called the attention of the House to the conflict between the Standing Orders of that House and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as to the clause to be inserted in Railway Bills regulating the disposal of the deposit, and asked the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, What course he proposed to adopt to meet this state of circumstances? The conflict in question arose in consequence of an alteration made by the House of Lords in the Standing Orders on the last day or two of the previous Session, whereby the deposits lodged by railway companies were prohibited from being withdrawn until half the capital was subscribed, and a certain portion of the proposed line had been actually constructed. Now, as this alteration was opposed to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, he was anxious to know what was to be done under the circumstances.

Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, said, the hon. Baronet opposite had called his attention to this subject in the last week of the last Session; but as almost all the Members who usually took part in Private Bills had then left town, he did not consider it prudent to bring this matter then before the House. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons permitted the withdrawal, under certain circumstances, of the deposit made by railway companies; but on the last day or two of the previous Session, at the instance of Lord Redesdale, an Amendment was made in the House of Lords whereby such withdrawal was impossible. This Amendment had occasioned much comment amongst all parties interested in railways. The Committee of Standing Orders were about to take the subject into their consideration, and he would be prepared to take such action in the matter as he would be advised.

said, that the Amendments made in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords were of a character to contradict the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and they were also to a certain extent in contravention of the 9 Vict. c. 20, which regulates deposits. When the Standing Orders of the House of Lords were of such a nature as to direct a certain clause to be inserted in every Railway Bill, it appeared to him to be trenching upon legislation, and it was practically an attempt at legislation by a single House of Parliament. In deciding on the course it should pursue in regard to these Amendments of the Lords, the House should, and no doubt would, be guided solely by the consideration whether those Amendments were just and expedient or not. It was, however, a thing to be regretted that such Amendments should be proposed in the other House of Parliament at a period of the Session when there was no opportunity of communicating directly or indirectly with Members of this House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st day of March 1866, in which they state their opinion of the condition of the Metropolitan cabs and also the peculiar nature of the hackney carriage trade in the metropolis; and also to the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne before a Committee of the House of Commons as to the inability of the police, under the present regulations, to prevent the licensing of cabs unfit for public use; and also to the evidence of Sir John Thwaites and others, before a Committee of the House of Commons, as to the very unsatisfactory condition of the hackney carriages of the metropolis as compared with those of other cities and towns in the kingdom, and with those of other cities in Europe; and, whether he will be prepared to introduce a measure during the present Session to consolidate the various Acts relating to metropolitan hackney carriages; to revise the tariff with a view of enabling the public to have the option of obtaining a superior class of hackney carriage at an increased fare; and to take away the power at present possessed by the cab-owners of imprisoning their drivers in White Cross Street Prison in the event of their failing to pay the doily hiring?

stated that his atten- tion had been directed to the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st of March, 1866, in which they expressed their opinion of the condition of the metropolitan cabs, and also of the peculiar nature of the hackney carriage trade in the metropolis; and also to the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne before a Committee of the House of Commons as to the inability of the police, under the present regulations, to prevent the licensing of cabs unfit for public use; and also to the evidence of Sir John Thwaites and others, before a Committee of the House of Commons, as to the very unsatisfactory condition of the hackney carriages of the metropolis as compared with those of other cities and towns in the kingdom, and with those of other cities in Europe. He believed all those statements to be substantially correct; but the Government were not prepared to introduce a general measure during the present Session to consolidate the various Acts relating to metropolitan hackney carriages. As to the tariff of fares, he wished to inform the House that his noble Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department in the other House had brought in a Bill relating to the street traffic in the metropolis, and in that Bill would be introduced clauses which it was hoped would have the effect of providing an improved class of hackney carriages. With respect to the third question, he was not prepared at present to say whether there ought to be any alteration of the law in that respect.

then asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1866, in which they state—

"It must be admitted that our four-wheeled cabs are a disgrace to the Metropolis of a great Empire; that the Duty is very heavy; that capital is repelled from embarking in the hackney carriage trade: and that the number of needy men who set up a single cab and drive it themselves is increasing every year, while that of the large proprietors is diminishing:"

said, he had read the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with great interest, not merely with regard to the point mentioned by the worthy Alderman, but also with regard to several other matters. The worthy Alderman he was sure would not deem him guilty of any disrespect if on the present occasion be declined to give any information as to whether he was going to propose any remission or considerable alteration of the public taxes. He was sure the worthy Alderman would allow him when he had any alteration or remission to propose on such a subject to announce it himself to the House, and that he should not be asked to answer questions which, under the circumstances, would expose him to great misapprehension and lead to great inconveniences.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the number of British Troops still remaining in New Zealand; what force is to be left there permanently; and, by whom the expense of maintaining such force is to be borne?

said, that the British troops in New Zealand, already reduced from 10,000 to 3,190, are under orders to quit, except one regiment of Infantry, which this country will maintain; but, while it does so, the colony is to appropriate yearly £50,000 to native purposes. Peremptory orders had been issued to immediately send home the excess of the number over the one regiment to be kept there, and it did not appear, from the most recent accounts received from the colony, that there was any reason why those orders should not be immediately obeyed. He should present further papers in continuation of those presented at the end of last Session, which would put the House in possession of all the correspondence that had taken place on the affairs of New Zealand up to the present time.

asked the President of the Poor Law Board, When the Returns as to Rating and Rentals ordered by the House on the 28th day of June will be presented?

In consequence of a letter the hon. Gentleman addressed to me yesterday, I have made inquiry on the subject, and I find that the Poor Law Officers state they are not in possession of materials necessary to enable them to furnish the Returns. The few Returns which have come in are so imperfect in many respects that they are of no use whatever.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Grants of Money, authorized by the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 109, for constructing Fortifications to the number of seventy-one, and to move an Address for a Return of the past and prospective outlay in detail upon the seventy-one Works [in a form stated.] He said, it was not his desire to invite discussion at present, but to ask the House to consider the subject by the help of the facts which this Return would supply, before they granted further supplies for these fortifications. The House had engaged to lay out £11,500,000 upon the seventy-one works, not including the central arsenal at Weedon. Since 1860, when this money was granted, the opinions of engineers must have undergone great change; and he should, at a future time, raise the question whether in the interest of the taxpayers of this country it was desirable to carry out the project, which was the result of panic-arising from the alleged foolish boasting of some French colonels. The money already raised was £5,200,000, the first grant having been £2,000,000, the second £1,000,000, and £650,000 in succeeding years until I866. His object in now asking for these particulars was to elicit facts upon which the House might form their own judgment.

So far from having any objection to furnish the Return moved for, my hon. and gallant Friend has only anticipated me in doing nearly what I proposed to have done myself. During the recess I called for a Report for the express purpose of laying it upon the table of the House. That Report was upon the progress made in constructing the fortifications. It gives an account of all the steps that have been taken, the different Acts of Parliament passed upon the subject, and the sums raised under those Acts of Parliament. It then goes on to give a short statement with reference to the object and the nature of each work included in the schedule of the Fortification Act of 1865, the progress made in its construction, the expenditure and liability incurred thereon, and the probable sum for which it will be completed. This Return would now have been in the hands of Members if I had not delayed it in order to carry the expenditure down to the 1st of January; but it will be in the hands of Members in the course of a very few days. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in deprecating any discussion until the Returns are presented. But no person can be more anxious than I am that the House should be placed in possession of the fullest information upon this point. Up to the present moment the Government have incurred no responsibility whatever with regard to these fortifications. The works have been going on during the time we have been in Office, but those works are under contracts made before we came into Office. I certainly proposed last year to move for £50,000, in order to carry out works necessary for the defence of the Thames, which, at the present moment, is not defended at all. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) objected to that outlay, because the work was not one of those included in the schedule of the Act, and therefore it should not be paid for by money raised by a Vote of this House. On looking into the Act, I found that the right hon. Gentleman was right in that objection. I hold the late Government responsible for the completion of the works included in the schedule laid before Parliament in the Act of 1865. According to that schedule the estimated expenditure upon these works was not, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, £11,000,000—that was the amount contemplated by the first schedule—but £6,995,000, or, in round numbers, £7,000,000. But I hold the late Government responsible for more than that. The Estimate that I shall lay on the table for the completion of these works will show an excess of £152,000, which, considering that labour has risen 15 per cent since the Estimates were first made and the works first planned, is no very great excess. But there is a further Estimate which will be necessary to complete the works as they certainly ought to be completed. A great many of these batteries will be perfectly useless unless sheathed with iron, and it is also necessary to place in turrets and on turn-tables the heavy guns with which those batteries must be armed. The additional expense required for this iron sheathing and these turntables will be very nearly £1,000,000. I hope, however, that this expenditure may be met by deducting the outlay contemplated upon works which were included in the schedule but have not yet been commenced. Thus there is a contemplated charge of £500,000 for defences at Chatham, and another sum of £150,000 for the purchase of a site for a central arsenal; and I hope that those sums may be struck out of the schedule. When these Returns are laid on the table I shall be able to show conclusively that up to this moment the present Government have incurred no responsibility whatever with regard to these fortifications, and that it will be for the House to consider whether they shall be completed and supplied with iron shields, turrets, and turn-tables. I have to add that there is one portion of the expense of these fortifications which it was always intended to throw upon the annual Estimates—that is to say, the armaments. Now, although that conclusion was come to in 1860, it was only in the present year that any guns have been prepared. An extraordinary estimate was made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto), who frightened the House by declaring, if I remember rightly, that £17,000,000 would be necessary to complete the armaments and the ammunition of these fortifications. My noble Friend the late Secretary for War estimated the amount which would be requisite at £3,000,000; and owing to the great reduction in the expense of making guns, and also of shot, I do not believe that the armaments of these fortifications will amount to much more than half the £3,000,000 stated by my noble Friend. Every information will be given to the House in this Return, which will be in the possession of the House in a day or two.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill relating to Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings, said, that last Session he had the honour of introducing a similar measure, which was read a second time without a division. It was then referred to a Select Committee, which reported unanimously in its favour. The Bill was intended to provide better dwellings for artizans and labourers; and he asked to introduce it now in the same terms as he had reported it from the Select Committee of last Session. The measure was therefore no longer his, but that of the Select Committee. It was not found possible to pass the Bill last year, and he now asked the House to re-consider the subject. The additional information which he had been able to obtain between the end of the last and the opening of the present Session led him to the conclusion that matters were getting worse rather than better, and that the want of accommodation and the amount of misery which resulted from it far exceeded all that voluntary efforts could do to afford relief. All that many benevolent and enterprizing persons like Alderman Waterlow could effect was as nothing compared to what was urgently demanded. The Industrial Dwellings Company had spent £40,000, and thereby given relief to 1,400 or 1,500 persons. At this rate the advance of £1,000,000 by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, as proposed by this Bill, would enable them to provide in one year for 35,000 people. He did not ask that that sum should be lent at once, but only tentatively; and he begged the House to remember that it was not out of the general taxation of the country that he asked the loan to be advanced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer debited himself to the amount of some £46,000,000 or £47,000,000, a portion of the thrift and savings of the working classes, and as the Government paid only 2½ per cent on that vast sum, it was not unreasonable to ask that £1,000,000 should be lent back at 3½ per cent. It was said, by way of objection, "If those dwellings will pay a remunerative interest, why not leave it to private enterprize to deal with the emergency?" But building speculations, if properly carried on, would require 8 or 10 per cent, and private enterprize sought only the sunny spots, while it left the dark spots of pestilence and death wholly unrelieved. He was prepared, however, to show that no loss could accrue to the public. Whatever sums were advanced by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners would be charged by way of mortgage on the buildings to be erected, the plans and sur- veys of which would be laid before them, and they would have the security of the municipal and in London of the metropolitan rate to make up any deficiency. He proposed to adopt a plan which was in successful operation in Liverpool—namely, that houses condemned by the officer of health should be presented before the grand jury; that the owner should be allowed a reasonable time in which to rebuild them; and that if he failed to do so they should be bought by the municipal body, which should rebuild them, and after the lapse of seven years should re-sell the property. He had reason to hope that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be willing to undertake the duty which would thus be cast upon them; and he believed that no burden would be imposed on the ratepayers, since the increasing value of house property was a sufficient assurance that houses re-built by the Board would re-imburse the original outlay. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

remarked that at the late period at which the hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill last Session, it was hardly possible for the Government to bestow any consideration upon it. In the general object of the Bill he, for one, most heartily concurred; but he wished to guard himself from expressing an opinion on that part of it containing an important provision relating to the property and rights of individuals, which required to be carefully looked into. With that qualification he should be happy to give his support to the Bill.

contended that it would be useless for capitalists to compete with persons who built houses and required only 5 per cent interest, and that the Bill would therefore place them in an unfair position. He thought his hon. Friend had taken a leaf out of Louis Blanc's book, and that if he began by building houses for artizans, he would end by establishing ateliers nationaux.

observed, that if the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) wished to protect persons who were anxious to spend their money in building houses there could not be the slightest objection to their doing that, and especially in neighbourhoods where better dwellings for the poor were wanted. The object of the Bill was to destroy fever nests in the metropolis, and they had the evidence of medical men, officers of the boards of health numberless, to the fact that without some such Bill it was impossible that the public health could be protected. This was not the first time that a strong feeling of political economy had been brought to bear against a charitable and humane scheme for the benefit of the poor. There were spots in the metropolis which bad been condemned over and over again, situate in a cul-de-sac, where it was impossible fresh air could penetrate, and where disease generally prevailed, and it was proposed that the municipal or local authorities should have the power of condemning the houses in these localities, and seeing that proper dwellings were erected in their place. The late Government approved of the principle, and also of lending money to carry out the object. His right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Home Department said he entirely approved of the Bill; and the only question was, whether the interests of private' individuals had been guarded with sufficient care. In the Committee which sat last year on the Bill this point was very carefully considered, and he believed there were ample clauses in this Bill to protect the interests of individuals. He had asked one of the directors of Mr. Alderman Waterlow's Company, whether some of their buildings in the borough paid 5 per cent, and the reply was that they paid 10. "How was that?" he inquired; and the director replied, "In consequence of the locality being near their work, so as to enable the tenants to go home to their meals." That was a strong argument in favour of removing these pestilential buildings and erecting others in their place for the working classes, instead of driving those classes to the suburbs. The working classes, like the rest of the community, objected to being driven out of the localities in which they had hitherto dwelt, and be thus cut off from those associations which they had been accustomed to enjoy. It was likewise most objectionable that they should be compelled to dwell in places at a distance from the metropolis entirely alone. It was desirable that all classes should be in proximity to one another, so that the less fortunate might profit by the example and support of those who were more affluent than themselves. These objects the Bill was well calculated to effect.

said, the question was not whether money should be found for building dwellings for the poor, but whether they should, with a view to the public advantage, try to get rid of disease and misery. Enormous mortality was caused by people being crowded together in what were little better than dungeons. He regretted that Scotland was excluded from the benefit of the recent Act allowing loans for such improvements, for there was a sanitary society in Aberdeen which had effected great good, but which was unfortunately short of funds, and when he applied to Mr. Spearman for a loan he was surprised to find there was a clause exempting Scotland. He hoped the rents for houses thus re-built would be fixed at sums which working men could afford to pay, for in Aberdeen lodgings were provided at as low a sum as 1s. 9d. a week.

was glad to state that the Government had consented to include Scotland and Ireland within the operation of the recent Act. He rejoiced also to find that they were prepared to give the fairest consideration to the present Bill, and he hoped it would become law this Session.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Commutation of Church Rates. Last year he introduced the same measure, but withdrew it in deference to the right hon. Member for South Lancashire.

said, he wished for some explanation on the part of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He presumed it was the Bill of last year for commuting church rates; and if so, it contained a proposition to impose a rate of 2d. in the pound upon all real estate for the maintenance of the fabrics of churches. This rate would produce a sum of £800,000 or £900,000 per annum. He believed the hon. Member for North Warwickshire disputed his figures; but that was the result of his own calculation. Were they to have the same Bill this year as they had for several years preceding? He thought it would be wise to let the subject drop. It had been before the House thirty years, and the character of the House had not risen in consequence. He hoped that the Government would express an opinion on the subject. It would not do to keep this question constantly before the country. He thought there should be a dissolution between Church and State. It should never be forgotten that the Nonconformists claimed to be a majority of the people of England; that in Scotland the Church of England had not many supporters; that in Ireland the Church was not one-eighth of the people. Under these circumstances, to have a Bill thrown in their teeth claiming a rate of 2d. in the pound was too bad. It was time that this was put an end to; and he moved, as an Amendment, "the Previous Question."

seconded the Amendment.

in explanation, said, the hon. Member was speaking of a Bill not in his hand; and he had made a most extraordinary statement with respect to the Bill of last Session. The hon. Member had said that he (Mr. Newdegate) intended, by the Bill of last year, to impose a charge on real property amounting to £800,000 or £900,000 a year. The hon. Member could not have read that Bill. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered explaining to the hon. Member some years ago that such was not the effect, or the purpose, or the intention of the Bill. He could only express a hope that as the subject had been discussed in the House of Commons, he would be allowed to lay the Bill on the table of the House.

said, it was a matter of ordinary courtesy to allow an hon. Member to introduce a Bill, and he hoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would not oppose that course on the present occasion.

then withdrew his Amendment.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Industrial Schools Act to Ireland, said, that the measure was the same as the Act passed for Great Britain last Session, with such modifications as were required by the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. He had taken the Irish Reformatory Act as the model on which those alterations were made. The necessity for such a measure was even greater in Ireland than in England. From the judicial statistics published by the Irish Government, it appeared that the criminal statistics of Ireland compared favourably in every respect with those of England, except in the item of juvenile vagrancy. The number of juvenile vagrants and tramps in Ireland was twice as great as in England in proportion to the population, and this was mainly attributable to the fact that there was no institution in Ireland to which these unfortunate children could be sent. The Act of last Session had given general satisfaction.

thought the House would remember that last Session the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, in one of the most completely Liberal speeches he ever made in the House on the Universities, strongly advised that so far as possible some of these Bills should be united, and that the House should not be troubled with constant repetitions of the same question. The Bill of the hon. and learned Member was distinct in principle from that of another hon. Member, because the latter affected endowments, while the present Bill simply related to degrees and offices in the University, and he was aware that some who would vote for one would not support the other. What he rose for was to give notice that if the Bill of the hon. and learned Member went into Committee, he should move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that the Bill be made to apply to the University of Cambridge as well as to the University of Oxford.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for affording better security to the holders of Railway Debentures, said, that it would be unnecessary to trouble the House at any length, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he had submitted a sketch of the Bill, had intimated that he would not oppose its introduction. He merely wished to say that he brought in the Bill in the interest of the 80,000 or 100,000 persons who were the owners of the £120,000,000 invested in railway debentures, and the object of it was to remove by legislation certain difficulties which had arisen, and to provide machinery by which, in certain cases, debenture-holders might take some share in the management of their own affairs. He desired to remove an impression which might be created by what he had said on a previous occasion—that the nominal capital of railway property in difficulties was one-tenth of the whole. Upon further examination, and having had a table carefully prepared, he found that the gross nominal capital of railways, where the interest on debentures had failed to be paid, was £24,700,000. This included nearly £17,000,000, the nominal capital of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Out of the £24,700,000 of nominal capital, £6,600,000 only consisted of debentures, of which sum nearly £5,000,000 attached to the Chatham. Thus the whole nominal amounts of capital of unsound lines was less than 5 per cent of the whole railway capital of the country; and the debenture-debt, inclusive of that of the Chatham, was only 1½ per cent, and exclusive of the Chatham, only 6s. 8d. per cent. Was it not, therefore, unnecessary that the House should be asked to take into consideration any general scheme of legislation? At the same time, he thought that whenever a railway company, sound or unsound, applied to Parliament to regulate its capital account, and to enable it to meet its liabilities and complete its works, it would be the duty of the House rather to facilitate than to place any difficulties in the way of such an application. Many cases had occurred in which difficulties had been got over by means of a perfect agreement between all parties interested. The House would remember the case of the Caledonian Railway. It was in the greatest difficulties when the shareholders and bondholders devised a scheme, to which they ultimately obtained the sanction of Parliament, and in the result secured a large measure of prosperity. He was not without hope that, if a similar course were adopted, companies now in difficulties might, in the course of two or three years, be successfully extricated from them. It must be borne in mind that he was speaking in the interest of property equal to £450,000,000, the development of which had conferred an enormous advantage to the trade of the country. He might say, for the satisfaction of the debenture-holders, that at the end of 1865 the debenture capital was under £100,000,000, and at the end of 1866 it was under £120,000,000. The total net profit earned by railway capital in 1865 was nearly £19,000,000, and in 1866 it was nearly £21,000,000. Therefore, if six years' net revenue of all the railways were thrown together, it would pay off the whole of the debentures, which were the first mortgage on the undertaking. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, he saw no objection to the introduction of the Bill, as its provisions were prospective only. By the time it came on for second reading the House would have had an opportunity of seeing whether the plan could be adopted without injustice to other classes of creditors. He was glad the hon. Gentleman took the same view as he himself had ventured to express the other evening—namely, that it was desirable when cases such as those to which the hon. Member referred arose they should be dealt with by special legislation. He also concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking we might look forward to a more satisfactory state of the railway world. He believed there was unnecessary panic in reference to railway property.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt during a limited time Associations of Workmen which were in respect of any part of their constitution entitled to the benefits of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, from forfeiture of those benefits by reason of their being in other parts of their constitution adapted to the purposes of a trades union. The hon. Member remarked, that previously to 1825 all combinations of workmen for the object of getting any advance of wages were illegal; but in that year a measure was passed removing all liability in criminal proceedings from all societies of a peaceable kind, and these societies continued for a long time to enjoy such facilities for the administration of their funds as the law then allowed to other societies. Then came the Friendly Societies' Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., in which special facilities were given to what were termed Friendly Societies—that is, societies raised and constituted in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. At that time there were friendly societies which partook to a certain degree of the character of trades unions, and on these also certain advantages were conferred by a clause introduced into the Act of 1844. Very recently, however, on the occasion of the treasurer of a society absconding and the matter being brought before a magistrate, the magistrate refused to grant a warrant, on the ground that the society was not entitled to the benefit of the Friendly Societies' Act, on account of its being partly of a trades union character. Subsequently the decision of the magistrates was confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench. He did not question for a moment that the decision was right; but still, it was productive of great inconvenience, and he might mention that it affected not only trades unions of the most complicated and oppressive character, but also those which were of the most innocent kind. It might be that the forthcoming inquiry on the subject of trades unions might exclude them from the pale of the law; but that certainly had not hitherto been the intention of the House of Commons, because, for example, four years ago they were empowered to invest their funds on the security of the Post Office savings banks. In his opinion, a Bill ought to be passed to protect these associations—at any rate, for a time and until the whole law had been considered—from the effect of the recent decision. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

The difficulty proposed to be dealt with is very great, as it will be necessary to draw a line between such societies as ought to take advantage of the Friendly Societies' Act and those societies which are contrary to law. Of course, I can give no opinion on the hon. Member's measure till I have seen its provisions, but I shall not oppose the introduction of the Bill.