Sitting of 26 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the
  654
  case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz., Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz., Salford Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz., Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Commercial Gas Bill; Gas Light and Coke Company Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Belfast Water Bill [Lords], read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
  Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill, read the third time and passed. [New Title.]
  Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [Lords], read the third time, and passes, with Amendments.
  Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill; Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Liverpool University Bill [Lords]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords]; read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
  Colonel WELBY reported from the Committee on Group G. of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill had stated that the evidence of James Alfred Crowther, Borough Engineer, Southampton, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said James Alfred Crowther do attend the said Committee on Monday next at eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That James Alfred Crowther do attend the Committee on Group G of Private Bills on Monday next, at eleven of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
  Colonel WELBY reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill had stated that the evidence of Joseph James Hornby, of Knowsley, Prescot, Lancashire, Land Agent, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Joseph James Hornby do attend the said Committee on Wednesday next at eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Joseph James Hornby do attend the Committee on Group G of Private Bills on Wednesday next, at eleven of the clock.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, That the parties opposing the Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill had stated that
  656
  the evidence of Francis William Anderson' of Thistle Cottage, Old Road, Frinton-on Sea; A. Beresford Pike, of 2, York Gate, Regent's Park, London; and Arthur Blackford, of 61, Chancery Lane, London, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Francis William Anderson, A. Beresford Pike, and Arthur Blackford do attend the said Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Francis William Anderson, A. Beresford Pike, and Arthur Blackford do attend the Police and Sanitary Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Sheffield Corporation Bill; reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Naval Works Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  Ipswich Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [Lords]; Wirral Railway Bill [Lords]; Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Barrow-in-Furness Tramways, Horsforth Urban District Council Tramways, Keighley Corporation Tramways, and Ramsbottom Urban District Council Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No.2) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Mid Yorkshire Tramways Company, and to empower that Company to make and maintain tramways and other works, and for other purposes. [Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Public Accounts—That they give leave to the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Public Accounts.
  Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  London and North Western Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Torquay Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  King's College London Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Sutherland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from London, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which and the manner in which Local Authorities in Scotland have allocated and applied funds to the purposes of Technical Education during the year ending the 15th day of May, 1903, under the following Acts: Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; Technical Instruction Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892; and Public Libraries Acts."—(The Lord Advocate.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Vivisection Experiments—Presence of a Government Inspector.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many experiments on animals under licence alone, and under Certificate B respectively, have been witnessed by an inspector at any time during the experiment, and during the whole duration of the experiment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) During 1902 eleven experiments, under licence alone, were witnessed by the Inspector, and one under Certificate B. In the case of one (under licence) the whole experiment was witnessed; and with regard to the others the inspector usually remained a considerable time, and on some occasions made more than one visit during the progress of the experiment In the case of the one under Certificate B the inspector also visited the animal next day. Inasmuch as the inspector habitually visits without notice he cannot be sure of arriving at the beginning of an experiment so as to be able to see the whole of it, nor even of finding any experiment in progress. It may be added that the inspector at his visits always sees any animals on which experiments may have been made, and carefully notes their condition.

  Report on Vivisection Experiments.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increase in the number of experiments performed on living animals since the passing of the Cruelty to Animals Act, he will state if he has received any Report of the results of these experiments, as the Act provides; and, if so, whether he will cause such Report to be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The Secretary of State receives numerous reports of the results of experiments in pursuance of the requirements which the Act referred to enables him
  660
  to make. Many of these reports become accessible to the public in printed form; but I do not think it practicable to publish them officially.

  Truck Act—Deductions from Wages in the Iron Plate Trade.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will direct his Majesty's Inspector to take a case under the Truck Acts in order to raise the question of deductions from wages for supply of light in the iron plate trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) If the right hon. Baronet is referring to the case at Stourbridge, I may say that I am informed that, when the factory was last visited, no deductions were being made contrary to the provisions of the Truck Act. Deductions from wages for the supply of light are not, I am advised, illegal, provided that the conditions laid down in the Truck Act, 1896, are complied with. But if a case is found in which they are imposed otherwise than in accordance with those conditions, it shall certainly be considered with a view to prosecution.

  Small Factories and Workshops—Precautions against Fire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the remarks contained in the recently issued Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops relative to the fire in Queen Victoria Street, will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation such as will bring small factories and workshops within the scope of the Factory Act, with a view to ensure workers being afforded adequate means of escape in case of fire.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas) Small factories and workshops are already within the scope of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and under Section 15 thereof local authorities have power to make bylaws providing for means of escape from fire in the case of any factory or workshop. The premises on which the

  661
  fire in question took place were neither a factory nor a workshop within the meaning of the Act.

  Accidents on the Glasgow Corporation Electric Tramways.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of accidents which have occurred on the Glasgow Corporation electric tramway system during the year ending the 1st June last, distinguishing fatal accidents to persons from injuries to persons not resulting in death; and will he quote the number of accidents causing damage to goods, vehicles, animals, and other property.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are informed by the General Manager of the Glasgow Corporation Tramways that the number of accidents which occurred on the Corporation electric tramway system during the year ending 31st May last causing injury to persons was ninety, resulting in the death of twenty-four persons, and that during the same period there were fifty-five accidents which caused material damage to property. It is added that the number of car miles run in the twelve months referred to was 14,008,750, and the number of passengers carried 177,179,549.

  Treaties giving Preferential Treatment to Foreign States.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state what are the dates of the treaties or agreements made by the United States, Portugal, and any other countries by which preferential treatment has been given to the products of foreign States as compared with the products of the United Kingdom; what are the articles affected by such preference; and what are the differences in the rates of duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The replies given by me to the hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 17th inst.†, and to the hon. Member for Exeter on the 24th inst.‡, cover the whole of the points referred to in the Question.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 1175.
  ‡ See page 376.

  Tenders for Battleships and Armour Plate.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he hopes to be in a position to invite tenders for the construction of the contract-built battleships and armoured cruisers included within the programme of the current financial year, and for the armour required for the dockyard-built cruiser included in the same programme.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Tenders for the construction of the armoured cruisers belonging to this year's programme which are to be built by contract will be invited almost immediately. It is hoped to invite the tenders for the battleships in September next, and those for the armour required for the cruiser to be built at Pembroke not later than October next.

  Infectious Diseases on Liners.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that although the White Star Liner "Victorian" arrived in the Mersey at 7.30.a.m. on the 22nd May four smallpox patients were not removed until she arrived at the Wallasey stage at 3 p.m.; and, in view of the risk attending the removal at the stage where there were a number of cattle drovers and other persons, will he state why a tug was not sent out to the vessel on her arrival in midstream to take these sufferers direct to the port hospital at New Ferry; and will care be taken that similar cases are more promptly dealt with in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware of the facts referred to in the first part of the Question, and I obtained a report from the Medical Officer of Health of the port of Liverpool on the subject last month. There were three cases of smallpox on board the vessel, and it appears from the report that, owing to the critical condition of one patient and the height of the steamer above the decks of the tug, it was considered unsafe to land the patients in the tug, and arrangements were accordingly made to land them at the stage. On arriving at the stage no one was allowed on board, due notice being given to those

  663
  on the stage of the reason; the people were cleared off the gangway and every precaution appears to have been taken in the landing of the patients to prevent any spread of infection. I may add that all infected bedding and clothing were burnt, suspected articles were disinfected, and the vessel was thoroughly fumigated and washed down. I see no reason for objecting to the course adopted in this case.

  Exports of Wheat and Flour from India.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the ports from which wheat and flour have been exported from India for the year 1901–2, and to which countries and ports have they been shipped, together with the respective quantities of wheat and flour.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I Exports of wheat from India in 1901–2:—

  From

  Tons

  To

  Tons

  Calcutta

  3,261

  United Kingdom

  197,550

  Belgium

  61,181

  Bombay

  4,165

  France

  4,951

  Germany

  2,000

  Karachi

  358,665

  Holland

  5,772

  Italy

  1,200

  British East Africa

  318

  Egypt

  84,494

  Mauritius

  375

  Aden

  647

  Arabia

  2,393

  Hong Kong

  778

  Persia

  3,076

  Turkey in Asia

  1,133

  Other countries

  223

  Total

  366,091

  366,091

  II. Exports of wheat flour from India in 1901–2:—

  From

  Cwts.

  To

  Cwts.

  Calcutta

  27,408

  British East Africa

  91,105

  Mauritius

  99,855

  Bombay

  420,052

  Aden

  124,582

  Arabia

  106,634

  Karachi

  81,857

  Ceylon

  59,128

  Persia

  26,295

  Other countries

  21,718

  Total

  529,317

  529,317

  The Trade Returns show the names of the countries only, without specifying the ports.

  Management of the Uganda Railway.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  664
  Affairs, whether it is the intention of the Government to retain the management of the Uganda Railway permanently in the hands of the Railway Committee of the Foreign Office.
  (Answered by Lord Cranbome.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative, but I hope shortly to lay on the Table Papers which will explain the intentions of His Majesty's Government in the matter.

  Construction of the Ballyroney and Newcastle Railway.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if the construction of the Ballyroney and Newcastle (county Down) Railway has yet been commenced; and, if not, when the work of construction is likely to be entered upon by the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland and the Belfast and County Down Railway Company respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is understood that neither of the two companies mentioned in the Question has commenced the construction of the line. The Commissioners of Public Works learn from the arbitrator, who was appointed by them under statute, that progress with the award in respect to the lands proposed to be taken by the Great Northern Company has been stayed at the request of that company, in order to enable it to negotiate with regard to some of the lands. The draft award in the case of the lands proposed to be taken by the Belfast and County Down Railway Company has been forwarded to the company's solicitors by the arbitrator for some information necessary for its completion. The statutory period for completion of the line extends to 30th July, 1905.

  Treasure Trove Purchased by Royal Irish Academy.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can give particulars as to number, price, and total amount of the purchases by the Royal Irish Academy from finders of treasure-trove since June, 1896, through the medium of the Constabulary, in accordance with the arrangement stated to have

  665
  been sanctioned by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in the circular issued by the President of the Academy in that year; and also the total annual sum available for the purchase of objects of antiquity by the Royal Irish Academy.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Since June 1896 only one object of treasure-trove (a gold armlet for which a sum of £4 was paid) was purchased through the medium of the Constabulary, all the other antiquities purchased having been sent to the Academy directly. The amount available annually for the purchase of antiquities is £100.

  Military Stores sent to South Africa.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the value of military stores sent to South Africa during the years 1901 and 1902; and how much of their values are due to normal and to extraordinary war expenditure in each year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The value of military stores (which exclude clothing and food supplies) sent to South Africa during 1901–2 and 1902–3 was approximately £2,699,000 and £975,000. Of these amounts about £162,000 may be taken on each of the two years as the normal expenditure, the balance being due to the war.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure—Mr. Lees Knowles; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Samuel Roberts.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  [THIRD READING].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid that last Friday, when addressing the House, his remarks were interrupted by the adjournment, and he was very glad of that, because during the past week he had received a letter from a barrister which expressed very well indeed some weighty objections to this Bill. That gentleman in his letter said there was no second opinion among those who practice in the Courts that the Bill would be madness under present conditions. The effect, it was pointed out, would be to add to the costs of small suitors on account of the adjournment of cases through want of time to deal with them. That barrister stated that he had known a case for £19 adjourned four times, owing to the Court being crowded with work. It was said that all solicitors were in favour of the Bill because they practised in the County Court, and that all barristers were against the Bill because it would diminish their practice. He was against all such calumnious, objections. This was a matter that ought not to be regarded from the point of view of those who most expressed the opinion of the commercial classes. Of course the commercial classes were in favour of the Bill. They wanted to get a Court to decide more expeditiously than the High Court in the suits in which they were interested, and it was to them a matter of little concern that small suitors should be put to inconvenience, delay, or expense. It was, he thought, the business of this House to see that that result did not happen. They had been told that the Bill was not workable, and that there would be considerable congestion of business in the Courts. The poor man would be put to considerable difficulty, and he would only have the consolation that those who might have gone to the High Court would gain an advantage from a system of jurisdiction which was originally intended and principally suited for small business. If they set up the system proposed by this Bill they would crowd out the poorer litigants for whom the County Courts were originally intended. Under these circumstances he should feel it to be his duty to give his vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that in view of the remarks made

  667
  by the Solicitor-General when the Bill was under discussion last week he now proposed to make a Motion which at all events would enable the House to discuss whether or not proper machinery should be provided for the carrying out of this Bill. It had been contended with great truth that the County Court Judges at the present time had sufficient work to do—there were no doubt cases in which they could well do more—and that the extra work entailed upon them by this Bill was greater than they would have time to perform. He had no doubt that County Court Judges could undertake more work in the country districts, but in the large centres they could not do so. It was obvious that provision must be made to enable the County Courts to carry out the extra work which the Bill would entail. If he could prove that, he submitted that he should have made out an overwhelming case for this House considering how the Bill was to be carried out. In regard to the general principle of the Bill, if they were going to deal with the question of County Court jurisdiction the whole system had to be reconsidered. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton said last week that when the Act was passed in 1888 there was a demand for the reconsideration of the whole system Let them be logical, and revise the whole system, and not make the present system more unworkable than it was. They had been told by the Attorney-General that that was what this Bill would do. The Bill proposed to raise the limit from £50 to £100, and it incidentally dealt with the question of the costs of those actions. He was surprised that his hon. friend in charge of the Bill should take up the position he had done in regard to the question of costs. By increasing the limit they were increasing the number of cases where the plaintiff would not get his costs. The whole support of the Bill was based on the assumption that there would be a greater demand for County Court work, and if they were going to compel people to go into the County Courts they were penalising the plaintiffs in successful actions, because if they went into the High Court with cases up to £100 their expenses would be allowed. He understood that the
  668
  County Court costs which were allowed were very meagre as compared with other costs. A Return laid before the House showed that last year there were 799,930 cases decided by the County Court Judges and that only 10,738 were decided in favour of the defendants. That was one in eighty. That showed that this Bill was going to work very unfairly to the very persons whom it ought to be the duty of this House to protect. That might be a small point, but it was one his hon. friend should consider more seriously than he had done, and he should put some provision in the Bill whereby successful litigants should not be penalised.
  It was a peculiar fact that the work in the County Courts increased when trade was good, and that there were fewer cases when trade was diminishing. There was a large diminution between 1880 and 1884 which, as was well known, was a period of more or less prosperity. But since then there had been an increase in the quantity of work in every respect, and last year showed the largest increase in the amount of work done by the County Courts that had taken place since they were first established. The House was well aware that cases could be entered for over £50 by agreement between the parties concerned. In the period between 1876 and 1880 there were only 403 of such cases, but in the period from 1897 to 1901 there were 1,604. Of course the supporters of the Bill would assume that that was a sign that there was a desire for the Bill, but surely if it was so, proper provision should be made to enable the Courts to carry out the work. If they passed the Bill and placed this extra work on the County Courts they must increase the staff. He did not say that at present they were overworked, but they were fully worked. The offices were none too big for the work that had to be carried out at present. It might be argued that the County Court Judges were paid sufficiently at present for any extra work which would fall upon them under the Bill. He did not think that was really so, and if extra work were put upon them they would have to get extra pay. Cheap labour in any form was generally not very satisfactory, and, therefore, the £1,500 a year which was given to a County Court Judge with no pension,

  669
  except in cases of ill-health, would have to be increased if they gave him extra work. If more work was going to be given to these County Court Judges than they could do, then assistance must be also given them. And that would cost money; but there was no provision in the Bill for this extra cost. A great deal more work had been put on the County Court Judges on account of the Workmen's Compensation Act. A very interesting Return was laid on the Table of the House on 25th March last, which showed that during the year 1901 the total number of cases brought into the County Courts under that Act was 1,918 compared with 1,636 in the previous year. And the number of cases brought under the Employers' Liability Act was 590, being a small increase over the previous year. It might, of course, be argued that the Workmen's Compensation Act had brought more work to the County Courts on account of the uncertainty of the drafting of that Act, and the many questions which had been taken from the County Courts to the Court of Appeal. That might be true in regard to law, but his experience was that where the employer disputed a claim—which a good employer never did on a question of law, because he would have to accept the decision of the higher Court—on a question of amount they would still go into the County Court. Therefore he was going to move that the Bill should be recommitted for the insertion of a new clause to provide for the additional expense that would be incurred.
  It might be contended that the Motion which he had put down on the Paper was not the proper way of carrying out his purpose. But no private Member could move a Motion which would make a charge on the public funds. The County Court Judges were paid out of the Consolidated Fund and it would therefore be impossible for him to put down a charge on that Fund. Therefore the only thing he could do was to put the charge on the county rate. He admitted frankly, that such a way of dealing with the matter was not the right way; but he must do it somehow. He hoped that his right hon. friend the Attorney-General would move the omission of those words in his Amendment, and take upon himself the responsibility
  670
  of providing the necessary costs. It might also be argued that all that was necessary to be done could be accomplished by an Order in Council. But that would involve a new clause. His reply to that was that the new clause could be put in in another place. He thought that this House was not doing its duty when it allowed a Bill to pass which, it was within their knowledge, would be unworkable; and leave it to another place to make it workable. It was the duty of this House to consider properly that such Bills as were sent to another place should be in such a state that they were likely to receive approval there. He hoped that his right hon. friend, if he could not agree to his proposed new clause, would sanction the re-committal of the Bill. If the Government thought that this Bill was a desirable Bill to be passed; if they thought that it would facilitate the mercantile community in carrying on their commerce; if they thought that the County Courts should be made more use of, and that that would be of general benefit to the community, it was their bounden duty to see that proper provision was made for carrying it out. If they did not think that the plan he had suggested was the proper way to carry out the object they had in view, his hon. friend was bound to support the re-committal of the Bill. He begged to move.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that after the weighty and exhaustive speech of the hon. Member for Manchester it was not necessary for him to take up much of the time of the House in explaining why he supported the Motion just made. The main point of the speech of his hon. friend was one which, it seemed to him, presented insuperable difficulty to those concerned in passing this Bill. In fact, it was unanswerable. The work of the County Courts was already congested; their time was already fully occupied; and it had, of late, been increased by the growing complexity of modern life. Now, no provision had been made in the Bill to do this work by improved machinery; and unless some such provision was made, it was perfectly obvious that it would be unfair not only to the classes of people at present included in the Bill, but to the classes proposed to be included. The

  671
  poorer class of litigants would find their business delayed, because the time of the County Courts would be occupied with that of the more important clients; while the decision of the cases of the latter class would be delayed by the consideration of the cases of the poorer class. It would, therefore, be unfair to each of these classes separately, and the conjunction of the unfairness to the two classes would aggravate the evil. Under these circumstances he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. friend.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'be' and add the words 'recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of a new clause (Increase of Courts).'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that no one could find fault with his hon. friend for the temper and ability with which he had stated his case against the Bill. But there were two points on which he was disposed to differ from his hon. friend. His hon. friend protested against doing anything in a hurry. He quite agreed; and if the hon. Member had been helping them at an early stage of the Bill they would have been less open to the charge of exhibiting undue haste. The Bill passed its Second Reading without a division; it went through Committee without a division; and on the Report stage there was one division on an Amendment which was defeated by 197 to 52. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham said that the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester was unanswerable.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not allege that the speech was unanswerable, but that if it was not unanswerable it would have to be answered.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he could only attempt to answer it on the point raised by the hon. Member. He might point to an hon. Gentleman opposite who had himself been a County Court Judge, and who had given an unswerving support to this Bill. He himself had been a practitioner in the County Court,
  672
  and was registrar of a County Court for twelve or fourteen years, and during that time it was his business to try to become acquainted with the matter. In his experience the County Courts had served a great purpose both in the interests of the poor and of the commercial community. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand cases passing through County Courts involved small amounts, and were practically not heard at all. They were practically undefended cases. He himself disposed of 700 or 800 of such cases, each involving only one minute's consideration, in a day. A great fact in the history of County Courts was that it had been the policy of Parliament, ever since 1847, to gradually increase their jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was increased from £20 to £50, and at that time the same arguments were employed against the proposal which had now been amply shown to be fallacious. In one form or another Parliament had placed on the County Court duties which they admirably fulfilled, as a rule. Figures showed that the smaller cases had not been neglected. Equally, cases involving commercial questions had been decided at infinitely less cost though not without proper remuneration to solicitors and others, the cost being less because witnesses had not to be taken to linger in London for days and days. The witnesses were on the spot, and the local administration of justice was in evidence. His hon. friend had appealed to the law officers of the Crown to make this Bill a workable measure. From the first moment of the introduction of the Bill they had begged the law officers of the Crown to state where it was not workable, and to help to provide the necessary machinery; and though his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General had deemed it his duty to take up a more or less neutral position in connection with the Bill, he was sure that his hon. and learned friend's knowledge of Scottish procedure must have satisfied him that there was a case even for unlimited jurisdiction with, of course, the right of removal. The only question in the Committee was whether the jurisdiction should not be £500 instead of £100, and the £100 was ultimately adopted in great measure as a compromise. He hoped in another place the Government would supply any deficiencies that might exist, although he himself did not admit any.

  673
  Up to the present that had not been the attitude of the Government. The attitude of the Government, as expressed by the Lord Chancellor in connection with this reform, was to object to the principle of the extension of jurisdiction. In Chambers of Commerce and elsewhere they had tried to meet the views of the Government. His right hon. friend and himself introduced a Bill of numerous clauses with adequate machinery, and he had a letter from the Lord Chancellor written in 1898 in which he stated that if the occasion should arrive for discussing the subject with a view to legislation, his Lordship would consider the question of receiving a deputation. He had also a letter from the Lord Chancellor in which he objected entirely to the extension of jurisdiction. The House of Commons had, however, decided otherwise and had emphatically approved the feeling in the country that local Courts should have expended jurisdiction.
  Where was the lack of machinery? Was it a question of expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had frequently stated that money could be obtained through the Estimates without the necessity for legislation at all. The Treasury would take the fees; and if the fees were too high the ruling Committee of Judges could alter them. If the Treasury took the fees then the Treasury was bound to provide the necessary machinery. Then his hon. friend referred to the necessity for buildings. There was no necessity for that. Every locality was bound to place the town hall or the parish hall at the disposal of a County Court Judge; and the vast increase in cities and parishes of local government provided ample accommodation without the necessity of spending a penny on Courts. Take the Westminster County Court district. Both the present town hall and the Caxton Hall would be available. There was no need for any expenditure in that direction. Then it was said that the Judges would be inadequate for the work. He had heard so many general statements of that character that he had taken the trouble to get the actual figures with reference to the employment of Judges. He might be allowed to state, with a large experience, that there might be exceptions which were difficult to deal with among County Court Judges; but there were
  674
  other Judges equally difficult to deal with, and not at all more competent. What was required was really a redistribution of the work. There was power by Order in Council to alter the time and place where the Court sat and to provide additional assistance, either an additional Judge or an additional registrar. He was not impeaching the devotion to duty displayed by the Judges. Very much the contrary, but he found that in the Metropolis, out of say 300 available working days, the average number of sittings was 171. In the country the average number of sittings was only 146, and it was quite evident that if the average was only 146, there must have been many cases in which the number of sittings was below that. That showed that it was redistribution and re-arrangement that was wanted, and that could be done without the necessity for legislation.
  His hon. friend also referred to the question of remuneration. He thought that underpaid judicial work was as bad and as disadvantageous as any other underpaid work, and he quite agreed that if as the result of experience there was undue pressure on any Court, it would have to be redressed. But surely they might ask for experience first as to how far the existing margin would be available. His hon. friend said that there would be no pension. That was not correct practically, because, if the Judge were permanently disabled, the Lord Chancellor could grant him two-thirds of his salary, and, as a matter of fact, that happened. He quite agreed that in some cases, but by no means in all, certainly not in cases where the Judges were under-worked, there might be a claim for remuneration, and that claim would have to be attended to. If it were a question of too high fees, the Committee of the Judges with the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor could reduce them, and if it were a question of unequal work that could be remedied by redistribution. He quite admitted that if an increase of work fell upon the Judges, they would have an equitable claim to consideration. At present there was a great stagnation of justice in consequence of the impossibility of prosecuting cases involving only £100 in the High Courts. That was a most costly and unwise proceeding which no

  675
  solicitor would advise, unless the question of principle was involved. Adequate machinery could be provided if the Government would only help. The reform proposed in the Bill was supported by the whole commercial community. It affected the administration of justice in this country, and it would remove a great sense of injustice owing to the cost of prosecuting cases in the High Courts. On those grounds he hoped that the House would re-affirm the principle that there was need for legislation, and that all the suggested Amendments were corollary to the passage of the measure; and if experience justified it, they would follow as incidents of a Bill which he believed to be a large step in the direction of law and reform.
  *MR. DUKEsaid he desired to inform his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General that, as far as he was aware, commercial men looked with a great deal of anxiety to the attitude which the Government had adopted in connection with this Bill. There was a sense of injustice and of wrong which, if not removed by this Bill or some other Bill, would very formidably react against those who were responsible for its continuance. He could assure his hon. and learned friend that commercial men did not think that on a question of this kind it was sufficient for the Government to maintain a policy of splendid detachment and inaction. It was a matter in which settled convictions were expected, and if they were not found the responsibility for not possessing them would not be regarded as insignificant. It had never been denied, it could not be denied, that the commercial community of this country, to the well being of which they attached so much consequence, was practically unanimous in its dissatisfaction at the present mode of dealing with a certain class of actions at law. Chambers of Commerce were unanimous in the matter ever since he had known anything about them, now some twenty years. One branch of the legal profession which was in direct contact with litigants in this country, and which was to a great extent responsible for the opinions which had been ex-
  676
  pressed by the Chambers of Commerce, was entirely in accord with that opinion. The other branch of the profession, of which he himself had the honour of being a member, showed divided opinion. At the present time common law cases involving over £50 could be remitted to the County Courts, and cases involving larger amounts could be remitted under certain technical restrictions. The average number of cases remitted by consent between 1876 and 1880 was about 400, but between 1897 and 1901 the average was 16,004 per annum. That showed that at any rate in the great centres of population there was absolute confidence in the capacity of County Court Judges to deal with that class of action. There was also power in a district registry and the central office in the High Court to remit to the County Court Judges other common law actions not limited in amount to £100. In the last year for which there were statistics 16,000 such actions were remitted, 2,000 being from the Metropolitan County Courts, and the County Courts of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff, and Brighton. That showed that there was great anxiety on the part of litigants to have their litigation disposed of as near as possible to their own residences and with reasonable cheapness. He did not see how it could be seriously suggested in the face of those facts that the demand of the representatives of the commercial community did not disclose a real evil which should be dealt with. To his mind it was not enough, and he spoke with all respect, that the Government, charged with the administration of justice as one of the first concerns of a civilised community, should merely say with reference to a measure of this kind that it would not do. This was not a competition upon a prize puzzle. Reform of the administration of justice should not be settled by a sort of guessing competition. It was not enough to say to the competitors "You are wrong." Somebody was responsible in the matter, and he hoped the question would not be looked upon entirely from the point of view of the imperfections of the present Bill.
  For his part, he believed that this Bill in its present form would practically

  677
  wreck the ancient system of the administration of civil justice in this country, by the trial of causes on the Circuits, and he looked at the prospect with something like dismay. For the greater part of his working life he had been engaged in attempting to help in the administration of justice, and he might be pardoned if he felt concern at any such prospect. But this country did not exist for the sake of the judicial system or the legal profession. They existed to meet the necessities of the country. The great question he should like to see debated was what ought to be done with an admitted administrative evil. It was also said that this Bill would wreck the County Court system. He thought there was risk of that. It should be remembered that 50,000 actions passed through these Courts every year. They were actions of little people who came into Court very frequently from their work, and to whom it was a very serious question whether they lost half a day's work or perhaps a day's work. Dozens, sometimes scores, of such cases were disposed of in the course of the day, usually to the satisfaction of the litigants. It was a very serious matter to those poor people whether a change of procedure in the judicial forum established to deal with disputes which affected their social life and interest as vitally as the great disputes of commercial men affected theirs, should result in the denial of justice to them. What would happen under this Bill? At the present time, and he believed any hon. Member who had practical experience in the administration of the law would agree, any case which had anything in it would practically occupy a working day. Some cases occupied three or four days, and he had known cases adjourned from sitting to sitting and which ultimately had to be heard in instalments of one day at a time until the inconvenience disgusted the suitors. The serious question with regard to County Court jurisdiction was whether Parliament would put on County Court Judges who were created to act as Judges of small debt Courts in this country cases which would occupy days to the interruption of the business for which the Court was created. As the representative of a commercial constituency he
  678
  regarded the interests of the community with great concern, but in the form in which it was now the Bill would be a mockery both for suitors in the High Court and suitors in the County Court. He had received a letter from a gentleman who had very great experience on the subject, and who stated that for years the commercial community had been trying to have steps taken to have disputes for moderate amounts settled in the County Courts and that they were supported by every newspaper of standing in the country. His correspondent added that the present circuit system was practically moribund, that many actions were remitted to the County Court, with the result that "the proper business of those Courts is blocked and the responsibility of the Judges more than doubled." That was the statement of a man who knew the facts as well, and perhaps better, than any other man in this country. In his opinion it would not be proper on the part of the Government to permit this Bill to be passed in a form in which it would prevent County Courts from discharging to a great extent the special work they were established to discharge.
  With regard to the Assize system, statistics showed that at the present time the bulk of the business was concerned with cases between £50 and £100 and if an average were taken it would be found that the amount involved in the majority of such cases was nearer £50 than £100. In some towns the Assizes were little more than a solemn pageant. There were two Assize towns in the country where since 1889 the combined number of cases to talled three. That was a very serious matter. There was a yearly increasing resort to the County Courts, whereas the ancient forum of justice was substantially deserted. It showed a condition of things to which it was not possible that any Government should be indifferent. A good deal had been said about the attitude of solicitors and of the bar. At the annual general meeting of the bar, on the Motion of Sir Edward Clarke this Bill was criticised but no veto was put upon it. It was criticised because of its defects and the absolute absence of machinery. He would respectfully urge the Government to deal with this question as a practical question. He

  679
  hoped that the attention which this Bill had evoked would have the effect of introducing some prospect of an early change in the judicial system such as would enable the County Courts to be utilised as far as they could, but which would, at any rate, provide a forum in the great towns in connection with the High Court which would satisfy the demand of the commercial community of the country. Although he thought that the Bill in the form in which it stood would have a mischievous effect on the judicial system he could not vote against the Third Heading because he regarded it as a protest against a policy of inaction in face of a serious and reasonable public demand.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said his hon. and learned friend had just announced his intention of voting for the Bill although he regarded it as an impossible measure and one which, if it became law, would wreck the administration of justice not only in the High Court but in the County Court.
  *MR. DUKE: I said I should not vote against the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought the hon. and learned Gentleman went further. Undoubtedly the circumstances were very peculiar, for they had one Member moving the recommittal of the Bill to insert a clause which he knew to be impossible, and another declining to vote against the Third Reading, though he believed it would wreck the judicial administration of the country. The only question before the House concerned the merits of this particular Bill, and he could not accept the invitation to enter into a general discussion of the whole question of the judicial arrangements of the country. It was said that Chambers of Commerce throughout the country were in favour of the Bill. But there was one important exception to the approval of the Bill by the Chambers of Commerce. Liverpool had passed a Resolution against it.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid Liverpool had two County Court Judges.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid other large towns and cities also had local Courts of their own. He considered that the opinion of Liverpool in any case was entitled to weight; and he thought the Chambers of Commerce, who had petitioned in favour of the Bill, intended rather to express a general aspiration to have an extension of County Court jurisdiction than an opinion on the merits of the Bill.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that with the one exception referred to by the Attorney-General, the Chambers of Commerce had petitioned in favour of the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was afraid that they did not fully appreciate the effect the Bill would have in penalising those who might desire to bring actions into the High Court, and who might fail to obtain High Court costs if the amount could have been recovered in the County Courts. There was a, means under Order 14 by which, summary procedure could be obtained in the High Court in cases in which there was no real defence, and there was a danger that if this Bill were carried. High Court costs would be withheld.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that if judgment was obtained under Order 14 full costs were now recoverable.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid this did not affect his observation that, if it were made possible to obtain judgment for sums up to £100 in County Courts, the High Court costs might not be given. This Bill, in any case, would seriously injure the County Court system, although he was not prepared to go quite so far as the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who said the Bill was calculated to wreck the whole system of the administration of justice. A County Court Judge, of great experience and ability, assured him that the effect of the Bill on the working of the County Court system in the Metropolis would be most serious. The County Courts were introduced as Courts for the recovery of small debts. If other actions, involving a prolonged hearing, were admitted, there would be serious interference with that

  681
  work. There was a danger of overstraining the machine. If such a change were to be contemplated by the Government it would be necessary to see what additions to the judgeships, the office staffs, and the building accommodation were necessary. The country could not be committed to the additional expenditure thus involved without in quiry and a well-considered plan. It would be seen, therefore, that this measure dealt only with a very small part of a large subject; and he was not at all surprised that the Treasury had not given authority for incurring expenditure in the promotion of such a measure as this, which, however well meant, did not and could not deal with the whole subject. He was unable to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester because he looked on it as quite as unworkable as the Bill itself.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid there was something about the debate which was altogether outside the Bill under discussion. When speeches were delivered in such a debate by some of the most distinguished of the younger Members of the House who, while they might have a wide acquaintance with many things, had very little acquaintance with the administration of justice, but felt very strongly about other Bills, Members generally might perhaps form their own conclusions. Without further alluding to that point, he would turn to the speech of the Attorney-General, which he was bound to gay he did not understand. He altogether denied the proposition of the hon. and learned Member that the Bill was unworkable and would break down for want of necessary additional machinery. There was no necessity to appoint any additional Judges. There were at present fifty-nine County Court Judges, and the Act of 1888 provided for the appointment of sixty. What was really wanted was a redistribution of judicial work. On that point he would have to trouble the House with a few figures, especially after the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester, who had spoken almost with tears of the enormous amount of work performed in the district with which he was most familiar.
  682
  There was a district in Lancashire in which only five Courts were held. What were the figures concerning that district last year? The average number of days in the judicial year of a High Court Judge was from 200 to 210. In this district, which included the towns of Bury, Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, and Wigan, there were only 146 sittings in the year before the Judge. How could an increase in the number of Judges be asked for under such circumstances? No doubt London was exceptional, but the Lord Chancellor had power to transfer any of the Judges, to redistribute the sittings as he liked, or to take a Judge from a district where he was not doing sufficient work and add him to another. Even with the jurisdiction extended, he was not prepared to admit there was any necessity to increase the number of County Court Judges. Originally, no doubt, these Courts were instituted to take the place of the small debt Courts, but that position had long since passed away. There were not small debt Courts now. In several respects the jurisdiction of the County Courts had been extended by the Act of 1888 to cases up to £500, and there were men sitting on the County Court Bench who were quite competent to sit in the High Court, and whose appointment to the High Court would be hailed with satisfaction by the public. Where, then, was the machinery to break down?
  He admitted the case of London would have to be considered by itself. He thought additional Judges would be wanted in London, but there would be no difficulty in securing them. As to the buildings, that question would settle itself. The judicial accommodation produced by the County Courts would compare very favourably with the judicial accommodation provided for the superior Courts thirty years ago. But supposing these difficulties did exist, they could be dealt with in another place. The House of Lords had a form by which they dealt provisionally for expenditure, and there were in that chamber a large number of Judges and ex-Judges, and other eminent lawyers, who could remedy every defect which had been pointed out. He was not, however, advocating any addition. He thought it much better that the principle of the extended jurisdiction should be affirmed, and the experiment

  683
  fairly tried, before the country was committed to any extra expenditure. He would certainly oppose any addition to the judicial staff until the experiment had been tested. Since 1888 and before the Associated Chambers of Commerce had been asking for this Bill. For years all the mysterious delays attending private Members' legislation had been suffered, but now at last the Bill had a chance. The question was so undebatable that the Measure passed its Second Reading and through the Grand Committee without a division, and he had ventured to say, perhaps somewhat boldly, that it was the duty of the Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Crown, and the law officer of the House of Commons, under these circumstances, if he thought the Bill needed amending, to prepare clauses for the purpose. If the hon. and learned Member had not had time he could doubtless have obtained assistance from his two young friends who had taken so much interest in the debate and who had shown such strikingability in the matter of drafting Amendments. But the Attorney-General had not done so, although the House, by an immense majority, composed of all shades of political opinion, had expressed its desire that the Bill should pass. He thought the debate had now served its purpose; having lasted an hour and a half, it had paid sufficient toll to the exigencies of the situation. But there was something due to the House itself, and to the commercial community outside, and it was with perfect confidence he asked the House to proceed at once to read the Bill a third time.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid it was a novel doctrine to come from the right hon. Gentleman that a Bill should be sent to the House of Lords in an imperfect state in order that it might be put right there.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: I did not say it was in an imperfect state. I do not think it is.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had been rather accustomed to resent such proceedings on the part of the House of Lords. However, he had come to the House with the intention of seeing this Bill through, as he had received many communications from his constituents in favour of the passage of the Measure. Addressing a lay intelligence only to the question, he totally failed to see the constitutional dangers in the way of extending the ordinary jurisdiction of County Courts up to £100. In Scotland the Sheriff Courts dealt with higher values with great success, and they wanted law as cheap as they could get it. To increase the limit should be a great boon to a numerous class of suitors, and he did not know why there would be such terrible dangers as had been predicted. He hoped the Attorney-General would vote for the Third Reading, and not lead into the division lobby a large number of hon. Members against the Bill.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was mistaken in regard to his object in opposing the Bill. After what had fallen from the Attorney-General, and in view of the fact that the Government; were not willing to put in clauses to make the Bill workable, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment and divide the House on the Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put:
  The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 10. (Division List No. 133.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bond, Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Asher, Alexander

  Brigg, John

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Austin, Sir John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burt, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Caldwell, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasg.)

  Crombie, John William

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rigg, Richard

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Runciman, Walter

  Doughty, George

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Russell, T. W.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Emmott, Alfred

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Lundon, W.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Spear John Ward

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Garfit, William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Toulmin, George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walrond, Rt. H. Sir William H.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  O'Doherty, William

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  O'Shee, James John

  Wood, James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Partington, Oswald

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Young, Samuel

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Purvis, Robert

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pym, C. Guy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Sir Albert Rollit and Sir

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rea, Russell

  James Woodhouse.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reckitt, Harold James

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Mr. Galloway and Mr.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Winston Churchill.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Question put and agreed to.

  GUINEA POSTAL ORDERS BILL.
  [THIRD READING].
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that this Bill which had been brought forward by his hon. friend was not one to which he wished to offer any serious opposition. His hon. friend was so well known for the interest he took in all Postal questions, and was so widely reputed as one of the greatest authorities on these questions, that any proposal he might make must be
  686
  received with the greatest respect and attention. His hon. friend was fortunately in his place, and all that he wished to do in respect to the interesting proposal which his hon. friend had made was to ask him a few questions, which no doubt he would be able to answer, and remove from his mind any lingering doubt he might have as to the expediency of this proposal. His hon. friend might perhaps be able to explain why it was necessary to have such a Bill at all. One would have thought that such a matter could have been dealt with by the Postmaster-General on his own responsibility; and

  687
  that it should have been necessary to take up the time of the House, whose business was already so much congested, with such a Bill, was a serious reflection on the efficiency of the public administration. He supposed there were some constitutional reasons which prevented the Postmaster-General issuing Postal Orders for a guinea. He had searched diligently for them, but had found none. He would like to ask his hon. friend how much his proposal was going to cost, because they were bound in these days to scrutinise with care every item of expenditure. He had often thought that the printing bill of the country was a matter for very serious consideration. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on printing, and any new proposal to increase that expenditure must be looked upon with caution. In the next place he wanted to know where was the Postmaster-General? One would have imagined that, when any measure like this, which affected his Department, came before the House, the right hon. Gentleman would have been in his place, and would have been able to have told the House how much this proposal was going to cost. The Postmaster-General took a great interest in the working of his Department, and it was to be hoped that his absence on this occasion did not portend that his attention had been withdrawn from the work of his Department, and that he was not being entangled in the controversy regarding preferential tariff's which might compromise an otherwise brilliant career. He should like to know, apart from the question of cost, what was the reason for this particular postal order for a guinea? It seemed to him that the existing postal order for twenty shillings and another for a shilling would achieve every purpose of a guinea postal order. Those who dealt in guineas were not usually of the impoverished class. His hon. friend, he believed, said that the guinea postal order would be useful for charitable purposes. It occurred to him that if the proposal of his hon. friend were adopted it might encourage the demands on Members of Parliament for subscriptions to Football Clubs, Christmas Goose Clubs Choral Societies, Lyceums, and the like.
  688
  He himself held very strong views as to the shocking abuse which already existed in the expenditure of Members of Parliament in these directions, and he did not feel inclined to afford any further facilities for extending that abuse.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he hoped the House was going to receive some explanation as to the necessity of such a Bill. There was really no practical difficulty at present in remitting a guinea. It was perfectly possible to obtain a postal order for a shilling, and another for twenty shillings and putting the two together there was the guinea. Moreover, he would point out that for many years past there had been no such coin as a guinea; and coins of a sovereign and a shilling were already provided for by legislation. They had been told by the Postmaster-General, whose interest in this Bill was well illustrated by his absence, that these Postal Orders had to be printed at the public cost, and that large numbers had to be kept in stock. Now, the effect of this Bill, if passed, would be that a large portion of the stock at present in hand would be rendered useless, and that might require the interposition of a public committee of inquiry. With a Bill of this sort before the House there ought to be some representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench. That the Treasury Bench should be deserted in this manner was discourteous to the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was very much in favour of the Bill of his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury; but it was hardly treating the House of Commons with respect that no member of the Government was present when such an important Bill was being considered. If the Postmaster-General himself could not be present, he ought to have sent a substitute. (At this point Mr. H. W. Forster entered the House, and took his seat on the Treasury Bench.) They had the satisfaction at last of seeing one of the Government satellites come in, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would indicate what the Postmaster-General thought of this Bill. It was no extreme inconvenience to be obliged to take out two small orders in

  689
  order to make up a given sum. Really he thought the Third Reading of the Bill was only a question of time, and when a certain hour was reached, no doubt the Sill would be passed with the cordial assent of the Member for Oldham as well as of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsuggested to the hon. Member for Canterbury that he should consider the advisability of withdrawing the Bill in order to enable the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill to be proceeded with. His hon. friends the Members for Oldham and Greenwich were strongly opposed to this Postal Order Bill, and therefore felt compelled to discuss it fully; but, on the other hand, they were extremely anxious to see the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill pass into law, and it would be a pity to disappoint them. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury would drop his Bill for the present.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the hon. Member who last spoke was a comparatively new Member of the House, or he would have known that the adoption of such a course would not bring him any nearer the object he had in view, as he would see by the congested state of the order-book. The hon. Member for Canterbury really had good cause for complaining that there was no representative of the Post Office present that afternoon. The hon. Member had worked at that subject for many years, and in spite of the opposition of the Post Office he had produced many reforms. It was therefore unfair that when a Bill of that kind came before the House the Postmaster-General should not be in his place to assist in carrying it, and to congratulate the hon. Member on the successful issue of his labours. It was very important that they should have some explanation from the Treasury as to the cost of issuing these orders. The Return showed an increasing issue of orders every year; the last Report gave a total of £13,000,000 odd, as compared with £9,000,000 in 1882, and that surely afforded ample justification for granting increased facilities for the issue of orders. Undoubtedly there had been some slight falling off in the number of 1s. orders issued in the same period, but no doubt
  690
  that could be easily explained. But if the issue of guinea orders was to be attended with a considerable increase of cost, would not that materially reduce the large profit now earned? He would like to know also if the cost of keeping up the stock of orders would not be very considerable. He hoped that some satisfactory assurances would be forthcoming on these points, as he did not want either to vote for the adjournment of the debate or for the rejection of the Bill.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid he was too sensible of the kindness extended to him by the House of Commons in past years to ignore the appeals addressed to him on this occasion by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This Guinea Postal Order question had been before the House of Commons for many years, and the introduction of the Bill had been rendered necessary by the fact that no power was given in the original Act for issue of orders of this denomination. The Bill had the warm support of the Postmaster-General; the goodwill of the Leaders of the Opposition, of the Leader of the Nationalist Party, and of the leading commercial men in the House. With regard to the question of cost he could assure hon. Members that the issue of postal orders was the most profitable branch of Post Office business. On lost orders alone the Government made a profit of £12,000 a year, and under the contract which had just been entered into, the saving would be more than sufficient to cover the cost of the new issue.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: There is the cost of the printing, and the loss of the extra halfpenny now obtained.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid the saving would also cover the cost of supplying counterfoils. The bankers of the United Kingdom had in a most generous manner withdrawn their objection to the issue of guinea orders and he would like to point out how convenient it would be to many persons to be able to send away their contributions to charitable and other societies in a single order. The guinea was popular because the shilling paid the expenses, and the charitable institutions, etc., had £1 clear. He hoped that after this explanation hon. Members would allow the Bill to pass.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSnext rose.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I hope that will be unnecessary and that the debate will not be unduly prolonged.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he only wanted to point out that no account had been taken by the hon. Member of indirect loss on cheques for a guinea which would no longer be drawn.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Not one farthing.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he could not accept that view. He felt that there would be a loss on cheques which would cease to be drawn if the Bill were passed. He, like other hon. Members, resented the absence, of the representative of the Post Office, but possibly as the hon. Member for Canterbury long ago earned the sobriquet of "the Postmaster-General" the present state of the Front Bench was intended to be some sort of official recognition that postal matters were in future to be left in his hands.

  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but he wished to point out a flaw in it. The Bill, while regulating the hiring of land by County and Borough Councils, to be afterwards leased to Volunteers for shooting practice, omitted to deal with the case of the purchase of land, which was also contemplated in one of the clauses. That defect, he feared, vitiated the whole Bill. It was strictly the business of the Government to concern itself with this question, and a Bill which involved a charge on the rates should not, in his opinion, be in the hands of a private Member.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he had allowed the Bill to pass former stages with the greatest possible reluctance. It was practically a Government Bill, introduced through the medium of a private Member; it would enable Councils, at the expense of the rates, to hire land for purely military purposes, and he protested against the opening given by the Bill to the military authorities, to place what were really Imperial obligations on the local rates. The Volunteer forces now constituted a distinct part of our Army Corps system. He believed there was nothing to prevent the Crown, by Royal Proclamation, calling out the Volunteers to serve in any part of the world. They were part of the military organisation of the country, and local rates ought not, therefore, to be saddled with any part of their cost. Finally, he thought they had good cause for complaint that the Government were not represented in the House at that moment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was nobody more capable of appreciating the importance of a Bill or its true character than the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. If ever there were a Bill public in its nature and in its essence, a Bill which ought to be proposed by the Government, it was this Bill. And yet they had not a single member of the Government, concerned with this kind of Bill—the Secretary of State for War, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Local Government Board—present to advise them. The Bill set up an entirely new principle; it enabled County and Borough Councils to buy land anywhere, and to pledge the local rates for the purpose. There was absolutely no limitation. It was, in fact, a public Bill dealing with a public matter; yet there was no Member of the Government present to advise the House. He felt very much inclined to move the adjournment; but perhaps a prolongation of the debate for a little longer would give some member of the Government an opportunity of putting in an appearance.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought that the experience of the past few years would have ensured more strict attention being paid by the representatives of the War Office in that House to matters affecting the Army. Widespread discontent and criticism had of late been directed against the management of the war; yet here they had still another instance of carelessness and laxity. It was a perfectly monstrous state of things that on the consideration of a Bill which was for a purely military purpose not a single representative of the War Office was present. This was the second Bill dealing with a great Government Department which had been under the attention of the House, and yet not a single member of the Government had thought it worth while to look in even for five minutes. It was not treating the House with proper respect. What would the outside public say if it could see the state of the House at that moment. Here was a Bill dealing with a new development of Army matters; yet those who represented the War Office were treating it contemptuously and would not take the trouble to come into the House if only for a few moments. Possibly the absence of the Secretary of State for War was as valuable as his presence would be, but hearing, as they had done of late, so much about the Imperial spirit of the Empire and the influence exerted by our Volunteer forces in all parts of the world, he felt it was regrettable that members of the Government should be too busy formulating plans to make the food of the people dearer to give the least possible attention to a Bill intended to make the defensive forces of the country more efficient. It was a monstrous state of affairs; and if the result should be that the British Empire should go to pieces, the Secretary of State for War would be altogether to blame.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYpointed out that this Bill, which gave County Councils or Borough Councils power to hire land by agreement, was merely an extension of the Act of 1892, under which the Councils had power to purchase land by agreement. The War Office had realised that it had not always been easy for County
  694
  and Borough Councils to purchase land, although it was possible to hire it, and hence it had been deemed desirable to give this authority. No doubt it would have been better if matters had been entirely kept under the control of the War Office and not delegated to County or Borough Councils, for it was not the proper function of the latter bodies to attend to the military requirements of the country. But this after all was not a new measure; it was merely an extension of one which had already been passed, and the compulsory clauses having been omitted he did not think he could any longer object to the Bill, especially as the military authorities were in favour of it. As to the absence of the Members of the Government he presumed that they did not anticipate any opposition to the Bill at that stage. If the House desired to take advice on that point it was in their power to do so, but at the same time he pointed out that this was not a new power, inasmuch as the County Councils now had power to purchase rifle ranges.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he gathered there was a general feeling in the House that a representative of the War Office should have been present to advise the House upon this Bill, and he also understood the hon. Baronet who had just sat down to say that both the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War approved of this Bill or that the military authorities were favourable to it. Whether they were favourable or not a representative of the War Office ought to be present to advise the House. He thought it was a very good Bill, and therefore in the absence of the Secretary of State for War he would undertake to defend it. The question of handing over any sort of military duties in connection with the Volunteers to local bodies had been pointed to as being the most important question in this Bill. He had always held that the Volunteer forces would profit and increase the further they were withdrawn from the purview of the War Office, and that much advantage could be obtained by them if they could be put more and more under local bodies. It was quite true the local management of Volunteers might

  695
  clash with their duties in the so-called Army Corps Scheme, and anything that conflicted with that might be deemed a misfortune; but never having taken that view he did not regard that argument as one worthy of consideration or one that ought to weigh with the House. The value of the Volunteer forces of this country depended largely upon the local training which they received. The idea of the War Office at the present time was that Volunteers should only be trained on large open spaces. He read a few days previously that a brigade of Volunteers were taken from Newcastle to Salisbury Plain for the purposes of training; but he might point out to the House that a Volunteer was only wanted in England, and in many cases he would have to fight among the hedgerows of his own county. Anything more absurd than to take them away from the country that they knew in order to train them on Salisbury Plain it was impossible to conceive. It was of the greatest advantage to train men locally, and to use for that purpose the country which they had a special knowledge of. The value of such training had been seen in the Boer War, and in order that local Volunteers should be trained in that knowledge this Bill, or some thing like it, was absolutely essential; and who could better make arrangements with the farmers in the neighbourhood for the use of the land for this purpose than the local authorities. Would not they be able to make far better arrangements than the War Office authority. (Lord Stanley at this moment entered the House.) He was glad to see his noble friend now in his place, because he was perfectly certain that his noble friend would agree with every word that he had said and would be glad to offer his thanks for the manner in which he had sustained the position of the War Office. This Bill offered facilities for manœuvres, and there was nothing in its form to prevent the establishment of local rifle ranges, upon which the efficiency of the Volunteer rifle corps of the country so much depended. The Bill also offered means of economy, because it provided for the manœuvring of the Volunteers in their own counties instead of the absurd practice of taking a brigade from Newcastle to Salisbury Plain at a great expense and waste of
  696
  their time in the journey there and back, and at a great cost to the public. The troops would be better trained in their own locality, and a great economy would be effected. Therefore he hoped that the absence of the Secretary of State for War on this occasion would not be deemed a reason for the rejection of this Bill, the benefit of which was incontrovertible, and which if passed could not fail to put the Volunteers in a very much better position than that in which they had hitherto been placed.
  *SIR WALTER THORBURN, said he was not disposed to follow the hon. Member for Oldham into the matter of whether it is expedient to bring Volunteers from Newcastle to Salisbury Plain, as the subject had no connection with the Bill before the House, beyond remarking that if Volunteers are to be brigaded with Regular troops, it follows that if they are not to be sent from home to meet the Regular troops at a rendezvous, the Regular troops must be taken to them. He then went on to say that a Bill of this character would find few friends in the House. He was not a military man but he was a ratepayer, and he objected to the cost of a matter of this kind being put upon the local rates. It was, in his opinion, a national affair, and should be dealt with by the War Office.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHhoped that the House would not be influenced by the hon. Member's objection. He did not wish to argue the question as between rates and taxes, though he had some little sympathy with the taxpayer. It must be remembered that in the Bills which had been passed by Parliament in recent years the taxpayers had been very heavily charged with expenditure for the provision of ranges at the more important centres of military administration, and he did not think it would be practicable to impose upon them the cost of providing local ranges purely for Volunteer practice all over Great Britain. But he had another argument in favour of the Bill. It seemed to him to be very desirable to keep up the ancient interest of local bodies in the Volunteer force; and that would be effected to some extent, at any

  697
  rate, by the present measure, to the general saving of the expenditure of public money. He was convinced that the County Council of Gloucestershire, for example, who were extremely anxious that the Bill should become law, would be able to obtain a local range more cheaply and perhaps with more regard to the general interests of the public than would be practicable for the War Office. He believed that the Bill not only had the support of his own County Council, but also the practically unanimous support of public opinion, at any rate in that part of England. It was a very small measure; and for his part he would have been glad if it had gone rather further, and, under proper safeguards, enabled the local authorities, perhaps with the assent of the War Office, to bring compulsory powers to bear for the purchase of land. But be welcomed the Bill in any case and hoped the Government would support it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said that he felt he owed the House an apology for not having been present when the Bill was brought up for a Third Reading; but it had passed through its previous stages without a single word, and he confessed that he had looked upon it as a Bill which would pass by the unanimous wish of the House. He still hoped that that would be the case. The War Office were entirely in favour of the permissive clause allowing agreements between local authorities and landlords for the hire of land for the purposes of the measure, and they had always held that the more they associated the local authorities with local military enterprise the better it would be. In this case he was perfectly certain that it would be much cheaper for the country.

  INCEST BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
  *MR. TALBOTsaid the only object he had in moving the Amendments standing in his name upon
  698
  the Paper was to make the Bill more perfect. For the Bill itself, he thought his hon. and gallant friend deserved great credit, and for having dealt vigorously with a very painful subject. The first one he proposed to move was to leave out "of or above the age of thirteen years," and the reason he moved it was this: that if they intended to punish this horrible crime effectually there was no object in limiting the age. He begged to move.
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words, 'of or above the age of thirteen years.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he had endeavoured to meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides who had assisted him in framing this Bill. It was fully discussed in the Grand Committee on Law, at which the Attorney-General was present, and various recommendations of the hon. and learned Member were taken into consideration. The object of putting in the limit of thirteen was to meet various recommendations made on both sides of the House. He believed also that any person committing an offence against any person under that age would be amenable under another Act. That being so, he would ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir WILLIAM TOMLINSONhaving been called upon,
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid on a point of order he had an Amendment of which he had given notice, which would come before the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He desired in Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after the word "daughter" to insert the word "step-daughter." He hoped the Amendment would be accepted, because, in his belief, the experience of the Bill would show that those were the most serious class of cases.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid they had endeavoured to draft this Bill in such a

  699
  way as to limit the number of relations as much as was possible, because they had felt that the moment they went too far abroad it might be impossible to meet the objections that might be raised.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)asked upon a point of order whether it was within the purview of the Bill to make "incest" that which was not incest at present. Nobody doubted that it was a most abominable thing that there should be such a crime, but he submitted that they would be going outside the Bill if they made punishable as a criminal offence something which was not incest according to the present law.
  *MR. H. D. GREENEasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman had looked at the table of consanguinity and affinity in the prayer-book, or the Matrimonial Causes Act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the word 'daughter' to insert the word 'step-daughter.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he desired that the Bill should become law, but he hoped consideration would be given to the extension he proposed to make by the Amendment standing in his name. The 27th Section of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 provided that a wife should be able to obtain a dissolution of her marriage on the ground among others of incestuous adultery on the part of her husband. All the other offences named in that Act were already punishable by law, and they wanted to maintain the strength of the law, and wanted to show that this country regarded these matters as very serious matters. It was desirable that these offences, whether committed with persons related to the husband by consanguinity or only by affinity, at all events during the lifetime of his wife, ought to be treated with equal gravity.
  700
  Incestuous adultery had been defined as adultery committed by a husband with a person with whom, if his wife were dead, he could not wed, owing to his relationship with her either by consanguinity or affinity. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the word 'sister,' to insert the words 'or who, being married, has committed incestuous adultery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857.'"—(Sir William Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. H. D. GREENEsaid he was in no way associated with the promotion of this Bill, but he had taken considerable interest in the discussion in the Grand Committee on Law when no one who desired to extend the Bill ventured to go so far as the hon. Baronet, who now desired to extend it to entirely different offences to those comprised in it. Incest was at present an offence under the ecclesiastical laws of this country, and it was open under a statute of Edward I. for any one to report a case to the Bishop of the diocese, who could impose either a pecuniary or corporeal penance. He understood from experts in ecclesiastical law that the Bishops had usually been satisfied in the past with a pecuniary penance, and that from very rich people large sums had been obtained. It was desired now to make the offence of incest punishable as a crime. When making incest a crime punishable by penal servitude or imprisonment, it was desirable to limit it as much as possible, and the promoters had limited it to "grand-daughter, daughter, or sister." They had introduced no person related by affinity, and had perhaps not gone as far as they might, by not including persons connected by affinity. But the hon. Baronet asked for the inclusion of quite a different matter, and by introducing this Amendment was asking the House to make punishable what hereafter might become the law of the land by a Bill a little lower down on the Paper. The country was not yet ripe for making adultery punishable as a crime. If they were seeking to punish immorality generally he would earnestly support his hon. friend, but he was not desirous of going

  701
  with him in introducing such an Amendment into a Bill so limited in its scope as this, which for the first time was to make the crime of incest punishable as a crime. He heartily agreed that incestuous adultery should be punished, but he could not support such an Amendment being introduced in such a limited Bill as this.
  COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid his hon. friend would see the difficulty in which they were placed; the effect of such an Amendment would be that the Bill would be rejected in another place. They were most anxious that it should pass, and therefore he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he responded with great reluctance to the appeal of the hon. Baronet. He was exceedingly sorry to hear that there was likely to be a difficulty in dealing with the Bill elsewhere if his Amendment was adopted, and under the circumstances he begged leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. TALBOTsaid that the Amendment which he now proposed to move was not one which by any possibility could endauger the prospects of the Bill in this House or elsewhere. The object of this Amendment was to preserve to the Judge absolute discretion in passing sentence. Everybody conversant with the criminal law knew that the circumstances under which an offence might be committed differed very widely, and that an offence committed by one person might not be by any means of equal gravity when committed by another, having regard to the attendant circumstances. Under those circumstances, he desired to leave the Judge absolute discretion in dealing with the cases brought before him. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'and not exceeding seven years.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that in his opinion there were two objections to this Amendment. In passing criminal statutes it was, in the first place, usual to put in a limitation of this kind, and if they gave unlimited scope they would have different Judges passing different sentences for the same offence, than which there was nothing more likely to bring the law into ridicule and contempt, and nothing which did so much harm to the administration of the law. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be persisted in.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he was very reluctant to accept such an Amendment, and he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw it.
  *MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted for the reasons pointed out by the hon. Member for South - West Manchester. They were for the first time making a crime and a crime of a very special character. They were familiar in the law with cases by which the public conscience had been shocked by the immense disparity of the sentences passed by Judges for the same offence. In those cases, although the Judges endeavoured to base their decisions on common principles, there were always individual members of the Bench who felt conscientiously impelled to give effect to their own individual views. It would be a great misfortune, and tend largely to prevent due administration of this Bill if savage sentences were imposed. He thought the restriction was a useful one.
  *MR H. D. GREENEsaid he did not think that the right hon. Member could point to any Statute that imposed a criminal liability where such a restriction was not put in, but his reason for desiring that this Amendment should not be pressed at this moment was that carnal knowledge of a child under thirteen was already punishable, and carnal knowledge of a person between thirteen and sixteen was amenable to a maximum penalty of two years hard labour. They were now going to give the Judge the power to punish these offences in a different manner, and therefore they ought not to give a minimum penalty and leave it to the

  703
  fancy of a Judge to impose any sentence which he might be impelled to impose by sentiment. They must fix a maximum beyond which he could not travel. He hoped, under the circumstances, the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  *MR. TALBOT: said that after the observations which had been made, although he could not withdraw the Amendment he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it. He would rather that it was negatived.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid the Bill first dealt with consanguinity, but the Amendment incorporated in it extended to cases of affinity. If they included stepdaughter they must of necessity accept the Amendment he now proposed to move, which was Clause 2, page 1, line 25, after "brother" to insert step-grandfather step-father, step-son, step-grandson or step-brother. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'brother,' to insert the words 'step grandfather, stepfather, or stepson.'"—(Mr. Vicary Gibbs.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  *MR. TALBOTsaid he now came to his last Amendment on the Paper, which was to leave out Clause 5. The object of this Amendment was to enact that these offences need not necessarily be tried at the Assizes. As the House was aware, Quarter Sessions very often sat between the times of the Assizes, and he submitted that they might very well be tried at the Quarter Sessions under special circumstances. The result would be that a person charged might not be kept in custody for so long a period before trial.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Talbot.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid there were several very grave offences which were, in his opinion, very wisely withheld from trial at Quarter Sessions and only allowed to be tried by judges at Assizes. This was a very serious offence, and ought, in his opinion, to be tried before the most competent Court.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONentirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member. They were creating this afternoon an offence of a very serious nature, with the maximum penalty of seven years penal servitude.
  *MR. H. D. GREENEsaid he hoped the hon. Member would now be satisfied and would withdraw his Amendment, but his objection to the Amendment was that it only pertained to the first half of the clause. To leave the whole clause out seemed to him to be proceeding too rapidly in the line of humane legislation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRETTONsaid there was no reason why this Bill should not apply to Scotland and Ireland, unless it was suggested that as these offences were unknown there the Bill was not required. He therefore begged to move that Clause 6 be left out of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 12, to leave out Clause 6."—(Mr. Gretton.)
  "Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid this crime had never been heard of in Ireland, and that was a reason why this Amendment should not be agreed to. It would, he thought, be also very unfortunate to spring a Bill of this kind upon the House in the absence of nearly all the Irish representatives. In ancient times there were certain offences so bad that no law was made against them, because it was inconceivable that such offences could be committed. That fact was present in his mind at this moment, and although he desired that the laws of the

  705
  two countries should be as uniform as possible, and although he had noobjection whatever to this Bill, he thought such an Amendment was unfair when the Bill had been read a second time on the distinct understanding that it should not apply to either Scotland or Ireland.
  MR. MALCOLMthought the clause should be omitted unless some reason could be given for the exemption. He failed to see why England should be made the corpus vile upon which to try this experiment. The offence with which the Bill proposed to deal was not confined to the country south of the Tweed, and it would be a good thing to extend the measure to Scotland.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONhoped the House would not accept the Amendment. He had not the least objection to the Bill extending to Ireland, but when Bills had been introduced containing a clause of this kind, and had gone through Committee with the clause still intact, it was not fair to Members from Scotland or Ireland to propose to omit the clause on a Friday afternoon, when they might reasonably have gone away satisfied that the point would not be discussed, especially as no Amendments dealing with the matter appeared on the Paper. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that the law of Scotland was much stronger on this subject than the law of England as proposed in the Bill. It should be noted, however, that prosecutions in Scotland were undertaken only by the Lord Advocate, so that it would be impossible to apply this Bill to Scotch procedure without a special clause being introduced. He suggested that it would be advisable to restrict prosecutions under the Bill to cases authorised by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.
  MR. GRETTONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODmoved that the Bill be read a third time.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put, and agreed.

  INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
  The first Motion on the Paper was a new clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester, dealing with the application of the Act to Scotland.
  Clause 1:
  *MR. SPEAKERruled the proposed new clause out of order, as the Bill did not apply to Scotland. He was aware that an Amendment lower down on the Paper proposed to make the measure applicable to Scotland, but if such Motions as the one referred to were allowed, it would be possible to have on the Paper any number of clauses dealing with the application of a Bill to Scotland or Ireland, to discuss them for several days, and then, when the Amendment to extend the operation of the measure to Scotland or Ireland was reached, the House might by a large majority decide that it should not be so extended. He therefore ruled the proposed new clause out of order.
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved a new clause exempting from the operation of the Bill towns of over 50,000 inhabitants, and the County of London. He understood that the promoters of the Bill would offer no objection to the clause, and, that being so, he should not move the remaining Amendments of which he had given notice.
  A Clause (Exemption).—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONhoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion. The question

  707
  was very fully discussed in Committee, and, though he would not object to the exemption of towns of over 50,000 inhabitants, the County of London contained a number of rural parishes to which it was desirable the Bill should apply.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he understood the hon. Member would accept the clause, otherwise he would have argued it at greater length.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONcould not see the slightest reason for the insertion of the Amendment. There was no reason why an innkeeper in a town of 50,000 inhabitants should not carry out a common law obligation just as much as an innkeeper in a rural village.
  MR. COHENdiffered from the learned Solicitor-General. This was not entirely a question of law. It was simply a question of whether the exigencies of the situation demanded the supply of these refreshments. Nobody could reasonably contend that in large towns there was the same necessity as in the rural parts of the country.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsupported the new clause on the ground of common sense. Obligations should not be imposed upon inn-keepers unless they were for the convenience of the public. There were restaurants and refreshment rooms within the reach of everybody in the Metropolis and all large towns, and the Bill was not required in such cases. He understood that the Home Office were prepared to accept the new clause, and he would like to hear their views on the matter.
  *MR. LAWSON WALTONcontended that the proposed new clause would be
  utterly repugnant to the whole scope of the Bill. The first section simply defined the obligations which were cast upon innkeepers under the existing common law as some correlative to the many advantages enjoyed by them under exceptional legislation. The only obligation cast upon innkeepers by the first section was that they should supply the reasonable demands of travellers for board, lodging, refreshments, and other accommodation, not in any event, but only if they happened to have at their disposal accommodation of the nature demanded. That was a legal obligation, and he should have thought a commonsense obligation. Why an innkeeper should, from mere caprice, refuse a reasonable demand for accommodation which he had at his disposal he was at a loss to understand, and he submitted that the clause had no foundation in common sense, to which the hon. Member for St. Albans appealed.
  MR. GRETTONexplained that his name was on the back of the Bill, and he desired it to pass. He did not think this clause of exemption was fatal to the principle of the Bill, but it was unreasonable on the ground of common sense. The whole purpose of the Bill was to make more easy the application of the common law. Why they should have one law for the country and one for the larger towns he could not conceive; but rather than endanger the Bill he thought he might venture to appeal to the promoters to allow the clause to be read a second time.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 130. (Division List, No. 134.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flower, Ernest

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Knowles, Lees

  Charrington, Spencer

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gore, Hon. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell-(Birm

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Myers, William Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Mr. Galloway and Mr.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Vicary Gibbs.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Rigg, Richard

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Asher, Alexander

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas H.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Austin, Sir John

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Russell, T. W.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joicey, Sir James

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Caldwell, James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Spear, John Ward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Craig, Hobert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Crombie, John William

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Artltur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Ure, Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wallace, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermangh, N.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  O'Shee, James John

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wood, James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Young, Samuel

  Garfit, William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Sir Brampton Guidon

  Grant, Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  and Mr. Gretton.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that as the agreement which he understood had been arrived at had not been carried out he held himself at liberty to move the further Amendments standing on the Paper. He desired to move a new clause giving a right of appeal. The penalty under the Bill was not a large one, and it could not be contended that
  710
  the measure proposed any revolution in the law. He submitted, however, that innkeepers were entitled to an appeal against the decisions of lay magistrates, who, although they discharged their duties with perseverance, credit and industry, were not trained lawyers, and had to depend largely for their decisions upon the clerk to the Court. It was all

  711
  very well for the hon. Member to say "agreed" now; but why was not the arrangement carried out before?
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the hon. Member was entirely mistaken in supposing any agreement had been entered into.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he did not suggest that the hon. Member had deliberately broken an arrangement; what he said was that he understood they had come to an agreement.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is obvious that there has been a misunderstanding on both sides.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid it was very unfortunate that the hon. Member, if he was prepared to agree to this clause now, did not take the same view in the Grand Committee.
  MR. CHANNINGrose to a point of order. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill had expressed his willingness to accept the clause; was the hon. Member opposite entitled to go on discussing it?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he could not interfere on the point of order. Every Member of the House had a right to express his opinion. At the same time, seeing this was the last private Members' day, he hoped the hon. Member would not take up time in pressing a Motion which obviously would be accepted.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that after that expression of opinion he would not pursue the matter further. He admitted, however, that he was speaking under a feeling of some resentment at what had taken place.
  A Clause (Right of Appeal).
  "Any person aggrieved by a conviction made by a Court of summary jurisdiction under this Act may appeal therefrom to a Court of quarter sessions."—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved an Amendment to Clause 1 to confine the innkeeper's liability to his ordinary hours of business. It was unreasonable that an innkeeper in a country village should be compelled to supply refreshment at all hours of the day and night. The whole point of this Amendment turned upon the construction placed upon the word "reasonable." He thought there ought to be some reasonable limit to the liability. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'from opening until closing time.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that although he agreed with the spirit of this Amendment he thought the word "reasonable" covered the object of the hon. Member for Manchester.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONhoped the House would not accept this Amendment, because they would be laying down a different construction of the word "reasonable" to that which already existed. The first section declared the innkeeper liable to accommodate a traveller at any reasonable time, but they were asked by this Amendment to limit it so that it should only apply within certain hours. The very time when a person might be coming into a small village or town might be at a later hour than the hours of closing. The innkeeper was protected by the words "reasonable demand." He hoped the House would not impose a different liability to that which already existed.
  LORD HUGH CECILthought the expression in the clause was too wide while the Amendment was much more limited. The only question he had a doubt about was whether it was worth while putting the House to a division. As the hon. Member opposite had conducted the Bill in a conciliatory way he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  *MR. LAWSON WALTONthought it was a very unreasonable ground for not supporting a reasonable Amendment to say that that attitude was adopted because of the unconciliatory attitude of some hon. Member of the House. The speech of the Solicitor-General upon this point was absolutely conclusive. Surely it was sufficiently clear that the first clause of this Bill merely defined the existing obligation. The present Bill substituted new machinery for the old cumbrous method of procedure. He wished to point out how utterly destructive the Amendment would be. Take the case of a country inn where a traveller might arrive a few minutes after ten o'clock at night and desire to have a bed for the night. Suppose the innkeeper had ample accommodation but capriciously and negligently refused that accommodation. If the Amendment were carried the innkeeper would be protected in taking such a course.
  MR. GROVESsaid he understood the Bill to provide a summary remedy in case accommodation was unreasonably refused. The Amendment
  was to confine the remedy to cases of refusal of accommodation during opening hours, leaving innkeepers liable, with regard to charges which were more serious, to be dealt with under the ordinary law. This proposal had been treated as if it was a preposterous Amendment, but it seemed to him to be a reasonable and sensible Amendment and was worth considering. The question was, should they limit this very exceptional procedure, to stimulate publicans in outlying districts to provide proper accommodation, to the cases where they refused it during the ordinary opening hours and leave the closing hours to be dealt with under the old procedure? He hoped this proposal would be limited to accommodation and refreshment during ordinary hours, and then the publican would come under the common law for the more serious charge of refusing lodgings at night, which ought to be investigated by a magistrate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 135.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest

  Knowles, Lees

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Garfit, William

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Austin, Sir John

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Chapman, Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Coddington, Sir William

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Myers, William Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir J. H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi'ld

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

  Mr. Galloway and Mr.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Groves.

  Sadler, Col Saml. Alexander

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

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rea, Russell

  Asher, Alexander

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rigg, Richard

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Burt, Thomas

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Butcher, John George

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Spear John Ward

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Crombie, John William

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thornburn, Sir Walter

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ure, Alexander

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Lough, Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Delany, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lundon, W.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Egercon, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murphy, John

  Wood, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Young, Samuel

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Partington, Oswald

  Forster, Henry William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sir Brampton Gurdon and

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Mr. Corrie Grant.

  Clause 1, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved an Amendment with the object of excluding from the provisions of the Bill an habitual drunkard to whom the sale of liquor
  716
  was refused under the Licensing Act of 1902.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the word 'manner' to insert the words 'or is an habitual drunkard to whom the sale of liquor has been refused under Section 6 of the Licensing Act, 1902.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved as an Amendment to Sub-section (b) of the clause, which excluded from the provisions of the Bill a traveller who failed to tender "a sum adequate to the cost of the accommodation demanded," to substitute for the expression "a sum adequate to the cost" the words "a reasonable price."
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he did not think those words were known to the law.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid if they were not known to the law they were known to common sense.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'a sum adequate to the cost' and insert the words 'a reasonable price.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved an Amendment to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 24, to leave out the words Scotland or.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
  The doors having been closed for the Division, it appeared there were no tellers for the Ayes. Mr. SPEAKER said that, of course, if no one would tell for the Ayes there could be no division. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND thereupon declared that he would tell for the Ayes, and Mr. CALDWELL said he would do so likewise.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 52. (Division List, No. 136.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Asher, Alexander

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset E

  Aubrey-Fetcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hudson, George Bickerstetn

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hutton, Alfred E (Morley)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burt, Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Joyce, Michael

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Man'r

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Cochrane, Hon. H. A. E.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Grant, Corrie

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Gretton, John

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

  Crean, Eugene

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Crombie, John William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lough, Thomas

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Lundon, W.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Russell, T. W.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Murphy, John

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  Newnes, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, Luke (York., E. R.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Partington, Oswald

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Spear, John Ward

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wood, James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Young, Samuel

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Mr. Dickson and Mr.

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Caldwell.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Austin, Sir John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Myers, William Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Bull, William James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Knowles, Lees

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Flower, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Mr. Galloway and Mr.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Groves.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, stood adjourned.
  Further consideration to be resumed upon Monday next.

  ADDEN BROOKE'S HOSPITAL BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PISTOLS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
  A Clause (Sale of pistols to insane or intoxicated persons)—(Lord Hugh Cecil)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  Amendments made to the Bill.

  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODstated that on Thursday next the Navy Estimates would be taken instead of the Irish Estimates, as had been arranged.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer) Bill. Moved, That the order made on that 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill. Read 3a and passed.
Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Belfast Water Bill [H.L.]; Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Commercial Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Moved, That the Order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation Bill; Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation Bill; Forth Navigation Order Confirmation Bill; Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill; Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter-houses, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (No. 138); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill (No. 139). Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill; Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Leigh Corporation Bill; Wellingborough and District Tramroads Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Kilmaine be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Mayo; read, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  THE OLD NAVIGATING OFFICERS OF THE NAVY.
  LORD MUSKERRYcalled attention to the case of the few remaining officers of the old navigating branch of His Majesty's Navy, now on the active list

  647
  of staff captains and staff commanders, and asked the Government if they would take into account their long and valuable services, and the lack of recognition they had received in view of the way in which other branches of the naval service had been treated. He asked the Government whether they could see their way to grant the staff captains, fifteen in number, the same retiring allowance—£500 a year—as the officers of similar rank received in the engineer branch, and permit them to assume as a right the title of captain, instead of being gazetted as now, "permitted to assume the rank of captain." In the case of staff commanders—also very few, only seven in number—he asked that they might be granted £450 a year on retirement, if they had served the necessary time at sea, instead of £400, which they now received. He hoped their Lordships would support him in his endeavour to secure better consideration for the remaining officers of the old navigating branch of the Navy. He felt that he had rather a hard task, as his noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty—although with regard to another branch of the Service he was overflowing a short time ago with the milk of human kindness - seemed to have hardened his heart in respect to the claims of the old navigating officers of the Navy. He hoped, however, that the noble Earl might be persuaded to reconsider the matter in a favourable light. Prior to 1867 there was a distinct class called the navigating class. They went through the same course as the other officers, with the one exception that instead of taking gunnery they took pilotage in their examination. But whereas the other officers could rise to the position of Admiral, the officers in the navigating branch had no chance of getting higher than staff captain. A regulation was, however, passed at that time that three of the navigating class should in each year be absorbed into the executive branch. That was over thirty years ago, and he believed that not a single officer had been so absorbed. Naturally, the branch was now dying out—there were fifteen staff captains and seven staff commanders. Their grievances were, first, the inadequacy of the full pay; and secondly, the small amount
  648
  of the retired pay. If their Lordships compared the retired pay of a staff captain with that of officers holding relative rank in other branches, they would see that the grievance was a just one. The retired pay, for instance, of an inspector of machinery was £500, but the retired pay of a staff captain was only £450. He did not think the noble Earl would deny that the old navigating officers had done as good service as the members of other branches of the service. Their third grievance had reference to increase of rank. When they retired they were gazetted as "staff captain, with permission to assume the rank of captain." They felt this to be a slight, especially as all other officers when they retired were permitted to assume a higher rank than that in which they had been serving. A captain, after long service, might retire with permission to assume the rank of rear-admiral, and, even after his retirement, he might become a vice-admiral. In the same way, in the engineering branch, an inspector might retire with permission to assume the rank of chief-inspector, or under the new regulations, the rank of engineer rear-admiral. But captains of the navigating branch were retired with permission only to "assume" the rank of captain, a rank which they had held for many years. The fourth grievance was that the officers of the navigating branch were omitted from the honours list. Of all the officers who received honours on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation, only one of the old branch was included, and he was, to all intents and purposes an Admiralty official. The cost of bringing the retired pay of these officers up to that of officers of similar rank in the engineer branch would not exceed £2,000 a year, and in view of the valuable services of this splendid body of officers he hoped the First Lord would give the matter his favourable consideration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said as to the valuable services rendered by this class of naval officers. Nothing that he has said in their praise will I for one moment dissociate myself from. But I must decline to join with him in discussing the honours which His Majesty thought fit to bestow

  649
  at the time of his Coronation. As regards the specific questions which the noble Lord has asked, in the case of the staff captains I see no reason why there should be granted to a small number of officers privileges with respect to their retired pay which have been withheld from similar officers for many years past, and the granting of which would raise a grievance among all staff captains on the retired list. I must therefore say, without any hesitation, that that question cannot be reopened. As regards the particular manner in which these officers are gazetted on retirement, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having drawn my attention to the peculiarity of the words used. The words complained of shall not occur again, and these officers will be gazetted on retirement in the ordinary phraseology. As to the third point, I would emphasise the fact that the seven staff commanders now on the list will, if they continue to serve, reach the rank of staff captain, and will then be entitled to the retired pay of staff captains, which is £450. That being the case it does not seem necessary to consider whether any change should be made in the retired pay of staff commanders.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDhad an Amendment on Sub-section (b) of Clause 1, which sub-section enables the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to provide for transferring (subject to any right enjoyed by any person at the passing of the Act) to the Bishop of Lichfield or to the Bishop of Birmingham the patronage of any benefice situate either within or without the diocese of Worcester, the patronage of which is immediately before the foundation of the Bishopric of Birmingham vested in the Bishop of Worcester. He moved, after "Lichfield," to insert the words "or to the Bishop of Hereford." He said that the effect of the Amendment would be to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to take the diocese of Hereford into consideration in the same way as the diocese of Lichfield. It was strongly felt in one, at any rate,
  650
  of the two dioceses concerned, that there ought to be some readjustment of patronage as between the diocese of Hereford and the diocese of Worcester, and that this was an opportune moment for doing so. The Bishop of Worcester, at the present moment, was patron of no less than fourteen livings in the diocese of Hereford, whereas the Bishop of Hereford himself was patron of only thirty-two livings in the whole of that diocese. He thought this a sufficient reason for giving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to consider this question.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 24, after the word 'Lichfield' to insert the words 'or to the Bishop of Hereford.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  LORD BELPERsaid he had no objection to the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the object of his Amendments to this clause was to give power to rearrange also the boundaries of the diocese of Hereford. As long ago as 1836, when the very important Bill affecting Bishops' revenues and dioceses was passed, it was enacted that all the county of Worcester should be included in the diocese of Worcester, but that had never been carried out, and there were about twenty parishes in the county of Worcester which still belonged to the diocese of Hereford. It would be a very great advantage if they could assimilate the diocesan organisation to the county organisation as far as possible. All he now asked was that by the acceptance of his Amendments they should be at liberty to appear before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when the time came, and advocate such a readjustment as they believed might be beneficial.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 2, line 22, after the word 'Lichfield' to insert the word 'Hereford;' and in line 29, after the word 'Lichfield' to insert the words 'and Hereford.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  LORD BELPERsaid he had no objection to the Amendments.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  On Sub-section (a) of Clause 3, which provides that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall have power in the event of the foundation of a Bishopric of Southwark, of rearranging the boundaries of the dioceses of Canterbury, Rochester and Southwark.
  *LORD ASHCOMBEmoved after "Canterbury," to insert "Winchester." He said that the proposed diocese of Southwark would adjoin, on the west side, the diocese of Winchester, and therefore, it was desirable that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the same power, if they thought fit, of rearranging the boundaries of the diocese of Winchester as they had of rearranging the boundaries of the dioceses of Canterbury and Rochester. The Amendment had the approval of the most rev. Primate and of the Bishops of Winchester and Rochester.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 19, after the word 'Canterbury' to insert the word 'Winchester'."—(Lord Ashcombe.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 28, after the word 'Southwark' to insert the words 'Winchester and Southwark.'"—(Lord Ashcombe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Schedule 2—
  LORD NORTONsaid he desired to amend the section which provides that, subject to the rights enjoyed by any person at the passing of this Act, there
  652
  shall be transferred to the endowment fund of the Bishopric of Birmingham, such portion of the endowment or income of the Bishopric of Worcester as will reduce that endowment or income from the annual sum of £5,000 to the annual sum of £4,200, irrespective of tenths or first fruits. He wished to omit "£4,200" and to insert "£4,000."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)pointed out that the noble Lord's Amendment should have been moved to the First Schedule, which had been agreed to. It was therefore out of order now, but it could be moved on Report or in the Standing Committee.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 137.)

  CONTRACTS (INDIA OFFICE) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsuggested that the rules and regulations in regard to the manner in which contracts were to be signed should be made public in some way. He thought they might be laid before Parliament regularly.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I will take care that the noble Marquess's suggestion is considered.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND THE NEW ZEALAND COURT OF APPEAL.
  *LORD HAWKESBURY: It having been represented to me that some dissatisfaction exists in New Zealand with

  653
  regard to a recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I beg to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether his attention has been called to the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I very much regret to say that I think owing to a misapprehension of what was intended by the words used, there has been a feeling created in New Zealand in respect to a judgment of the Privy Council, and accordingly I have thought it right to make inquiry on the subject, and I am happy to say that I have received an assurance from the learned Judges who decided the case that they never intended to make any attack whatever on the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. The mode in which the case was conducted and certain observations contained in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand induced the learned Judges to make the remarks as to which remonstrance has been made; but I am assured by the learned Judges that it never occurred to any one of them that in the observations they thought it right to make they were making an attack on the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, or that they intended in any way to comment on the character or conduct of their proceedings. I trust that this assurance will be conveyed to the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, and that the feeling aroused will be found to have been based on a total misapprehension.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.