Before this Bill is read a third time I desire to offer a few observations both on account of the character of the Bill itself and particularly on account of the Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, which reflects disrespectfully upon this House and the action of the Committee to whom this Bill was referred, and which contains a statement so recklessly untrue that unless it is corrected as publicly as it is made is calculated to mislead the public. This Report begins by a complaint against the House of Commons for its practice of referring London County Council (General Powers) Bills to Hybrid Committees. Now, I wish to point out the reason why the House refers these Bills to a Hybrid Committee is that the London County Council year after year persists in trying to change by clauses in a Private Bill the general law of the country. That is a practice which this House naturally resents, and which I hope it will never sanction, and it is well worth considering whether the Standing Orders of the House should not be amended in such a way as to prevent these annual attempts by a Municipal Authority to change by a Private Bill the public law of the country. Then the Report goes on to complain of the composition of that Committee, and it is stated, apparently as a matter of grievance, that the Government nominated a majority of that Committee. I suppose the London County Council thinks that the majority in this House ought to be in a minority on a Committee; but, Sir, as a matter of fact, and I suppose by inadvertence on the part of the "whips," the Conservative Party actually were in a minority on that Committee; for out of nine members they were only four, including the Chairman. Then the Report goes on to say—and this is the most audacious of its mis-statements—

"The effect of the Committee's decision in reference to the Cromwell Road Bridge being carried out would be to leave the whole special benefit or increased rental of at least £3,000 or £4,000 a year, resulting from the carrying out of the improvement in the hands of the landowners of Fulham, out of which special increased rental the Bill proposed to intercept only £880 per annum."

I confess I stand aghast at the colossal audacity, the monumental hardihood, of this mis-statement. The decision of the Committee was that the part of the Preamble which related to the imposition of a special "betterment" rate was not proved. The effect of the decision of the Committee was to leave the London County Council perfectly free to carry out this improvement, if they chose, in the ordinary way in which Metropolitan improvements have been carried out in London during the last thirty years. It was shown, in the course of our inquiry—I believe to the satisfaction of the majority of the Committee—that, if the London County Council had chosen to buy and re-sell the land contiguous to the bridge it might have pocketed the betterment itself. It was at the same time shown that the increased assessment which would follow from the rise in value on adjoining property in houses would have thrown probably more than the cost on those actually benefited by this improvement. The London County Council did not choose to take that course; it did cot choose to carry out this improvement in the ordinary way in which improvements have been carried out during two generations. The London County Council is now sulking like a spoiled child. For the second time in two years the London County Council has refused to carry out a metropolitan improvement universally desired, an improvement much needed, simply because Parliament has refused to allow the Council to tax ground landlords in an unjust and unworkable manner. The London County Council has now practically abdicated its primary functions as a Metropolitan Authority—there is no Metropolitan Authority; the London County Council has abdicated its functions as an Improvement Authority—and has actually allowed a private company to come to Parliament for powers to widen Parliament Street. Since 1889, the ill-starred year of its birth, the London County Council has not carried out one single metropolitan improvement of any importance whatever; it is no Governing Body for London; it is nothing but a revolutionary debating society. This may be the last time I shall speak, in this House upon the London County Council, and I would say this: So long as there is a Conservative majority in this House, London ratepayers may indulge with impunity their wayward whims if they choose; but if with a Radical County Council we have a Radical majority here to aid and abet it—instead of a majority to check and control the London County Council—then London will have a rude awakening, and possibly Londoners may then appreciate the efforts—unrewarded, but not, I am happy to say, altogether unavailing—I have made from time to time for their protection, and may then recognise that the strongest language I have used against the London County Council falls very far short indeed of its deserts.

I think that the course taken by the hon. Member is unprecedented. I am not aware that it is a rule in this House for a Member of a Committee on a Private Bill to have the Third Reading of that Bill postponed for two days in order that he may prepare a speech to exhibit his animus against the County Council of London. The position of the hon. Member is peculiar. He is at present Member for a London constituency; but whether it is that the constituency has no confidence in its Member, or the Member has no confidence in his constituency, I do not know; but I understand the hon. Member will not woo the suffrages of the people of Peckham at the next election, but will turn his affections to a more northern latitude. What is his position in regard to this Bill? He is the last person who should bring this matter before the House, for he and those who voted with him are solely responsible for the delay which will occur in the carrying out of these admittedly urgent and necessary improvements. This question came before the London County Council, and the proposal was accepted by an enormous majority—a majority which if translated into what would be corresponding figures in this House would be represented by 400 against 24. This was the proportionate majority of the Council supporting the application of the betterment principle of the Cromwell Road improvement. I am not a fanatical admirer of "betterment"; in fact, when the Committee commenced its sittings, I had a very hazy and imperfect notion of what the principle was. I had the advantage, therefore, of coming to the subject with a mind not preoccupied by prejudice or partiality. But, I must say, if ever there was a case to which the principle of betterment might be applied—if ever there was a case conclusively proved—it was the principle of betterment applied to this improvement. It was a remarkable case; it was a case in which the owners of the land principally affected had themselves in 1884 gone to the expense of £2,000 in procuring an Act of Parliament to build a bridge to connect the parish of Fulham with Cromwell Road, and again in 1887 they went to the Metropolitan Board of Works and offered to pay a large proportion of what was then deemed the necessary cost of such a bridge. It was shown that the bridge would undoubtedly increase the value of the neighbouring property. The Council, therefore, may be said to have made a fair proposal in apportioning the cost—one-third to the parish of Fulham, one-third to the ratepayers of the Metropolis generally, and one-third to the owners of property benefited. Not only so; the proposal was limited so that, unless it was proved that a special increase of value had accrued from the building of the bridge, no charge was to be imposed upon the leaseholders and owners. Now, the Committee never reached the stage of examination into the details proposed by the London County Council for the purpose of carrying out the principle adopted; they never reached those details, because on the preliminary point the Committee decided against the principle. The hon. Member has said that Conservatives were in a minority on the Committee, and this, though true in form, is not true in fact, because there was a Liberal Unionist on the Committee more Tory than the Tories themselves, so it was a Party majority. Every Member of the other Party was prepared to allow there was a case for consideration. The Committee were not pledged to details, but the majority decided absolutely they would not have the principle of betterment, brought in any form, under consideration. The hon. Member has taken exception to the statement; but I say it is perfectly correct; for there was the evidence before us that the enhanced value that would accrue from houses in a line with the bridge would be probably £3,000 a year, and that the maximum charge imposed would not exceed £800 a year—somewhat less than a third of the benefit obtained. Now, I am not quarrelling with the view of the hon. Member; he is just as much entitled to his opinion as to the proper mode of taxation as I am to mine, but I do entirely disagree with his view that the person to pay for these improvements is the occupier. I know that on a recent occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that in his opinion the rates in towns came out of the pockets of the occupiers, and the view of the hon. Member is that the improvements in the landlord's property should come out out of the pockets of the occupier. ("No!") In consequence of these improvements the occupiers would have to pay higher rents, and when the rate and tax collectors come round they would require higher rates and taxes. So by giving effect to the view of the hon. Member, it would throw the whole burden on the occupiers.

Certainly not.

I am amazed, knowing the contents of the Bill. I do not conceive how else the hon. Member's words can be construed. If no share of the burden is thrown on the leaseholders and owners, it must all fall on the occupiers of the Metropolis. These are, shortly, the facts of the case, and I am bound to say I think a grave responsibility attaches to the hon. Member and his friends in standing in the way of these public improvements. If the principle of betterment were more doubtful than it is—I think it is entirely justified on its merits—but if it were more doubtful than it is it would be a very strong measure for a Party in this House, at the close of this Parliament, to defy the deliberate opinion of the electors of London. I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of London elections; but as an outsider it strikes me as extremely curious the electors of London having only this year appointed a body to carry on their local government, and returned an overwhelming majority pledged to the principle of betterment, Members of this House, elected at a much earlier period, and therefore, perhaps, not representing the present opinion of the constituencies, should now set themselves to thwart, frustrate, and obstruct the will of the people of London expressed by the body in whom the people have confidence.

The hon. Member has thought fit to take my hon. Friend to task for taking an unusual step; but if I wanted justification for that course, even if it were exceptional, I should find it in the words of the County Council in respect to the Bill; and I think, if it were worth our while to be thin-skinned and to ask your attention, Sir, to the words as a breach of Privilege, we should be justified in doing so. Two Members of the Committee are singled out and their conduct criticised in a manner that would seem to justify such an appeal to the House; but I do not condescend to ask you, Sir, whether it constitutes a breach of the Privileges of this House. I prefer to treat it with the contempt it deserves; but, at the same time, in justice we are entitled to explain and justify the course we adopted. My hon. Friend has referred to the Report of the County Council as a misstatement, and he has not exaggerated. The Report speaks of two Members having strenuously opposed the Bill. In accordance with the practice which has grown up in Parliament—of which the Report speaks contemptuously—the Bill was referred to a Hybrid Committee, and the Resolution goes on to say that one of us not only strenuously opposed the Bill—which we did and we were perfectly justified in doing so—but that one of us moved the reference of the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. Now, neither of us did anything of the kind. My hon. Friend moved the rejection of the Bill, because it contained a proposal to over-rule the general law of the land. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore) who moved the reference of the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, and he was not on the Committee. The right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the London County Council (Sir John Lubbock) assented to that course, and, in fact, I think proposed it. This was not all. The Report goes on to say that, having regard to what had taken place before the Committee, and to our having thought fit to reject the new principle of taxation, the Council left the Committee to proceed as it thought fit. This they did not do. Their counsel stated that as the Committee did not think fit to sanction the new mode of taxation proposed by the County Council, he would withdraw this Cromwell Road improvement altogether. Now, what are the facts of their proposal? It was not, as pretended, a method of imposing part of a burden on persons who would be benefited by the improvement in question; it was a case of an improvement in which the County Council, by their own evidence, showed that the improvement itself would be not a burden, but a source of income to the rates of the parish. The Cromwell Road Bridge was to cost £66,000, the repayment of which, with interest, was represented by an annuity of £2,425 for sixty years. That was the extent of the burden on the parish of Fulham and the Metropolis, between whom it would be divided. It was shown that the annual rateable rental in Fulham would be increased by the improvements to a greater extent than this £2,425. The figures showed that the rating would be increased by £21,000. Now, the normal rate in Fulham is six shillings in the pound per annum, which includes the Metropolitan rate, estimated at half that amount, so that three shillings is the parish rate and three shillings the Metropolitan rate. Now, six shillings on £21,000 increased value would yield an increase of revenue of £6,300 a year. Half of this would be for the parish, enabling them to that extent to keep down the rates; and, setting off against this the debt of £2,425 a year, it was admitted there was a net gain to the parish of over £600 a year. Not only so; there would be a benefit of £3,150 to the Metropolitan rates, against which there would be no burden to be set at all. The proposal of the London County Council was that, in addition to these enormously increased rates on property under the Quinquennial Act, a novel system was to be introduced by which they would impose a mortgage upon all houses and all property, whether built on or not comprised within a geometrical area described with a pair of compasses. It was admitted in evidence before us that it was not certain, and it could not be said to be certain by anybody, that the property within this radius was all to be bettered. It was admitted that a great deal of the property would not be bettered, and after cross-examination by myself, Mr. Charles Harrison admitted that, so far as he was concerned, this circumference, this geometrical line, might be dispensed with, but he still wished that this power might be delegated to the London County Council to impose this mortgage as it may be called—this charge admitted by experts to be equivalent to a mortgage. The London County Council would take power thus to impose a mortgage tax of £22,000 capital, or £880 a year, and have us believe this was all they intended to charge the people who were bettered, although the parish and the Council would each receive £3,150 a year beside; therefore, this contribution imposed by way of mortgage was an additional plum or profit to the Public Authority, and the effect generally would be that the London County Council or Local Authority would get in assets which they might spend or squander as they pleased and boast that they had kept down the rates. They would not be accountable to the ratepayers in the same manner as they would if they raised the money in a direct manner for their expenditure. Not only so; the charge of £4 per cent. per annum was to be a perpetual charge, unless and until the capital was paid off. Even that was not all; they asked for power to settle the incidence of the charge as between owners, lessees, and occupiers. They would take power to exempt occupiers altogether, and to roll up against the owner a charge of four per cent. at compound interest, so that when the owner came into possession he might find a mortgage for the capital sum, plus sixty years compound interest at four per cent., though the money had been recouped over and over again from the rates. Now how, with any sense of decency, could such an alteration of the incidence of taxation be allowed to pass in a Private Bill to over-ride the general principles of taxation in the Metropolis? If we are to be taken to task for what we did in the exercise of our judgment, which I claim on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends on the Committee to have exercised with thorough conscientiousness—for not one of us had a scintilla of property in the neighbourhood—if we are to be held up to opprobrium in the Press and subjected to criticism by the London County Council, where is the independence of this House? Is the London County Council to take upon itself the right to settle these matters? I think that, instead of being held up to opprobrium, we are entitled to commendation for having made a stand against a sort of "rampage" on the part of the London County Council seeking to over-ride the just interests of the ratepayers of the Metropolis. Let me allude to the constitution of this Committee which has been animadverted upon. I think we were much more entitled to complain, for there were, in fact, on the Committee three Conservative Members, besides the Chairman, one Liberal Unionist, and four Radical Members. We know that our friends the Liberal Unionists do, on the great and all-important political question of the day, assist us, but their alliance on that question does not bind them on every other question. What took place on the Committee? Great unfairness was exhibited by the London County Council in the management of their own case. They instructed counsel to open the case as one of assent on the part of the freeholders to this exceptional taxation. In the most airy manner we were assured there was a unanimous assent on the part of owners, lessees, and occupiers, to the proposals; but presently it came out by abundant evidence that there was no such assent, and we had evidence from witnesses that they had dissented from the proposals of the London County Council. Away went all question of assent, and then it was proved up to the hilt that the London County Council had given no notice of their Bill to owners, lessees, or occupiers. Strictly speaking, under the Standing Orders of this House—and it appears to me it is a great defect in the Standing Orders—in cases of this kind owners, lessees, and occupiers are not required to have previous notice of the deposit of such a Bill, and the ordinary Gazette notice did not give sufficient information of the nature of the Bill. It was because of this gross unfairness that we were indebted for the support of our Liberal Unionist friend on the Committee—it was because of his sense of what was fair and due to the people that he voted with us. Even then the Committee were equally divided, and only the casting vote of the Chairman threw out the obnoxious clause. The London County Council evidently intend to make this a charge against Conservative Members—in fact, I have had an intimation of it in my own constituency—that we have thrown out a useful Metropolitan improvement simply because we have not chosen to sanction the introduction of a new, unjust, and altogether extravagant proposal on the part of the London County Council to make a profit for their own revenue. They say they left it to the Committee to deal with the improvement, and that the Committee threw it out. We did nothing of the kind; we left the clause for making the bridge in the Bill, and the County Council withdrew it. We only struck out the novel taxation clause, the anti-ratepayers' clause for the imposition of a tax twice over upon the same people for the benefit of the revenues of the County Council and the Vestry. I have taken this opportunity, having seen the statement in the Press but an hour ago, to contradict it, and to show its falsity and unfairness. My hon. Friends and I testified to our desire that this important improvement should be carried out. ("Oh, oh!"). My hon. Friend opposite says "Oh!" Let me give another illustration of the intention of Members on this side of the House who were on this Committee to facilitate improvements, and of the temper displayed by the County Council in withdrawing a proposal as soon as they found they could not carry the unjust conditions tacked on to it. A proposal was brought before us to throw open Lincoln's Inn Fields to public use. All approved of the project, but it was proved and admitted that the Council already had the power to acquire the land under the Open Spaces Act of 1881. My hon. Friend need not shake his head; they have the power, on giving proper notice and getting the assent of two-thirds of the persons interested. But the Council wanted a clause giving them power to override opposition and dispense with the necessity of getting any majority by simply making such agreement as they liked with a certain number of the trustees they could manage to get hold of. This was resented by the trustees and occupiers of this noble square, and so the clause was thrown out. But it is given out to our discredit that we have prevented the people of London having the use of Lincoln's Inn Fields. But we did not throw out the project. We approved of it; but the London County Council sought to evade the requirements of the public law as comprised in the Act which their predecessors, the Metropolitan Board of Works, were parties to obtaining—the Open Spaces Act of 1881. But I have trespassed too long on the time of the House. Let me only say we wish well to all improvements in the Metropolis promoted by the London County Council, so long as these improvements are carried out in accordance with the law of the land and the accepted principles of taxation. Until those principles are reviewed in this House, discussed on their merits, and altered, should Parliament see fit to alter them.

As the Member of the Committee referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) as "more Tory than the Tories," I claim the right to be heard for a few moments. I simply dismiss the observation of the hon. Member by saying he would have been nearer the truth if he had said "more Constitutional than the Constitutionalists." Language of this kind does not deserve any consideration from those of us who have endeavoured to do our duty, and to maintain the Constitution in things small as well as in things great. I absolutely deny that my action on the Committee was dictated by political reasons. Nor was it the case that the question of betterment caused me to give the vote I did, which had the effect of the betterment clause being thrown out. I have not had the advantage of hearing the opening of this Debate; but I think it has been made clear to the House that the advantage of this improvement to Fulham, and to London as a whole, was admitted by the Committee. The Committee were prepared to pass the improvement had it not been withdrawn by the London County Council because they did not get their way in the mode of levying the charge for meeting the cost of the improvement. The amount was divided into three parts: a third was to be paid by the whole of the Metropolis, a third was to be paid by the parish of Fulham, and the remainder was to be paid within what was called the "betterment" area, included in a radius of half a mile from the proposed bridge. This charge was something new; there has been no such charge levied in London, or, so far as I am aware, in any part of the United Kingdom; at least, no evidence was given of anything of the kind. The proposal was that those within this area who were "bettered" should pay a tax or charge of four per cent. for ever upon a sum of £880 a year, while the payment of the remaining two-thirds was to be met by a charge of three per cent. in the case of the Metropolis, and three and a half in the case of Fulham for a term of years—I think fifty-seven. But the point I took exception to was this—the charge was new, and no sufficient notice was given to those who would have to pay it—absolutely no notice except that which the law requires should be given for rates. Here was a new charge to be levied, and it seemed to me only reasonable that those upon whom it was proposed to be levied should have notice, and for this reason I voted against the proposal. I stated in Committee, and Members of the Committee will confirm me, that it was not as against the principle of betterment per ae, and not even as against that principle as embodied in the Bill; but it was as against the absence of sufficient notice that I felt compelled to vote with my hon. Friends opposite in opposition to the levy of a charge such as this, of which no notice had been given except the notice which appertains to ordinary rates. In regard to Lincoln's Inn Fields, I have this much to say—that upon that particular proposal I did not go with my hon. Friends on the other side of the House. I was the only Member of the Committee who voted in favour of it, and it was because of the absence of other Members of the Committee that it was not carried. Whether I was right or wrong in doing so, it is only fair that this should be known. I do not want to take up time, and only because of the attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Aberdeen have I intervened at all in this discussion.

As a Member of the Committee I may be allowed one or two observations, and I doubt if I should have intervened at all but for the assertion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), who talked about the Committee having obstructed the application of the betterment principle. I make some excuse for the hon. Member, as he did not hear the argument of counsel against the preamble of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I heard the whole of the arguments.

I apologise if I am mistaken, but I thought that during the first part of that which I considered powerful argument hon. Members opposite were absent from the room.

That was not so in my case.

I accept the correction. The parish of Hammersmith is divided from Fulham by the railway, the latter parish being cut off from through communication with the East of London. It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that in 1884 a Bill was promoted whereby certain owners took upon themselves the cost of constructing a bridge, but the hon. Member did not state that it was proved in evidence before the Committee that the owners were two jobbing builders, and that the Bill was promoted by a bubble company which burst the next year. Then the London County Council took up the proposal, and they sent down their surveyor to report on the construction of the bridge, and what area would be bettered by the construction. The surveyor went down, and he marked certain plots here and there which he said without doubt would be bettered. Then the County Council, having the report of their surveyor, measured the distance from the bridge to the most extreme point of the blocks their surveyor said would be bettered, and then drew a circle enclosing a half mile radius, and they said, "This is the betterment area upon which we purpose to put a charge for ever of four per cent. on a third of the cost of the improvement." This was not founded upon any reason given by the surveyor; it simply originated from an abstract love of geometrical precision in the minds of the County Council. I did not vote against the abstract principle of betterment; there was no decision upon that. I objected to a fantastic faddist application of the principle of betterment which I believe would end in stopping all improvements in London. As an East End Member I know the importance of through communication under the Thames; but if you apply such a principle as this proposed to be applied to the Cromwell Road Bridge, you would beggar the whole East End of London. The East End has contributed for years to the making and freeing of bridges across the Thames in the West of London, at an expenditure of six millions; and if you apply in the same way this principle of betterment to the Blackwall Tunnel, then, although the people of East London have contributed forty years to the cost of bridges in the West, the County Council may say, "You shall not have this tunnel unless you allow us to take the compasses and describe a half mile radius enclosing a betterment area, within which the people shall pay a perpetual charge of four per cent., or a third of the cost." Sir, the whole thing is a monstrous fad, and I shall take care to tell the people of the East End pretty plainly what they may expect if doctrines based, not on any sound principles, but on the foolish fads of those who do not know their business, are allowed to prevail.

I venture to say the time of the House has been practically wasted by the discussion of a clause which is not in the Bill before us. The opposition which hon. Member after hon. Member has arisen to express to the introduction of the betterment principle by the London County Council would have been all very well if the speeches had been delivered, as, indeed, some of them were, when the Bill was before the House on the Second Reading, and then contained the clause in question. But there is no such clause in the Bill now, and so there is no object for all this talk and rhodomontade.

But a personal attack has been made upon us in reference to the withdrawal of the clause.

I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman's discussion of what he calls a personal attack. I was referring to the betterment principle, which the hon. Member discussed at very full length. As to the personal attack to which the hon. Member refers, I have looked through the Report of the London County Council, and the only passage I can find that can be construed into an attack is—

"Two Members of the Committee had strenuously opposed and spoken in the House against the proposal in the Bill."

If hon. Members have taken that course they have emphasised it by the course they have adopted to-day. I think it would be useless and unsuitable for me to attempt to defend the London County Council for introducing the betterment principle to begin with. These gentlemen on the Committee have thrown out that principle, and the County Council has not been able to introduce it again. The only thing these gentlemen have done by their remarks to-day has been to show their own extreme opposition.

I must beg the hon. Gentleman to allow me to correct him. He says the Committee threw out the clause. Thai is the gist of the whole matter; we did not throw out the clause, the County Council withdrew it. We should not have risen at all on this occasion if we had not been personally attacked by the London County Council for the course we took in the Committee. I thought I was entitled to explain what took place, and it is they and not I who are chargeable with the withdrawal of the clause applying the betterment principle.

I am not making an attack on the hon. Gentleman of the character of which he has complained. But I ask leave to say that hon. Gentlemen have shown a strong opposition to the proposed methods of relieving the ratepayers of London. There has been an excuse made for the action of the hon. Gentleman behind me, on the ground that insufficient notice had been given, but the whole notice that is legally requisite was given. I will not enter into the discussion whether the betterment principle is a new or old one. However, the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) admitted that the principle had been sanctioned by the House in other cases. Hon. Gentlemen have been attacking the London County Council in a most unnecessary manner because it withdrew all clauses in reference to a certain improvement when the betterment principle was not admitted. The County Council could have done nothing else. The Fulham Vestry had entered into an arrangement with the County Council to pay two-thirds of the cost of the improvement on condition of receiving one-third back by the Betterment Clause. When that clause was thrown out the Vestry, which was not before the Committee, was consulted by the County Council, and declined to proceed with a two-thirds liability without the clause, and it was technically impossible for the Committee to have forced on the Vestry that liability. The County Council, therefore, withdrew the whole of the clauses, as there was no alternative plan before the Committee. Hon. Gentlemen take out the Betterment Clause, and then are angry with the County Council because it do not go on with the improvement. I hope the House will consent to read the Bill a third time. Hon. Members made a brave show on the Second Reading, and the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Baumann) called on the Conservative Party as a Party to rally round him and make a protest against the betterment scheme. What it is that hon. Gentlemen complain about at this moment I quite fail to see.

As the Committee has been blamed somewhat for its action, I think it right that I should say a few words on the matter. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that under the circumstances the London County Council had no other course open to them than to withdraw that portion of the Bill for this year. There was that in it which required a good deal of adjustment, and it was the feeling of the Committee that it was impossible to make those adjustments at this period of the Session. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill, which I have no doubt the House will read a third time. The Committee, like all Hybrid Committees, was composed of four and four, the Chairman not voting unless the other Members were equally divided. They were so divided on the Betterment Clause, and I voted against it because I thought it was inapplicable, because I thought the benefit was hypothetical, that there were great difficulties as to the assessment of the various properties, that the notice, though legally sufficient for a Private Bill, had not imbued the people of the district with the knowledge that this betterment plan was going to be used, and of the mode in which it was going to be raised—namely, by perpetual annuity and not by a rate involving repayment of principal and interest running over a certain number of years; and that it contained powers for varying the liability to taxation of the owner of the improved leasehold and of the improved leasehold occupier. These matters involved such great difficulties as to render the principle of betterment unsuitable for that occasion. I desire also to say that, in my opinion, a Hybrid Committee is the very worst tribunal to settle a matter of this kind. There can be no doubt that one or two Members of this Committee had spoken strongly against the principle on the Second Reading, and that one or two other gentlemen were equally strongly in favour of it. Without expressing any opinion on the principle generally, we had sufficient evidence before us to be aware that the question will be brought up by the London County Council again and again till it has been decided one way or another. I think it extremely undesirable that it should come repeatedly before Private Bill Committees, because you will have patchy legislation. Any change in the liability to taxation must be unfair for a time, but I do not say that it may not be desirable to make an improvement even at the expense of some temporary unfairness; but the question should be settled by a Royal Commission or a Committee including the best financiers of which the House of Commons can boast. It is wrong to let the London County Council bring the question up in Private Bills year after year, when one Committee may decide one way and another Committee the other.

When the clause was thrown out we were quite sure that before long the majority of the Committee would find out their mistake and endeavour openly, inside and outside of this House, to explain their conduct. The speeches we have heard show that our anticipations were well founded. The hon. Members for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) and Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) have discovered their mistake, and that their constituents are demanding a better reason for their action than they gave to the Committee; and these speeches have been delivered for the benefit of their constituents. They will probably have to repeat them, and when they do I hope they will be able to give more substantial reasons than they have given to-day. It is important that we should know where we are on this subject. I think at present the statements made on the other side are somewhat misleading. It is true that the property-owners were not personally notified of the proposals of the London County Council, but it is equally true that every legal notice was served on every property-owner in the district. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Sinclair) took refuge behind the contemptible plea that the County Council ought to have given notice which the law does not require. The reasoning of the hon. Gentleman was of a specious character, and seemed only to be used to justify the vote he gave. Practically speaking, the question was decided by the hon. Member. He said he was in favour of the principle of betterment, but because the County Council had not done that which the law did not say they ought to do, the hon. Member set himself up above the authority of Parliament.

I have never blamed the County Council for not giving this notice. I believe fuller notice ought to have been given by the Vestry, but the County Council taking charge of the Bill ought to have seen that the notices were fuller than they were under the circumstances. A new charge was proposed to be imposed, such as had never been imposed before, and this charge was to be imposed along with rates which would have to be paid at the same time, the legal notice being given for those rates.

The hon. Member has not challenged the assertion that the County Council had done all they were legally compelled to do. The improvement would cost £66,000, and the County Council was prepared to bear one-third and spread it over the whole Metropolitan area; the Parish Vestry was prepared to bear one-third, and the County Council sought to impose on the property-owners within a half-mile circle another one-third, which the majority of the property-owners in the district expressed their willingness to bear. It is quite true there were one or two objections.

I rise to order, Sir. We have now been occupied over an hour in discussing, on the Motion for Third Reading, a clause which has been withdrawn from the Bill. The matter was raised to meet some personal attack; but I ask you, Sir, whether it is in order to carry on a protracted discussion on matter which is not contained in the Bill now before the House?

I have allowed the discussion to go on as long as it has done so as to permit of personal explanations. Then a question arose as to the circumstances under which a clause was withdrawn. Of course, a discussion of the circumstances under which a bridge was proposed to be built, and the application of the betterment principle to it, is unnecessary now, as the clause has been withdrawn from the Bill.

I do not know, Sir, if you have decided that I may not continue the line of argument I was using, but I will content myself with saying that, except in two instances, the property-owners expressed their willingness to pay. It is very well for hon. Members who have been endeavouring to talk to their constituents to try and close the mouths of those who want to put the other side of the question; but I will not pursue the matter, as there will be a chance of thrashing it out before the Metropolitan electors. The hon. Member below me said that but for the absence of a portion of the Committee a clause referring to Lincoln's Inn Fields would have been adopted. I was in an adjoining Committee room, but before I went to it I notified the Chairman of the Committee and asked him to send for me if a vote were to be taken. A vote was taken and I was not sent for, and I thought it rather sharp practice. I have no explanation to offer for the absence of my hon. Friends; possibly they were in the same dilemma as myself.

I am not aware that there was any arrangement of that kind.

Before I left the room I told the Chairman and the clerk of the Committee where I should be. I am very glad the County Council have had the courage to abandon the proposal to build a bridge, and have declined to accept the hon. Members for Peck-ham and Wandsworth as the oracles of this great Metropolis, being perfectly satisfied that a new Parliament will mean a more equitably constituted Committee, composed of men who will not go to it inspired with opposition as shown by their speeches in this House. The London County Council have been like the red rag to a bull to certain Members of the House, and it was quite clear from the composition of the Committee that our chance of getting the betterment principle approved was exceedingly small, and the County Council have acted wisely in withdrawing the clause and refusing to make any improvement unless the principle of betterment is first sanctioned by Parliament.

The evidence given before the Committee on this Bill is not yet printed, as the convenience and usage of the House would require before this stage. It is a document of more than usual interest and importance on such a subject, which hon. Members will have to refer to from time to time; but, considering the course I am about to adopt, I am not disposed to insist upon the production of that evidence, there being, of course, an understanding that it will be placed in the hands of Members without any avoidable delay. As I have been very much concerned with the Bill, both in this House and in the Committee, I think it well to explain the course I intend to take. The opposition which, as a Member for Belfast, I felt bound to offer on the Second Reading has been vindicated by the Amendments and alterations made before the Select Committee. The promoters desired by the Bill first to obtain control of the lunatic asylum, and second to obtain control of the expenditure with regard to reformatory and industrial schools. I regarded the scheme with respect to the schools as the most objectionable part of the Bill. The clauses with regard to that subject have been struck out by the Committee. With regard to the asylum, important Amendments have been made. The Corporation proposed to vest the asylum in themselves, but that proposal has been withdrawn, and as a consequence this asylum, like all others in Ireland, will be vested in the Board of Control. The Corporation withdrew the clauses by which they proposed to nominate two-thirds of the governors, and the case will fall under the ordinary rule, by which half the governors will be nominated locally and half by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I am disposed to accept the view entertained by the Committee, founded, no doubt, on the evidence before them—evidence of the total exclusion of the Catholic inhabitants from all representative Boards and public employments in Belfast—that the Lord Lieutenant may be relied upon to safeguard the interests of the Catholic body in the constitution of the Board. If the Irish Executive should fail in that respect, due notice of it will be taken here. I am also persuaded from the evidence, not only of the exclusion of the Catholics from the Belfast Corporation, but also of their scandalous treatment in Belfast, that the system of exclusion from the Corporation by deliberate contrivance, long and obstinately continued, will be speedily brought to an end. One other important Amendment was made in regard to the asylums. At my suggestion the promoters agreed that, notwithstanding the severance of the city and county, patients might be transferred from the city asylum to the county asylum when such change would be beneficial to their health. If that Amendment had not been accepted, I should have felt it to be my duty to oppose the Bill to the last. I cannot disguise the fact, however, that I still disapprove of the scheme. I think that, in the absence of the establishment of Local Government in Ireland, the scheme does not afford sufficient accommodation. I believe that in the long run it will lead to unnecessary expense, and press very heavily on the ratepayers of Belfast. But I am bound to take cognisance of the fact that under the Boroughs Funds Act the ratepayers of Belfast had an opportunity of which no doubt they might have availed themselves if they disapproved of the scheme. I am also bound to consider that the scheme has been approved of by a majority of the Committee, and there can be no doubt that the Bill is approved of by a majority of the House. Under all the circumstances, I am not disposed to press further my opposition to the Bill. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division, of course I am sensible if I insisted upon the Standing Orders this Bill would be kept before this House until after the Whitsuntide Recess, and probably it could not pass into law this Session. Therefore, as I have no desire to defeat in any degree the present measure, I shall offer no objection to the Third Reading.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a passage in the Overland Times, of Ceylon, which states that—

"Mr. T. J. Lipton left to-day in the P. & O. s.s. 'Thames,' and said good-bye to Arabi Pasha before he went on board, but later on Arabi went out to the 'Thames.' We believe this is the first time Arabi has been afloat since he has been in the island";

whether this was the first time on which Arabi Pasha, during his imprisonment, has been allowed to leave the island; and whether, considering that he has shown no inclination to abuse any extra privileges accorded to him, it would be possible to mitigate or to put an end to his imprisonment in Ceylon?

My attention had not been previously directed to the passage in the newspaper referred to. I am not aware whether the occasion referred to is the first on which Arabi Pasha has been out in a boat since his detention in Ceylon. He has not, so far as I am aware, shown any inclination to abuse any extra privileges. The Egyptian Government have refused to consent to the return of the exiles to Egypt, and have pointed out that it was only on condition that they should remain at some place distant from Egypt that the exiles were pardoned and allowances granted to them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen a statement some time ago, appearing in the Pall Mall Gazette from a visitor to Arabi Pasha, in Colombo, to the effect that

"since he saw Arabi Pasha at Colombo in 1884 he has undergone a painful physical deterioration. When he met him some years ago the Egyptian prisoner of war was a tall, well-proportioned, erect man. Now he is round-shouldered, and no longer stands erect; and at the age of fifty-one he presents the appearance of a worn-out old man of seventy";

whether Arabi has frequently complained that the climate of his prison-home is slowly but surely killing him, whilst he suffers constantly from fever, asthma, and rheumatism; whether Dr. Vandhort has certified him to be in a "state of chronic invalidism"; whether he is aware that Arabi's eyesight is rapidly failing him in consequence of the dampness about Colombo, and that Dr. Brockman, an eminent oculist from Bombay, has certified that a continued residence in that climate would result in serious consequences to his eyesight, with a prospect of cataract; and whether, in view of the fact that, owing to the limited allowance of £600 per annum for himself, family, and servants, Arabi is unable to remove into the Central Provinces during the damp season at Colombo, Her Majesty's Government, if they cannot now allow his return to Egypt, will grant his Memorial to have him removed to the drier climate of Cyprus, and have his allowance increased from £50 to £75 per month?

I have not seen the statement in the Pall Mall Gazette, nor can I find it in the copies of the paper which have appeared during the last two months. The complaints made by Arabi were investigated by a Medical Commission last year. They reported that no change had taken place in the health of Arabi. The full Report will be found at page 3 of Egypt No. 4, 1891. No information has been received as to the Reports of Drs. Vandhort and Brockman. The Medical Commission stated that Arabi suffered from dimness of vision of the right eye. Arabi receives a larger allowance than any of the other exiles. Applications for further increases in their allowances have on several occasions been referred to the Egyptian Government, who have, however, declined to accede to them, and Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to press the Egyptian Government to depart from that decision.

What about the Petition to be removed from Colombo to Cyprus?

If the hon. Member will refer to the Papers which appeared last Session, and which have also been laid this Session in the matter, I think he will find that an application was made to the Egyptian Government in that respect also, but the Egyptian Government did not see their way to accede to that demand.

Is Her Majesty's Government not able to protect a defenceless prisoner? Is it not a fact that when Arabi Pasha was first ordered to be interned in the first instance Ceylon was not specially stated, but merely that he was sentenced to be imprisoned in some distant part like Ceylon; and, further, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Dufferin did not certify £2,000 a year as the allowance for Arabi Pasha?

These questions which the hon. Member has put contain new matter. Perhaps he will be good enough to put them down on the Paper.

Can Her Majesty's Government not interfere in the matter? Is the imprisonment of Arabi Pasha to be permanent?

The imprisonment of Arabi Pasha is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, but is one which was decided upon by the Egyptian Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been received from Sir Walter Sendall, the Governor of Cyprus, on the subject of the resolution unanimously passed on the motion of Mons. G. Chacalli, to the effect that the Turkish Tribute should be paid out of the Imperial Treasury; and whether the Colonial Office intends to take steps to give effect to the resolution?

The High Commissioner has not yet reported the resolution referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. The second part of the question is one which should be more properly addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as a mail car passes through Loughnavalley, County Westmeath, twice daily, he can see his way to open a post office in that village?

There is already a foot post from Ballinea to Loughnavalley, the arrival being at 7.40 a.m., and there is a wall letter box in the village, from which a collection is made at 6.5 p.m. The revenue does not admit of the opening of a post office at Loughna valley.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the Petty Sessions, Brides well, County Roscommon, on the 22nd May, 1892, Captain Preston, R.M., and J. J. Keogh, J.P., presiding, a licensing case was heard, in which, after the evidence being heard, the Bench disagreed, and the case was dismissed; that on a second similar licensing case being gone into the Bench also disagreed, but in this case Captain Preston insisted on adjourning its further hearing; and whether he can state on what grounds the first case was dismissed and the second adjourned?

I think the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. As I am informed, there was no difference between the members of the Bench in the case referred to. It and other cases were adjourned to the next Court day for the attendance of a third Magistrate.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that when the Clare slob lands reclamation were recently offered for sale in the Land Court, Dublin, it was stated by the Board of Works in the particulars of the sale advertisement that they were estimated to produce a yearly rental of £3,660 4s.; whether a sum of over £134,000 has been expended on these works; and whether it is a fact that the lands have now been sold to a Syndicate for the sum of £2,300?

I have not seen the advertisement referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The figures given in the second and third paragraphs are perfectly accurate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman doubt the statement, and say that these figures are not correct? I think I sent the advertisement to the right hon. Gentleman, and asked him a question about the matter some time ago. I ask him, does he think £2,300 a good investment in land on which £134,000 has been expended?

The hon. Member must misunderstand me. I said the figures were perfectly correct.

Yes; in the second and third paragraph.

Yes.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet selected a suitable person to fill the office of sub-postmaster in Ennis; whether £5 per annum is the salary offered; and whether it is the case that the successful candidate will be required to expend £10 in fitting up the office, and give £400 security for the position?

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is—Not yet. The answer to the second paragraph is—Yes; but there are also commissions on the business transacted. The answer to the third paragraph is—He will have to provide suitable fittings and give security for £200.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a man would take the responsibility of keeping a post office at the remuneration of £5 a year, give security for £200, and expend £10 on fittings in the first place?

I may inform the hon. Member that the number of applicants for the office is very considerable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet considered the application for the improvement of Scariff Pier, and the erection of a crane there; and what action the Irish Board of Works are going to take in the matter?

I have inquired into the matter, and I am told that it would be better for the hon. Member to communicate in the regular manner with the Irish Board of Works in Dublin, who will do their best to meet the wishes of the locality.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government have taken any further steps to forward the project of law for the protection of industrial property in the matter of trade marks, which was stated to be under its consideration in February last?

Nothing further has been heard since February last; but Her Majesty's Representative at Cairo will be instructed to urge that the matter may be proceeded with with as little delay as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech of President Krüger, as reported by Reuter, stating that "he was still endeavouring to obtain Swaziland"; and whether it is the case that Her Majesty's Government is negotiating with the President on the subject of the revision of the Convention of 1890; and, if so, of what part of it?

The actual words quoted do not occur in the newspaper reports of the President's speech, but he did state that he had urged the final settlement of the Swaziland question. No negotiations are in progress at present as to the matter referred to.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the disastrous results to humanity and trade that followed on our retirement from Coomassie without leaving there a British Resident, Her Majesty's Government will in any present negotiations with the inland tribes at Lagos provide for the acceptance by them of Residents in the towns of Ibadan, Abeokuta, and Jebu Ode, by which the interminable native wars may be put an end to, and the trade routes kept permanently open?

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to come to any decision as to the future arrangements to be made with respect to the places named until they have received and considered the Reports which may be expected from the Governor on the recent operations and their results. The hon. Member may, however, be assured that the matter will receive most careful and serious attention, and that in its consideration the object of Her Majesty's Government will be to adopt the best means for putting an end to the native wars and keeping the trade routes permanently open. I may add that a telegram has been to-day received from the Governor reporting his return to Lagos with the greater part of the expeditionary force, a strong detachment having, however, been left at Jebu Ode, where it will remain till matters are settled.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can furnish any particulars of the way in which the increased sum recently voted for postal salaries and wages has been distributed; what class or classes have benefited by the increase, and to what extent; and what classes have been excluded from benefit; what proportion of the increase was assigned to the employees in London, and what to the employees in the rest of the United Kingdom; and will be state the total number of persons that have received increases, and the total amount so distributed?

The information desired in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question will be found in great detail in the present Estimates. A convenient summary showing the growth of each subhead of the Vote is given on page 56 of the Post Office Estimates, and on page 125 of the Telegraph Estimates. It will there be seen, on examining Sub-heads A and C of the Postal Vote, and Sub-heads E and G of the Telegraph Votes, how large are the increases in respect of salaries and wages; and in order to ascertain what classes have benefited, it will be necessary for the hon. Member to compare the salaries and wages given in the current Estimates with the salaries and wages given in the Estimates of 1890–91. It would not be practicable to give the information asked for in greater detail. Within the last two years nearly every branch of this vast Department has been overhauled, the wages examined, and, where necessary, revisions have been carried out. It is not correct to say that classes have been excluded from benefit. Those cases which have been examined have been dealt with according to their merits. The sum voted was not distributed in the way my hon. Friend (Mr. H. Heaton) seems to think; and, indeed, it would not have been practicable to have assigned a proportion to London and a proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom, to be spent in the two divisions. What occurred was that the rates of pay were examined, fixed according to the merits of the case, and the amounts payable under the Subheads A and C and Sub-heads E and G were simply the result of arithmetical calculation depending upon the numbers employed. I am unable to state accurately how many persons received increases, but the total growth for this year only of both Votes as given in the Estimates amounts to over £280,000. It should not be overlooked that, besides addition to the rate of wages, a great many other improvements costing money were granted in 1890—namely, improvement in the rate of overtime; additional pay for Sunday work; additional pay for Bank Holidays; revision of superintending classes, and payment for sick leave.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the exceptional nature of the calamity which has recently befallen Mauritius, the Government will consider the advisability of taking some steps to alleviate the widespread distress which prevails in that Colony?

Despatches from Mauritius containing details of the hurricane have only just been received, and there has not as yet been time fully to consider them; but the proposal which has been made to guarantee a loan will receive favourable consideration. My hon. Friend is aware that remittances have already been made from the Bund opened by the Lord Mayor to relieve immediate distress in the Colony.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a final decision has been arrived at respecting the promised new post office for Hyde, Cheshire; and whether, seeing that the present office is utterly inadequate to the requirements of the town, he can expedite the transfer of the postal business to more suitable and convenient premises?

Arrangements have been made with the Corporation of Hyde for the acquisition of a site at the corner of Corporation and Oldham Streets for the erection of a new post office building, and I understand that the Corporation are about to make application to the Local Government Board for authority to sell.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the official Report that last month 13,856 members of nineteen Trade Unions were out of work, he is able to state how many were unemployed in the remaining 240 Trade Unions, with 616,000 members, and particularly how many were out of work among unskilled labourers?

My right, hon. Friend has asked me to answer the question, and to say: I understand that the information already given by the Labour Commission is as complete as it can be made. It is impossible to obtain the exact numbers of unemployed members of Trades Unions, except in the case of such Unions as keep a registry of the unemployed for out-of-work benefit or other purposes. But only a limited number of Unions pay out-of-work benefit and a much less number publish monthly returns; all the important Societies, which are able to do so, send their returns to the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the reports of a prize fight, which took place on Monday, 30th May, at the National Sporting Club; and whether any proceedings have been taken against those participating in, aiding, or abetting the encounter?

My attention has been called to a report of what is described as a glove contest at the National Sporting Club on 30th May. The manager of the club was cautioned by the police before the contest took place, that he must be held responsible if any breach of the law occurred. A case of a somewhat similar character took place in 1890, between Slavin and McAuliffe, and a prosecution was instituted by the police which ended in an acquittal; and the Commissioner of Police has no evidence to enable him to take the present case out of the category of athletic sports, and the police in the present case do not intend to prosecute. I have requested the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether there is any material for justifying a prosecution.

Are we to understand that these proceedings took place under the superintendence of the police?

No; the hon. Baronet is not to understand that. I have said nothing of the kind.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there were any police present?

Is it not the fact that where proper gloves are used, and the usual precautions are taken, these contests are perfectly legal?

I do not think it turns entirely upon the question of whether there are gloves or not. I think there may be a prize fight even with gloves. It turns upon whether the matter is really in the nature of athletic sports, an exhibition of skill, of training, and manly strength in the art of self defence, or whether it is a malicious contest with intent to do harm. That is a question of fact for a jury; and I think the case of Slavin and McAuliffe was much stronger for the prosecution than this case; and yet it failed. The jury held that there was no evidence.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, at the athletic contest he speaks about, after one of the men was beaten, he was struck by the other man till the blood spurted out on the people sitting in the front row, and two men's shirts were so covered with blood that they had to be carried away from the place?

I have not read the long report which the hon. Baronet has read containing all the sanguinary details.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any police were present at this encounter, in view of the fact that the police attend the meetings of the Irish Nationalists in Ireland?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I should like to ask him whether he will allow it to be understood that the same law which applies to Lord Lonsdale and his "pals" in London will also apply to the poor people down in the country: and if he is going to allow prize fights under the protection of the police in London he will not let the police interfere with them in the country?

The statement which has been made by the hon. Member appears to me to be utterly unwarrantable. No prize fight takes place under the protection of the police.

In the presence of the police.

No; "under the protection of the police" were the words which the hon. Member used. I have answered his question. The police do their very utmost to put down prize fights; but the police cannot take the law in their own hands. It is for a jury to decide; and when they have decided that no prize fight has taken place, the police cannot alter that. In answer to the hon. Member below the Gangway (Dr. Tanner), I cannot tell at present whether any police were present. I think not, but I will make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is true that the commencement of the new post office at Cardiff is being delayed by an alteration of the plans, in which brick and cotta dressings are being substituted for stone; and, if so, whether the change is due in any degree to the alleged efforts of the Mason's Society to prevent worked stone from being imported into the town?

The purchase of the site for the new post office at Cardiff has not yet been completed; and though the plans for the building are under consideration, they have not yet been sent to me for approval. There has, therefore, been no avoidable delay. The second part of the question would more properly be addressed to the First Commissioner of Works. The Post Office has no knowledge on the subject.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can arrange to facilitate the prepayment in cash, instead of stamps, of postal matter at one post office in each borough and one in each county constituency during the General Election?

I am sorry that I cannot adopt the suggestion, which on the face of it is desirable, as such transactions require more supervision than can be given, especially in small offices, at a time when the work is unusually heavy.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the minimum pay of postmen in the large provincial towns has been reduced from eighteen shillings—at which it stood previously—to seventeen shillings; and whether he could arrange that postmen in the Manchester Post Office of all classes, not merely the superior officers, should have the same scheme of holidays as is understood to exist in the London General Post Office—namely, that holidays should be taken between the months of March and October, avoiding thus the inclement winter season; and why the issue of the third good conduct stripe is limited to a certain number of recipients, whilst the issue and second good conduct stripes is unlimited?

In the large provincial towns the minimum of the postman's scale has been reduced from eighteen shillings to seventeen shillings a week. The maximum of his scale has at the same time been raised from twenty-eight shillings to thirty shillings a week; and even at the minimum he receives now much more than he received under the old scale, inasmuch as he has now, what he had not before, a special payment for Sunday duty. In Manchester a postman who has his leave between November and April in one year has it between May and October in the next. Inquiry will be made whether without undue expense any more liberal arrangement can be made. The good conduct badge of three stripes, unlike the badges of one and two stripes, is limited in point of number.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to a letter by Miss Robinson, dated Soldiers' Institute, Portsmouth, 20th May, wherein she states that she

"Is not allowed to hold meetings in barracks (as formerly) solely because the chaplains disapprove";

whether his attention has been drawn to her further statement, that a sergeant who used to visit the prisoners was strictly ordered by the chaplain never to go in again on such errands, when it was found that he had taken in a small book there with "Miss Damil's Soldiers' Home" on it; and whether he is now prepared to state the result of his promised inquiries with regard to the alleged interference with Miss Robinson's work among the soldiers?

I have referred this question to the general officer commanding at Portsmouth, who states that Miss Robinson's visitors have not been refused permission to hold meetings in barracks; but have been informed that all meetings must be of an unsectarian character, it having been found that religious subjects of a controversial character had been introduced. Nothing is known of the sergeant referred to, or of the orders alleged to have been given to him. There is no desire to interfere with Miss Robinson's work provided the above-named condition is observed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the actuaries were appointed to investigate the condition of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund; who are the actuaries; have they made any Report; when are they likely to complete their function; whether the Papers will be presented before the end of the Session; and whether the Reports of 1885 and 1891 can be presented now?

The Committee was appointed in February, and consist of the superintendent of the Teachers' Pension Office and the actuaries to the Friendly Societies Registry and the National Debt Office. The Committee have agreed to a preliminary Memorandum, the effect of which is given in the Paper presented to Parliament in March last; but I do not expect that the complete Report will be ready before the end of next month. The answer to question five depends upon the length of the Session. The Report of 1885 was laid before Parliament in the same year, and I have already explained that it would be inconvenient to lay the Report of 1891 on the Table unaccompanied by that of the Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the statement in the Pioneer newspaper, as telegraphed to the Times on Monday, 30th May, to the effect that considerable dissatisfaction existed in India at the withholding of Lord Roberts's evidence given to Lord Wantage's Committee, the War Office will take steps to procure it, and lay it upon the Table of the House?

(who replied): The Secretary of State has presented to Parliament all the evidence which the Committee submitted to him, and he has no knowledge of any which the Committee may have received but have not included in their Minutes of Evidence. The responsibility of submitting evidence lay entirely with the Committee. I understand that a considerable mass of opinion was received from all classes of officers, and that the Committee decided only to publish evidence which had been subjected to cross-examination.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer does Section 23 of 53 Vic., c. 8, entitle a Spinning and Manufacturing Company, Limited, carrying on business in its own premises, and paying duty in 1891–2 under Schedule A on £2,000, and under Schedule D on £5,000, to repayment of the whole amount of duty paid on proving to the Commissioners for General Purposes at the end of the year that there had been a loss of £2,000 on trading; and, if so, would a yeoman farmer, farming his own land, on showing that his loss in farming exceeded the aggregate amount of his assessment under Schedules A and B, be entitled to repayment of all the duties paid?

The two cases which the hon. Member gives are not parallel. A manufacturing company is assessed on an average of three years profits, and the question of repayment is governed by Section 6 of 28 & 29 Vict., c. 30, as well as by the section which the hon. Member quotes. A yeoman farmer would, in the circumstances stated in the question, be entitled to repayment of all the duties paid.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the cases of national school teachers in Ireland, whose schools having been closed consequent upon an epidemic prevailing in their districts, will thereby be deprived of result fees and Customs and Excise grants; if he can see his way to arrange, when such schools are re-opened, that reasonable time will be allowed to enable teachers to prepare pupils for examination; and if, pending the results of such examinations, the teachers will be paid the same amount of fees and grants as last year, the difference to be arranged in subsequent payments?

The Commissioners of National Education report that the fixed salaries of the national school teachers are paid in full in the cases referred to by the hon. Member, but the result fees only on the results of the examinations, and the Customs and Excise grant, under the terms of the Act of Parliament, only on the average daily attendance. Reasonable time beyond the regular results period in cases of epidemic is allowed when such concession is sought to enable teachers to prepare their pupils more effectively for examination. The course suggested in the last paragraph of the question would not be feasible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be in a position to make any statement with reference to the events reported to have occurred at Uganda in January last; what is the date of the last direct information received from Captain Lugard, the agent of the East Africa Company; whether it is the fact that that Company has received no information from its agents at their principal settlement on the Lakes for a space of nine months; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to ascertain the real condition of things in the sphere of British influence, and the action of the agents of a Company claiming to act under the authority of the Crown?

(1) No statement can be made until Captain Lugard's reports are received. I do not think that they can be long delayed. (2) 13th August, 1891. (3) The last information received was from Captain Williams, dated 4th October, Kampala. (4) No decision can be arrived at until the reports referred to have been received.

As I understand there has been no report to this Company from Uganda, the headquarters of their territory, for nine mouths, I want to ask what measures are Her Majesty's Government going to take, in a case where a Chartered Company under the Crown has no information from its principal agent and from its principal station for nine months,, to prevent such a state of things as that existing?

The answer to that is to wait until the reports arrive.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to state that no information has come from Uganda through the British sphere, or that no information at all has come from Uganda?

I have answered that question several times during the last few days. I said the information came through the British sphere direct from Captain Lugard to the Company.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is no communication through the British sphere, and that all information from Uganda must come through the German sphere?

I am not aware of anything of the sort. The reports that have been received from Captain Lugard have come through the British sphere.

Why is it that it is easier to obtain information from Uganda through the German sphere of influence than it is through the British sphere of influence?

That seems to me a matter of argument on which I am not competent to give an opinion.

; Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of the latest information received by the Foreign Office and the source from which it came?

If the hon. Gentleman will put the question on the Paper, I will try to give him an answer.

Are there no stated periods at which reports are made?

I do not think there are any stated periods.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Commercial Treaty between this country and Spain will expire on the 30th June, Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Treaty will be prolonged, or replaced by another securing the same most favoured nation treatment for British goods imported into Cuba in the future as that existing in the past; and whether other nations, notably the United States of America and France, have secured Commercial Treaties with Spain which will give to those countries in the future the advantage of most favoured nation treatment?

Negotiations were recently commenced for the conclusion of a Commercial Convention with Spain, but they are temporarily suspended. Spain has, so far, not been willing to grant the United Kingdom most favoured nation treatment, or to prolong the existing Convention. The United States and Spain have concluded an arrangement as regards trade between the United States and the Spanish Antilles. A temporary arrangement has been concluded between France and Spain, whereby France gives to Spain her minimum tariff, and Spain gives to France in Spain and in her Colonies her conventional tariff, that enjoyed by England up to the 1st July. After that date the two countries exchange their minimum tariffs until a permanent Treaty shall have been concluded.

Will Great Britain be in a less favourable position as regards Spain after the 30th June, than that which she occupies at the present time?

Yes, Sir, Great Britain will be in a less favourable position after the 1st July, the new Spanish minimum tariff being considerably higher than the present conventional tariff.

What are the chief difficulties in the way of getting Spain to continue the Convention in the future?

There are no difficulties on the part of Her Majesty's Government; the difficulties are on the part of the Spanish Government.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the reasons which have actuated the Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue in withholding the full benefits of the salary scale, laid down in the General Order of 2nd September, 1890, from the Assistants of Excise serving in that Department on that date?

The Treasury have not done what the hon. Member suggests they have done. Consequently I cannot give reasons for doing that which we have not done.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate cost of the machinery and mechanical apparatus in the "Royal Sovereign," comprising the steam, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical,, and torpedo equipment throughout the ship, and the mechanism connected therewith, but exclusive of the guns themselves; what number of trained engineers and skilled mechanics will form the staff, from the engineer in chief downwards—but exclusive of the stokers and the able-bodied seamen who would serve the guns—for keeping the machinery and mechanical apparatus in a state of working efficiency in case of stress of weather or in action; and whether there is any difficulty in obtaining properly trained mechanics for employment in men-of-war of the class of the "Royal Sovereign," in which almost every operation is performed by mechanism of great variety and complexity from stem to stern, the working efficiency of which must determine the utility and even safety of the ship?

The cost of the propelling machinery, auxiliary machinery, electric lighting, torpedo fittings, hydraulic and other armament fittings of the "Royal Sovereign" amounted to £205,000. The engine-room complement of the first class battle-ships of this class has been settled by a committee of engineer officers and numbers 146 in all, which is considerably in excess of that of all other battle-ships. It includes one chief engineer and six engineers, three chief and nine engine-room artificers, six chief stokers, and sixteen leading stokers; or, altogether, forty-one officers and petty officers. The officers are twenty per cent. in excess, the engine-room artificers twenty per cent. in excess, and the leading stokers fourteen per cent. in excess of similar ranks and ratings in the "Trafalgar," "Nile," and "Sanspareil," which are in commission in the Mediterranean. Facilities are given to stokers to qualify as mechanics, and engine-room complements usually contain several men so qualified in addition to the chief and other petty officers who are skilled mechanics. The "Royal Sovereign" also carries a gunnery lieutenant and a torpedo lieutenant, each of whom has gone through a special course of instruction to fit him to undertake the supervision of the mechanism with which his duties require him to deal. Further, she carries a carpenter and twenty-eight artisan ratings. Amongst them a torpedo artificer, a plumber, ten carpenter's mates and shipwrights, and two blacksmiths and six armourers of various grades. Except that they are slightly more numerous, the mechanical apparatus in the "Royal Sovereign" differs little in variety and complexity from that in many other battle-ships which have been at sea for years. There is no difficulty in obtaining properly trained mechanics as engine-room artificers.

How is a stoker trained to become a qualified mechanic, if he has not served an apprenticeship?

A stoker is entered as an ordinary seaman, and after a certain time, if he shows ability, he serves a course which enables him to act as a mechanic; but of course he receives a smaller pay and is really less efficient than an engine-room artificer.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the statement, in the Eastern Daily Press of 26th May, by the Rev. Dr. Jessop, Rector of Scarning, to the effect that three of his parishioners had been dismissed from employment by the managers of the Great Eastern Railway, under pressure from the Farmers' Alliance; and whether, as the facts stated appear to disclose a primâ facie case of criminal conspiracy on the part of the Alliance, he can undertake that an inquiry will be made with a view of ascertaining their true character?

By the courtesy of the hon. Member, I have seen a copy of the newspaper paragraph to which he refers. The materials are wholly insufficient to enable me to come to the conclusion that there is even a primâ facie case of a criminal conspiracy; but I will see that further inquiry is made into the matter.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government have any intention of recommending the alteration of the present form of the Royal licence for prescribing the text of a new canon for the Church of England, with a view of getting rid of the need for obtaining from the Crown a ratification for such a canon after its adoption by Convocation, as has been suggested by the English Church Union?

In reply to my hon. and learned Friend for my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that, so far as I am aware, there is no ground for the suggestion that the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government have any intention of making any recommendation of the kind suggested.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Royal Commission on Labour intend to send a Commission to Ireland to take evidence on rates of agricultural wages in the same manner as it is intended to do in the case of Scotland; and, if not, whether any such recommendation will be made to the Royal Commission?

Yes, I believe that is the intention.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether a re-investigation of the case of Cornelius O'Donoghue, of Carrigdangan, Kilmachael, County Cork, who was convicted of an alleged dynamite offence at the Cork Assizes in 1889, will be granted, in view of the fact that fresh evidence is now forthcoming, and in the hands of the authorities, tending to prove O'Donoghue's innocence?

I am not aware of the evidence to which the hon. Member refers; but if, in the opinion of the convict or of those interested in his case, any such evidence exists, the proper course is to submit it, by way of a Memorial, for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that this man was convicted on the unsupported evidence of an informer, he will make an inquiry into the circumstances of this man's case, with the view of doing justice if it should be found that the man has been wrongfully convicted?

I have no right to make inquiry after a conviction; but I am quite certain the hon. Gentleman must be misinformed when he states that the man was convicted on the unsupported evidence of an informer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of cottages and allotments provided for labourers under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts for the province of Ulster?

Seventy-eight labourers' cottages have been authorised in the province of Ulster. Of these forty-five were completed on the 31st March last, and seventeen are in course of erection.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman in what proportion the labourers' cottages in Ulster stand with regard to the other three provinces?

I judge from these facts that in Ulster private enterprise is almost sufficient.

May I ask in what counties are cottages being erected?

The hon. Member did not put his question in that form, and I have not got the facts.

I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House how soon he intends to take any Irish Business after the holidays?

Certainly not before the first Monday.

Might I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to proceed to-night with No. 6 on the Orders of the Day—The Access to Mountains (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill? The Bill has only been printed and distributed this morning, and I would ask that he should give us an opportunity of consulting our constituents on the subject.

I will not take that to-night.

I beg to move the 1st clause which is down on the Paper in my name, with one or two alterations. Those alterations are in line 9 to substitute "Justices" for "County Councillors," in line 10 to substitute "Court of Quarter Sessions" for "County Council," and in line to substitute "three" for "two."

May I ask the hon. Member, only for information, whether the Amendment "three" is at the beginning of Sub-Section 3, so that the words will read, "When the presence of assessors is required, three clergymen," and so on?

Yes.

I beg to move the new clause with regard to the punishment of disobedience to sentence.

I beg to move the last new clause which is on the Paper in my name in a somewhat modified form, though the object is carried out which I had in view when I put the clause on the Paper. The form in which I beg to move it is:—

"No person shall, by reason of any employment or emolument under this Act, acquire any right to compensation, superannuation, or other allowance, on abolition of office or otherwise."

My reason for moving this Amendment is that, when the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Consistory Courts was taken away in 1856, there was an immense sum of money paid by this country for compensation and allowance to those persons whose office was taken away. Under this Bill Consistory Courts are being again setup, and officers will be created, and the object of the clause is to provide that there shall be no claim for compensation by virtue of any employment or emolument which may come into existence under this Act.

I doubt myself whether the words of the clause are necessary, because I do not know how any claim can possibly be made. If the hon. Member desires to make it clear that there should be no claim, I have no objection to insert the clause.

If I am in order, I desire to move as a new clause Subsection 4, which is down on the Paper in my name, on Clause 5, page 4, line 22, with the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" in the 4th line. This clause will provide that the Bishop may after sentence, without further formality, depose a clergyman from holy orders where the ecclesiastical preferment that a clergyman has held becomes vacant under the Bill.

I think the Amendment will be in order as a new clause, and I shall put it accordingly.

In the form in which the clause stood on the Paper it was quite inadmissible, and I could not possibly have accepted it; but the hon. Member has proposed it in a permissive form. This clause is taken from the Bill of last year; but I am bound to say, after having made full inquiry, I find that the power given by the clause is inoperative and is not required. I do not myself pretend to be a very learned authority on ecclesiastical law; but I am informed by the best authorities on ecclesiastical law that deposition from holy orders has been obsolete for many years. I would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Members who support the clause whether they can give us any warrant for its insertion; and if they can I shall not offer any opposition, for while I think the clause will be of no use, it will do no harm.

I should like to be informed by the hon. Gentleman opposite whether he proposes there-shall be any compulsion on the Bishop to depose?

No, he "may."

By the permission of the House, I will answer the question of the Attorney General. My desire for having this clause in the Bill, and the authority I have for thinking that it is a necessary clause, is that it was in the Government's own Bill last year.

In proposing the first Amendment which is down in my name to Clause 1, I desire to make it perfectly clear to the House what its object is. I propose to leave out the words "on indictment" in line seven on Clause I. The clause as it reads would provide that, upon conviction of a clergyman for treason or felony, or on indictment for a misdemeanour, followed by imprisonment with hard labour, his living should be declared by the Bishop to be vacant. Now, the words "on indictment" are limiting words, making it necessary that there should be a prosecution either at the Assizes or at the Quarter Sessions; and I think that where an offence has been committed the living ought to become vacant, no matter what the Court is which exercises the jurisdiction and pronounces the conviction. The tendency of legislation of recent years has been to increase the jurisdiction of Justices' Courts as Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and there are various offences—not only misdemeanours, but serious felonies—which may be dealt with by these Courts. The Justices may convict for larceny, stealing from the person, embezzlement, receiving stolen goods, and for a host of other very serious offences. It is true that where there is a plea of not guilty, if the goods stolen exceed a certain amount, the jurisdiction by summary process of the Justices is ousted, and the defendant must go either to the Assizes or to the Court of Quarter Sessions to take his trial; but where there is a plea of guilty, whatever the value may have been, the Justices can pass a sentence not exceeding six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It may be urged by those who support the clause as it at present stands that their object is that for such offences as entail deprivation a clergyman shall be tried by a jury. Permit me to point out to the House that the authority of Temporal Courts in matter of offences by clergymen is acknowledged to the fullest extent in this Bill, and in the next section it is provided that conviction by any Temporal Court is absolutely conclusive. If that be so, I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the Government or of their supporters to say that under this section you must have a trial by jury. It is clear it does not matter what the Court may be that found the man guilty: it is not a question of whether he had a fair trial or not. Let me use one illustration to show the House the incongruity of the section as it at present stands. Supposing a clergyman is prosecuted for embezzlement (which is not a felony), and is tried at the Quarter Sessions or at the Assizes; he is found guilty by a jury and is sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. If so, he must vacate his preferment. But if a clergyman pleads guilty before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the same offence and the Justices sentence him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, yet nothing follows under the section of this Bill. What ought to deprive a clergyman of the power of ministering to the spiritual necessities of the people is the commission of criminal offences, whatever the nature of the Court may be before which he is tried. It is not a question of his having a full and fair trial, because we have his own confession of guilt. Whatever the nature of the Court may be, I think it should follow that he should no longer hold his ecclesiastical preferment, but should make way for someone better fitted for the discharge of his sacred duties. I hope that the reasons I have given in support of this Amendment will be sufficient to induce the House to accept it.

I certainly expected some sort of an answer from the Attorney General to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment. As hon. Members must be aware, a clergyman who commits an offence against the law such as larceny is tried under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. But let us take the case of one who has been convicted by a jury of stealing property of the value of 42s. Under the Act as it stands at present, the conviction will enable the Bishop, without further trying the charges against the clergyman, to declare his living vacant. But supposing the property is only of the value of 6d., and the clergyman is found guilty in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, although it is exactly the same kind of offence, the living is not declared vacant. I fail to see why such a distinction should be made, because in each case the commission of the offence creates a scandal, and renders ineffectual the spiritual ministration of the offender. I must say that my hon. Friend has made out a most conclusive case in support of his Amendment. Other arguments of a similar nature might be urged in favour of it in regard to atrocious offences against the person. If a clergyman is found guilty by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, he has simply to abstain from appearing, and the section becomes inoperative. Now, I do not think that that can be the desire of the promoters, and I hope the Attorney General will answer the case which has been made out against the clause as it stands at present.

My sole reason for not rising to answer the arguments of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that I desired to hear whether anything fresh was to be urged in regard to it. We have to consider, with reference to this first clause, whether or not we should allow the commission of an offence to justify the loss of a living unless there has been a trial by indictment. The effect of leaving out the words "on indictment" would be to make a conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction sufficient to justify such a deprivation. I have had occasion to argue this question many times before the Committee, and, as I then stated, the Government consider that this highly penal consequence should only follow the commission of a grave offence which would be tried by indictment. We should remember that there are misdemeanours that are not, comparatively speaking, serious, and that are tried before the magistrates having summary jurisdiction, and those serious offences which are tried on indictment. We must draw a line between serious offences and cases of misdemeanour, and therefore I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is to be congratulated on his desire to punish clergymen who are guilty of treason and other offences against the law. Nothing could be more scandalous than for those who have taken orders to afterwards disgrace their profession by showing a fondness for the commission of seditious offences.

I am not sure that the hon. Member who has just sat down has added anything valuable to the discussion. The object of this Bill is to secure a speedy, a cheap, and an effective means of purifying the Church by getting rid of immoral clergymen, and those who transgress the laws of this country. The first clause is the only really effective clause for this purpose; but the procedure is cumbrous, expensive, and dilatory. I trust the House will show clearly by its vote that clergymen who are guilty of criminal offences shall be speedily and effectively removed from their livings.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "with hard labour." I move that these words be left out, so that when a clergyman is indicted for felony or other offences and sent to prison without hard labour his living may be declared vacant. It should not be a question of whether he was sentenced with or without hard labour. The clergyman convicted may be in such a state of health that he is not sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; or, if he is sixty years old, the Judge may make an allowance for his age, and remit the hard labour. What difference, then, does it make whether he is sentenced to hard labour or not? He has been found guilty of criminal offences such as will render his spiritual ministration of no effect in his parish, and therefore it is desirable to strengthen this clause. The effect of it as it now stands is, that when a clergyman has been found guilty of a criminal offence or offences by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, no further trial is necessary. Is it not, therefore, highly desirable, in the interests of this Bill, and the object it is intended to promote, to simplify and cheapen the method of getting rid of criminous clerks by every possible means? That is what I propose to do by this Amendment. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment falls somewhat short of that which I desire to effect. I do not see any force in the objection that it would not be fair to the clergyman who gave way to a certain temptation to deprive him of his living. If this Amendment were carried what would happen in every case which comes within this first section would be this. The clergyman who is charged with any offence, treason, felony, or misdemeanour, will first of all be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There the whole of the evidence for the prosecution will be laid before the Court. He may or may not offer his own evidence, but he, at least, has the opportunity of hearing everything that can be urged by way of evidence and argument against him, and of applying that the trial take place before a jury in Court of Sessions or Assize within two or three months after he has heard all the evidence of the prosecution. How can it be possible to treat a criminous clerk in a fairer spirit than I propose by this Amendment? The only argument that can be urged against it is that in certain cases the Court may sentence the clergyman to imprisonment for one day. That can, however, be met by a further Amendment that the term of imprisonment should not be less than a couple of months. That will cover every possible objection that can be urged.

I have deemed it a pity that so much of the Session should be occupied with legislation of this kind, but while we are engaged on this Bill it is desirable to make it complete. Surely it will commend itself to the Houses that a clergyman who is convicted of treason or felony or indicted as a misdemeanant should be deprived of his living, oven though he may not have been sentenced to hard labour. I think the Amendment is very reasonable. A clergyman who has been found guilty of those offences ought to be deprived of his preferment and be rendered incapable of holding any other preferment. I think the Government, by accepting the Amendment, will be acting in the interests of their own Bill.

The Amendment, which aims at strengthening the first clause of the Bill, is as reasonable as any Amendment could be. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. Lloyd-George) that Clause 1 is the only clause of the Bill which is of any use at all. It affords a speedy and cheap method of getting rid of the clergyman who has been guilty of certain offences, and declaring, the living to be vacant. Any Amendment, therefore, which in reason goes to strengthen this clause has my support. If the House will only consider for a moment how matters will stand if Clause 1 is to remain unamended, it will come to the conclusion that this Amendment is one that ought not to be rejected. It may be said that there will be a tendency to pronounce lighter sentences, because, under this Bill, there will be a forfeiture of the living. That such a result may follow this Bill is to be deplored. Whatever may be the forfeiture, surely the offence ought to be dealt with simply and solely on the footing of an offence against the law. A layman ought not to be sentenced to a heavier sentence simply and solely because there is an additional forfeiture which follows in consequence of the position the clergyman is supposed to hold. Let me point out how absolutely absurd it is to limit the operation of the first sub-section by the inclusion of the words "hard labour." The result would be this: There might be a conviction for felony or misdemeanour followed by a sentence of one or two months' imprisonment with hard labour. In that case the Bishop must declare the living vacant, and deprive the clergyman of his cure of souls. But supposing the term of imprisonment is twelve months, if without hard labour the result will not follow at all. Is the House prepared to say that a clergyman sentenced to imprisonment for one month with hard labour is to be deprived ipso facto of his living, and at the same time to say that a clergyman may be imprisoned for any period without hard labour, and not be deprived of his living at all except by the process under Clause 2? There might be some reason for adhering to the words as they are in the clause, if hard labour were always the measure of the seriousness of the offence. But that will not be so. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George), the considerations which weigh with a Judge in deciding whether or not he will impose hard labour are of various kinds; but the most obvious are age and health. Therefore, if on account of advanced years a Judge thinks fit not to impose hard labour in the case of a clergyman, that clergyman would not be touched at all by the provisions of this clause. Then the next most obvious consideration is that of weak health. But is a clergyman who is found guilty of an offence more fitted to hold a cure of souls because he is in weak health than if he were in strong health? I agree it would be a hardship that where there has been a small term of imprisonment for a technical offence, there should be forfeiture of a living. That is to be dealt with by the length of imprisonment, and not by the imposition of hard labour. Viewing this as the most important clause, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment to exclude the words "hard labour," in order later to define the clause by limiting the operation of it to certain lengthened terms of imprisonment.

I should like to know whether the Attorney General has any reasons, additional to those advanced before the Committee, for not accepting this Amendment? It seems to me the Amendment is a very reasonable and moderate one, and one which would very much improve the Bill. I hope he will not consider that in bringing forward this question we are endeavouring in any way to wreck the Bill. I think when we were in Committee the Attorney General told us that if he were defeated on a certain point he would appeal to the House; and that is the position in which my hon. Friends and myself find ourselves. We think the Bill should not have been referred to the Committee on Law at all.

This is a matter which was very fully discussed before the Committee, and therefore I think the House will permit me in two sentences to indicate why I must adhere to the view which I placed before the Grand Committee on Law. The only way in which distinction can be drawn between offences is in the character of the sentence which is inflicted. The second clause is very severe—the living must be declared vacant; but it does not prevent persons taking proceedings under the second clause if they desire to rely upon the crime for the purpose of inducing the Bishop to act. We have carefully considered what is best to guide the minds of Judges in marking their sense of whether a crime is or is not of a serious character, and those who are experienced in Criminal Law will agree with us that there is a distinction in the imposition or non-imposition of hard labour. As we have laid down that dividing line, it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment, which, among its other operations, would include offences in respect of which we think the punishment would be too severe.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division, because I think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly conclusive. I think the distinction between with and without hard labour is a reasonable one. If the clause as it stands is open to any objection at all, it is on the side of being too drastic.

The Amendment I now have to propose, while acknowledging the decision of the House as to the last Amendment, declares that where there has been a term of imprisonment for any considerable time the result which is declared in the first clause of the Bill shall follow. As the argument which applied to some of the earlier Amendments also applies to this, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House. I maintain that where a clergyman has been convicted on indictment for felony or misdemeanour and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding six months, he should no longer be allowed to hold his living. The Attorney General, in reply to the last Amendment, said that the only way to decide as to the gravity of an offence is to look at the sentence imposed by the Court, and I venture to submit that where a Court thinks it necessary to impose as heavy a sentence as six months' imprisonment that clergyman should be declared to be no longer a fit person to minister to the spiritual needs of the parish. If the Amendment is rejected the House will practically declare that a clergyman who has committed an offence and is sentenced to six months' imprisonment is still a fit person to preach to his parishioners.

I cannot conceive that the Attorney General will refuse this Amendment, and I think, too, that it is one the House will approve of. The tendency of all punishments now is that they are made more lenient, and I am glad that is so. In this case there will be a second inducement in the mind of the Judge to make the punishment lenient, because if this Amendment were passed he would know that the clergyman would also have to suffer the deprivation of his living. I cannot conceive that any legal authority would pass sentence of six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour on any clergyman unless the offence was such as, in the mind of any sensible man, to merit forfeiture of the living. Therefore, I hope the Attorney General will accept this Amendment, and so make the clause still more valuable than it at present is.

It is quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment, which revives the principle we decided a few minutes ago. We must adopt one principle or the other, and it seems to me that six months' imprisonment is not a sufficient distinction.

As I understand it, the principle of the clause seems to be that a clergyman who is convicted of a certain offence should be deprived of his living without further trial; and whatever the principle of the Attorney General may be, I am sure that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is quite conformable to the Bill. My hon. Friend proposes that a clergyman who is convicted of a heinous offence and sentenced to six months' imprisonment should be deprived of his living without further trial, and surely the objection the Attorney General raised to my Amendment is not in the slightest degree applicable to this. He pointed out that my Amendment might by some possibility have covered some purely technical offence, but that objection surely would not apply to the Amendment now before the House. The Attorney General has stated that the consequences are so severe that he cannot possibly accept the Amendment. But what are the consequences? The consequences are that the clergyman should be deprived of the preferment he holds at the time of the conviction, but there is power under Section 4 to promote him to another preferment, and that is the only consequence. I quite agree that if the inevitable result of this Amendment were to deprive the clergyman for the whole of his life of not merely the preferment he holds at the time of conviction, but of all possible chance of being promoted to another, that would be a consequence of so thorough and drastic a character that my hon. Friend would not be justified in moving such an Amendment. But when you give the Archbishop, in a subsequent section, the power of promoting to another preferment, I do not see what possible ground of complaint the Attorney General can have that our Amendments are of too sweeping a character.

With reference to what the Attorney General has already said, I should like to point out that this is not a Clergy Evidence Bill, but that it is a Church Immorality Bill. It is a Bill to protect the interests of parishioners, and any Member of the House must see that a clergyman who has been convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment is not fitted to exercise over a parish the necessary moral force.

The first part of the Amendment which stands in my name is to the effect that a clergyman twice convicted within two years of an offence against the 12th or 18th sections of "The Licensing Act, 1872," shall lose his preferment. Sections 12 and 18 of the Act provide such penalties for drunkenness as show that it was regarded by Parliament as an offence of a serious character. To meet the scruples of hon. Members on the other side of the House, I propose to confine the operations of this Amendment entirely to cases which arise under the 18th Section of the Intoxicating Liquors Act. As the words of that section contain considerable verbiage, I may summarise two or three of the offences. The first offence is that of being drunk in a public highway or public building. And I may here explain that mere drunkenness in his own house would not bring a man within the meaning of the section. In order to make a clergyman liable to conviction his drunkenness must be in a public place, where he is liable to be seen by his parishioners and scandal created in consequence. A second offence under the section is one where a person is not only drunk and disorderly upon licensed premises, but absolutely refuses at the request of the licensee to quit. Under those circumstances the Act contemplates an offence of so heinous a character that the offender may be imprisoned with hard labour. Now, I think it is very fair and rational that when a clergyman, who has a spiritual charge, is guilty of an offence of so serious a character for the first time he should be deprived of his living. Our proposal, however, with regard to this Amendment is a moderate one—namely, that if a clergyman is convicted twice within two years of drunkenness he shall be deprived ipso facto of his preferment. That is an Amendment of such a character that I cannot for a moment see what reason the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General can have for opposing it in any shape or form, and I hope the House will vote in its favour.

I am afraid it is not much good to make an appeal to the hon. Members opposite, but I would point out to the House that although there are questions raised in this Bill which might be discussed, yet it is practically impossible to do so if we are to have all manner of reiterated Amendments on the same points. The hon. Member's Amendment deals with a certain offence which can be punished by summary conviction. I can pick out a large number of other offences which might be made the subject of discussion on similar grounds to this. The House has already decided that this Bill must be confined to offences that are indictable and punishable with hard labour, but the hon. Member proposes to argue this question again by fixing upon one breach of the Licensing Laws. Then with regard to bankruptcy—

I have not moved that part of the Amendment yet.

I understand that Mr. Speaker has put the Amendment as a whole. Well, I would point out with regard to bankruptcy that it introduces a civil question which is outside the purview of this Bill. I ask hon. Members to deal with the House fairly and not to argue the same questions over and over again. We must adhere to those offences which cannot be dealt with by summary conviction, and I ask the House to reject this Amendment.

I wish to endorse the appeal of the Attorney General, although at the same time I do not think the Government have much right to complain of the action of certain hon. Members owing to the way in which this Bill has been conducted. We are now on the eve of the Whitsuntide holiday, and there are ten pages of Amendments down for discussion. It is impossible that these can be got through in the time remaining at our disposal without resort to what I may call Parliamentary violence, which I for one should like to see avoided. I would respectfully submit to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that they should at this point determine upon and announce their decision to confine their observations to a select number of Amendments. Some of the Amendments on the Paper are of considerable importance, and I would point out that if they go on discussing all the Amendments they have put down, the inevitable result will be that the more important ones will not be reached at all. I wish to point out that I have never joined in the attacks which have been made upon the motives of my hon. Friends. I have always resented those insinuations; and if an unworthy spirit has been imported into the discussion on this matter, I for one trace it, in part at least, to the indiscreet zeal of some of the supporters of the Bill on the other side.

Order, order! I have permitted the hon. Member to make an appeal in the interest of the House, but he must confine himself to that.

I will only again, Mr. Speaker, respectfully urge my hon. Friends to now take a new departure and limit their observations to the really important Amendments, and allow the Bill to proceed through the House as speedily as possible.

We have no complaint to make of the spirit of the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to us. But I think we have not taken up much of the time of the House. Each Amendment has been briefly discussed, and one has been withdrawn at the request of an hon. Member on this side. I consider that the Amendments we have divided upon, and especially the one now under discussion, are very important. I was surprised to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General refused to accept this Amendment in Grand Committee, and I cannot understand why he cannot now do so, particularly the first part of it. His refusal to accept it appears to me to be an excellent proof of the want of genuineness on the part of the Government and the promoters of this Bill. It is ridiculous to say that drunkenness on the part of a clergyman is not a serious offence. I believe that it is a more heinous offence, spiritual and moral, than that of treason. Nowadays, talking treason and encouraging others to act it seems to have become a part of the Conservative policy.

Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.

I am sorry to have transgressed, Sir, but I am trying to point out that drunkenness is a more heinous offence in many circumstances than are some of those which are included in the first clause of the Bill. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George) has withdrawn everything objectionable from his original Amendment, and I venture to say that as it now stands—simply providing that if a clergyman is convicted twice of drunkenness within two years he shall lose his preferment—it is one that the vast majority of the people will approve of.

I am not going to occupy the time of the House at any length, but I must say that it seems to me impossible not to proceed with this Amendment, otherwise we shall be entirely false to our convictions on this point. I can assure the House that we do not regard this matter as one of minor importance, and I venture to put before hon. Members a new phase with regard to the first part of the Amendment—that is, the danger there is of clergymen setting an example of drunkenness. No one would be likely to become a thief or guilty of several other criminal offences because the clergyman of the parish committed such acts. The force of example in matters of this kind is not considerable; but if, after a clergyman has been convicted twice within two years of drunkenness, he is still allowed to enjoy his living, it would perpetrate scandal in the Church and have an injurious effect upon his parishioners. So much upon the first part of the Amendment. As the other part of it has also been put from the Chair, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-Morgan) is prevented from saying anything upon it, I will now proceed to do so. I venture to think it will be sufficient for us to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law as it now stands with reference to offences of this kind. It is not a mere adjudication of bankruptcy that renders the living vacant; it must be a bankruptcy which is not annulled within twelve months. Further, if the bankruptcy has been improperly obtained, or if the clergyman against whom the adjudication is made shall pay two shillings in the pound within two months, or if within twelve months he should receive his discharge and a certificate that the bankruptcy was caused by misfortune and not by his own fault, then the living is not vacated. I think that is acting with all possible leniency, and I do not think it is too much to say that a clergyman who has been living recklessly, who has been living on his creditors and whose bankruptcy is caused by misconduct, should not be allowed to hold his living any longer. The Bankruptcy Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) provides that such a bankruptcy shall disqualify from sitting and voting in the House of Lords, from being elected to the House of Commons, from acting as a Justice of the Peace, from holding the office of Mayor, Alderman or Councillor, or from exercising the office of Guardian of the Poor, Overseer, member of a Sanitary Authority or School Board, Highway Board or Select Vestry. Is the House of Commons going to say that what is a disqualification from these comparatively unimportant and minor offices is not a disqualification for a clergyman? I venture to contend that, where a bankruptcy is brought about by misconduct and not by misfortune, a clergyman should be placed under a like disqualification. "While the members of the Board of Guardians and of the School Board have only to deal with the temporal necessities of the people, the clergyman has charge of their spiritual welfare. I think the Amendment in both its parts is absolutely reasonable. We do not wilfully refuse to listen to appeals which have been made on this side of the House, but we regard these matters of such importance that we must ask the House to pronounce judgment upon them.

Both sub-heads have reference to the same subject, and must be taken together.

The second sub-head is as follows:—

"(g) A clergyman is found in a divorce or matrimonial cause to have deserted his wife or family for a period of twelve months, or to have been guilty of cruelty towards his wife or family."

In another place the Government accepted an Amendment of mine to the effect that a clergyman who was found guilty of an assault so aggravated as to result in a judicial separation at the hands of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should be no longer entitled to hold preferment. I think this Amendment touches an equally serious offence, and I think that a clergyman who deserts and refuses to maintain his wife and family is guilty of at least as great an offence as a clergyman who on one occasion inflicts such a serious blow as to constitute an aggravated assault. The House should remember what has to be proved. It must be proved that the desertion is wilful, and that he neglects to maintain his wife and family when he has the means to do so. I think that would amount to absolute cruelty. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, I think it will be admitted that a clergyman who is found guilty of such conduct is not fit to go into the pulpit.

With regard to the first branch of the Amendment, the hon. Member seems to have forgotten what would be the result. Under the present law an order would be made on the clergyman to pay to his deserted wife a sum not exceeding £2 a week, and the only means probably whereby he could make these payments would be taken away from him if he were deprived of his living. Therefore that branch of the Amendment would be absolutely devoid of beneficial effect. There is absolutely no need for the second branch of the Amendment, because there is no proceeding, or no finding, or no verdict, whereby a clergyman could be found guilty of cruelty unless an order for judicial separation had been made. That part of the Amendment is absolutely futile.

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division, because it is on similar lines to one which has already been decided.

Does the hon. Member press the Amendment?

No, Sir.

The next Amendment which stands in my name has been described as a very important Amendment, but, in my opinion, it is not of so much practical importance as some other Amendments which have been proposed. It involves, however, theoretical and theological considerations, and there is also the point of view of the Bishop himself, who may refuse to carry out the sentence of the Court. Now, if a clergyman is found guilty of treason or felony, under the Act of 1870 his living is ipso facto vacated without anything being done by the Bishop or the Archbishop. That is changed by this Bill, and I have heard no reasons to show that it is advisable to repeal the legislation of 1870. In another place the Archbishop of Canterbury, in introducing this measure, said the Bill did not repeal the Act of 1870, but it was pointed out at that time, and the Bill is now in the same condition, that there is, at all events, an implied repeal of the provisions of the Act of 1870. I do not know whether the Attorney General is prepared to support the view taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The right rev. Prelate said that they were making no change in the law, because the first clause provides that in certain events the living shall be declared vacant in precisely the same manner as under the Act of 1870. I should like to ask if the Attorney General agrees with that statement of the law. It is my opinion that the law is changed by this Bill. The whole tendency of legislation on this subject since the Reformation down to the Act of 1870 has been to secure that a living should be declared vacant without any action on the part of the Bishop. This clause in the Bill has given rise to more discussion outside than any other clause, and I think I am justified in saying that the laity of the Church of England object entirely to the provision that it should be necessary for the Bishop to take any action. It is regarded as an act of clerical aggression and a retrograde step. It is said that in this matter the Bishop would act in two capacities, as the officer of the State and the officer of the Church; and also that as the Bishop is the only person who can institute a clergyman, he should be the only person who can deprive a clergyman of his living. I will not now argue the question of what would take place if a Bishop refused to carry out the provisions of the Bill, but I say that the Bishop is not the only person who can institute a clergyman. That can be done by the vicar-general or ordinary of the diocese. The Bishop does no doubt place his hands on the head of the clergyman, but he does not necessarily institute. Then, with respect to the carrying out of this Bill, I desire that there should be no difficulty or friction, or any danger of a refusal on the part of a Bishop to act. Some people may say that the Bishop would not refuse to act, but some Bishops might refuse, and the result would be that, so far as their dioceses were concerned, the Act would be entirely nullified. I have the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) for assuming that there might be an indiscreet Bishop in a diocese. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in 1874, said that we had twenty-seven or twenty-eight Bishops and Archbishops, and in discussing the question of the discretion of those Bishops, he mentioned that in a Cabinet of sixteen Members there might be one Member who was indiscreet. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of some personal experience in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman thought that out of twenty-seven Bishops it was a fair allowance that twenty-six were discreet; but that there might be some indiscretion on the part of the twenty-seventh — that there might be some Bishop who was fond of power, fond of meddling, or who did not combine discretion with courage. But it is not simply whether Bishops will be discreet, but we have it on the authority of one of the greatest ornaments that ever adorned the Episcopal Bench that Bishops will be right in certain circumstances in refusing to carry out the law and make the declaration I am now discussing. In the Bill of last year there was no declaration required from the Bishop, and two Archbishops have argued against the present proposal. One of them — Archbishop Magee—said that he resented the idea of being ordered to come into Court as the executioner or crier of the Court to proclaim a judgment he might differ from. Therefore I am not assuming too much when I say that it is possible, even probable, that Bishops and Archbishops may refuse to carry the law into effect. I object to the retention of the words "be declared by the Bishop to be," and I ask the House to say that the provision in previous Bills is the proper one—namely, that the living shall be ipso facto vacant on conviction. I object to their retention because they are against the whole policy of legislation in matters ecclesiastical, from the Reformation down to 1870—because they are an act of clerical aggression, and because they will create a difficulty in carrying out the Act.

The Attorney General knows that objection to these words is not alone among those who dislike legislation of this kind, but that among the zealous laity of the Church itself there is a great difference on the point. In previous Bills there has been no provision of this character, and my hon. Friend has conclusively shown that it will completely change and reverse the law. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain the change of attitude on the part of the Government. This is a very important matter, and the proposal is a new one and one which is looked upon not only with suspicion, but with very great dislike, not only by those who are not members of the Church of England, but by those, who are zealous in her cause.

I am sure that hon. Members must admit that every Amendment which has been moved from this side has been calculated to strengthen the Bill and make it more effective, though at the same time it might make the Bill too drastic. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), who ably argued the case for this Amendment in Committee, is not here to speak upon it. It is perfectly clear that the adoption of the Amendment would simplify the working of the Bill, because if a clergyman were found guilty by a Civil Court of any of the offences in Clause 1, from that day he would be incapable of holding the living, and it would be vacant. It is an unnecessary waste of time to call in the Bishop at all in the matter. I cannot help feeling that the Government are opposing this Amendment for a reason given in the Grand Committee with reference to another Amendment—that it could not be accepted because it would be against an understanding, something in the nature of a compromise, which had been made in another place. As a Member of the House of Commons, I protest against our being bound by a compromise the Government have made in another place with the Bishops. I hope the Government will repudiate the charge that any part of the Bill is being retained in the face of argument because of a compromise in the House of Lords.

This Amendment raises a very large question, and deals with a proposal never made in any legislation previously before Parliament. It proposes that when a clergyman has been found guilty of certain offences the Bishop shall, without further trial, declare the living vacant. I understand that the Bishop is to have no discretion; then why import him into the Bill? It would be more reasonable and more consistent with the dignity of the Episcopal Bench that the living should become vacant without the intervention of the Bishop at all. Something has been said about depriving a clergyman of his spiritual functions as the reason for the interference of the Bishop. Last year this argument did not strike the Government, as there was no such provision in the previous Bill. Does the House contemplate what the result would be if a Bishop conscientiously objected to carrying out the order of the Court? I can understand circumstances in which he might conscientiously object to the verdict of the Court being enforced. Supposing that a clergyman is prosecuted for a criminal offence, which would be of public notoriety. Persons who are not in the Court, but who read the papers, are apt to come to a different conclusion from those who hear the case and see the witnesses. Suppose that the Bishop comes to a different conclusion from the jury, and forms the opinion that the clergyman is not guilty of the offence, is it proposed under those circumstances to compel him to declare the living vacant? If the Bishop refuse, and the Archbishop also, you are to issue a mandamus, and if he refuse to obey then you issue a writ of attachment and imprison him for refusing to do that which he has a conscientious objection to do. I think it would be well, if the Government cannot accept this Amendment, that they should accept the one I have down later, giving the Bishop a discretion.

I will indicate why I cannot accept the Amendment. A clergyman receives from the Bishop, from the ecclesiastical authority, his spiritual functions, and we consider it a right and proper recognition of that position that conviction for a crime should be followed by the Bishop himself declaring that no longer is the clergyman a fit person to carry out these spiritual functions. Another ground is that there must he kept a proper record. If the conviction is made by a Civil Court in some Assize town there would be no record, but there would be a record in the documents kept by the Bishop who acts in the case. We do not consider that this is merely a sentimental feeling, but that it is right that by the authority from which he has received his power and right to perform spiritual functions, that power and light should be taken away. The hon. Member asked me to say that this was not the result of a bargain in the House of Lords. It is not the result of a bargain in the House of Lords, and I have never consciously made reference to any such supposed bargain. I regard this as an important matter, entirely consistent with the spirit of the principle and practice of previous legislation.

The only reason for the proposal in the Bill is the suggestion that, as spiritual functions are conferred by the Bishop, the clergyman shall also be deprived of those functions by the Bishop. But he should have a discretion. As a matter of fact, this does not deal with spiritual functions at all; it simply says that the Bishop shall declare the living vacant. On a conviction deprivation must follow; the words are that the Bishop shall declare the living vacant, and I feel very strongly that that is not desirable. The admitted reason why this proposal is retained is that among certain of the High Church party there is strong objection to a Civil Court interfering in spiritual matters, and this is introduced into the Bill as a sort of sop to the High Church party, a sort of make-believe. It appears to give the Bishop a discretion which he does not really possess, for if the Bishop does not declare the living vacant, the Archbishop is called upon to do so, and in the event of his refusing it is provided that a mandamus shall issue, and that on further refusal he shall be sent to gaol. The position is so absurd that I shall support the Amendment.

May I point out to my hon. and learned Friend that it is wholly unnecessary and would be meaningless to insert such an Amendment as this. The validity of such marriage in no way depends upon the date when the preferment was held to be vacant. It depends upon the question of the status of the clergyman at the time when the marriage ceremony was performed. It would be simply meaningless to insert these words.

I may say that I framed the Amendment in the way in which it stands on the Paper owing to the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) when I proposed something of this kind. My view is that the living should be vacant as from the date of the sentence. If the learned Attorney General is of the same view as myself upon that point, I should not move more than the first three lines of my Amendment. In other words, I should omit from the word "but" in the third line to the end. But the first part of the Amendment obviously is of a substantial character. This is not an Amendment which was moved in the Select Committee. Similar words were moved and negatived in another place. I have to admit that perhaps that Amendment which was moved and negatived went a little too far. I did propose that the living should be vacant as from the commission of the offence. Much might be said in favour of a proposal of that kind; but there would be a difficulty very often in working it, because it would be difficult to know when the commission of the offence actually occurred. I propose that the date should be the commencement of the proceedings in which such—

"Conviction, order, or finding shall have been pronounced, made, or found."

That is a date which can be easily ascertained; it is a date which is absolutely fixed. The doctrine "of relation back" is one which is very well-known in law; as, for instance, the voidance of settlements under the Bankruptcy Law, and so on; and there would be no difficulty in the operation of the Clause.

I really find it difficult to treat this matter seriously. It is not a fact that it is the commission of the offence that renders the living vacant; it is the conviction, because a man is presumed to be innocent until he is convicted. What I want to know is what has the date of the issue of a writ to do with it? The hon. and learned Member must forgive me if I cannot occupy the time of the House by dealing with such arguments when there are far more important matters to be dealt with.

I think the Amendment is not of so trivial and unimportant a character as the learned Attorney General has contended. It is a matter of some importance. However, I think the matter is not worth dividing the House upon, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

I beg to move—

In page 1, line 24, after "Crown," insert "accompanied by a certificate signed by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State to the effect that such pardon was granted on the ground of the discovery, since conviction, of fresh evidence exculpating him."

I venture to think this Amendment is of a substantial character. I want to cover the case where the pardon of the Crown is attributable to something besides the discovery of evidence exculpating a clergyman. Suppose the case of where a clergyman is charged with some conspiracy. After the sentence of the Court is passed upon him he turns Queen's evidence, and he is prepared to give evidence against an accomplice, and the pardon of the Crown is extended to him. Does my hon. Friend the Attorney General really contend that in such a case as that the clergyman should be reinstated in his preferment? If so, I say it is simply scandalous; and I challenge the learned Attorney General to point to any word in this Bill as it stands which provides for a case of that character. That is the construction I place upon that sub-section. Take the case of a clergyman who was of a weak mind at the date when the offence was committed, and was not, therefore, responsible for his acts, and the pardon of the Crown was extended to him. That is a case which occurs frequently with regard to persons charged with criminal offences. Of course, if the weakness of mind was of a permanent character, there would be no likelihood of the clergyman being reinstated; but suppose it was simply a temporary lapse of intellect, and the Home Secretary discovered, on evidence produced before him, that at the date of the commission of the offence the man was under some sort of hallucination which impelled him irresistibly to commit a felony, or treason, or misdemeanour, does the hon. and learned Gentleman really contend that under circumstances of that character a clergyman should be reinstated in his preferment? To provide against such cases I propose that there must be a certificate of the Home Secretary or of some Secretary of State when the prerogative of the Crown is exercised, stating that it was due to the discovery of evidence which exculpates the incriminated clerk. This would violate no principle, and I do not see why it should not be done. As a matter of fact, the Crown does not interfere at all. We all know very well that it is simply the Home Secretary who sits as a sort of criminal appeal, and investigates such documentary and other evidence as is laid before him, and he comes to the conclusion, say, that owing to the Court not having the full evidence before it, it came to a wrong conclusion. What is there in that state of things to prevent the Home Secretary from stating, in the document announcing his decision and the pardon of the Crown, the grounds on which he arrived at that conclusion? I simply give the Home Secretary the same power, sitting as a Court of Appeal, as if he were sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal de jure.

I really did hope that after the explanation that was given in the Grand Committee the hon. and learned Member would not again raise this matter. I must again point out to him that the prerogative of pardon is granted upon the responsibility of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, and that it would be contrary not only to the practice, but to the whole principle on which the power is granted, that any reason should be stated at all. It would be utterly impossible to state the reasons, and it would introduce into our executive a principle that would be highly dangerous. It would be contrary to everything connected with the exercise of that prerogative; there may be reasons why a pardon should be granted quite independently of the discovery of fresh evidence exculpating a clergyman. The course suggested by the hon. Member would be highly dangerous; it could do no good, and would be contrary to the usual practice governing the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown.

I venture to point out to the learned Attorney General that we do not suggest that there should be such an alteration as he seems to anticipate. We do not say that in every case the Home Secretary should say what were the grounds on which the prerogative of the Crown was granted. We say that where the prerogative is exercised and pardon is granted on the discovery, after conviction of fresh evidence exculpating a clergyman, the Secretary of State shall give a certificate to that effect. I see no difficulty in carrying that out. There may be a Secretary of State who may transgress the rules of the high position he holds. If that be so, it would be within the powers of a Secretary of State, without any sufficient ground, through the influence of some person of high rank, for instance, to give a pardon, without giving any reason for it.

I do not press this Amendment.

I think the next Amendment standing in my name is one which will commend itself to the general sense of the House. I propose to leave out the word "shall," in order to insert "may." As the Bill stands at the present moment, the Government propose to compel a Bishop to re-institute a clergyman whenever the mercy of the Crown is extended to him. I can conceive several cases in which a Bishop would not consider it in the interests of the parishioners to re-institute such a man. After all, we must not forget that this Bill is not intended to protect the parsons, or even to punish them, but it is proposed to purify the Church to the greatest possible extent; and, as was said by the Leader of the House, it is brought forward in the interests of the parishioners and not of the clergyman. It is in the spirit of that declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury that I propose this Amendment. Take a case which I mentioned before, and which the Attorney General did not dispose of. Take the case of a clergyman who gets a free pardon on the ground that he was of weak mind at the date of the offence. Would you compel the Bishop to re-institute that clergyman, without any option whatever? My Amendment gives the Bishop a discretion.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is going over arguments which have been repeatedly used to-night. I must caution him against repeating himself or the arguments of other Members. This I have power to do under the Standing Orders.

I am very sorry if I have in any sense transgressed the Rules of the House. I can assure you, Sir, that I have done so unwittingly. I do not think any of my hon. Friends in my hearing has ever used this argument—that the effect of this clause as it stands is that if the Bishop refuses to re-institute for some reason, a mandamus will be issued against him to re-institute. Is that a desirable state of things? Is it not well that the Bishops, who are chosen because they are considered to be men of discretion., common sense, great ability, and influence in the Church, may be safely trusted to administer the law and to have a discretion to re-institute if they think there are circumstances which would justify that refusal?

I cannot understand why Churchmen, at any rate, cannot accept this Amendment. I am not quite sure if my hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, is quite consistently showing that unbending Liberationist sentiment attributed to him by his opponents. It is a very remarkable provision to be proposed by the Bishops and to be supported by the friends of Episcopacy—namely, that power should be given to the Home Secretary to override the decision or desire of the Bishops with regard to this question. If Churchmen fully realised that in this matter the Bishop is to be completely set aside in favour of the Home Secretary they would vote against that provision of a Bill which they have hitherto so faithfully and consistently supported. I hope the Attorney General will see that the provision in the Bill is really too drastic. I hope that the Attorney General will be able to accept this Amendment. It would operate, it seems to me, not only in the interests of the Bishop and the parishioners, but ultimately also in that of the clergyman himself. It would be very wrong, in my opinion, for a clergyman who has been convicted of a serious offence to be thrust again, by the mere word of the Home Secretary, upon unwilling parishioners, and against the wishes and decision of the Bishop of the diocese.