said, he rose to move the omission of words from the clause, which provided that the particulars of a civil servant's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office should beset forth in the Treasury Minute granting an allowance. Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge inefficiently the duties of his office."—(Mr. Jackson.)

said, he strongly objected to this Amendment. He thought it was only reasonable that these particulars should be given. This was a Bill to give the Treasury a discretion which hitherto had been exercised in. an illegal and irregular manner. If public servants made themselves sufficiently disagreeable, they wore got rid of in the prime of life with large superannuation, allowances, the result being that their services were lost to the public, while an additional burden was imposed upon the taxpayer. He had no doubt that both the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Treasury were vigilant guardians of the public purse, but they had pressure put upon them, and, as the old proverb had it, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? He had been for some years sitting in the House, but it was only lately he had come to understand that the Auditor General was no real check. It was true that the Auditor General often reported that certain grants of pensions and other grants were illegal, irregular, and unauthorized, but they were got through by the Committee of Public Accounts. That Committee was no doubt an excellent body, but it was composed of Members of that House, and the Government had great influence over them. He did not remember one single case in which the Public Accounts Committee proposed that these illegal and irregular payments should be refused by the House. The words proposed to be left out were allowed to remain in the Bill during its two previous stages, and he now made an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober of the Treasury rot to strike them out.

said, the matter was really a very trivial one.

Not at all.

said, that the hon. Member appeared to be under the impression that since the Bill passed the second reading and the Committee stage some pressure had been put upon the Government to strike out these words. That was not the fact. He was not aware that the words had been left in the Bill. He admitted that was his own fault, because he agreed when the Bill first came before the House to strike out the words, as he thought them unnecessary and needlessly offensive.

With whom was the agreement made?

said, it was made with those who thought their interests were affected. The hon. Gentleman complained that in discharging a disagreeable duty the Treasury sought to discharge it in a manner as little disagreeable as possible. If a man was given a certificate of inability it was entirely unnecessary to give the particulars and set them forth to the world. So far as knowledge of the circumstances was desirable full and complete security was taken under the clause as it stood, because it provided that the Treasury Minute granting the allowance should set forth the amount of the allowance and the reasons for granting it and should be laid before Parliament.

said, that the Bill, which was of considerable importance and very long, had never been discussed except in the small hours of the morning. There was one particular point connected with the general question of superannuation which he thought ought to be considered by the House.

The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the provisions of the Bill, but must confine himself to the Amendment.

I had not the slightest intention of doing so.

The hon. Gentleman was certainly doing so.

said, his only object was to lead up to the Amendment of the Secretary to the Treasury, which struck out of the clause the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office." His own opinion was that whenever a civil servant was superannuated, whether from accident, old age, inefficiency, or disease, the cause should be clearly stated. He hoped the House would divide against the Amendment, as he believed it would destroy the whole gist of the clause.

said, that there was reason to complain that at the last moment this change, which was a most important one, should have been sprung upon the House. He asked for the retention of the words in the interests of the civil servants. If there was security that the civil servant should know the precise grounds upon which he was discharged his objection would be met. He did not understand what security there was that the civil servant would be able to ascertain the precise grounds.

said, that under Section 2 the Secretary to the Treasury was required to state the amount of the allowance granted to a discharged civil servant, and the reasons for such allowance. The only point was whether it was necessary to go further and state the par- ticulars of the officer's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. To do that would, it appeared to him, be both unnecessary and mischievous to the officer, especially as the particulars could always be ascertained.

said, that did not meet his objection; the reasons for the allowance were perfectly distinct from the reasons for which the officer was discharged.

said, he should support the Amendment. He agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed alteration in the Bill was a kindly concession to the civil servants. He thought all the information that was necessary would be contained in the certificate.

said, he regretted that the omission of these words had been proposed. They were a defence and protection to the Treasury. While the House, as a rule, looked to the Treasury to prevent extravagance, the Treasury itself was not so strong that it could afford to throw away a protection if it could obtain it, and that protection was being thrown away out of delicacy to the feelings of the officer himself. He thought they were carrying that delicacy too far in refusing to put in the Minute the reasons why the officer was discharged. The Treasury were occasionally pressed to allow retirements of which they did not approve; and if they were able to put in the certificate the reasons for the discharge, they would find in that a protection which they were now, for reasons which appeared to him totally inadequate, going to throw away.

said, if he thought the hon. Gentleman was right in the view he had taken of the words he would support his contention. But he ventured to think that, as the words stood, they were sufficient protection to the Treasury. There were cases in which it was very desirable to state, and the Treasury would state, the reasons for the dismissal if it was necessary to protect themselves; but, on the other hand, there were cases in which it would not be necessary to do so in order to protect the Treasury, and yet if those words were retained they would be compelled to do it, and therefore, as the Treasury could do it in every case, he thought the words were not necessary.

No!

Does the hon. Member name a Teller?

I name the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew).

Will the hon. Member tell?

Yes, Sir.

said, he had an Amendment to move to the second clause of the Bill.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment, as the Question is that the Bill be read a third time.

"As amended to be considered" is on the Paper.

The Question before the House is that the Bill be read a third time.

I challenge a Division.

Will the hon. Member name a second teller?

named the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien).

said, he did not think it right that the Bill should be read a third time in this summary way without some explanation of its contents being given to the House. The Attorney General, who had sprung the Bill upon them, had stated on a previous occasion that the Bill had been discussed last Session, and that it had been considered by several Irish Members of Parliament.

I said the Bill was considered this Session.

said, that so far as he recollected the Bill had never been discussed in the House, or, at any rate, he had never been present during its discussion, in spite of the fact that the Attorney General said that he (Mr. Clancy) had taken part in the discussion. He should like to move an Amendment to the 5th clause, and he had understood that such opportunity would be offered on the Report. He should like to know whether or not he would be entitled to move an Amendment.

I distinctly asked the House whether there were any Amendments to this Bill, and the hon. Member in charge of it said "No." Therefore, the next step was to put to the House the Question that the Bill be read a third time.

May I move an Amendment now?

No Amendment can be moved now.

said, in that case he must protest, by way of taking a Division, against the third reading of the Bill. The measure had been hurried through the House in the early hours of the morning.

Order, order ! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter now. He is not discussing the Bill or anything connected with it.

I was going to give some reasons—

; Order, order! I must warn the hon. Gentleman.

said, he was only stating his reasons against taking the third reading now. He hoped he might be permitted to add that if he had had an opportunity he would have moved an Amendment to Clause 5, under which the period for registration was to be seven days. It appeared to him that that was a very short time to allow. This seemed to be a clause for filling the pockets of the lawyers with fees. On this ground and on other grounds he begged to move that the Bill should be read a third time on this day three months.

Does any one second that proposal?

Yes, Sir, I do.

said, that perhaps he might be allowed to clear up a misapprehension which appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the Bill had only been brought in at early hours of the morning, and that it had not been discussed in that House at all. This Bill was a peculiar one. A Bill precisely the same word for word as the present Bill quitted the House of Commons early in the Session. It was discussed at considerable length, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) took great interest in it, and co-operated largely with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King) and the Attorney General in bringing it to a third reading. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, but its promoters in this House were unaware of the necessity of getting some Peer to take it up and prosecute its progress in the other House. Along with one or two other Bills which went up to the House of Lords with the full concurrence of the House of Commons, it was delayed until after the time whoa it was possible for it to be taken by their Lordships. It therefore practically became a dropped Bill. In order that the time and labour of this House might not be wasted, their Lordships apparently spontaneously brought in a new Bill word for word the same as the measure which had left the House of Commons. That Bill being passed in the House of Lords now came down to this House, and this House was now asked to go through what was perhaps an empty form, that of reasserting and reaffirming what was done at an early part of the Session. That was the excuse for the Bill being passed without explanation or consideration in the early hours of the morning, which the hon. Member complained of. The hon. Member would see that the House had had full knowledge of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill was as much the work of the hon. Member for Kilkenny as of its original promoters. He trusted that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.

said, he also hoped that after the elaborate and courteous explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, for which they were all very thankful, his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition, though that opposition had, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the Attorney General, been quite justified.

said, that this discussion would have been obviated if the explanation given by the Chairman of Committees had been given at the outset by the Attorney General. It was part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to—

Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply.

said, he desired to draw attention to several matters in connection with the Bill, and for the purpose of doing so he would move that the Speaker should leave the Chair that day three months. This Bill provided for the continuance of a number of Acts of various kinds, and which were continued in a hand-to-mouth fashion from Session to Session without any opportunity being given for their reconsideration. It continued, for instance, the Employers' Liability Act. The whole subject-matter of that Act had been threshed out before a Select Committee of the House. There was no reason whatever why a new Employers' Liability Bill should not have been passed into law in the present Session; but the Government, instead of taking up useful projects of that kind, had thought fit to fritter away the time of an unsually prolonged Session in so-called Business which could not possibly conduce to the well-being of the Empire, or any part of it. The labours of the strong and industrious Committee on the Employers' Liability Act had been practically thrown away, at any rate, for a considerable time to come. The whole question was ripe for legislation. The House and every branch of industry were agreed in the provisions embodied in the Special Report of the Committee, and he believed the Government had actually a Bill ready for presentation to the House, founded upon that Special Report. What was the consequence of the conduct of Business by the Government? The whole class of seamen was excluded from the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act, and besides that whole classes of men were now compelled by the terms of their service to contract themselves out of the benefit of the Act. Other recommendations of the Committee which would have found acceptance were, for the time being, absolutely wasted, and the present imperfect law was to be continued by the hand-to-mouth method of this Bill. He protested against this miserable way of carrying on the Business of the country. He hoped that the Attorney General would state in the clearest way what was the intention of the Government with regard to the Bill, and the recommendations of the Committee, and, in the meantime, he moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor,)—instead thereof.

said, that no one knew better than the hon. Member that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill must be brought in at the end of the Session, and it was always necessary to bring it in at a late period, as it was impossible to know early what Bills the Government would be introducing, and what Bills would require to be dealt with in this way. The hon. Member had asked a very fair question as to the Employers' Liability Act, and in reply he (Sir Richard Webster) could assure him that no one was more anxious than himself, and the Government also had been most anxious, to bring in a Bill on the subject, not embodying altogether the recommendations of the Committee, but to a great extent adopting them. He might say that the recommendations of the Committee would form a very large basis for the Amendments that the Government would propose to introduce into the new Bill. It was not only an amendment Bill but a codifying Bill which the Government had prepared, and which they hoped to have passed this Session. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure embodying the recommendations of the Committee, and going further by qualifying the relations between masters and servants It was because the Home Secretary desired to make the Bill as complete as possible that the measure became so heavy that it was impossible to deal with it this Session. The Government desired to deal with the matter at the earliest possible opportunity next Session.

said, he must complain that questions ripe for settlement had not been treated by the Government during the long Session just coming to an end, although they had the complete control of the time of the House. It seemed to him that the object of the Government was to evade their responsibilities as long as they could. He hoped their delay in legislating on the employers' liability question would be noted by those most interested, and that the Government would be brought to their senses in this matter, just as the agricultural labourers had brought them to reason on allotments two months ago. His hon. Friend's complaint was so well founded that he hoped he would go to a Division as a protest against the Government's way of doing Business.

said, there was a good deal of ground for the complaint made as to certain Acts contained in the Bill. He found that there were no less than eight Acts in this Bill relating to one subject—namely, Parliamentary elections and corrupt and illegal practices at Parliamentary elections. It appeared to him that such subjects as these should not depend on an annual Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but that all the provisions relating to such an important matter as Parliamentary elections should be properly dealt with in a permanent law. He must also complain of the inconvenient policy pursued in regard to the endowed schools schemes and the payment of the Charity Commissioners, and record at the same time his strong objection to the Sunday Observance Prosecutions Act.

said, no doubt there must be an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and he admitted the convenience of the principle. The ground of his objection was that the Bill contained no less than 34 Statutes, several of which ought to have been dealt with by amending and reforming Bill. The fact was that an omnibus Bill of this kind and at this period of the Session was a test and a meter of the incompetence of the Government. If the Government had not wasted the public time several of the Statutes included in the list would have been dealt with. He joined with his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in protesting against the failure of the Government' to amend the Employers' Liability Bill There were many of his own constituents and numerous workingmen throughout Great Britain who felt the gravest disappointment on account of the failure to amend the law in this respect. He also thought that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill should be excluded from the pro- visions of this Bill. He hoped that he would be able to obtain a reply from the Government to the Question that he addressed to them on this subject yesterday. It was very inconvenient when so many questions came on relating to Ireland there was no Irish Minister present. They had become used to that state of things at Question Time, but now there was no Minister present. It was some consolation that when they mentioned their absence one of them always came out of some dark corner. The Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) had just entered from behind the Speaker's Chair. He hoped that right hon. and gallant Gentleman would pay attention to what he said. He would remind the Government that the Irish Sunday Closing Act was passed in 1878 as an experimental measure, and that it expired in 1883. It had been repeatedly stated in the House that at the end of the five years there would be an inquiry into the working of the Act in order to ascertain whether it had failed or succeeded. Ever since 1883 the Irish Sunday Closing Bill had been annually renewed, but not as a separate Statute. It had been renewed under circumstances that had rendered discussion and inquiry as to its success impossible. He was informed that there was a very divided opinion upon the matter. He had not formed any decided opinion himself, and he expressed none as to the effect of the operation of the Act; but the time had come when the House should inquire directly and effectually into the measure and success that had attended the Act. He desired to know whether the Government would pledge itself that a formal inquiry should be held? As the Chief Secretary had now come into the House he would remind him that the Act was passed in 1878 and expired in 1883. It was a general understanding that during the period of the first enactment an opportunity should be afforded for inquiry, and, it might be, amendment; but the Act had been renewed ever since 1883 without any such inquiry. It was now again included in an omnibus Bill, and they never had the opportunity of inquiring how far the Act had succeeded or failed. The Chief Secretary had frankly admitted on the previous day that there was no question, certainly no social question in Ireland, that was more in dispute in Ireland than the question of closing public-houses on Sunday. One body of men stated that the measure had met with miraculous success, whilst another body averred that it had been a conspicuous failure. He would not venture to decide one way or the other. After five years' trial he considered that a Bill about which there was so much contention should be the subject of inquiry and adequate debate. The time had come when the Representatives of Ireland on that ground alone were entitled to make a stand and say that a social law of this character, involving such severe restrictions, should no longer be allowed to exist unless the pledge of the Government that there should be inquiry was carried out. The inquiry was promised years ago, but was repeatedly withheld. The Chief Secretary could not deny that the working of the Bill was a matter of dispute, and that there was strong feeling on either side. That being so, the public pledge given nine years ago should be kept, and he thought the Irish Members were entitled to claim, and they did claim, from the Government an expression of opinion before the Speaker left the Chair that should guide them in Committee. He desired to know whether between this Session and the next there would be any inquiry of the kind which the opponents of the Hill desired to see?

said, he did not know what was the kind of inquiry to which the hon. Member referred. He had stated that a promise was given by a Government some years ago that an inquiry should be granted; but he was not aware that that was a fact. As the hon. Member was aware, the responsible Government of the day had twice brought in Bills for the purpose of making perpetual this Bill, which, under existing circumstances, required to be renewed each Session. He did not believe that any responsible Government, without inquiry, could determine to modify the law in one direction. The fact that the responsible Government had twice determined to make the Bill perpetual showed that, so far as they were acquainted with the working of the Act, they thought the Act had worked beneficially. The information he had been able to obtain pointed in the same direction. If it would satisfy the hon. Member for West Belfast, he would do his best to look into the question in the course of the Recess. As to the complaint of the hon. Member—that there had been no opportunity of discussing the Act—he was not prepared to deny that it might be a proper thing that the question should be fully discussed by the House. But the hon. Member would admit that the discussion could not take place this Session.

That is the basis of my complaint—that the subject has not been discussed since the promise was given.

, continuing, observed that, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, two Bills on which the question could have been raised were brought in by some of his Friends, but they never came on for adequate discussion at all. There was no doubt, however, that the hon. Member would be able to raise the question in a form which would give full opportunity for Parliamentary discussion at some period early next Session. He conceived that would be the proper course from a Parliamentary point of view; but from the point of view of Ministers he was ready to give a pledge that he would look into the subject in the course of the Recess, and to the best of his ability form a judgment upon it. The information he had received, however, distinctly was not in the direction of inducing a modification of the action of Parliament that had already taken place. He had observed that the bulk of Irish opinion seemed to be in favour of this law; and when they found that opinion opposed they often ascertained that the opposition proceeded from those who were, no doubt conscientiously, influenced by motives which were hardly connected with the good of the community. Under those circumstances, and having regard to the decisions come to by his Predecessors in the Office he held, he felt he was bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that his own inclination would be in the direction of the continuance of this law. He was clearly convinced that there could be no possibility of getting adequate discussion of the matter this Session; but in the absence of that opportunity to drop the Bill out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be a very prejudicial step of public policy, and he could hold out no hope that the Government would accept such a Motion.

said, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion, which might possibly save I time and satisfy the requirements of the hon. Member for West Belfast. He remembered distinctly the history of the passing of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and the kind of objection which was taken to it before it was carried. He remembered on one occasion Mr. N. Murphy speaking for four hours on a Wednesday afternoon in opposition to the Bill, and that Major O'Gorman defeated it Session after Session. But eventually it was carried. He thought, in face of the experience they had had of this Bill, a discussion upon it now would be an entire farce. They would have just the same sort of lengthy speeches leading to no result whatever. There had been twice introduced already, on the responsibility of the Government of the day, a Bill for making this Act perpetual; and in one of the Bills he believed it was proposed to extend the Act to the large towns. The opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was in that direction at present; and he thought he might fairly suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might undertake to introduce a Bill at the commencement of next Session, which, on the understanding that hon. Members from Ireland would assent to the second reading, might then be referred to a Select Committee, and the evidence taken before it would at length place the House in a position to decide upon this much disputed matter. In respect of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it was said such a Bill would not be necessary if the Government did not go on wasting its time; but that was an accusation always made—[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: And always true.]—and in his opinion never true. That was just one of those reckless statements which hon. Members were in the habit of making. There must be an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; but if the Government would accept his suggestion, an important matter of dispute might be avoided and the question settled.

said, that he would be satisfied if the Government would introduce next Session a separate Bill on Sunday Closing, and refer it to a Select Committee, He hoped that this reasonable suggestion of the Chairman of Com- mittees would he accepted by the Government. In that event, he would not resist any Motion to include the Bill.

said, he was perfectly ready, at all events, to give this pledge, that next Session he would endeavour to make some occasion, by Bill or otherwise, for a discussion by a Select Committee or otherwise.

said, he had listened with great attention to the statement of the Chief Secretary, and to the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. As he was the Member who was about to move the omission of this Bill from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, he was anxious to receive from the Chief Secretary some definite statement with regard to the course which the Government intended to pursue. The Chief Secretary had promised them an inquiry, but he did not approach that inquiry with an open mind. He (Mr. John O'Connor) took an entirely different view of the position of the matter from that stated by the Chief Secretary. He came to a different conclusion altogether upon the fact that two Bills had been introduced by former Governments in that House dealing with this matter, and the very fact that those Bills came to nothing showed that there was a great difference of opinion upon the subject, and that the Government were not sincere in their desire to press them forward. The Chief Secretary, it appeared, would be inclined to support a measure for extending the operation of the Bill to the five cities which were exempted. Well, upon a little inquiry as to the results of the operation of the Act in different parts of Ireland—as to the state of things in exempted parts of the country, and the state of things in those places where it was in operation—he thought he would be led to an entirely different conclusion. It was an investigation of facts which had led him (Mr. John O'Connor) to that opinion, and he had no personal interest whatever in bringing the question forward. They courted investigation into the matter, and believed they should be able to prove, before an impartial inquiry, that the view they took was the correct view. What was the use of accepting the assurance of the Chief Secretary that he would inquire into the matter during the Recess, when he brought to that inquiry a closed mind? Therefore he should, in the absence of any further statement, be compelled in Committee to move the omission of the Bill.

said, he trusted the Chief Secretary would meet a little more frankly the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees. He thought the matter was one the Government might well meet in the sense proposed. He had no desire to press the Government for any unfair pledge; but to pledge themselves to refer the matter to a Select Committee early next Session did not seem to him to be asking too much.

said, he thought he had met, in substance and in spirit, the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees very frankly. He was unwilling to pledge the Government to legislation on the subject; but he was perfectly prepared to pledge the Government to give a Select Committee, in some form or other, by which the matter might be inquired into.

said, if they understood that if there was not a Bill there would be a Select Committee next Session, he would advise his hon. Friend not to further press the matter.

Yes, that will be so.

I am perfectly satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

said, it was absolutely necessary on this question of Sunday Closing in Ireland that both sides of the question should be heard. They would never arrive at a judicious judgment on this burning question without taking the interests of all parties into consideration. Although there was difference of opinion on the subject, still a large number of the Members of the Irish Party believed "Ireland successful, Ireland sober." There were several Statutes in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that they ought naturally to object to. For instance, there was the Act which gave power to Lord Lieutenant and Magistracy to collect a certain amount of county cess. That Act constituted a standing injustice in Ireland. He objected to important questions which ought to be thoroughly considered being disposed of in this manner at the end of the Session.

Complaint was made just now with reference to the practice of the Government in holding over till the end of the Session several important questions which are ripe for legislation, and then mixing them up altogether in one Bill, and thus getting rid of their responsibility in the matter, and evading the obligation put upon them by their position to endeavour to bring such questions to a settlement. I desire to propose a step now which would compel the Government, if it is taken by the Committee, to make up their minds before the end of the Session upon these disputed questions, and which would not allow them the opportunity of evading their responsibilities and obligations in the matter. In Clause 2, line 20, I propose to substitute for "December" the word "August."

Order, order! We are on Clause 1.

I beg to move the omission of the word "December" in line 20, and the substitution of the word "August." If this alteration be made the Government will be obliged to commence work early in the Session, and to some extent it will prevent the scandal we have witnessed during the last week or fortnight of keeping the House towards the close of the Session until 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning, and, as it were, holding the blunderbuss at their head of the displeasure of the country if they do not pass the Bills submitted to them. The manner in which legislation has been conducted during the last few days is scandalous. The Government have kept us hero till 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the morning, and if we have insisted upon our rights, they have charged us with obstruction. The proceedings of the past week ought to be explained in some form to the country, so that the charges of obstruction brought against Members of the House who desire to have legislation carried on in a rational way should be understood in their proper sense.

It must be quite obvious to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. We cannot foretell what the conditions of the next Session of Parliament may be, and therefore it would not be wise to provide that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill should cease to operate in August. The Employers' Liability Act, for example, might cease to have any force or might expire altogether at the end of August, a few days probably before another Bill could be passed. It would be a most absurd, and, I was going to say, a silly proceeding on the part of this House. No, Sir, the provision must remain as it is—namely, that the law shall continue in force until the expiration of a reasonable period beyond the ordinary course of the next Session of Parliament. It is possible that, owing to circumstances, we cannot now foretell Parliament may continue to sit, as it has sat this year, much beyond the usual period, and, under these circumstances, the Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely civil to my hon. Friend. He spoke of my hon. Friend's Motion as a silly one.

; I said it might produce a perfectly absurd result.

I suppose a Member of the House is capable of foreseeing the effect of his own Motion. My hon. Friend has never distinguished himself by silliness, whatever may be his other qualities. I think the Motion he has moved is a highly straightforward one. What is the object of his Amendment? It is that the Expiring Laws Bill shall only continue in operation until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering what it contains—until the 31st of August next year—which is practically the date at which a Session of Parliament is ordinarily at an end. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury quoted a remark which may be applied not only to the proceedings of this Session, but to all human affairs. He said it was impossible to forecast the proceedings of Parliament next year. Of course it is, but we may forecast that this Parliament will meet again next February, and that, with the exception of a short holiday at Easter, will sit right on until August. We may suppose, too, that there will be no Coercion Bill passed next year, because the Government have exhausted human ingenuity in respect of coercion to Ireland. We may assume that next Session will be more free for normal and regular legislation than this Session has been, and what my hon. Friend desires is to apply a useful spur to the side of the intentions of the Government in regard to legislation. He says—"We will only allow your expiring laws to continue in force until the end of August, unless you take care to deal with every Statute, either by way of an omnibus Bill or by separate legislation before the end of August." The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cited the case of the Employers' Liability Act, and hinted that inconvenience would arise if it together with other Acts were to cease in August next. But unless the Government deal with the Employers' Liability Act some way or other it will expire in December. The right hon. Gentleman must see that he has made no reply whatever to any hon. Friend because all the Statutes included in this Bill will expire before December next year. The Government must deal with every one of them sometime next Session, therefore any argument which applies to the Motion of my hon. Friend applies equally against the Bill as it stands. I fail to see any reason why the Acts specified in this Bill should remain in force until the end of 1888 when there will be six mouths of intervening legislation next year. I think the date mentioned by my hon. Friend is the most convenient one.

I asked the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) yesterday for an explanation of the first Bill specified in the Schedule. No doubt his answer was intelligible to himself, but I am afraid it was not regarded by hon. Members of the House as very satisfactory. For that reason as well as for others I bog to move the omission of this Act from the Schedule—namely, "5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 27," which is an Act dealing with the hemp and other manufactures in Ireland. I venture to say there is not one man in the House except the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is at all acquainted with the provisions of this Act. Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 27."—(Mr. Clancy.)

There are two Acts which deal with the linen industry. This Act is one for the protection of the linen industry of Ulster, and among other things it deals with the embezzlement of linen, hemp, and other materials of the same kind. There was a proposal made in this House in 1877 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the linen Acts should be consolidated. The Bill was blocked, and the result was that it was not passed into law. No opposition, as far as I am aware, has ever been made by any section of the community, either by employers or employed, to the continuance of this legislation. There have been complaints no doubt from, time to time about the lowness of the wages in the industry—I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his opposition.

I must say the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's explanation is the very lamest I have ever hoard. He has been asked what is the purpose of the Linen Acts, and why they should be continued. The right hon. and learned Gentleman with as much vagueness as he exhibited yesterday, has said these are Acts to deal with cases of embezzlement. But the general law prevents stealing or taking away. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there has been no complaint made from any quarter about the continuance of these laws. I cannot understand what can be the meaning of the laws, because no one can commit an offence of dishonesty with regard to the materials mentioned which is not punishable by the ordinary laws. We still wait come explanation of the use of this particular Statute.

One could easily understand the retention of these laws if they were of any use in backing up the linen industry of the North of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland apparently does not think it worth his while to give us any explanation of this ambiguous Act of Will. IV. I, for one, would be very pleased to support this Act if it were really one capable of backing up and maintaining the linen industry of Ireland. If, for instance, it was for the purpose of preventing the introduction of German linen into Belfast, and of its being sold as Irish linen. The three Conservative Members for Belfast are conspicuous by their absence to-day. They would have acted wisely in attending to-day, and seeking to introduce some clause into this Bill which would deal with the standing injustice at present done to the linen industry in Ireland. It is a notorious fact that linen is sent from Germany to Belfast, bleached in Belfast, and then sold as Irish linen. We certainly hope that this Bill will not pass without the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland explaining to us what is really meant by this expiring Act. If it is of no use, it would be much better to let it expire in the due and ordinary course of things, and then bring in next year some measure which would really deal with the emergency of the case, and which would relieve the people in the North of Ireland who are now suffering. The people in Belfast are suffering as much as those of any other place, and I think if you were to allow this Act to lapse, and next year bring in a Bill dealing with the exigencies of the case, everybody would be a great deal better pleased. I call upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to save us the trouble of further expostulation; to save us the trouble of taking a Division upon this matter. If he will only rise and afford us the information we desire, he will save us from much acrimonious discussion.

The Irish Members say they do not care for this expiring law. Let us have an inquiry to see how far the law is necessary. I think it is very much to be regretted that when such an important question is raised no Cabinet Minister is present.

If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland can say that this Act affords protection that is not now afforded by the Common Law, I shall be quite willing to withdraw my opposition.

The utility of this Act of Parliament has never until now been called in question. A Bill was introduced on the subject by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to make this law perpetual by putting it into a perpetual code. There is a law in England which is substantially similar to this law relating to Ireland—namely, the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40. I venture to put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that Parliament is not in the habit of passing Acts of Parliament when there is no necessity for them. We cannot suppose that an Act of Parliament which was passed in the 6 & 7 Vict., with the object of preventing abuses in manufacture, and containing 35 pages, was entirely illusory and unnecessary. There is no doubt whatever that this Act of Parliament does perform very useful functions. This must be patent to the hon. Gentleman if he reads the Act.

I will persist in my opposition to the Act if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who—as we see—has the information in his possession, does not condescend to give it to the House.

I do not contemplate with great satisfaction the possibility of the right hon. and learned. Attorney General for Ireland reading all the sections of this Act, because it appears to me to be a lengthy Act, and probably it is filled up with such old verbiage as old Statutes were filled up with. What I desire, however, to impress upon the Government is that, if they really believe this Act is a useful one, it would certainly be better to make it a permanent Act instead of troubling us with a discussion of this kind year after year. If, on the other hand, this Act really is of no use as contended by my hon. Friends, if all it does can be done by the Common Law of the country, I think it would be better to leave it out of the Schedule altogether. It appears to me that there are only two logical conclusions. The very fact that this is a temporary measure dating back, I think, 50 years, and that it has been renewed year after year for 50 years, shows the absurdity of its being included in this Bill. If it has been worth while to renew it yearly for 50 years, why not make it a permanent Act? If, on the other hand, it is of so little consequence that you cannot make a permanent Act of it, why not drop it altogether? There is another course, however, which might be followed. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland might tell us as briefly as possibly what are the principles and essential provisions of this Act which he thinks useful, and then we might leave out all that is unnecessary. If there are one or two sections which he can satisfy us are really useful provisions, I am sure that my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) would not be unreasonable, and would not refuse to accept them.

If this line of discussion wore to continue, we might spend days and weeks in giving hon. Gentlemen information upon points which they ought themselves to master if they intend to oppose the renewal of a law. I assert that not only in regard to one point, but in regard to 20 or 30, these Acts supplement the Common Law, and give remedies and protection to trade that the Common Law does not give. It is somewhat strange that an hon. and learned Gentleman like the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who frequently professes knowledge of law, should ask us to read him a number of section of Acts of Parliament, In this particular Act there are provisions as to the quality of linen, and there is a provision as to the way pieces shall be folded. An hon. MEMBER: They are all useless.

They are not useless, because there are penalties provided for the breach of them. The subject was investigated some few years ago, and it was in connection with that investigation that permanent English Acts were passed. Surely hon. Members will not suggest that if these Acts were obsolete Parliament would have made them the permanent law of England. There are a number of provisions for settling disputes, and for a variety of other matters every one of which is valuable to the trade to a greater or lesser extent, but which it would take many hours to discuss. I assort that there are a number of provisions in this Act which do supplement the Common Law. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) calls our attention to any particular point, we shall be very glad to endeavour to answer him.

I think the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) is such as to compel us to go to a Division. I am clearly justified now in having asked for an explanation of this Act, for what do we find? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) told us that this was an Act for the protection of the linen industry and other industries in the North of Ireland, and now it appears that it is an Act for the restraint of trade.

I did not say one word about the restraint of trade. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Act, he will see there is nothing about the restraint of trade.

Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not use such a phrase; he was not such a "silly-billy" as to use an expression like that. [Cries of "Order, order!"]

Well, he said he was not a "silly-billy."

That is my inference from his remarks, and I am justified in the inference when I hear there is in this Act such an extraordinary provision interfering with the course of trade as one prescribing how linen shall be folded, and another provision dealing with the settlement of disputes between musters and workmen. The sooner we get at the bottom of this matter the better—[An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!]—Yes; and I hope that the country will understand that Conservative Members are prepared to support a measure for the restraint of trade. I do not know the name of the hon. Gentleman who cheers, but I shall try to find out in order that I may bring it before his constituents. Now, this is an Act, according to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), which clearly upholds the absurd and irritating policy of the last century, which goes back to the worst days of Protection, which is actually imposing in the 19th century restrictions on trade which are supposed to have been abolished long ago in the British Dominions. Sir, I think this measure contains such unsuspected depths of iniquity that we are bound to oppose it to the very last. I repudiate the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General that we are not to ask for explanation of these Statutes. It is the business of any Member of this House who introduces a Bill to explain its provisions. It is not the business of the hon. and learned Gentleman to throw Bills at our heads, but it his business to make himself acquainted with the provisions of Bills of this kind, it is his business to explain the provisions of the Bill, and it is not courteous or civil, but it is indeed insulting to the House, for him, instead of performing this duty to expect those who object to the Bills to perform it. The explanation we have just had makes me suspicious of the nature of these old Bills, and if I do not get an explanation about every one of these Statutes, I shall be obliged to move their rejection and omission in order that we may examine them for ourselves before we assent to their continuance.

I think it convenient to state with reference to the future discussion of this Schedule, what must perhaps be known to hon. Members, that it is the duty of every Member of the Committee, wherever he may sit, to bring to the discussion of the subject-matters before the Committee his best ability and his best industry. But to continue a series of inquiries on matters about which an hon. Member apparently remains, I will not say purposely ignorant, but negligently ignorant, must be construed under certain circumstances, and I would be bound to so construe it, as an attempt to defeat and delay the progress of legislation.

Having some special knowledge of this trade, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. I think that this Bill is certainly not useless, but important, and so far from its being a restriction to trade, it is really a protection to the honest trader. Hon. Gentlemen will understand that it is of great importance to any trade that an article should really represent that for which it is sold. Now, let me say with reference to one-class of goods, flat yarn, that it is sold according to its number, and according to its number it is well known in every market of the world. According to its number and the size of the yarn its price varies. It is extremely desirable, and indeed necessary, that there should be some provision securing that one number, one size of yarn, should not be sold for another. That is secured by making it necessary that every skein or bundle of yarn shall contain the same length of thread. That is exactly what is provided for in one section of this Act. The section indicates that a bundle of yarn shall be composed of a certain number of skeins, and that the skein shall be of a certain length, and there is a special penalty and a special mode of procedure provided for punishing anybody who sells yarn for something else than it actually is. It is of the greatest importance to the linen industry of Ireland that there should be some provision that the purchaser should get that for which he pays.

I shall feel bound to support the second reading of this Bill, and the clauses that are in the Schedule. At the same time, I shall not do so for the reason urged by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but rather do so because I think there is another and far better way of dealing with all these Acts. A great number of these Acts are old and obsolete, and really contain very little of use to the industries represented. What I ask my hon. Friends from Ireland to do is to do in this case, as I have endeavoured, to do in some other cases—namely, to put down Questions upon the Paper as to whether these Acts are really useful, and let us see whether we can once for all rid our Statute Book of them. I do not suppose that any of the clauses of this Act are put in force in Belfast at the present time; I should be surprised if they were. There are, indeed, a number of clauses in various Acts of Parliament which apply in some way to this country; and I think it would be extremely useful if hon. Members would make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the contents of the Acts, and let us all see if we cannot co-operate to get these old and obsolete Statutes so purged that we may be able to understand, with much less difficulty than we have at present in doing so, the utility of these Acts.

Hearing the right ton. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) discourse so eloquently on the subject of yarns rather conveys to us a supreme sense of our ignorance than a sense of the utility of this measure. It may be possible that there is a remnant of utility in the Act, though I must say I have a doubt on the subject. I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his opposition any further.

I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the Survey of Great Britain Act, which stands No. 3 on the Schedule. In doing so I wish to say this. The Survey Act in itself is very good, no doubt, but at the present time it is desirable that we should have the matter dealt with in a better way. Not very long ago we had a long discussion on the extension of a certain portion of the Bill which deals in a satisfactory way with England, and which gives England certain advantages which are not extended to Ireland. It is for that reason that I rise to take exception to the Bill continuing without equalizing the law, and extending it to Ireland in the same way that it does to England. In Ireland at the present time, owing practically to the number of estates which are thrown on the market, there is a considerable amount of difficulty in dealing with the boundaries, and accordingly, latterly, we have agitated to get this 20-inch scale map which you have in England. To the advantage of all parties along discussion took place upon this subject not so very long ago, I think in the course of last month. Well, it is not my intention to start another debate upon the subject, or to treat the matter in extenso, but I must ask the Government to give us some explanation in the matter, and to tell us what they intend to do in this business, or I must move to omit the Bill relating to the Survey of Great Britain Bill. I do not think there are any Members of the Irish Government in their places—yes, I see one—and I trust he will be able to re-assure us on this point as it is one which is exciting a great deal of interest in Ireland, and which we sincerely hope will be dealt with.

All that the hon. Member can do in the case of these Acts is to move to omit them, or to omit certain portions of them. It is not competent for him to move their extension, or modification in any other fashion. This is a Bill which concerns Great Britain only.

I think I can satisfy the hon. Member for Mid Cork on this subject. I do not think he was in the House when I answered a Question on this subject which was put to the Government by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the hon. Member for East Donegal took great interest in the matter when the subject came up on the Estimates, and that I promised at that time to look into the matter. Afterwards when the hon. Member for East Donegal asked me a Question about it I was glad to be able to tell him that what he desires will be done. An order will be given in Ireland for a map to be prepared on the scale desired by the hon. Member for Mid Cork and the hon. Member for East Donegal. It does not require any alteration to be made in the Act of Parliament in order to enable this to be done.

I propose to move to amend Bill No. 7.

The hon. Member for Mid Cork has given notice of an Amendment to No. 6.

That is true, to amend the measure dealing with eccle siastical jurisdiction. I was hoping, Sir, until you had made your statement from the Chair that we should have some explanation with regard to the Bill dealing with these ecclesiastical matters, but of course if you say otherwise I would not proceed with ray Motion. I took the trouble to go into these Acts. They are extremely long, and apparently throw a considerable amount of power into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Authorities, and that, Sir, I main tain—notably, at such a time as the present, in an Act extending to Wales—

I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the remarks I made a while ago.

I will explain my meaning, Sir.

The hon. Member does not propose to move anything?

I will move the omission of this Bill from the clause.

I think, Sir, it would be well for the hon. Member to remember what you said a little time ago as to the desirability of Members informing themselves of the meaning of the various enactments contained in this Bill before moving Amendments. I think my hon. Friend will do well not to press this Amendment.

I wish to draw attention to the Act dealing with the levying of county cess. I have taken your advice, Sir. I have inquired as to the objects of the Bill before rising to speak upon it. I find in this apparently ancient measure which has been introduced year after year, that there is a provision which has led to considerable discussion and irritation in Ireland, and in the second place has led to innumerable questions being asked in this House time after time and year after year, and has also caused debates to arise in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers which have been given to these questions. The third clause, which I desire to omit from the Bill, gives the Lord Lieutenant power to issue warrants directed to the collectors of county cess in Ireland, desiring them to levy the estimated charges and expenses of any additional constabulary force appointed for any county or district thereof, and it also gives him power, under the second part of the clause, to appoint special collectors for that purpose. Now, Sir, this touches one of the most acute grievances in Ireland. [Colonel NOLAN: Hear, hear !] There is not the least doubt that the object of successive Governments in imposing additional constabulary on various counties in Ireland, sometimes upon no pretext at all, and generally, if not always, upon the flimsiest possible pretext, is a crying scandal and a crying injustice to the people of Ireland. I have, myself, personal knowledge of this fact that pro tests have been made even by Grand Jurors—and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) will bear me out in this. The Grand Jurors, themselves, men who are amongst the most loyal persons who live in these districts, and who pay the same local rates, know what it is to be fined for nothing at all, and have protested in the strongest manner possible against charges for additional constabulary in these various districts and counties. Of course, if the Grand Jurors in Ireland have taken that course, it may be readily assumed that the ordinary body of cess payers have a still stronger objection to this insane process of fining peaceable districts in Ireland. Time after time has this matter been brought up in this House. Questions have been asked as to why additional bodies of constabulary have been imposed on the districts. It has been pointed out again and again that the most peaceable counties have boon saddled—

I have before me the Statute as it at present exists, and I must observe that it appears to me that the hon. Member has misapprehended the purpose of Clause 3. The clause he is referring to was in a previous Act, and is not the particular Clause 3 in this Bill.

Is not the clause to which I am referring in this Act at all, Sir?

It is not in the Bill, nor has it been in the Bill for some time.

If the 3rd clause is omitted, and is not now law under this Bill, may I ask under what Statute this additional charge for Constabulary is inflicted every year upon Ireland?

I cannot answer the hon. Member's question; but the particular provision to which he objects was repealed by the 20 & 21 Vict. All that is in this Bill is a provision to enable money collected to be paid into the banks.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland tell me under what statutory authority the Lord Lieutenant imposes additional police on the districts in Ireland?

I cannot give the exact reference; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper I will ascertain.

I do not desire to throw any doubt on the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England; but it is very curious.

We were not aware that any question would be raised upon this Bill, and therefore we have not looked up the reference; but I notice in Section 3 of the Amending Act a reference to the principal Statute, which is a perpetual one.

I beg to move that the County Cess (Ireland) Act be not included in this measure. If the original Act is repealed the whole of this system of having extra Constabulary would fall to the ground.

There is nothing about Constabulary in the Act as it at present stands; therefore the observations of the hon. and gallant Member are not appropriate.

I see that there is included the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 19, and I would ask what is the use of including that measure? Up to the present time the law has not been carried out. I have again and again risen in my place and taken exception to the way in which this law is administered in the locality which I have the honour to represent. I have shown how, owing to the negligence of the authorities at the Irish Local Government Board, this measure is not carried out.

I think the hon. Member is referring to a totally different Act. He is referring to the Act making provision for the construction of dwellings for labourers.

I believe, Sir, I am right.

The Act the hon. Member refers to is the Act passed three years ago, and amended quite recently. It is not this Act, which was passed 20 years ago.

I have put down a Notice to omit from this Schedule the Statute 29 & 30 Vict. c. 52, which provides for the payment of the expenses of prosecutions on charges of felony and certain misdemeanours which are heard by examining magistrates and dismissed by them. I have not put down this Notice because I think the Act is a bad one, quite the contrary, but it has practically become a dead letter; and my object is to ascertain from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), or from the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), what steps they propose to take to give effect to the Statute? At present its existence on the Statute Book is a sort of snare. It operates in this way—and I may give the Committee an instance which has actually occurred. A poor man was compelled to attend at one of the Metropolitan Police Courts to give evidence in a case which was ultimately dismissed. He applied for his expenses, and the magistrate, thinking it was a suitable case, granted them to him under this Statute, and he was told by the clerk to take the certificate handed to him to the office of the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex. Well, I understand that at the office of the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex payment was refused, on the ground that the Treasury declines to repay expenses in cases which have been dismissed. Now, Sir, comes the anomaly. If instead of the charge being dismissed the person charged is committed for trial, then there is no difficulty. The County Treasurer honours the certificate by paying the money, the State repaying the county without a murmur. So that it practically comes to this—that the payment of the expenses of a witness is conditional upon the person charged being committed for trial; and I think I shall have the sympathy of this Committee in saying that a condition of that kind is not consistent with public policy. Why do the Treasury decline to repay expenses in dismissed cases? They may say that there is no statutory obligation upon the Treasury to do so. That is quite true; but equally there is no statutory obligation upon the Treasury to repay the expenses of prosecutions at all. It is simply this—that since 1846 it has been considered a sound and just principle that the expenses of prosecutions should be repaid to the counties and boroughs by the Treasury. Now, why should an exception be made in the case where the person charged is not committed for trial? Perhaps it may be said that when a charge is dismissed it ought never to have been brought; but, besides the fact that an inference of that kind is hardly well founded, I may point out that the Treasury has ample security that expenses would not be paid in unsuitable cases from the fact that not a farthing can be paid unless the magistrate certifies that it is a suitable case. Now, my object is, if possible, to get from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who I regret to see is not in his place at this moment, a promise that in future the expenses in dismissed cases will be repaid by the Treasury exactly as they are repaid in other cases. There is really no obstacle which would prevent the Treasury from taking that course. I was told by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the other day that expenses were allowed, in accordance with a Treasury Minute issued in February, I think, 1875. Well, that is perfectly true. I have looked into that; but by a mere stroke of the pen, as one may say, it would be quite competent for the Treasury to issue a new Minute—if, indeed, that is necessary—to provide that the same regulations which are now in force in regard to the payment of expenses in cases where a person charged is sent for trial shall also apply in cases where the charge is dismissed. But I do not think it really matters, as one would say, a brass farthing whether these expenses are paid out of the taxes or out of the rates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury told us the other day that the cases are extremely rare, and that, therefore, the amount concerned is a very small one; but if the Treasury refuses to repay these expenses, then the only alternative which remains, in the inte- rest of poor persons who are compelled to appear as witnesses, and to lose their day's work, is for the Attorney General or the Public Prosecutor to take steps to compel the Treasurers of Counties and Boroughs, on whom the statutory obligation lies, to pay these expenses. Of course, it is absurd to say that the witness has his remedy at law against the County Treasurer, In the case I cited just now the witness was a poor omnibus conductor who was not in regular employment, and who had lost a day's work. I say it is the duty of the Attorney General, as representing the administration of justice in this House, either to take care that the Treasury shall repay these expenses when paid by the County Treasurer, or to take steps to see that the County Treasurer shall discharge the statutory obligation which is laid upon him. For my own part, as I have said, I do not think it matters much which course he adopts; but what I would urge is that as this is a pressing matter, constituting a great hardship in a few individual cases, something should be done. These County and Borough Treasurers should be made aware that if they do not fulfil their statutory obligations they will be made to do so, and that they must not refuse to honour the certificates of the magistrates. I think the right course would be for the Treasury to issue a Circular calling the attention of the County Treasurers to the duty imposed upon them. If that were done, practically the mischief would be overcome. I beg, Sir, to move formally the omission of this Statute. Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 18 and 19, to omit from the Schedule the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 52.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

I quite agree that the hon. Member has pointed out a grievance that exists; but he will forgive me if I say that, though I appreciate his motives, if he did succeed in cutting out this Act from the Schedule he would prevent the unfortunate witnesses from getting any expenses under any circumstances. It is well that I should give a little explanation. The hon. Member is quite right in what he says of the Act; but in the Act the Treasury is not mentioned at all. They have nothing to do with legislation. The drafts or orders for the payment of witnesses ought to be honoured by the County Treasurer or Clerk of the Peace. But it appears that some years ago, long before this Act 29 & 30 Vict, was passed, a bargain was made between the Treasury and the counties that there should be a contribution from the former towards the expenses of witnesses. But the parties have not always agreed. The counties think they do not get enough in some cases. But the contest does not rest only on this question of witnesses giving evidence where there is no conviction or committal; and the hon. Member must not think it is any question between the county and a witness involving the particular matter to which he has called attention. I do not say the County Treasurer is justified; but he has thought fit to make the non-payment by the Treasury a pretext or excuse for the non-payment of witnesses. I have already expressed my opinion in the House that witnesses are entitled to their expenses when they get their certificate, and that there ought not to be a fight over the body of the witness between the Treasury and the county. But the only way in which this can be dealt with is, as I suggested, by a letter to the Clerks of the Peace for the county, pointing out their duty to pay, and that they must then fight out their battle with the Treasury for the repayment to which they think they are entitled; but they must not try to gain their own end by reducing payments to which witnesses are entitled. I sympathize very much with the hon. Member's desire to remove the grievances of witnesses; and I undertook to bring the matter before the Treasury. This I have done; and I also undertake to bring the subject to the notice of Clerks of the Peace, and I hope that the result of these representations will be that when a certificate is given to a witness the County Treasurer will see that he has no right to refuse payment, even though he may be unable to get repayment from the Treasury. The dispute between the county and the Treasury must be decided by another tribunal. But the result of the hon. Member carrying his Amendment, and omitting reference to this Act, would be that the unfortu nate witness would get no recompense at all. The matter has already received I attention from the point of view of the hon. Member; and, so far as I can, I will endeavour to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out.

This is a very old question. I remember it being discussed 10 years ago, when the hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) took up the question very much as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) has raised it. But I would remind the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) that the Treasury found it necessary to reduce the expenditure under this head, which, at the time of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, had mounted up to £250,000. Now, I find that the amount on account of repayment of expenses of witnesses is £135,000; but, unless some judgment is exercised in the system of repayments, we shall again have the sum mounting up to £250,000, which the Treasury will have to pay.

But this should not affect the witnesses.

All I want to point out is that the Exchequer will be landed in enormous expenditure for the payment of witnesses if this is allowed to proceed unchecked—if counties and boroughs know they can fall back upon the Treasury; but I deny that counties and boroughs have the claim for repayment. The assistance of the Treasury is in the nature of a subsidy, which now amounts to £135,000. But this is one of those questions that should be looked into and settled at the beginning of the year, and there is no advantage in continuing the discussion now.

I should just like to say one word, not by way of opposition, or to throw any difficulty in the way of the Committee; but I believe there is a remedy for witnesses which, if mentioned, might, perhaps, save them from the unpleasant experience of the omnibus conductor to whom reference has been made, and that is the remedy which, unless I am very much mistaken, a witness has of refusing to give evidence.

No; not in criminal cases.

Well, thou they ought to have the power of refusing to give evidence unless their expenses are guaranteed. If the condition of things does not allow of that, then the case is a great deal worse. I hope the hon. and learned Attorney General may be able to do something early next Session to meet the case.

Allow me to say a word in acknowledgment of the frank and courteous manner in which the hon. and learned Attorney General has met me. If I have seemed pertinacious it is only because I feel very strongly the grievance and hardships inflicted on very poor people, and was anxious to have a distinct and definite pledge given. There is one point on which I desire a little further explanation. As I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that a bargain had been made between the Treasury and the County Authorities in regard to the payment of a portion of the expenses of witnesses long before the passing of the Statute we are now considering. But I was referred by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to a Minute issued in January, 1875, for regulating this matter, and I have read that Minute.

If the hon. Member will pardon me. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the question as between the counties and the Treasury. I do not think we could discuss that here, for the Statute does not raise the question; all I mentioned as bearing on this discussion with reference to the Treasury Minute was that the counties made it an excuse for not honouring these orders or certificates. I did not express an opinion as to whether the counties or the Treasury were right, and I do not see how that can arise now.

No; but I do not understand what the practice that has been introduced is. I believe that the principle which has been laid down as sound is that the Treasury shall pay the whole of the prosecution expenses. Before 1846 the Treasury repaid a moiety of the prosecution expenses. I understand that it was agreed upon that from 1846 the Treasury should pay the whole of the expenses of criminal prosecutions, and they accordingly issued this Minute of 1875, laying down certain rules which would prevent the charges made by boroughs and counties being of an extravagant or extortionate character. I should like a precise answer on the point. Is it understood that the Treasury pays the whole of the expenses of criminal prosecutions?

No; certainly not.

The question really does not arise on the Bill, which deals only in respect to witnesses in counties.

Very well, Sir. Then, in regard to the principal object I had in raising this discussion, I think the assurances of the hon. and learned Attorney General are satisfactory; and as I do not really want to hinder the re-enactment of this Statute, I propose, with the consent of the Committee, to withdraw my Amendment.

I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the 20th Act on the list—that which deals with prosecutions for Sunday trading; and I wish to move the omission of a clause of that Act. The words I desire to omit are those following after the words "offence is committed "—

"Except by or with the authority of the chief officer of police in the police district where such offence is committed, or two Justices of the Peace, or stipendiary magistrate, having jurisdiction in the place where such offence is committed."

The Act which this Continuance Bill proposes to continue is one relating to a very old Act of Parliament; indeed, one, I think, passed in the Reign of Charles II., and known as the Sunday Observance Act, and it is only carried out in a spasmodic way, according as it suits the convenience of the Local Authority, and I want to accentuate this point by reference to a specific case. In the North of Ireland there are strict Sabbatarians to be found in some places, though they are not so strict in other places; but when they have the influence they draw a hard-and-fast line and apply this old Act in a manner not always considered judicious by all classes of the community. Now, what happened in the town of Derry? Some boys were called up before the magistrates under this Act, fined, and, I believe, imprisoned, in default of paying the fine, for selling; in the streets on a Sunday copies of a Dublin evening paper, The Evening Telegraph. Now, in the course of my residence in the Metropolis, I have continually seen papers that are brought out on Sunday morning—The Observer and other papers—hawked about and sold freely in the London streets. Now, if this Act is to be carried out at all, let it have equal application all round; but do not give to Justices power which, in many instances, they use in antagonism to the general interests of the people. It is, unfortunately, the case in my country that they do use their powers in a manner antagonistic to the interests of the people, and they use this antiquated old law in an unfair way. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will answer my request, and satisfy the Committee—as he ought to satisfy the Committee—that there shall be a fair and square application of the Act all round in the future, I shall have to persevere in my Motion. It is much to be deprecated that in the North of Ireland, where there is a certain amount of religious antagonism, the application of this Act for the observance of the Lord's Day—commonly called Sunday—should be made the means of further inflaming the opinions of people who do not agree upon religious observances. I really think that, instead of repealing merely one section of the Act, it would be better that the whole series of these Acts should be repealed. I am myself opposed to the closing of all places of amusement on Sunday. I think it is hard that people who have only one day in seven at their disposal should be debarred from visiting museums and such places then.

The hon. Member is now entering too fully into the principle of the Act—not confining himself to his Amendment. And as to the Amendment again, I find, on reference, that one of my Predecessors in the Chair has ruled—a proposal being made to amend an Act contained in a Continuance Bill by the omission of a portion of a clause—that such an Amendment could not be entertained, and that by an Amendment the Committee could only decide whether a whole Act, or any substantial part of an Act, should be maintained in the Bill. The Bill cannot be amended by striking out the words in the Act to which the hon. Member has referred.

Then, Sir, I will move the rejection of the whole Act. It is an enactment that is the cause of a great deal of mischief in the North of Ireland when entrusted to the administration of people too ready, by encouraging such speeches as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has delivered and by other means, to in frame the feelings of religious fanaticism, to the danger of the community at large, I sincerely hope the Committee will support me in the Motion to omit this Act. Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 36 and 37, to leave out Item 20.—(Dr. Tanner.)

I trust that this Motion will not be pressed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I do not know whether he understands the effect of striking this item out. I regard these Sunday Observance Acts as of most obnoxious character; but this particular Act limits the effect of them, and provides that they shall only be enforced under the responsibility of a responsible officer. I think myself the old Act is most objectionable; but it is difficult to discuss that on this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I do not want to occupy time. I am against the law, and for this reason I oppose the Amendment, which, being carried, would make the effect of the old law much more harsh.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork will persist in his Motion. I fancy he will not. The reference he has made to a prosecution in Derry was a very aggravated case. It appears that the Orange Magistrates of Derry, having allowed the sale of Orange papers on Sunday year after year, took the very first opportunity they could of trying to stop the sale of a National paper on Sunday. Such an instance of gross partizanship naturally led my hon. Friend to move the omission of an Act under which it is in the power of magistrates in the North of Ireland to indulge in such an unfair and foolish proceeding.

On the second reading I had occasion to refer to this specific Act; and may I be allowed to say that my objection to this Act is not as an Act limiting prosecutions under the old Act? My objection, like that of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), is to the whole code of legislation of this kind, and to this Act in particular, as dealing with that legislation in a wrong spirit. My view is that the whole of this legislation ought to be repealed, and that it should not be in the power of any individual to institute a prosecution.

I hope hon. Members will not leave out of view the statements made by Lord Cross when he was Home Secretary, as to the beneficial effect of legislation in this direction. Great credit is due to the Conservative Party for passing an Act restraining the prosecutions for Sabbath-breaking under the Act of Charles II. This was done by Lard Cross, and ought not to be repealed; but it should now be made permanent.

After the remarks of the ton. Member for Northampton I will withdraw my Motion with pleasure. But may I point out that the application of this law in England and Scotland and the use made of it in the North of Ireland are very different things? Where the law is administered by magistrates, the bulk of whom belong to the Orange faction, its application has such strong traces of partizan spirit that it cannot fail to prove injurious to the public interest, and brings law and order—that well-worn phrase we have so often heard—into contempt. Of course, having heard the explanations made—notably that of the hon. Member for Northampton—that the effect of my Amendment would tend to renew the old Sunday Act in its harsh and crude manner, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

As there appears to be absolutely no difference of opinion whatever on this Bill. I will ask the House to allow the further stages to be taken.

On a point of Order, is it permissible to take this further stage after we have only just taken Committee and Consideration?

At this time of the Session it is frequently done, there being no Amendments made on Consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to ask the House to do it.

said, the valuable work of the Revision Committee could not become apparent until effective steps wore taken to clear away a large number of obsolete Statutes.

asked the House to allow the remaining stages to be taken at once, and moved that the Speaker should now leave the Chair.

inquired whether the White boy Acts were included in this measure?

said, they were not.

They are spent.

said, he could not say that, not being an Irish lawyer. The Bill only included those Acts which the Law Officers knew of their own knowledge, without elaborate investigation, to be obsolete.

said, he must protest against the White boy Acts not being included in this Bill.

said, he would oppose the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman has already spoken on the Motion.

I only asked a question.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

I merely wish to point out clearly, and in express terms, what it is we are doing. We have been taking the second reading of a Bill of an important character—the importance of which has been impressed upon us by hon. Gentlemen—and then, without any Notice given, we are invited at once to go into Committee. We may have Amendments moved which are not upon the Paper, and which not one single soul in the Committee, except the hon. Member who moves them, knows anything at all about. I do say, with all due respect to the Government that, whatever the period of the Session is, that is not the proper way to conduct Public Business.

I shall be happy to give the fullest explanation with regard to the Bill in every particular in which explanation can be required. There are only three Amendments, and all these but one are verbal. One of them has been passed and I will state what it is if the Committee will permit me. It was merely the insertion of the date of a certain Statute which had been omitted by accident. I think the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will admit that there has been nothing very unconstitutional in making that Amendment in Committee without Notice. The second Amendment is a mere verbal improvement effected by the draftsman, who saw that there were certain words after the name of the witness Eva Thornton. The third is the omission of a Statute which ought to be struck out, owing to a learned Judge having raised a doubt as to whether it is obsolete or not.

No doubt, the particular Amendment before the Committee is trifling in its character; but I think we have a right to ask that this Bill shall not be taken until Monday.

The third reading will not be taken until Monday.

It was proposed before going into Committee that the Committee stage should be deferred until Monday; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because he would not assent to that proposal, put us to the trouble of assembling for a Division, although a Division was not taken. If we had been allowed time, we should not only have understood the point of the Amendment now before the Committee, but we should have understood all the other points which could be raised on the Bill. This particular Amendment refers to putting away "certain divers books and images."

We have not come to that yet. The Amendment is, on page 10, to leave out lines 34, 35, 36, and 37. The Question is, "That these words stand part of the Schedule to the measure."

If hon. Gentlemen, wish, to have until Monday to consider the effect of this Amendment, there will be no objection on the part of the Government to postponement. I trust, however, that on Monday, when these things have been thoroughly considered, there will be no difference of opinion on the matter. If that is understood, I shall agree to report Progress.

I have not, in the case of this Bill, Sir, been able to follow your salutary advice to make' myself acquainted with, everything in the measure; but, taking from the Table a volume of the Statutes, I find that this Statute we are asked to prolong in the present Bill has been spent—namely, that the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 10 is really so far spent as to have been eliminated from the Statute Book.

The hon. Member has taken up a volume of the Statutes, in which he will find the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c 10, but not in the proper rotation. That arises from the fact that there are in some years several Acts bearing the same number. If the hon. Member will refer to the Statutes at large he will find that what I say is correct, and that the Act he is speaking of is the one continued in this Bill.

We have kept on the Table of this House a revised edition of Statutes for reference; and when one gets up and appeals to this revised version, and finds it inconsistent with what we find in the proposed Bill, he is told that he is altogether wrong in the matter, and that there is a different rotation. Of what year is the Act of Edward VI. to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers?