This is a Motion to suspend the Standing Orders in order to enable the Bill to be read a third time. Before we consent to that course, I think we have a right to learn from hon. Members who are responsible for the introduction of the Bill what course they intend to take hereafter in regard to the important clause which was inserted in this Bill on Monday last, and which assimilates the Municipal to the Parliamentary franchise in Belfast. We, in this part of the House, regard that course as essential to the proper administration of the scheme embodied in this Bill; and, therefore, before the measure is read a third time, I feel it is my duty to ask the promoters of the Bill whether they intend to use their influence to strike out the clause in question in "another place," or whether they are prepared to accept the decision at which the House arrived on Monday in good faith? If I receive an assurance to that effect I shall be glad to assent to the third reading of the Bill; but if not, I shall most certainly feel it my duty to divide the House against the suspension of the Standing Orders.

May I ask whether the Question before the House is not a Question of the suspending of the Standing Orders?

Yes.

Has Notice been given to the promoters of the Bill that it was intended to move the suspension of the Standing Orders?

Yes.

. Then, is there no one here to answer the question which has been asked by my hon. Friend? It is quite evident that the Bill ought to be postponed.

If the Bill is opposed it will stand over necessarily until the next day of the sitting of the House.

Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat that, if the general sense of the House is in favour of the understanding that the clause which was inserted in the Bill on Monday last shall not be got rid of in "another place," I should not feel disposed to insist upon my opposition to the third reading of the Bill.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has any right to make a proposal of that kind in the absence of the hon. Members for Belfast.

I think the most simple way of dealing with the question would be to allow the third reading to stand over until the commencement of the new Parliament, so as to allow the new Parliament to express its opinion whether the Bill ought to be read a third time or not. Nothing whatever would be lost by taking that course, and it would prevent any difficulty being raised with regard to this new clause in the other House of Parliament.

I think that hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House have a right to claim that there should be a specific understanding in regard to this measure. I cannot forget that when the understanding, which was supposed to have existed in regard to the postponement of the Bill from the 31st of May, was before the House on Monday last there was an absolute disagreement as to what the nature of that understanding was. Indeed, it was questioned by certain hon. Members whether there had been any understanding at all. I think, therefore, that in what we decide upon to-day there should be no repetition of the misunderstanding which occurred on Monday.

The Question now before the House is the suspension of the Standing Orders. A subsequent Question will be "That the Bill be now read a third time."

In the absence of those who are entitled to enter into an undertaking I shall certainly persist in my objection to the suspension of the Standing Orders.

inquired who were the Tellers for the Ayes?

If there are no Tellers there can be no division.

I will tell for one.

And I for another.

Then I name as the Tellers for the Ayes, Viscount Folkestone and Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, and as the Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Sexton and Mr. Howard Spensley.

I wish to know, Sir, whether this Bill is a Private or a Public Bill, and whether or not, if nothing further is done with it now, it will be taken in the new Parliament at the stage which it has reached at present, or whether it will lapse with the termination of the Session? I entertain strong objections with regard to some of the provisions of this measure, and I think it is desirable, if possible, that some of the persons who are interested in the matter should have an opportunity of being heard, so that they may give their reasons for opposing this tramway line. On the other, hand it is also desirable that the promoters of the Bill should have an opportunity of giving their reasons in favour of the scheme. My own opinion is that the landlords in the localities which are affected by the measure should be made liable for one-half of the guarantee as well as the tenants. By this Private Bill, as it now stands, the occupiers will be called upon to pay the whole amount of the guarantee payable under this measure. I think it is only fair that the landlords should pay their fair proportion. If it is decided that this Bill is a Public Bill, and that it will lose the position it now occupies in the event of a Dissolution, I think it will be an exceeding awkward thing to prevent it from having an opportunity of going before a Select Committee. On the other hand, if it is simply in the position of other Private Bills, I think there would be a general agreement to allow it to be read a second time now, on the understanding that no further stage shall be taken, but that it will come before the now Parliament, so that an opportunity should be afforded to all persons who are interested in the locality to show whether the provisions of the measure are of a nature which will justify the House in passing them into law or not. If the Government will afford me an opportunity of moving an Instruction to the Committee to-morrow, or of opposing the clause to which I particularly object, I shall raise no further objection to the proposal now made. All that I want is that a fair opportunity should be afforded to the House for saying whether or not it will insist that all the guarantees in connection with this proposed tramway shall be paid by the tenants, and no portion whatever by the landlords. What I wish now to ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this—Whether or not this is to be treated as a Private Bill, or as a Public Bill; whether, in the event of its being held to be a Private Bill, it will come before the new Parliament in the position it now occupies; and whether, in the event of its being held to be a Public Bill, it will lapse entirely with the Dissolution about to take place in the same way as other Public Bills?

In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say that this is essentially a Public Bill, and, therefore, that it will lapse entirely with the Prorogation. If it had been simply a Provisional Order Bill, it would necessarily partake of the nature of a Public Bill; but, in my judgment, it is something more than a Provisional Order Bill, and the character of its provisions is such that it is essentially a Public Bill.

Perhaps the House will allow me to say fiat I have presented a considerable number of Petitions from my constituents in favour of this Bill. The measure itself runs through the heart of my constituency. [A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh; but this is the first attempt I have ever made to carry any Bill through this House, and if, in doing so, I am guilty of any mistake, I hope the House will pardon me. This scheme has been under (he consideration both of this House and of the House of Lords for a very considerable time—I believe something like two years—and during that time the persons who first of all drew up the scheme—people who have been called upon to furnish the guarantees for carrying forward the measure, and the majority of whom are certainly the very reverse of wealthy—have subscribed upwards of £7,000; and, out of that sum, up to the present time from £3,000 to £4,000 still remains at this moment in the hands of the trustees, and is, at any rate, the money of the persons who have to furnish this guarantee. It certainly appears to be extremely hard that a scheme of this sort, which was brought forward four years ago, and for which the people of the county of Cork were begged to subscribe their money, should be treated in this way, and that the scheme should be hung up from time to time to suit the pleasure of the opponents of the measure. I may inform the House that the principal opponents of the scheme are the Cork and Macroom Railway Company. That Company have done their utmost on every occasion, and by every means, to oppose the scheme on the ground that if it were carried out it would injure their own material interests. Perhaps I may be allowed to give the simple history of the scheme, which has had to fulfil many conditions. In the first place, it had to pass the Cork Grand Jury. It passed that ordeal satisfactorily, not only once, but twice. It had also to pass the Cork Board of Guardians and the Cork Town Council, and it was successful in each instance. Now, the Cork Grand Jury, we all know, contains within itself gentlemen of the aristocratic type and order; nevertheless, this scheme has been twice passed by that Body, and also by the Cork Town Council, which is an essentially democratic Body, and by the Cork Board of Guardians. It then went before the Privy Council of Ireland, who also passed it. It has, consequently, fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary. When I was asked to take up the scheme, I must confess that I did not decide upon doing so hastily. Although I felt that the scheme might be of material advantage to my constituents, I determined that I would not have anything to say to it until I had ascertained what the feeling of those persons who were most materially affected by it was. I consulted the gentlemen who were asked to guarantee the scheme, and I received from a large majority assurances in favour of the measure. When I last happened to be in Cork, I took a bind of plébiscite of the guarantors in every district; and perhaps the House will allow me to state what the result of that plébiscite was. In the district of Blarney there are 98 rated occupiers who would be required to furnish the guarantee, with a total rateable qualification of £7,097. Out of that number I find that 65 were in favour of the Bill, and 33 against it. The 65 in favour of it possess a rating qualification of £5,748; whereas the 33 occupiers and freeholders who were either neutral or against the Bill, or whose opinions are unknown, only represent a rating qualification of £1,349. In Ballincollig there is only one gentleman who would be called upon to furnish a guarantee, hardly any of the ratepayers being within the area of taxation in the district, and that gentleman is in favour of the scheme. In Coachford there are 167 in favour of the Bill, with a rateable qualification of £8,232 6s. 9d., as compared with 47 against it, and a rateable qualification of £1,737 6s. In Farsan and Mac-room, through which districts it is proposed that the tramway shall actually run, it is found that the people who may be called upon to guarantee it are naturally not so favourable to the scheme. That is easily explained. We know perfectly well that in all schemes of this nature, where it is proposed to run a tramway line, or a light railway, through a particular district, there are a certain number of people who would be called upon to furnish the guarantee who would not be so materially helped by the scheme as those who live in other areas. In this case, the consequence is that in Farsan there are only five rated occupiers in favour of the Bill, with a rated qualification of £249 10s.; whereas there are six, or a majority of one against the Bill, who command a rating qualification of £404 in the district of Farsan. There already exists a railway running direct to Cork, and it cannot be expected that the people of Macroom would be so much in favour of the construction of this railway as other persons who would derive very material benefit from it. In Macroom there is a majority of 11 against the scheme. There are 12 rated occupiers, representing a rating qualification of £630 7s., in favour of the Bill; whereas there are against it 23, with a rateable qualification of £1,164 10s. In the district of Shandangan, which lies to the North, the population would be equally benefited, although not in the same way, as the districts which lie on the coach road to Blarney. In Shandangan, 26 rated occupiers, with a rateable qualification to the extent of £1,424 7s., are in favour of the scheme, as against two rated occupiers, with a rateable qualification of £85, who are against it. The total result is this. There are 276 rated occupiers, with a rateable qualification amounting to £16,313 6s. 9d., in favour of the Bill, and 111, with a rateable qualification of £4,739, against it. Consequently, there is a majority of 165 rated occupiers in favour of the Bill, and an excess of rateable qualification to the extent of £11,573 10s. 9d. That is the result of the plébiscite which I have taken. I think those facts speak for themselves. The measure has been taken up as a Public Bill. If it had been introduced as a Private Bill, I could easily understand the objections which might be raised to it by private individuals. They would object for many and various reasons, and probably to a large extent from motives of a purely private character, because, undoubtedly, private reasons do frequently influence individuals in regard to measures from which they are not likely to derive any particular material benefit. But I feel bound to maintain that, taking this Bill as it stands, and considering the benefit it is likely to confer upon the district which will be served by it, remembering also the depressed times through which we are passing, and considering further that a large class of unfortunate labouring people are at the present moment driven to the verge of starvation—taking all these things into consideration, I cannot help feeling that hon. Members who are taking upon themselves to oppose the Bill, supported as it is by the vast majority of the people of the district through which it is to pass, and who are alone to furnish the guarantee, are entailing upon themselves a serious responsibility. I know this district thoroughly, and I am convinced that this light line of railway, if its construction be sanctioned by Parliament, will not only pay interest upon the capital expended upon it, but will be of vast benefit, not only to the population generally, but especially to the labouring classes, in this time of deep and general distress.

I am very much inclined to support the view of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) respecting this and cognate measures—namely, that the guarantee and the burden of taxation is allowed to rest unduly upon the tenants, and that the landlords entirely escape. But, after having heard the figures which have been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and being quite satisfied that the people of this district earnestly desire that this scheme should be carried out, I feel bound to give the measure my support. I am informed that all the Representatives of the county of Cork are in favour of the scheme; and when we find that the people of the district, who are certainly the best judges of their own affairs, desire the Bill; when the Representatives of the locality share the views entertained by their constituents, who, they believe, will be benefited by the construction of the line, we have before us strong reasons which ought to be quite sufficient to induce hon. Members to pause before they do anything that may impair the progress of the Bill or prevent the scheme from being carried out with as little delay as possible. There was another fact mentioned by my hon. Friend which ought not to be lost sight of. In addition to the ultimate benefit which the district will receive from the construction of this line, there is also the fact that the labouring classes at this moment are sadly in need of employment. By carrying out this work employment will be given in the coming winter. Instead of the labouring classes having to pass through an exceptional gloomy winter, employment will be found for them; and not only will they be able to provide for their own wants by honest industry, but the bulk of them will be prevented from becoming the recipients of outdoor relief. Having regard to the arguments which have been adduced by my hon. Friend in favonr of the Bill, much as I desire to see the landlords compelled to pay their due proportion of taxation, I am quite satisfied that it will be of advantage to the locality if the Bill is passed as rapidly as possible.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who is not able to be in his place this afternoon, I have been requested to communicate to the House what the views of the Irish Government are in reference to this Bill. It is not necessary that I should go into the details of the case, which are well known to many hon. Members. But the circumstances of the case entail peculiar hardships upon the locality in which this line runs, and form a strong argument in favour of some alteration in our mode of doing business so far as Ireland is concerned. This measure has passed through various stages both as a Private and a Public Bill, and it has now become undoubtedly a Public Bill. I may state shortly that the scheme has been twice sanctioned under the provisions of the Tramways Act by the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, and it was then submitted to the Irish Privy Council, according to the provisions of the law. The Privy Council unanimously approved of the Order, and the matter was very fully discussed. It was next brought before the House of Lords, and the officials of that House made the mistake, last year, of treating it as a Private instead of a Public Bill. It was referred to a Private Bill Committee, and the parties were put to the enormous expense of bringing over witnesses from Ireland. Ultimately the Select Committee rejected the Bill. Shortly afterwards the change of Government took place, and representations were made to the authorities of the House of Lords, and the matter was considered by both sides of the House. The late Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury), and his Predecessor (the Earl of Selborne), were satisfied that a great error had been committed, and that it was a Public and not a Private Bill. It was therefore decided to re-commit the Bill, and to treat it as a public measure. It was passed without a division, and sent down to this House late in the Session. The consequence was that it was blocked, and finally lost. The Dissolution took place, and the thousands of pounds which the unfortunate promoters had expended were thrown away. It has now been brought forward again this year as a Public Bill, and it has received the support of Earl Spencer, Lord Fitzgerald, of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and of Lord Ashbourne, the late Lord Chancellor. I am sure the House will not agree with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that this is a measure upon which to raise the question of requiring the landlords to join in the guarantee in reference to future taxation. I think it is only just to the promoters that the Bill should be allowed to pass after the tremendously expensive ordeal to which it has been subjected; and it must not be forgotten that it comes down to us with the united support of the Noblemen whose names I have mentioned, of the present Government of Ireland, and of the late Government. Those who are now responsible for the government of that country ask the House to pass the second reading and to suspend the Standing Orders in order that that course may be taken.

I think there is a great deal of reason in what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and there was also a good deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), as to the want of employment for the labouring classes in the county of Cork at the present moment; but, at the same time, I think there can be no argument more dangerous for advocating a scheme of this kind than that of the existence of distress and the impossibility of finding employment for persons now out of work. I do not think that the House ought to be called upon to entertain any scheme upon that ground; but it ought to be considered entirely upon its own merits, altogether irrespective of any distress that may exist. In regard to the Bill itself I have this remark to make—that it is one of a character which ought to be jealously watched, because the authorities have had no opportunity of making themselves heard. The measure is not one which has achieved such an amount of success which renders it desirable that it should be hurried through Parliament, as it is now proposed to hurry it, without detailed examination. My hon. Friend below me—the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner)—made a great deal of certain figures which he quoted in reference to the districts in the county of Cork which will be affected by the construction of this tramway; but those who are not as intimately acquainted with the county of Cork as he and I may not be able to appreciate the significance of this question. If, however, hon. Members will refer to a map, and examine the figures by the light of that reference, they will find that about the city of Cork there is much support to the scheme; in Blarney also there is a considerable amount of support; the people of Coachford also, whose doors the line is proposed to run past, are also in favour of it. But when you get further off, and approach Macroom and other parts, it will be found that the scheme receives nothing like the same amount of support. Nevertheless, it is proposed to charge a large district with a heavy amount of liability with regard to this financial project, although in its entirety it is scarcely benefited at all. Places which are remote from this line of tramway will receive no benefit whatever from it, but will be saddled, notwithstanding, with a serious financial burden. I think that is altogether unfair. If we suspend the Standing Orders in the way in which it is proposed to suspend them now, what will be the effect? The Bill will go before the Examiners of Private Bills, who will be able to call the promoters before them. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: No; that is not so.] I understand that the Examiners would hear individual proprietors of property along the proposed tramway line, and also some of the shareholders of the Company. If it is to be treated as a Private Bill, as I understand it is—[Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: NO.]—it will be necessary to refer it to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. If it is not to be treated as a Private Bill, the case is made worse, because not only would the promoters have an opportunity of being heard before the Examiners of Private Bills, but it would be open for other persons to complain of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, and, in some form or other, to ventilate the merits and demerits of the scheme. If that were done now, I have no doubt the result would be the same in this House as it was after the careful scrutiny which was made by the House of Lords, and which resulted in the decision that the Bill ought not to pass. We are asked now to do a very singular thing. The Government informed the House that it was intended to bring the Session to a close as rapidly as possible, and that in the meantime no contentious Business would be taken. Now, this Bill has been opposed over and over again. It admittedly contains matter of a contentious character, and we find the Government deliberately departing from their promise, and themselves pushing contentious Business through the House at a moment when they had given hon. Members to understand that no contentious Business would be taken. They are even asking us to dispense with our own Standing Orders, which require that the Bill should go before the Examiners, and proposing that the Bill should be committed, in the Whole House, at once. I maintain that this is an extreme course to take; and unless the necessity were very great—a good deal stronger than it is on the present occasion—I am of opinion that Her Majesty's Government are not justified in what they are doing. I assume, however, that it will be useless to divide the House on the matter; but I am glad to have an opportunity of recording my protest against the course which the Government propose to take.

This Bill is not now for the first time before the House, and its merits are not required to be gone into now, seeing that they have been amply discussed before. Indeed, the measure has been before the House on its merits since 1884, and upon those merits there have been two decisions in its favour by the Grand Jury of the county of Cork. The House are, therefore, aware that the persons who are intrusted with the care of the interests of the particular locality affected by the Bill have already twice decided that the Bill ought to be passed. The Town Council of the city of Cork and the Cork Board of Guardians, who are perfectly well acquainted with the wants of the locality, have also decided in its favour. In addition, it has received the approval of the Privy Council of Ireland. After all these decisions, and after all the occasions in which those who object to the scheme have had an opportunity of being heard against it, my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) asks now that some particular individuals who have already had an opportunity of being heard shall be heard again, and be able to re-state their case in such a manner as to throw an enormous expense upon the promoters of the scheme. This Bill, which to some extent is a Private Bill, has now become a Public Bill; but, through a mistake on the part of the officials in "another place," it was relegated back as a Private Bill, and the promoters were compelled to incur an expense of £2,000, seeing that they had to bring over 14 or 15 witnesses to London, and to go into the merits of the Bill over again before a tribunal which I maintain, with all due respect, was not nearly so well qualified to come to a decision upon the scheme as the Grand Jury of the county of Cork or the Privy Council of Ireland. The expense of bringing witnesses from Ireland to this country is so great that the promoters were unable to call some of their most valuable witnesses. Then I say that those who are opposed to the Bill have had an ample opportunity of being heard twice already, and that the matter has been decided against them, except in the single instance when the Bill was sent back to a Private Bill Committee by the House of Lords. On that occasion the promoters, almost without notice, were called upon to re-state their case, and to endeavour to prove it by witnesses who could only be brought from Ireland at an enormous expense. I think it would not only be a great hardship, but an act of great injustice, to the promoters, who are only acting in the public interests, to impose upon them a repetition of the large expenditure already incurred. I therefore think the best course is to accept the proposal of Her Majesty's Government and take the measure as a Public Bill.

As one of the Representatives of the county of Cork and a resident in the district which is proposed to be served by the construction of this tramway, I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope the House will assent to it. Of course, one must naturally expect opposition to a measure of this kind; but I take it that if the House were to adopt the course recommended by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), it would have the effect of requiring the merits of this Bill to be discussed for a third or fourth time, whereas the opponents of the scheme have already had an opportunity on several occasions of stating their case, and the decision has been against them. The Board of Guardians of the district through which the tramway is to pass have unanimously passed resolutions in support of it. It is also strongly supported by the Corporation of the city of Cork, who are well acquainted with the locality and the local requirements. I therefore think that a strong case in favour of it has been made out. The opposition to the Bill comes principally from the Cork and Macroom Railway Company, as has already been explained by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). That hon. Member is a Representative of the district, and he would certainly not have supported it if he did not believe that it would be for the benefit of the locality, that it is a scheme which will eventually pay, and that it will serve the material interests of his constituents. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Motion.

I gather from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary to the Treasury) that he objects to two propositions which have been made—namely, that he declines to agree to afford me an opportunity to-morrow of discussing the propriety of throwing half the expense of the guarantee upon the landlords, instead of throwing the whole of it upon the occupoing tenants. He also objects, and perhaps not unfairly, to allow the Bill to be entirely lost, because he knows that it is practically impossible to have its merits considered at this period of the Session by a Select Committee. My appeal to the hon. Gentleman was that he should give us an opportuity tomorrow of considering whether it was not desirable to insert a clause in the measure which would allow part of the responsibility of the guarantee to be laid, where it ought to be laid, upon the landowners as well as the tenants. It is notorious that this Bill was originally promoted by a large landowner in the county of Cork. Not only is that the case, but it is somewhat singular that so much stress should have been laid upon the fact that the Grand Jury of the county of Cork decided in favour of the scheme. I am credibly informed that the late High Sheriff laid the Bill before a Grand Jury altogether friendly to his views, and, in fact, that they came to a decision upon the representations made to them by that gentleman. Sir George Colthurst, a former Representative of the county, was the High Sheriff by whom the measure was brought before the Grand Jury. Coachford, one of the points to which it is proposed to carry this railway, is a village about 15 miles from Cork. I would ask hon. Members to consider seriously whether it is desirable to encourage projects for making light railways to the villages in all parts of Ireland?—and yet that is really the gist of the proposal now before the House. I would further ask whether it is deemed advisable to encourage the construction of tramways to distant villages in competition with regular lines of railway already in existence and paying very small dividends? In regard to this projected line, it runs almost parallel with the Cork and Macroom Railway; it is not more than five miles away from any part of it, and, consequently, it cannot be alleged that the district proposed to be served is very badly off for railway accommodation. Persons residing within a mile of Macroom would naturally continue to use the Macroom Railway as a mode of conveyance to Cork in preference to the proposed line, and yet they are to be made liable to find the guarantee for this Bill. I would ask the Government if that is a proposal in support of which there can be any fair argument? As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), the Government, when they announced a Dissolution, gave a promise that no contentious Business should be taken. Now, this Bill certainly contains provisions of a highly contentious nature, and if they were allowed to be fairly fought out on their merits, I am satisfied that they would be thrown out. My hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) talked about the construction of the line providing employment for the labourer. But are hon. Members prepared, in order to find employment for the labouring classes to the extent of some £10,000, to tax the ratepayers permanently to the extent of £70,000? The serious part of the expense of a railway is incurred in providing rolling stock, rails, and other materials, whereas the cost of labour is only a small fraction of the entire expense. I maintain that the reasons which have been given in support of the Bill are altogether untenable, and I think Her Majesty's Government ought to agree to my proposal, and afford an opportunity of considering the propriety of throwing the responsibility of supplying the guarantee upon the persons who are the real promoters of the scheme, and not of confining the burden of taxation solely upon the unfortunate occupying tenants. The landowners should undoubtedly bear their fair share of the expense, and perhaps it would teach them not to go in for these expensive railway schemes. At any rate, their views in that direction would probably be more moderate if they knew that they would be liable to incur their proper share of the expense.

The answer I have to give to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government is simply this—that if we were to afford him the opportunity he asks for, the result would be merely to throw out the Bill. The House will only meet to-morrow for the purpose of being prorogued, and neither House will meet for the purpose of going on with Business. Therefore, to postpone the second reading of the Bill until tomorrow, would amount to the practical throwing out of the Bill. I do not propose to go into the merits of the case again. The local people are in favour of it; the Local Authorities have twice over decided upon it; the Irish Privy Council has given its sanction to it; and the House of Lords, including two Lord Lieutenants, both the late and previous and present Lord Chancellor, and the Chief Secretaries past and present, in addition to the Members in this House who represent the district, have decided in favour of it. I hope, therefore, the House will not listen to the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member, but will do in this matter what I consider to be justice to Ireland.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in the conclusion to which he has arrived, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to persist with his opposition to the Bill.

I think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is somewhat mistaken in the statement he has made, that this Bill commands the universal assent of the locality through which it is to pass. The House has been familiar with the Bill since last year, and hon. Members who belong to the Party who sit on these Benches have reason to be familiar with it by reason of the fact that they were waited upon by two deputations of local ratepayers who came over from Ireland to make representations in regard to the Bill. One was a deputation from the tenants of Sir George Colthurst, who were naturally in favour of it, because it suited their personal convenience, and because this line of tramway—which I believe is really a bogus line—is to run past their houses, and will, of course, be of some benefit to them. It was supported also by the local landlord party, and by the Grand Jury, specially packed by Sir George Colthurst, who, in 1884, was High Sheriff of the county of Cork, because the line is intended to benefit his own property, and will be of advantage to his tenants. He sent a deputation of tenant farmers to us, all of whom lived in the immediate vicinity of the proposed line, and, of course, they were in favour of it; but immediately afterwards a large deputation of tenant farmers came across who do not live in the immediate vicinity of the line, but who are supposed to derive benefit from it. They distinctly told us that the Cork and Macroom Railway affords ample accommodation to the district already; they, therefore, objected to be burdened with taxation for it; they maintained the line, if constructed, would never pay; and I think it is perfectly obvious that a narrow gauge line of railway of this nature, instead of being able to pay, will be a dead loss. The consequence will be that it will have to be taken up by the Grand Jury as soon as it ceases to pay, and the community will be taxed to the extent, probably, of 1s. in the pound, simply for the purpose of gratifying the interests of Sir George Colthurst, who, at that time, was Member for the city of Cork, and his tenants. The hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), who is intimately connected with the county, is altogether opposed to the scheme.

Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt him? I only wish to say that the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) did oppose the Bill at the outset, but he has since withdrawn all objection and opposition.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo has ceased to be a Member for the city of Cork, and he does not trouble himself now about the affairs of that city. Probably it would have been different if he had remained one of the Representatives of that city. Not only did the hon. Member for West Mayo oppose the construction of this line, but the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane), who was not then a Member of this House, was also strongly opposed to it.

I must again interrupt my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for East Cork is one of the strongest aiders and abettors of this Bill.

I remember that the hon. Member who now represents East Cork (Mr. Lane) distinctly stated last year that he had been led by error into supporting the Bill; but as soon as he found out the real nature of the measure, and the real intentions of the promoters, he at once communicated with my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), who was then the junior Member for the city of Cork, with a view of inducing him to oppose the measure, on the ground that it proposed to burden the locality with an enormous annual charge. Already the local ratepayers are petitioning against the Bill. Persons living in the locality, rated at £1,500 per annum, have petitioned against it, and are altogether opposed to it. Their contention is that this scheme, which is brought in under the provisions of the Tramways Act of 1883, is open to great objection, on the ground that there is no prospect of the line being able to maintain its way. The only thing that has been said in its favour is that its construction would involve the expenditure of money for the benefit of the labouring classes; but I contend that that is one of the greatest possible delusions from an economic standpoint. Suppose there are £20,000 or £30,000 spent in the payment of wages among the navvies and other persons engaged in these works. The money may benefit the men who receive it, but the locality will be very little benefited. There may be a small temporary benefit, but in the end there would be a permanent charge on the rates. Thus the locality is to be taxed in perpetuity for the benefit of a small gang of navvies; and the navvies who construct lines of railways in Ireland are not local navvies, but persons who come from a distance and go about in gangs from one public work to another. The idea that the construction of this tramway line will benefit the locality seems to my mind to be all moonshine. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has supported the scheme, for I am perfectly certain that if he had had the opportunity of inquiring into the question he would have taken the opposite attitude.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) excited some laughter when he said that this question was one which ran through the heart of his constituency; but I maintain that it runs through the heart of Irish property generally. I would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House whether there can be any doubt whatever as to the Irish feeling on this matter, or of those who represent the locality principally affected by the measure? If the Bill were decided by the vote of the Irish Members alone, I am satisfied that it would be carried by a very large majority.

I would make an appeal to hon. Members who are supporting the Bill to agree to the very reasonable proposal that that burden should be restricted to those who are to enjoy the benefit. There are certain districts which are already within reach of a railway. Such districts will derive no benefit at all from the proposed line. They have signed a Petition against it, and they have moved against it not only this year, but in previous years. It is perfectly absurd that persons living within a mile of Macroom Railway Station, which is in direct communication with Cork, should be taxed in order that another line, of doubtful benefit, should be run in a district which is not theirs. If those who are in charge of the Bill will agree to exclude from the area of the measure Farsan and Macroom, I am perfectly ready to withdraw the opposition to the Bill; but I cannot see how the House can in fairness insist in throwing the charge upon Macroom for a scheme which can in no way benefit it, and in respect of a railway service which they regard as no supplement whatever to their own line. These are the only two districts in regard to which there is any substantial ground of objection; but in respect of these two it seems to me unreasonable that the promoters should refuse to modify their scheme. I would ask my hon. Friend below (Dr. Tanner) to say whether, if this Bill goes into Committee this afternoon, he will be willing to submit a limitation of the area of charge so as to exclude the districts I have mentioned?

So far as the proposal which my hon. Friend has made is concerned, I should have no objection to it; but I must remind him that the matter is entirely in the hands of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and, as far as I can see, if the proposition were entertained the Bill would be hung up and practically destroyed for the present Session, and would have to be introduced again. If the House will bear in mind the figures which I have already read in reference to the two districts which my hon. Friend desires to omit, they will recollect that in one of them—Farsan—there were five rated occupiers in favour of the Bill, and only six against, while in the dis- trict of Macroom there were 12 in favour and 23 against; so that there were altogether, in the two districts, 17 in favour of the scheme and 29 against it. Accordingly, you are to hang up the Bill for another year, and put the unfortunate promoters to an immense amount of expense, in order to gratify the wishes of 12 persons who may be called on to give a guarantee. I certainly think that it is a ridiculous proposal, and I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not give it his serious consideration. The House may rest satisfied that all classes and sections in the locality are united in supporting the measure, and the sooner it is passed into law the better it will be for all parties concerned.

If the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) were carried out, this Bill, which is framed on the basis of certain areas of taxation, would be entirely changed in its character, and the entire fabric which has been built up would crumble away. I cannot see how the suggestion of my hon. Friend could be carried out compatibly with the retention of the remaining provisions of the measure.

Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I must again protest against the way in which this Bill has been dealt with. It came down from the House of Lords on Tuesday last, and no Notice of it was given to any Member of the House until the Papers were issued next morning. Yet we are now asked to push the Bill through all of its stages. What is the result? The result is that we have had no opportunity of drafting any Amendments which might be considered fair and reasonable; we have been prevented either from giving Notice of Amendments, or from having any opportunity to block the Bill. I think, Sir, that that is a mode of conducting the Business of the House which we have a right to protest against in the strongest terms we can use. Further than that, we were told when the Dissolution was announced that Her Majesty's Government would proceed with no contentious Business, but would simply wind up the ordinary Business of the Session. Yet they have introduced, almost on the last day of the Session, a measure of a highly contentious character, and they propose to force it through all of its stages in a single Sitting. It is notorious that there has been no debate in this House on the merits of this scheme, and that however desirable it may be to introduce Amendments into the Bill it would be impossible to have them properly considered unless previous Notice of them had been placed upon the Paper. If the Government had taken measures to have the Bill brought down from the House of Lords on Monday, so that we might have been afforded an opportunity of giving Notice of Amendments on Tuesday, there might have been some slight justification for the course which has been pursued; but, under the circumstances, it certainly seems to me that the Government have been guilty of sharp practice in regard to the Bill. We have been told by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that the opponents of the Bill are very few; but there have been Petitions against the Bill signed by ratepayers who are rated as occupiers to the amount of £4,700 per annum. No doubt, a certain class of persons will get some convenience from the construction of this line and will reap advantage from it. Of course, they are in favour of the measure; but, on the other hand, there are a considerable number of large ratepayers who will be taxed by the Bill and will derive no benefit at all from it. I think that, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government ought to withdraw the Bill altogether.

I beg to move, in the Schedule which confirms the presentment of the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, to insert, after the word "Barretts," "with the exception of the parish of Aghina." This is a clause—Section 8 of the Schedule—which reads in this way—

"The presentment of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, which is set out in the first Schedule to this Order, is hereby confirmed so far as it relates to the charge to be defrayed by the portions of the baronies of East Muskerry and Cork and Barretts as particularized in the said presentment for the payment of dividends at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum upon the paid-up capital of the undertaking as limited by this Order, and so far as it relates to the liability of the same portion of the said baronies to provide for the completing, working, and maintaining of the undertaking."

I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), who, although not in charge of the Bill, represents the interests of the promoters, that he is not, in principle at any rate, opposed to the modification of the limitation which I suggested a short time ago. He only appeared to be afraid that any alteration of the Bill in Committee would involve delay and imperil the passing of the measure. But I understand that there are other Amendments which it will be necessary to insert in Committee, so that the acceptance of the Amendment which I propose would not involve any delay at all, seeing that I propose no further alteration of the Bill than will be effected by the other Amendments to which I allude. I simply propose by this Amendment to limit the area of charge by inserting in line 13, after the word "Barretts," the words "with the exception of the parish of Aghina." That parish is the parish which is most hardly dealt with by the scheme as it is now drawn. There is no portion of the parish of Aghina of which it can be said that it will derive any benefit whatever from the Bill. It is the parish from which the loudest and best grounded objections to the scheme proceed, and there is certainly considerable cause for the complaint the ratepayers make. In order to effect a compromise in the matter, I simply limit the Amendment to this particular parish. I beg to move that in Section 8 of the Schedule, page 4, line 13, after the word "Barretts," to insert the words "with the exception of the parish of Aghina."

I would ask the hon. Member how he thinks it is possible that a revaluation can be now made for the purpose of this Bill? A large portion of this very district which the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wishes to exclude, and a considerable portion of this very parish of Aghina, will be served by this tramway line. No doubt, there is some portion of it which is conveniently situated so far as the Cork and Macroom Railway is concerned; but there are other parts which will be directly served by the construction of this light tramway. In addition, it will have the advantage of competition, and we all know that in case of the transport of goods either by sea or land there is nothing so advantageous to the general public as competition. The entire district to which the Amendment refers will be served by the Bill; and the promoters, therefore, strongly object to the proposed alteration.

The position which the opponents of the Bill occupy is a most unsatisfactory one. The unfortunate people who live at the terminus of the railway will be called upon to pay part of the guarantee, but can by no possibility derive benefit from the construction of a new line. I do not see how Her Majesty's Government can defend a proposition of this sort. As I have already said, part of the property which it is proposed to tax is within one mile of the town of Macroom, and four miles distant from the terminus of the proposed line. Nevertheless, the occupiers of that property will be taxed if the Bill is allowed to pass in its present shape. I do not see how the Government can defend such a proposition, and I fail to see what objection they can urge to the reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Flynn) says that if the Amendment is assented to, the property affected by the Bill will have to be revalued. That is not at all necessary, because under the Government valuation every holder holds separately, and there will not be the slightest difficulty in striking out a whole parish if it is thought desirable to do so.

The Government are anxious to see this Bill passed in the form in which it has been introduced by the promoters, and that as little change should be made in it as possible. It has already gone through the House of Lords, and it is desirable that the form in which it left that House shall be adhered to. The Government, at all events, have shown that they are not enamoured of the principle of revising questions which have been settled by the Irish authorities. In this case the Bill has been approved by the Irish Privy Council, the Board of Guardians of the county of Cork, and by all the Local Authorities; and the course I ask the Committee to take now is to accept the decision of the Local Authorities, the Privy Council, and the House of Lords. If not, the effect of altering the measure in the way suggested would be, I am satisfied, to destroy the Bill. I trust that the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will not throw on this House the responsibility of amending the provisions of the Bill on a question we do not understand.

I think it is a great pity that the Bill cannot be referred to a Select Committee, because, as a matter of fact, this House is altogether incompetent to deal with the question involved in it. The Committee have no evidence before them, or, at any rate, only conflicting evidence, as to the feeling of the local ratepayers on the matter. What is proposed is to construct a light line of railway within a mile of the area at present occupied by the Cork and Macroom Railway, and to compel the ratepayers, who are already more than amply provided with railway accommodation, to pay the cost of the new tramway, although it will only benefit a few persons who live on the route of the proposed narrow-gauge railway. I believe that, under any circumstances, it would be impossible to induce any body of sane men to subscribe to the construction of this line. I certainly consider it unfair to expose persons living in the parish of Aghina even to the risk of being called upon to pay for the railway. They do not want the line, and it is not only unfair but unjust to require them to run the risk of being liable to pay for a scheme which is bound to collapse, eventually leaving the entire district responsible for the payment of a rate in perpetuity. I trust that the Committee will see their way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, although not all that could be desired, it would save the inhabitants of this parish from the risk they are asked to incur, of guaranteeing a railway from which, they can by no possibility derive the smallest amount of benefit.

moved to insert in the Schedule the following sub-section relating to the limit of guarantee:—

"(9.) The capital to which the guarantee set out in the said presentment shall apply is hereby limited to the sum of seventy-five thousand pounds. The guarantee shall apply to so much of the capital so limited as is for the time actually paid up. The aforesaid capital of seventy-five thousand pounds shall not he issued as fully paid up, or he called up, save as said capital may from time to time be required for the actual construction and carrying out of the said undertaking: Provided always, that the entire of said capital shall not be issued until the expiration of a period of two years from the confirmation of this Order by Act of Parliament, unless the said undertaking shall be sooner completed."

moved to insert Sub-section 11—

(Guarantee by Treasury.)

"(11.) When in any half-year after the opening for traffic of the light railways the said baronies have paid to the Promoters any sums in respect of guaranteed dividend, exclusive of any sum paid in respect of the completing, working, or maintaining of the undertaking, the Treasury shall, if and so long as the light railways are maintained in working order and carry traffic, authorise the Board of Works, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to pay to the treasurer of the county, to be put to the account of the said baronies in the proportion of the sums paid by them, a sum amounting to one half of the sums so paid by them in respect of guaranteed dividend, exclusive as aforesaid, during such half-year, but so nevertheless that the sum so authorised to be paid shall not exceed a sum equal to interest at the rate of 2 per centum per annum on the paid up capital limited as aforesaid."

moved, in line 2, to strike out the word "provisional."

I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment of which I have given Notice, and to ask the House to reject this Bill, because I believe that the railway it is proposed to construct is not required by any present, or possible, or probable traffic along the line, and because it will involve the unnecessary and wanton destruction of some of the natural beauty of the Isle of Wight, and, in particular, would destroy some Downs over which the public at the present moment enjoy, and from time immemorial have enjoyed, the right of wandering, and which right they still claim. In addition, the line itself will be inconvenient and dangerous in its plan and construction; and, further, it was promoted in the interests, not of the public, but of one or two land speculators, who, while benefiting themselves, confer no corresponding benefit upon the public. The principle upon which Parliament consents to confer privileges and grant compulsory powers upon a private Company is that the promoters of a Private Bill shall, in return, confer the greatest possible benefit upon the public, and injure the public in the smallest possible degree. Now, the present Bill is one which proposes to inflict upon the public the maximum of loss and the minimum of gain. Last Session Parliament granted powers for the construction of a line from Shanklin to Chale—a point about five miles from Shanklin—and now it is sought to ex- tend that line from Chale to Freshwater. But, while the promoters ask powers to extend the Shanklin and Chale line, that line does not exist at the present moment, because, so far, no advantage has been taken of the power to construct the line granted by Parliament last year. Such traffic as there is in the district along the least frequented sea board of the Island is taken by two coaches; and, in order to secure a sufficient amount of patronage, the proprietors of these coaches find it necessary to charge fares less than railway fares for the same distance would come to. I have visited the locality personally, as I felt it my duty to do so before taking the course I am about to take. I found that neither of the two coaches was paying, and that both wore running with lees than half-loads of passengers. Then, again, with regard to the other railways which the Isle of Wight possesses, I would ask what probability their history presents of a new line proving to be a profitable speculation? It is a very thinly populated Island, and yet there are at present five railways running in it. One of them—the Isle of Wight Railway— pays, I believe, a good dividend; but the Cowes and Newport pays neither dividend nor interest upon the capital expended; the Ryde and Newport Railway pays no dividend; the Newport Junction Railway from Newport to Sandown is in the hands of receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery, and the Newport and Freshwater Railway is an alternative line to Freshwater which has just been commenced. The Company obtained power to construct the line eight years ago; but it is only now that they have commenced to carry their powers out. There is, further, a Brading Harbour and Works Railway; but I have not been able to obtain any information whatever about it. With regard to the proposed line, I understand it is intended that the Isle of Wight Company shall work it. But does that make the case better? Not in the slightest degree, because, if it were likely to be a paying railway, calculated to confer benefit upon the promoters and contractors, the Isle of Wight Company would themselves have come to Parliament for powers to make the line. It is only because it is a scheme not worth their while as a Company to execute themselves that the Isle of Wight Company have taken it up in this way. With regard to the country through which the proposed line is to run, it will pass along the sea board, cutting through the tops of some of the most beautiful chines, and eventually it is to end by a steep incline at Freshwater, passing over Afton Downs, which shut in Freshwater Bay and form one of the most charming spots in the Island. The incline is not only dangerous from its steepness, but it turns round with a sharp and dangerous curve; and altogether the line will, if sanctioned, utterly and irretrievably ruin the scenery of this part of the Island. A question has been raised as to whether common rights do not exist in the Downs which it is proposed to intersect. The Company say that there are no common rights whatever, and that the Downs are the property of individual landlords. In their own statement they say that they put it down in the first instance as common-able land because there was so much difficulty in ascertaining whether there were common rights; but they say they have now ascertained that there are no common rights. From the inquiry which I made on the spot, I find that, although there are no common rights in regard to the cutting of turf or the grazing of cattle, yet that the public have from time immemorial had the privilege of straying over and enjoying these beautiful Downs. I myself wandered over them without let or hindrance, and I therefore ask the House not to decide any dispute which may exist as to common rights between ths public and the landowners. The matter is in dispute, and until the question can be legally decided I would ask the House not to take sides on a question of this kind. The promoters go on to say that the opposition to the scheme is simply the result of a sentimental objection. Well, I think there is something even in a sentimental objection, and I have heard of a Railway Bill being thrown out three times simply on account of a sentimental objection. There can be no doubt that if this line is sanctioned it will entirely destroy a very interesting and charming spot. I have said that this railway is a dangerous railway. It goes down an incline of one in 50 at one point, and then for a considerable distance down an incline of one in 40, and then it works round the Down at Freshwater by an extremely sharp curve—a curve of 10 chains which I am advised is exceedingly dangerous from an engineering point of view, and very likely to be objected to even by the Board of Trade. The reason why it is proposed to make the line in such a way is that in the interests of the promoters it may be made as cheaply as possible without regard to the advantage or safety of the public. As I have said, if such a line were wanted the Isle of Wight Company would have taken it up, and there would have been open competition for the construction of the line. But as it is simply a speculation the work of construction is to be given to a particular contractor. As a matter of fact, it is a line which has been got up by a syndicate of promoters; and I need not tell the House that it is not the interests of the general public which, as a rule, are attended to under such circumstances. Not a single shilling of money has been subscribed on behalf of the public, and if the railway receives the sanction of Parliament it will have to be financed, and eventually the public will come into possession of the line at something like double the cost of constructing a good and sound railway. The promoters in their statement say they have satisfied the objections of the Commons Preservation Society. I cannot help regarding that as a startling statement, because it is at the instance of the Commons Preservation Society that I have taken up this case. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to this portion of their statement. While on this subject, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I am altogether free from any kind of private interest. I have no personal interest in any railway on the Island, or in any landed property there, nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, any friend who has a pecuniary interest in property in the Isle of Wight. I have simply taken up the case at the request of the Commons Preservation Society, and having examined the locality myself I feel that I am justified in asking the House to reject the Bill. I have only one other word to say. From something I heard in the Lobby I am given to understand that the promoters consider themselves hardly used in this objection being made on the third reading of the Bill. No doubt it would have been more advisable to make it at an earlier stage of the measure. But when it was sought to oppose it in Committee the question of locus standi was raised, and the opponents were not allowed to be heard. The result has been that the promoters have not been put to any expense in promoting the Bill; there has been no examination of the details of the scheme in which the public have had an opportunity of taking part; and nothing whatever has been done to satisfy the objections which have been raised. We have, therefore, been forced to oppose the Bill upon the third reading. The proposed line is simply an alternative scheme. Eight years ago Parliament granted powers to construct a line running from Newport to Freshwater, and onto Yarmouth, through the centre of the Island; but it has not yet been constructed. I will not occupy the time of the House further. A good deal more might be said, but I think I have said enough about the merits of the line; and I appeal to the House not to grant powers and concessions of this kind, from which the public will derive no benefit, but from which, on the contrary, they will suffer serious injury.

I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I have no personal interest in the matter, but I am well acquainted with the locality, and I know that it is perfectly impossible for a line of railway to be carried out as proposed without inflicting serious damage upon one of the prettiest parts of the Isle of Wight. The contemplated injury would be avoided by making a cutting and turning the line round by the back of the Downs, and to do so would not be a very expensive undertaking. In the reasons which have been circulated by the promoters in support of the Bill some extraordinary statements are made. I know the place well, and I say that Freshwater Bay is not a so-called bay, but a real bay, and a very charming bay too; and it will be very seriously damaged by the cutting proposed to be made through Afton Downs. But the promoters appear to have let the cat out of the bag. They say that there are no commonable rights; but that question is in dispute. They say that the opposition is purely sentimental, and that the rejection of the Bill will deprive the landlords of the opportunity which ought to be afforded to them for the development of their property. Now, the last assertion is the real gist of the matter. They want to cover the Downs with buildings, and they want a railway in order to give access to them. If there are no commonable rights they could do that without an Act of Parliament, and would be absolute masters of the Downs, and they could do all they desire without corning here at all. The very essence of an application to Parliament is that Parliament should look to the interests of the public, and not assist a Railway Company in destroying one of the most beautiful spots in the Isle of Wight, or in determining a question which we are told is sub judice—namely, whether there exist commonable rights over these Downs or not. I beg to second the Amendment.

It has been said that a railway ought only to be made for one of two objects. First, to serve the interests of the inhabitants of the locality through which it is to pass, and, next, to serve the public generally. But I am afraid that in this case the great majority of the inhabitants of Freshwater are opposed to the Bill, and that they desire its rejection. And, so far as the public are concerned, there are certainly no necessities on their part which render it desirable that Downs of this nature should be crossed and intersected by a line of railway for the purpose of affording facilities which are really not required. There are other points which render it undesirable that this Bill should receive the sanction of the House. I do not see why, in regard to Private Business, the same principle should not be adopted as that which has been adopted in reference to public measures—namely, that all contentious Business shall be hung up for another Parliament. This agreement ought the more to be observed with respect to Private Bills, as they can be taken up in the new Parliament where they leave off in this. Therefore, I hope that the House will not consent to pass a Bill against the interests of the inhabitants, which is not required in the interests of the public, especially as the measure is one which would utterly destroy one of the most beautiful Downs which exist in the Isle of Wight.

If it were not for the fact that I happen to be well acquainted with the locality in which it is proposed to construct this railway, and that I take great interest in all questions which affect it, I should not desire to take part in this discussion. But I do not wish the House to be led away upon a wrong scent, and therefore I am anxious to explain why I give a cordial assent to the second reading of the Bill. I am able to say without the slightest hesitation that there do not exist in any shape or form any common rights over these Downs. No doubt the Commons Preservation Society is a very useful Body; but the value of its contributions to the maintenance of the ancient common land of the country has been, I am bound to say, very little indeed. The Commons Preservation Society, represented by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. E. Chamberlain) in the first instance opposed the Bill because they were of opinion that it interfered with common rights, but finding that that was a mistake they withdrew their opposition to it. They are now, at the last moment, renewing their opposition upon entirely different grounds—grounds of a purely sentimental character. As the hon. Member for Islington has been induced to come forward and oppose the third reading of the Bill, I should like to refer to one or two of the objections which have been raised. The hon. Member has stated from some vague rumour that that is a question in dispute, and that in all probability more will be heard of it hereafter. Now, I tell the hon. Member, as a lawyer, that if this railway be laid down over common land, and Parliament finds hereafter that it has been induced to pass it through this representation, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the commoners would be reinstated in the rights they now possess. ["Oh!"] I believe I am stating what is absolutely true. Then it is said that it is not for the interest of the public that this railway should be made, and an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lionel Cohen) has said that it was petitioned against. There has also been a Petition in favour of it, and I think it would be found on inquiry that the great mass of the people in Freshwater are strongly in favour of it. Some allusion has been made to the existing coach traffic, and to the fact that the two coaches which now carry on the traffic are not more than half filled. That may be so; but it is perfectly well known to everybody that the formation of a railway has the effect of developing traffic, and it is anticipated that if this line is constructed from Chale to Freshwater it will considerably develop the trade and traffic of the locality. The real reason for the opposition to the Bill is to be found in the exclusiveness of certain landed proprietors and resident gentlemen who desire not to be invaded by that dreadful thing—a railway. It is entirely from motives of that character that this opposition has been set up. ["No!"] Hon. Members say "No;" but although I have listened attentively to the discussion I have not heard a single sound objection raised to the Bill. It has been said that powers have already been obtained from Parliament for the construction of a line from Newport to Freshwater and Yarmouth, but that the undertaking has not been carried out. At the same time it must be remembered that the line from Newport to Freshwater will cost £l6,000 a-mile, whereas this line will only cost £6,000 a-mile. As we all know, the railway traffic in the Isle of Wight is limited to a particular season of the year; and, of course, it is impossible to construct an expensive line with any hope of making it remunerative. The Newport line has been abandoned, but this line can be made cheaply, and with the general consent, I believe, of the inhabitants. Therefore, as it is a line which does not in the slightest degree affect common rights, as it is for the interests of the inhabitants that it should be constructed, and as I believe the opposition to it is purely fictitious and in the interests of a few residential proprietors who are actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, I feel bound to give a hearty support to the third reading.

There appears to be some doubt, Sir, whether the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. E. Chamberlain) moved that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months.

No Motion has yet been made to that effect.

Then I will supply the omission by moving that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months. I am surprised at the speech, which has just been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), who says that he is a friend of the preservation of commons, and yet wants to cast doubts as to the existence of common rights in connection with the beautiful Downs through which this railway is to go, and consents to the Downs themselves being destroyed by this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend also went on to argue in favour of the rights of the landowners as against the rights of the commoners. It seemed to me that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend was altogether an inconsequential speech, and I am certainly surprised that it should have been delivered by a gentleman of his logical acumen and general consistency. I should certainly like to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Isle of Wight (Sir Richard Webster) may have to say on the subject. I can scarcely suppose that he will be prepared to advocate this scheme, which will injure one of the most beautiful portions of the Island he represents. The scheme is promoted by interested persons—persons interested in it as the makers of the proposed railway, and as the owners of property in the locality. Their desire is to promote a speculative building scheme without regard to the beauty of the scenery or the interests of the inhabitants. I think that no satisfactory case has been made out for the passing of the Bill; and, therefore, I will adopt the usual course of moving that it be read a third time on this day three months.

I gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. R. Chamberlain) that there are two objections to this Bill—the first of which is from an engineering point of view. Now, this line was designed and planned by an engineer of great experience and ability who has been employed in the construction of many railways, and who is not likely to have undertaken to lay down a railway which would be difficult to work. The next objection has reference to the question of sentiment. Now, we have all heard of the sentiment of a certain noble Lord who lives on the Island, and who objects to the intrusion of any railway into his neighbourhood; but we must remember that the same sort of sentimental feeling was manifested in many directions when railways were first proposed for the Isle of Wight. It was said that it would spoil the Island to construct any railway in it at all. But the same sentiment was used in order to stop the water supply of Manchester being brought from Thirl-mere Lake; and if we were to listen to all the sentimental objections which are raised by a certain class of people we should never have any public works carried out at all. I certainly hope the House will think twice before it rejects a useful Bill of this nature on the ground of a sentimental objection of that kind. Another objection which has been urged against the construction of this line is that it will probably have no traffic. Now, I maintain that that is a question for the promoters—["Oh!"]—and I submit that when a railway is designed and is only to cost £6,000 per mile the very thinnest traffic would pay on that basis. The next objection is that a railway has already been sanctioned from Newport to Yarmouth, and because the powers conferred by that Bill have not been carried out, and the Bill is now practically dead—which is, however, by no means certain—that this measure ought to be refused. Now, the construction of that line would have cost £15,000 per mile; but as the Bill itself does not expire until August next it cannot be made use of as a ground of objection to this Bill. With regard to the present line, it will pass for eight and a-half miles out of ten and a-half along a military road with the consent of the War Office; and I think it ought to be a sufficient inducement to the House to grant a Bill that an important Department of the Government believe to be useful. The last reason I would urge in favour of the Bill is that those who are opposed to it have had an opportunity of showing their opposition to it by Petitions which might have been presented against it.

It has never been I considered by a Select Committee.

Nevertheless, all opponents have had a full opportunity of presenting Petitions against it.

I feel called upon to oppose the Bill, because I do not think that it will confer any public benefit or convenience. I have had the pleasure of walking over these beautiful Downs several times in the course of my life, and I very much doubt whether, in the first instance, a railway is wanted at all. There are very few people who travel in this district, and I doubt whether, if a railway were constructed, such as is proposed by the Bill now before the House, the number of people who visit that part of the Island would be greatly increased. I do not believe that the public convenience depends upon the construction of a railway in the Isle of Wight. On the contrary, I believe that the carrying of this undertaking would mutilate, if not entirely destroy, one of the most beautiful spots in the Island. Those who are acquainted with this part of the Island know perfectly well that the Downs affected by the Bill are Downs over which the public are free to roam without let or hindrance; and on the ground that the construction of this line would undoubtedly mutilate and destroy the character of that lovely part of the Island I shall certainly oppose the Bill. We have already had some practical experience in connection with railways in the Isle of Wight. I know of no district in which railway travelling is more expensive. Visitors, I am sorry to say, get the minimum of convenience for the maximum of charge. Only last week I desired to go from Shanklin to Ryde, and from Ryde to Brading; but, to my astonishment, I found that there was no train after 5 o'clock in the evening, and if you do manage to succeed in catching a train you have to pay five times the price you would have to pay in any other part of the United Kingdom. My experience of travelling by railway in the Isle of Wight is not at this moment by any means invigorating. I think, therefore, that the House of Commons ought to pause before it consents to grant new concessions either to the existing Companies, or to any others for the construction of railways under similar conditions. Nor do I believe that this particular railway, however cheaply it may be constructed, could by any possibility ever pay. No doubt it is a pure speculation, with full knowledge on the part of the promoters that when Parliament has sanctioned the construction of a railway there are always a number of people who believe it will pay, and who are ready to subscribe the capital. In the first instance, it appears to me that the line is promoted by a handful of men for purposes widely distinct from that of public convenience. I think that by the rejection of the Bill we should be really doing the public a service, and would prevent them from investing their money in an unprofitable speculation.

I think it is difficult to decide upon the merits of this Bill in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. The Chairman of Committees is the only person who could have given us authoritative information as to the examination which the Bill has received upstairs. It seems, however, to be absolutely certain that, under some technicality or other, such as the Rules which regulate the question of locus standi, and which are extremely technical, the public have had no opportunity of bringing their case before the House of Commons, so that the grounds of their opposition to the scheme might be inquired into. It is quite obvious, from the statement which was made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. R. Chamberlain), that the public have not had an opportunity of making their wishes known, and that a very strong feeling does exist with regard to the question. Therefore, as the Chairman of Committees is absent, and consequently unable to give his reasons why the House of Commons should finally depart from all control or check in this matter, I think the House will do well to refuse to proceed further with the Bill at this stage. After all, the promoters will not be much damaged. The expenses which they have already incurred have not been very large, and the Bill can be introduced again next year. It must be borne in mind that the Isle of Wight has been without this railway for hundreds and probably thousands of years; and therefore, if the people of that Island have to wait for another 12 months, they will possibly not be injured very materially. It certainly does appear, on the first blush of the case, that this is a case of promoters endeavouring to make a railway for speculative purposes on the so-called property of private individuals. It is not quite certain whether private individuals have full rights over the property through which the line is to run; but if we reject this Bill an opportunity will be afforded for deciding that question. Therefore, I hope the House will adopt the view of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), and postpone the Bill for another year, when it will be able to receive full examination. I trust that that proposition will receive the support of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary to the Treasury.

I have no feeling in the matter one way or the other. I think there is great force in what the noble Lord has stated as to the absence of the Chairman of Committees. The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington is to throw the Bill out; and if that Motion is adopted, of course the Bill will be gone for the whole of the year, and it will have to go through all its stages again. But if the House chooses to sanction the withdrawal of the Motion for the third reading, then it could stand over until the Autumn Session. It would be practically hung up until the new Parliament meets, and the House would then be in a position to re-commit it if it thought such a course desirable, and the whole question could then be fully gone into and fairly discussed. I wish, however, to express no feeling on the matter either one way or the other. I only wish to point out to the noble Lord and to the House that what he wants can be effected without absolutely throwing the Bill out.

I wish to say a word with regard to this Bill, because I think the House has forgotten one circumstance connected with it. We are told that the promoters last year obtained a Bill for the construction of a railway from Shanklin to Chale, which is to be worked in connection with the line proposed by the present Bill. Now, what have they done in order to carry out the powers which Parliament itself granted to them? Nothing at all. They do not appear to be in the slightest hurry to use the powers intrusted to them. As a matter of fact, they have no capital at all; it is a pure speculation altogether, and they want to improve their speculation by tacking another line on to it. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles) spoke strongly in favour of the project; but the hon. Member did not inform the House that the engineer of the line was his own son.

I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. It is nothing of the sort. Mr. Cooper is the engineer of the line, and my son has nothing to do with it at all.

It is very well known that the hon. Member's son is connected with Mr. Cooper.

Not at all.

In any case, the promoters of the Bill have projected the line without having at their command any capital at all. In cases of this kind, Committees upstairs generally find that it is proposed to issue a large amount of Stock in excess of the actual cost of the line. This is a method adopted to pay promoters, and is one which ought not to be encouraged. It only enables promoters to make large profits and to realize a considerable bonus at the expense, and often without the knowledge, of the shareholders. I am certainly of opinion that this system of bringing forward schemes which are purely promoters' lines ought to be discouraged. If the Bill is thrown out this year there will be nothing lost, and I hope the Motion for the rejection of the Bill will be persevered in.

I think the House ought to be satisfied with the cordial support which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has given to his new hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. R. Chamberlain). That seems to me to be the only interesting feature in the whole of the debate; but I should not object to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if it can be carried out, not to destroy the Bill altogether this Session, but to give it a chance of being recommitted next year, so that we may be able to come to some better understanding as to the real merits of the case. The absence of the Chairman of Committees, who might be able to guide us, is very unfortunate; but, still, I think that the course proposed by the Government is the fairest one, as it would give all parties a chance of being heard.

I only desire to say one word on the question whether the House should dispose of the matter now, or allow it to stand over until the new Parliament. I think it would be better to dispose of the matter at once. The objections which have been brought forward now are most of them objections which could not be taken in Committee. They are objections which have been taken on public grounds; but in Committee the public would have no locus standi. It would be difficult, even by a side wind, to bring up this case again, because there is no way of ascertaining whether the Bill would be more likely to be opposed in another Session than it has been in this. Moreover, the objections which have been urged are objections upon which the House is just as competent—indeed, more competent—to pronounce an opinion than any Committee would be; and, as the Bill cannot pass in the present Session, the best thing we can do is to put the promoters out of their pain at once by rejecting it.

said, that in regard to the Irish Bill the Lords had gone about its consideration in a very thorough manner, for they had cut it all away except the 1st clause and a short title. They had cut out the clause providing for the payment of the Returning Officers' expenses out of therates; but the Schedule which dealt with the cheapening of expenses would have been very useful. He hoped the House would disagree with the Lords as regarded the clauses struck out.

said that, in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Labouchere), he should not resist any Motion to agree with the Lords' Amendments; but he must say that if it were worth pressing the clause providing for the payment of the Returning Officers' expenses out of the rates at a late peried of the Session at all, he regretted that those who pressed it had not carried the fight to the fullest extent. He had placed on the Paper a clause making candidates, who did not poll one-fourth of the quota electing, responsible for a share of the election expenses; and though he withdrew this in deference to a generally expressed wish to avoid contentious discussion at that stage, he should certainly, if he had the opportunity, renew that, or a like restriction, on improvident candidatures.

wished to know what course Her Majesty's Government proposed to take with regard to this Bill? For his own part, he did not think that the House had sufficient information before them to enable them to decide as to what were and what were not proper charges. In 1875 the Schedule was most carefully considered by a Select Committee, and he considered it a proper course that a Committee should inquire into the matter.

complained of the want of uniformity in the Returning Officers' charges. He thought that the sums fixed by the Schedules were sufficient to enable the Returning Officers to discharge their duties; and, therefore, he hoped that the House would adhere to them.

said, he understood that the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry would be satisfied if the Bill were restored to the shape in which it was originally introduced into that House. He hoped that the House would agree to the Lords' Amendments.

said, that the 2nd and 3rd clauses, throwing the expenses of Returning Officers upon the rates and reducing the maximum charges, had been thrown out by the House of Lords. When the questions were under discussion in the House of Commons an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench got up and said the Bill was certain to be thrown out by the House of Lords, which was a monstrous assertion to make. He was present in the House of Lords, and saw on one side a mass of Conservative Peers and very few on the other. Lord Salisbury got up and said he would only allow the Bill to pass if these clauses were struck out. It was making a perfect farce of representative government if the House of Commons was to be threatened that a Bill would be thrown out by the House of Lords, and when it was in that House a Peer was to rise and say it should not pass unless those two clauses were struck out. He was not going to argue that they should disagree with the House of Lords, because at this period that could not be done. The House of Commons were in the position of slaves to the Conservative Leader of the House of Lords, and he thought that a monstrous position. The mode of election concerned the Members of the House of Commons very vitally. They heard a great deal at the present time of long purses being subscribed for the defeat of certain candidates. [Cries of "Question!"]

asked whether the hon. Member for Northampton was in Order?

said, he thought the hon. Member was not confining himself strictly to the Question.

said, he was merely pointing out that it had been stated in the newspapers that large sums of money were being subscribed by the opponents of the present Government, and that, in the opinion of those gentlemen, it was most essential that they should have money on their side. This Bill, if those clauses had been retained, would have enabled poor men to send poor men to Parliament; it would have enabled electors to choose Representatives for themselves, instead of having Representatives chosen for them. The House of Lords had chosen to alter that, and he left the country to form an opinion as to their conduct.

said, he sympathized with what had been stated, but pointed out that unless the Lords' Amendments were agreed to the Bill would be lost. That he thought was very hard.

said, he considered the action of the House of Lords with respect to the Schedule was perfectly justifiable. The country had never been consulted. He doubted whether the country would have ap- proved of the expense of elections being thrown on the rates. He thought it a most questionable thing for hon. Members to transfer a charge amounting to £250,000 from its own shoulders on to those of their constituents on the eve of an election. Moreover, the principal clause in the Bill of which so much had been heard was introduced at the last moment, and that at a very late hour of the night, when the attendance of Members was small. He hoped the Government would adhere to the arrangement which had been arrived at, and take an early opportunity, if in Office next Session, of appointing a Committee to inquire into the charges of Returning Officers.

said, he regretted that the Schedule had been struck out, but trusted that the Bill, curtailed as it was, would be allowed to pass, because it was better to have half a Bill than none at all.

said that, so far as the Members of the Government in the House of Lords were concerned, in the action they had taken they had submitted to superior force. It was not a fair inference on the part of hon. Members to suppose that they were convinced by the arguments of those who excluded the Schedule from the Bill. But the real difficulty was that there was no time for conflict with the other House; and if the Bill was not accepted in its present state it would not pass into law at all this Session. As far as Great Britain was concerned, there was not a case to press against the House of Lords. The simple Bill originally introduced had been enlarged in its scope by the insertion of a clause; and he was not prepared to say that the House of Lords had exceeded their legislative rights in rejecting these particular provisions. He suggested to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, whether some compromise might not be arrived at as to the scale of Irish Returning Officers' charges being treated differently from those connected with England and Scotland.

maintained that the House of Lords was acting quite within their duty, and with the entire approval of the country, in resisting the placing of Returning Officers' charges on the rates.

said, that any undue insistance on the restoration of this Bill to the condition in which it previously left the House of Commons would certainly imperil its passing into law this year. If the Bill was desired, therefore, it was necessary that they should not prove unduly obstinate on the present occasion. Much labour had been devoted to the drafting of the measure, and he appealed to hon. Members to assist in allowing so much of the Bill as referred to Ireland to pass.

said, that, speaking for his Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, he should have been glad if it were possible at that time to arrive at any compromise which would legitimately reduce the cost of elections; but, unfortunately, there was no time for any such compromise. In the House of Lords on Tuesday, it was, he believed, stated on the part of the Government there that if the Bill came back to the House of Lords consisting of anything more than the appeal for the taxation of charges the Members of the Government present pledged themselves not to press their Lordships to accept the Amendments. That engagement having been entered into in the other House by the Government, he thought it was hopeless to expect that any compromise could be arranged or settled now. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether it would not be better, in all the circumstances, to stand by the arrangement made in the House of Lords, and leave the Schedule as to rates to a future Parliament? It had been urged, with considerable force, that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the Schedule. Members of Parliament themselves had an interest in seeing that the scale should not be excessive, and no effort should be wanting on the part of those with whom he acted to secure that result in an early Session.

said, he agreed entirely with the very sensible remarks made by the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). They were in a position in which time was absolutely their master. The House of Lords said they would throw out the Bill altogether unless it was reduced to the Appeal Clause. He sympathized very much with his Irish Friends as to this Schedule, and if he might advise them it would be not to mix the Irish Schedule in future with the English scale of charges. The whole scale in Ireland ought to be at a much lower rate. They had better take the Bill as it came down from the Lords—half a loaf was better than no bread. Enormous injustice was done at the last Election in consequence of there being no appeal from the taxing master. He, therefore, thought they should secure the advantages of the appeal, and it would be the absolute duty of the next Parliament to have a Committee appointed at the very commencement to consider on proper evidence the whole question of the Returning Officers' charges.

observed that the appeal was absolutely worthless. He thought the most dignified course would be to throw out the Lords' Amendments altogether.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend. The Appeal Clause would be worthless. In many cases the cost of the appeal would be more than the amount in dispute.

hoped he might, by the indulgence of the House, be allowed to say he had been in communication with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy), and he was disposed to take the view that it was better to have the Appeal Clauses than nothing.

denied that the Bill had been sprung upon the country, as stated in the House of Lords, and as had just been stated from the Tory Benches by the hon. Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Night after night the debate on the Bill came on, but was adjourned to suit the convenience of the Tory Members opposite, and to allow of the question being thoroughly debated on both sides of the House; and it was monstrous now to declare that the House had been taken by surprise and the subject sprung on the country.

observed that it was distressing that such a good and valuable Bill should be thrown out at that stage. With, reference to the hints about money being collected in certain quarters to oppose the present Government—[Cries of "Order!"]

said, that the hon. Member was out of Order in introducing matters which had nothing to do with the Question before the House.

said, communications had taken place with the Sheriffs throughout Scotland; and these gentlemen had generally agreed, as far as possible, to make their charges conform to the Schedule of charges set down by the Lord Advocate, but which had been struck out of the Bill by the House of Lords.

remarked, that when the Bill was under discussion in that House a division was taken on the point whether the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's should each have a Member, or whether they should have one Member between them. On that occasion the House came to the conclusion that it would be better to treat them collectively; and, therefore, he now moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment which had come down from the Lords, giving one Member to each University.

said, that after giving to the Victoria University and the University of Durham each one representative on the Medical Council the House refused to do the same justice to the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, although their case, and especially the case of Aberdeen, was a much stronger one than that of Victoria University and the University of Durham. That mistake had been corrected in the other House, and he hoped the Lords' Amendments would be agreed to. Aberdeen University was a Medical School, and the University of St. Andrew's, although most efficient in other respects, was not a Medical School. It was an Examining Body in medicine; it had a large number of medical graduates, and therefore might be considered fit to be intrusted with the nomination of a member to the Medical Council; but there was an incongruity in linking it with the Medical School of Aberdeen in sending a joint representative to the Medical Council. It had been said that under the present Medical Act Universities were linked together in sending representatives to the Medical Council. At present the University of Glasgow and the University of St. Andrew's were linked together for that purpose. But the practice did not work satisfactorily. It was found to be exceedingly objectionable that a large Medical School such as the University of Glasgow should not have the power to nominate a member of the Medical Council without reference to the University of St. Andrew's, which was entirely on a different footing in regard to medical education. An objection was raised on the previous occasion that what was now proposed by the Amendment of the Lords would increase too much the representation of Universities on the Medical Council; but he would point out that the University of St. Andrew's might be regarded more as representing Medical Corporations than Universities, so that what the Lords had done kept the proportion as it was at present.

said, that though he considered the arrangement in the Bill as he introduced it the best, yet, the House of Commons having divided Victoria University and the University of Durham, and as these two Scottish Universities were the only Bodies of the kind united for this purpose, he voted for a proposal to separate them as a logical consequence of the other decision. He thought they should agree to the Lords' Amendment.

said, he would urge his hon. Friend not to press his objection.

said, he objected to the Amendments on the ground that they were a breach of the understanding which had been arrived at. The House had accepted all the Lords' Amendments except three, and it was understood that with respect to those the Bill was to be restored to its original form. But the Lords had now introduced Amendments with respect to the definition of agricultural labourers, the home farm, and the compulsory purchase of land. He would not move to disagree with these Amendments, as it would be useless; but he protested against them.

said, he agreed with the objection of the hon. Member to the new definition of "agricultural labourer," and would suggest that the House disagree with that Amendment; and he had authority to say that, if the other Amendments were agreed to, the Lords would not be unwilling to restore the original definition made in that House.