Irish curiosities from the country of their origin.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: Does the right honourable Gentleman propose to take steps to carry out this inquiry?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir, I do; and if the honourable Baronet will put a question on the subject I shall be pleased to tell him what those steps are.

    QUEEN'S COLLEGES VOTE.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day the Queen's Colleges Vote will be taken?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot fix a day for the Vote. But if I am able, as I think I shall be, to give some more time—it cannot be much—to Irish Estimates, I shall be glad to arrange for an opportunity of discussing any question which the honourable Member for East Mayo and his colleagues may desire.

    FAIR RENTS IN IRELAND.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can approximately state how much it has cost Ireland, from 1881

    657
    to 1896, or during the first judicial term, to fix fair rents in that country; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the tenant farmers of Ireland owing to the general increase in rent by the chief Land Commissioners in cases appealed from the decisions of the Sub-Commission Courts; and whether, considering the expensive method of fixing rents in Ireland, he will advise the Government to bring in a Bill next Session of Parliament to enable the tenant farmers of Ireland to become owners in fee of their holdings?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No separate accounts have been kept of the cost of fixing fair rents in Ireland, either by the Land Commissioners or by the different county courts. Both the Commissioners and the county courts have various other duties to discharge in addition to the fixing of judicial rents, and it would be impossible to give the expenditure entailed by the fixing of fair rents alone. I may, however, state that during the period from the passing of the Land Act of 1881 to the 31st March, 1897, the total amount appropriated out of moneys voted by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Land Commission, together with the salaries of the judicial and other Commissioners, which are charged on the Consolidated Fund, was about £1,473,753. I have no evidence before me that the fact is as alleged in the second paragraph, but I should certainly anticipate from experience that any increase of rent would cause dissatisfaction among tenants, and that any reduction of rent would similarly cause dissatisfaction among landlords. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative.

    H.M.S. DIADEM.
    LORD C. BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether H.M.S. Diadem has been passed into the Fleet Reserve; and whether, to thoroughly test her capabilities, in view of the breakdown of H.M.S. Terrible, on her cruise from Gibraltar, he will order the Diadem to undertake a full speed cruise across the Atlantic?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Diadem was commissioned on the 19th instant. A programme of steam trials has been arranged for her with a view to obtaining all the information required. It does not include a cruise at full speed across the Atlantic, but if fully carried out it will give a very thorough test of the efficiency of the engines. The object of the trials is to investigate carefully all the points connected with the machinery which may be found capable of improvement.
    LORD C. BERESFORD: Will the right honourable Gentleman publish these trials, since there is great doubt as to the efficiency of the Belleville boilers, and it would be satisfactory if those doubts could be removed?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I presume it will be possible to do so, but I do not wish to commit myself without consideration. I am most anxious that every publicity should be given to the matter.

    COPYING BRANCH, COLONIAL OFFICE.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the post in the copying branch of the Colonial Office, recently filled by the promotion of an assistant clerk, was one of the six posts referred to in the statement made in this House on the 5th of December, 1893, by the then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies as being special posts to which the best second division clerks may look to be promoted if found qualified; whether a period of over twelve months elapsed between the occurrence and the filling up of the vacancy in question; and, whether, during that interval, the second division clerks serving in his department preferred a request that the Permanent Under Secretary of State would receive a deputation from their body with reference to the filling up of the vacancy, but that no opportunity was afforded them of sending such deputation?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR.J.CHAMBERLAIN,): This is a question of administration and necessitates a very long answer. The post of superintendent of the copying branch of the Colonial Office, which became vacant last year, was one of the six posts referred to in an answer given by the honourable Member for Poplar, then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 5th of December, 1893, as posts to which the best second division clerks might look to be promoted if found qualified, and if, as vacancies approached, the circumstances of the office should continue to justify their retention. On the occurrence of the vacancy it was thought advisable not to retain the post on the same footing and scale of salary, but to substitute an office, the holder of which should be styled supervisor of copying, with a salary not rising beyond £300, which is below the maximum of the second division clerks, and it has been filled by the appointment of an assistant clerk who had assisted the superintendent for several years, and had for considerable periods acted as superintendent during the absence through illness of the superintendent, and was in my opinion the person best qualified for the duties of the post. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. There was no necessity for any deputation. The second division clerks who applied for the post stated their views as to filling up the vacancy fully in writing, and all or any of them who desired it might have stated them orally to the Permanent Under Secretary of State. I may add that since the date of the answer referred to in the question one second division clerk has been promoted to the rank of superintendent, four have been specially promoted to the higher grade of the second division, and one to a temporary staff post with increased emoluments, and that of the second division clerks then serving in the Colonial Office there are only four who have not received any special advancement.

    INDIAN CANTONMENT RULES.
    MR. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in the draft cantonment, rules sanctioned by him in his despatch of 8th July, 1897, it is provided that any medical practitioner who in the course of his practice becomes cognisant of the existence in any person of any infectious, or contagious disorder shall be bound, under penalty to give information to the cantonment authority; and whether the Indian Government have given any reason for omitting this provision in the cantonment regulations issued by them under date 15th October, 1897, and now in operation?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Government of India were of opinion that the rule to which this, question refers was, as originally drafted, too wide, and that it required modification. As, however, it was desirable to issue the rules without delay, they decided to publish them without this particular rule, which they reserved for further consideration; but it was and their intention to restore it in a modified form. This will shortly be done, and I will then lay it on the Table of the House.
    MR. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the letter issued by the Government of India, Military Department, dated 20th November, 1897, which purports to state explicitly and in practical detail the policy of the Government of India with respect to the future treatment of venereal disease in cantonments?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: In answer to a supplemental Question the other day I said I was not aware whether I had seen the actual document. I find now that it did pass before me, and it is included in the Papers which are already in print and which I have presented to the House.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask the permission of the House to make a

    661
    personal explanation with reference to a statement which appears in to-day's Standard, to the effect that I intend to oppose the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill on the Report stage, and have declared that I will carry on the struggle through an all-night sitting. I wish to say at once that that statement by the Standard is absolutely false and unfounded. I have made no such declaration, and have not even conceived such a thought. Indeed, I imagine that if the Government show a generous disposition with regard to Amendments, the Bill can be disposed of early. I should have taken no notice whatever of the statement in the newspaper, which I have observed is so often remarkable for the inaccuracy of its statements, had I not conceived that the First Lord of the Treasury or the Attorney General might possibly have read the paragraph—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is utilising the occasion for something more than a personal explanation. I am sure the House will accept his statement.

    VACCINATION BILL.
    MR. DUNCOMBE: May I ask if it is the intention to proceed with the Vaccination Bill to night?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir. And may I point out it is not usual to discuss the general principles of a Bill at any length on the Third Reading.
    MR. DUNCOMBE: When will the Bill be taken?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot say as yet, but I warned the House yesterday that it might have to be taken late in the sitting.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I suggest that if the Bill were put down as a First Order on the understanding that the discussion would not exceed two hours it would be more convenient?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The difficulty would be to confine the Debate to two hours. We have to send the Bill to the Lords.
    SIR C. DILKE: When will the Prisons Bill be taken? I notice that, although in his statement the other day the right honourable Gentleman named it immediately after the Vaccination Bill, he is taking the Criminal Evidence Bill before that.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not recall that, but I have looked upon the Bill as one not requiring much further discussion.
    SIR C. DILKE: The right honourable Gentleman certainly said the business for the early part of this week would be the Vaccination Bill and the Prisons Bill.

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): When I assented to clause 3 of this Bill, it was pointed out to me that the clause went further than was necessary, and a suggestion was made that some limitation should be put upon it. So far as this Amendment is concerned—this new clause, subject to your ruling, Sir—the House will see is a real protection over clause 3. Of course, I shall have something to say as to the provision later on, but in moving this new clause I do not think I ought to detain the House.
    New clause proposed—
    "Cases where the right of reply depends upon the question whether evidence has been called for the defence, the fact that the person charged has been called as a witness shall not of itself confer on the prosecution the right of reply."—(The. Attorney General.)
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have a small Amendment to this clause, Sir, after the word "charged," at the end of the third line, I should like to insert

    663
    the words, "wife or husband of the person charged."
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have not yet put the Second Reading.
    Question put—
    "That the clause be now read a second time."
    MR. S. EVANS: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General what cases he thinks will arise in which the right of reply will depend upon other circumstances. I am only aware of one, and that is where the Attorney General in criminal cases appears on behalf of the Crown. I do not know whether there are any other cases of any right. No doubt the clause carries out what are the wishes of the right honourable Gentleman, but I hope he will say a word or two on the subject.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: As an Amendment to this clause I beg to move after the word "charged" at the end of the third line that the words "wife or husband of the person charged" be inserted, because I presume that whatever rule applies to the prisoner in this matter would also apply to the wife or husband of the prisoner, and if it does not, there should be some good reason why it does not. I merely move this in order to obtain some explanation.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: We have discussed this question from many points of view, and I believe we ought not to go further in this clause. The real object of the clause is that there may be no disadvantage to the prisoner who is giving evidence himself, but that does not arise in the case of witnesses who are only witnesses and not persons charged. If a wife or a husband were called as a witness, in order to present their views of the facts as regards the prisoner, the matter would not arise.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think I was quite right in taking the opinion of the Attorney General, and after his explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    New clause proposed—
    "In criminal proceedings in which the Attorney General, or any person acting as his representative, shall appear to prosecute for the Crown, the same rule with regard to the right of reply which is followed in other criminal proceedings shall apply."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The Motion which stands upon the Paper in my name will, as you have intimated to me, require some alteration, and I think that all difficulties will be met if it reads as follows—
    "In criminal proceedings in which the Attorney General, or Solicitor General or any persons acting as their representatives, shall appear to prosecute for the Crown, and the person charged shall give evidence on his own behalf, under this Act, the same rule with regard to the right of reply which is followed in other criminal proceedings shall apply."
    Now, the question which I wish to raise is one of considerable importance, and one in which the general public take a great interest, and in order to make the matter plain I think it is necessary in the first place to speak upon the best authority we have as to what the existing rule and law really is, and I think the best authority we have upon that subject is "Russell on Crime." In volume 3, page 456, there is a reference to this matter in which it is held that in cases of public prosecution for felony, instituted by the Crown, the law officers of the Crown and those who represent them are in strictness entitled to reply, although no evidence is produced on the part of the prisoner. According to some authorities it is only the Attorney General and not the Solicitor General who has the right to reply, but it is sufficient for my purpose to take that rule as applying the right beyond all dispute to the Attorney General, when he appears in criminal proceedings where the prosecution is instituted by the Crown. Now, Mr. Speaker, while fully admitting that that practice is established beyond all controversy, many of our most eminent judges have expressed strong disapprobation of it. Baron Marten said the right in question was a very objectionable one in his opinion, and he should limit it as far as possible that he wished that he could prevent even the Attorney General

    665
    of England from exercising it. There are many cases where our eminent judges have expressed a strong opinion of disapprobation to this right of the prosecution in proceedings instituted by the Crown. I think that rule really ought to be reversed, because, in a case where the Attorney General is brought down to prosecute, you have the greatest ability brought to bear against the prisoner; you have all the prestige of the highest legal officer of the Crown being engaged throughout the trial, and where, perhaps, there is already, or may be existing, in the minds of the jurymen a little prejudice against the prisoner in consequence of the case having been considered of such importance that the Attorney General has been brought down to prosecute—that is surely not a case where this exceptional privilege ought to be given. Only a few weeks ago the Attorney General was prosecuting in a case at the Central Criminal Court and the counsel on behalf of the prisoner objected to this right being exercised. Of course, he did not object to it in the legal sense of the word, but in his address to the jury he commented very strongly upon the fact that the Attorney General had chosen to insist upon this right. When the Attorney General came to reply he referred to the observations which had been made by the counsel on behalf of the prisoner, and said it was not a privilege to have this right of reply, but a very great responsibility. I state that case because I think it is a very significant illustration and strongly supports the action which I am now taking in asking Parliament now to express an opinion upon the subject, because it was recognised in that case by the profession, and recognised by the public generally, that that prosecution was conducted, if I may use the expression, with the very greatest moderation against the prisoner, and although the prosecution was conducted in so admirable a spirit, the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General felt himself bound in the high office which he holds to claim this right of reply, and to exercise the great responsibility that in that position fell upon him I think that the Attorney General would himself be pleased if by the high authority of Parliament he were relieved of this great responsibility. We have
    666
    to consider whether Parliament will abrogate the old rule.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The only question which can be discussed on this Amendment is whether in cases where a prisoner has been called as a witness and no other evidence has been given for the defence the law officer of he Crown is to have the right of reply.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: As under the Speaker's ruling I cannot argue in support of the general abrogation of the rule my Amendment would be open to the charge of being illogical. I quite admit that my Amendment is rather illogical, but though it is illogical I do not think that in substance and in fact any evil results will follow from it. What I am now submitting will result in this, that if the House decides that after the prisoner has given evidence the Attorney General is to have the right of reply, it would still be a case of a fortiori, and it may reasonably be assumed that no subsequent Attorney General would think himself justified in exercising the right.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the House will recognise, whatever view they may take with regard to the general question, that it would be quite impossible to put this Amendment into the Bill. The responsibility of replying will still rest with the Attorney General if the Amendment is carried, in cases in Which -the prisoner is not called, and it will be rather absurd to take the right away in cases in which the prisoner is called. The honourable and learned Member has not stated the practice of the present day quite correctly. I believe that this special right of reply can only be exercised by the Attorney General or Solicitor General in person and cannot be exercised by their representatives. I can assure the House that it ought not to alter the present practice without very serious consideration. I am of opinion that in many oases the right of reply of the law officer is exercised to the advantage of the accused person. When several persons are charged together, as is the case of the Walsall anarchists at Stafford, and in long firm and fraudulent company cases, it is very important that the prosecution should have the

    667
    responsibility of polluting out the different degrees of guilt of the prisoners after the speeches of their counsel. I have myself been engaged in cases in which topics have been introduced which it has been my duty, in the interests of the prisoners themselves, to notice in the course of my reply, in order to prevent injustice being done. The Speaker has ruled that in respect of the right of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to reply when no evidence is called for the prisoner no change can be made by this Bill, and it would be absurd to make a kind of exception to the rule in connection with cases in which additional facilities for giving evidence are to be extended to prisoners. The Amendment would create anomalies, and I must resist it.
    SIR E. CLARKE: It is with the greatest possible regret that I am obliged to take up a position antagonistic to my honourable and learned Friend on this occasion. The present practice under which law officers of the Crown have a special right of reply is, in my opinion, illogical and full of the greatest possibilities of unfairness to a person on his defence. Mr. Speaker, it may be said that this power is never abused, but I have myself known a case where an attempt was made to abuse it, and I am sure that it is capable of abuse. Well, my honourable and learned Friend gives the oddest reasons. He says, in certain cases, where several prisoners are charged together, it is to the advantage of a prisoner that the Attorney General should have this right of reply, because he may be able to point out the difference in the case as regards one prisoner or the other. Well, I venture to point out that that is not the duty of the prosecuting counsel; that is the duty of the judge. He speaks after the prosecuting counsel has finished, and to him may safely be left the duty—and it is a judicial duty—of pointing out how the evidence varies in regard to the different prisoners. Now, the Amendment, I agree, is limited in its terms and seems most inadequate—I will not go so far as to call it a ridiculous Amendment—but it will, at all events, secure that in every criminal case hereafter, if the prisoner, and only the pri-
    668
    soner, is called for the defence, the law officers should have no special right to distinguish that case from other cases. Although it does not go, and cannot go, as far as I should most earnestly like to see it go. I cannot refuse to support it because it only goes a little way in the right direction. I may say that, so strong has my opinion been with regard to this right of reply, during the six years that I had the honour of being a law officer, and the prosecutor in certain criminal cases, I invariably followed the ordinary rule, and declined to avail myself of what I considered was an odious privilege. I sincerely trust that the words which my honourable and learned Friend has introduced this evening may limit in future the practice of claiming the right of reply, even if we are not able to do away with the right itself. It is said that topics may be introduced in the defence which ought to be dealt with upon the responsibility of the law officers of the Crown only. I think I know the cases to which this reference is made—namely, those in which, in times of great trouble, excitement, and tumult, there may be very strong appeals made on behalf of the defence. I do not, however, see any rear son connected with that class of case which ought to entitle a law officer of the Crown to exercise a privilege of this kind. I cannot but hope that, notwithstanding the position that my honourable and learned Friend has taken, and notwithstanding that the Amendment is but a small instalment of a reform, that the House will accept it, and, so far as the limits of the Bill will allow, will carry out a real and important reform.
    MR. S. EVANS: I rise to support the Amendment. After the conclusive reasons which have been given by the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House long in urging other reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. It is difficult to see why the rule was first introduced which gave the privilege, because, as is well known, the Crown is the nominal prosecutor in all criminal cases in this country, and therefore the privilege is merely a personal privilege given to the Attorney and the Solicitor

    669
    General. The position taken against the Amendment seems to me to be entirely illogical. The Attorney or the Solicitor General will appear in a case at the Central Criminal Court, but it very seldom happens that the Attorney or Solicitor General appear to prosecute on circuit, where a case of exactly the same character as that tried at the Old Bailey may be under consideration. It may happen at the Central Criminal Court that before the reply for the Crown is reached, the Attorney General is sent for by the House of Lords, or by this House. The prosecuting solicitor would then have the responsibility entrusted to him, in the absence of the Attorney General, of making that reply. Well, Sir, can anything be more reasonable than the Amendment of my honourable Friend? The Attorney General said there may be cases where topics are introduced which ought to be brushed aside by the law officers of the Crown. The obvious report to that is that if there are cases of that kind they are cases which may occur in any prosecution. Then the Attorney General goes on further to say that for the advantage of the prisoner it may be necessary for the Attorney General to deal with, these matters in his reply. The fact of the matter is that by reason, in a great measure, of the great personality of the law officer of the Crown, who is prosecutor, great weight is already thrown in against the prisoner, and I for one hold that the art of advocacy ought not be used against the prisoner at all. We have in a portion of this country a state of things where the law proposed is much more logical and on a much more scientific basis than it is in this country. In Scotland the prisoner's advocate has the right of reply in every case. I should very much like to see that phase of the law applied to the practice of criminal matters in this country, and I am not going to refuse to support the Amendment of my honourable friend because it is not the custom. Like the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, I accept this as an instalment, and as an instalment only, in the right direction, and I hope that the virtue that lies in the Amendment, and the force which lies in the arguments in support of it, will sufficiently commend themselves to the House of Commons to ensure the acceptance of the Amendment.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: I am afraid I shall be driven into the same Lobby with the Attorney General on this question, though I desire to dissociate myself entirely from the arguments which he has used in, opposition to the Amendment. I thoroughly agree with my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, and with my honourable Friend beside me [Mr. S. Evans], that it is monstrous, that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, because they happen to be filling those positions, should have the right of summing-up generally after the speech for the defence. But we must look at this Bill from, a business like point of view, and see what the Amendment of my honourable Friend behind me really does. Now, this is what it does. If the Attorney General is prosecutor, and any witness is called for the defence, the Attorney General will have the right to reply. If the Attorney General is prosecutor, and the prisoner only is called, the Attorney General will not have the right of reply. If the Attorney General is prosecutor, and the prisoner and somebody else is called, the Attorney General will have the right to reply. Now really it does seem to me that under these circumstances it is rather farcical that we should vote in favour of this Amendment. The way in which it is proposed to alter the law will not really add to the symmetry of a Measure which ought to be passed in this House, and, under the circumstances, I am afraid, much against my will, I shall have to vote with the Government on this Amendment.
    SIR R. REID: I am going to say but very few words in reference to this Amendment. In the first place, what is the practice at present? It is, as the Attorney General has said, based upon the very recent decision of the judges that no one shall have the right of reply except the Attorney General himself or the Solicitor General who appears for the Attorney General. Now, I, for my part, do not believe that this right of reply has been abused at any time. My honourable Friend the Member for Plymouth has stated that he knows a case. Well, I have never heard anyone speak of such, a case. My own opinion is that it there is any real feeling against the

    671
    practice it is not worth while to maintain it. I believe that in matters of justice privilege is entirely out of place, but I think that this privilege is merely intended to enhance the dignity of the law officers of the Crown. I do not believe that the privilege will in any sense of the word lead to the oppression of a prisoner, but if there is a widespread feeling of that kind I think it would be desirable to yield to it at once and gracefully; but I cannot support the fragmentary and partial reform which the mover of the Amendment proposes, because it would, if carried, create an extremely anomalous and almost ludicrous state of things. It would be, at all events, an extraordinary anomaly that the right of reply should exist in one class of case and not in another, and I do not think you ought to stud your Statute Book with anomalies of that description.
    MR. EADCLIFFE COOKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope that after the expression of opinion from both sides of the House the Government will give way on this point and accept the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman opposite. Of course, it is not what we wanted to have done, but it is a step in the right direction; and although it is a very trifling matter, what will be the effect? It will practically put a stop to this practice altogether, for if this amendment is passed no Attorney General or Solicitor General hereafter will ever exercise the privilege. Now what was the argument to be found in the speech of the Attorney General himself. In effect his argument was that, the privilege was advantageous to the prisoner, because one or two distinguished counsel would be able to put certain points on his behalf better than other distinguished counsel. There are many men practising at the criminal bar—and I say it with all respect in the presence of the Attorney and Solicitor General—who are quite their equals in regard to criminal practice, and if in certain cases it is an advantage to the prisoner that this privilege should exist, there are many other cases in which other prosecuting counsel ought to have this privilege. It has been urged that in summing up, the law officers, in exercising that privilege, can clear up the
    672
    points which are likely to be injurious to one or other of the prisoners. But there is a very important functionary who follows counsel, whose duty it is, as the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth very forcibly pointed out, to clear up those very points. Under these circumstances, I hope that after the most impressive speech of the honourable and learned Member, and the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, that you will give way on this point.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: My honourable and learned Friend contends that the Amendment does not well fit in with this Bill, and that it ought to be put in some other Bill. I, Sir, perfectly admit that, but if this amendment were passed, or a small Bill were to be introduced doing away with the privilege on the part of the Attorney General, you would have the Attorney General or the Solicitor General recognising that expression of opinion on the part of the House, and no Attorney General or Solicitor General would venture to claim this privilege. Sir, I speak with great deference, as a layman, in the presence of so many lawyers; but it does seem to me that the arguments in favour of this principle, by so able an advocate as the Attorney General, cannot possibly convince any human being. I can understand perfectly well that the advocates defending the prisoner should have the last words, and I can understand that you should, to a certain extent, lay down that the law officers of the Crown shall have this privilege, and that if they do not present them that their locum tenens should have the privilege. But to say that only the Attorney General or only the Solicitor General should enjoy this privilege seems to me a palpable absurdity. Whatever may be the opinion of lawyers, laymen in the country are of one mind upon this subject; and, after all, they ought to have some consideration in the matter. It is all very well for lawyers. They may get large fees for the prosecution, but we laymen may be the persons prosecuted, and, therefore, we have a decided grievance in this matter. I appeal to the Government to allow the question to be decided, not as a party question, but according to the common sense of each individual.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I would press the Government to give way on this matter. I really think the Attorney General himself is sensible of the weakness of his own argument. He has spoken of this privilege as an advantage to the prisoner; and he positively seriously argued that it was to the prisoner's advantage to have another speech made against him besides the one already made. Sir, it seems to me to reduce the argument to almost an absurdity. By the hypothesis of the case, the Attorney General and Solicitor General are men of exceptional ability in their profession. They are what they are because they have shown exceptional ability, and consequently of all men, of all prosecuting counsel, they are those who least require the exceptional advantage or privilege of making a second speech. I am loth to interfere in this matter, because I feel it is largely a professional matter, but I cannot conceive why the Attorney General claims this altogether out-of-date privilege. I agree with the view of the honourable Member, who has put his case so strongly, that this is a case of exceptional privilege with no advantage to the prisoner, of small profit or advantage to the law officers themselves, and one which the Government would do well to carefully consider.
    MR. LAWSON WALTON: While I accept the view of the honourable Member for King's Lynn and the honourable Member for Northampton, I would suggest to the House that you are, by adopting this Amendment, creating an anomaly almost as glaring as the one you seek to abolish. It is true that the number of cases which will be affected will be small, but they may be of enormous importance, exciting the attention of all classes of the community, and probably raising State issues of the gravest moment. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General do not undertake ordinary prosecutions. They generally appear—they always appear—in cases of great moment, and therefore it will be only in those cases in which public interest is excited that the consideration and discussion of this question will arise. On a future occasion the question may arise whether a prisoner ought to be called or not. Now, the con-
    674
    sideration of the question ought to depend on the value of the testimony to the accused, and whether it will operate in his favour. Well, if this Amendment is carried, counsel will have to put into the other scale the question of whether or not the reply which will be afforded the Attorney General will outweigh the advantage he may get by putting the prisoner into the box, and thus an anomaly will be introduced quite as startling in its character as that which it is sought to abolish.
    MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I cannot help thinking that there is really no effective argument to guide us to a conclusion. The Attorney General has spoken in favour of maintaining this privilege. The ex-Solicitor General is strongly opposed to it. The ex-Attorney General on our side of the House seems to have no very strong opinion either one way or the other, and lather invites the Government to allow the Amendment to be accepted. At present the Solicitor General maintains a discreet silence in the matter, and under these circumstances I am entitled to ask the House to vote independently of the authority of the Government. As regards the argument which, fell from my honourable Friend the Member for Leeds, that is not an argument which commends itself to lawyers. He tells us that it would create another anomaly. As a matter of fact, law and lawyers rejoice in anomalies, and I do not suppose very much beneficial legislation would be passed in this country if the argument of anomalies were raised. Scarcely, as a matter of fact, is there ever a Measure passed which does not more or less contain some accepted anomaly in the Legislature. But what I do venture to urge on the Government is this, and it really is as sound an argument as can be advanced in furtherance of the maintenance of the present system. I gather from the Attorney General that this is the solemn duty of the Crown. But supposing the Attorney-General were retained, as he might be, in a private prosecution—in the prosecutions by the Crown many of them are instituted by private individuals—
    SIR R. WEBSTER: No, no!
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: If he were retained, he could still be the law officer of the Crown, and exercise this function.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: No, no!
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: My honourable Friend says, "No, no!" but I have a distinct recollection of the Solicitor General being retained in a private prosecution, although I agree that this practice does not exist at the present time. Now, Sir, the Attorney General says that he is exercising judicial functions, or quasi-judicial functions, and if he does that for the benefit of the prisoner, surely those functions ought to be exercised by every counsel who appears for the prosecution for the Crown. There is are reason why the Attorney General should enjoy this absolute privilege, which is denied to other members of the Bar who may be instructed to appear on behalf of the Crown. There has really been no effective argument advanced against this, and, although it will be extremely limited in its scope, its moral effect upon the Attorney General would be most advantageous, because it would be felt that it would restrain him from exercising that function, which has met with the condemnation of the House. For these reasons I beg leave to support the Amendment.
    SIR ELLIOTT LEES: With regard to this principle I confess that, if we do away with the Attorney General in respect to this particular question, probably that privilege will be done away with in all cases. I think there is one point which laymen, at any rate, ought to consider in this House, and it is that it is most desirable that some sympathy should be shown by the public at large towards the verdict of the courts, and that there should be no popular feeling aroused afterwards that the prisoner has not been treated with absolute fair play. I hope upon this question that the Government will yield to the desire which has been expressed in all parts of the House, and consent to accept this Amendment.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: If I understand this Amendment aright, I shall vote for it. As I understand the proposal, it is that in cases that specially
    676
    come under this Bill now before the House the Amendment proposes to take away from the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, and other law officers of the Crown, the right to reply which they have in general criminal cases whether evidence is called for the defence or not. Is that so? ["No, no!"]
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Yes!
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I understand from the author of the Amendment that that is the scone of it. I wish, first of all, to direct the attention of the House to the rule in present cases which we wish to maintain in this case. Upon this rule, or this practice, I told the Attorney General a little piece of historical knowledge that he did not know. I asked the honourable and learned Gentleman whether he knew that this rule is a rule which had its origin in the corrupt time of Scroggs and Jefferies. It is legislation of this kind which curtails the right of a prisoner, and deprives him of a proper chance of making his defence, and undoubtedly exceptional rights should not be given to the officers of the Crown to urge that prosecution against him. Let us see how the rule at present stands. In many cases there are, as we all know, public prosecutions in which Crown counsel and representatives of the Attorney General appear, and they are not to be allowed to exercise this privilege, and the Attorney General and the Solicitor General alone are allowed to exercise it. In Ireland this privilege is different. There are no private prosecutions in Ireland, for they are instituted by the Attorney General, and every man who represents him is entitled to the right of reply. I was not able to be here during the former part of the Debate, but I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether any reference was made to a most remarkable article written by the late Mr. Cock. My argument, Sir, is this: that if the right to reply is bad in general cases, as it was believed by the legal profession to be bad, it is infinitely worse in exceptional cases of this kind. I will not trouble the House with more than two or three lines of quotations. This article is a vast monument of learning, showing the opinions of the judges. Some honour-

    677
    able and learned Gentlemen have endeavoured to give the Government some little stability by saying that the Bar does not object to it. Only a fortnight ago I saw in a journal which is the leading exponent of the Bar of England a sub-leader stating that it was the unanimous opinion of the Bar of England that this right of reply should be curtailed. If the right of reply is bad in a general way, it is infinitely worse in a particular case of this kind. I never smile at the Attorney General, because I do not think it would be a respectful thing to do, but I confess that his sense of humour very nearly overcame me when I heard the right honourable Gentleman defending this right to reply as a matter of responsibility of the Crown counsel. It is an odious right, and an odious privilege, which cannot be supported by a tittle of justice or equity. Now let me show the opinions of the judges in reference to the general right of reply. In a well-known case in 1858 the Attorney General endeavoured to exercise this right of reply, and the judge replied—
    "I cannot deny your claim, but the right is a very objectionable one. I shall limit it whenever possible, and I wish I could prevent the Attorney General from exercising it."
    Now, that is what we are endeavouring to do by this Amendment. In the same year Mr. Justice Byles said he was of opinion that the right ought to be limited to the Attorney General and the prosecuting counsel, and he also stated that if he could he would not allow it even in those cases. Most of the judges are against the exercise of this right, and there is scarcely a law officer who has not expressed himself in absolute repugnance to this right; and, I am sure, rightly, in the interests of justice and equity. Now, this Amendment will fulfil what the right honourable Gentleman would like it to fulfil, and it will keep it from falling into temptation, so far as the Bill is concerned, and he will not have the right, if this Amendment is carried, to exercise this anomalous privilege, which is not compatible with general interests, and which cannot be supported by a tittle of justice or equity. I hope the Government will not make this a party question, and I trust the House will be allowed to decide conscientiously.
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: This Amendment is supported largely, if not mainly, by honourable Gentlemen who object to the Bill altogether. I should like, however, to point out that the cases in which the law officers of the Crown are employed are always cases of exceptional gravity, and are, therefore, cases in which it is necessary to have the highest legal ability for the prosecution. In these cases the prisoner, who, all the opponents of the Bill are saying, will be forced into the box contrary to public policy, will have an added motive for going into the box and submitting himself to cross-examination, because he will not otherwise be able to shut out the Attorney-General's right of reply.
    *MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Boroughs): It is said that if this Amendment be carried, one effect would be the creation of an anomaly in our criminal law. This, is no doubt true; but the anomaly would; be of a much more trifling character than appears to be supposed. In the first place, the cases in which the law officers of the Crown are employed are very few in number; and in the next place, if, as has been said, the general effect of the Bill will be to force nearly every prisoner into the witness-box, there the chance of the anomaly becoming operative in practice will be reduced to nothing at all. Then it is said by the honourable and learned Member for South. Leeds that it would be dangerous to introduce this Amendment, for several reasons, but chiefly because the oases in which the law officers of the Crown are engaged are oases of great gravity. Bus I have always understood that the reason why ordinary barristers who appear for the prosecution have to refrain from replying where no evidence for the defence has been given is due to the tenderness of our law towards prisoners, who are upon their trial. Well, if it be proper that, in ordinary cases, a barrister who appears for the prosecution should be deprived of the right of final reply, surely in cases which are said to be of great gravity, and in which the Attorney General and the Solicitor-General—who are usually men of the greatest weight at the Bar, and therefore carry with them enormous influence—appear, it cannot also be proper that they

    679
    should have the right which is withheld from other barristers in oases of lest magnitude! I shall vote for the Amendment, because I believe the anomaly which it will create will be of little magnitude, and will only take the place of another anomaly already existing, because the anomaly which it will introduce will at least be an anomaly in the right direction; and, further, because I believe, if the Amendment be carried, no Attorney General or Solicitor General of common sense, being deprived of the right of reply where the prisoner has actually gone into the witness-box, would for a moment think of claiming or exercising such a right where no evidence has been offered by a prisoner.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. FINLAY,): I think it is a great mistake to regard this right of reply as a personal privilege. It is not a personal privilege; it is a matter which, under certain circumstances, must be regarded as a grave and serious public duty. With regard to the observations of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth I desire to make only this remark. I do not think the honourable Member's observations had substantial ground. I think it ought to be apparent that this question comes up for consideration as a whole, and that there is another side to it than that put forward by the honourable Member for Plymouth. There are cases of great public importance in which naturally and properly the counsel for the defence seek to introduce every topic which they think may possibly influence the mind of the jury to a verdict of acquittal. There are some cases in which, in the interest of the public, it is right and desirable that the attention of the jury should be recalled to the real state of the facts, and to what are the true issues upon which they must decide. It may be said in that case, "Why should not the privilege be extended to all prosecuting counsel?" The answer is that the privilege is one which is certainly capable of very great abuse. I have never heard it suggested that the privilege has been abused by any prosecuting counsel; I do not for one moment suggest that those who happen to fill the position of law officers are in any way superior to their brethren at the Bar, but
    680
    I think the consideration I have mentioned has some weight. The duty, in certain cases, of replying in this way is one that ought to be exercised with a very full sense of responsibility. The law officers do not prosecute in ordinary cases, but only in exceptional cases, in the fullest blaze of publicity, and with a sense of direct responsibility to Parliament. If there were any symptoms of abuse of this right of reply, it most certainly would be heard of in this House before many days were over. For that reason, and for that alone, I repeat that sufficient attention was not given in the speech of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth to the fact that the right may be one of public importance, while there may be grave reasons for confining its exercise to those cases in which there is an adequate amount of responsibility, and where also there is the blaze of publicity, so that the possibility of abuse may be avoided. But I wish to recall the attention of the House to the question now before them. My honourable Friend sitting behind me said that the forms of the House would not allow him and his friends to move a certain Amendment, adding something to this effect—"As we cannot do that, let us do this." I would remind my honourable Friend that that is no reason for doing something else which is, in itself, absolutely absurd. Can anything be more utterly preposterous than to say that in two cases, tried one after the other, in the first of which the defence calls the accused as a witness, the Attorney General shall not have the right of reply; but in the second, in which no evidence is called for the defence, the Attorney General shall have the right of reply! The point of absurdity could no further go. If honourable Members would take the trouble to read the Amendment and consider what effect it will have upon the Bill I am certain they will not vote for it.
    MR. ASQUITH: I desire to say in a sentence that I shall support the Amendment, but I am speaking for myself, and for myself alone. No one could have listened to this Debate without coming to the conclusion—I say so with all respect to the honourable and learned Attorney General—that there is really nothing in the world to be said in favour

    681
    of his contention, that this right of reply should be retained, whether the Attorney General is present or not in criminal prosecutions, counsel are equally able to present to the jury delusive observations and topics, and there is always in reserve the person who has the last word, and whose constitutional duty it is to see that topics of that kind have not undue weight with the jury—I mean Her Majesty's judge. But the only solid argument which was relied upon in the course of the discussion against the Amendment was that it will introduce an anomaly But the Bill itself introduces an anomaly for it enables you to get a witness for the defence without letting him have a right of reply. If there is in this Bill a statutory prohibition to the Attorney General exercising his right of reply in the very cases where the existence of that
    right can most plausibly be justified, no law officer would venture, in the face of that statutory indication of the opinion of Parliament, to claim the right in other cases. For these reasons I shall give my vote for the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed clause, at the end thereof, to add the words—
    "And the above rule shall apply to cases in which the Attorney General or Solicitor General, or any person acting as the representative of either, shall appear on behalf of the Crown."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question put—
    "That those words be there added."
    The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 158.—(Division List No. 235.)

    AYES.

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

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Harwood, George

    Paulton, James Mellor

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

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Asher, Alexander

    Hedderwick, T. C. H.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Price, Robert John

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.)

    Hogan, James Francis

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Robertson, E. (Dundee)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Howell, William Tudor

    Robson, William Snowdon

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

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Spicer, Albert

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Steadman, William Charles

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

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Lough, Thomas

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Combie, John William

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Daly, James

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    McCartan, Michael

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    McDermott, Patrick

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Woodall, William

    Doogan, P. C.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Drucker, A.

    Maden, John Henry

    Woods, Samuel

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dunn, Sir William

    Monk, Charles James

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Norton, Capt. C. W.

    Mr. Pickersgill and Sir

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Connor, A. (Donegal)

    Edward Clarke.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    NOES.

    Aird, John

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Arnold, Alfred

    Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Arrol, Sir William

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Butcher, John George

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

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

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

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

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Howard, Joseph

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Collings Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Kemp, George

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Kenrick, William

    Rutherford, John

    Cornwallis, F. S. W.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Cox, Robert

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knowles, Lees

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lafone, Alfred

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Laurie, Lt.-General

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lawrence, SirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lancs,SW)

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Spencer, Ernest

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Stock, James Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Loder, G. W. E.

    Strauss, Arthur

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

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

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

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Lowe, Francis William

    Thorburn, Walter

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowles, John

    Thornton, Percy M.

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Flower, Ernest

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fry, Lewis

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Garfit, William

    McKillop, James

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

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

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Myers, William Henry

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

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wyndham, George

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Phillpotts Captain Arthur

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Helder, Augustus

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Sir William Walrond and

    Henderson, Alexander

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Amendment proposed—
    "This Act shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and one and no longer, unless continued by Parliament.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Sir, in moving this clause as to limiting the duration of the Act, I would just like to say that I moved a similar Amendment In Committee; but the learned Attorney General really gave no reply at all on that occasion, and was content simply to walk down into the division lobby. I am, therefore, fully justified in giving the Attorney General another opportunity of moving an Amendment, as to whether he approves or disapproves of it. I think this matter is entitled to candid consideration. I raise the matter again, because the Government has in every case shown a disposition to limit the duration of the
    684
    Act. Only yesterday the Government, applied a limiting clause to the Vaccination Bill; and I think the reasons which may be advanced in favour of this clause are equally strong. Now, Sir, I am not proposing anything very novel or unusual in asking the House to impose a limit of time to this Bill. The House has constantly imposed such a limit. Some of the best known Acts of Parliament were originally introduced as measures to operate for a limited time. For instance, we had the Corrupt Practices Act, the Ballot Act, the Employers' Liability Act, the Promissory Notes Act, and the Prosecution Expenses Act of 1866. Therefore, I say, it is a constant expedient adopted by this House to limit the duration of the life of a Bill on suitable occasions. Now, what is the character of the Act to which the House proposes to apply a limited clause?

    685
    I think it will be found that in all cases such a limit has been applied where a Bill has been regarded with alarm by a considerable minority, and where it constitutes a grave departure from established practice. In such instances it is an argument in favour of imposing a limit of time. Well, these considerations apply to the Bill which is now before the House. No doubt, in one sense, it might be said that the practice which this Bill is proposed to sanction is no novelty, because I fancy the right honourable Gentleman scarcely comprehends the argument I am going to employ. Formerly the practice of questioning prisoners was very prevalent in this country. If honourable members will refer to the earlier volumes of the State trials they will see what a tremendous and what a cruel instrument of power questioning a prisoner was with a view to entrap and convict one who might be a bad character, who might be a mischievous citizen, who might be dangerous to society, but who was not guilty of the charge there and then laid against him. As far as modern times are concerned this Bill does constitute an enormous departure from the established practice, and what I ask is that a certain period shall be allowed during which the legal profession may watch the operation of this Bill, and at the end of a year may have an opportunity either of contriving the practice or of repealing it. It has been said by the right honourable Gentleman—or, at all events, by some of his supporters—that it is unnecessary in this case to allow such an experimental period because we have had experience of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. That is quite true; but what I submit to the House is that the experience of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, whatever the result of that experience may be, constitutes no real criterion of what the result may be in this case. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact, which must be borne to the mind of the Attorney General, that a large percentage of both professional and public opinion is opposed to this Measure, and that grave apprehension is entertained as to its results, and also having regard to the growing body of the judicial bench opposed to the Bill, I think my Amendment is a reasonable one. I am only
    686
    seeking to apply to this Bill what the Government themselves have applied to other Bills during the present Session. However, I would ask permission to amend the clause slightly, and to make it read—
    "This Act shall remain in force until the 31st day of December, 1903, and no longer, unless continued by Parliament,"
    so as to make this Bill continue for five years, so as to bring it into line with the analogous case of the Vaccination Bill. I beg to move the clause.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Whatever the state of public opinion may be on the point, it cannot be denied that this practice has been tried for more than 20 years. As far as I know there is no Act in which it has ever been suggested that the provision as to a prisoner giving; evidence in his own behalf should be repealed. Whether the Government be right, or whether they be wrong, the opinion really, for the moment, of the majority of the House is in favour of this Bill. I do not wish to go into the question of outside opinion, but I receive constant communications from judges of the High Court, recorders, and county court judges, strongly recommending this Bill. I am sure, at the trials at the last assizes in the Old Bailey one case in particular was noticed—that of a man charged with performing an illegal operation. All I can say is that there never was a more striking case to illustrate the necessity for this Bill. Assuming that man's innocence for the moment, he was prevented from giving evidence on his own behalf, owing to the present state of the law, and was thus debarred from giving his statement in opposition to the medical evidence produced by the Crown. I think the House will agree with me that the suggested limitation should not be inserted.
    MR. S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of principle, and I am bound to say that I think the Government might well have accepted the suggestion of my honourable Friend, because what would be the effect of it? That if the experiment was found to be inexpedient, then it could at the end of five years be dropped without coming to

    687
    Parliament to have the Act repealed; whereas if the Act works harmoniously it could be continued. The experiment is a serious one to try, and that would be a sufficient reason for accepting the Amendment of my honourable Friend. Those who have experience in criminal law are evenly divided on this question.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no.
    MR. EVANS: An honourable Member says "No," but honourable Members of this House who are members of the legal profession are almost evenly divided, and it is now admitted that the judges on the bench are almost evenly divided.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: No, no.
    MR. EVANS: We have seen that judges have made observations on this very Bill, which are not at all complimentary. Reference has been made to other Acts of Parliament, but that is not an argument against the Amendment. Is it fair to draw conclusions from any of these Acts. The character of these Acts are entirely different from a criminal Act; therefore, in cases where the lives and liberties of people are at stake, I think I am entitled to urge my honourable Friend to go to a Division, and if he does I will go into the Division Lobby with him.
    *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I shall only say a very few words upon this point because the Act does not relate to Ireland, and consequently it may not be thought desirable that I should occupy the attention of the House by discussing it at any great length. I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment now before the House, because, as all lawyers will readily admit, we are now attempting the very greatest experiment that has ever been tried in our criminal law. I at once meet my honourable and learned Friend with reference to his statement that for 25 years this power of examining the accused existed in certain Acts of Parliament, and that no attempt has been made to repeal those Acts. The right honourable and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has pointed out that with the exception of the Criminal
    688
    Law Amendment Act, which has reference to offences against morality and sexual offences, all the other Acts deal with what are, if I may make use of the term, statutory crimes: they deal with statutory crimes not necessarily involving in themselves moral turpitude, and are not crimes either against the law of nature or the divine law. Very probably there were proper reasons for that, for in these Acts, with the exception of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, all the offences savour more or less of the nature of civil offences. I am assuming that this Bill is a good Bill, and I am assuming that it will work well. At the same time I say it is a great experiment, that it is reversing the whole of the criminal law which has existed in this country for over two centuries at least. I would go further than that and say from the earliest history of our law, because I do not regard as instances of justice what was done in the Star Chamber, or during a period when English liberties were in suspense. We all know that it was in the course of recent years—in this present century—that in civil actions the interested parties in civil suits were allowed to be heard on their own behalf; the old law was that neither of the persons interested could be heard. I have heard some of the most eminent judicial persons say that the removal of the restriction, and allowing parties directly interested in the subject matter in dispute to be examined in civil actions, had been provocative of the greatest and most wicked perjury in Ireland. Of course I am speaking of Ireland, and that is the opinion I have heard expressed over and over again, and I am not sure that it is true of Ireland alone. We are now going farther, and are going to enact that in every offence at common law, in all actions of larceny and assault, and running up from those to treason and murder and capital offences, we are now introducing this extraordinary innovation that the accused man can be examined upon oath upon his own behalf. The effect of that is to alter the whole current of our administration of criminal justice, and I do not think that where such a change is effected—a change which I admit was advocated some years ago by that great philanthropist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham, but still a change of an experimental character—any Govern-

    689
    ment ought to venture to introduce such an innovation, and say it should not in the first instance be limited, like the Agricultural Rating Act and the other Acts referred to by the honourable Member for Bethnal Green, for five years. We can judge by that time with some accuracy what the operation of this change will be, and we shall then be able to say whether it has been the means of ensuring the acquittal of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty. When this Act has been in operation for five years, experience will show whether there has been any injustice done by it or not. For my own part the ability of the wife to be examined is above all revolting, because it places the unfortunate woman in this awful dilemma, that she may either be the means of hanging her husband or that she will forswear herself in the hope of getting him out of his peril. That is a frightful temptation in which to place any human being, and a temptation which, upon humane grounds, legal grounds, and philosophic grounds ought not by statute to be put in the way of any human being. The Government, in my opinion, ought to try the Act for five years and then if it is found to work well it will as a matter of course be continued from time to time, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, or perpetuated by a special Act of Parliament. We shall then be able to say whether it ought to be extended to Ireland, and in passing I say, as I have said before, the Government stands condemned in not extending the law to Ireland if they think it will act well and if their convictions in this matter are honest.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the Government could hardly accept the Amendment in the terms in which it is proposed, but if the term was extended to five years—.[Cries of "It is."] Is that so? Then in that case I think it would be extremely difficult for the Government to resist it. It is done in the Vaccination Bill, and if there is a reason for it there there is a very much greater reason here. This is a Bill which we certainly are entitled to see in its working and whether it works satisfactorily before it
    690
    is riveted like fetters upon the people. It is quite true, as we may be told, that it will be possible to repeal it at the end of five years if it was not a success, but I would rather have the presumption the other way and let it repeal itself. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the number of Acts in which this principle is embodied, but I do not think any one of them exactly embody the principle existing in this Bill. Two of them, for instance, are expressly provided for in the sense of the Amendment, and I think it is only reasonable that it should be provisional and only for a short period. The day before yesterday it would have been more difficult to ask the Government to do this than it is to-day, but since yesterday, when the Government accepted the principle with regard to the Vaccination Bill, it is not so. As I said before I think it is very difficult for the Government to resist this Amendment.
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: I wish to combat what was said by the right honourable Gentleman opposite [Mr. Hemphill] as to these Acts that have been referred to not dealing with offences involving moral turpitude and offences against the laws of God. That is not so, and I hope that the House will not be led to a decision by any such an argument. Take the Merchandise Marks Act, or the Metalliferous Coal Mines Act, or the Explosive Substances Act. All these Acts are aimed inter alia at offences which may be morally detestable and of great gravity. From what was said by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, one would think that the Irish mind was somewhat unsound upon the question of dynamite and the dynamite offences under the Act of 1893, if he says they do not involve moral turpitude or offences against God. Then there is the Act for the prevention of cruelty to children. I hope this House will not arrive at a decision under any serious misapprehension which might have been caused by the right honourable Gentleman opposite.
    The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 128.—(Division List No. 236.)

    AYES.

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

    Hogan, James Francis

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Spicer, Albert

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Steadman, William Charles

    Asher, Alexander

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Brigg, John

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Caldwell, James

    McDermott, Patrick

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Carvill, Patrick G. H.

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

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Cawley, Frederick

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Crilly, Daniel

    Maddison, Fred.

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

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Woodall, William

    Daly, James

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Woods, Samuel

    Dalziel, James Henry

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Robertson, E. (Dundee)

    Samuel Evans.

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

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

    NOES.

    Aird, John

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Arrol, Sir William

    Flower, Ernest

    Moon, Edward Robert P.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Garfit, William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

    Gedge, Sydney

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

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

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Powell, Sir Francis Snarp

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hardy, Laurence

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Helder, Augustus

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

    Henderson, Alexander

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

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

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Howell, William Tudor

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stock, James Henry

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

    Kemp, George

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kenrick, William

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel W.

    Thorburn, Walter

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cook, F. L. (Lambeth)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Laurie, Lt.-General

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cornwallis, F. S. W.

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

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

    Cox, Robert

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

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

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Wentworth, B. C. Venon-

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

    Lowe, Francis William

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

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lowles, John

    Wyndham, George

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    McKillop, James

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Maden, John Henry

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 5, after 'offence,' insert 'not triable by a court of summary jurisdiction.'"— (Mr. Strachey.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL: In the absence of the honourable Gentleman I desire to move this Amendment. The effect of this Amendment if accepted will be to limit this change in the Jaw to the superior courts, and prevent the operation of the new practice in offences which are heard and determined in the courts of summary jurisdiction. Now, whatever we may think of the new practice it is obvious that it is liable to abuse. I can quite understand that members of the profession may entertain no alarm whatever with regard to its effect. When it is put into force in the superior courts the safeguards may be put upon it there. I do not wish to say any harsh or improper words with regard to the magistrates of this country, who, I think, compare favourably with any similar class in the world; but at the same time I think there are a certain class of cases in which I think this rule is likely to be provocative of mischief. The class of eases, for instance, such as those in the country where game is preserved. In such cases as those I think the magistrate has a little bias—in cases where a man is charged with poaching, or some offence against the game laws. Now, that being so what would be the effect of this Bill. Although it is said to be permissive, and no doubt is in theory, in practice and effect it is compulsory, and the defendant or accused, in order to avoid the prejudice which might otherwise be excited against him, will have to go into the witness-box and he will tell his story, and then I think it will be open to the justices to cross-examine him, and the bias which I attribute to them must be in favour of the prosecutor. Then there is another class of cases—I mean those Which occur in shipping towns where the bias has always been in favour of the employers. Under those circumstances I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that at all events it shall not apply to courts of summary jurisdiction.
    SIR E. FINLAY: I know I shall be within the recollection of the House when I say that this matter was
    694
    very fully discussed when this Bill was considered on a previous occasion. The honourable and learned Gentleman now proposes to exclude its operation in courts of summary jurisdiction before a magistrate. In order to get at all the facts of the case it is necessary now very often in those courts to allow cross-summonses to be taken out—which are not really cross-summonses—in order to enable the person who is accused to give evidence in his turn against the prosecutor, and thus enable the magistrate to hear all sides of the case. Now can anything be more absurd than that, and yet the honourable and learned Gentleman desires to perpetuate that state of things. Surely there is all the more reason in those cases for a man to tell his own story. We cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I was rather pained to hear what the honourable and learned Gentleman opposite said with regard to the magistrates, who in my opinion give the greatest possible amount of satisfaction, and a great amount, in my opinion, of substantial justice is done by them. With regard to what the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General said as to cross-summonses being taken out, I do not see in this Bill anything to prevent that being done even if this Bill does apply to courts of summary jurisdiction. This procedure will not prevent it. There is another reason why this Amendment should be adopted. This Bill is very complicated, and depends in many parts on a nice interpretation of the language used in it. It is not every prisoner, or the husband or wife of a prisoner, who is to be examined, under all circumstances. There are several provisoes and provisoes to provisoes. These proposals require very careful interpretation. Very doubtful cases may arise, and the high courts, no doubt, would be fully competent to deal with them, and would deal with them on a settled system, and one practice would be followed. But that would not be the case in the courts of summary jurisdiction to which this Amendment is directed. There would not be that ability to decide nice cases which is found in the high courts, and there would be different decisions

    695
    in different courts. The summary jurisdiction courts are themselves open to many objections from the constitutional point of view, and it therefore seems to me to be reasonable that this tremendous experiment brought in without any demand having bean made for it, and without any allegation against the present system, should be tried first in the superior courts, not in the summary jurisdiction courts, which cannot be so well provided to put the Act into force in a way satisfactory to the public as the high courts are. For these reasons the Amendment of the honourable Member seems to me to be reasonable.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I think this Bill as it stands, if applied to courts of summary jurisdiction, especially in the country, would be an extremely useful Measure. I have sat on a bench of magistrates for a great number of years, and I may say it is our practice to do what this Bill now permits us to do. Magistrates constantly do, and do it with the greatest effect, ask a prisoner to explain when something is brought out which ought to be explained on his own behalf. As to the interpretation of the clause which my honourable Friend thinks would be difficult, it frequently happens that on a bench of magistrates there is one magistrate at least who has had a legal training, and if there is not, there is always the magistrate's clerk, who is a, trained lawyer in the majority of instances—I know of only one instance in which he is not—and he expounds the law to the magistrates. Of course, all the more serious cases coming before magistrates are committed, not to the superior courts, but to the court of quarter sessions. I approve the Bill as it stands, and therefore cannot support the Amendment.
    MR. MADDISON: Rightly or wrongly, I have feit during this Debate, in spite of all that has been said, that this Bill is against the prisoner, and it is against the prisoner who happens to be ignorant and poor. I agree with what has been said about some of these courts of summary jurisdiction. I have lived for some time in a shipping port, and in that, and in other industrial centres, there are constantly cases arising where working men are brought before a bench of magistrates who I believe endeavour to be fair, but who are recruited from one class; in the community, and therefore there is always danger that class prejudice will enter into and alter the view taken of such cases. In my opinion, this Bill, will tell against the prisoner, and if it were only to apply to the high courts, where there certainly is more protection, a great deal of the danger some of us; see in it would be removed. For that reason I support the Amendment.
    *MR. DUNCOMBE (Cumberland, Egremont): I sincerely hope the honourable Member will persist with this Amendment. I agree that this Bill is an experiment, and as an experiment it should be confined for the present, at any rate, to the superior courts. I cannot, agree with the honourable Member for Hereford? that because justice is administered in his court in an irregular manner that is any reason for extending this Bill to all the other courts in the kingdom.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes, 120.—(Division List No. 237.)

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lough, Thomas

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Diekson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Macaleese, Daniel

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Brigg, John

    Doogan, P. C.

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Caldwell, James

    Hogan, James Francis

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Cawley, Frederick

    Holburn, J. G.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Crilly, Daniel

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Daly, James

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Spicer, Albert

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

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Duncombe.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Woods, Samuel

    NOES.

    Aird, John

    Flower, Ernest

    Moon, Edward R. P.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Arrol, Sir William

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Garfit, William

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Philipps, John Wynford

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Hardy, Laurence

    Rutherford, John

    Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Helder, Augustus

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Henderson, Alexander

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Stock, James Henry

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

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

    Kenrick, William

    Thorburn, Walter

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lafone, Alfred

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    LawrenceSirKDurning-(Corn.)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Cornwallis, F. S. W.

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

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

    Cox, Robert

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Loder, Gerald Vv alter E.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lowles, John

    Woodall, William

    Durzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wyndham, George

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    McKillop, James

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Maden, John Henry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

    After the usual interval—
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—
    "Page 1, line 7, after 'proceedings,' insert 'except inquiry before a grand jury.'"
    The Bill, as the Committee will remember, provides that the arrangements provided by it shall be carried out at every stage of the proceedings. Now, Sir, the arguments by which I shall support the Amendment illustrate very strongly the
    698
    great disadvantages which I, an uninstructed layman, labour in dealing with the details of this Bill. With the great principles of the English law I think I am acquainted, and thus am able to found an opinion upon it; but when I come to the details I feel very conscious of my shortcomings with regard to those matters of detail. In the course of studying this Bill I referred—perhaps there are not a great many Members who have done so—to every one of the Acts referred to in the Schedule of this Bill as to which this clause relates. One is

    699
    the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, and the last clause of that Act says:—
    "Every person charged with an offence under this Act, or under section forty-eight and sections fifty-two to fifty-five, both inclusive, of the Act of the Session of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 100, or any of such sections"—
    that is the Act of 1861, also referred to in the Schedule—
    "and the husband or wife of the person so charged shall be competent, but not compellable witnesses on every hearing, at every stage of such charge, except an inquiry before a grand jury."
    That, Sir, led me to ask why that exception should be made in two of the Acts which have been so often referred to—the Acts which, in fact, ensihrine the present proposal that the prisoner should be examinable against himself; why those exceptions were made as to the prisoner being examinable before the grand jury; why, in other words, he should be examinable at every other stage of the proceedings, and not before the grand jury? And, Sir, there seems to me—here, again, Sir, I crave indulgence if I have misapprehended the thing—there seems to me to be a good and sound reason why a prisoner who may be capable of being examined at every other stage of the proceedings should nevertheless be exempted from examination before the grand jury. Sir, there is a great difference and an enormous difference between being before the grand jury and every other stage of the proceedings. In the first place, every other stage of the proceedings is open to the public. The grand jury is closed to the public. That is a most stupendous difference. If a mistake is committed it is open to criticism, and undoubtedly will be criticised by the Press and the public. If any unfairness is practised upon the prisoner or his witnesses, comment will be made upon it, and if abuse has been committed redress will be achieved. That seems to me an enormous difference between every other stage of the proceedings and the grand jury stage. Then, again, what is the function of the grand jury? It is not to hear, to determine, and decide upon the case; its function is merely
    700
    to determine Whether there is or is not a primâ facie case. Again, I speak with submission. But I believe that is the sole function of a grand jury. Then, again, the grand jury may hear what witnesses it pleases. It may hear some and reject the others. I do not know whether it is possible for the grand jury to reject all witnesses, and to return a bill in accordance with the direction of the judge, but, at any rate, I believe I am right in saying it may take its choice among the witnesses and hear some and refuse to hear the others. Well, Sir, all these reasons—which I confess came to me afterwards, because I was first put upon the Amendment by the fact that I found it already enshrined in two of the Acts that have already been appealed to—all these reasons seem to me adequate reasons why before a grand jury you should not initiate the practice, the entirely new system—largely now in its principle, absolutely new in its detail—the new system, I say, which is embodied in this Bill. I do not know whether of course I am right in the conclusions I have come to. I do not know whether I am right in attaching all the force I do attach to the arguments that appeal to the lay mind in support of the argument I have presented; but it does seem to me extremely difficult to get over the fact that in two of the most important of the Acts, the Act of 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, there is embodied, not exactly in detail, but in principle, the opinion with regard to exempting a man in his own defence, on a charge against himself, from giving evidence before a grand jury—that you are not, in short, as I hold, to hang a man on his own evidence, if necessary. It seems to me that the fact that that principle has already been embodied in two of the Bills referred to in support of this very Bill goes strongly in favour of the Amendment I have suggested. I hold still my own opinion on the general principle of this Bill. I shall never be convinced that it is a safe experiment to make, or that it will be found a proper experiment to continue; but certainly one of the strongest arguments that have been advanced has been in regard to these very Acts that have been referred to—the 24, 25, or 26 Acts that have

    701
    been in operation up to this time. These very Acts have themselves convinced against the principle of the Bill some of the judges who were formerly in favour of it. But, at any rate, let us not go beyond these Acts; let us not expose the prisoner to be examined under more onerous and harder conditions than these Acts impose. I will take the two Acts I have cited. I have only, I think, given them their popular names; they are the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. Both those Acts in the section that I have read make the reservation that I propose to make in this Act. I, of course, shall be entirely open to argument, and if the Attorney General can show me that the exception I propose to make is one which, although already made, already accepted, and already acted upon in the two Acts that he quoted, ought not to have been made in this particular case—if he can show me reasonable ground why that contention can be upheld, then I shall certainly not press the Amendment, because I feel that in this case I am not sufficiently learned or sufficiently acquainted with the law to absolutely pronounce upon that Bill. I have put the case as it seemed to me I have put the view I have derived from an earnest and conscientious study of this subject and the law, so far as I have made myself acquainted with it; I have embodied those views in the Amendment before the House, and unless there is good reason shown for departing from the provision of the two Acts I have referred to I shall press it to a Division. If, on the other hand, I hear arguments to show me I am wrong in the view I take of it, then I shall save the time of the House by withdrawing it.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: If these words have already been inserted in two Acts of Parliament there will probably be no objection to their being inserted here; but my opinion is that, although they may have done something wholly unnecessary on two occasions, it is no reason why it should be done again. Before a grand jury—and I have had some little experience, because I was called on a grand jury last week—before a grand jury the prisoner is not on
    702
    his trial at all. He is not in charge of the grand jury. He is simply committed for trial. The grand jury have no sort of authority over him whatever. He cannot be put upon his trial until the grand jury have found a true bill of indictment. My honourable Friend here thinks it possible for a grand jury to find a true bill without examining any of the witnesses.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No, no; pardon me. I must have misrepresented my own opinion. I said I conceived it might possibly be so.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: When the foreman of a grand jury brings the bill into Court the first thing the clerk of assize does is to look at the indictment and see what witnesses have been marked, and if none have been marked he returns it to the grand jury and tells them to examine some of the witnesses. If the grand jury propose to throw out a bill, then they must examine every witness on the back of the indictment before they can do so. My opinion, founded on a little experience, is that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, for reasons I have stated. The prisoner is not on his trial, he is not in charge of any judicial body whatever, and he cannot be in charge of any such body until the grand jury have found a bill of indictment. Then he is in charge, and then he can be tried.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I may say at once that, really, this Amendment will have nothing in the world to do with the Bill. As far as the principle of the Bill is concerned I do not care whether it is inserted or not. That is not the reason we oppose it. We really consider it in the light of the experience we have had in the working of these Acts in the past. In ordinary circumstances the prisoner would never go before the grand jury. It would be foreign to the province of the grand jury to ask for him. Then I would ask the House to remember that the man cannot be called as a witness at all except on his own application. Now, it is from that point of view we have to consider whether it is desirable to exclude the grand jury. Nobody can say that the interests of justice would be in any way injured if a man tenders

    703
    himself to give evidence. I can see no reason why he should not go. I believe in 99 cases out of 100 it would never occur to the grand jury to ask the prisoner if he desires to give evidence. I think the honourable Member will see that nobody can suggest any injury can be done to a guilty or innocent prisoner by giving him the opportunity, if he chooses to apply, to offer himself to be examined before the grand jury. I quite agree with the honourable Member for Hereford that in practice he would never offer himself, but I cannot see a reason for preventing him from doing so, as would be done by putting in the words of the Amendment. My main argument is that it cannot possibly do any harm to allow the prisoner, the person charged, to go before the grand jury.
    *MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I do hope the honourable Member for King's Lynn will withdraw this Amendment, and not put the House to the necessity of a Division. Throughout this matter I have steadily opposed the principle of the Bill, but I am confident the learned Attorney General, by the reasons he has given the House, certainly ought to convince anyone that it is putting a privilege in the way of the prisoner to allow him to appear before the grand jury if he likes. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Hereford has been giving his experience; but they seem to do things differently at Hereford from what they do at the Central Criminal Court. I have seen bills returned by the grand jury there and examined by the clerk of arraigns, not to see what witnesses are called, but to see if the foreman has put "true bill" or "no bill"—to See whether the foreman has signed it. I am confident that if this privilege be given it will only be exercised by educated men, because the ordinary criminal has no knowledge of what a grand jury is, and will naturally prefer to keep away from rather than be before a body where he cannot possibly be assisted by counsel. I am confident that the privilege which the Attorney General now proposes to offer to an accused person is one in the interests of justice, and therefore I do
    704
    hope my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn, who I know wishes to see the Bill made workable, though he does not agree with it in principle, will not put the House to the necessity of dividing, because in this case he will be assisting the conviction of an innocent man, or rather not assisting an innocent man to regain his liberty at the first possible opportunity. I can conceive of many cases where it would be an advantage far a man to go before a grand jury and give his own account of the affair; the grand jury might send down the indictment endorsed "no bill," and thus all the publicity, the painful publicity even loan innocent man, of a, trial before a judge and jury would be obviated.
    MR. S. EVANS: Sir, inasmuch as the Government in the Committee stage accepted the Amendment of my honourable Friend on this side of the House to the effect that it would only call the prisoner upon his own application, I think a different complexion was put on the matter from what existed before. I should like, however, to ask the Attorney General whether a prisoner against whom an indictment can be preferred would have a right to go before the grand jury—whether the grand jury would, in fact, be bound to hear the person who is charged upon the indictment? If they would, I think it would be, in many cases, of great advantage to allow the prisoner to go before the grand jury. It does certainly seem anomalous that in one of the stages of the criminal procedure in this country the man should not be heard at all. We know that neither the man nor his witnesses can go before the grand jury. Their province is simply to find out whether a primâ facie case is made out; but if the Bill would enable and entitle a prisoner against whom an indictment has been preferred to go before a grand jury, it might be very much in favour of that individual. The honourable and learned Gentleman who spoke last said that in many cases, in his opinion, educated men might get off before the grand jury. In this matter I look upon the Bill chiefly, not from the point of view of the educated, but from the point of view of the uneducated man, and I want him to have an opportunity also of going before

    705
    the grand jury. I know one case, a very startling case. An honourable and honoured Member of this House, who had been a Member for years, was put on his trial before a jury. It was a tremendous trial for the man to stand in the dock—chains around him, the iron bar in front of him—arraigned in the dock before a petty jury. In that case, in that man had been allowed to go before a grand jury—I do not think it is very much use if the grand jury themselves have the right to say whether he shall be heard or not, but if he has the absolute right under this Bill to go before the grand jury—it might very well have happened in this case that he would have been able to obviate the great trial, which, I think, was the sorest trial he ever experienced in his life. He was acquitted, and no one ever doubted that he would be acquitted. The trial did not go to a conclusion. The jury stopped the case, and a verdict of "not guilty" was returned. If he had had the right to go before the grand jury, I think the circumstances would have obviated the necessity of his being placed in the dock. I should like the Attorney General to state whether or not it will be in the right of a prisoner against whom an indictment has been preferred before a grand jury, to go before the grand jury and place his statements before them. In one respect a prisoner appearing in that way before a grand jury will be in a better position than one appearing before a petty jury, because, as we know, advocates do not go before a grand jury at all, and therefore he would not be subject to cross-examination. He would make his statement subject to questions from the members of the grand jury, but not in the ordinary way subject to the arts of the advocate. My view of the Amendment would be a good deal altered if the prisoner was not to have a right to appear before the grand jury, and I desire that he should have that right.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The question is whether the words of the Bill confer that right, and I venture, with great respect, to suggest that they do not. The words are that—
    "Every person charged shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings."
    706
    But if there is a true bill, then there is no defendant, and there is no defence. If you are going to revolutionise the practice with regard to proceedings before a grand jury, I submit that these words do not effect your object. You must express it in precise terms.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: Sir, I always thought it was a recognised rule of law that a grand jury can, after they have heard sufficient evidence to enable them bring in a true bill. By this Bill they need not be compelled, nor by this Bill can they be compelled, to hear the prisoner himself; but I venture to think that whenever there is a doubtful case, and when the grand jury are told that the prisoner wishes to come before them, they would hear him. I am afraid, however, they would not be compelled to hear him. It appears to me it would he a distinct advantage to the prisoner, whether guilty or innocent, that he should have a chance of getting before the grand jury.
    SIR A. FORWOOD: I do not like, as a layman, to interfere in this Debate, but as one who has had for many years to preside over a grand jury, I do hope this; Amendment will not be accepted, as from, my experience before that tribunal I can concur in what has been said, that there are many cases in which a man could have offered himself as a witness when he would have escaped being placed in the dock.
    SIR R. REID: I agree with the principle of this Amendment, but I think it ought not to be pressed, in the interests of the prisoners, who certainly could injure themselves in their ultimate trial. There is only one thing I would venture to suggest, and that is that, while grand juries would probably accept the evidence of the prisoner, they would not be compelled to do so. I would suggest that the honourable Member should withdraw his Amendment, and to put the matter beyond doubt the words should be, "shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings, including inquiry before a grand jury." That would put it beyond doubt. I rather doubt whether the grand jury, under the Bill as it stands, would be compelled to hear the prisoner if he offered himself.
    *MR. BUCKNILL: I should like to draw attention to what the Attorney general said to me when I raised this point on the Second Beading of the Bill. I am reading now from "Hansard." I said—
    "I should like myself to see a repetition of the Bill of 1888, which excluded the evidence of the accused person before the grand jury. The grand jury is a purely inquisitorial body. It consists of many men who may ask questions of any sort. They hold their inquiry in their private room, and I do see danger in the accused person being examined in private before the grand jury."
    Thereupon the learned Attorney General made this observation—
    "According to the Bill such could not be the case,"
    which I rather gather means that, in his opinion at that time, it was his view that by the word "proceedings"—in all proceedings—it would not be competent for a prisoner, an accused person, to go before the grand jury, and therefore I do think, following what my honourable and learned Friend has just said, that it would be right to make this quite clear by the insertion of such words as he has proposed. My objection no longer stands to an accused person going before a grand jury, because, since the time when I then spoke, the words "upon his own application" have been inserted in the Bill.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the words suggested ought not to be inserted. It is obvious that nothing of an inquisitorial character is intended.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I feel in some doubt whether I ought to withdraw or not after what the learned Attorney General has said. I certainly do not feel disposed to press the Amendment in view of what has been said, and, therefore, if the House will allow me, I will withdraw at.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 7, after 'proceedings,' insert 'including an inquiry before a grand jury.'"—(Mr. Pichersgill.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Sir, I beg to move—
    "To insert 'including an inquiry before a grand jury' after 'proceedings.'"
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I have really answered this before. I thought I expressed myself clearly. I think it, would be an unwise thing to pick out one particular stage.
    SIR R. REID: I think we are bound to accept these words. The only difficulty that arises is in connection with the words—
    "shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings."
    Now, observe the grand jury does not hear witnesses for the defence. Does that not throw a certain element of doubt? I am sure the Attorney General wishes the law, as we all wish the law, to be clear.
    *MR. BUCKNILL: That seems to be the very point. What happens before a grand jury? The grand jury calls before them all those witnesses, and all those witnesses only, whose names are upon the back of the indictment. The grand jury can only, of their own motion, call before them those persons who, being witnesses, have their name on the back of the indictment; and it is every-day practice that if one on the other side wishes to call other witnesses at the trial the names of such persons are added to the back of the bill. As the accused person's name cannot be put at the back of the bill, as the object of the grand jury is only to say whether a primâ facie case is made out a against the accused person, and as those words can do no harm, I would respectfully ask why they should not be inserted?
    SIR R. FINLAY: Mr. Speaker, we have said that by the words,
    "is competent at every stage of the proceedings."
    Surely, it is perfectly clear that proceedings before a grand jury are a stage. I really cannot imagine the grand jury refusing.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Sir, I do think that as doubt has been raised by the honourable Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite the Government might

    709
    accept these words. I would remind the Attorney General that the words "for the defence" have been introduced. They are an after thought, but they nave changed, I believe, the effect of the words as they were originally introduced. As the Bill originally stood, it was "Every person charged with an offence" and so forth, "shall be a competent witness at every stage of the proceedings"; but you have introduced the words "for the defence." As I understand there is no defence, it is a question of whether there is a primâ facie case before the grand jury. Surely since the introduction of those words "for the defence" the words suggested by the honourable Gentleman opposite have become necessary. The Government admit that they express their intention, and I am therefore in the strange position, after the explanation that has been given to the House, of having to support an Amendment which is in a contrary sense to the one I moved myself. The explanation given showed me that the prisoner could be heard before the grand jury, and on that ground I withdrew my Amendment. Then the doubt was raised whether he could be heard before the grand jury on his own application. I confess at present there is very serious doubt, which ought to be removed by the acceptance of the words of the honourable Gentleman opposite. If the Government go to a Division on this subject and refuse to accept what admittedly expresses their own intention, I shall be under the painful necessity of voting with the honourable Gentleman opposite.
    *SIR C. HALL: Sir, I intend to oppose this Amendment, because I view with great apprehension a proposal—and I regret that that proposal is agreed to to a certain extent by Her Majesty's law officers—to completely change the function of the grand jury. Now what are the functions of the grand jury? They are to decide whether or not there is a primâ facie case against the accused person. If there is not, it is their duty to throw out the bill. Then what are they to call the defendant before them for? Is it to see whether, there being a primâ facie case, his statement will alter their views? Practically it will make them a
    710
    tribunal to say whether or not the primâ facie case on which they are prepared to return a true bill is to be negatived because of some evidence they hear from he accused person. To my mind this is a most dangerous principle to adopt. You are proposing to make the grand my a tribunal to try a question—that is to say, into a jury to try facts, a thing utterly subversive of the principles of the grand jury. If there is primâ facie evidence to show there is a true bill, it is their duty to say so; but it is not their duty to call the accused person to see whether lie could contradict the primâ facie evidence. I repeat, the question is whether there is primâ facie evidence or not. That is the function of the grand jury; and I shall be very sorry to see. Anything put into this Bill which will effect their position or duties in any way whatever.
    *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess I altogether agree with the honour able and learned Member who last spoke. This Amendment appears to me to be quite subversive of the function of the grand jury. Take a case. A bill is sent up against a man for murder. The grand jury have no option now but to find a bill for murder or to ignore the bill; but if it is competent to examine the prisoner or the accused person, then the question will arise whether it is; murder or manslaughter, and the grand jury will be greatly embarrassed. The principles on which a petty jury can convict for manslaughter on a charge of murder are well settled. Every judge charging a grand jury says: "You are to find whether there is a primâ facie case; you are not to go into matters of defence, or questions of justification; leave that to the petty jury; your function is to find whether a primâ facie case has been; established." I shall certainly vote against the Amendment in this particular case, because as the section stands without this Amendment it would not, in my opinion, be possible for the grand jury to examine the prisoner; and I think the grand jury ought not to have that power.
    MR. S. EVANS: I am sorry to express any opinion different from that held by the Attorney General. I had

    711
    some doubts on the point, and I have been able to refer to an eminent authority, Sir James Stephen, in his "Digest of the Law of Criminal Procedure." It is perfectly clear from a statement here of that learned authority that grand juries have nothing to do with the defence; and therefore the insertion of the words "for the defence" make it absolutely recessary to insert some such words as are here proposed, otherwise the desire of the Government will not be carried out. The words or Mr. Justice Stephen are these—the passage is not very long—
    "The foreman of the grand jury, or any member thereof for the time being acting on behalf of such foreman in the examination of witnesses in support of any bill of indictment"—
    not in defence—
    "in support of any bill of indictment, is authorised and required to administer an oath or affirmation to all persons whomsoever who may appear before such grand jury, to give evidence in support of any bill of indictment, and all such persons attending before any, grand jury to give evidence may be sworn or affirm, and examined upon oath or affirmation, by such grand jury touching the matter in question."
    and further—
    "The name of every witness examined or intended to be so examined must be endorsed on such bill of indictment, and the foreman of such grand jury must write his initials against the name of each witness so sworn or affirming and examined touching such bill of indictment. It is not necessary for any person to take an oath in open court in order to qualify such person to give evidence before any grand jury."
    Then comes an Article dealing with the examination of witnesses. Then the learned author of this book deals with the bills which may be sent to the grand jury—
    "Any person may present a bill to any grand jury, accusing any other person of any crime whatever, without giving any previous notice to such persons and without taking any previous proceedings before any justice or coroner, except in the cases specified in the next Article."
    Those cases, of course, as the House is aware, are cases under the Vexatious Indictment Acts. That shows how important it is to allow prisoners to give evidence in their own behalf before the grand jury, because in cases outside the
    712
    Vexatious Indictments Acts nobody could present a bill before the grand jury, but in the passage I have read it is perfectly clear it is not the function of the grand jury to examine the witnesses for the defence, but the witnesses whose names are on the indictment. Therefore the acceptance by the Government of the words "for the defence" make it absolutely necessary to have some such words as are now suggested inserted in the body of the clause, if it should be the desire of the House that the grand jury should have the power to call witnesses for the defence.
    SIR E. CLARKE: I hope the learned Attorney General will refuse to accept these words. To allow a defendant to be called as a witness before a grand jury is to make an alteration in the criminal procedure of this country larger than anything made in the Bill. It would change the grand jury into a judicial tribunal to decide for or against the guilt or innocence of the defendant in private without any of that check of publicity or habit of dealing with legal affairs which are found to be so important. I therefore hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: I do not know whether we quite understand what the grand jury have to do. A grand jury has, in a sense, to try the case placed before it. One of the greatest rights which an Englishman has lies in the fact that he knows that 12 or more of his fellow-countrymen shall in secret decide whether or not he shall be put on trial. In theory, my honourable Friend the Member for Plymouth and my honourable Friend; the Recorder of London [Sir C. Hall] are right. In practice, however, I differ from them. The grand jury do to a very large extent try the oases, and if they see a case which they think ought not to be tried in open court, in which they think the accused is entitled not to be put upon his trial, they throw out the bill. I think I understood that the Government intended that the man who was tried should be able to come before the grand jury and make his own statement; he cannot, of course, compel the grand jury to hear him. Of that I am quite sure, because the grand jury is entitled to say: "No, we have heard

    713
    enough," if a primâ facie case is made out against the prisoner. At the same time in some cases it will give an innocent man an additional chance of getting off, and really without going through the trouble and anxiety of a charge in open court. And as I have been convinced by the Attorney General and Solicitor General themselves that this change should take place I am not going to turn my back upon my own convictions. I hope these words will be accepted by the Solicitor General, because, although I do not think they are necessary, when I remember that the prisoner is a competent witness for the defence I venture to think that it is desirable to insert them.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I have been convinced that these words ought to be inserted. It is obviously true that the function of grand juries is not to enter into the evidence that may be given for the defence, but that practice was established at a time when the defendant was not a competent witness. The grand jury should be satisfied whether or not there is a primâ facie case, and if the defendant is a competent witness it would be a monstrous injustice, if he desires to come forward at the first stage of the proceedings in the court where he is to be tried, and to show the grand jury that there is not a primâ facie case, that he shall not be at liberty to do so. I have, therefore, been convinced that the insertion of the words is desirable, and the Government propose to accept them.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I submit that what is proposed under the guidance of my honourable and learned Friend is the creation in this country of a new court altogether. We are going to make It a totally different tribunal from what the people want it to be—a tribunal composed of persons who have necessarily no knowledge of legal matters, and who conduct their business in secret, and ask any questions they like of the witnesses. If that is a proper court to try people, let us say so, and alter the constitution of the grand jury in a proper way. Do not let us be carried away by our feelings, and constitute a court which nobody would have any confidence in, knowing as we do the loose way in which grand juries necessarily conduct their business.
    714
    You change the grand jury from a mere inquiry into a Crown court, and you change the Crown court into a court of appeal. If you desire to alter the functions of the grand jury, do not do it in this way. A Bill ought to be brought in for the express purpose, and in an open manner. The matter should not be dealt with by a side wind, as is proposed by this Bill. I hope some honourable Members on the opposite benches who have had experience of legal matters will say what they think of this proposal.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think the Government are to be congratulated on the course they have adopted. It is giving a prisoner in England an opportunity, at the earliest possible stage, of making his statement. The privilege is accorded to every prisoner in Scotland, where the grand jury is analogous to a statement before a sheriff.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I confess that Her Majesty's Government have placed me in a very difficult position. I have had experience in a humble way of how these things are actually worked. I myself have had the honour of being chairman of a grand jury, and I know exactly what takes place. Of course, it is understood that the grand jury allow no witnesses at all for the defence, and that, when they have found a merely primâ facie case, they leave it to the petty jury to arrive at a final decision as to the guilt or innocence of the person accused; but I should like to say that it does appear to me that if the procedure is to be altered we shall have to go a great deal further. In the first place, as has been pointed out, the grand jury is a scout body. There are no reporters present, and, indeed, nobody, except the grand jury and the officers of the court. It is not merely the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused which is involved, but the guilt or innocence of the prosecutor; and it follows that a case of that kind ought to be tried in open court. Moreover, the grand jury have no legal assistance. There is nobody to advise them, except, of course, the clerks, and under those circumstances they may go wrong in a case in which the character of the prosecutor is as much involved as that of the accused, and may

    715
    by such wrong decision cast an undeserved stain upon the prosecutor. I do not, of course, desire to put myself up as an authority; but I do think this is too great a change to make in what is almost the last stage of the Bill, and when, if we decide the matter wrongly, there will hardly be an opportunity to set it right.
    MR. LAWSON WALTON: I desire to endorse the observations which have fallen from the noble Lord. In attaching this construction to the Bill the Government entirely change the functions and the character of one of the tribunals best known to the Constitution. The only function of a grand jury is to test whether or not the case proposed to be submitted to the consideration of the petty jury is a primâ facie case. It is, however, now proposed to give to the grand jury an entirely new jurisdiction. I cannot imagine a graver proceeding than that a case should be tried before a secret tribunal, where the public is not represented, where the evidence is not reported, and where there is no means of reviewing the decision.
    MR. CRIPPS: I entirely agree with what has been said by the honourable Member for South Leeds. I think that what has induced law offices to intimate their acceptance of the words of the Amendment is the consideration that it will be to the advantage of the prisoner to give his account at the earliest possible stage. No doubt it would be, but there are considerations on the other side which will very much outweigh the question of any advantage there may be in favour of the prisoner. To begin with, the functions of a grand jury would be materially altered, for, apart from the question of primâ facie information, they would more or less try the case itself. I certainly hope that the law officers will reconsider the attitude they have taken upon this: matter. It is perfectly true that in many of these prosecutions the issue is as much as to the character of the prosecutor as to that of the prisoner, and surely we ought not to have the character of the prosecutor tried, as it really will be tried, by the proceedings before the grand jury. I sincerely hope that under these circumstances, the functions of the grand jury will not be altered, although,
    716
    so far as the prisoner is concerned, it would be to his advantage.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: As I am rather responsible for the difficulty into which, the House has got, I may perhaps explain that I did not conceive that the inclusion or exclusion of the words, could have been thought by anyone to alter the functions of the grand jury. I am surprised that that is the view taken by experienced men. The Bill distinctly says "a competent witness for the defence," and a person can only give evidence on his own application. Therefore, as I have already said, in 99 cases, out of 100 the matter can never arise, because the grand jury will not be able to summon a man, and it will only be in an exceptional case that a man will apply to be heard. I never contemplated that by including the grand jury room as a place where the prisoners; might be called the Government would be charged with changing the functions, of the grand jury. Obviously we are not all quite agreed, and I would suggest that the matter should be allowed to stand, and then we can consider the question later.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: Mr. Speaker, I have been one of the strongest advocates of the Bill, but I am utterly appalled at the introduction of this change. Certainly, so far as my support is concerned, I shall have to reconsider my position, because to my mind there is a complete revolution in the tribunal of the grand jury if it is to be made a sort of trial in which witnesses for the defence are to be called before it. The grand jury has to establish a primâ facie case for the prosecution, and nothing more. Assuming a prisoner does give his evidence, and the grand jury find a bill against him, they are practically deciding the case, and the man will be put to a very great disadvantage when the, time arrives for his trial. I shall certainly vote against these words being introduced.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I certainly think it is extremely desirable that accused persons who desire to be heard by the grand jury should be allowed to be, but I aim bound to recognise that we have had expressions of opinion that though

    717
    this change is a highly beneficial one so far as the person accused is concerned, it would involve another change of a very extensive nature. No one certainly would desire that all the witnesses for the defence should be called before a grand jury. The idea I had in my mind was that the accused person should, if he so desired, be allowed to make an explanation before the grand jury. Honourable Members of great experience now tell us that if this change were adopted it would bring with it another and much more extensive change. I will never be a party to a scheme under which all the witnesses for the defence may be called before the grand jury, and inasmuch as it appears that the preponderating opinion in the House is that a change in the direction I desire cannot be made without introducing another change of a revolutionary character, I think it is not desirable that the Amendment of my learned Friend, with which I confess I was very much taken, should be adopted. The House must understand, however, that I cannot change my opinion as to the desirability of allowing the accused person to be heard by the grand jury.
    SIR E. REID: May I be allowed, by the indulgence of the House, to say a very few words? I am not going to say anything for the purpose of making any comparison. The situation is this: The words "for the defence" were not in the Bill as it originally stood; they were introduced in the Committee. When we were discussing this question, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General said that in their opinion, the introduction of the words "for the defence" did not alter the original character of the Bill, and that, according to the Bill as it now stands, and without any Amendment, the accused would be a competent person to go before a grand jury as a witness. That is what the Attorney General and the Solicitor General said before a good many honourable gentlemen who are present in this House now. I pointed out that it was doubtful whether the words "for the defence" had not made an alteration. That was the sole question before the Committee. The Government say now, and I think they are right, that no possible harm can be done by the introduction
    718
    of these words. They only mean that the prisoner himself will go before the grand jury and will say:—"Before you put me to the public shame of being tried, listen to what I have to say myself." That is the intention of the Government, and they ought to adhere to it. It will in no sense be a trial of the case, and the only question before the jury would be whether or not a true bill should be returned.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: It appears to me that the legal Gentlemen on both sides of the House are very much mixed up in this question. There is one way out of the difficulty, and that is to abolish grand juries entirely. I can hardly see the use of a man being tried before a magistrate, while he has an opportunity—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member's remarks are not in order.
    *MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Boroughs): The desire expressed by the right honourable and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, is entirely opposed to the whole theory of the grand jury system. The grand jury exists for one purpose, and for one purpose only; that is to find whether the evidence for the prosecution amounts to a primâ facie case against the prisoner; but if a prisoner is to give evidence before a grand jury the result must be that a trial of some sort will be held by the grand jury. I wish only to say further that, in my opinion, there is no tribunal more incompetent to try cases than a grand jury, summoned and constituted as it is for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether the evidence for the prosecution amounts to a primâ facie case.
    MR. LEUTY: If a prisoner is to be heard before a grand jury, that amounts to bringing him up for examination in camera. Procedure like that means the introduction of a vicious principle, and I think that, in the future, it will do very much more harm than the grand jury can do.
    The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 179.—(Division List No. 238.)

    AYES.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Holburn, J. G.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Spicer, Albert

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Steadman, Wiliam Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Langley, Batty

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lough, Thomas

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

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

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Maddison, Fred.

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Daly, James

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Davitt, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Woods, Samuel

    Doogan, P. C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Duckworth, James

    Price, Robert John

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Dunn, Sir William

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Samuel Evans.

    Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. B.

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

    NOES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Asher, Alexander

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Kemp, George

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Kenrick, William

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Balcarres, Lord

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lafone, Alfred

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

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

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B.(Clackm.)

    Finch, George H.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Beach, RtHnSiarM. H. (Bristol)

    Flower, Ernest

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Bethell, Commander

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mid'sex)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Garfit, William

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Gedge, Sydney

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Burt, Thomas

    Gibbs,Hon.A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lowles, John

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

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    McKillop, James

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Maden, John Henry

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon, Lord G.

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Monk, Charles James

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hardy, Laurence

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Harwood, George

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

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hazell, Walter

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

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

    Cox, Robert

    Helder, Augustus

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Henderson, Alexander

    Myers, William Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Howell, William Tudor

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    720

    721

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Schwann, Charles E.

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

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

    Webster. R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Pollock, H. F.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    Powell, Sir Francis S.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Willox Sir John Archibald

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Stock, James Henry

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

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Woodall, William

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Strauss, Arthur

    Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles H.

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

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Wyndham, George

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Rutherford, John

    Thornton, Percy M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Sir William Walrond and

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 11, after 'charged,' insert 'and the wife or husband, as the case may be, of the person so charged shall not be called as a witness without his or her consent.'"—(Mr. S. Evans.)
    MR. S. EVANS: If this Amendment is adopted, the wife or husband of the person charged cannot be called as a witness without his or her consent. Sir, the whole scheme in a very few words depends upon this, that the person charged, or his wife, as the case may be, is a competent and not a compellable witness, and when the Bill was before the Committee the Government accepted the words "except upon his own application." The result was that the prisoner charged could not be compelled to give evidence at all. Now, if this right in given with regard to the person charged, it certainly ought to follow in the case of a wife or husband, and the Government having accepted one, they ought to accept the other.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I must resist the Amendment on the ground that, if the man charged wishes his wife, or the woman charged wishes her husband, to give evidence, the wish of the prisoner ought to be respected. The object of enacting that the prisoner should not be called as a witness, except upon his own application, is to protect the person charged. There is a broad distinction between the person charged and the wife or husband and an ordinary witness.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The Attorney General must remember that the prisoner himself, and the wife or husband, as the case may be, are all new witnesses, and they are brought for the first time within
    722
    the general criminal law; in fact, wit nesses have been brought in already under certain special Acts of Parliament in certain specially specified cases. The prisoner himself is a new witness, his wife is a new witness, and the prisoner's husband is a new witness, and it is very reasonable that an Amendment of this kind should be adopted. The prisoner himself, who is one of the new witnesses is not to be called without his consent Now, why should you drag the wife into the box to give evidence against her husband, to be subjected to cross examination? It is quite true that your cross-examination is guarded by provisoes, but they are of no value what ever, and they will disappear entirely before the efforts of the most unskilled counsel. A wife may be called for the defence, and in the course of skilful cross-examination information may be gleaned which may be sufficient to place the rope round her husband's neck. Take the case of a man accused of having been on a poaching expedition, and inflicting serious injuries on the watchers and gamekeepers. As the case turned out under the present law, the man was a witness, but, had he been examined, he would have been convicted, because it was shown that he was not at home that night, although it that been stated that he was at home. Now, under these circumstances, you want to call the wife, whether she likes it or not, and she is to be called as a witness for the defence in order to be cross-examined. I do not think, Sir, that having admitted the principle that the consent of the person charged must be obtained, you certainly ought to admit the same principle in the case of the wife and husband. I think this is a very reasonable Amendment, and one which ought to be adopted.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: I think this proposal is one which is very much against the prisoner, because either he or she has to decide whether or not the evidence of her husband, or his wife, as the case may be, will be of any use for the defence. I think that is clear under the Bill. That being the case, it amounts to this: that if the husband or wife is innocent, they will come forward and give evidence. But there are hundreds of cases in which the wife would be only too glad to get rid of her husband, and she will not care to commit perjury for that purpose. The
    result of the Amendment will be this, that when the unfortunate husband, who is a prisoner, says he will call his wife as a witness, she can at once say, "I am not a compellable witness, and I will not give evidence," although she might give evidence which would acquit the husband. Now, I do hope that my honourable Friend will not press: this Amendment to a Division, because it seems to be manifestly unfair to the prisoner.
    The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 198.—(Division List No. 239.)

    AYES.

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

    Holburn, J. G.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sinclair, Capt J. (Forfarsh.)

    Brigg, John

    Langley, Batty

    Steadman, William Charles

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Lough, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Maddison, Fred

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    dough, Walter Owen

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Woods, Samuel

    Daly, James

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Price, Robert John

    Doogan, P. C.

    Richards, Henry Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Duckworth, James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr.

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Hedderwick.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Robson, William Snowdon

    NOES.

    Arnold, Alfred

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

    Dunn, Sir William

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Asher, Alexander

    Charrington, Spencer

    Fergusson,RtHn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Finch, George H.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Cochrane, Hn. T.H.A.E.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Balcarres, Lord

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Flannery, Fortescue

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Flower, Ernest

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

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. J.B.(Clackm.)

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H

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

    Cox, Robert

    Garfit, William

    Bethell, Commander

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(LancsSW)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Cavendish V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Bt. Hon. Lord G.

    McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

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

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

    Hardy, Laurence

    McKillop, James

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)

    Harwood, George

    Maden, John Henry

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Hazell, Walter

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Helder, Augustus

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Spicer, Albert

    Hemphill Rfc Hon C H.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Monk, Charles James

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

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

    Stock, James Henry

    Howell, William Tudor

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles H.

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Kemp, George

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Kenrick, William

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

    Myers, William Henry

    Thornton, Percy M.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Lafone,, Alfred

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Northcote,, Hon. Sir H. S.

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

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry C.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

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

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Lowe, Marquess of

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

    Lowe, Francis William

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Wyndham, George

    Lowles, John

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Rutherford, John

    Mr. Anstruther.

    MacNeill, John Gordon S.

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 14, leave out 'adverse.'"— (Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think if there is to be an absence of any kind of comment there ought to be an absence of all kinds, and the prosecution should not be allowed to make any comment upon the evidence, even, of a specified kind. I think there should be no comment at all, because once you leave the door open for comment of one kind, such is the ingenuity of the gentlemen of the law that they would be able to make comment of other kinds. I do not think that the Government propose to leave open to the prosecution, to take advantage of this by making adverse comments. I hope and trust that they will accept this Amendment.
    SIR R. FINLAY: This will not interfere with our object, and I have no objection to leave out the word.
    Question put—
    "That the word 'adverse' be omitted."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 24, after 'asked,' insert 'but if asked shall not be required to answer.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Surely there is a very strong case for setting up, as I propose to do, that a person, in the first place, who is an entirely new kind of witness, and who is brought before the court under entirely new circumstances, when he is asked a question which would tend to criminate him as to the offence with which he is charged, should be in a position to refuse to answer. Why, it is one of the cardinal principles of the English law that a man

    727
    is not bound to incriminate himself. As the clause stands it says—
    "A person charged, and being a witness, in pursuance of this Act, may be asked any question in cross-examination, notwithstanding that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence charged."
    Sir, I have no objection to asking a question when it has any possible conceivable effect, and you should not introduce such a principle as this in the enactment of a new Statute, and I should strongly object to any obligation on the part of the prisoner to answer such questions. There has been a doubt expressed as to the effect of the previous clause, and therefore, in order to remove any possible doubt as to the effect of this subsection, I propose to move this Amendment.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: This matter was very carefully discussed upon a previous occasion, and I do not think that this Amendment offers any effective protection to the witness at all. It is absolutely necessary in regard to our scheme, and its successful working, that you should be allowed within certain limits to cross-examine the witness, and therefore you must be allowed to ask these questions.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: After this explanation I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, lines 24 and 25, leave out 'notwithstanding that it,' and insert 'the answer to which.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I assure the honourable Gentleman that I shall be very glad to accept any drafting Amendments which will have the effect of improving the Bill, but I do not think that this Amendment will have such an effect.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 27, leave out sub-section (f) to the end, page 2, line 10."—(Mr Gibson Bowles.)
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Withdraw, withdraw!
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: No, no! This is a very important matter. This subsection (f), with its sub-clauses 1, 2, and 3, is the sub-section which puts into the Bill what I cannot but consider is a most useless proviso and safeguard to the cross-examination of these new witnesses. The existence of this sub-section is a proof that the Government have felt that the bringing of a man into court under these circumstances is not one which can be approached without very serious and substantial modifications. I am perfectly certain they intended to safeguard the person charged as well as they could by the proviso put down. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that I did put down an Amendment prohibiting the cross-examination of these new witnesses, and that I withdrew that Amendment. I feel that as soon as you get witnesses in the box, whether it is the prisoner, the wife, or the husband of the prisoner, it will be found extremely difficult to avoid cross-examination. I call the attention of the House to this clause—
    "A person called as a witness, in pursuance of this Act, shall not be asked, and, if asked, shall not be required to answer any question tending to show that any person charged hat committed, or been convicted of, or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is of bad character."
    That is the first proviso, and you are not to ask that witness any question as to any other offence. Then you coma to this proviso—
    "Unless the proof that he has committed, or been convicted of, such other offence is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence wherewith he is then charged."
    In that case you may ask him a question. The clause proceeds—
    "If the person charged, or his advocate, on his behalf, has asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution, with a view to establish his own good character, or called witnesses to his good character, or otherwise has given evidence of good character."

    729
    The whole character of the evidence is as to whether he did or did not commit the offence with which he is charged, and whether he has been convicted or charged with another offence, that question is to be thrown over. Then again—
    "If the person charged and called as a witness has given evidence against any other person charged with the offence with which the prisoner is charged."
    If the person has given any evidence against any other person charged with the same offence, then, again, you open the whole category as to whether he has committed, or been convicted of, or been charged with some other offence which is not the offence then in question, but an entirely different offence. I do beg the House to observe the extraordinary limitation which these words make, and I venture to think that due consideration of this clause will show the extreme difficulty of its effective working under the Bill as it is proposed. I, Sir, think that you must call the prisoner, and the prisoner's wife or husband, as the case may be, and you must cross-examine them as a whole, as other witnesses are cross-examined, or else not call them at all. That has been the effect of the English law for many centuries. I do say, Sir, that this throws a very considerable light on the whole subject dealt with by the Bill, and in my opinion it is one of the most important parts, and the most crucial part of the Bill. It undoubtedly does represent an honest attempt on the part of the Government to deal with what they feel themselves to be the very serious difficulties with which the new system is indeed bound up, and I do not think they meet the difficulties by these limitations in a satisfactory manner. You should either not call a prisoner, wife, or husband at all, or, if you do, they should be subjected to the ordinary system of cross-examination. These, Sir, are the reasons for which I present this Amendment to the notice of the House, because I am convinced that by these provisoes, limitations, and fencing of cross-examination, they will be in practice found impossible to be observed, and the unfortunate prisoner, or his wife, or husband, as the case may be, in the hands of an able counsel, may be forced to make admissions which will in effect bring
    730
    about his conviction for the offence with which he is charged. This Amendment is a very important one, for it does raise a crucial question on the whole Bill, which is a very proper and necessary one. I therefore beg leave to move this Amendment.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not want to lengthen this Debate by any discussion of this kind. I desire simply to point out to the House that we could not in good faith accept the striking out of this sub-section. It may be right, or it may be wrong, to introduce some of these limitations, and have these protections for cross-examination, but opinion is divided on the subject. We have, on the Second Reading and at the Committee stage, preferred not to allow cross-examination that was not necessary in order to bring out the guilt, or to establish the innocence so to speak, of the person charged. But, Sir, we have thought it right to maintain in this clause those safeguards which would protect the prisoner and persons charged from that class of cross-examination which has been brought sometimes as an objection against allowing a prisoner to give evidence, and we have inserted such safeguards as will confine it to its proper limits, unless the prisoner has so conducted his defence as to defeat this object. I do not think that the House will wish for any further explanation.
    MR. S. EVANS: Sir, with a great deal of the speech of the honourable Member I agree. I think it is a mistake to allow a prisoner to be cross-examined by counsel with regard to the whole of his previous history. There was one case which was very striking, a case in which a man was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for criminal assault; a case in connection with which a police-constable was afterwards indicted for perjury. The prisoner, as I said, gave his evidence, and at a period of his cross-examination he was asked as to his previous character. He gave his evidence so well that there was tremendous applause in court when he "floored" the advocate, but one of the next questions put in cross-examination by counsel was this: "Twenty years ago did you live in Ireland?" to which he

    731
    replied, "Yes!" "Were you prosecuted in Ireland?"—and he asked the judge was he bound to answer that question, and, being told that he was so bound, he replied that he had been prosecuted. The next question was: "Were you convicted and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude?" and the answer was "Yes." Sir, from that point forward there was no chance of that man's oath being believed. Can it be said that it was fair to allow the whole of that man's testimony to be destroyed entirely, merely because, 20 years before, he had served a term of penal servitude? It shows the danger of allowing cross-examination which is irrelevant to the issue.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: I would point out to the honourable Member that it is obvious that sub-section (f) has been inserted for the protection of the person called, and anyone who understands the law will not want to have it omitted.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Sir, I beg to move—
    "Page 1, line 27, after 'person,' to insert 'charged and.'"
    The sub-section as it stands is to the effect that a person charged and called as a witness will not be asked, and, if asked, shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he had committed or been convicted of any offence other than that wherewith he was then charged or was of bad character, unless he had personally, or by his advocate, asked questions of the witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character, or had given evidence of his good character, or the nature and the conduct of the defence had been such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witness for the prosecution. There are certain offences which are only offences if the person charged has been guilty of a previous offence.
    The Amendment was agreed to.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg to move—
    "Page 1, line 29, to leave out 'any person charged,' and insert 'he.'"
    The Amendment was agreed to without discussion.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Mr. Speaker, after line 31 I proposed to insert the words "or misconduct." A question might be put to the prisoner relating to misconduct not amounting to a breach of the criminal law, which might be prejudicial to him. Supposing a prisoner is charged with an offence against a girl of 16; it would be quite competent for counsel to ask him questions with reference to offences with women. If we allow this sub-section to pass as it is now drawn we will for the first time be letting in evidence to criminal proceedings, tending to show that the person charged is a likely person to commit the crime. I am sure the Attorney General will give the suggestion which I have made his earnest consideration, because I do not think there can be any real objection to add the words I have proposed.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I confess that I have not carefully considered this Amendment, as it was not on the Paper, but it seems to me obvious that these words will not carry out the intention of the honourable and learned Gentleman. You cannot exclude the cross-examination of a prisoner in respect of "misconduct," because a man is not charged or convicted of "misconduct," but of "an offence." What the honourable and learned Gentleman means by "misconduct," as distinguished from an "offence," would be covered by the later words, "or is of bad character."
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I do not see the force of the right honourable Gentleman's criticism. [Cries of "Order!"] Surely, Sir, I may ask the indulgence of the House—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable and learned Gentleman is not entitled to a reply. I feel bound to call the attention of the House to the practice which is growing up—I do not mean to refer to the honourable and learned Member in

    733
    particular—but undoubtedly the practice seems to be growing up of honourable Members asking, as a matter of course for indulgence to speak again on tin same Amendment on the Report stage. Obviously that is a practice which would tend to make the Report stage a second Committee stage.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 31, after the word 'offence,' insert the words 'or misconduct.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question put—
    "That the words 'or misconduct' stand part of the clause."
    Put and negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 3, after 'has.' insert 'personally, or by his advocate.'"—(The Attorney General.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out 'or called witnesses to his good character.'"—(The Attorney General.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 6, leave out 'otherwise.'"— (The Attorney General.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 7, after 'of,' insert 'his.'"—(The Attorney General.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 7, after 'character,' insert ' or the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution.'"—(The Attorney General.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: I remember that there was a discussion upon these or similar words some time earlier in the
    734
    passage of this Bill, and I am afraid I may, to some extent, have to repeat what was said then. I quite understand that at the time the words which were objected to were withdrawn for the purpose of the right honourable Gentlemen who were in charge of the Bill considering whether or not they would consent to the proposal that was then made. Now I am strongly in support of this Bill, and the only part of it that I object to, as it has come before us, is these words. I really do think that we are introducing a change, a very, very grave change, in the course of our criminal procedure. Hitherto a person charged with a crime may cross-examine any witness in any way he or his counsel likes in regard to the witness's character, but no person is entitled to show in consequence that the prisoner who is charged has himself been guilty of previous offences. The effect of this Amendment is this. In some instances I quite agree that the want of these words may bear hardly upon the persons who are prosecuting, but that is always so. In every charge that is made at the Bar there is always the possibility that the prosecutor or the prosecutrix may be himself or herself injured by charges that are made against him or her, but surely a change of such a grave nature as is proposed here ought not to be made in a Bill of this character. This Bill is intended to give relief to the prisoner. It is not intended to put him in any worse position than he is now in, but the effect of the Amendment would be this. Suppose a man were charged with an offence against a woman of a notoriously bad character. I will take the instance given by my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan, because I was engaged with him in that very case and know all about it. Suppose that man had been charged with an offence 20 years ago, when he was a boy. If his counsel asked the prosecutrix whether she was not a woman of bad character, and whether she had not made false charges against one, two, three, or a dozen men, immediately thereupon the prosecuting counsel would be entitled to prove that this man, who then was an old man, had been guilty 30 or 10 years back of a similar offence against some other person. It seems to me that it would be monstrously unjust that that

    735
    should happen, and I hope that, as the learned Attorney General said he would consider these words, he will still feel that without injuring his Bill in any shape or form, he can omit this Amendment to it. I am quite sure that in some instances it will be a great injustice to the prisoner, although in some instances I admit that it may turn out to be some injustice to the prosecutor or prosecutrix. But, after all, as this Bill has been expressly stated to be in favour of the prisoner and not against him, I do suggest that we should not, by a clause of this kind, after the present law of our country against the prisoner and not in his favour.
    MR. S. EYANS: I do not see, if we are going to carry out the scheme of this Bill, how we are to omit these words altogether. These words are extremely vague words, and I desire to limit them in one sense. The words are—
    "The nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution."
    Now I desire to call the attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to what would be the effect of those words. The effect would be that you could not cross-examine at all without letting in the dangers which the Government desire to avoid, because every cross-examination must be, to some extent, a cross-examination as to a person's credibility. Immediately you attack the credibility of the witness, you make an imputation upon his character. If you suggest that a witness is telling an untruth you make an imputation upon his character of the crime of perjury. You also make an imputation upon his character if you suggest that he is not telling the whole truth; he may not be actually committing perjury by swearing what is untrue, but he may be keeping something back. I suppose the object of the Government is, that where the defence really is an imputation upon the character of the prosecutor or prosecutor's witnesses, the defence ought to be able to turn the tables on the prosecution; but we should take care that we do not spoil cross-examination altogether. I accept gratefully, for my part, the Amendments that have been made by the Government in this
    736
    sub-section as foreshadowed by the-Attorney General during the Committee stage, and I make my present suggestion entirely in a friendly spirit. I suggest that after the word "imputation" we should insert—
    "Or nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations not merely of want of credibility, but also imputations on the general character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution."
    That would safeguard the right of the advocate for the defence to attack the credibility qua the particular charge of the witnesses for the prosecution, and it would also enable the prosecutor to turn the tables on the defendant where he was making a wholesale attack upon the prosecutor. The words I suggest are sufficient I think to carry out the objects of the Government, and the words of the Government without some such limit would practically destroy cross-examination altogether.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I think the honourable and learned Member for East Carmarthen has rather forgotten the subject with which we are dealing in this subsection. We provide that the accused can be called as a witness. Now, when a man is called as a witness he is primâ facie subject to cross-examination, but we have thought it right to protect a prisoner in this way, and we have said generally that he shall not be liable to cross-examination as to previous convictions or as to bad character. But it is obvious that there must be some exceptions to such protection. It is admitted by my honourable and learned Friend who has just sat down that one of these exceptions must be where the nature of the defence is such as to involve an attack on the character of the prosecutor and the witnesses for the prosecution as a whole. Suppose there is a charge of conspiracy against the witnesses for the prosecution, or that a charge is against the prosecutor himself. Take a case of libel, where the defendant puts in a plea of justification, and pleads that it was for the public benefit that the facts should be known. In such a case the prosecutor may stand even more in need of protection than the accused; and similarly in cases of assault and other cases into which it is not necessary now

    737
    to enter. I do put it to my honourable and learned Friend that it would be simply monstrous that a defendant should have liberty through his counsel, or by himself, to scatter accusations wholesale on the prosecutor and the witnesses for the prosecution, and to pose before the world as an injured man, and perhaps to obtain an acquittal which may blast the character of the prosecutor for life, whereas, if it were known what the character of the defendant was, things would have appeared in their true proportions before the jury, and the prosecutor would have escaped the doom which a verdict of acquittal would mean. It has been suggested that perhaps questions might be asked as to what the accused had done 20 years before. Now I think that the House may be perfectly confident that such questions would not be asked, and for this reason, that they would not in the least help the case for the prosecution. If questions were asked as to what happened 20 years before, during the boyhood of the prisoner, it would create a reaction in favour of the accused on the part of the jury, and the only questions which any competent advocate would think of asking would be questions which would really tend to show what sort of man the accused really was in order to enable the jury to judge between him and the prosecutor, whose character he had attacked. With regard to the suggestions made by my honourable and learned Friend who has just sat down. I would submit this to him. I know his object is to improve the subsection upon this point, but I submit to his consideration that his words would hardly do, because a charge of want of credibility against a prosecutor and his witnesses might be the most serious charge that could be brought forward. It will not do to say "I merely say that the prosecutor and his witnesses are not to be believed." It all depends upon whether you allege that the prosecutor and his witnesses are mistaken, or whether you say that they are wilfully misleading the court and the jury. If the prisoner says merely that they are mistaken, the words suggested by my honourable and learned Friend will not be satisfied, because that is making no imputation on the witness. If on the other hand he says that they are
    738
    coming forward wilfully to swear what is false, that is making an imputation of a most serious character, and I submit that the prosecutor in fairness should be afforded the opportunity of showing what manner of man it is who sets up such a case. My honourable and learned Friend suggests the words—
    "not merely of want of credibility, but also an imputation on the general character."
    Are not those words somewhat too indefinite? I submit that the words that the Government have selected adequately carry out the opinion which the House expressed when this subject was under consideration. I admit that in reply to some observations made on the other side, I said on the Committee stage that the whole of this matter would receive careful consideration with a view to carry out what was the true intention of the clause. That we have done, and the object of the words now before the House is this, that if the whole nature and conduct of the defence is such as to involve an attack on the prosecutor or his witnesses, it ought to be open to the prosecution to show the jury what manner of man it is who attacks other people in this way. The only question is, which is the best form of words to carry out that object? I submit to all my honourable and learned Friends that the words the Government have proposed are adequate for the purpose. It would be difficult or impossible to select words which should deal more satisfactorily, I think, with a subject which I admit is somewhat difficult of definition, but if they were left out, or seriously mangled, it would be a very great blot upon the Bill which might lead to a serious injustice.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I entirely agree with my honourable and learned Friend the Member for East Carmarthen in his view of the proposed clause. The present state of the law is this. A witness comes forward to give evidence against a prisoner; he may be cross-examined as to his credibility to the extent of establishing the fact that he has previously been convicted of some most abominable offence, perjury, and so forth. The prisoner's character remains absolutely untouched. It is to be assumed (I am speaking now of the present law) that the prisoner is

    739
    a perfectly guiltless man, so far as any other crime is concerned. Now, what alteration is made? The prisoner is allowed to go into the witness-box, but he is not allowed to say a solitary word about his previous character, and that is very just; all he can do is to depose to the facts immediately connected with the charge made against him. Why, then, I ask, if that be so, if the prisoner is only able to depose as to facts immediately associated with the charge which is made against him, why, because he has directed questions to a witness for the prosecution, is he himself to be exposed, to have the whole of his previous character laid bare? I am utterly at a loss to conceive any sound reason for any such complete change in the law. One can conceive a witness for the prosecution held up to scorn as a person whose word cannot be believed, while the prisoner in the dock is a person of equally bad character, but the law at the present time permits that state of things. Why should the law be changed? Why should you now compel the character of the prisoner to be disclosed, whereas you do not permit it to be disclosed at the present time, simply because you have permitted the prisoner to give evidence as to the facts of the particular case? Now what is the danger? The danger appears to me obviously to be this, that no counsel for the defence will feel that he has any freedom whatever in putting questions as to the credibility of a witness. I imagine myself for a moment in the position of a defending counsel; I know that my unfortunate prisoner has been previously convicted, and if I venture to ask one single question of the witness for the prosecution, to show that he is a man whose story the jury should not credit, then I am obliged to expose my unfortunate client to be cross-examined as to his antecedents. Now, what we are attempting to do is to make a compromise between the condition of things which obtain under the present law and the condition of things which is to obtain under the proposed Act. You are going now to submit the prisoner to an ordeal of cross-examination as to the facts of the case, and then, if forsooth he through his counsel cross-examines a witness against him, to show that that witness is not to be believed, then you are going
    740
    to ask the jury to convict this man, not because the evidence of the facts is conclusive, but because you show that the man in the dock is just as bad as the man in the witness-box. That is a monstrous proposition, and I for my part confess that I think there is no compromise possible on these lines. I think that if a counsel in his discretion for the benefit of his client thinks it right to put questions as to the credibility of a witness, he should not be exposed to the necessity of having to submit his client to cross-examination also. I am sure that it will never be possible for counsel to cross-examine a witness as to his credibility, because he will have hanging over him the sword of Damocles, that he is obliged to submit his own client to cross-examination.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: One of our difficulties in discussing this Bill lies in the varying nature of the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government. At one time their sympathies are all with the prisoner; at another their sympathies are all for the prosecutor; and the Solicitor General draws a melancholy picture of an unfortunate prosecutor who is exposed to attack by the prisoner. I confess that of the two my sympathies are with the prisoner. I will not say I am sportsmanlike, because that would be a trivial word to use, but I think it is in accordance with our national traditions to feel sympathy with the hunted man, the man in the dock fighting for his life. Now let the House observe the novelty of this position. The practice of the English law has been this, that when a man is accused of a criminal offence the whole onus of proving that he is guilty lies on the prosecution. Then what is the defence of the prisoner? Practically his only defence is to break down the prosecution by showing that the witnesses for the prosecution are not credible persons. If you deny to the prisoner the right of making such imputations on the prosecution as tend to show that the prosecutor and his witnesses are unworthy of belief, whatever else you may do, you absolutely deprive the prisoner of all chance of acquittal. It seems to me that the only way he has of disproving the charge against him is by showing that the prosecutor and his witnesses are disreputable persons. That has been

    741
    the method of defence in this country for one hundred—I believe I might say for a thousand years, and you are now going to change it. Out of this tenderness for the prosecutor you are going to say that the defence must not adopt a line involving imputations on the prosecutor or his witnesses. I know perfectly well that this proposal is made perfectly in good faith on the part of the Government, and with the desire to make this Bill work, but it seems to me that this proposition is altogether indefensible. What is character? Is credibility character? I believe that some learned lawyers hold that you may attack a man's credibility and leave his character untouched. I believe that credibility is the essence of character; you cannot attack a man's credibility without attacking his character. What should we think even of an Attorney General who was learned in the law, who was not to be believed? What should we think of a man who was politically blameless, but whose word we could not trust? I repeat that it seems to me impossible that you can attack a man's credibility without attacking his character. If I am not to attack the credibility of a witness, where am I? I am accused of some offence against the criminal law. The only defence that will be left to me, if this proposition is adopted, and I am prevented from breaking down the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, is the defence of an alibi, which is usually held to be a most dangerous line of defence. Now, I am not here to compete with lawyers in the drafting of Amendments in a Bill of this description, and therefore I do not pledge myself to the exact wording of what I am about to suggest. But I think we might adopt some such, words as these—
    "Unless the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution, excepting imputations tending to show the prosecutor or the witnesses to be unworthy of belief."
    I do not venture to move that as an Amendment, because I am not sure enough of the words; but although I am not desirous in the least of standing in the way of the progress of this Bill I am bound to say that if this proposition of the Government is carried to a Division I shall feel bound to vote against it.
    742
    I trust Her Majesty's Government, at this eleventh hour, will consider whether even now they cannot suggest a better form of words which will safeguard the right of the prisoner to break down the credibility of the witnesses called against him.
    MR. ROBSON: I do not think anybody can deny that the Attorney General has here made a very careful and, if I may say so, a conscientious effort to remove one of the worst blots on the Bill, but he will forgive my saying that what he has proposed certainly does not appear to me, in its strict construction, to obviate the mischief which is feared. The existing state of the law is this, that man whom the community charges with some offence, and who is put upon trial for his life, or his liberty, is to have given to him the privilege—a privilege not given to an ordinary litigant in a civil cause—of being assumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and he is not to be put under the disability of having his cross-examination of the prosecutor in any degree hampered. That is one of the ancient privileges of our Constitution, and one that has done much to bring the administration of our law into the respect of the people. All that is proposed now to be altered. A prisoner is now not to have an unrestricted right of cross-examination except on. terms which subject him to having the whole of his previous career dragged out into the light of day. That, Sir, is a very serious matter. I venture to ask the House to look at this matter not from the point of view of the prisoner, but from the point of view of public opinion. I venture to think that the administration of the English law has secured the respect of the English people, and, above all, the respect of the poorer classes of the English people, to a degree absolutely unknown in any other country in the world; I go further and say that there is, perhaps, no feature of our national character, there is none of our distinctive institutions of which we, as Englishmen, may more justly be proud than the way in which our criminal law is respected by those persons to whom it is most frequently applied. What is the secret of that respect? Simply and solely that we do not torture the prisoner. We put a man upon his trial, and instead of treating him as a detective would

    743
    treat a suspected criminal we give him every protection possible in the position in which he is placed. That fact has impressed in the minds of the English people a belief in the impartiality of our law, which I think is one of the most valued possessions of Englishmen. Now, the learned Attorney General has chosen words so vague as to bring the Amendment to this, that if a prisoner or his counsel exercises his right of cross-examination as to the character of the witnesses for the prosecution, he lays himself open to cross-examination as to his own character. That I think is a fair construction of the clause. I hope the House will hesitate before it gives up this distinctive feature of our law, that a man's previous character shall not be brought up until the verdict is given. I venture again to press on the Attorney General and Solicitor General the necessity for some Amendment of the wording of their Amendment. I confess I feel the difficulty of selecting any proper words. In dealing with the words suggested by my honourable and learned Friend below the Gangway, the Solicitor General said that he thought they were very vague and very general. So are the words that are now proposed. They are so vague and general that it is very difficult to amend or qualify them except by words of the same character. However, as my honourable and learned Friend is not able to move the words which he has suggested, because he has lost his right to speak, I propose to move these words, which I commend to the consideration of the House as being, if not adequate, yet as certainly removing in some degree the mischief of the words proposed by the Attorney General. The Amendment will be as follows:—
    "The nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations, not merely of want of credibility, but also imputations in the general character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution."
    Those are the words which were suggested by my honourable and learned Friend, the Member for Glamorgan. I need scarcely say that I feel the difficulty of words of such a vague and general character as these, but I think the fault lies not with the words I am suggesting, but rather with the words in the Bill, because they are very vague and unsatis-
    744
    factory, and certainly the words I now suggest would diminish in some degree the mischief which we are all desirous of seeing removed.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "Line 2, after the word 'imputations,' to insert the words 'not merely of want of credibility, but also imputations on the general.'"—(Mr. Robson.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: So many suggestions have been made that I am really almost afraid to make a suggestion of my own. As I understand it, the objections raised by my honourable Friend the Member for King's Lynn to the words that stand on the paper are these: he says if the defendant attacks the veracity of the witnesses against him in this particular trial, that is an attack upon their character, and being an attack upon character it lays the prisoner open to all the difficulties and all the dangerous results which might follow from a general cross-examination of his own character. I venture to suggest this modification of the words on the Paper—
    "Or the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character or general credibility of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution."
    That I think would clearly indicate that a mere attack upon the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution, divorced from a general attack upon character, would not open the door to a general cross-examination of the prisoner's character; and again it would protect the witnesses against the prisoner from am attack upon their general character.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable and learned Member for South Shields accept that suggestion?
    MR. ROBSON: I am afraid I cannot, Sir.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am very loth to trespass again upon the House, but I really think that this suggestion of my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, hardly meets the case. I

    745
    am perfectly conscious that he is desirous to meet the objections to the clause as it at present stands, and I am extremely grateful to him. I do not think the words he proposes, "general credibility," would do, because that would imply that you may make an imputation of special credibility—if I may put that in antithesis—but you are not to make imputations upon general credibility. My point is this. Suppose a man is convicted of perjury, and he brings a charge of perjury against me; I have no witnesses; the only witness perhaps is myself; surely the main part of my defence is to prove that he has committed perjury. That would affect his general credibility, and also his special credibility. I think the onus of proof must lie on the prosecutor, and it must be left to me to break down the credibility of witnesses if I can. I cannot cut up the credibility into two credibilities; I think that is practically impossible. Sir, I rise again to make the alternative suggestion which I made before—namely, after the words—
    "Or the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution"
    to insert the words—
    "Excepting imputations tending to show that the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution is or are unworthy of belief."
    That, I submit, is what I, the prisoner, am entitled to show; it is probably the only thing that stands between me and the gallows. It might mean the life or the death of a prisoner to show that. I do not want to enable the prisoner to make a malicious attack on the character of the prosecutor or his witnesses: I want to enable the prisoner, if he is in a position to do so, to sap the foundation of the case made against him. I trust the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General will see his way to adopt my suggestion.
    MR. S. EVANS: May I suggest to the right honourable Gentleman words which I think will at least come very near to meeting his views, and they would satisfy us. I would suggest the addition,
    746
    after the word "imputation," of the words—
    "On both the general character and credibility of."
    SIR R. FINLAY: We are getting very near. I should not mind the words—
    "Such as to involve imputations on the general character or credibility."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the permission of the House for one word of explanation. This is a very serious matter. I suggest that what we want to do is to enable the prisoner to attack the character of the witnesses against him, so long as he does not attack the general character of the prosecutor or his witnesses.
    SIR R. FINLAY: Certainly; he will be allowed to test their accuracy as regards the particular evidence they have given, but he will not be allowed to make a general attack upon them.
    MR. ABEL THOMAS: Do I understand that the word "both" is to be accepted, because although it does not satisfy me, it would remove a great many of the objections that I feel? The Amendment proposed by my honourable and learned Friend behind me does not really seem to me to go far enough. The Amendment suggested by the Leader of the House, if I may be permitted to say so, makes the matter worse instead of better.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "In line 2, after the word 'on,' insert the word 'both'; after the word 'the,' insert the word 'general'; and after the word 'character,' insert the words 'and credibility.'"—(The Attorney General.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In clause 1, page 2. line 8, leave out 'the person charged and called as a witness,' and insert 'he.'"—(The Attorney General.)
    Agreed to.
    *MR. DUNCOMBE: I propose to add at the end of the clause a new sub-section, which will read as follows—
    "No person giving evidence under this Act shall be liable to a prosecution for perjury."
    This Bill introduces into our criminal law an entirety new and very radical change, and one of the principal objections to the new proposals that have been introduced is that they affect very seriously the present law against perjury. I have no intention of detaining the House very long in proposing this Amendment. I do not speak often, and the House knows that I seldom speak very long. Take a case where a wife is brought in to give evidence for or against her husband. Many cases have been known where a man may have been in almost all relations of life a scoundrel of the first water, but that does not prevent him being the kindest hearted of husbands. He is perhaps being tried for his life, and his wife thinks that she may help him by going into the witness-box and lying in his favour; she is cross-examined by some of those learned gentlemen whose speeches have interested this House so much to-night, and it is proved that she has not told the truth. Can you find me, in all Great Britain, a single British jury who would find a verdict of perjury against her? I think some provision of this kind ought to be introduced. We are doing all we can to assimilate our criminal law with the law of France. We are told that the object of this Bill is not to secure more convictions, and yet every argument put forward seems to prove that the only object of my right honourable Friends who are forcing this Bill at this hour of the morning upon a jaded House of Commons is simply and solely in the interests of the prisoner. The right honourable Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General have stuck manfully by their Bill, but I must say I think the time has now come for them to make some reasonable concession.
    Amendment proposed—
    "After the words last inserted, insert the words 'No persons who have given evidence under this section shall be liable to prosecution for perjury.'"—(Mr. Duncombe.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. FINLAY: I really cannot take the honourable Member quite seriously. We have heard complaints about encouraging perjury, but it seems to me that this would be a direct incitement to perjury. I cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am bound to say that I think that is the legitimate outcome of the Bill as proposed by the Government. You cannot expect anything but perjury as the result of this Bill. The prisoner will perjure himself, and the prisoner's wife will perjure herself.
    Question put, and negatived.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I had intended, Sir, to move a very important Amendment upon a matter which I desire to bring before the House—namely, the representation by counsel of a prisoner who is cross-examined under this Act, but I feel that such an important matter would not be adequately considered at this late hour of the morning, and under the circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 14, at end, add—
    "(h) Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section eighteen of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, or any right of the person charged to make a statement without being sworn."—(Sir R. Finlay.)
    SIR R. FINLAY: The effect of this Amendment will be to preserve the right which an accused person now has of making a statement before the

    749
    magistrate under the Statute 11 and 12 Victoria, c. 42, or make a statement at the trial. It is not intended that the Bill should interfere in any way with that right, and tins Amendment is suggested in order to prevent any misapprehension on the subject. I was asked in Committee whether the Government would define the cases in which a prisoner should be allowed to make a statement, and I said that no would consider that point. We have considered it, and we have come to tin conclusion that it would not be expedient in this Bill to endeavour to lay down any particular rule in such a matter. We preserve whatever rights at present exist, but we do not think it expedient to lay down any rule which would carry any further whatever rights a prisoner now has. I may mention to the House that there is a reason for that, and that is this: the privilege of making a statement such as I have referred to grew out of the intolerable hardship of persons not being allowed to give evidence in their own behalf. We are now about to allow accused persons to give evidence in their own behalf, and one cannot imagine why, when that right is given, the privilege enjoyed in certain cases of making a statement should be extended.
    MR. S. EVANS: The right honourable Gentleman has perfectly accurately stated the position he took up in Committee, and the pledges or promises made by the Government. It only remains for me to say that I regret very much that they did not go further—I do not mean in the sense of extending the rights of prisoners, but that they did not see their way to lay down a definite rule on a subject upon which the judges themselves have differed—namely, whether a prisoner is of right entitled to make a statement, whether he be represented by counsel or no. However, at this hour of the night, and the Government having said that they have given the matter consideration, although I am sorry that
    750
    that consideration did not lead them to go the full length we desire, I do not think it advisable to detain the House by moving any definite Amendment to the Government proposal.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Really this Amendment does not carry the case any further at all. I see absolutely no use in the Amendment moved by the Solicitor General. How does the case stand at present? Section 18 of the Indictable Offences Act says that—
    "After the examination of all the witnesses on the part of the prosecution as aforesaid shall have been completed,"
    the accused may make a statement. That is to say, having heard the evidence, you are at liberty if you like to make a statement. That does not apply to the most material part of the case we have to deal with; it does not apply to the case of a person before a judge of the High Court.
    MR. S. EVANS: Yes, the latter portion.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This Amendment, says that the Act shall not affect the provisions of section 18, "or any right of the person charged"—that is, any existing right. If you declare in this Act that the person has such a right, you will then resolve the doubt that surrounds this question. It is notorious that the judges differ on this subject, and I think the present is an extremely proper opportunity to clear the matter up. If you like to say that there is no such right, do that; or if you like, as I suggest you should, to declare that there is a right, let us do that. I do not know whether the Attorney General and Solicitor General would accept it, but I should like to move, in substitution of the Government proposal, the words—
    "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section eighteen of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and the person charged shall have the right to make a statement without being sworn"

    751
    I submit that it is very desirable that the right which is held to exist by many eminent judges should be absolutely established in a Bill of this kind, so as to leave no doubt on the subject.
    SIR E. CLARKE: I hope my right honourable and learned Friends will not accept this suggestion. There is no absolute right to make a statement, as has been suggested, but it has been an expedient of judges who have felt embarrassment and difficulty, because the prisoner was not able to give his own evidence in the case, and have thought that he might be permitted to make a statement. It is really of no consequence to discuss this now, because directly the prisoner has the right to make a statement on oath and be cross-examined, he would only be wasting his breath if he made a statement not on oath and declined to submit himself to cross-examination. The case in which the practice referred to was first resorted to was the memorable case of O'Donnell, who was tried for the murder of Carey, the Fenian informer. At that trial his distinguished counsel was allowed by the judge, and the then Attorney General (now Lord James) did not think it right to make any very strong protest, to make a statement Which it turned out had not been drawn up by him, but had been prepared for him, and which was proved at once to be manifestly untrue. I never knew a statement of this kind to be of any value whatever to the prisoner. On the contrary, I have known many cases in which the prisoner has owed his conviction mainly to the fact that his statement has given information against himself. I would only add this: that if we are to say that a prisoner shall be entitled to make such a statement, it will throw on the members of the Bar one of the most difficult and unpleasant duties. They would be called upon to settle the statement, and very often the statement might contain matters to which they
    752
    could not with a safe conscience venture to give their sanction. I hope the law officers will not agree to my honourable Friend's suggestion.
    Question put—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    Agreed to.
    New clause proposed—
    "Nothing in this Act shall alter the rule of law that the onus of proof of the guilt of any person charged with an offence lies upon the prosecution save in so far as any statute has expressly enacted the contrary."—(Mr. S. Evans.)
    MR. S. EVANS: A very few words will be sufficient to explain the reason why I move this clause. An apprehension has been raised in the minds of many honourable Members that the result of this Bill will be to change or tend to change the onus of proof, and that the rule which has prevailed up to now, namely, that the prisoner charged with an offence must be assumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, will be nullified. All we want to ensure is that the onus of proof will remain exactly as it is now.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: A similar Amendment to this was moved in Committee, and I was foolish enough to think that I had satisfied my honourable Friend that it was not desirable. This is a Bill to allow the prisoner to give evidence; it has nothing to do with the proof of guilt or the onus and proof of guilt, and in my opinion it would be most unwise to insert anything dealing with such matters.
    MR. S. EVANS: I beg leave to withdraw the clause. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I moved it at the express wish of my honourable Friend the Member for Carmarthen, and I may add that personally I agree with the view of the Attorney General.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to move —[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—Sir, I must really protest against these interruptions; it is really becoming intolerable for gentlemen to come here late at night, who have heard none of the arguments on the business that has been going on, and show signs of impatience when a member of this House, in the exercise of his duties and his rights, rises to put his views before the House, I have upon the Paper four Amendments—
    "Page 2, line 15, leave out sub-section (1)."
    "Page 2, line 17, leave out from 'witness,' to the end of sub-section, and insert 'as provided by any such enactment.'"
    "Page 2, line 17, leave out 'either for the prosecution or defence and,' and insert 'for the defence.'"
    "Page 2, line 19, leave out sub-section (2)."
    I only propose to move the first of these Amendments, and I do so because it will raise a question which I think ought to be raised. Sub-section 1 of clause 2 proposes to enact that—
    "The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence under any enactment mentioned in the schedule to this Act, may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence, and without the consent of the person charged."
    Now, that is an entire variation in the whole scheme of this Bill. The scheme of the Bill is to call the wife or husband only for the defence, and only with the consent of the person charged. I have referred to the Acts enumerated in the schedule. There is first of all the Vagrancy Act, which deals with palmistry and fortune-telling, and so forth. Then
    there are the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, the Offences Against the Person Act, and the Married Women's Property Act. Now, in these cases the husband or wife is a competent but not a compellable witness. The sub-section I now move to omit would make the husband or wife a compellable witness, because it says that either may be called as a witness "for the prosecution or for the defence." I contend that the law should be left as it is, and the husband or wife should not be called except with the consent of the person charged.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 15, leave out sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the honourable Gentleman has omitted to notice the first line of this sub-section. It only applies to the wife or husband of the person charged. It is necessary under the Acts contained in the schedule, that in cases where you have to prove an offence; it is practically necessary that the wife or the husband should give evidence. This has nothing to do with the main scheme of the Bill, which is simply to enable people to give evidence in their own defence.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I would just say [Cries of "Order, order!" and interruption]. If honourable Members will not listen to me, I will go to a division.
    Question put—
    "That sub-section (1) stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 10.—(Division List No. 240.)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Brigg, John

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Carlile, William Walter

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

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Causton, Richard Knight

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

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hardy, Laurence

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hazell, Walter

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kemp, George

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Kenyon, James

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel W.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)

    Cox, Robert

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Curzon.RtHnG.N. (Lanc.SW)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stock, James Henry

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

    Forwood. Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    McKillop, James

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Wodehouse.Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Woodhouse,SirJT (H dd'rs'fld)

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    More, Robert Jasper

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

    Wyndham, George

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

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

    Sir William Walrond and

    Greville, Captain

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Myers, William Henry

    NOES.

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

    MacaJeese, Daniel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Caldwell, James

    Maddison Fred

    Mr. Gibson Bowles and

    Daly, James

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Mr. Duncombe.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Price, Robert John

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Resolution agreed to.

    SIR E. CLARKE: I have now to move a series of Amendments to clause 3, and, with, the permission of the House, I will first explain the effect of those Amendments. This clause of the Bill as it stood was a clause which dealt at once with the right of reply, and with the order of proceedings, and when the person charged was called in his own defence. The Amendment that has been adopted this evening, if it stands as it is, would leave
    756
    it uncertain at what point of the proceedings the prisoner would be called if he alone were to be called, and it might be left in doubt whether the counsel for the defence would not be entitled to call the accused after the counsel for the prosecution had summed up. The series of Amendments I now propose would make the clause read as follows—
    "Where the only witness to the facts of the case called upon by the defence shall be

    757
    the person charged, he shall be called as a witness immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution."

    CLAUSE 3.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 22, leave out 'In every criminal prosecution after this Act,' and insert 'where.'"—(Sir E. Clarke.)
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am thankful to my honourable and learned Friend for pointing out that my Amendment did not cover the whole case. It had occurred to me that it might be left to the Court, but I agree that it is much better to determine at once the particular stage of the proceedings at which the evidence shall be competent, and I agree to these Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In line 23, leave out 'upon'; in line 24 leave out from 'the' to 'shall,' in line 25, and insert 'person charged he'; line 26, leave out 'case,' and insert 'evidence'; line 27, leave out from 'prosecution' to the end of the clause."—(Sir E. Clarke.)
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 32, leave out from 'for' to the end of line 35."—(Sir E. Webster.)
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 30, at end, to insert 'except that nothing in this Act shall affect the Evidence Act, 1877.'"—(Sir B. Finlay.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May we have a word of explanation of this Amendment?
    SIR R. FINLAYexplained that the Amendment was intended to make the Bill inapplicable in the case of indictments for offences, such as the non-repair of bridges, and so forth, which, although technically criminal in form, did not involve crime in any very real sense.
    Amendment proposed, in the schedule—
    "Page 3, line 6, after 'wife,' insert 'or any of his family.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in the schedule—
    "Page 3, line 11, after 'twelve,' insert 'and section sixteen.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in the schedule—
    "Page 3, leave out lines 13 and 14."—(Sir S. Webster.)
    Agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) (EXPENSES).
    Resolution reported—
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an allowance to the owner of a ship equal to one-fifth of the light dues paid by him during the year in respect of that ship, in cases where boys enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve have been carried in such ship, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with regard to the payment of certain expenses under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and the levying of Light Dues."
    Amendment proposed—
    "After the word 'boys,' to insert the words 'officers and men.'"—(Dr. Clark.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): This is a proposal which would altogether alter the scope of the Bill, and I hope the honourable Gentleman will not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
    Second Reading; deferred till this day.

    CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
    Order read for adjourned Debate on Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do trust that the right honourable Gentleman will not press the Second Reading of this Bill at this late hour. It is extremely hard upon those of us who wish to discuss the Bill to force it upon us at the end of a long sitting after one o'clock in the morning. The Bill professes to be founded on a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. That recommendation was entirely based on a series of remissions made by the Treasury, and established by the Public Accounts Committee without any alteration of the law. These remissions were remissions on death duties, and it was shown first of all that the death duties could easily be levied, and that there was no legal authority in the Committee to make these remissions. The result of that was that the Public Accounts Committee took into consideration the whole matter of the remission of duties without due authorisation by law. When I drew the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to this, he informed me that a Bill was to be introduced amending the law in that respect. Now, the first criticism. I have to make of this Bill is that it would not be workable. It deals with matters of extreme complication, and matters of great detail. I confess that I have had so much work to do to-day that I have not had time to examine the proposals of the Bill very carefully, but they deal with Amendments to the Stamp Act, customs prohibitions, excise duties, income tax, and so on. At this time of the night it is utterly impossible adequately to discuss the Bill, and I do not propose to discuss it at any length myself. There are many Amendments which deserve to be considered, and I trust the Government will not force upon an exhausted house a Bill of this sort.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I think we have some reason to complain of

    761
    the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. This Bill was promised before the close of last Session, and yet the Government apparently deliberately have kept it back till the end of this Session, and propose that it shall be read a second time in the small hours of the morning without any explanation or opportunity for discussion. The Bill is of a very comprehensive character. One part of it deals with a number of operations in connection with trade, and I think that in a case of this kind ample time ought to be given to those who are more directly and immediately concerned in the operation and administration of the law which this Bill will affect, to consider it, and to communicate with those honourable Members of this House who represent them. Then there is another part of the Bill which proposes to enact
    into law certain existing rules of practice with regard to granting relief in the payment of income tax. Now, I do not think that, because these rules are already Hi existence, therefore they ought, without adequate consideration, to be enacted into law. At this hour of the night, when, of course, many of us have been here without intermission since four or five o'clock, it is perfectly unreasonable that those who take an interest in the question should be expected to discuss it as they have a right to do. For these reasons I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and question put—
    "That this debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Pickersgill.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 104.—(Division List No. 241.)

    AYES.

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

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Price, Robert John

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

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brigg, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

    Daly, James

    Maddison, Fred.

    Jonathan Samuel.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Goddard Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    NOES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cox, Robert

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(Lanc.SW)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Kemp, George

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kenyon, James

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lafone, Alfred

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Caldwell, James

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Carlile, William Walter

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Graham, Henry Robert

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

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    McKillop, James

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Greene, W.Raymond-(Cambs)

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Greville, Captain

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Milton, Viscount

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

    Robinson, Brooke

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

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Went worth, B. C. Vernon-

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

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Myers, William Henry

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Stanley, B. J. (Somerset)

    Wyndham, George

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Sir William Walrond and

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Main question—
    "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 19.—(Division List No. 242.)

    AYES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Myers, William Henry

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Northete, Hon. Sir H. S.

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

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greville, Captain

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Robinson, Brooke

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

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Kemp, George

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Kenyon, James

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

    Lafone, Alfred

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

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

    Cox, Robert

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

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Maclure, Sir John William

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'mN)

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

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    McKillop, James

    Wyndham, George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Milton, Viscount

    Sir William Walrond and

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

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

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Price, Robert John

    Brigg, John

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

    Daly, James

    Maddison, Fred.

    Jonathan Samuel.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    House adjourned at 1.45.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY(EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Committee to meet To-morrow.
  DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Committee to meet To-morrow.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION (TRAM-WAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAIL-WAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 11th instant and on Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  MALDON WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons,.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAM-WAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I. Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2,158. Germany (Bavaria);

  No. 2,159. Bulgaria;

  No. 2,160. Austria-Hungary.

  II. Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest:
  No. 470. Warsaw Wool Fair of 1898.

  AFRICA (1898), No. 6.
  Correspondence respecting the abolition of the legal status of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba:
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual account of receipts and disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1897.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Monday next.—(The Lord Balfour.)
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 172.]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read the first time; and to be printed. [No. 173.]
  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Read the first time; and to be printed. [No. 174.]
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
  Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
  Upon the Amendment—
  "A company may carry on the business of a pharmaceutical chemist, or chemist and druggist, if and so long only as the business is bond fide conducted by a manager or assistant being a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, but, subject as aforesaid, sections one and fifteen of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, shall apply in the case of a company in like manner as they apply in the case of an individual."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have thought it proper to put down an Amendment to this Bill in consequence of representations that have been made to me as to the effect produced by recent decisions in the courts, that the provisions of the Pharmacy Acts do not apply to the case of companies. Those Acts expressly deal with persons only, and it has been held that the word "person" in those Acts does not include a corporation. Numerous instances have been brought to my attention of companies formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of chemists by persons who are not themselves qualified within the meaning of the Pharmacy Acts, and it is also stated that there are companies carrying on the general business of stores, and including a drug store amongst their operations, who cannot be brought within the penalties imposed by these Acts upon unqualified persons. It therefore became clear to me that some amendment of the law was desired, and it appeared at first sight as if the Bill of the noble Earl offered an opportunity for such legislation. I find, however, that this Bill is confined to England, and that the Amendment which I proposed to make would not extend to Ireland, where, as I am informed, the evil is even greater than in this country. I am also told that some undertaking was given in the other House of Parliament that this Bill, as applying to the internal affairs only of the Pharmaceutical Society, should not include any contentious matter. I do not altogether approve of such undertakings being given in one House so as to bind the other, but, as I understand
  530
  that my proposed Amendment would wreck the Bill, I cannot proceed with it. I wish to add that the evil in question is one which appears in a still more objectionable form, in relation to the medical profession, and, of course, any Amendment of the Pharmacy Acts cannot deal with that still more important branch of the subject. I should be glad to see a favourable opportunity of dealing with the question generally, not only as regards the Pharmacy Acts, but also in relation to the Medical Act. Under the circumstances, however, I will not move the Amendment of which I had given notice.
  Question put.
  Bill read a third time.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I move that this Bill do pass.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE LOED CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, in the year 1888 an important Bill for the reform of local government in England was introduced and passed, and in the following year a Bill on the same lines and for the same purpose was passed for Scotland. Ever since it has been inevitable—it was a inert question of time—that a similar Bill would be passed for Ireland, and it was necessary and just, therefore, that a Bill such as that of which I have now the honour of moving the Second Reading should be framed for the sister country. It is indispensable in the framing of such a Bill to have regard to precedents that are found in the legislation applied to both England and Scotland, and also to have regard to the repeated statements made by important' Ministers of the Crown. The time that has elapsed, my Lords, since the passing of the English and Scotch Measures has by no means been wasted, because the teaching of the working of those Measures has been of advantage, and the experience derived in both countries of how those important Measures have operated has been of very great service. Great pains have been taken in framing the present Measure. It follows naturally the main lines of the legislation adopted for England and Scotland, accompanied only by such variations as are necessary owing to the special circumstances of Ireland. I will venture to assume, my Lords, and I think it will be for your Lordships' convenience, that your Lordships have a general familiarity with the scheme of local government that has been adopted in England and in Scotland. Your Lordships are also aware how long the present Bill has engaged the attention of the House of Commons, and of the close and searching criticisms to which it has been subjected. It was a long time at the Committee stage—I think as many as 15 or 16 days; it was a considerable time at the Report stage—I think quite six days; and in addition to the close
  532
  and vigorous criticism which it received in the other House of Parliament it has for a considerable time been discussed and examined and prophesied about in the Press and in the public opinion of Ireland. Therefore, my Lords, I think I should best consult the wishes and the convenience of your Lordships if I confine myself to a statement of its main provisions and its broad features, leaving the examination of its details and of its minor features to other stages. My noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant would, have been very glad to have undertaken this task, for which his knowledge and study of the subject, and the keen and active interest he took in the Bill, would have so well qualified him; but usage does not allow of the Lord Lieutenant taking a very active part in the deliberations and proceedings of Parliament, and, therefore, the duty of moving the Second Reading of this Bill has devolved upon me. The Bill upon all sides in the House of Commons was unopposed. It was accepted as an expected and a needed Measure. It was felt and recognised, I think, on all sides as to grand jurors and grand juries, although they had well and efficiently and economically performed their duties, that, still, being a nominated and not a representative body, it would be impossible to retain them in a scheme of reform. Therefore, as in England and as in Scotland, the duties of local government are cast upon bodies popularly elected. No effort, as I have stated, my Lords, was made in any part of the House of Commons, nor do I think it will be made in your Lordships' House, to oppose this Bill. In the conduct of this Bill through the other House the main task of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary—who made himself a great master of the subject, and showed the most extraordinary knowledge and resource, as well as exhibited infinite patience—in addition to exposition and explanation, was to retain the essential provisions that were in the Bill when it was first drafted, avoiding curtailment on the one side and expansion on the other, whilst ready and willing, naturally and reasonably, to consider all details that might improve the working of the machinery; and I think, my Lords, that in his efforts he was entirely successful. It is only necessary to take the first draft of the Bill, and to watch its gradual growth and develop-

  533
  ment and its changes, to see that he adhered to the lines which I have ventured to indicate. The broad and leading features of the Bill which I present to your Lordships to-day for Second Reading are necessarily founded on the English and Scotch precedents, but as the Scotch Bill differed in some of its details from the English Bill, so this Bill, owing to the history and circumstances of Ireland, differs also in some of its details from the English and Scotch Measures, although it follows their leading features. In England there are found as the scheme of local government, county councils, district councils, and parish councils. In Scotland there are county councils and parish councils. There is also a committee which is largely composed—I believe mainly composed—of those who are members of the county council, with an addition made from the parish council affected. In Ireland in this Bill it is not proposed to have any parish councils, because never in that country has the parish been made an area of local administration. After the passing of the Bill local administration will be in the hands of four bodies—county councils, urban district councils, rural district councils, and boards of guardians. The franchise in every case will be the Parliamentary franchise, with the addition of Peers and women. That will tend to uniformity and simplicity. There is nothing so inconvenient as to have to go from one list of electors to another, and never to be quite sure where there is similarity and where there is variety. It is an immense convenience to have one system for all purposes. That follows the Scotch precedent, and it also follows, as far as district councils and parish councils are concerned, the English precedent. The qualifications will be exactly the same as in England, save that ministers of religion will not be entitled to sit—an exclusion that applies to ministers of all churches, and is not confined to one. I am quite aware, my Lords, that there are some differences of opinion as to whether it would be convenient or desirable that they should sit; but after giving their best consideration to this matter the Government have arrived at the conclusion that the exclusion is a reasonable exclusion, that it is wise, and that it will not work in an unsatisfactory way. I am not aware that
  534
  they are departing in the slightest degree from any precedent that exists in Ireland, and I question whether there is any desire on the part of the clergy in Ireland to take any substantial part in local administration. The fourfold division of authorities which I have mentioned—county councils, urban district councils, rural district councils, and boards of guardians—may in reality be narrowed down to three, in the majority of cases, because members of the rural district councils will represent the area for which they are elected, also as guardians, and where the union is within an administrative county the union will be coincident with the rural district, and the board of guardians therefore will be really a district council acting under another name: so that although for the purpose of legislation and designation there are four bodies, in substance and in reality there are practically only three. Now, on the threshold of any subject of this kind there is always one question that creates some anxiety, and that is the question of boundaries. It is impossible to cause great reform of this kind with new areas and new governing bodies without to some extent interfering with boundaries. Baronies in future in Ireland will no longer be centres of government, and, without going into details at this stage, the greatest circumspection has been exercised to avoid unnecessary alterations of boundaries and of overlapping of areas. In the later stages of the Bill an appeal committee was established, which enables people who are not satisfied with alterations which have been made in the county boundaries to appeal to a body of five, composed of the Vice-President of the Local Government Board—a gentleman of ability and experience—and four others, to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, of whom two are to be Members of Parliament, and it is hoped that that will enable the matter to be settled without that friction and dissatisfaction which sometimes arises in the adjustment of boundaries. Now, my Lords, the constitutional powers to be given to these local authorities I will state very shortly and in general terms. To county councils, apart from county boroughs, will be given the fiscal and administrative duties and powers at present enjoyed by grand juries, and also those exercised for the county at large at presentment sessions.

  535
  To rural district councils will be handed over the duties at present discharged by baronial presentment sessions, and the powers of rural sanitary authorities. Compensation for malicious injuries will be adjudicated upon by the county court judge. Expenditure on roads and other public works payable by the rural district council will be proposed by district councils, and, with the county council will lie the duty of approving or disapproving of the proposals. That is, of course, a very substantial check upon expenditure, and upon the lavish making of roads; and, as a further check upon extravagant expenditure without the express consent of the Local Government Board, no expenditure on roads in a rural district is to receive the sanction of the county council if it exceeds by 25 per cent, the expenditure during the three years before the "standard year." The "standard year" is a term which appears very often in the Bill, and means the year 1896–97. It is obvious, my Lords, that that is a substantial and considerable check, and a real safeguard against an extravagant or lavish making of roads. There will be a closer connection in Ireland between the rural district councils and the county councils than there is in England, and, recognising that the chairman of every rural district council is made an additional member of the county council, it is hoped that his presence and his knowledge and assistance will be of considerable value in connection with everything relating to the district that comes before the county council for examination and discussion. In Ireland we have to build, and we have built, upon the existing system, and the rural district council is made a road authority, as I have stated, subordinate to the county council, who will be the sole rating authority in rural districts. That, of course, is a very wide power, and it is given to the highest authority that is called into existence for the administration of local government in Ireland, and it is believed that, on the whole, it will work well and reasonably. The question of lunatic asylums and their government and treatment has exercised the most careful attention. The Board of Control will be abolished, and the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant of boards of governors is also taken away, as well as the
  536
  power of appointing officers. It will become under the Bill, the duty of the county councils to provide and maintain sufficient accommodation for the lunatic poor, and to manage the lunatic asylums. That is, of course, a grave responsibility, but it is one, however, that is safeguarded throughout, because the ultimate control of the Lord Lieutenant is kept steadily in view. Where the councils fail to carry out their duties and do not come up to the standard that the Lord Lieutenant deems is right, he is given a controlling power; and it is right, also, to point out that although the power of appointing the resident medical superintendent and assistant medical officers is given to the council the Lord Lieutenant retains the power of approving of both those steps, either the appointing or the dismissing of those officers, which is, of course, a real and substantial check. It is further provided, by an addition in the House of Commons, that no one should be appointed a resident medical superintendent of a lunatic asylum who had not had five years' experience in the working and management of such asylums, and, my Lords, with that and the other provisions which are set out at greater length and in more detail in the Bill, it is hoped that the asylums in Ireland will be administered adequately and under wise control. There is also a provision in the Bill dealing with what in Ireland always requires anxious care, namely, the recurring periods of exceptional distress. This provision obviates the necessity of special Acts of Parliament whenever there is a recurrence of exceptional distress. It is not expedient to encourage the introduction of such special Acts so often as has been the case in the recent history of Ireland, and the provisions in the Bill give wider powers to cope with special exceptional distress than exist under the present law, at the same time safeguarding any possible abuse of the grant of these larger powers. It is hoped that these provisions will work fairly, and will adequately deal with the particular classes of distress that have from time to time arisen, though it is quite possible that there may be occasion when the powers of Parliament may have to be invoked. The tenure of office of those who are called upon to discharge the

  537
  responsible duties under this Bill is three years, and they are to retire together. Single-member constituencies have, as a rule, been adopted, and the county electoral divisions will be fixed by the Local Government Board, while the district electoral divisions, as your Lordships might infer from what I have said in reference to boards of guardians, will be the present poor law electoral divisions. It will be the duty of the Local Government Board to map out in Ireland the areas that are to return those who are to be members of the county council. As your Lordships are aware, Ireland is not rich in very large towns; our towns are very beautiful and very attractive, but they are not very large. We have six considerable cities that are made into county boroughs—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Derry, and Waterford. No substantial change has been made in the government and the status of these towns, except that the wider franchise that I have already referred to will be extended to them. Their methods of government, their mode of going in and out of office, and their designation will all be preserved: their style will be unchanged. The urban district councils become the road authorities, and they also levy all the rates. Of course, in the rural districts I have mentioned to your Lordships those great powers are given to the county councils. Ex officio guardians are abolished, and dispensary committees will also cease, though there is a power given to appoint committees, which, it is believed, will work well and usefully. The duty of collecting and levying the poor rate is transferred in rural areas to the county council, and in urban areas to the urban council. In rural districts no election of guardians, as such, will take place, because the rural district councillors will be the guardians themselves in the way that I have mentioned to your Lordships. Now I come to the financial and rating clauses of the Bill, which I shall be very glad to make clear to your Lordships. They read more intricate than I think they are in reality, or will be found in the working of the Measure. The occupier in future is to be liable for both the county cess and the poor rate, in both rural districts and towns, and they will both be collected in one
  538
  consolidated rate. Anyone who is at all acquainted with Ireland will recognise the element of simplicity which this introduces. It involves a temporary readjustment of rents until the tenancy is determined, or, in cases that coma under the Land Act, until a new fair rent is fixed. The financial year of 1896–97 has been taken as the standard year, because, according to the scheme of the Bill, it was absolutely necessary that there should be some standard to appeal to that would not be varying. The effect of the rating provisions of the Bill will be that while, if any decrease of the rates occurs, it will go to the benefit of the occupiers, any increase will, of course, be to their disadvantage. Every motive that can well be suggested will operate in the mind of the occupier not to be extravagant, but to be prudent and to avoid an increase, if he can, because he will have to bear the extra charge. This is a real incentive to thrift and prudence, and is, in my opinion, a substantial safeguard against reckless and extravagant expenditure. I do not say that the scheme is perfect. I should like to know what would be perfect. I do not, by any means, say that any scheme that could be laid down in this House on any of these subjects could be said to be ideally perfect, but I do venture, my Lords, to say this—that this scheme is a real and genuine effort to accomplish what it seeks. Now, there is another matter connected with finance that it is desirable that your Lordships should have clearly present to your minds—I refer to the agricultural grant. In England a substantial grant was made towards agricultural rates, and though the amount which will come to Ireland on the same principle as is adopted in England has not yet been ascertained with precision, it will probably be about £730,000, which is the sum mentioned in the Bill. I do not, however, give that as a figure for which I am responsible. The way in which that figure, which is called the agricultural grant, will be worked out is as follows: Each year, from the Imperial Exchequer, will be paid a sum equal to one-half the county cess and one-half the poor rate, taken, for the purposes of the Bill, to have been paid in respect of agricultural land in the standard year. That will be the sum

  539
  that will be paid, and it is anticipated that it will reach the figure I have mentioned. The benefit is intended for the occupier as regards the county cess, and for the owner as regards the poor rate. The Bill contains provisions for the temporary adjustment of rent, which I will not trouble your Lordships with, to meet the new position, and also carefully considered instructions to the Land Commission. They are all stated in detail in the Bill, and I am sure I am consulting your Lordships' wishes and convenience if I do not pause to go into them at the present moment. When the occupier is also the owner it is obvious that he will have a double benefit. He will, as the occupier, get a benefit for the county cess, and he will, as the owner, get a benefit so far as the poor rate is concerned. My Lords, that is all I deem it necessary to state in reference to the very important matters of finance and rating. I have only endeavoured to give your Lordships a broad and general view of the matter that can be easily grasped. It has been thought wise and prudent, now that the occupier is made solely liable for the rates, to make a change and to establish union rating, which is found, on the whole, to be a check on extravagance in outdoor relief. It was applied in the special Relief Act of 1894, when the noble Earl opposite was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It has since been followed in all subsequent special Acts dealing with special relief in Ireland, and I am informed it works well and is found to tend to circumspection, caution, and economy. Guardians are only human, and they will vote with a light heart for charges that do not affect the particular divisions they represent, but it is quite another thing if the divisions they represent have to bear a greater or a lesser part of every bit of relief that is given. The proposed reform will lead to considerable reflection and caution in the granting of outdoor and other relief. The charges for extra police, the charges for compensation for criminal injuries, the charges for railways, harbours, navigation, and also the charges in reference to public health are excluded from the calculation of the standard rate. In addition to the £730,000 agricultural grant which I have mentioned to your Lordships there is
  540
  a further sum to be taken into account in the working out of the objects of local government in Ireland. The analogy is found in England. In England it was found that the license duties handed over substantially exceeded the grants-in-aid. In Ireland the duties transferred amount to £200,000, and the grants-in-aid that will be stopped when the duties are handed over amount to £244,000, which will leave a deficiency to be made up. This amount is not only made up, but a sum of £35,000 is given besides as a margin. Your Lordships will, perhaps, allow me to state, generally, the way the local bodies are to spend this money. The grants-in-aid being withdrawn, they have to supply those services themselves. The grants-in-aid were mainly a large grant for lunatics, and a substantial grant for poor law charges. The new governing bodies must take over these charges. In addition there are other charges indicated in the Bill that they may very well take over with great public advantage and benefit to humanity. It is provided that half the cost of a trained nurse in every union in Ireland is to be supplied. This does not sound very much, my Lords, but it is a very great advantage, and worthy of just the small statement that I have made in reference to it. There are other ways indicated in which the money may be spent, but I hope I am consulting your Lordships' convenience by not going more into detail with reference to these very important subjects. The grand juries will meet for the last time for fiscal and administrative duties at the Spring Assizes of 1899, and the election of the new bodies will begin in March, 1899. As your Lordships will understand, there are many officials of long service and varied grades and classes who have had to be dealt with. Their interests have been looked into and protected. Ample powers are taken for the framing of allocation orders by the Lord Lieutenant in council, and the requisite machinery and regulations to facilitate and smooth the working of the new Act. My Lords, I have now stated the main provisions of this Bill. Unquestionably it works a great change in Ireland. I can well, my Lords, appreciate the feeling with which its many friends regard the transfer of important powers from the

  541
  old familiar grand juries, to new and popularly-elected bodies. The Bill unquestionably opens a new chapter in Irish history. I earnestly hope—I most earnestly hope—that all classes of interests in Ireland will loyally combine to the best of their ability to work out the provisions of the Bill to the common advantage of the country. My Lords, I am emboldened to hope that this may be so from many things that have been said by the popular leaders, and from what I believe is the strong and earnest desire of many leading country gentlemen in Ireland who have long taken part in the administration of the grand jury system in the country. And it is, my Lords, with the earnest hope that these proposals will be found to work in fairness and justice, that I venture to ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I think I rise in accordance with the usages of the House to at once express the general view taken by those who sit where I have the honour of a seat on this important occasion. First, let me say that the noble and learned Lord has in a very clear and able way set forth the leading provisions of this Bill. He has not, as far as I know, exceeded in any way the limits which were right on the occasion. He has left a great many details untold, and no doubt he was right; but at the same time he has given in a lucid manner the leading provisions of the Bill. I would say that I rise not for the purpose of any obstruction to the Measure which Her Majesty's Government have introduced—a very important Measure of local government for Ireland. On the contrary, we who sit on this side of the House hail with pleasure and satisfaction, the broad and liberal lines on which the Bill is drawn. I would say that, although I myself would have preferred another action with regard to local government in Ireland, I do not desire to oppose this Measure. I confess that on that point—as I have often put these words—I agree with the Prime Minister in the very important speech he made on this subject at Newport, I think it was in 1885. I admit that a great deal has happened since then. At the same time the words the noble Marquess used appear to me so wise that they have not in the slightest degree been
  542
  altered, or their weight diminished, by what has happened since. What did he say? He said:—
  "Local authorities are more exposed to the temptation of the majority to be unjust to the minority, where they obtain jurisdiction over a small area, than is the case when the local authority derives its sanction from, and extends its jurisdiction over, a wider area. In a large central authority the wisdom of several parts of the country will correct the folly and mistakes of one. In a local authority that correction is to a much greater extent wanting, and it will be impossible to leave that out of sight in any such extension of local authority in Ireland."
  When speaking on the larger subject of Home Rule, I have constantly made these words the text for what I had to say. I do not want to dwell more at length upon them. I have only said what I have to show that, in my opinion, another course would have been wiser. With regard to this Measure, I will at once say, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that the Government have profited by what has been seen of the work of local and county government, in, England. This Measure is founded, as the Bill of 1888 was in England, on a very wide basis of election. I rejoice at that; but it omits certain clauses in that Bill to which we have taken great exception from time to time on this side of the House. There is no joint committee. On that point alone I had always held a strong opinion. I have always considered it most unjust and unnecessary that the county councils should be deprived of some important powers now given to the joint committees. As your Lordships know, the joint committees are elected half by the county magistrates and half by the county councils. I maintain that the county council ought to have left to it one of the functions of the joint committee, probably the most important, which is that of appointing the county clerk. At present the county council is unable, except through its representatives on the joint committee, to have anything to say to the appointment of the most important official in the county. The joint committee has also important duties in connection with public buildings. I am glad to see there are no clauses having the same effect in Ireland. I will go further. I rejoice that the Bill is wider than the Bill of 1888 for England. I refer

  543
  to the clauses introducing union rating in Ireland. In Ireland there is not that variety between electoral districts which exists as between parish and parish in England. As a rule, I believe, the electoral division is larger than, the parish in England, and I venture to say this, that no system has done so much for the rural population in England as union rating; and I sincerely trust, although I do not expect the effect will be so great in Ireland as it was in England, that all the benefits that came from that system here will accrue to the people of Ireland owing to the extension of union rating. Now I will make some criticisms on the Bill, and these criticisms are not intended to foreshadow any Amendment, for any Amendment coming from this bench would inevitably be lost. At the same time, I make them to ask for explanations, and perhaps there may be some other Members of the House, more fortunate than we are, who may be able to carry some Amendment on the subject. They are not very numerous. Now, the first point to which I wish to refer was referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I believe the clause is clause 13, and that is one dealing with exceptional distress in particular districts. It practically repeals, though it safeguards, what is known under the name of "Gregory's clause," which is one forbidding outdoor relief to occupiers of a quarter of an acre of land. Well, now, what does this clause do? It gives the county councils power, with the consent, no doubt, of the Local Government Board, to repeal that clause, and in exceptional distress to grant outdoor relief. I will say this, in the first place: this is a most difficult subject to deal with. Difficult enough in England, it is even more difficult in Ireland; and I rather doubt the wisdom of dealing with it at all in this Measure. But what I want to point out is that when the Local Government Board agree on this point with the county council, then the rate to relieve this exceptional distress is to be levied—half from the union where the distress exists, and half from the county at large. I think I am accurate as to that, but I should like to have some explanation of that, for otherwise I am afraid there will be very great difficulty arising in consequence of this being done. There are, I believe, in Ire-
  544
  land certain districts where the poor rate is very heavy indeed. I am told that in Kerry and Clare it goes up to 8s. and 9s. in the pound. Well, if exceptional distress exists there, can you possibly throw more burden—even half of the sum required—on this already overburdened union? I venture to think that this clause requires very careful consideration for the two reasons that I have given—first, because it may be only the beginning of a system of outdoor relief, which is one of such enormous difficulty in Ireland; and, secondly, because you are laying a burden on a particular district which it will be impossible for it to bear. I am now coming to another point, and I ask the indulgence of the House, because it is a very complicated matter; I shall, however, try to deal with it on general lines. As I am informed, the Bill will considerably affect Parliamentary registration in Ireland. I will give an example. Under the present law, I am informed, anyone living in the city of Dublin who desires to be on the Parliamentary franchise must show and prove that he has paid the poor rate. Now, up to the present, a most complicated system has existed for the collection of rates. I full well know it, because I went through great difficulties with regard to the appointment of the collector-general in Dublin. That has been altered now, and there is a, collector-general, who collects the police rate, also the poor rate, and there is a collector for the municipal body, who collects the municipal rates. Under the old law a man requiring Parliamentary registration had to satisfy the authority—whoever the authority was—that he had paid the rates to the collector-general; but now, as I understand, under the unified rate, he will have to show that he has paid the municipal rates as well as the poor rates. I am not going to say whether that cannot be defended, if it were a registration Bill, but in a Measure of this kind Parliament ought not to place any new impediment to those seeking the franchise by a clause of this sort. I do not know whether I have given an accurate version of this matter, but no doubt the noble and learned Lord, or some other Member of the Government will set me right if I am wrong.

  545
  I will now come to another point to which I attach very great importance, and that is the question of the disqualification of clergymen in Ireland from sitting on district or county councils. The noble and learned Lord said that he did not think there was anybody to criticise who had any acute conviction I think those are his words on this subject. I venture to say that I have an acute conviction that the proposal in the Bill is wrong, unjust, and will do a great deal of harm. I will state my reasons for it. We all know what the law is in this country, and though I know we cannot compare everything in this country with what takes place in Ireland we may refer in some degree to the analogy of the case. In this country some of the very ablest administrators of the poor law, some of the best district councillors, some of the best members of the county councils are clergymen. We know this full well, and I cannot see why there should be any difference in Ireland. I know that religious animosity runs high in Ireland, and in this Bill there is perfect impartiality with regard to clergymen, and that Episcopalian and Presbyterian clergymen are debarred from sitting on the council as well as the Roman Catholic clergy. So far the Bill is impartial. I think, however, it is very much better, if there is a person of influence in a particular district, that he should have full responsibility of his influence by serving on the body which is to administer local affairs. In Ireland many districts are extremely poor, where the clergy, Roman Catholic or Protestant, are probably the most intelligent and the most useful men in the district. Why should they be debarred from sitting on the district and county councils? You will not be able to oppose their influence; if it is very great they will exercise it on all the members who sit on these councils. I say it is far more desirable that they should exercise their influence and their responsibilities directly and face to face with the lay members than that they should delegate their authority, and pull the strings from behind the chair. It is not, I know, intended as such, because there is an impartial application of the rule, but it is almost a slur on the clergy in Ireland thus de-
  546
  barring them from the right to sit on these councils. Now I come to what is probably the most important, or one of the most important matters connected with the Bill—I refer to the financial clauses. The noble and learned Lord has very clearly stated the way in which the grant of £730,000 (he said it was not absolutely ascertained) is to be contributed. But I want your Lordships to consider what is the meaning of this grant of £730,000 a year to relieve the ratepayers in Ireland. It is to relieve the cesspayers, the occupiers, by paying part of the county cess, and it relieves the owners of land by paying half the poor rate. What is the meaning of this? Is this the manner in which Her Majesty's Government intend to meet the very important view that is taken, not by one party, but by almost all parties in Ireland, with regard to the financial relations between the two countries? I do not see here Lord Welby or Lord Farrer, who were both on the Commission, which made a very important report in which they proved that Ireland pays a far greater proportion in relation to its wealth of the taxes of the country than are paid by England. Is this payment of £730,000 intended to meet that? Most distinctly it cannot be so, and I will tell your Lordships why. If Ireland is overtaxed, it is not only those who are taxed on agricultural land who are overtaxed, but all the occupiers in towns are overtaxed. But this grant of £730,000 is only for agricultural land. It does not deal at all with those who live in towns. Therefore I dismiss that. Is it, then, to be on equality with England on the ground of the Agricultural Ratings Act? I am not going into the question of that Act, for I have a strong opinion about it. But it clearly cannot be intended to be equivalent to the Agricultural Rating Act here, for this reason—that the Agricultural Rating Act in this country is limited to five years, and this grant to Ireland is apparently for all time. Why, then, is this grant of £730,000 given? The only answer to that question, and I believe it is the true answer, is that it is the price which Her Majesty's Government are paying in order to carry this Measure. I am not going to use strong language when referring to this,

  547
  and I at once say that both landlords and occupiers and politicians in Ireland might be justified in taking a certain price for this Bill. But what I ask is, is this Bill worth the price that is given for it? I will put that both to the landlord and the occupier, and I venture to say that, though it may be worth while at the present moment to get this Bill at this price, I am afraid that in the no distant future this very measure will lead to great difficulties in Ireland which will have to be faced, and which will only repeat the sad history of grievances from Ireland which have existed so long. In future the occupier and not the owner will pay the rates; there are certain exceptions, but, taking it broadly, I do not think anyone will deny that. That is against all the soundest canons of finance which have been enunciated and accepted for many years past. We have always said—certainly on this side of the House—that it would be desirable, if possible, to let the rates be divided between the owner and the occupier, though I know it is difficult to carry that out. In future that will not be the case in Ireland. I believe the owner will, in cases where he pays the whole rate now on tenancies under £4 a year, still pay half that rate, but, as a rule, he will really have hardly anything to pay. The landlord may reside in the country, and he will pay nothing towards the buildings and many other things which will have to be paid for in the county rate. And what will be the result to the landlord with regard to this? There is a very sound principle in politics that taxation goes with representation, and that the administration should be in the hands of those elected by the taxpayers. I am afraid that this may, in the long run, lead to the exclusion of landlords from these bodies. I should regret it extremely; I have always hoped that in time we might assuage the difficulties between landlord and tenant, and that we should see them working in harmony together, just as we do in England. It has not taken place yet, but I have always felt that it might come, and when it does come, that it would be an enormous advantage to those who have not got the experience in local and public affairs such as the landlords have if they took part freely and generously with the
  548
  other representatives of the ratepayers on these local bodies. That is what I am afraid may occur in the future to the landlords. What is the harm which will be done to the occupiers? The noble and learned Lord referred to the standard year—the standard year which regulates the sum paid by the Imperial Exchequer towards the agricultural rates in Ireland. That sum does not vary. But supposing the rates in Ireland increased. What will happen then? The occupiers will have the entire burden of that increase of rates to bear, and I am afraid that that may lead to very serious objections and grievances in the future. I know some people argue that with the new system the ratepayers in Ireland will be almost niggardly in their administration, that they will neglect the roads and bridges, etc. I am afraid that, even if they do, there will be many other methods of expenditure which they will find it very much to their hearts to increase. Certainly in England our experience has been that any change by which the management of fiscal affairs is thrown on to representative bodies has increased the burden. My opinion is that that will be the case in Ireland, and that the whole burden of the rate over and above what is received out of this contribution and for the standard year will fall on the occupier. Therefore, I maintain that though it may be thought wise at the present moment on the part of both landlords and tenants to accept this Bill which contains such large grants I am sure it will engender difficulties of a very serious kind. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at great length, but there is another point on which I should like to dwell. We have in England now a very wide system of local government, but that local government is checked and controlled to a very great extent by the Local Government Board in London. I do not know whether the representative of the Local Government Board is here now, but that Board is very often criticised, but on the whole, I should say that when it is referred to as an arbitrator in these matters it has the confidence generally of the country. The President of the Local Government Board sits in the other House, and his representative is here to enlighten your Lordships on any subject which is debated.

  549
  In England it is very necessary to have this supervision. But if it is necessary in England to have this supervision, where the people are much more advanced in local government than in Ireland, à fortiori the controlling power of the Local Government Board will be much more wanted in Ireland. You will be adding to the difficulties of the Government in Dublin by this Measure. I am not one of those who have ever abused the Irish Government. I should, indeed, be the last person to do so, because I have been at the head of it during eight years of my life, and I have always thought it was very improperly abused on many, many occasions. I believe that Dublin Castle Government does its utmost to conduct the government of the country with justice and impartiality. At the same time I do not for a moment say that the Dublin Castle Government has the support and affection of the Irish people. I almost think that noble Lords opposite will agree with that. Irish government lacks that support very much. This Bill will increase immensely the power of these local bodies, they will be constantly referring to Dublin much oftener than has been the case before, and will, I am afraid, be increasing the dislike to the government of Dublin Castle. That is a serious matter from the point of view of noble Lords opposite. It may be, no doubt, the intention of the Government to have a special Minister at the head of local government in Ireland in the House of Commons. I know the answer to that objection is that there will be the Chief Secretary at the head of the Local Government Board of Ireland, and that he is always in the House of Commons, and represents the acts of that body, but I think the noble Duke opposite, who so long and so ably filled that position, will agree with me that it is almost impossible, with the other heavy duties that he has to perform, that the Chief Secretary can actually be responsible for the management and daily acts of the Local Government Board. You may meet the objection in that way, but I am afraid you will have to meet it some day or another in another way. And this brings me to the last argument I wish to address to your Lordships. I have heard it said over and over again that if this large and liberal Measure of
  550
  local government for Ireland is passed there will be an end to what is popularly called Home Rule in Ireland; there will be no demand for Home Rule in Ireland. Well, my Lords, though I know that what I say may not be agreeable to your Lordships, I must acquaint your Lordships with my honest and earnest conviction that that is not a correct view to take in the matter. The demand for Home Rule has existed for many years, it has gone through every phase of a country's history, through revolution, and through Parliamentary agitation, and I am convinced that this Measure will not put an end to the demand, for Home Rule in Ireland. I maintain that it would be a just and a right Measure, and one which would do away with the difficulties which have been continually growing for years and years in Parliament about Ireland, if a Measure, guarded by the provisions in Mr. Gladstone's Bill, with regard to the supremacy of Parliament and the Union of the three kingdoms under the Crown, were passed. I feel this very strongly. The Irish people have demanded, now demand, and will demand in the future some such Measure. No doubt, as the noble and learned Lord said, this is a new chapter in the political history of Ireland. Yes, it is a new chapter; and what is that chapter? That, in addition to the demand for Home Rule which comes, mind you, not from one section of the Irish Party, but from the whole of the Irish Party, with the exception of a small section for whom I have a great respect, you will have the same demand sent up by these large and influential bodies in Ireland elected by the voice of the people of Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I trust, my Lords, that the noble and learned Lord will not think me guilty of presumption if I, as an old colleague in the Irish Executive, and also as a humble Member of this House, join with the noble Earl who has just sat down in congratulating him on the extreme ability with which he has introduced this Measure, and the lucid manner in which he has dealt with this complicated mass of details. Indeed, as I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, I should have imagined from the subtlety

  551
  of his argument that he had anticipated that there would be opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. I can only say on behalf of myself and also of those noble Lords from Ireland with whom I have now for so many years worked for the good of Ireland, that we have no idea whatever of opposing a Second Reading of this Measure. I think I may say, certainly for myself, and on behalf of most of them, and also on behalf of the great majority of that representative gathering of grand jurors which was held in Dublin, presided over by my noble Friend behind me—the Leader of the Unionist Party in Ireland—that we recognise that the Government had no alternative, at the present time, but to submit a Measure of local government for Ireland to Parliament, and we consider that had they not done so they would not have redeemed those pledges which they made in all parts of the kingdom some years ago. It is now some 12 years ago since the late Lord Randolph Churchill, occupying the great position of Leader of the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as such occupying a position of importance in the Government second only to that of the Prime Minister himself, in that famous speech at Deptford, declared the intention of the Government to grant local government to Ireland. Two years later, in opposing the Bill of Mr. Carew, to grant local government to Ireland, my right honourable Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury, but then Chief Secretary, I am proud to say to myself, opposed the Measure on the ground of justice, because, as he declared, Ireland was not in a position at that time, owing to the lawlessness that existed, to attain that local government which was just then being introduced into England. He also, in the same speech, expressed the hope that when law and order was restored to Ireland, when she was in a condition to be granted local government, it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to grant such a Measure of local government. I could quote many speeches of a similar character made by the colleagues of the noble Marquess below me, but I quote this to show that we rocognise that however damaging a Measure of local government might be to the grand jury system, which has worked so
  552
  well, so efficiently, so economically, for many years past, the Government had no alternative but to propose such a Measure, and we only hope that in supporting them in this respect they will carefully guard against any injustice to any classes of the community in Ireland. At that meeting of grand jurors in Ireland, whit have recognised the duty of the Government to grant this Measure, those grand jurors also expressed their determination when it became law to accept it loyally, and, so far as it lay in their power, to assist it in its working and bring it to a successful issue; and when we consider the line taken by the Unionist Party in another place, and when you consider the line that will be taken by he Unionist Government in your Lordships' House, I think I am justified in saying that neither the Prime Minister nor any Member of Her Majesty's Government will have any right to complain of any want of loyalty on the part of their supporters from Ireland. It has been truly said, both by the noble and learned Lord, and also by the noble Earl opposite, that the characteristics of Ireland are very different from those of England, and from those of Scotland. I think it was the noble Earl opposite who remarked that political and religious feeling runs far higher in Ireland than it does in either of these countries; and, my Lords, I think, us one connected with Ireland by past official, as well as by present practical ties, it is well to enforce upon the minus of the English people that Ireland, from a political and religious point of view is totally different to England and Scotland, and if a Measure is proposed to be granted to Ireland giving Ireland advantages such as are possessed by those we countries, it is the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government to recognise the views and opinions of those who are practically acquainted with the practical wants of Ireland, and allow them to make suggestions and to accept those suggestions which will do away with injustices which might otherwise arise, and which necessarily will arise if Her Majesty's Government will not recognise, as has been pointed out to them, the difference of feeling which does exist between these two countries. I do not think it is necessary for me to endorse those

  553
  remarks. If endorsement were necessary I find it in the words of my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who, in the Debate to which I have already alluded, used the following expression—
  "If you examine the history of Irish controversy in the last ten years, leaving out its previous record, you will find ample material to show that dangers exist in this country which do not exist in England or in Scotland, and the House will be guilty of the gravest dereliction of duty unless it provides ample protection against those dangers."
  That is an observation which is endorsed, I will venture to say, by the whole of the Unionist Party from Ireland, and it is relying upon those words that we shall venture to suggest further safeguards, to the Measure than now exist, in order to guard against those injustices which might be perpetrated towards those whom Mr. Balfour described as the loyal minority in Ireland, and which, if they were not inserted might affect that loyal minority most injuriously. Now, my Lords, having said so much, I am bound, in a somewhat personal sense, to inform your Lordships that there is a very large and important body in Ireland which views this Measure, not only with apprehension, but with disapproval, and that large and important body is the working men of which I will venture to call the most important city of Ireland, the city of Belfast. The Conservative association, numbering many thousands of the working classes, who tendered to the noble Marquess and to my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury receptions which they have seldom seen surpassed, and I doubt very much equalled in any part of the United Kingdom, view with apprehension and dismay this Measure, and that apprehension and dismay arise from no interested or personal motives. They know themselves that in the district they live in they represent a huge majority of political and religious feeling, and therefore they can look for ward to it with no personal apprehension but they view it with apprehension and disapproval, because they consider that such a Measure may act unjustly to those in other parts of the country who hole the same feelings as themselves, and are
  554
  in a very small and miserable minority. It is only as I entered the House to-day that, in addition to many other messages of a similar character, I received the following—
  "The South Antrim Constitutional Association strongly protest against the inadequate provisions of the Local Government Bill, as passed by Commons, and desire you to have clauses inserted in the Upper House, securing to the loyal minority more complete protection."
  That is only one of many communications which I have received of a similar character, and therefore I say that when this important body, which represents the opinion of the stronghold of Unionism, insist on those safeguards, on behalf of their co-religionists and co-politicians, in other parts of Ireland, I think it is the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government to give due weight to these representations and insert some further safeguards in the Measure which at the present moment it does not contain. Mr. Balfour himself—and again I refer to him because he knows Ireland, and no man knows it better—said—
  "I ask the English people whether we should not be acting criminally toward the minority in Ireland if we did not extend some protection to them."
  Those words of Mr. Balfour's, spoken in his official and important position as Chief Secretary, are merely the words of those bodies of men to whom I have alluded, and of that association whose telegram I have just quoted. The noble Earl opposite alluded to the speech of the noble Marquess at Newport in 1885, in which he recognised the temptation of the majority in Ireland to deal harshly with the minority. Therefore, I maintain that when we see two leading Members of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment holding those views, we who represent that minority in Ireland have a right to ask them to confirm their former statements and to grant every possible safeguard against every kind of injustice that may be perpetrated upon any class of the community which may be in a minority in any part of Ireland. I am bound, however, to say this: that as President of those Conservative associations to which I have alluded, it is a matter of regret

  555
  to me to feel that I cannot always agree entirely with, everything that they ask me to do. I cannot agree with them as to the inadvisability and unreasonableness of Her Majesty's Government in introducing this Measure, but I do agree with this most cordially, and I shall do my utmost in urging Her Majesty's Government to pay due regard to these views, with regard to protecting the minority in all and every part of Ireland. Undoubtedly, a Measure such as this had to be introduced, a better time could not have been found to introduce it. My right honourable Friend's speech to which I have alluded, referred to the fact that the condition of Ireland then, in 1888, rendered the introduction of a Local Government Bill absolutely impossible, but he held out the hope that when Ireland became law-abiding, such a Measure might be introduced. No one views with greater satisfaction than do we in this House, noble Lords opposite as well as those on this side, the law-abiding and satisfactory condition of Ireland, and consequently, with that condition of things, Her Majesty's Government were bound to carry out that pledge of the Chief Secretary. But there are many of us who know Ireland well, and who have known Ireland when she was anything but law-abiding, and having that experience, I think we are not justified in putting that experience entirely on one side. We must look to the future, and we must endeavour to judge of the future, without being pessimistic, by our experience of the past. It was in 1886 that I, together with my noble and learned Friend below me, entered upon the government of Ireland, and I say deliberately, and without fear of contradiction from anybody, that considering the condition of Ireland at that time, its lawlessness in some parts amounting to almost anarchy, no Government since the Union has ever undertaken such a Government under such difficulties as we had in 1886. That being the case, with that experience, it is but right that we should draw the attention, not only of Parliament, but also of the country, to what, having happened in the past, although it is not probable, may not be altogether absolutely impossible in the future. What would be the position of the loyal minority in those parts of Ire-
  556
  land which were lawless in 1886 if there occurred a recurrence of such crime as was then in existence, and the local government of the country had been handed over to men who more or less sympathised with that anarchial condition of affairs. I say deliberately that it is the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government to take that condition of affairs into consideration. We are sufficiently justified in carrying this Measure through its Second Reading because we recognise that it is our duty; but in future, should events occur (I need not say that I sincerely trust they never will) we feel that it is the Government who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of introducing such a Measure who will have the responsibility for any injustice that in the future may occur. Therefore, in conjunction with my noble Friends behind me, we have decided to point out what may occur under certain circumstances, and at a later date to urge upon Her Majesty's Government to give full consideration to our requirements in order to counteract them. I now turn to the principle of the Bill, and it has been admitted by my noble and learned Friend who introduced this Measure, and also by the noble Lord opposite, that this Bill will effect a very great change in the future of Ireland. That I think there is no denying. I remember on the occasion of meeting the grand jurors in Dublin, my noble Friend in his inaugural speech declared that this Measure was of a revolutionary kind. I think in saying that he used an absolutely accurate expression. It is a Measure of a revolutionary kind, for, at one fell swoop, it abolishes a system which has been for so many years past in existence. The grand jury system has been in existence for many, many years, and, as your Lordships are aware, it has worked efficiently, economically, and satisfactorily. I quote again my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, because, with regard to Ireland, I always maintain that there is no better authority, and he stated in a speech which he made that the grand jury system, though an absolutely indefensible system in theory, is a pure and economical system, and it was declared to be so in the Report of the Committee presided over by The O'Connor Don. I do not think he said one word too much.

  557
  I have had an official and also a very practical experience of Ireland. I am acquainted with most of the grand jurymen in almost every county, and I think it would be impossible to find a body of men in each of those counties who have devoted their time, their convenience, and in many cases their health, more heartily and more cordially to the interests and welfare of the county than the various grand jurymen in all parts of Ireland. Naturally under these circumstances there will be few who will not regret the abolition of such a good system. But what we regret almost more than this is to think that it is more than probable that with the erection of these county councils in certain parts of Ireland we shall not see those county councils availing themselves of the abilities and practical experience of the grand jurors. I only trust that I am pessimistic. I only trust that my prognostications may not be verified, but I am convinced it will be to the injury of the various counties of Ireland to lose the services of such men, and to see them replaced by men who have had no practical experience whatever of county government, and who are returned mainly, and almost, I may say, entirely, because they hold the same religious and political views as the vast majority of those who return members to the county council. It must be remembered, my Lords, that the county councils in Ireland will, I fear, be very unlike the county councils in England. In the part of Ireland to which I belong I do not think there will be any difference. But whereas in England a vast number of the magistrates were returned in most counties to the county councils, I very greatly fear that in a large number of counties in Ireland very few of the grand jurors will be returned to the county council. Well, my Lords, what will be the result of that? That men of no experience, that men who may very likely be in touch with those to whom the interests of the county are really nil will be returned, and we shall see, unless carefully safeguarded against, an enormous amount of extravagance, of jobbing, and of maladministration in these county councils. I have had some experience of what can be done by unions during the time I had the honour to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and I am going to ask
  558
  your Lordships to allow me to quote to you some facts which I think will show you what took place in certain unions in Ireland when I was Lord Lieutenant, and I think you will agree with me, after hearing what I have to say, that I was justified in dissolving these unions. In 1886 I had to dissolve the Union of New Ross because the workhouse rules were relaxed in favour of evicted tenants, notwithstanding warnings that their proceedings were irregular. In 1887 Belmullet Union failed to make provision for the inmates of the workhouse. In 1888 Swinford Union failed to pay bills or make any provision for further supplies. At Ballinasloe in May, 1888, the chairman was not allowed to take the chair, the disputes culminating in acts of personal violence, and business #as neglected. The First Lord of the Treasury gave a very amusing description of what took place at that meeting of the Ballinasloe Guardians in a speech he made in the House of Commons. At the Athy Union there was an illegal payment of a cheque for an amount of surcharge made against Mr. Daniel Whelan for relief granted to evicted tenants. At Dungarvan there was the acceptance of extravagant tenders for bread—i.e., one from Mr. Casey for 5¼d., as against another from Mrs. Armstrong at 4¾d. per 41b. loaf. This involved a loss to the ratepayers of £37 in six months. Mrs. Armstrong had previously carried out her contract to the satisfaction of the guardians, whilst Mr. Casey's bread was refused on several occasions, but notwithstanding this, he was re-elected as bread contractor in September. In 1888 the Ballyraghan Board was in debt, and yet reduced the rate to a sum totally inadequate to meet liabilities, and their cheques were dishonoured, and this indebtedness arose simply through maladministration. If gentlemen such as those who sat in these unions are to be elected to the county councils what hope have we for any economical or efficient work to be done in the future? The noble Earl opposite, I think, laid great stress upon the fact that this Measure was more or less passed in the interests of the landlords.
  *EARL SPENCER: No, no! I did not say landlords exclusively.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: So far as the matter goes I will not cavil with the noble Earl. But there are no such beings as landlords or landowners in Ireland now. The landlord or the landowner is nothing more than a rent-charger, and consequently, so far as this Measure is concerned, I think we might divide those interested in it into two classes—large and small ratepayers. At the present moment 50 per cent, of the rates in almost every county in Ireland are paid by 5 per cent, of the population, the remaining 50 per cent, of the rates being paid by the remaining 95 per cent, of the population. I know that that sounds rather a vague expression, but I was looking through a speech delivered in the House of Commons by Mr. Chamberlain in 1892, on the introduction of the Local Government Bill, and Mr. Chamberlain put the matter so ably and so well that I think I shall save your Lordships' time if I quote his words instead of using my own in regard to this question, because it is a most important one. He said—
  "Does this House consider, I should like to know, no special protection is due in Ireland to the largest cesspayers? The state of things in Ireland is altogether exceptional, and, so far as I know, has no parallel in this country. Speaking generally, all over Ireland 5 per cent, of the cesspayers pay 50 per cent, of the cess. A most extraordinary state of things. Mr. T. M. Healy: Where did you get that? Mr. Joseph Chamberlain: Never mind where I got it. I assert it, and if the honourable Member would like particulars for any county or barony in Ireland I will give them."
  I think I should weary your Lordships if I gave all the particulars, but I think Mr. Chamberlain put the matter in a nutshell. He said—
  "As reasonable men do we think that no special consideration whatever is due to persons who, being very few in number, pay so large a proportion of the total rates? Is there no danger that unless some protection is given to them there may be an inclination on the part of the majority to spend money that is to a large extent not theirs, but that of the minority, for purposes which really are hardly justifiable?"
  I do not think the case could have been put better than that. Your Lordships can see that if 50 per cent, of the rates of the comity are paid by 95 per cent, of the ratepayers, it is absolutely im-
  560
  material to those 95 per cent, to what extent the rates are raised, because these rates will come out of the pockets of the minority, whereas, if relief works are paid for out of the rates, those works will give to those 95 per cent, such employment to themselves and their families that it is absolutely immaterial to them to what extent the rates are raised. That being so, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to carefully safeguard that minority, which Mr. Chamberlain so truly described might be rated for the benefit of this large majority of small ratepayers, and at the present moment I consider that those who are with me in this matter consider that it is not sufficiently safeguarded under the present provisions of the Bill. My noble and learned Friend seems to consider that clause 27 is sufficient to meet this complaint of mine. Clause 27, section 2, says—
  "A county council shall not, without the consent of the Local Government Board, approve of any expenditure on roads proposed by the council of any rural district, which will cause the expenditure on the roads of the district to exceed by one-fourth the amount certified by that Board to have been the average expenditure thereon during the three years next before the passing of this Act, and the Board may, as respects each council, consent either for a particular road, or a particular year, or generally, and in the latter case may fix a new limit under this section."
  The word "roads" is a very wide definition, especially as denned by the Act itself, but my noble Friend does not seem, in considering that these safeguards of the fourth, or 25 per cent., were sufficient, to have taken into consideration the want of power at the hands of the county council to check such expenditure. I gather from clause 4, and also from clause 50, that the county council can only veto any expenditure proposed by district councils on works, or for purposes arising under the Grand Jury Acts, but they have no such veto on expenditure proposed by district councils or boards of guardians under the Poor Law Acts. For instance, take outdoor relief. With regard to outdoor relief, the county council has no authority. It only has to strike the rates. Now, my Lords, I think the noble Earl alluded to the question of outdoor relief in Ire-

  561
  land in the course of his speech, and I should like to bring under your notice why we consider this limit of 25 per cent., as it at present stands, is not sufficient, if it is confined only to roads. We maintain that 25 per cent., in addition to what has been the sum levied on the average of the past three years, ought to include not only roads, but also expenditure on particular accounts, which may not be increased by the local bodies unless by the express consent of the Local Government Board. I think that the noble Earl opposite will not contradict me when I say that there have been some gross scandals with regard to outdoor relief in Ireland, and I am again going to ask your Lordships to allow me to quote. The question is a dull one; at the same time, feeling as I do that there may be a prostitution of the power granted, I think you will allow that I am justified in showing what has been done in the past. I will quote from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Poor Law Guardians Bill, 1884–85, and I want the House to allow me to compare the difference between the old unions, if I may so call them, of 1880, to the new unions of 1884, which were altered owing to Mr. Parnell calling upon his followers to break up and wreck the old system by returning Nationalist Members. I will take the Killarney Union. In 1880 there were 2,107 receiving relief, at a cost of £1,752, or 16s. 7½d. per head per week, whilst in 1884 there were 2,867 receiving relief, at a cost of £3,617 or 25s. 2d. per head per week. Now I will take Listowel Union. In 1880 there were 258 receiving relief, at a cost of £05, or 5s. per head per week, whilst in 1884 there were 2,187 receiving relief, at a cost of £1,638, or 15s. per head per week. Your Lordships will observe that that is exactly three times as much. Tralee Union: in 1880 there were 87 receiving relief, at a cost of £30 17s. 11d., or 7s. 1d. per head per week, whilst in
  562
  1884 there were 3,454 receiving relief at a cost of £2,534 13s. 10d., or 14s. 94 per head per week. In all these unions the representation was changed, thanks to Mr. Parnell's speech. Now, let me take the unions where there was no change, or where the old unions remain the same. In Dingle the cost rose only from £9 2s. to £13 10s. 4d., in Cahirciveen the cost rose from £717 to £903, in Kenmare the cost fell from £890 to £870, and that is because the boards remain the same. That is a convincing proof of what we may expect from the new boards. In Roscommon up to 1879 the gross rate never exceeded £5,000 per annum, but in 1884, owing to the Parnellite majority, it was £7,500. Outdoor relief rose from £500 to over £1,000, and the normal amount of outdoor relief rose from 1s. 6d. per head to 3s. Families of suspects were granted £1 a week, which the Land League had previously granted, even though in possession of sheep, horses, and cattle. There were many cases of high relief to evicted tenants out of the rates. In 1886—I am quoting from the Poor Law Relief inquiry, which I myself instituted, granted £20,000 towards relief of exceptional distress, in Belmullet, Clifden, Galway, Oughterard, Swinsford, and Westport. All these cases are mentioned in the Blue Book. Before that grant of that £20,000 there were 1,000 people in receipt of outdoor relief, and within six weeks of the grant there were 100,000. The following cases will show the prostitution of outdoor relief which went on. In Belmullet a man with a holding valued at £10, and having 13 head of cattle, and two men owning a lot of sheep, said they were proud to get relief. In Clifden a man who had sold 13 bullocks at a fair obtained relief, whilst another man holding 1,075 acres of land, and having just paid £6 county cess, obtained relief. In Oughterard, five men, each possessing a large number of sheep and cattle, obtained relief. As I

  563
  said, all of those cases may be found in the Blue Book. But it may be said, have you nothing of a more recent date? Yes, I have. On March 19th, 1897, at the Cork Spring Assizes, five men were tried for open and shameful corruption, Which Mr. Justice O'Brien said was attended with a publicity almost as great as the sale of domestic animals and the sale of cattle in the streets. In July, 1898, a man was found guilty of bribery in connection with an election of master of Kilrush union, and another man—a guardian of the same union—was charged with receiving £3 as an inducement to vote for a Candidate to the mastership of the workhouse. There are several other cases which I believe have been dealt with, but I quote these to show what has been the prostitution of outdoor relief in the past, and which unless sufficiently safeguarded we may see again taking place in the future. I know it is frequently stated that this Measure is a boon to the landowning classes. The landowning classes, as such, are no more, and, as I have already said, the people who will derive a benefit from this Act are divided between large and small ratepayers. It is supposed that the large ratepayers under this Act will benefit to the extent of 50 per cent, under the provisions of this Bill, but it must be remembered that if these county councils are allowed to raise the rates 25 percent, more than they are at the present time, that boon is reduced 25 per cent., and if this prostitution of outdoor relief is to be carried on in the future as it has been in the past, the remaining 25 per cent, will very soon disappear, and the unfortunate large ratepayers will find themselves in a far worse condition than they were in the past. Therefore in connection with this proposal in clause 27, I shall venture to move an Amendment on Monday next asking your Lordships to insist that that 25 per cent, which will be fixed as the limit shall embrace all classes of expense at the hand of the county council. My Lords, the bulk of the work connected with this Bill will rest with the Local Government Board and in order to effect the success and fair working of this Bill, in our opinion it is necessary that the Local Government Board should be very materially strengthened. At the present moment—
  564
  I speak with the highest respect for the Local Government Board—I know the good work it has done, and the good work it will continue to do—there is no member of the Local Government Board who has any practical experience of what we call the grand jury system of working the counties. The vice-chairman—Sir Henry Robinson—is an extremely able man who has recently been appointed. But I looked up his evidence before the Royal Commission on Finance, and I particularly noticed his remarks as to the extent of the grand jury procedure, and I was struck with the number of times that he "did not know this, and did not know that" on matters relating to some of the most important details of the procedure of the grand jury. Time after time he was asked a question, and time after time he was invited to give his opinion, and time after time his answer was, "I have no knowledge." Consequently I say that if we take the vice-chairman, who in the absence of the Chief Secretary will preside over the Local Government Board, as an example, it is necessary, if he knows nothing of the working of the grand jury system, that he should have some colleagues who do know something. There was a gentleman appointed the other day who had done good work on the Congested Districts Board, but he has no knowledge whatever of the working of the grand jury system, and therefore I say that the Board should be strengthened by having on it, not only a man of thorough and practical experience, and knowledge of the working of the grand jury system and all its details, but that the men who are appointed should be permanently appointed, and not temporarily appointed. I have heard it said that the reason of these temporary appointments is because it is thought that at the end of five years there will not be sufficient work for an extra commissioner to perform. Well, my Lords, on that statement I join issue at once. I think the Local Government Board will find that they will have an enormous amount of extra work put upon them by this Bill. At the present moment the Local Government Board only audit the accounts of the grand juries and of the presentment sessions, but your Lordships must know that the extra work imposed upon them will be to examine the whole

  565
  of the expenditure, and closely examine it, of the presentment sessions, and the grand jury sessions, and when I tell your Lordships that there are 326 presentment sessions, and over 33 grand jury sessions held twice a year, I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that an enormous amount of extra work will be added to the duties of the Local Government Board. There is one other point that I must mention. The question has been handed over to your Lordships by the House of Commons, to decide as to whether the representation of the constituencies should be of a single or a double character. I have no doubt myself, and I think I speak the opinions of nearly all with whom I am associated, when I say that so far as the district councils are concerned we think that the representation should be double, and for this reason, that at the present moment very good work is being done by the ex-officio guardians, and also by the elected guardians. But when these bodies are dissolved, it will be very invidious to the ex-officio guardian either to ask perhaps his own tenant to stand down and let him take his place, or to find himself opposing his own tenant; therefore if two members were permitted on the district councils it will be quite possible for the ex-officio to sit on the same board as his tenant. With regard to the question of county council elections I say nothing. It is a question upon which many hold different opinions, and I think that the opinions of a great many of my noble Friends will carry far greater weight than will mine, coming as I do from a county where the county councils will be carried on very much on the same lines as the grand jury system was. I will only say on behalf of my friends, and on behalf of the grand jurors, whom we consulted in Dublin, that we have every desire to make this Bill work smoothly and successfully. It will, of course, work great changes in the future of Ireland. It remains for us to see what wall be the line taken by the electorate. I do not wish to prognosticate, but I do ask the electorate in Ireland, when they are granted the opportunity of electing members to these councils, to carefully consider not only the interests of their country but the
  566
  interests of themselves. I ask them to put on one side religious and political feeling so far as that can be done in Ireland. If they will but study the interests of themselves and of their country they will, I think, return to the district and county councils those men who have shown by their work in the pass that they are thoroughly acquainted with the work of their counties, and have shown by their practical and economical experience that they can do good to their country. If, on the other hand, they choose to discard these msn and put men in their place who have had no experience of county work, but are merely in touch with the majority on account of their political and religious feeling, then I say they will be doing great harm to themselves, to their country, and to Ireland. The Government will not find the grand jurors behindhand in coming forward and placing their services at the disposal of their counties in the future, as they have done in the past, and I think that Mr. Gerald Balfour will see that they will not look askance, but will do their very utmost for their constituents. It remains for the constituents to decide whether these grand jurors are to be afforded an, opportunity of giving the benefit of their practical experience to the working of this Act, and I have no fear that they will work as well, as thoroughly, and as economically for the county councils of the future as they have worked for the grand jury system in the past. All that they ask is that, while passing this Measure, which may entirely put an end to the duties they now perform, your Lordships will put such safeguards into it that there shall be no fear of the occurrence of any injustice to any class of the community in any of the four provinces of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: After what fell from my noble Friend behind me it is hardly necessary for me to state that I do not rise with any idea of offering any opposition to this Measure. Like him, I welcome any serious attempt to reform the inequalities which exist in local government between different parts of the United Kingdom, and I should be very sorry indeed to disturb the general harmony which seems to run in all the various parts of the House with regard to this Bill. Even my noble Friend who

  567
  has just sat down, whose rising to discuss Irish questions is often, I think, hailed with emotion akin to physical fear by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, gives his blessing—a qualified blessing—to the Bill. I say a qualified blessing, because, during the course of the noble Marquess's speech, he made some remarks which I should have thought would have almost led him to oppose the rejection of the Measure. I am so far with the noble Marquess that I thirds that this Measure is an experiment, and in some degree may be called a risky experiment. It is a risky experiment to present a large measure of local government to people who have had little experience in the working of representative institutions. In this country, as your Lordships know, we proceeded on different lines. It was in the year 1832, by the Reform Act of that year, that the people of this country began to be educated in the working of representative institutions, and during the 60 years Which have elapsed between the passing of that Act and the Local Government Act for England they were being educated to high opinions of civic duty and were gaining some practical knowledge of public affairs. In Ireland it must be admitted that such has not been the case. The average Irish voter, at any rate, is not seriously interested in the working of our Parliamentary institutions. Parliament is an institution in which his representatives are in a perpetual minority, and he is only interested in it so far as it has from time to time passed repressive Measures concerning himself, and has also from time to time in periods of distress allowed sums of money to be wrung from its sympathy, and consequently I agree with, the noble Marquess that, I think this Measure may be regarded as a leap in the dark, but not to any great extent. My noble Friend behind me alluded to the idea that this Measure of Local Government might be regarded in Ireland as a substitute for a Measure of Home Rule. I will not go into the reasons which make me agree with him in saving that I think that that is an opinion which is an absolutely futile one. I will, however, just say this, if it were the case that Ireland takes this Measure as a substitute for Home Rule the most important and the most effec-
  568
  tive argument which was used against Home Rule falls to the ground. We were told when Home Rule was before the country that it would be worked by men of revolutionary ideas supported by the active alliance, or, at any rate, by the passive acquiescence of the vast majority of the people of the country. But if these Jacobins and revolutionists are to be once and for all contented by being given the control of their lunatic asylums, their technical instruction committees, and with ancient monuments, they cannot be such dangerous revolutionists after all. Therefore, if this were the case, it surely must be true that the powers which the Home Rule Measure proposed to give to the Irish people at large would have been very reasonably and loyally used. Consequently those who held that view, although they may say if they like that Home Rule would be inconvenient, and would not work well, can no longer with any semblance of plausibility speak of it as a Measure likely to cause danger to the Empire. Now, I will not follow those who have spoken before into anything like detail upon the Measure. Like my noble Friend I regard the £730,000 per year not only as a highly ingenious, but also as an extremely costly method of buying off the most serious opposition to this Bill. In the House of Commons during the Committee stage of the Bill, and during which the principal discussions upon it took place, I think it is only due to those in charge of the Bill to say that they stuck exceedingly well to their guns and did not allow any material alteration to be made in the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord opposite will be equally firm here, and that he will not think it necessary to make a series of graceful concessions to one party in the House, represented by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I heard with some little alarm the announcement of the noble Marquess of his intention to move certain Amendments to this Bill. I sincerely hope that those Amendments—and I conclude such will be the case from the noble Marquess's admission—will not include any attempt to tamper with the representative character of these bodies. I sincerely hope that there will be no attempt to introduce nominated members of county councils or ex-officio

  569
  members of boards of guardians. But I cannot help feeling that in one Amendment to which the noble Marquess alluded—namely, that of the introduction of double representation—that that is practically a real attempt to let in by a back door ex-officio members who would not otherwise succeed in obtaining seats on the board. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will give very full consideration to that Amendment before he thinks of accepting it. Something has already been said as to the position of the Local Government Board in Ireland with regard to this Measure. I canot deny that to me also, as to my noble Friend behind me, that there does seem to me to be some risk of friction arising between these bodies and the Local Government Board. In England the Local Government Board, perhaps more than any other department, is unaffected by change of Government, and preserves an absolute continuity. The county councils and other bodies regard the Local Government Board as their guide, philosopher, and friend, and they cheerfully appeal to it without any difficulty, but I cannot help doubting whether this is likely to be the case in Ireland. Like my noble Friend behind me, I should be the very last to say hard things of Dublin Castle. I do not doubt either the ability or the goodwill of the gentlemen who form the Local Government Board in Ireland, but there are some conditions of affairs which no amount of goodwill and which no ability can satisfactorily deal with, and I certainly do feel that it will require the utmost exercise of tact on the part of the Chief Secretary, and also on the part of permanent members of the Board, to prevent serious difficulties arising between the central administration and the local bodies that are to be brought into existence. The noble Marquess spoke of grand juries, and I am prepared to say, but not in quite such general terms as he did, that their administration, so far as I have had experience of it, has been very tolerably efficient, very tolerably economical, and, as I believe, absolutely pure. I hail with satisfaction the announcement made by the noble Marquess that the members of the grand juries would not stand aside, but that they would come forward and
  570
  offer their services to these new local bodies. I am very glad to hear that. If this Bill had been introduced in the benches behind me I am afraid that the grand jurors might have been rather less ready to make an offer of the kind. The Bill, in fact, never would have passed a Second Reading if it had been introduced from these benches. I quite agree that there is some fear that in certain places men who have done good service will not be elected to these boards; but I hope that, even if that does take place, it will not give rise to such a feeling of irritation amongst those in the landed interest as to make them despair of taking any part in the local government of their country. I believe as time goes on matters will right themselves, and those who are interested in local government economically and efficiently administered will find it to their advantage to come forward like loyal and good men to whatever class they belong. In conclusion, I would express my sincere hope that this Measure will be of really practical benefit, and that it also will tend to quicken in Ireland a, sense of public obligation amongst members of all creeds and classes, because I do believe that in such wide knowledge and greater sympathy there does exist the hope of the obliteration of those lines of cleavage, which are in reality Ireland's greatest misfortune, and which interfere more than anything else with her social happiness and her material development.
  LORD KENRY (The Earl of DUNRAVEN and MOUNT ROYAL): I should like to make a very emphatic protest against the fact that this most important and complicated Bill was only placed in our hands yesterday morning, and that the Debate on the Second Reading is taking place to-day. I daresay there were very strong reasons for this, and no doubt many of your Lordships are probably familiar with the Bill; moreover, it is doubtless a compliment to the intellectual standard of this House that it should be supposed to be capable of dealing with a Measure of this importance after such a very short notice. At the same time, my Lords, speaking as one who does not come up to that very high intellectual standard, I think that the principle of giving scarcely two working days to the con-

  571
  sideration of a very large and important Measure like this is scarcely a good one. At the same time, if I may be allowed to say so, the extraordinarily lucid way in which the Bill was explained to the House by the noble and learned Lord who introduced it, has very much minimised the difficulties we might have been under by only having the Bill before us such a very short time. I am not going to detain your Lordships but a very few minutes, and I am not going into details of the Bill. I should like to say, however, that I agree almost entirely with every word that was uttered by the noble Earl opposite [Lord Spencer] as regards the exclusion of ministers of religion from these new local bodies. They are qualified to vote, and I cannot see why they should not be qualified to sit upon county councils. I cannot at all understand on what principle that differentiation is made between Great Britain and Ireland. It appears to me that if a minister of religion is a fit and proper person and a good man to sit upon a county council or a district council, he ought to be able to sit there, and if there is any fear of the exercise of any undue spiritual influence, surely it would be better and wiser that that influence should be exercised openly and above board, than that it should be exercised in a secret manner, or that, to use the words of the noble Earl opposite, the strings should be pulled from behind the scenes. The noble Earl said that it was useless for him and the party opposite to move Amendments, and my noble Friend who has just sat down has stated that if this Bill had been introduced by them it would not have had the remotest chance of being read a second time. I think the noble Lords are too diffident. If they had introduced such a Bill—a Bill containing the safeguard against injustice that this contains—I have not the slightest doubt in the world that it would have been read a second time. If the noble Earl were to put down an Amendment dealing in this clause relating to ministers of religion, he would have had my support, and if I do so I trust I may have his support. But I cannot at al agree with the noble Earl in what he said on the financial part of the Bill Both he and the noble Lord who has just sat down seem to look upon this sum
  572
  of £750,000 as a sum of money paid to ensure the passage of the Bill. In a sense, that may be correct. If it be necessary to grant a sum of money in the relief of payment of rates, in order to protect a class in a great minority from injustice, it may be a payment made to ensure the passage of the Bill. It is a payment necessary to prevent gross injustice, and I trust that it was in that sense only that noble Lords opposite have used the expression that the sum was to ensure the passage of the Bill. No man knows better than my noble Friend Lord Spencer to what, extent a certain class—a small class—in Ireland made themselves unpopular, in some cases obnoxious, entirely on account of their political opinions—political opinions which go exactly opposite to those opinions which are held by the noble Earl, and yet which are held by them equally conscientiously; and unless the noble Lords opposite are prepared to suggest some means whereby that minority can be equally well protected against any possible prosecution. I do not see how they can object to the methods employed in this Bill, and which have the merit of being good methods, simple methods, and necessary to the purpose. Both of the noble Lords who spoke from the front Bench opposite have taken a great deal of trouble to explain that this Bill will not in any way take the place of Home Rule. I really do not see that that has anything to do with the question before the House. It has not been introduced as an alternative Measure to Home Rule, and, as far as I know, nobody looks upon it in that light at all. Whether, as the noble Earl thinks, the county councils in Ireland will pass, their time in proposing resolutions in favour of Home Rule, or not, I do not know. It is quite possible that they may. It is equally possible that they may not. One great chance about Ireland is that it is always full of pleasing surprises, and whether they will take that line or the opposite one, I do not know. But if they do, the only possible practical effect will be that perhaps we shall see the words "Home Rule" written in the electioneering addresses, and we may hear the words "Home Rule" mentioned again in their speeches. There is one matter which interests me. It appears

  573
  that a great deal of very responsible work will be placed upon the Local Government Board, and I am not at all sure that it might not possibly be judicious to add to the Board an additional member, who is particularly qualified by experience and knowledge to deal with matters of local self-government. As far as I can see in the Bill, the franchise is nowhere defined. I suppose there is some definition in the Bin somewhere, or possibly it is referred to in some other Act; but I do not know how that may be. As to the main matter, my Lords, it has been already said that this is a completely new departure in local government in Ireland. No one has denied that the grand juries have done their work well, but everybody admits that, however well they have done their work, a nominated body is an anachronism, and is against that indefinable substance, "the spirit of the age." It is absolutely certain that a change from an oligarchical to a democratic form of Government had to come, and I am glad that this change is about to be made, and that it is hampered by none of the small and vexatious restrictions which were contained in former Measures. Whether the Measure will be successful or not is very difficult to say. It is quite impossible to judge of what will happen in Ireland by comparison with what has happened in England. All the legislation in the world will never prevent dissimilarities in character between the inhabitants of Ireland and the inhabitants of Great Britain; and if you add unequals to equals for ever, the result will always be unequal. But I can see no reason whatever why local government in Ireland should not be carried on perfectly well under the provisions of this Bill. Of course, in the main, it depends upon what the electorate do. It depends also, to a great extent, upon the action taken by the classes, who hitherto have had local self-government in their own hands. Personally, I have very little doubt that the county gentry of Ireland will see their duty, and will do their duty, and will offer themselves for election. Personally, I have very little doubt that at any rate, after a short experience, quite a sufficient number of men, having large and practical experience of local government, will be returned to the county councils and the
  574
  district councils to ensure their good working. I can answer for their good work, intelligence, honesty of purpose, and business-like capacity. I do not suppose anybody will pretend that in intelligence the electors of Ireland are in any way inferior to the electors of England. I do not think it would be pretended that they were wanting in any degree in honesty of purpose; but it must be admitted that in the experience which is born of responsibility, and, in fact, from education generally, Ireland is behind, and very far behind, England; and to that extent there may be some difficulty and some friction at first. Your Lordships must bear in mind also the position of the county gentry in Ireland is very different to the position of the county gentry in England. The county gentry in Ireland have always been a dominant minority, differing to a certain extent in race, and, to a greater extent, in religion, from the majority among whom they live. It may be that there will be greater difficulties than we imagine. They may feel more acutely their deprivation of the prescriptive right, and may not adapt themselves to the new condition of things as rapidly and as easily as has been the case in England. But I do not believe that that will affect them largely. No body of men that I know of in the world has ever done their duty to the country better and under more difficult circumstances than have the county gentry of Ireland. They have stood by their country in what they believe to be best for her in great political difficulties. They have done their very best, also, during the terrible social difficulties, such as those that arose in the famine years and the few years afterwards, and I firmly believe that they will continue to do their duty in the same spirit. My Lords, if they do—and I have no doubt they will—offer themselves for election, and if I am not very much mistaken in the intelligence of my countrymen, many of them will be returned, possibly not as many as we might wish, but, ultimately, I am sure that a sufficient number of men of experience to ensure the business like and fair working of the district and county councils. I am glad that this Bill, although dealing with such

  575
  a complicated matter, is in the main a simple Measure; that it is free from small and vexatious restrictions; that it is large in its scope and grasp; and, though I should be sorry to predict—for, as I say, Ireland is full of surprises—that it would be an immediate success, personally I have little doubt that it will work well and smoothly, even from the beginning, and I am perfectly certain that it will be prejudicial to no interest and to no class, and that ultimately it will be beneficial to the whole country at large.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: Everybody who has the welfare of Ireland at heart must rejoice at any Measure that is introduced into Parliament for the benefit of the country, however large and extensive its scope may be; but at the same time the Government which introduces Measures of this kind should be very careful in foreseeing what the result is likely to be. The risk is great; the responsibility is greater. I quite acknowledge the obligations the Government were under for the fulfilment of their pledges by the introduction of this Measure; but it cannot claim urgency, and for my own part I should have preferred that an agricultural and industrial Bill had preceded it. One of the most important deputations ever convened waited upon the Chief Secretary about eight months ago, and asked for aid for the interests of the agricultural population in Ireland, instructing them in the rules for better farming, and also in the methods of technical education. This would have proved an advantage and an assistance to all classes, and would have been generally acceptable to the community at large. This assistance is much needed. I therefore venture to hope that the Government will not for a moment imagine that the Bill now before the House is in any way to be taken as a satisfaction of the almost universal demand for the legislation I have referred to. I cannot deny the great ability and industry of the author of the Bill, and I trust that the same ability and industry will soon be evidenced in the production of Measures more urgently required. Hitherto we have had Acts of Parliament passed for one class only. In the present Bill we have a Measure that will affect every individual in Ireland, and may give rise
  576
  to continual strife and contention. I hope it will not. It is impossible for anyone acquainted with Ireland to view it without apprehension. The system of county government which it abolishes stood the test of many years' experience successfully. It may have had its faults, it certainly had its merits, and its able and quick-witted adversaries have in vain attempted to discover its blemishes; and it goes to its end with a white record. I myself do not see how any serious objections can be raised against the principle of any Measure such as is now before the House, if it is desired to place the three countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland, exactly on the same footing as regards local government. But in doing this the greatest care should be exercised in protecting the minority—that class of higher ratepayers, who, being naturally in a minority as regards numbers, is left to the mercy of the smaller ratepayers—small as regards liability to pay rates, but infinitely larger in respect of numbers. Now, the difference between Ireland and the other two countries is that there is no middle class in the former country to speak of, at any rate in the country districts, of any consequence. This middle class has acted as a sort of buffer between the upper and lower classes in England and Scotland, and has been extremely useful in preventing any friction. Its common sense in England has had a wonderful effect in uniting all the three classes, in preventing extravagance on the one side or negligence on the other. Therefore I maintain that when this class does not exist special precautions should be taken to protect the higher ratepayer, or what is erroneously called the minority. This has not been done in this Bill. It is all very well for the Government to say—"We are very hopeful, and we feel confident that the best men and the most influential will be elected." This remains to be proved, and those who really understand Ireland, know the character of the people, and reside in that country, hold quite a different opinion; for they well know the temptation placed in the hands of the democracy and the opportunity that this gives them of voting for and placing in power their own friends. And here may I venture to exhort those who may have the direction of affairs at elections, both for divisional and county

  577
  councils, to do their utmost in selecting the best men for these boards. Let them support the most capable man, without the consideration of party, religion, or sect—men who have no self-seeking in being elected—honest and independent—who will only strive for the benefit of their country, and especially of the county to which they belong; men who are above jobbery, and who will use their best effort to keep down expenditure and increase of the rates. If they succeed in this, success may attend the Measure. Otherwise I fear failure will be the result. There is one statement often reiterated, and which was brought up again in the other House last week, and which I never hear without some impatience—that the Irish landlords are receiving large pecuniary compensation under the Bill, and their opposition to it has in a manner been bought off. After the class war of which we have been the victims this bill—without the financial clauses referred to—would have been the most unjust measure imaginable. It would have been a weapon ready made in the hands of the majority for the extinction of whatever property in land has been left to the Irish landlord. With regard to any positive gain conferred on the landed classes, I fear that the nest revision of rents will discount it in favour of the tenant. As to our opposition being bought off, I think the attitude assumed by the Irish landlords to the first Home Rule Bill sufficiently demonstrated that no pecuniary offer could bribe them to be false to the interests of their Unionist fellow-countrymen in Ireland. Ever since I realised the sweeping democratic character of the Bill I formed the opinion, to which I still adhere, that petty Amendments were worse than useless. The minority representation and such like, so far from mitigating the severity of its provisions, would merely produce irritation. One Amendment, however, has been suggested, which, I think, is of importance, and which Mr. Balfour has indicated that he is ready to adopt in case a strong preference is shown for it by the interested parties. I allude to the proposal for doubling the number of the elected members to the district councils. I do not think it necessary to repeat
  578
  the arguments already used elsewhere, but I merely state that in the opinion of the vast majority of the Irish peers and grand jurors the Amendment, if adopted, would greatly improve the Bill. There is no man acquainted with life in Ireland but must know that the powers conferred on the bodies about to be created are extravagant and likely to be abused in many parts of the country. The large ratepayers are left at the mercy of the majority of small ratepayers without any real check or safeguard. There is, in my opinion, only one way of protecting this deserving class, and that is by strengthening enormously the Local Government Board, the central body; and by vesting in it extreme powers to be executed in the event of certain emergencies. At this point I must admit with great regret that the Government have not agreed among themselves upon a method for the strengthening of the Local Government Board. Any scheme that has been suggested has been summarily rejected by the authors of the bill. I quite see the futility, at the present stage of the Bill, of moving an Amendment embodying my own views. At the same time I think it only due to myself to state very shortly what opinion I have formed. Without disrespect to those who are to form the Local Government Board of the future, I think I may say that they could hardly be expected to exercise large controlling powers over the new bodies. From what source are they to be supplemented? Where can you get a class of officials of such high standing as to command public confidence, and who are acquainted with the details of county government in the past? In my opinion you can find what you want only among the common-law judges. These judges go on circuit twice a year through every county in Ireland. During the many years in which I served as a grand juror I observed that they were intimately acquainted with the whole grand jury system. When questions of difficulty arose the grand jurors applied to them for directions. They fixed all the grand jury presentments. They decided all questions arising on these presentments or reserved the questions for discussion before a divisional court.

  579
  I therefore think these judges should have been asked to form part of the Local Government Board on a few occasions in the year for certain definite purposes of the highest possible moment. Their counsel would be required; but I have no doubt from my knowledge of them that in the public interest they would have readily given this consent. Three of them could have served each year, according to a certain rota, in the same way as election petition judges are selected. Their decision on the special matters submitted to them should be final, and not subject to review by any court. In this way you could have had a public body of the highest authority, to whom you could have entrusted with confidence great powers of controlling, and, in some cases, if necessary, of suspending temporarily the new bodies. I contend that this is a feasible plan, which must have thrust itself on the attention of everybody acquainted with the subject. Why has it not been adopted? There is a widespread superstition that the first Local Government Bill was killed by the cry of "Put them in the dock," applied in the House of Commons by a witty Irish Member to the clause giving large powers to the assize judges. I do not believe the witticism, however admirable, had anything to do with the withdrawal of the Bill. The truth is it was an impossible Bill at the time; but in consequence of this superstition and suggestion that the judges should be made use of under this Bill causes consternation among its promoters. I do not believe that such a proposal would have met with much opposition in the other House. I do not think that it would have been necessary for the judicial members of the Local Government Board to have used the great powers entrusted to them; but you would have had a real and effective safeguard for use in an emergency. You would have had a sword in a sheath, which every county and district council would have known could be drawn in case of a gross abuse of their powers. As things stand, the Government have plunged forward with their Bill without protecting in any effective way the interests of men who had every claim to their consideration. I sincerely wish that the apprehension excited by the
  580
  introduction of this Bill will turn out to be unfounded; and I venture to hope that all classes of the Irish people recognising that the eyes of the Empire are upon them, will rise to the occasion, and without class or Party prejudice devote themselves to the service of their common country. I feel perfectly certain that the landed gentry of the country will act up to this; and so far as I am concerned, as the Bill is inevitable, I will do all in my power in the locality in which I live, and in which I may have any influence, to help and promote the working of the Bill, and this with as little friction as possible to all classes concerned.
  *LORD MORRIS: I should not have intruded upon your Lordships' attention, nor did I intend to do so for more than a few minutes, excepting that I think that the class which is not represented in this House, namely, the country gentry in Ireland, ought to have a word said on their behalf. I have had a long experience of Ireland which few men have had. I served on grand juries in my early youth as a country gentleman. I went 53 circuits through Ireland as a judge in connection with grand juries. I held open court by proclamation where every man down to the humblest was entitled to object to all and every presentment that was possible, and to be heard by the judge. It is due to that body to say that those who are not very much inclined to take a very favourable view of them have been compelled by facts to admit that, take it all in all, they discharge their duties with satisfaction to the public and with credit to them selves. They are now abolished, and I am not standing up here to say that it was possible to avoid coming to conclusion. This is the first piece of Unionist legislation I have heard for some years in this House connected with Ireland. Several Acts of Parliament have been passed referring to the property of Ireland, which was of a separatist character, because that legislation did not apply to England. An Act of Parliament is at this moment pending in the other House, by which persons in this country can be allowed to give evidence in their own defence, but they are precluded from that in Ireland; therefore, I should be the last person to object

  581
  to a Measure of this sort, which is a piece of Unionist legislation. I have been amused sometimes, and sometimes vexed, by hearing that the statement made that it was hoped that the grand jurors and county gentry of Ireland—I mean the ordinary county gentleman; not noble Lords, but men with a few hundreds a year—were likely not to accept their duty. I have heard the noble Marquess state that the Chief Secretary, the present First Lord of the Treasury, knew Ireland better than any other man. I join issue upon that. I believe I know Ireland better 'than any of the Chief Secretaries that have occupied that position for the last 50 years. I have never heard any single person say that he had the slightest objection, no more than if it had been in England, to accept the principle of doing his duty. It is not the difficulty of getting men to do their duty that will meet us with regard to this legislation, it will be the difficulty of being allowed to do their duty. That will be the pinch of the case. I do not attach the least importance to persons who tell me that it will be the reverse; if so, I believe it is a case of hope getting the better of experience. You have had the grand jurors of the county accepting the Bill. Did they object to it entirely? No. As has already been called attention to, they met in Dublin, and all agreed to accept it. They all said they were ready to accept the inevitable; but they might have said to the Chief Secretary for Ireland: Ave Cœsar morituri te salutant. They had no objection. They were politically put to death long since. These were their last entrenchments, and they made no objection to it. The position of the country gentleman of Ireland was described by the celebrated Edmund Burke in the last century, in a passage of which I took the liberty of making a note, as it appears to me to have anticipated, with the political sagacity which amounted almost to the gift of prophecy, the position of the country gentlemen of Ireland at the present time.
  "I am unalterably persuaded that the attempt to degrade, impoverish, confiscate, and extinguish the landed property of the nation cannot be justified under any form."
  582
  Prophetic words as regards the position in which the ordinary country gentleman, the man who is not able to afford a diminution of his income to any appreciable extent, has found himself within the last few years. The noble Earl who first addressed the House expressed a difficulty in ascertaining whether this grant of £750,000 a year was intended as being an equivalent for the agricultural grant that was given to England some years ago, or whether it was in order to redress the balance arising from the Report on the financial relations between England and Ireland. He said that it was not entirely the one, and then he thought it was not entirely the other, and then he came to the conclusion that it was neither. Now, I have come to a very decided conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that it is both. It is not the first time that a matter has been obliged to serve a double purpose. This grant of £750,000 was used in the debate on the financial relations in the House of Commons as being pro tanto a redress of the balance upon the financial question. On the debate upon this Bill it was used as being the equivalent to the agricultural grant in England which has been in existence for years. Therefore, it is doing a double duty and serving a double purpose, and I quite agree with the noble Earl opposite that it should not serve a double purpose. The solution of that difficulty would be that it should only serve a single purpose and that the other purpose might be attained be a grant which would be for five years, if you will, or for seven years, because you have already got two years ahead of us in regard to what we should be entitled as a substitute for the agricultural grant. I will, without detaining the House long at this late hour, call your Lordships' attention to one or two matters. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for Ireland took some credit to himself that there was no change made in this Bill. There was scarcely a change excepting by Amendments made by the Government. I think that was a mistake. There were a great many Amendments, and I mean to propose one myself, which could have been made without at all interfering with the general policy and principle of the Bill. Why adopt a sic volo, sic jubeo? Many cases have arisen in which towns

  583
  in Ireland which have reserved a distinct and civic existence since the English invasion, have been, without any particular object as it appears to me, put into neighbouring counties. Some have objected. The town with which I am so intimately connected and which I represented so often in the other House of Parliament—a most ancient town—is one of them. It has been prayed by its public bodies—by its town council, by the grand jury—that its distinct existence as a county borough should be preserved as it is to other towns. I cannot understand why it is that the wishes of the people who are so much interested in the matter should not be respected. Is it to be a continuance of the old perverse way of dealing with Ireland, that everything that is given to her is given sometimes ungraciously and sometimes even without reference to the sentiment and feeling of the people? Sentiment, after all, goes very far. I am one of those who quite agree with the noble Earl on the opposite benches. I do not think this Bill will have the slightest effect in diminishing the cry for Home Rule. My acquaintance with Ireland makes me say that it will increase the cry for Home Rule. I am not one to shut my eyes to facts, and say the very opposite to what I know to be the truth, in order to make things look pleasant. I am not a man of mustard-seed faith; that could not alone move mountains, but has to swallow mountains in imagining that because this Local Government Bill is passed that the desire for Home Rule is to be got rid of by a Measure of this kind.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: To revert to the commencement of the Debate, I wish to say how very concise and very clear the opening speech of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was with regard to the Measure. Many Unionists are somewhat surprised at this extremely democratic Measure; and to see how important the Government think it is that Unionists should stand for these new constituencies. I should like to mention the closing remarks of the Chief Secretary in intro-
  584
  ducing the Bill. They were an appeal to the country gentry in Ireland—
  "The experience of England and Scotland shows that in rural districts the local gentry are the natural leaders: of the people, and that the people willingly recognise them as such. In the past that has been the case in Ireland also, and it may be so again in the future. Well, everything depends upon themselves. Will they look askance at the new order of things? Will they stand aside in silence, or play the more manly part, and seek from the suffrages of their fellow-citizens that position which no others are so well qualified to fill? They may meet with rebuffs at first, but let them persevere and their reward is certain."
  We must all bear in mind that under this Bill the same franchise that sends the Nationalist Party to Westminster will elect the county councils and district councils. There is no doubt that the local gentry some years ago received very little consideration at the hands of the representatives of the people in Ireland; but, my Lords, there is one thing certain, and that is, that the gentry will take their part manfully in the future. This question of the county government of Ireland is a question for the county gentry of Ireland, and I maintain that it will be very difficult to carry on the local government of Ireland without the help of the local gentry. For my own part I think that the electors will soon find out who can do the work of the county properly and who cannot. It is satisfactory for the gentry in Ireland to know that attached to the policy of the withdrawal of local administration from nominated bodies and entrusting them to bodies by popular election is what is known as the agricultural grant. That, my Lords, no doubt forms a, safeguard to the minority, which pays the largest rates; and I say frankly that without that the Bill would be intolerable. In saying this I must remind your Lordships of the many claims that Ireland has on the English Exchequer, which have been urged during the last two Sessions of Parliament. Under this Bill these claims, which are a necessary provision to the Bill, have not been fairly treated. We do not take this agricultural grant as an answer to the many claims that we have made, but in order that the Bill may be worked properly and fairly. This Measure will have one

  585
  effect in Ireland, and that will be the bringing together of that class of Irishmen who look after the interests of the country, and the giving to them that freedom and independence in the management of their own affairs which is given to the rest of the United Kingdom. For that reason we welcome the Measure. There is one point on which there is bound to be controversy. That point has been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, and Lord Spencer, and it is the question of the exclusion of ministers of religion from these councils. For my own part, when the Measure was first brought in I felt very strongly that ministers of religion should be in the county and district councils; but in view of the remarks that I heard passed in the House of Commons by one section of the Nationalist Party and those passed by another section, I think that if we wish this Bill to work fairly and easily and without contention, I hold that it is safer, taking the country at large, that the ministers of religion should not sit on these councils. There is another matter which I should like to mention and which I put forward at the meeting of delegates from the grand juries. The Local Government Board is going to be enormously strengthened, and will have enormous power in Ireland. We must remember that in many parts of Ireland these county councils will be composed of men, in a great many cases, who will have no knowledge of county government, and therefore a tremendous lot of business will be referred to the Local Government Board in Ireland. In England the Local Government Board is represented in Parliament, and for my part I should like to see a representative of the Local Government Board of Ireland in Parliament, and for this reason: You have a nominated body controlling an elective body, and that nominated body will have enormous power, and at present there will be nobody in Parliament representing it. I therefore would like to see a provision in the Bill to that effect. I am of course quite aware that the Chief Secretary is the head of the Local Government Board; but the Chief Secretary, I maintain, nowadays has as much to do as is possible for man to do, and under this Bill he will have an enormous ad-
  586
  dition to his duties if he has to answer all the questions of burning importance which will be addressed to the Local Government Board. With regard to the malicious injuries clauses of the Bill, we consider that compensation should be extended to every kind of property, because the law as it stands at present is an extraordinary anomaly. I will give you an instance. An empty boat may be drawn up on the shore, and if it is burnt there is no payment for malicious injury; but supposing there is a sack of potatoes in it, it becomes cargo, and the injury would lie. With regard to the rural district councils, we think it is important that there should be two-member constituencies instead of one-member constituencies, and the reason for that is this: That we think it would be very hard to turn out the sitting elected guardians, and therefore we think that the ex-officio guardians should be able at all events to offer themselves for election. I do not say that in all cases he would be elected, but I think it would be very desirable that he should have a run for that constituency in which he has taken the greatest interest and has taken a part in poor law government. There is another point which the noble Marquess dwelt upon, and that is that the 25 per cent, limitation should apply to every kind of expenditure. Supposing the 25 per cent, is all spent on roads, what becomes of the other expenditure? There must be other expenditure, and the 50 per cent, which is supposed to be paid—that is, half the poor rate and half the county cess under the Bill—must disappear, unless that 25 per cent. is brought over every kind of expenditure as well as the roads. There is another point, and that is, that the county councils have no control over district councils with regard to Poor Law expenditure. These are some of the chief points which we hope to raise by means of Amendments on Thursday next, and I trust that they will receive proper attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and I trust that, at any rate, noble Lords from Ireland will come and give these Amendments their support. I have only one other point. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, said that in the case of extraordinary distress existing,

  587
  Parliament would in future take cognisance of it. In a great many districts in Ireland it would be quite impossible to combat exceptional distress, although in some places the rates have been 9s. in the pound. It is satisfactory to have the admission that, at all events, there is to be some sort of fatherly control or fatherly sympathy with distress in Ireland and that Parliament in future will take some interest in the distressed districts. I trust that the Government will pay attention to the Amendments which the noble Lords have signified their intention of moving.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: I should hardly have risen to address your Lordships at so late a period in the evening were it not that I wish to say a few words as to the attitude with which the landowners are prepared to regard this Bill. So much stress has been laid on the relief extended to them in the matter of poor rate, and such expressions as blackmail, hush-money, and so forth, have been so lavishly spread about that it might appear as if we were disposed to accept this relief as a great boon, and that it is for that reason that we welcome this Bill. We do not in the least regard this relief as a boon, but merely as a fair measure of justice. We feel, as Her Majesty's Government evidently feel, that it would have been a gross and flagrant injustice to leave the landlord to pay not only half, but more than half of the poor rate, with the certainty that his power to modify or control the expenditure would be very much diminished, and in the not very improbable contingency that it would be extinguished altogether. This Bill has been characterised to-night in this House as a "leap in the dark," and I do not know of any phrase that can describe it more accurately. As far as I am concerned, I would much rather that matters remained as they are. I should much prefer to continue to pay the larger taxation with the certainty that its proceeds would be tolerably fairly administered. We regret the introduction of this Bill the more because we believe that it was not called for by any great force of public opinion. We believe that the grand juries did their work well, and that people were satisfied with them. As an old grand juror for upwards of 30 years, I must say that
  588
  I believe that that is so; but as the opinion of a grand juror might not be worth much on the subject, I would state other reasons for believing it. In the first place there is the power of "traverse," which I deeply regret is not included in this Bill, and by which any person with a grievance could at once approach the judge of assize. That power was very seldom exercised. Again, I would appeal to the public Press. The public Press in Ireland is certainly not disposed to treat the classes from which grand jurors were selected with any particular tenderness, and that Press is also not devoid in force and vigour of expression. But during the whole of the troubled times in Ireland I do not remember to have seen an attack made upon the grand juries for any particular act of negligence or maladministration, and I think if any grand jury had laid itself open to such a charge, it would most certainly have been taken advantage of. While we deplore the introduction of this Bill and its necessity, we feel sensible that it is inevitable. We know that both parties were pledged to it. The present Government are urged to it by their supporters in this country, who are possessed by the idea which it seems impossible to eradicate from the English mind, that whatever works well for this country must necessarily be good for every other country on the face of the earth. We are therefore determined to accept the Bill as inevitable, and to do our utmost to promote its smooth working—that is, if we are allowed to do so. But it is most uncertain on whom the choice of the elector will fall; and it must be remembered that as far as the district councils go in every division there is at present a sitting member, a man who must possess the confidence of his constituents, or else he would not be there—and it is hardly reasonable to expect that the electors would set him aside, if he has served them to their satisfaction in a limited capacity as poor law guardian, in order to elect a man, perhaps of wider experience, in his place. Therefore I trust that Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle of having two councillors for each division in the case of district councillors. The noble Earl opposite spoke of this proposal as intro-

  589
  ducing ex-officio guardians by the back door. It is nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I want to bring them in by the front door. I am perfectly ready to avow that the object is to get the assistance of ex-officio guardians and grand jurors on the district councils, I think it would be a great advantage so to do—that they should be elected just as the present guardians are elected, and sit side by side with them, just as they have been accustomed to do in previous times. I do not say that they will be elected, but this would give them a chance. There are great and widely spread apprehensions of extravagance in the future. But I confess myself that I have a fear that under some heads there will be a misplaced economy and a parsimony that will be very injurious. I feel that unless the control of the expenditure remains in proper hands there will be a considerable tendency to disregard the necessities of those classes of the community which are above all others most deserving of compassion—the inmates of lunatic asylums and hospitals. I regret that the Government have handed over the lunatic asylums to the county councils. Lunatics in reality are wards of the State. My noble and learned Friend who introduced this Bill is, by the authority of the Crown, the guardian of all lunatics in Ireland. Logically speaking, therefore, they are the wards of the State, and ought to be supported from Imperial funds. I am aware that this is too large a matter to be dealt with in a Bill of this kind, as it would involve a change in the lunacy laws of the United Kingdom, but I do wish that the Government had retained the control of the lunatic asylums in their hands, receiving a subvention from the county in the shape of a capitation grant—the exact converse of what is done under the present system. I think, also, that the appointment of the medical superintendents and the assistant medical superintendents should be in the hands of the Crown. The latter, moreover, are distinctly sufferers by the change, as they may lose the chance of promotion. There were a few other points which I intended to mention to your Lordships, but at this late period of the evening I will say no more. I should, however, like to add my assurance that I fully believe that it is the intention of all country gentlemen to offer themselves
  590
  for election, and to take every part they possibly can in the future government of Ireland, if they are enabled to do so; and if this Bill fails I believe it will not be from any negligence or apathy on their part.
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: I will not detain your Lordships for many minutes, but I should just like to say a few words upon this Bill. It is, perhaps, the most momentous Bill that has ever been brought into Parliament with regard to Ireland. It is a change to a free democratic government from a more or less oligarchical government. This Bill has been accepted in another place, and it is going to be accepted by your Lordships with, apparently, very few Amendments. My main object in speaking is to say one or two words as to the work which will fall upon the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board, I understood my noble and learned Friend to say, will be increased to something like seven members. As to the work which will fall upon them, I do not think I can better explain it to your Lordships than by quoting what was said the other day by an authority whom your Lordships will all acknowledge—I mean The O'Conor Don. In a speech which he made to the grand jury of Roscommon he made use of the following words. I think, perhaps, that I ought to say that his speech is rather in favour of the Bill than otherwise—
  "There are, however, one or two points in connection with the Measure to which I desire to direct your particular attention. So far as I understand the provisions of the new Bill those points are of special importance to us. I have said so far as I understand the provisions of the Bill, because I am not at all satisfied in my own mind that I do understand all the provisions, the Bill is of the most complicated character, and, whatever else may be said of it, I do not think it is an example of very clear, comprehensive, and intelligent drafting. Any Bill dealing with the whole of local administration, poor law, and county and urban government must of necessity be comprehensive, and, to a certain extent, obscure, but this Bill errs particularly in this respect, and its framers, in trying to avoid prolixity and too much detail, have left it in a most incomplete state. If this Bill were passed in its present condition, and if nothing were given to the new bodies created be it but the Bill itself, they would be absolutely powerless to work under it, and would not know what to do. Under our present charter, the old Grand Jury Act, we have but to turn to its pages,

  591
  and there we find the whole method of procedure in our county government laid out, and we want nothing but the section of the Act to guide us. If we turn to the new Bill we find nothing but a skeleton, to be clothed with flesh and supplied with blood by ribs of the Local Government Board, orders of the Privy Council, and decisions of the Valuation Office, some of which are not yet known to us, and which, when made, may turn this Bill of seventy-seven clauses into a volume as large as Mooney's Compendium of the Poor Law. In fact, the Bill at present resembles the wheels and sections of a clock thrown down on a table, which, before they can work, must be fitted together, adjusted, and oiled by a clock-maker—the clock-maker in this case being the Local Government Board, the Privy Council, and the Valuation Office."
  I think that shows that, even with the extension as explained by the noble and learned Lord, the Local Government Board will scarcely be able to cope with the enormous number of queries which will be brought before it, and that there will be without doubt within a very short time a demand for an increased board, and that demand will be that new members should be elected members. I may say that between an elected Local Government Board and a Home Rule Parliament there seems to me to be but a very short distance indeed. There is only one other point to which I should like to call attention, and that is as to the safeguards which have been brought into the Bill for the purpose of protecting the landowners against undue taxation. There is no doubt that as long as the taxation remains nominal that protection is afforded under the Bill; but if the taxation is increased it appears to me that in the fixing of rents that increase must be taken into consideration. I know that there is a clause which directs the special commissioners not to take it into consideration, but it seems to me that they would scarcely be doing their duty if they dealt with land in which the taxation is 5s. in the pound on the same valuation as land on which the taxation is 10s. in the £. It must make a difference, and I do not see how you can help it. Therefore, my Lords, I think that that safeguard is imaginary rather than real. I do not think there is any other point to which your Lordships' attention has not been called, and therefore I will not detain you longer; but I think the point I have last men-
  592
  tioned is one which should be considered in Committee on the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The discussion which has taken place on the Second Reading of this Bill, as I think your Lordships will agree, turns almost exclusively upon details, no doubt of importance, but still details, of the Measure which will undoubtedly be raised in Committee. I think, therefore, it will be absolutely unnecessary that I should attempt at this hour to follow the noble Members of this House in the various topics on which they have touched. The two noble Earls on the Front Bench opposite spoke in a somewhat suspicious, and, if I may say so, disdainful, manner of the grant which is provided by this Bill, and they hinted, if they did not actually say so, that it was nothing but a bribe in order to secure the passing of the Bill. But I did not observe that either of the noble Earls ventured to assert that the grant which is proposed by this Bill is an inequitable one. Neither did they pledge themselves to the proposition that it was possible to avoid giving to Ireland, in some form or another, something in the shape of an equivalent to the agricultural grant which has been given in the case of England. I did not quite understand one objection which was taken by my noble Friend Lord Spencer, who appeared to object to the proposal to place the liability for rates solely on the occupier, and he seemed to apprehend that that course would tend to exclude the owners of property from any chance of being elected as representatives on the county councils.
  *EARL SPENCER: I think my noble Friend goes too far. I did not say "any" chance. But I think it might eventually lead to its being alleged as a reason for not being elected.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think my noble Friend based that expression of his upon the theory that representation ought to go with taxation. I would point out to my noble Friend that the greater part of the gentlemen who are likely to seek seats on county and district councils will probably remain ratepayers themselves, because in almost every case, although they will not be

  593
  liable for rates as owners, they will probably to some extent be liable as occupiers, and will at least have as great an interest as most of the other ratepayers in the rates. But, in my opinion, this is a provision which will almost certainly tend, and it will be the only thing which can tend, to enable these gentlemen to retain their position in the government of their counties. If the district and county councils show, as has been anticipated, an inclination to extravagance, and if the rates do tend constantly to rise, it seems to me such a state of friction would arise between the new electors and the owners as would make it almost impossible for them to seek representation on the new bodies with any prospect of success. But I do not anticipate that in this House, at all events, any objection is likely to be taken to this proposal, and I conceive that the observations which have been made upon it have only been made with a view o giving a certain amount of countenance to the criticisms which have taken a, more definite shape in the other House of Parliament. I am inclined to agree with my noble Friend opposite that some of the criticisms of the noble Marquess who spoke from behind this bench were of such a character as almost to justify the apprehension that he was going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that the apprehensions which my noble Friend entertains of the probable consequences of this Measure are somewhat exaggerated. They appear to be based chiefly on the instances which he gave of the extravagance of elected bodies in Ireland and of the abuse and extravagance with which, on some occasions, they had administered—or attempted to administer, I should say—the poor law. But I would point out to your Lordships that this Bill, except so far as it disqualifies the ex-officio guardians, who have not hitherto had any very great amount of influence upon the boards, does not alter in any respect the administration of the poor law. It does not deprive the Local Government Board of any power which it now possesses over the administration of the poor law, and it does not alter the law as to the administration of the poor law in any wav whatever. My noble Friend complains that the county councils would
  594
  have no power conferred upon them of controlling the poor law administration of the boards of guardians. There is no local body at present which possesses any such power. Grand juries, as at present constituted, possess no such power, but no safeguard existing now, in so far as the administration of the poor law is concerned, will be removed by the Bill. I need hardly say that of course the Government will consider with the utmost care and attention the Amendments of which notice has been partially given to-night. But I cannot sit down without expressing a very earnest hope that your Lordships will not be disposed to adopt any Amendment which will have the effect of taking away the substance of what you profess to give. The Bill of 1892, to which reference has been made to-night, certainly met with very little favour from any portion of Irish opinion, because it was supposed to be hedged round and guarded by too stringent restrictions and safeguards, and because it was thought that what it professed to give was taken away in substance. We believe, and I think there is a general agreement of opinion, that in the construction of this Bill we have found a safer security—namely, in the proposed arrangement which will relieve the owners of land altogether from the payment of rates and place that payment without hardship or injustice on the occupiers. The danger which was to be apprehended, which has been apprehended, and which always stood in the way of any proposal in connection with local government which has ever been made, has consisted in the fact of that chronic and long-continued controversy amounting almost to warfare which has existed between owners of land and occupiers, and which has made it evident that there will be danger in placing in the hands of the occupiers a legal weapon which they might use against their opponents. That danger was felt by the late Government: it was felt by Mr. Gladstone himself in his larger proposal for the reorganisation of the government of Ireland. Mr. Gladstone felt—at least his first impression was when he introduced his first Home Rule Bill—that it would be unjust and inequitable to pass that Measure and place that amount of power mainly in the hands of the Irish occupier without

  595
  at the same time passing a Measure for expropriating the landlords on equitable terms. That difficulty, which was felt so strongly by Mr. Gladstone, has been felt more or less by every Government which has attempted to deal with the question in any shape or form. The proposal in the present Bill has, I think, been accepted with an extraordinary amount of unanimity as the nearest approach to a practical solution of the difficulty which has ever presented itself to the mind of any English Government.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that I propose to take the Committee stage on Monday.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  On the Motion of Viscount CROSS, this Bill was read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

  UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at 8.20.