said, he desired to move the insertion of Amendments to the clause which sanctioned an agreement between the Mersey Tunnel Railway and the London and North-Western and Great Western Railway Companies; giving the latter Companies exclusive privileges in the use of the Mersey Tunnel. He wished to explain that during the present Session the Mersey Company Bills had been introduced in the House of Lords, styled respectively the Mersey Railway (No. 1) Bill and the Mersey Railway (No. 2) Bill. The No. 2 Bill was simply a Money Bill, and the No. 1 Bill contained certain clauses which were now the object of his opposition. The clauses and the agreement scheduled in the Bill to which he referred were not in it as it was originally submitted to the House of Lords or in this House; and therefore certain Railway Companies, whose interests were prejudicially affected thereby, had no locus standi against the Bill on that account. The proposal in the Bill really amounted to a gigantic monopoly, by which the whole system of Welsh railways, of the Sheffield and Lincolnshire, of the Midland, and of the Great Northern Railway Companies would be absolutely excluded from the free use of the Mersey Tunnel. The agreement of last year gave the London and North-Western an unfair advantage over five other routes, and it ignored the claims of the whole system of Welsh railways, the Sheffield and Lincolnshire, the Great Northern, and the Midland Railways, all of whom had spent large sums of money for the public benefit in order to establish an effective through communication between the Welsh system and the systems of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The Railway Companies prejudicially affected had already pointed out the gross unfairness of this proceeding to the promoters, but without effect; and he was so thoroughly convinced that the proposal in the clauses to which he took exception was opposed to the public interest that he was prepared to press his objection to a Division. Even taking the promoters' own statement, which had been sent to every Member of the House, the Mersey Tunnel was formed to make a communication between the railways on both the north and south sides of the river. Within the last month a great undertaking had been commenced—namely, the Dee Bridge, and those he represented had spent on that and the Wirral Railway £600,000 on works and communications, and they hoped within another 12 months that the Dee Bridge would be open and the Wirral system would be brought into absolute communication with the Mersey Tunnel. It would be of great benefit to both undertakings. In the statement the promoters had laid before the House they had ventured to say that the route, by means of the extensions of the Wirral Railway, had not been commenced, nor did the Wirral Railway Company complain of the agreement; but he desired, on behalf of the Wirral Company, to protest altogether against such a statement. Then the promoters went on to say that the interests of the Welsh railways were even more remote. But, as a matter of fact, the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Company had running powers to the mouth of the Tunnel for the Wirral Railway system, and to sanction the proposal of the Bill would be to enable the London and North-Western and the Great Western Companies to choke the independent traffic which would be conveyed to the great benefit of the Principality of Wales. He asked the House to refuse to assent to this agreement. It was, as he had said, inserted after the Bill had left the House of Lords. The House of Lords had passed the measure without this objectionable clause, nor was it proposed in the Bill when the House of Commons passed the second reading. It was inserted in Committee on the last day when the Bill had been in the list for something like 10 days, and when it was impossible for those who were prejudiced by this very monopolizing clause to make their claim to have justice done.

Does the hon. Member move to leave out the whole clause?

said, he begged to move the omission of the words, in page 12, from the word "The," in line 3, to "Heads," in line 8.

said, he earnestly hoped the House would support the protest of his hon. Friend against this proposal to give these great Railway Companies a practical monopoly. As had been pointed out, this agreement was only scheduled at the end of the year, at the very last moment, and without due consideration of the fact that if carried it would place the Welsh Railway Companies in a very unfair position to other Railway Companies communicating with the Mersey Tunnel. All the Welsh railways asked was that they should be granted the same benefits allowed to all the other railways; that they should be placed on equal terms with them; and they only hoped the House would join in the protest against giving the monopoly of running powers to the railways to which reference had been made.

I should have liked to have heard something said on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. It is extremely embarrassing for the House to have to come to a judgment on the question after hearing one side only. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure) has moved an Amendment which is an important one, and which deserves very serious consideration; and the hon. Member has been supported by another hon. Gentleman, but no one appears to support what is contained in the Bill. I do not know whether there is anyone in the House charged with the duty of representing the promoters, but I will state to the House very briefly how the case stands. The Mersey Railway, as everybody knows, had financial difficulties to contend with, and last year the Company introduced a Bill which contained in a Schedule an agreement with the Great Western and London and North-Western Companies for the interchange of traffic—an agreement which, it is said, gave these Companies a practical monopoly in respect of the traffic between Wales and the Western and Midland Counties. Without going into the question whether that is so or not, that, at any rate, was agreed to last year. Then this Session the Mersey Company comes again to Parliament with a Bill introduced first in the House of Lords, and had at the last stage of the Committee in the Commons an agreement inserted in the Schedule varying, undoubtedly, the agreement of last year, and, as just alleged, varying it in a manner most prejudicial to the Companies other than those I have spoken of. If this agreement had been in the Bill as introduced, the other Companies would have alleged with some force, if not with exactness, that they would have had a locus standi to object to this agreement; but, as a matter of fact, they were not heard before the Committee as it now stands in its amended form. As it is, they have not had the opportunity of urging their objections, and of showing how their interests will be prejudicially affected by this new agreement. Now, what the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire proposes to do is not merely to nullify what is proposed to be done in this Bill as to the agreement, and as to which I think he has a very strong case, but he proposes also to repeal the Schedule and agreement in the Act of last year. That course would be unfair to the promoters of the Bill—about as unfair to them as the Bill is unfair to their opponents. I confess I can scarcely think the House will take the step of repealing the agreement which is scheduled in the Act of last year, and which is part of the series of Acts of Parliaments on which the Mersey Company has attained its position. What the hon. Member might do, and what I think the House will probably consider him entitled to do, would be to repeal Clause 15A altogether, and with it the Schedule, which will leave the Mersey Company in precisely the same position as they occupied last year—nullifying, in fact, its action in respect to which the opponents of the Company ought to have had the opportunity of being heard. I will suggest, therefore, to the hon. Member that he should withdraw the present Amendment and move the omission of Clause 15A, and then move the omission of the Schedule. Probably the House will think that by so doing neither the Mersey Company, nor the Great Western, nor the London and North-Western Companies will be unfairly treated.

said, it would be unbecoming of him, as a new Member of the House, not to accept the suggestion of such an authority as the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees; and he, therefore, should withdraw his Amendment and propose the omission of Clause 15A.

said, he thought the promoters of this Bill would, if the course now proposed were adopted, be treated with very remarkable leniency. They had resorted to a course of conduct which, in his humble opinion, ought to have brought them within the jurisdiction of the authorities of the House. They had adopted a mode of action which enabled them practically to evade those Rules and Orders which had been established for the protection of the different interests of the country with regard to Private Bill Legislation. They brought in a Bill which was of such a character that at the outset a number of persons who might be interested were put off their guard, and therefore did not obtain that locus standi before the Committee that was really necessary for the protection of their interests, as events showed. They allowed things to go on until the Committee were prepared to adopt certain conclusions; and then, at the last moment, when it was practically impossible for the Committee to appreciate the effect of what was proposed, they agreed to a Schedule which invaded in a very serious way the interests of third parties. These third parties had had no notice of this, and were not at all aware of what was being done until it was practically impossible for them to lay their case before the public. Now, that appeared to him to be a distinct evasion of the Rules and Regulations of the House; and as the agents of the promoters were, he believed, amenable to the jurisdiction of the House, it appeared to him that it would have been proper, just, and most salutary that some notice should have been taken of their conduct, and that they should have been prevented from further acting as agents in connection with Private Bill Legislation—at any rate, for some time. Their conduct was such as to call for some serious disciplinary action. The observations of the hon. Gentleman, who spoke with all the authority of Chairman of Committees, were, in his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) opinion, of a very lenient description. He should have preferred to see objection taken to the Bill being proceeded with any further; but if the House was disposed to take so lenient a view as the Chairman of Committees seemed inclined to recommend, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not take the initiative in endeavouring to enforce serious penalty.

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?

I do, Sir.

I beg to move the omission of Clause 15A.

, in moving, after the word "action," to insert "and shall exercise the same as in the case of such action," said, that the clause gave the Commissioners all the powers and privileges of a Judge trying an action at law, and the result of the Amendment would be to provide that those powers should be exercised in accordance with the recognized practice of the Courts. One effect of the Amendment would be to make the Commission a public Court where evidence must be taken publicly; whereas, in the discretion of the Commissioners, as the Bill stood, it might be a private Court, and evidence might be taken secretly. That would be a most unfortunate course to take in a matter of this kind. With reference to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) on a former occasion that this inquiry ought not to be conducted according to the rules of the game of legal fence, he would remind him that those rules were the result of long experience, and were framed for the purpose of insuring that justice should be done between parry and party, and between the Crown and the accused. Unless the Government intended that this trial should be utterly illusory, or unless they intended that the powers of the Commissioners should be exercised to the disadvantage of the accused, he saw no valid reason why the Commissioners should not exercise their judicial discretion according to the established procedure.

said, that though it was true the established procedure of the Courts was founded upon long experience, yet its rules were framed to apply between party and party, and not to an inquiry such as this was intended to be. The case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another" showed how entirely inapplicable the strict procedure of the Courts would be to an inquiry of this kind. That case was conducted according to the rules of a civil action. The result was that the counsel for the plaintiff was the master of the situation so far as the conduct of the case was concerned, and made what was considered a clever move in the game—no doubt it was because they were told it received the sanction of the two most eminent lawyers in England. But it was a false move, and the plaintiff was checkmated in consequence. Had the Judge in that case been at liberty to disregard the discretion of the plaintiff and to call what witnesses he chose, the result might have been that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) would have been examined and persuaded the Court of the truth of his cause, and nothing more would have been heard of this matter.

said, he wished it to be understood, whatever might be pretended to the contrary, that his Friends and himself desired that the powers of the Commission should be absolutely effectual for every reasonable purpose. They desired extremely that witnesses should be compelled to give evidence; that necessary documents might be examined; that persons might be punished for contempt; and they held it to be essential that evidence should be taken abroad. They would be sorry to assent to any action that would limit the powers of the Commission in any of these respects; but he held it had always been found that the powers of the High Court were absolutely sufficient for the full discovery of truth, and he failed to see any reason why the powers of the Commission should be in excess of those. He would also like to learn from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England whether the Court would be an open Court, as the Bill left that matter undecided? After the course that the House had taken last night in refusing to sanction the release of Members of Parliament in prison under the Coercion Act to enable them to attend the sittings of the Commission it was all the more important that the Court should be an open one, and that there should be some provision that persons in prison should be made aware of its proceedings.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that it was the desire of the Government, as of hon. Members on his side of the House, that the powers of the Commission should be full and ample in the directions named. As to the question that had been addressed to him as to whether the Court would be an open one, and whether the evidence would be taken publicly, he was surprised that such a question should have occurred to anyone. He could not imagine that a Commission sitting under such circumstances should depart from the practice of all other Commissions, and take evidence in secret affecting the reputations of many persons.

said, that many Commissions had taken evidence in private.

said, he was quite satisfied with the assurance that had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that with regard to the Amendment, this Bill gave to the Commissioners all those powers which were given to other Judges to be used in their discretion as they might think necessary. If the proposed words were put in the clause the effect would be a mandatory provision, commanding the Commissioners that they were to exercise the powers given to them. If anybody said to the Commissioners that a witness ought to attend and give evidence, they would be bound to issue a summons for his attendance, and imprison him if he did not come, although it might be perfectly evident to them that complete evidence was already before them, and that his evidence would be perfectly useless.

submitted that the powers proposed by the Amendment were no more mandatory than the existing powers were upon any Judge sitting in the High Court for the trial of any action. The discretion was a judicial discretion governed by precedent.

thought the Solicitor General could not have read the Amendment.

Yes; I have.

said, the Amendment only provided that the Commissioners should exercise the powers as in the case of an action. He did not see how it could be said to take away their discretion. The Government had been endeavouring to escape, not only from the title of their Bill, but also from its Preamble. The title applied to Members of Parliament, and the Bill did not. The Preamble did not say that the Commissioners were to inquire into anything and everything. They were not entitled to do that, but were to inquire into the charges and allegations made in the particular action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another;" and if there were any charge not brought forward in that action, the Commissioners would have no power to inquire into it at all. They were absolutely prohibited by the Bill from doing so, and by the 1st clause of the Bill. Surely if the Bill gave to the Commissioners the powers that were given to a Judge in an action, it was not immaterial or unreasonable to require also that those powers should be used as they would be used in an action. The discretion was no more taken away by the Amendment in the case of the proposed inquiry than it would be taken away in the case of an action.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker with held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

said, that the result of compelling the Commissioners to exercise their judicial discretion as in an action would be that they would be unable to call any witnesses whom they might think it necessary to have before them for the discovery of the truth, for they would only be able to enforce the attendance of such witnesses as the parties chose to call. He hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment.

said, he begged to move an Amendment, the effect of which was to provide that a summons signed by one or more Commissioners should be equivalent to formal process, not only for compelling, but for enabling the production and inspection of documents.

said, he considered the Amendment of vital importance. They knew that the forged letters had been for years in the possession of The Times, and that they had been submitted to the examination of experts. He was also informed that The Times had retained all the eminent experts in England, and that there was not an eminent expert who had not been so secured. The result was that if his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) wished to obtain the services of experts, he would have to go to France, or some other country, for the purpose. He wished the Government to say whether or not they would insert provisions in the Bill to enable his hon. Friend to inspect the documents before the trial or during the progress of the trial, and before he was called upon to give evidence. To refuse to do that would subject his hon. Friend to a fatal disability. It was absolutely necessary that the documents should be produced and inspected in advance by his hon. Friend, and the experts on his behalf. If that facility was not allowed, public opinion would stand amazed, and would most sternly condemn a proposal by which the parties producing the impugned documents would be allowed to accumulate scientific evidence on the subject of their genuineness, while the parties chiefly concerned with the genuineness of those documents were deprived of the right of examination of them before they were cross-examined in reference to them.

felt sure that the Commissioners would do justice in this matter. The moment a document was produced, it would be in the custody of the Commissioners, and he did not entertain the slightest doubt that they would allow the persons implicated ample time and opportunities for inspecting it.

said, it would not be possible for the hon. Member for Cork to stand cross-examination as to the documents without an examination of them beforehand. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would allow the Amendment to pass.

contended, that unless those words were inserted in the clause the Commissioners would not have the power to order inspection.

held the insertion of the proposed words to be of the utmost importance.

said, that if the hon. Member would consent to the withdrawal of this Amendment, he would afterwards move to insert, in another part of the clause, the following words:—

"The Commissioners may order that any document or documents in the possession of any party appearing in the inquiry should be produced for the inspection of any other party."

suggested that his hon. Friend should accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he begged to move the omission from Sub-head iv. of Sub-section i., which authorized the issue of a Commission or request to exa- mine witnesses abroad. He did not quite understand what the Government thought would be effected by this sub-section. In his opinion, it was possible that persons might voluntarily attend to support particular statements, and it might not be possible for the persons impugned by those statements to compel the attendance of witnesses to give rebutting evidence in the countries where the examination was held. This was a quasi-criminal proceeding. At any rate, it was a proposal to inquire into crimes alleged to have been of a very serious character, and it was a proposal to take evidence that certain persons were accessory before the fact. But while under existing Acts, like the Merchant Shipping Act, the power to take evidence was confined to Her Majesty's Dominions, this Bill proposed to take evidence in France, Italy, and America. He submitted that it would not be possible to take evidence in the presence of the accused. Then was the initiative as to these Commissions to be on the application of The Times, or were they to suppose some special knowledge on the part of the Judges? It was quite impossible to do that, for if they were impartial they could not have this knowledge. It could only be communicated to them by the defendants in "O'Donnell v. Walter." Was there to be notice given, and, if so, to whom, as to the issue of the Commissions? Might the parties stipulate for the right to be represented by agents to cross-examine witnesses? Were these unknown persons, the Commissioners who were to take evidence abroad, to have power to grant certificates? That was a power which might be entrusted to the Judges here; but were the unknown persons appointed in the interests of The Times abroad to have this power? He would submit these points strongly, and with confidence, but for the fact that everything appeared to be turned upside down. He had, for instance, just been told by the Solicitor General that the practice was for Royal Commissions to take their evidence in public. The practice was the other way. An hon. Member near him, the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), who had been a Member of four Royal Commissions, had informed him that in not one of those cases had the evidence been taken publicly. He hoped the proposal in the Bill would be struck out, for he was convinced that it could not be attended with any good. It was at variance with every principle of law, and calculated in many respects to inflict gross injustice and the gravest abuse.

said, he might point out that the most extreme attacks in The Times were directed against persons residing in the United States; and as The Times had very able correspondents in every part of America, some of them officials, some of them lawyers, it was requisite that they should hold the balance fair. In his opinion, no Commission should be held abroad in the absence of notice to the parties whose conduct was about to be investigated, and that they should be at liberty, either personally or by counsel or solicitor, to examine or cross-examine witnesses.

thought that all the points raised were covered by the rules which related to the subject-matter of the Commission. The arguments of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) would be good against a Commission abroad in ny case, because there was no compulsory machinery. The great advantage of a Commission was that it might be desired to get evidence from people who did not wish to have to come over to this country to prove facts with regard to which there might be very little controversy. It would be extremely hard for any party to have to bring over people in such cases. With regard to the question of notice, it was impossible for any Commission abroad to be settled without notice of it being given. If an action for libel had been brought by hon. Members opposite, The Times would have had the right to ask for a Commission to examine into the same facts as would be examined into by a Commission appointed by the three Judges under this Bill. All Commissions abroad were defective, in that the evidence must be voluntary and there was no power of punishment; but in practice the power of issuing a Commission was extremely convenient to both parties, saving the unreasonable cost of having to pay the travelling expenses of witnesses to this country. Its rejection would shut the door against valuable information.

thought this was one of the most important questions raised in the Bill. What was clear was that a foreign Commission might in matters of the gravest importance open the door to very serious consequences. Suppose that a Commission were sent over to examine a particular person. The person examined might, for some reason or other, have a great desire to injure some person in this country, and he might give evidence inculpating that person in a very serious manner. What power would the person so inculpated have of meeting the accusation by evidence which he might desire to give? A Commission sent abroad might consist of some excellent barrister who had not had much to do; and if a witness who might have received some large inducement to give particular evidence against certain persons gave evidence against them, the parties accused had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses to rebut that evidence. That was why there was no such thing known as a Commission in criminal cases. The Home Secretary had said that the objection of the hon. Member for Northampton would equally apply to all Commissions; but in an action for libel the parties accused could protect themselves against the evidence, while in this roving Commission hundreds of persons might be involved in the evidence without anyone knowing when he might be attacked by some person. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would seriously consider this matter, because they were introducing what was an absolute innovation as far as criminal procedure was concerned.

supported the Amendment, believing that the proposal in the Bill to empower the Commissioners to delegate their power of examining witnesses and of making inquiry to some unknown persons in Paris, New York, and other places was a serious innovation. He doubted whether in previous Royal Commissions there was any precedent for conferring on the Commissioners such a power.

There is no such power given in the Bill.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman could not deny that there was no precedent of the kind, and the sending of Sub-Commissioners was, in point of fact, a delegation of the powers conferred on the Court of Inquiry by the Bill. He believed that neither the Solicitor General nor the Home Secretary had considered this question, especially with reference to the possibility of an inquiry abroad being held in private.

said, he confessed that he was not very much in love with the sub-section. At the same time he could not help feeling greatly astonished at the nature of the objections urged against it from the other side. It seemed to him that it was a case of "Save me from my friends." Of all the important clauses for the protection of hon. Members who might possibly be the subject of this inquiry, this clause was about the most important in their interests. He apprehended that it was quite as much the object of the inquiry to ascertain not only the guilt of certain persons, but their innocence. The Times was quite as much on its trial as hon. Members opposite; and, as far as he was concerned, he could say, on his honour, that there was nothing he desired so much as to see the innocence of hon. Members opposite fully and fairly established. If the innocence of hon. Members opposite was established, then the conduct of The Times would be so condemned that it certainly would lose its character for the future as a first-class journal. This Commission, therefore, might be of the greatest importance to hon. Members, and why should they not embrace this opportunity of having their characters vindicated at hardly any expense to themselves? The Commission was going out to examine witnesses, not to prove the guilt of hon. Members, but their innocence.

said, they had no objection to the Commission going abroad. They only desired to have the security of examining witnesses before it.

thought, as a matter of fairness, the Commissioners would give notice to anyone whose conduct was sought to be impeached; they would not send out a secret inquiry be- hind the backs of hon. Gentlemen. The Commissioners would give abundant opportunity of sending out persons to cross-examine witnesses on behalf of hon. Members.

said, they did not object to this branch of the inquiry; on the contrary, they looked upon it as a valuable assistance to them in the making of their case clear. The Irish Members acknowledged, whether they liked it or not, that the Government were bound to put in such a sub-section as this, because the Preamble of the Bill set forth the charges and allegations in a particular trial as the subject of investigation. As large portions of those charges and allegations were concerned with their alleged associates in America, the necessity of holding an inquiry in that country was the necessary complement of this Commission. But what were the safeguards they had a right to demand with regard to the Commission? He appealed to the Government to meet them on this point. Their first demand was that any person who might be expected to be incriminated should have notice; and, secondly, that he should have the right to appear by counsel or solicitor for the purpose of examination and cross-examination. For instance, Mr. Byrne was charged with complicity with crime. Some of the Irish Members, having been official associates in the Land League organization with Mr. Byrne, were accused of guilty knowledge of his complicity with crime. It was of great importance to them, when Mr. Byrne was examined, to find out whether or not they had guilty knowledge of his complicity with crime. The Sub-Commissioner, in some respects, would have duties more grave and important even than those of the head Commissioners, because he would have to examine a man charged with more serious offences than those charged against Members of Parliament, and to examine him far away from the centre of action, and, therefore, with fewer opportunities of guarding against unfair dealing than would exist at home. The Sub-Commissioner would also be a man of inferior legal position; and, therefore, it was more absolutely necessary that protection should be afforded in his case than in the case of the chief Commissioners. It was said that all those safeguards were already provided by the Bill, but there ought to be no room for doubt on the subject, and the words suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast, if inserted, could do no harm, and might do good.

said, he hoped that the claim to put in fresh words in the Bill would not be pressed. The only Commission that would be sent abroad would be a Commission to take the evidence of a particular witness, and the Commissioner would not have any judicial power to exercise in the matter. He would be obliged to take down the evidence given, both question and answer, and report it to the Chief Commissioners, and when he came back it would be published like the other evidence and then dealt with. The practice of sending out such Commissions was one well known to the Courts. The examination was taken upon interrogatories and vivâ voce, with liberty to the other party to cross-examine the witness upon interrogatories and vivâ voce, and then he could be re-examined. The whole examination would be reduced into writing and returned to the Commissioners. Somebody would have in the first instance to apply to the Commissioners for an order to examine a certain witness or witnesses, and then the persons affected by that would have power to cross-examine. Therefore, the Government could not consent to put fresh words into the Bill. They were dealing with those Amendments with a sincere desire to make the Bill complete in regard to the ascertainment of the truth in the matter in question; but he assured hon. Members that all that they reasonably expressed a wish for was met by the Bill as it stood; and he hoped they would now allow the House to direct its attention to other subjects.

said, that after what had fallen from hon. Members near him he would not press his Amendment to a Division.

said, he would be happy to accept that Amendment.

said, he understood the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) to suggest the other evening that the Commissioners should be empowered to order, not the release, but the attendance of any person affected by any of the charges.

said, he had suggested a modification of an Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) to meet the case. It was to the effect that if any person affected by a charge or allegation before the Commission was detained or imprisoned during the holding of the Commission—

"The Commissioners may order the attendance of such persons at such inquiry for such time and on such conditions as regards bail or otherwise as to the Commissioners may seem fit."

expressed his willingness to accept the words just suggested.

doubted whether the word "attendance" would be sufficient, as it meant nothing more than having a prisoner up in his prison dress to give evidence, whereas he should be at liberty to consult his solicitor in reference to the preparation of evidence in his defence.

said, no power was necessary, as a Judge possessed it already, to require the attendance of a prisoner. The word "attendance" had here no relation to a person appearing in his prison dress merely to give evidence.

said, if the word "attendance" was too narrow, and "release" too wide, he would suggest instead that "such person shall be at large during the pendency of the inquiry."

said, he could not accept the words "at large."

said, he wished it to be made clear that the prisoners set at liberty should not be subject to any surveillance or restraint other than that imposed on a prisoner liberated on bail, who was simply bound to appear at the time required.

urged that the words suggested were not large enough, as they might merely enable prisoners to be brought up in custody to give evidence, whereas it was necessary that the persons against whom charges were made should hear the evidence of others, and have freedom to prepare their defence. He feared that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) would simply enable them to attend the Commission in their prison clothes and in custody, without power to consult a solicitor, as had happened in the case of Mr. W. Blunt.

considered that the suggestion of bail conveyed that the prisoners should be released; but as he was anxious to meet hon. Members below the Gangway he would amplify the Amendment by inserting the words to the effect that the attendance of witnesses should be ordered "in such manner" as the Commissioners thought fit.

said, the object could have been obtained by inserting in the earlier part of the clause the words "may appear at the inquiry," which would cover everything."

ruled that it was too late to make that Amendment.

said, that if they were inserted in "another place" no objection would be made on the return of the Bill to this House.

said, the hon. Member could not bind the whole House.

, in rising to move as an Amendment—

"That this House declines to appoint a Commission for inquiry into matters connected with political movements unless such inquiry be confined to definite charges of a criminal nature against specified individuals,"

said, that he had been a good long time in the House, but did not remember any measure of the same dimensions which had caused so much expenditure of time and trouble, and so much temper, as this Bill. He only prolonged the debate because he believed that the Bill would not give satisfaction to any of the parties concerned. The Bill was caused by a declaration in The Times newspaper about a year ago that the hon. Member for Cork was the accomplice of assassins. The hon. Member for Cork, in reply, said to The Times—"You are a forger." The matter was interesting to the public at large, on account of the prominence of both parties. The hon. Member for Cork was the Chief of the Irish National Party, and The Times was an influential organ. The senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) some years ago described it as "the organ of the Devil upon earth." It was not so now; it was the organ of the Unionist Party. It was said, on the other hand—"Why does not the hon. Member for Cork proceed against The Times?" That was a very fair remark. On the other it was argued—"If such evidence exists against the hon. Member for Cork, why are not criminal proceedings taken against him?" That was equally plausible. Why had they this Bill before them? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said that the Bill had been brought in on account of the tremendous indictment formulated by the Attorney General in the late trial. After that statement, it was absurd to speak of the Attorney General in this connection as simply a professional man. These proceedings were directed, it was thought, against the black sheep of the House. As an old Parliamentary hand, he was never more shocked than when the Leader of the House got up and explained that the Bill had been brought forward as a bargain between somebody or other and the Irish Members. He looked upon the matter as involving every Member of the House and the honour of the House. The only justification for the measure was that charges were brought against Members of the House. If these accusations had concerned anybody out of the House—Mr. Spurgeon, Professor Tyndall, or Mr. Davitt—the House would never have interfered. There was an old saying that every man was the guardian of his own honour. That House was also the guardian of its honour, which ought not to be left to the decision of three Judges. It was said that a Committee of the House would not be impartial. Nobody was absolutely impartial; but he knew of no fairer tribunal than a Committee of Members of the House of Commons. If a charge were brought against him—if he were accused of getting drunk, or anything of that sort—he would trust himself to the hands of a Committee, even if they were all Tories or brewers. A Committee of English Gentlemen was quite as good as three Judges. But this was what The Times of that day said—

"The whole body of the charges and allegations contained in our articles must be probed to the bottom."

So it was no longer an inquiry into the character of one of their Members. To that he thoroughly objected. Now, on the ground taken by the Government the inquiry ought to be above suspicion. He had never gone before any of these Judges; he hoped he never should. But one of them had been voted against by no fewer than 190 Members on the ground of words quoted from him throwing contempt on the Irish people. Mr. Arnold Forster had complained of the attack made on Irishmen by this learned Judge in the Belfast Commission. It was, therefore, not a Commission to inspire confidence. He, for one, believed—although he knew nothing about it—[Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Members opposite knew nothing about it either, or they would not want the Commission; but his opinion was that the Land League and the National League and other forms of Irish agitation had done a good deal that was not above suspicion. But was the Tory Party above suspicion? Was any Party above suspicion; were the Liberal Party above suspicion? Was there any political association pure? He did not believe that the Anti-Corn Law League was pure. He did not know that the United Kingdom Alliance was above reproach. They were making this Commission far too wide. It was a Commission to inquire into the whole history of Ireland in the last 10 years, and he doubted very much whether the history of England for the same period would bear investigation. But supposing all these charges against the Irish Members were proved, would it be supposed the Liberal Party was going to give up Home Rule for that? They had not taken up Home Rule because those men were good characters or bad characters. He should continue to support Home Rule, because 85 Members were returned from Ireland in its support; and what could the Government do when the Commission reported? Suppose all the charges were proved, did hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose they were going to give up Home Rule? On the other hand. Suppose it reported in favour of the Irish Members, and they were proved to be angels, were the Ministerialists going then to become Home Rulers? No; he knew them too well. They would maintain their support of the landlords and Orangemen of Ireland as before all along. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said two days ago, in a park in Kent, where he went to roast an ox and make a speech, that, so far as he was concerned, the case which he had made against the Parnellite Party would not be weakened if the charges made in Parnellism and Crime were proved to be baseless accusations, and he knew that that opinion was shared by Mr. John Morley, Lord Rosebery, and others of the Gladstonite Party. Well, then, what would be the use of this Commission? No one cared a rap what its Report was. It appeared to him that the proposal would prolong and embitter the controversy, and was unworthy of the House. This subject was very hateful, and it was unworthy of the House to go into it. It might be said, why did they not move the rejection of the Bill on the second reading? Well, they were not always wise upon the Opposition side of the House; but it must be remembered that they hoped the Government would be wise and sanction Amendments, but time and discussion had proved the contrary. He believed he spoke for a few Members of the House when he said that they would not feel comfortable if they did not oppose the third reading of a Bill which they thought was unfair to the Irish Members, unjust to the Commissioners, as imposing upon them an impossible task, and unworthy of the best traditions of the House of Commons.

confessed he could not vote for the Amendment, because, if carried, it would mean that the House agreed to appoint a Commission to inquire into matters connected with political movements, if such inquiry be confined to definite charges of a criminal nature against specified individuals. He should ask the House to negative the proposal for the third reading. He intended to state very briefly the reasons why he should oppose the third reading; but he could not join his hon. Friend, who was far too moderate a man for him under the circumstances.

said, he had no desire to put the House to the trouble of two Divisions; and if the course suggested by his hon. Friend was preferred, he should be happy to withdraw his Motion in favour of it.

said, he was not going into the history of the Bill, which was begotten in injustice, conceived, hatched, and brought forth in injustice, and when it became law it would remain a perpetual monument of the sort of judicial tribunal that was established under political partizanship. He objected to it because the tribunal was a Court of political inquiry, a sort of Star Chamber and Inquisition, and because the Bench had been packed by a political partizan—the Lord Chancellor. He thought they had a right to challenge the names submitted to them, and they did challenge one name, but the challenge was not admitted. He objected in regard to procedure, because all the guarantees and safeguards which ordinarily environed the accused were suppressed in this Bill. He objected because the accused did not know the charges brought against them. He objected also because they understood the primary object was to look into the genuineness of certain letters. That had been set aside as a mere secondary question, and every effort had been made on the part of Mr. Walter to burke it and cover it up with a mass of matter more or less irrelevant. He objected because by this Bill The Times was protected from the civil remedy which bon. Members possessed at present. This tribunal had been forced down the throats of Members on that side of the House. He considered the Bill—The Times Protection Bill—a fishing Bill made to try to discover evidence against political opponents of Her Majesty's Government. He objected to it because it was not limited in any respect, but roamed over 10 or 12 years. If it were as just a Bill as it was otherwise he should object to it, because he thought a Select Committee would have been the proper tribunal. He considered that the Bill established a most dangerous precedent. Under these circumstances, he gave Notice to move the rejection of the Bill on the second reading; but the hon. Member for Cork would not authorize that course, because he thought the Government would consent to considerable alterations in Committee. But in Committee the Bill had been considerably extended. He had not on this occasion asked what the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends now intended to do; but he perfectly understood that they were actuated by a chivalrous desire to accept combat and clear their character on any terms; but the Radical Members were there to see that everything was done fairly between the contending parties, Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Members. The Radical Members were the assessors in the matter. They considered the conditions were unfair. He believed hon. Members from Ireland would prove their innocence notwithstanding those conditions; but, at the same time, he thought the House ought not to consent to them meeting their adversaries in that unfair and invidious manner. In order that it might not be thrown in their teeth that this Bill was read a third time nemine contradicente, he should certainly go to a Division.

wished to say a few words to explain his reasons for voting against the third reading of this Bill when be had not voted against it on the occasion of its second reading. When the Bill was read a second time it was supposed on both sides of the House that the desire was the same—namely, that there should be a full and complete inquiry into the charges made against certain hon. Members below the Gangway, although there might be a difference as to slight details. For that reason he had abstained from voting against the second reading of the Bill; but since that time Amendment after Amendment had been proposed for the purpose of carrying out what on that side of the House they had supposed to be the common desire without the Government giving way, and it had become evident that the object of the Bill was not to deal with the charges against hon. Members of that House, so much as to open up an inquiry into the proceedings of the Land League and the National League. The inquiry which had been asked for and which had first been suggested was a totally different one. Again, he believed the proposed trial of hon. Members below the Gangway to be absolutely unfair. He called it trial, though he knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not regard it as a trial, but trial it was, and trial it must be; and regarding it as a trial it was impossible to say that it was to be carried on subject to the conditions of a fair trial. It had been stated, both inside and outside the House, that if hon. Members were innocent they would not be afraid of such an inquiry. That was a misunderstanding of the nature of all trials and rules of evidence. Did hon. Members suppose that the rules governing the Courts of Justice when trying a person accused of crime were instituted and acted upon for the purpose of allowing a criminal to escape? It was admitted that in spite of all the safeguards that could be devised innocent people were sometimes convicted, and was there no chance of this happening in the present case? Assuming the innocence of hon. Members below the Gangway, if people had forged letters for the purpose of ruining the political character of hon. Members, was it inconceivable that persons would come forward and give false evidence? The present conditions made the inquiry absolutely unfair. The Government were subjecting these hon. Members to an inquiry to attend to which would go far to cripple and exhaust the resources of far richer men than the hon. Members accused were or pretended to be. This was not a question for the Irish Members, but for the whole House. It was not creditable to the character and honour of that House that any such inquiry should be allowed to go forth as coming from the House. It would, however, be known that it was the act of a majority alone, and that a considerable minority refused to coincide and protested against it. He thought that even from their own point of view hon. Members opposite would find that they had made a serious mistake, when, even if those who were accused were found guilty, they would be able to say that they had been denied that fair trial which had never been denied to any subject of the Queen.

observed that he had had very strong objections to the Bill upon Constitutional grounds, and his objections to it had been strengthened by the discussions which had taken place. From charges against persons it had passed to charges against a political movement, in order that the Party opposite might gain political capital against their opponents. He objected to allowing the power of dealing with the conduct of Members to pass from the hands of the House to that of an outside body. Inquiries into the conduct of Members of the House had been always conducted with perfect fairness, and the results had been invariably satisfactory.

Sir, I do not intend to vote upon the Motion. If I were to vote against the Bill, such a vote, no matter how justifiable it might be, would be interpreted as evidence of a desire to evade inquiry, and inquiry has, from the first, been the desire of my Colleagues and myself, and inquiry has all through been our demand. But if I were to vote in favour of the Bill, it might be argued that I am satisfied with the Commission that has been set up. Sir, I call to mind that the Government declined to appoint a Select Committee, because they stated that a Select Committee would not be fair to us, seeing that it was certain to contain a majority of our political opponents. I cannot now be satisfied with a Commission which is wholly composed of adherents of the Government, which includes upon it a Judge who, from the Bench of Justice, has levelled an insult against the Irish people, and in regard to whom there is evidence before the House, from one of his own Colleagues on a Royal Commission, that he is inspired with a fanatical hatred of the Irish Leader and of the Members of the Irish Party, and that he has absolutely made himself the medium of malignant calumnies against them. I cannot be satisfied with such a Commission, nor can I be satisfied with such a Bill, for the Bill not only fails to include, but, on the other hand, by a sinister design, excludes, all the ordinary securities for individual self-defence, and all the necessary guarantees for the due, orderly, and speedy elucidation of important truths. Under the cover of enabling us to defend our characters you have plunged us into an unlimited and illimitable political inquiry which may extend for years, and which will probably subject every man of us to the loss of any means he has, to the ruin of his health, and to the withdrawal of him, perhaps for years, from the discharge of those public duties for the performance of which he was elected to this House. You are using your strength against our weakness. I look forward to the future with hope. Truth, they say, is great. I hope in this case it may prevail. I believe and I trust that our innocence will enable us to defeat all efforts and overcome all obstacles and plots laid against us. I say to our enemies, wherever they may be—whether upon the Bench or in the office of The Times—I say to them that we defy them. I stand apart from this Motion. I say to the majority, pass your Bill, and may God defend the right!

seconded the Motion.

said, that the Bill now before the House could not admit of very much debate. The hon. Member said that the Bill had never been discussed. The reason of that was because its principle was accepted by the House.

It was smuggled through the House.

denied that it was smuggled through by him, and he had charge of it. As a matter of fact, it was read a second time without the objection of any one.

It was taken after 12 o'clock.

thought he might safely say there was no difficulty of getting anyone to object to a Bill after 12 o'clock, and, indeed, they had had great difficulty, on the other hand, in preventing objection from being taken. In these circumstances, he did not see how it could be said the Bill was smuggled through. The Bill was a short one, and would commend itself to the general sense of the House. Its object was to get rid of some anomalies in the ancient Law of Scotland which were inapplicable to the present time—in fact, to assimilate with the Law of England on the subject. In these circumstances, he hoped the Motion for the adjournment would not be persevered in.

remarked, that it was impossible not to sympathize with the remark of the hon. Member for Aberdeen that Scotch Members had been very badly treated this Session, and in his opinion the mode of conducting Scotch Business in the House urgently required reform. He could hardly trust himself to use the expressions which he thought applicable to their treatment; but with regard to this Bill he thought it was an erroneous representation of the case to say that it had not been properly con- sidered, or that there was any legitimate objection to its having been read a second time without discussing it. He and others had always remained in the House when the Bill was on the Paper, for the express purpose of assisting in reading it a second time. It had been fully considered in the Grand Committee, and no measure could be more ripe for the consideration of the House. It dealt with a matter in respect of which the Law of Scotland most urgently required reform, and he thought it might easily be disposed of in a short time.

agreed with the hon. Member for Aberdeen as to the neglect of Scotch Business; but even although there was not a debate on the second reading, they might have a second reading debate now, and then get through the Report stage.

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friends not to prolong this discussion. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen really wished to ascertain the feeling of Scotch Members on the question whether this Bill should be proceeded with or not, it would be better for him at once to divide the House. The Bill could not be said to have been smuggled through, and Scottish Members would do well to take it at once and so maintain the character they had for the manner in which they conducted their Business. There was no doubt that the Scotch Members had been abominably treated by the Government. Nobody felt more strongly on that point than he did; but that was no reason why they should refuse to proceed with the consideration of a useful measure. The best way was to finish the Bill and to go home to dinner. He understood that the Government did not intend to go on with the Burgh Police Bill till the Autumn Session, and that they would then carry it coûte que coûte. In these circumstances, he hoped the Motion for Adjournment would be withdrawn.

said, he had a very strong objection to the principle of the Bill. It was a very important measure, quite revolutionizing the Scotch Law regarding bail. It might be doing so beneficially or otherwise, but there were certain novel principles in the Bill. In the first place, it abolished statutory bail.

Order, order! The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

said, that hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper were not present, and the Bill ought not, therefore, to be rushed through in a single night.

said, he regretted that he could not accede to the request of his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Mr. Marjoribanks). As one of those who had taken a most emphatic part in the protest made two or three nights ago against the manner in which Scotch Business was conducted, he felt that he would be betraying the position he then took up if he failed to support his hon. Friend in his protest to-night. Most of the Scottish Members had already left the House and gone elsewhere, and they could not get the opinion of Scotland on this or any other subject. He had received a letter from a man of considerable political position in Scotland with regard to the protest they had made, in which he said—"Thousands and thousands of Scotsmen will to-day feel grateful to you for your protest against the shameful neglect of Scottish Business." They would not be doing their duty if they allowed the Government to reap the benefit of their shameful conduct. There were important Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). That hon. Member was not present, and nobody else could move his Amendments. He should have hoped that on this occasion, as on Monday last, they would be supported by the united sense of the Liberal Members for Scotland at all events. He was sorry to have heard dissentient voices, and believed they would be found to be the voices of backsliders. A good many of them had not been altogether true to the demands of their constituencies on this question. There had been too many conferences with the Lord Advocate; there had been too many caucuses; and it was partly owing to the encouragement which the Lord Advocate received from a section of the Liberal Members that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government submitted Scotch Business in this improper and unworthy manner. If he should be left alone with his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen in supporting the adjournment, he would go into the Lobby with him with perfect satisfaction.

said, he failed to see that there was any great demand for this measure in Scotland. He was quite ready to answer to his constituents for claiming for every Scottish affair full discussion, even if it should be, as in the present case, of minor importance. He should vote for the hon. Member for Aberdeen.

remarked that, notwithstanding the somewhat minatory attitude of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), he hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be persisted in. He thought they ought to definitely understand whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed to-night with the Burgh Police Bill.

No, not to-night. I have already stated that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the feelings expressed by Scottish Members generally, the Government would not persevere with the Bill in the present Sitting, but would take it in the Autumn Sitting.

said, he would join in the appeal to his hon. Friends not to persevere in the Motion for Adjournment. He disapproved very strongly of the manner in which Scottish Business had been treated in the House; but he thought it was the part of wisdom to make the most of what they regarded as a very inadequate allowance of time; they might perfectly well get through their Bill now. He assured his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) that there was great need for reform, the present Law of Bail being in a most anomalous position, and this Bill was calculated to remedy its defects.

hoped that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) would withdraw his Motion. They had nothing left now but to relegate Scottish Business to the Autumn Session. He felt greatly humiliated by the rebuke of the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), but they could stand their own in Scotland as regarded their interest in Scotch Business, the hon. Member for Dundee notwithstanding.

thought the hon. Member for North Aberdeen ought to be satisfied with the protest he had made. Scottish Members naturally protested against the way in which Scottish Business was treated in that House; but he did not see how they could add to the force of their protest by refusing to take advantage of the opportunity of passing a short Bill.

said, the Scottish Members had constantly been obliged to take any crumbs that might be offered by the Government in the way of legislation. He had decided objections to the principle of this Bill, and the popular will of Scotland had never been expressed in favour of it. He hoped, under the circumstances, and as a protest against the way in which Scottish Business was treated, that his hon. Friend would press his Motion to a Division.

said, he would not have supported the Motion for Adjournment but for one circumstance. There was a very important Amendment down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and it could not be moved in the hon. Member's absence. His hon. Friend had all along taken such an important part in the discussion of this question that he (Mr. Caldwell) was exceedingly sorry that the Bill should go on in his absence. He would be perfectly prepared to go on with the Bill now but for the unfortunate absence of his hon. Friend, who had no reason to suppose that the Bill would be taken at this period of the Session. The great majority of the Scottish Members had left town in the belief that Scottish Business would not be taken up before the adjournment. If the hon. Member for North Aberdeen went to a Division, he would vote with him, although personally he was quite prepared to go on with the Bill.

wished to protest against the idea that the House was not to go on with legislation because a particular Member who had an Amendment on the Paper was absent, or even because a considerable number of Members were absent. The theory that they did not expect Scottish Business to be taken at this period of the Session was inconsistent with the complaint they had so often heard from hon. Members that Scottish Business was not proceeded with. They expected they would get some share of the time of the House. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow had left the House; but in his absence they had passed through a very useful Bill of his, and he (Mr. C. S. Parker) thought on this occasion they might very properly go on with this Bill.

said, that night after night when this Bill was brought on at an hour when, objection being taken, it could not be considered, he was always willing to withdraw the objection if he had been requested to do so by the Scotch Members. But the Scotch Members had not asked him not to object to the Bill, and he understood that the sentiment of Scotland was against its passing.

opposed that Amendment, the object of which was provided for in an Act of last year.

said, they were all agreed that it was right that the benefit given by the Act of last year of bail prior to commitment should continue, but he could not find anything in this Bill which gave the least countenance to the idea that that benefit was to be taken away. Indeed, Clause 3 almost declared that that right should survive. The Amendment would, therefore, be duplicating legislation, and so far as they did that, they gave rise to a doubt as to whether other parts of the beneficial measure of last year were or were not to stand. He thought it would be dangerous to introduce the words proposed.

thought the Amendment would do a decided injury to the Bill, for under last year's Bill the discretion of the magistrate to give or refuse bail before commitment was absolute and final, with no appeal to the High Court of Justiciary, and this Amendment would introduce an element of the utmost confusion.

said, that the next Amendment on the Paper in his name was that the words "or refuse to admit" should be omitted from Clause 2. The clause would enable a magistrate, on the application of any person who had been committed until liberation in due course of law for any crime or offence except murder or treason, and after opportunity had been given to the prosecutor to be heard thereon, to admit, or refuse to admit, such person to bail. He objected to the words "or refuse to admit." According to the Law of Scotland, every accused person, except in regard to certain grave crimes, had a right to demand bail, and there also existed a statutory limit as to the amount of bail. By that Bill the Lord Advocate would withdraw both of those privileges from accused persons, and it was proposed that they should no longer have the right to demand bail, and also that there should be no limit to the amount of bail to be exacted from them. If it was left as a matter of discretion for the Judge to admit or to refuse to admit him to bail, then they placed the accused person in a very different position from that which he occupied when his legal right to demand to be admitted to bail existed, because he would have to go as a suppliant and ask to be admitted to bail.

said, the Amendment raised really a question of principle, the power to refuse bail. If they were to have an unrestricted amount of bail, it was exactly the same thing as if they were to refuse a person bail by fixing a prohibitive amount of £20,000. There was some crimes the persons accused of which ought not to be admitted to bail; and that was the reason why, under the present law, there were four charges that were not bailable, because formerly all were capital crimes. It was very undesirable that a magistrate should be put to the alternative of choosing between the giving of prohibitive bail or preventing the proper procedure of justice. It was far better—a reasonable and proper thing—to leave the question of bail to the discretion of magistrates, giving the accused an appeal against the refusal of the Supreme Court.

said, that no sufficient reason had been given for changing the principle of the law as it had existed for centuries.

said, the Bill would assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England, which was more adapted to modern ideas than the old law of Scotland. The acceptance of the Amendment would drive such a wedge into the Bill that the Government could scarcely care to pass it.

objected to copying England, but thought the Bill a good one on the whole, and believed it would be contrary to the interests of justice that magistrates should not have the power to refuse bail, and therefore he could not support the Amendment. He thought they might rely on the discretion of the Sheriff, subject to an appeal to the Court of Session.

proposed to amend the clause which gave a right of appeal to the High Court of Justiciary by striking out the words—

"And where an application for bail is granted by any magistrate whether before or after commitment until liberation in due course of law, the public prosecutor, if dissatisfied with the decision allowing bail, or with the amount of bail fixed, may appeal in like manner, and the applicant shall not be liberated until the appeal at the instance of such prosecutor is disposed of, except as hereinafter provided."

He submitted that this provision imported a new principle into the law of Scotland. He held that they ought not to allow the present Procurators Fiscal, so long as they might be the agents of private persons, to have any such right of appeal.

pointed out that the right of appeal in question would not be exercised by the Procurators Fiscal in their discretion. When a prisoner was committed for trial in Scotland, the right to deal with the case passed out of the hands of the Procurator Fiscal, who could then do nothing except under direction of the Crown counsel. If the Amendment were accepted, the result would he a tendency on the part of the Sheriffs to fix too high bail.

asked the Lord Advocate not to make this a Coercion Act altogether. This clause introduced an entirely new principle, by which the Procurator Fiscal was enabled to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and keep a man in prison for six days after the Sheriff had decided that he should be liberated. He asked the Lord Advocate whether he intended to press the clause without any modification whatever?

said, it had occurred to him, after the Bill left the Grand Committee, that a modification might be made on the clause by substituting 96 hours for 144. He moved accordingly.

urged that this arbitrary power should not be allowed to remain in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal, and that 48 hours was quite long enough for a man to be kept in prison after he had been liberated by the Sheriff.

suggested that it should be 72 hours in every case.

said, he could not consent to make a further reduction of the time.

said, that as this was a measure empowering the Metropolitan Board of Works to spend £3,000,000, it was his duty to make some comment upon its contents. The debt of the Board in December, 1887, was £17,000,000, and the debt-charge upon the Metropolitan rates for the year 1888 was £1,369,128. Towards this charge the Coal and Wine Dues, the interest from Local Authorities who borrowed, and rents from lands and premises contributed £618,000, leaving a debt-charge on the Metropolitan rates for 1888 of £750,000, or 5·86 pence in the pound. But until the expiration of six months of 1889 the Coal and Wine Dues were hypothecated for the bridges. All this pointed to a considerable increase in the rates, which was now upwards of 8d., and would probably soon be 10d. It was the duty of the House to scrutinize the rates very carefully. This Bill proposed to give the power to the Board of spending £75,000 on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. The raising of that money had not only not been sanctioned by Parliament, but had been refused by the failure to pass two Bills which were introduced for a similar purpose. He admitted that the protection from fire afforded by the Brigade was grossly inadequate, and he would not oppose the clause, though he must protest against this attempt to get Money for the Fire Brigade by means of a money Bill, when a similar attempt by other Bills for the special purpose had failed to receive the sanction of Parliament. He was not, however, satisfied that the Board of Works was the best authority for controlling the Fire Brigade. It would be far better to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of 1876 to incorporate the Brigade with the police, and to make every police-station also a fire-station. Such an arrangement would be at once economical and efficient. The two recent fires in Edge-ware Road and Wigmore Street would have been far loss disastrous than they were if the police-stations which were close at hand had also been fire-stations. Then there was the question of local indebtedness with which the Bill was concerned, and of which the House ought to know something. The Board had lent upwards of £10,000,000 to the School Boards, Vestries, Boards of Guardians, and other Local Boards, and the Bill proposed immensely to increase this indebtedness. The School Board alone had borrowed about £3,500,000, and the Asylums Board £1,200,000. He found that many of the Vestries had borrowed money, in some cases in excess of and in others nearly equal to their total rateable value. The Boards of Guardians had also borrowed very largely. The School Board for London now asked for £300,000. It had already a debt of nearly £7,000,000, and it had pledged the rates of the Metropolitan ratepayers for the next 50 years, so that in 1937 it would have spent over £12,000,000 out of the rates of the Metropolis. The amount of school places was largely in excess of the number of children. In these circumstances he thought that they were justified in asking for what the School Board was borrowing this money. The School Board had been considered above suspicion, but lately it had appointed a Commission of its own, which had naturally acquitted itself.

said, that the £75,000 for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was not wanted for the maintenance of the Brigade, but on the capital account for buildings and stations; the sum had nothing to do with any increase in the income for maintenance, which remained as it was. With regard to the 10d. rate, that rate had been estimated for next year before the passing of the Local Government Bill, under which there would be a considerable contribution which, it was hoped, would more than make up for the loss caused by the lapse of the Coal Dues. The loan powers were given to the Board by existing Acts of Parliament, and loans had to be sanctioned by the Treasury or the Local Government Board, as the case might be, and in the case of loans to the School Board, by the Education Department. The reason why the money was borrowed from the Metropolitan Board was that it could in that way be got at a less rate than was otherwise possible. Last year the School Board had put down the sum of £300,000; but they had only borrowed £200,000, and, therefore, £100,000 was unexpended balance. He admitted that Metropolitan finance did not receive the attention it deserved; but this Bill was formal, and he hoped it would pass.

regretted that the Bill had been brought forward at such a time, when it could not be adequately discussed. This was not an appropriate time to give increased borrowing and spending powers to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which rested under as dark a cloud of suspicion as that which hung over the Board of Works.

said, that if the ratepayers did not know what the School Board had done with the £6,000,000 it had borrowed in the past 17 years they ought to know; for in the last three years, at any rate, everything had been done to place the finances of the Board before the public in a popular and intelligible manner. The Board had built 400 school-houses—scattered all over London—many of them being among the finest elementary schools in Europe, for the accommodation of about 400,000 children. As to financial management, the Board paid not only interest, but also a sinking fund every year. With respect to all their transactions with the Metropolitan Board of Works, he was bound to say that they had found that Board most business-like and satisfactory, and he was glad to be able to take the opportunity of paying it this public tribute. With regard to the £300,000, he had merely to remark that, in his opinion, it was about the smallest annual sum ever asked for on this account.

said, it must be obvious that if the Coal and Wine Dues were not renewed, it would largely add to the rates levied within the Metropolitan area. The only sound reason which could be advanced for not renewing these dues was that it was better not to renew them, and that the money could be raised quite as easily, perhaps with less hardship in some cases, by putting it on the rates. Some of the money taken under the Bill would go to supplement what had been described by an hon. Gentleman as the grossly inadequate provision for dealing with fires in the Metropolis. As to the powers to lend to Local Authorities, it was evident that to give a power of this kind to a Body like the Metropolitan Board of Works, which had to set aside and accumulate every year a large sum for a Sinking Fund, was advantageous both to the Board to lend on adequate security and to the School Board, the Metropolitan Police Fund, and other Public Bodies to borrow at a lower rate of interest than could be done in the open market. As to the question raised by the hon. Member opposite, none of the money could be borrowed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board without the express sanction of the Local Government Board.

said, he must protest against large sums of money drawn from the taxpayers of the country being placed at the disposal of the Irish Board of Works to be expended on such bad specimens of work as the Ballycotton and Rosscarbery Piers.

said, that the Ballycotton and Rosscarbery Piers were not constructed by money taken under this Bill. The £1,000,000 which was to be advanced to the Irish Board of Works was to enable them to lend to Local Bodies from time to time; but that could not be done without the distinct sanction of the Treasury. Money would be advanced for useful purposes, as in the case of Limerick, to which £25,000 was to be lent to improve its waterworks.

thought that lending money to Ireland was throwing good money after bad. While it was proposed to give Great Britain only £2,000,000, Ireland was to get £1,000,000, Scotland's share being a beggarly £30,000. Every one of the advances proposed to be written off were Irish advances. He did not think, after what we had lately seen, that we should be very sure of being able to recover our money from the Limerick Corporation.

asked, whether the Government would not consent to postpone the second reading of this Bill until the Autumn Session, as it was desirable the policy of the Scotch Education Commissioners should be discussed? Every one of the schemes of the Commissioners had been opposed in that House by a majority of the Scottish Members.

said, that the hon. Member would have a full opportunity of raising the question upon the Scotch Education Vote during the Autumn Session.

thought that the various Irish measures which the Bill proposed to continue ought to be discussed before the Bill was read a second time.

said, he might, personally, be allowed to express his gratification at seeing the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) in the Chair, but he might also be allowed to say it was a very extraordinary fact that the First Lord of the Treasury, sitting on the Bench and passing a money clause in a Government Bill, should put his Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Chair. It was an unprecedented proceeding.

I may remind the hon. Member that the provision in this clause has already been sanctioned in Committee of the Whole House.

Very irregular, all the same.

said, that anything like a multiplication of Local Authorities was greatly to be deprecated, and considerable apprehension was being expressed as to whether there would not be, as the Bill now stood, a certain amount of intersecting and interlapping of areas. He pointed out that owing to the difference which existed in the laws on the Scotch and English side of the Solway respectively a general fear prevailed that friction would arise. He understood that the same feeling prevailed with regard to the Severn. He wished to know whether the Bill was not to be pressed further in the present Session, but was to stand over to the autumn before being sent to the House of Lords; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would, during the Recess, consider the point now mentioned?

said, that while he thought the Bill was a step in the right direction, he, at the same time, considered it had certain defects. One great defect was that it did not vest in the Fishery Councils the harbours of the district. That especially in regard to fishing harbours was the most important part of the question. He suggested that the Government should introduce and pass a Bill in the Autumn Session conferring this power, and also a measure dealing with the fishery harbours of Scotland.

said, that he had been in communication with the representatives of the Salmon Fishery Conservancy Boards throughout England, and in consequence of that fact he had placed Amendments on the Paper, which had now been inserted in the Bill, which would, he thought, remove the most important objections taken to it by those Bodies. He did not know what course the House of Lords might take in respect to the Bill; but if there was any general feeling that it still required further consideration in the country, it might perhaps be postponed by their Lordships till the Autumn Session. However, it was well that they had been able to deal with the measure that day, because the result of what they had done had been to pass the Bill in the state in which he thought it ought to be, and in which he believed, if it became law, it would prove a very valuable measure. The great object of the Bill had been to constitute local Fishery Commissions; and he was unwilling to impose on those Bodies at first more duties than were necessary. As to the point that had been mentioned by the hon. Member in relation to fishery harbours, the question was, he thought, one for the future rather than for the present time.