I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has any information with regard to the alleged intended legislation by the New South Wales Government for the issue of inconvertible paper money in the shape of bank notes based on other security than coin; and whether the said notes are to have a forced circulation as legal tender for debts in the Colony?

We have no information, except that which has been recently reported from time to time in the Press.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount annually paid from public sources in the United Kingdom for pensions and superannuation allowances, distinguishing between payments by or on behalf of the various Departments of the Government and payments by Local Authorities, and the estimated number of persons so pensioned?

I have no information as to the amount paid for pensions by Local Authorities. As regards pensions paid from Public Funds, I may say that a Return ordered on a Return of the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of South-West Lancashire is now in preparation, which will give complete information on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in spite of the Railway Companies' statement that they were revising their rates so that the increase should in no case exceed 5 per cent., the rates on potatoes from Cockburnspath to Dunbar, a distance of seven and a-half miles, has been raised from 1s. 8d. per ton to 2s. 11d. per ton, or 75 per cent.; whether he is aware that the farmers in that district depend chiefly on their potatoes to pay their rent, and that this increases of rates equals 10s. per acre increase in their rents; whether he is aware that the Railway Companies give preferential rates to foreign potato growers; and whether, considering the disastrous results of these two factors, he can see his way to enforce a return to the old rates, and to prevent the Railway Companies giving any preference to foreign as against the Scottish grower?

I am informed that the rate of 2s. 11d. per ton for the carriage of potatoes from Cockburnspath to Dunbar has been reduced to 2s. 6d. The company assure me that they do not give preferential rates to foreign potato growers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to his declaration a few weeks before Easter, that if the Railway Companies did not arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with the traders before Easter, he would take prompt and stringent measures against them, and to the disastrous effects upon trade of the present increases, he can see his way to bring in some measure or take some more effective step than the appointment of a Committee to prevent the charging of any increase over the old rate until the new Schedules have been arranged and approved of?

I think it is better that the subject should be considered by the Committee of the House, and that any action which it may be hereafter necessary to take should be taken on their recommendation and Report.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the matter of lighting, warming, cleaning, ventilating, and office accommodation, the increased requirements of Schedule VII. are being insisted upon in schools where the arrangements in these respects have been hitherto passed by the Department?

I assume that reference is made to the Circular to Inspectors, which asks for information as to the condition of school buildings and apparatus. If the Department admitted that because school buildings were once approved by it they might, therefore, remain in the same condition for the rest of time, it would cut at the root of all progress in improving the surroundings of the children so as to make them as healthy as possible. We do not admit this, and intend to bring the condition of our schools, in matters of lighting, ventilation, furniture, office accommodation, and the like, up to the standard of modern requirements within a reasonable limit of time.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty failed to go to the fever-stricken township of Cromore, when on his recent professional visit to the Island of Lewis; and whether steps will be taken forthwith to ascertain the condition of health and sanitary matters in that and other remote townships in the island?

In reply to the hon. Member I find that on his recent visit to the Lews the Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty went as far as Keose intending to visit Cromore, but, learning from the District Medical Officer that the outbreak of fever had ceased, did not consider it necessary to proceed further. I may add that the District Medical Officer made regular visits and Reports, and that the County Sanitary Inspector also visited Cromore and reported to the District Committee, and I accordingly see no cause for any special inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in order to enable this House to form a correct judgment of the progress, if any, in the condition of India, he will give to the House information about the condition of India in past years to compare with the present condition: and whether for that purpose he will reconsider his decision, and lay before Parliament the Note of Sir David Barbour upon which Lord Cromer, as Finance Minister, based a statement, and also another similar one to date?

A Report, on the Moral and Material Progress of India is annually given to Parliament; and the Report, which is now in course of preparation, will, according to custom, contain a review of the last 10 years. For the reasons given on the 27th April, the Secretary of State is unable to lay on the Table the confidential Note to which my hon. Friend refers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Lord Lytton's Note, being specifically referred to in the Despatch of the Government of India dated 2nd May, 1878, [C. 2376] of 1879, and being therefore necessary to be also returned, in order to understand fully the significance of paragraph 14 of the Despatch, the Secretary of State for India will reconsider his decision, obtain a copy from the Government of India, and lay it before Parliament?

In reply to my hon. Friend's question, which is really a repetition of that which he put to me on the 27th April, I am afraid I can add nothing to what I said on that occasion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 15th April a gang of moonlighters entered the house of a farmer named Quirke, near Barnagh, County Limerick, and beat him severely, and that they then went to the house of his son and shot him and his brother in the legs: that on Sunday the 16th a gang of moonlighters fired into the house of Mrs. O'Brien, of Templeglantine, in the same county, the fire being returned by the inmates; and that on Wednesday the 19th a gang of moonlighters visited the house of Dame Brenahan, at Knocktoosh, Drumcolloghcr, in the same county, fired into it, and then broke in, injuring Brenahan severely; whether anyone has been made amenable for these offences; and if he can state how many cases of moonlighting, agrarian and non-agrarian, have taken place in County Limerick from 22nd August 1892 to 30th April 1893, and how many took place in the corresponding period from 22nd August 1891 to 30th" April 1892?

The statements in the first paragraph of the question are, in the main, correct. The case of firing into the dwelling of Mrs. Breen not O'Brien, occurred on April 10th. No person has been made amenable up to the present for these outrages; and though it is strongly suspected that some of the injured persons are in a position to identify their assailants, yet they refuse to give the police any assistance. The number of moonlighting outrages committed in Limerick between August 22, 1892, and April 30 is 17, of which nine were agrarian and eight non-agrarian. In the corresponding months of 1891–2 there was one case of moonlighting in the county. It was recorded agrarian. During the period August 22, 1890, to April 30, 1891, the number of such outrages was six, all non-agrarian.

Is it not a fact there have been 15 cases of outrage in the neighbourhood of Newcastle West during the last few months?

There have been a number of cases.

In view of the recrudesence of outrage in the district, may I ask if the Government are taking adequate steps to cope with disorder and lawlessness?

Yes; every step that can be taken is being taken to suppress disorder.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the regulations with regard to the supply of refrigerated meat to the troops at home stations; what proportion of the whole supply at any station during the year may consist of such meat; whether he can state the average cost per pound during last year of home-fed and refrigerated meat respectively; and what were the respective quantities of each supplied to the troops?

Refrigerated beef is accepted during the period from the 1st of October to the 31st of May for the troops at home stations; frozen mutton during the whole year. The quality must be the same as in the case of home-killed meat. During the period referred to, the refrigerated beef and frozen mutton together may amount to 60 per cent. of the total issue. The average cost of refrigerated beef and home-killed meat respectively cannot be stated, as separate contracts are not made. The quantities of each are not known. Refrigerated meat is not issued at all stations; and where it is issued it must be within the limit already stated—namely, 60 per cent.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the only Naval chaplain provided for Roman Catholics in the Mediterranean Fleet is a Maltese with a very limited knowledge of English; and whether it is intended to make more adequate provision in this respect?

The Roman Catholic chaplain appointed to minister to the men of the Fleet at Malta is a Maltese, but there is no ground for the allegation that he has only a very limited knowledge of English. The Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station had personal communication with this gentleman prior to his appointment, and satisfied himself that, in respect of fluency and familiarity with the English language, he was sufficiently qualified for the post of Naval chaplain at Malta. It is not proposed to make any change in the appointment at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on Lord Templemore's estate have refused to pay their rents; whether the amount, less 25 per cent., has been lodged in the hands of trustees, and if there is any truth in the report in the newspapers that a contribution of 6d. in the pound has been levied on the Poor Law Valuations as a fighting fund; and if the police authorities have made any report concerning this revival of the Plan of Campaign?

Arising out of the question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the tenants had more than once denied that they had any intention of entering into the Plan of Campaign?

I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member opposite, because there appears to be foundation for the statements contained in the hon. Member's question. The police have made full reports regarding the operations on this estate—whaterer is the proper name to give those operations —and I will keep the matter under close observation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the answer given by his Predecessor in Office on the 31st May last, respecting the case of P. Barry, leading stoker of H.M.S. Hibernia, who was shot dead by a Maltese at Malta on the 4th February 1892, whether anyone was made amenable in connection with this crime; and whether any provision will be made for the widow and orphans of the deceased?

Since the reply referred to was given by the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire, the following Report has been received through our Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean:—

"I am directed to state for the information of Sir George Tryon that the Crown Advocate has reported that no evidence in the matter sufficient to support an indictment was produced at the magisterial inquiry; that, therefore, no steps could be taken to initiate any prosecution of the individual concerned."

As Barry was on leave at the time of his death, our Regulations do not admit of any provision being made for his willow and children.

In the absence of the hon. Member for SouthEast Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the inquiries recently held respecting the mackerel and herring fisheries off the south coast of Ireland has been made and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, will the Local Authorities at Kinsale be supplied with copies of such Report?

The Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries respecting the herring and mackerel fisheries at Kinsale has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant. The recommendations contained in the Report are under consideration; but, inasmuch as the carrying out of these recommendations would involve legislation, and as the points at issue have reference to the early season, which has almost passed over, no object would, I am advised, be gained by communicating the Report to the Local Authorities.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received from Dominica a letter, dated 17th April, 1893, signed by Messrs. Davies, Pemberton, Bellot, and others, giving a detailed statement of the occurences at that island when the peasantry were fired upon by a force of police from Antigua and seamen from H.M.S. Mohawk, in the presence of the Governor, Sir W. H. Smith, and four men killed and two women wounded; and whether steps will be taken to make a full and independent inquiry into the circumstances, and also into the present system of administration in the West Indies?

The Secretary of State has received a letter from the person named, and also a full Report from the Governor of the Colony respecting the lamentable occurrence in Dominica referred to in the question. The full Despatches have only just been received, and there has not been time to examine them sufficiently to enable a decision to be come to on the question of whether a furl her inquiry is necessary; but the matter will certainly receive the most anxious consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is the case that fanners' clubs, agricultural societies, and other similar bodies can now be supplied with the publications of the Board at cheap rates for gratuitous distribution to their members?

I am glad to say that the Treasury have authorised the Board of Agriculture to supply Chambers of Agriculture, Agricultural Societies, Farmers' Clubs, Village Institutes, and other similar bodies, with certain of our Departmental Publications at half price, provided that not less than 20 copies are taken, and that they are intended for gratuitous distribution to members. I propose to issue a Circular Letter to the institutions concerned in the course of a few days, and I hope that the arrangement will result in a much wider dissemination than at present of the publications in question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the directions on the ship rocket apparatus are only in English and French; and, if this be the case, whether he will provide for the inclusion of directions in German and Spanish?

The directions are only in English and French. The question of adding directions in other languages has boon considered, and experimental tally boards have been made; but the Board of Trade were advised that the necessary addition to the size of the tally board would more than counterbalance the advantage, as the board has to be hauled through the sea and has to meet with all kinds of obstructions from rocks, wreckage, &c. Germans and Spaniards are not the only foreign seamen besides French wrecked upon the coast of Great Britain.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the information supplied by the Fourteenth Report of the Scotch Prison Commissioners in regard to over-crowding in Scotch prisons, he will grant a Return showing the number of prisoners in the 11 largest. Scotch prisons for each week, from 1st April, 1891, to 31st March, 1893?

If the hon. Member will put his question to me again on an early day next week I shall be in a position to answer him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are a number of places of public religious worship, certified as such and exempted by statute from liability to rates, the trust deeds of which are not enrolled in Chancery; and whether there are any means whereby such trust deeds may be inspected by the public or by members of the congregation using such places of worship; and, if not, whether the Government will take into their consideration the expediency of providing the public with an opportunity of inspecting such trust deeds at, reasonable hours?

By Section 7 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, enrolment is not necessary, but optional with the trustees, in the case of assurances of land for religious purposes of the class there described. No doubt a considerable number of places of worship come within this exemption. How many it is impossible to say. I am not aware of any means by which the inspection of deeds not enrolled can be compelled, nor does it appear to me to be either practicable or expedient that such inspection shall be made compulsory.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a Circular issued by the National Education Association, urging parents to demand free education, and stating that parents whose children are paying no fee in their present standard may demand a free school if fees are charged in the higher standards; the school must be free from top to bottom, or the Department will not recognise it as a free school; whether, under the Act of 1891, parents are entitled to anything more than free education for their own children; and whether, as a matter of fact, it is the practice of the Department upon a single such demand to insist upon the provision of a school "free from top to bottom"?

My attention has not been called to this Circular till now. I am afraid the noble Lord has misunderstood the meaning of the words "from top to bottom." You can have a school free from top to bottom for a single child, and that is evidently what is meant. It is most necessary to insist on this, for the Department have actually had cases before them in which managers have practically said to a parent—"There are free places in this school, but only in the first standard. The child can have free education, but as long as you do not pay fees the child shall stay in the first standard." This is a mere evasion of the Act, hence the need for insisting on freedom from top to bottom.

In the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Bristol, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen the official Report of Super intendent Elliott, Chief of the Hull Police Fire Brigade, respecting the recent fire at the Citadel Estate in that city; and, if so, whether he will communicate to the House the purport of the information therein contained; and whether he is aware that a man has recently died in the workhouse at Duffield in consequence of alleged ill-treatment at the hands of the pickets in Hull?

I have seen Superintendent Elliott's Report in the newspapers, but it is a Report made to the Corporation, and I have no official knowledge of it, nor do I see any reason why it should be communicated. I have no knowledge as to the allegations in the second paragraph, but I have sent to the Chief Constable asking for information.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ascertained that the Railway Directors, being paid servants of the companies, are eligible to serve on the Committee on Railway Rates?

I am not aware of any reason why Railway Directors should not serve on the Committee in question. The Committee is not appointed to fix rates.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great importance of the subject, he will have the Resolutions to be moved in the Government of Ireland [Payments] Committee printed and circulated at once?

I agree that the House ought to have full notice of our intentions in the Parliamentary Committee with regard to the Financial Clauses of the Bill, the principles of which have been clearly announced, but the details of which are still a matter for consideration. I take this opportunity of giving notice that it is our intention, when we come to the Financial Clauses of the Bill, to move that they be postponed until the other clauses of the Bill have been dealt, with. I will give the reasons for the proposal when we come to it. We will take care that full information is in possession of the House before any proposals are submitted.

Will the Monetary Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill be taken before going into Committee on the Bill?

Oh, no; certainly not. I think that the Financial Clauses ought not to be dealt with before going into Committee.

I am aware that that proceeding is strictly in Order, but it is very unusual to defer the Monetary Committee until particular clauses are dealt with; and I would ask whether it is not the more usual course to take the Monetary Committee before the main Bill goes into Committee at all?

It very often happens that Monetary Clauses are found in a Bill, the great mass of which refer to matter which is not monetary, and the usual practice is to have the Parliamentary Committee before the Definitive Clauses are brought under consideration, and we shall take care that that is done. It is a question connected with the Forms of the House, and I am not yet aware, but I will inform myself, how far the Parliamentary Committee will carry us towards fixing all the details, and we will take care that the House is in no way misled or inconvenienced.

We did not quite catch in this part of the House the effect of the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. Do I understand him to say that the Government contemplate changes in the Financial Clauses of the Bill?

No; I have nothing new to announce on that at present. It will be borne in mind that when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, I did state, with regard to that portion of the Financial Clauses which is prospective and pre-supposes augmentation in the direct taxation of this country, it would be necessary to enter into further details, and to give a more specific explanation of our intention.

May I understand, with regard to the clauses on the Paper, that the Government adhere to them, or is it only with regard to additional clauses which have been promised by my right hon. Friend that he reserves his discretion?

I doubt very much whether the knowledge of the House will be much advanced by that mode of treating the subject. It will be recollected that there is now a provision in the Bill which refers to a possible future increase in the Excise Duties, and I said that provision was to be regarded rather as the assertion of a principle—namely, the liability of Ireland for additional charges which may hereafter come into view—than as expressing the precise form in which we might find it expedient to bring it finally to the judgment of the House.

I do not wish unduly to press my right hon. Friend; but may I ask whether I am entitled to understand that, so far as regards the revision of the Customs Duties, the Government adhere to their original proposal?

Undoubtedly. We have not seen any reason, as at present, to depart from that intention; but my right hon. Friend will recollect that, in explaining that portion of the Bill, I dwelt strongly upon the principle of contribution, and pointed out that there wore various forms in which that principle might be applied, such as the quota and the fund plans; hut that, on the whole, we were inclined to the fund plan. At the same time, I never treated the question of the particular form as one which appertains to the essence of the subject.

I assume that every financial question raised in the Bill remains open for consideration in Committee.

Unquestionably.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the intention he has announced will apply to all the financial proposals in the Bill, including those affecting the Irish Church Fund and the collection of Treasury loans outstanding?

My impression is that they all hang together. It might be a question whether the Church Fund, which is a separate matter, is involved with the rest; but I think probably it will be found convenient if the whole of the financial proposals, including that dealing with the Church Fund, should be postponed.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will postpone not only the Financial Clauses, but the whole Bill, until they have made up their minds what they will do with the Financial Clauses?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to take the Committee on the Bill on Monday, and to continue it de die in diem?

That is the intention. Of course, I cannot pledge myself very far into the future; but the whole of next week, and probably the beginning of the following week, will be devoted to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a great convenience to the House if, as the Committee stage of the Bill is to be taken on Monday, you would inform the House of your views as to the various Instructions that have been placed upon the Paper. The subject, as everybody knows, is of very great difficulty, and one on which your ruling would, I think, be of great service to those Members of the House who are interested in the Instructions.

As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to give my opinion as to the Instructions on the Government of Ireland Bill, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I explain the decision which I have come to on the 13 Instructions on the Paper. I have felt great responsibility in this case, especially as I have come to the conclusion, for reasons I will explain shortly, that the great majority of them are not in Order. I should like to say that the principles which guide and limit the system of Instructions on going into Committee may be thus stated:—First, an Instruction must empower the Committee to do something which the Committee is not otherwise empowered to do; secondly, the purpose of the Instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the Bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the Bill; thirdly, it is irregular to introduce into the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct Statutes for distinct branches of law. Having these general principles and limitations in view, I come to consider the 13 Instructions on the Paper, and, if the House will follow me, I will go through them seriatim. The first Instruction (that of the hon. Member for Wandsworth), I think, would properly form the subject of a separate measure so far as relates to the representation of Great Britain, and as regards that of Ireland no Instruction is necessary. The second (that of the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanark) deals with the ad referendum principle, and this I need not say is the Instruction which has given me the most anxiety; but I have come to the conclusion that an ad referendum is a matter of such transcendent importance that it could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee. I know that the ad referendum has been included in the provisions of some Private Bills, enabling the ratepayers to decide by a vote whether or not they should adopt a particular Act which imposed a charge upon them. But this Instruction is a proposal to enable the electors to override the decision of this House, to go over the heads of the elected Representatives of the people, and to submit to the electors generally whether a Bill of this great magnitude should come into force or not. That, I think, is quite beyond the scope of the Bill, and could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by au Instruction. The object sought to be obtained in No. 3 (the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Hackney) may, I think, be done in Committee without the necessity of an Instruction. Nos. 4 and 5 (standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford), which deal with the Army and Militia, are, I think, beyond the scope of the Bill. The Militia is a part of the Military Force, and, like the Army, is under the control of the Military Authorities; and it seems to me that it would be an improper dictation to the Executive and to the authorities of the Army to interfere with the movement of troops from one portion of the Kingdom to another. That cannot be properly considered as ancillary to the Bill. It is beyond the scope of the Bill, and cannot be brought within its scope by means of an Instruction. No. 6 (that in the name of the hon. Member for the Whit by Division of Yorkshire) is a modified ad referendum. I have alluded generally to the ad referendum, and I may say that in speaking of it, while I do hold that a Bill such as this cannot be overridden by an appeal to the electors, I am far from saying that in particular localities the ad referendum principle cannot be adopted; and in the case of No. 6 the House will observe that what is there proposed is that Ulster may be empowered to exclude itself from the Bill. Ulster, of course, might be excepted from the Bill, as any other portion of the United Kingdom may be excepted from a Bill of general application; but this may always be done without an Instruction. This local referendum, it will be seen, is a very different thing from saying that the whole Bill can be overridden by an appeal to the electors over the heads of the Representatives of the electors in this House. The alteration suggested in No. 7 (the In- struction of the hon. Member for Bolton) can be proposed in Committee without an Instruction. No. 8 (that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey) is so indefinite that I cannot hold that it is in Order; but, so far as I can understand it, its object can be effected in Committee without an Instruction. No. 9 (that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone) is a Land Bill of the widest scope. It forms a distinct subject of legislation. Following the principles which I have ventured to lay down to the House, it cannot, I think, be brought within the scope of the framework of the Bill before the House. No. 10 (that of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby) also falls within the same category. It is a Reform Bill for the United Kingdom. No. 11 (that of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis), which proposes to divide the Bill into two parts, is, according to all precedents, distinctly in Order. Referring to No. 12 (that of the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham), I have already said that Ulster or any definite portion of Ireland can be excluded, or be empowered to exclude itself, from the operation of the Bill by Amendments proposed in Committee without an Instruction. No. 13 (that of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh) can also be carried into effect under the Bill without an Instruction. To summarise what I have said, therefore, to the House, part of No. 1, No. 2, Nos. 9 and 10 would require separate Bills, Nos. 3, 7, 12, and 13 can be dealt with in Committee, Nos. 4 and 5 are beyond the scope of the Bill, No. 8 is not sufficiently definite, and No. 11 is in Order. The House, I hope, will see that I have tried to deal with each case on its separate merits, and without having had any preconceived opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the State function proposed to be held next Wednesday, it is intended that the House should sit on that day?

We have not formed any intention of making any proposal to the House.

I undertook that, on the Third Reading, I would recommit this Bill with reference to Clause 5 in order to meet some objections which have been taken to it. On consulting the authorities, I find that there is some objection to inserting a new clause now, and I shall, therefore, confine myself at present to omitting Clause 5. I move that the Bill be re-committed with reference to Clause 5.

thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courteous way in which he had met his objection respecting Clause 5, and expressed his regret that the Forms of the House would not permit the right hon. Gentleman to move the new clause now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider during the coming year whether he could not do away with Schedule B altogether, and throw the whole of the Schedule into Schedule D? This would tend very largely to simplify the Income Tax, and would be a step in the direction of the re-arrangement which everyone desired.

I think that is a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration.

said, it was rather disturbing to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that there had been no equalisation of the Death Duties, because hon. Members had understood from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888 that an equalisation had been carried out by him under the Budget of that year.

said, that, speaking as an agriculturist, he should very much object to the abolition of Schedule B, because, although it might be all very well in these bad times that agriculturists should make their returns under Schedule D, he thought that in the good times, which he hoped would come back again eventually, it was very advantageous to the farmer to make his return under Schedule B.

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look into a question respecting the assessment of the Land Tax? Some communications had passed between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself with reference to certain parishes on the east coast of England that had had their area reduced by nearly one-half owing to the washing away of parts of them by the sea. The Land Tax was still charged on the old area. The Dissolution came before the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could settle the matter, and he trusted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to set it right. As usual, it was said that there was a technical difficulty in the way of altering the assessment. Of course, that was all stuff, and there was nothing of the kind.

I will promise the hon. and gallant Member, now that I have got rid of the Budget, to look into the correspondence.

said, he desired to express, on behalf of a large class of his constituents, their great regret and disappointment that the deficit had been made good by a summary increase of the Income Tax, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thus trenched in time of peace upon that which should he looked upon as a reserve for time of war. During the period of office of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer two reductions of the Income Tax had taken place, and the payers of the tax naturally made a very unfavourable comparison in that respect between the present Budget and those of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that throe years ago evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee respecting the fact that the Income Tax was not collected on premiums upon houses. The evidence showed that such premiums were simply rent paid down instead of deferred, and that such premiums ought to be subject to Income Tax just as much as annual rent was. The system of demanding premiums for the letting of houses was said to prevail extensively in London, and it was, therefore, very clear that a large number of metropolitan landlords were not subject to Income Tax which they ought really to pay. That seemed to him to be a matter worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention.

expressed a hope that the hon. Member would not press his Motion. There were a great many reasons against having the Bill referred to the Standing Committee. It had been understood for a long time that Standing Committees were only intended for dealing with Government Bills. Certain exceptions had been made to this rule, but only with reference to Bills about which the House was practically unanimous and which had the concurrence of the Government. The present measure was one which ought to be dealt with by a Committee of the full House. It was pretty certain that if the Bill were referred to the Standing Committee on Trade only those who were interested in the exemption of machinery from rating would attend that Committee.

rose to call attention to the appointment of Justices of the Peace, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the appoinment of County Magistrates should no longer be made by the Lords Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being only on the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant."

He stated that he should make his remarks as brief as he could, as his hon. Friends were anxious to obtain the decision of the House. The present custom of the appointment of Magistrates was that the Lords Lieutenant nominated, but there was a custom within the custom by which the Lords Lieutenant generally consulted the local Bench. That custom did not rest on law. The Chancellor could change it, and could himself appoint without the nomination of the Lords Lieutenant. The effect of the custom was to confine the Bench in many counties to a select group of friends. A Derbyshire antiquary, a friend of his, had informed him that successive Dukes of Devonshire, acting as Lords Lieutenant of Derbyshire, had wished to appoint millers, maltsters, persons of other classes than those now almost exclusively represented, and had been met by the County Bench with the statement that, while the candidates were admirably qualified in every other respect, their social position was such that it was unwise to bring them on to the Bench; and successive Dukes of Devonshire, from the middle of the last century to early in the present century, were shown by their letters to have yielded to such representations. He feared that 'this concession to the local feeling of a select class still continued. The present Chancellor was a moderate man; and in receiving a deputation upon this subject, he had lately stated that the "constitution of the Bench" in many counties was "extremely unsatisfactory" and "prejudicial to the public interest." Lords Lieutenant, he had pointed out, were, he feared, often "too much in the hands of the local Bench;" and the present system in many counties was virtually one of co-optation subject to "political proclivities." The Chancellor asked for a Resolution of the repre- sentative House, in order that his hands might be strengthened in advising Lords Lieutenant to open the doors wider. The Chancellor could, of course, not only appoint from the present time without any change of law, but he could clear the existing Bench. He could advise the issue of new commissions and the discharge of all not included in them. But he would not take that course. He had, in fact, not been even asked to take it. The Chancellor was not only himself a moderate man, but he was right in his moderation under the circumstances of the case. How stood the facts? A great distinction must be drawn between the County of London and other counties of England and Wales and Scotland. He could not speak of Ireland, because the Magistrates in Ireland possessed far fewer powers. London differed greatly from the rest of the country. In parts of London more Magistrates were wanted, but no one cared whether they were Liberal or Conservative. He had been repeatedly concerned in pressing for the appointment of more Magistrates in the parish of Chelsea and in the parish of Fulham, because there were too few, who worked, to get through the work at present; and those for whom he had been most strongly pressing were persons—such as some of those who had, when he was Chairman of his Board of Guardians, greatly assisted him in the work—who happened to be Conservatives. In the parish of Fulham much difficulty had been found in discharging the work of Magistrates connected with lunacy, through the want of local Magistrates; and the Duke of Westminster had now placed upon the Bench the County Councillors and others, entirely irrespectively of politics, for the purpose of getting through the work. Elsewhere there were enough Magistrates, providing that they were the right men; but, virtually, in large parts of the country, they were only landowners, and of the landowners only those of one Party and one Church. In some counties the Lords Lieutenant admirably discharged their duties; for example, Lord Bath in Wiltshire, to name a member of the Party to which he was himself opposed; but in others the Bench was packed in such a way as to destroy public confidence. In his own division, and the counties which adjoined it—the rest of the County of Gloucester, the Counties of Worcester and Hereford and Moumouth—the Liberal Party had a considerable majority of electors, but the Bench was 22 to 1 against them. It might be thought that, to use the language of their opponents, what they called the best of the Liberal Party having lately joined the Conservatives, it was through this loss of Liberal Unionists that such results had been brought about. That was not so. The number of Liberal Unionist Magistrates in those counties was very small; and, although some were called Liberal Unionists who had been pretty steady supporters of the Conservative Party long before Home Rule was heard of, yet, giving to the other side every doubtful, the Conservatives were 10 to 1 against the Liberals and Liberal Unionists combined. In the county which he had the honour to represent there were only nine Magistrates who voted Liberal last time, or were likely to on the next occasion, against 267 Magistrates on the other side. Yet the Liberal Party had a considerable majority of the electorate even at the Election of 1892, a majority which would be increased if they counted the recent figures at a bye-election. It might 1M; said that the Liberals had no men who could be placed upon the list. No doubt there were more Conservatives who came up to the standard of the qualification than there were Liberals; but fitting Liberals were not wanting, and he was himself engaged in adding to the Land Tax list the names of Commissioners who possessed the qualification in land in the county who would make admirable members of the County Bench. One, for example, was a Baptist minister, held in the highest respect throughout the country, who was not on the Bench, although admirably qualified, simply because it was not the custom to place Nonconformist ministers upon it. Another was a large landowner, a man of business, who had bought one of the finest places in the county, and who, if he had happened to be an opponent of the present Government, would have been placed upon the Bench the day he bought it. Others were managers of great works who had bought land in the district. Another was a Radical farmer of great authority in the agricultural classes, and one of the most progressive farmers in the county; and, in addition, there were considerable numbers of traders in the towns, such as timber merchants, auctioneers, and others, who would be well fitted for the post, and whose appointment would command local confidence. In the next county to that which he represented there was a County Alderman who had been twice elected to that honourable post by a unanimous vote, but who, although an old resident in the county, had not been placed upon the Bench, for no apparent reason except that he was a Liberal and a Nonconformist. He would mention any of the names privately to any Member of the House on either side, but he did not like to cause annoyance to anyone by giving names in his speech. He did not wish to say a word against the existing Magistrates. No one who had long sat, as he had sat, on Local Bodies, both as an ex officio member and as an elective member along with ex officio members, would depreciate the services of the existing Magistrates to the community. If they had no other title to the respect of their fellow-subjects except the work they did in lunacy—the most dangerous, and, with the exception of the work in imbecility cases done by the Chairmen of Boards of Guardians, the most unpleasant of all local government work—these services were a sufficient title to commendation. He mentioned lunacy, because it was not only trying work, but it was the only work connected with local government which he himself had never done, he having been relieved of it by some of his colleagues, to whom he desired to pay all honour. Such dissatisfaction as existed was chiefly reasonable, so far as it concerned certain limited, but yet important, branches of the duties of Magistrates. There was reasonable dissatisfaction with regard to the political use at present made of the power to nominate to the Bench. There was also reasonable dissatisfaction with regard to a part of the Petty Sessional jurisdiction, which had been lately increased by the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. The cases which caused the most hostility were masters' and servants' cases, poaching cases, public-house licences, and the appointment of Overseers, but this last only in some districts. With regard to the political use of the power of nomination, he would name privately to any hon. Member the cases of two gentlemen who had come at the same time into the same county, neither of whom had previously been known as politicians. They were both men who had made fortunes in business; they were both men in all respects fit to be on the Bench. One proved to have Conservative leanings, and he was at once placed on the Bench. The other proved to be a supporter of the policy of the present Government, although not a Party Liberal, and he, the owner of the larger property, had not been placed upon the Bench. As regards masters and servants and poaching cases, it was difficult to fully restore public confidence in the administration of the law so long as the qualification was retained, as it was, of course, retained under the present Motion. In districts which were urban, although outside of boroughs, the application of the factory legislation by Benches, which consisted chiefly of masters, led to much complaint. He knew a case, for example, in which a clear charge under one of the Factory Acts was brought against a master who was a member of the Bench, and was heard by only three Magistrates, all three of whom were masters in the same trade. In poaching cases he could name a case where, there being great doubt about the facts, a pheasant had been taken by a gipsy from the property of the Chairman of the Bench, who left the chair while the case was heard, but sat at the side and examined the witnesses, and talked all the while to his brother Magistrates. They were all also game preservers in the same district. As regarded public-house licensing, he could name a case where, the Chairman of the Bench being a brewer, undue regard had been paid to his opinion by his brother members—although he did not, of course, sit at Licensing Sessions—and a licence granted, which was not needed, against an almost unanimous local opinion. The brewer and the great majority of the Bench wore Conservative, but so was the Local Board, and so were the majority of the Overseers and Churchwardens; and yet the Local Board, the Overseers, and Churchwardens had all appeared against the licence. With regard to the appointment of Overseers, there were many districts in which the Magistrates in- variably accepted the choice of the locality. But there were startling cases the other way. In the case of a parish near Southampton, within three years of the present date, two gentlemen had been elected Overseers on a show of hands at the Parish Vestry as against two others, there being no difference between them except on Party politics. The parish had been polled, and, in spite of the plural vote of property, the same two who had won the show of hands had been returned upon a poll. The matter was taken to the Magistrates, and they struck out the names of the two presented to them by the parish, and appointed the other two who had been twice defeated. In another case, which he could name, the Magistrates having a strong opinion against a publican, of whatever position and of character, however high, acting as Overseer of the Poor, and a parish of 100,000 people having returned two Overseers to them, the name of one of the two was struck out, under a mistaken impression that he was another gentleman, who was, in fact, a very popular publican, whose appointment would have been a very natural one had it, in fact, taken place on that occasion. It might be thought that the Local Government (England) Bill would get rid of this difficulty about the Overseers; but that was not the case, for the provisions with regard to Overseers applied only to some parishes, and all the most important parishes in the country were left by the Bill in their present relations to the Bench of Magistrates with regard to the appointment of Overseers. None of these difficulties could be fully remedied without the abolition of the qualification. But by placing upon the Bench, under the present Resolution, men taken from a somewhat wider field, it would be possible to put on those in whom the workmen would have confidence in masters' and servants' cases in industrial districts; and, with regard to poaching cases, to bring in men in rural districts who would neither be game preservers nor in close social relations with game preservers. As regarded licensing and the appointment of Overseers, the Benches would be more in touch with local opinion. The larger question was not raised by the present Resolution. It concerned only the mode of choice, given the qualification. The qualification, he feared, was not always observed at present. But breaches of the principle were always upon one side He knew a case where a gentleman who had served for the whole of his long life as a Magistrate, had never possessed the qualification, or, at all events, not within the memory of man; and another gentleman had been excluded, who was a Liberal, although his qualification was a better one, and although he represented the oldest family in the district, and lived on the land which his ancestors had owned since the 14th century He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Maden) could name a case which was as startling. Under the Resolution, the qualification remaining the County Bench would still in most cases be Conservative. The vast preponderance, he admitted, of those who were likely to be placed upon it in rural districts were Conservatives. Those eligible would still be chiefly county gentlemen, and he did not pretend to deny that the great majority of county gentlemen were Conservatives. His speech had been but brief, because, as he had begun by saying, the case must essentially remain there where in his careful speech the present very moderate Lord Chancellor had put it. But his short speech was intended to secure that the opinion of the House should be pronounced upon their Resolution, and he made no doubt but that the House would carry it.

seconded the Resolution with great satisfaction, and was glad that it applied to Ireland as well as to England, Scotland, and Wales. But he regretted that there should have been any necessity for the Resolution at all. The question was purely one of administration, and all that they were asking was that the Government should carry out the law. The Statute of Henry VIII. states distinctly that the King should appoint the Magistrates; and however convenient it might have been to hand over that duty to the Lords Lieutenant, and however long that custom might have been in use, it was irregular, illegal, and had been most unfortunate in its application. The expression "the king" now meant the Crown as advised by the Lord Chancellor, and he had no hesitation in saying that the Crown had no right to shirk or to hand over to Lords Lieutenant or anyone else the duty confided to it by an Act of Parliament. He could not, and did not, object to the Crown getting whatever assistance it could in selecting Magistrates from either Lords Lieutenant or any other persons who might have local knowledge of the persons who might be nominated. This Resolution, and the representations that had been made to the Lord Chancellor, was not so much an attack upon Lords Lieutenant as an insistance upon the right of the Crown to appoint County Magistrates without the intervention of anyone. At the present moment practically the Lords Lieutenant appointed these Magistrates; and the Crown, notwithstanding the Act of Parliament to the contrary, merely did what the Lords Lieutenant allowed it to do; and the Lords Lieutenant illegally actually claim the right to appoint Magistrates. These were the facts of the present state of things, and the position of the Crown in the matter was both absurd and ridiculous. Well, he was sure that he was right in asserting that Magistrates should represent, and be taken from, all classes of the people. What had been the result of this unfortunate custom which had grown up, and which the Lord Chancellor desired the assistance of the Resolution to remove? The result had been that we found the Magistrates nearly all selected from one class or political Party and one creed or sect. He had no time now to give the figures to the House, but he was within the mark in saying that more than 90 per cent. of the present County Magistrates belonged to the Party opposing— the Liberal and Radical Party—which in this country represent progress and civil and religions liberty to all classes and sects. A very large amount of information had been sent to him, showing how unfair the constitution of the present country Benches was. He could only to-night say that it conclusively showed that at the present time they had a state of tilings which was intolerable in a free country. Though he did not wish unduly to occupy the time of the House, he supposed he ought to state how this matter affected the constituency he represented. In the County of Peterborough there were 42 Magistrates, and only one was a Liberal. They had sent the Lord Lieutenant a list of eligible gentlemen. They did not ask for 41 Magistrates so as to make themselves equal with the Conservatives; all they asked was that 10 fully-qualified persons should be appointed, and the Lord Lieutenant refused to nominate one of them. He hoped the Tory Party would have the good sense to accept the Resolution, which was a very moderate one. They did not wish to make these appointments political; they desired to put a stop to the present practice and to allow all parties to be represented. He could not at that time refer to the appointment and qualification of Magistrates, but he preferred that Magistrates should be elected by the people, and 700 years' experience supported that view. The City of London had produced the best Bench of Magistrates in the country, and the only Bench about which no complaints had been made in that House. The City Magistrates were elected by exactly the same constituencies as the Common Council, and by the Ballot. He had noticed that queer abuses existed in towns. A trader on one side of the street was appointed a Magistrate because he was a Tory. A trader on the other side of the street, though perhaps in a much better position, was rejected if he happened to be a Liberal, or, worse still, a Nonconformist, He claimed for all parties and all sects, and especially for the industrial classes, the right to be represented on the Magisterial Bench, and was confident that the more democratic they made the Bench the better and purer it would be.

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper, but was precluded from moving, to omit from the Resolution all the words after "House," in order to insert—

"The present system of appointing County Justices has worked to the advantage of the country, and has created a body of men whose decisions have been recognised as just and impartial by all classes,"

said the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean left matters, with regard to the appointment of Magistrates, very much as they were, because the Lord Chancellor at the present time had the right to rectify the evils he might find in the appointments made by the Lords Lieutenant. Of course, there should be a strong case before the Lord Chancellor acted over the head of the Lord Lieutenant, and no doubt the object of the Resolution was to induce the Lord Chancellor to exercise that power more freely. He ventured to say that if the Lord Chancellor acted as the right hon. Baronet proposed, it was bound to be the death of the present system of appointing Magistrates. That system had worked well, and very much better than any system which was likely to be introduced. He had for a long time been connected with county affairs in Gloucestershire, and had there been any real dissatisfaction with regard to the composition of the County Bench, he would have heard it before last November, when this agitation began. He believed it to be a mechanical agitation, not founded on any real grievance. It was said there were too many Magistrates 'who did not hold the political opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But what had political opinion to do with the Magistracy? Ever since he had been head of the Magistrates of Gloucestershire the Magistrates had never regarded themselves as a political body, and in the choice of persons to fill important public offices they had paid no regard to politics. Largely Conservative as the county was, at all events in the Magistracy and among the upper classes, his immediate predecessor in the office he held was a Radical, who had sat in that House as a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. He was elected by the free vote of the Magistrates, not because he was a Radical, but because they believed he was a man fit to fill the post; and when he succeeded that gentleman he was elected, not because he was a Tory, but because it was thought he was suited for the place. His lieutenants had been drawn regardless of their politics, and that represented the really healthy condition of a Bench. The House was now asked to create a Bench which should be essentially partisan, the members of which would be appointed by the different parties because they were their own supporters. All ideas of fairness and justice would thus be removed; and the Bench, which ought to be perfectly pure and free from all political considerations, would immediately become a scene of faction, and certainly would not have the same tone of honour as that which it displaced. It was not altogether unknown to the House how, in former days, politics affected the judicial decisions of the House. At one time Election Petitions were tried by vote of the House. Subsequently a scheme for the trial of the Petitions was adopted, under which it was hoped, that Party feeling would be eliminated; but it was equally unsuccessful. In 1868 the House came to the conclusion that it was too much animated by Party spirit to discharge judicial functions, and it transferred these functions to hands to which no motive of Party could properl attach. That was the position of the County Magistrates at the present time —they could not be suspected of Party feeling. He had some reason to say that, because in his own county the Lord Lieutenant was not of his own political opinions, though the Home Secretary had repudiated him as belonging to his Party. The Lord Lieutenant of Gloucestershire considered himself as attached to the Liberal Party and his son had sat for a long time in the House as a supporter of the Liberal Party. At the present time, no doubt, he and the Lord Lieutenant were on the same side in politics. [Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Members opposite were entirely wrong if they thought the appointments, of the great mass of the Magistrates of Gloucestershire were due to political predilections. The majority of them, it was true, belonged to the Conservative Party, but they had been appointed by a Liberal Lord Lieutenant because he had thought them the men best fitted to administer justice. [Cries of "Oh!"] He main- tained, despite the jeers of hon. Members opposite, that, as far as his own experience went, County Magistrates had always been appointed on account of their fitness. He believed that if the appointments to the County Bench were placed in the hands of gentlemen who had not the responsibility which now attached to the Lord Lieutenant the same state of things would prevail on that Bench that now-existed on the Borough Benches, and the appointments would be purely political. The late Lord Chancellor was most anxious that all the appointments to the County Bench should be absolutely independent of politics. Undoubtedly in his own county Lord Halsbury's appointments had been equally balanced, the Justices being selected from both Parties. The Chancellor of the Duchy prided himself upon putting things right, and had put an immense number of Radicals upon the County Bench. If hon. Members opposite made the change suggested, that would involve the abolition of the existing system, and such a change would be a fatal one. He hoped that the House of Commons, jealous as it was of the good name of the country, would not act hurriedly in this matter, nor after a three hours' Debate pass such a Resolution as this, which would give the appointment of County Magistrates to the Lord Chancellor, who could not be as well qualified as the Lord Lieutenant to judge of the fitness of the gentlemen appointed, and which would undoubtedly lead to the tainting of the County Bench with political partisanship.

said, that in Scotland they could not say that either a man's position or his religious faith were a disqualification for the office of a Justice of the Peace; but, all the same, it was rather a strange thing that three-fourths of the Magistrates were Tories and Unionists. In his own Division, which had a population of 63,000, there were four Resident Justices of the Peace, of whom three were Tories and one, who had been a Unionist, was now a Liberal. Two of these four Magistrates were absent in Glasgow all the day attending to their private business, and, therefore, not available in Govan. He had called the attention of the Lord Lieutenant of Lanark to the want of Magistrates in the county: and as the same state of things prevailed throughout Scotland, he hoped the Lords Lieutenant of all the counties in that country would bestir themselves. He was glad the matter had been brought before the House, and he should support the Motion of the right hon. Baronet.

said, that this Motion, if it: meant anything, meant an attack upon the Lords Lieutenant of the country for the manner in which they had appointed the County Justices. He had probably as large an acquaintance with this question as any hon. Member in the House. He had been Chairman of Quarter Sessions in his county for 22 years, and had dealings with three different Lords Lieutenant. The county for which he had been elected Chairman of Quarter Sessions was the most Radical county in England, and he thought that that incident might be taken as a good sign that politics were not the motive power in the appointment of the Magistrates of the county. His experience in that county convinced him that the present system was the very best that could be pursued. When additional Magistrates were required the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions represented the matter to the Lord Lieutenant, who made appointments to the Bench with the utmost impartiality, as far as politics were concerned. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite could not think that it was possible to make appointments without being influenced by political bias. All he could say was that the most fit persons were appointed. There was a very large number of Magistrates in the county with whose politics he had no acquaintance whatever. But what was suggested now? That instead of the appointments being made by the Lords Lieutenant, who had made them impartially, they were to be made in future by the Lord Chancellor for political considerations. Would hon. Members opposite deny that the appointments by the Lord Chancellor in the boroughs had not been political. appointments? They were political appointments. By whatever side in politics the appointments in boroughs were made they were always political appointments, and it would be an evil day for England if political appointments wore made on the same scale in the counties. Did hon. Members opposite intend that these appointments should partake of a political character in the future? Had not the present Lord Chancellor made political appointments to the Bench? The late Lord Chancellor had done his best to keep a fair balance in making these appointments. Before the late Government left Office he was urged to send up the names of several gentlemen of his own political colour to the Lord Chancellor to be made Magistrates; but he refused, partly on his own account and partly because he had always found that Lord Halsbury had been determined to keep a fair balance between the two Parties. The very last appointments made by Lord Halsbury were made in Harrogate. One of the gentlemen appointed was a Conservative, one had been a Liberal, but what his politics now were he did not know, and three were out-and-out Radicals. But what was the state of things under the present Lord Chancellor? The other day Lord Herschell had appointed four Radicals to the Bench at Ripon without appointing a single Conservative or Liberal Unionist. Were those appointments fair? At Leeds, again, where there was a Bench of 63 Magistrates, the noble Lord had appointed 11 Radicals and only two Conservatives to the Bench, neither of the latter being asked as to their willingness to serve, and one of whom had previously declined to accept the appointment. Was this what they had to expect in the future? Lord Herschell was invited to follow the example of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but if that example were followed by future Lord Chancellors he was sorry for the name and fame of England. He declared, without fear of contradiction, that the Benches appointed by the Lords Lieutenant had done their work well in the past; and if the old system were to be abolished, and if the appointments were to be made political, the result would be that Stipendiary Magistrates would have to be appointed at an enormous cost to the country. [Ministerial Cheers.] He was sorry to hear that cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but then the policy of the Radical Government was a policy of extravagance and expense. He hoped that, the Motion would be rejected, and that the Benches of England would continue to be nominated in the same way as heretofore.

said, he desired to make a few remarks with regard to the County Benches in Wales, and particularly his own county of Flintshire. Whatever the last speaker might have thought would be the results in England of a change in the method of appointing Magistrates, he could assure the House that they could not be worse than under the present system in Wales. Wales suffered far more keenly and far more unjustly in this respect than England. In England, at all events, the Magistrates, whatever their politics might be, and the people, belonged to the same race and spoke the same language; but in Wales, unfortunately, Magistrates belonged to one race and the people to another. The Magistrates spoke one language; and, speaking broadly and generally, the people used another language; and he was afraid that the Magistrates seldom or never took the trouble to acquire the language of those to whom they were expected to dispense justice. An Anglo - Indian Magistrate was obliged to know the language of the people to whom he dispensed justice; but in Wales it was too often the case that the Magistrates took pride in being ignorant of the language of the people. He considered that every nation had an inherent right to have justice administered to it in its own language, but, so far as Wales was concerned, all they asked for was that a due proportion of the Magistrates should be able to speak the language of the people. Previous speakers had alluded to the disqualification under which Nonconformists laboured under the existing system of appointing Magistrates. In Wales the preponderance of Nonconformists was enormous, and yet nearly all the Magistrates belonged to the Established Church. Then, with regard to the political grievance which had been spoken of in England, he could assure the House that that grievance was intensified in Wales. Wales was Liberal to the backbone, but the Magistracy was just as Conservative as Wales was Liberal. To give an illus- tration respecting one political question. The great majority of the inhabitants of Wales were strongly opposed to the present licensing system; but in that House, a few days ago, only one Member from Wales ventured to vote against the Welsh Local Veto Bill introduced by the Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs. On that subject, the Magistracy were in favour of the existing licensing system, and were entirely opposed to the wishes of the people. The Magistracy in the County of Flint was alien—he used the word in no offensive sense—in race, language, religion, and politics. Although Flintshire was a border county, two-thirds of the population spoke Welsh, but out of 90 Magistrates in Flintshire only 15 spoke the Welsh language, and there wore only eight supporters of the present Government. The hon. Member for the Southport Division waxed indignant the other night as to the composition of the Southport Bench; but accepting the figures of the hon. Member, if it was wrong that there should be a small Liberal majority on the Bench at Southport, was it right that there should be an enormous Tory majority on the Bench in Flintshire? Up to six years ago there was not a single Nonconformist Magistrate in Flintshire. A number of names had been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant of Nonconformists who had spent all their lives in the county, and were a hundred times better qualified than the strangers and squirelings who had been pitchforked on to the Bench, but the Lord Lieutenant absolutely refused to appoint them. This question was raised in 1887, and the only reply by the then Home Secretary was that there was no qualified Nonconformist. He could find no Parliamentary language whatever to characterise that statement. He could only say there were plenty of Nonconformists qualified for that position. But at last one Conservative Nonconformist was found, and he was forthwith appointed, although he had only resided in a seaside resort in the county for a short time, and had done, so far as he was aware, absolutely nothing for the county, and a short time after his appointment he left the county. The next Nonconformist put on the County Bench was himself; but he need not say it was not by the favour of the Lord Lieutenant, but because he was Chairman of the County Council. At the present time, five Nonconformists out of 93 Magistrates were on the County Bench. That was an object lesson of how Nonconformity was tolerated in Wales that the House would do well to remember. He did not assume for a moment that Nonconformity or Liberalism, as such, had any right whatever to be represented on the Bench; but he said that Liberalism and Nonconformity ought not to be made a disqualification. The County Council comprised men of every shade of opinion belonging to all sects, parties, and creeds, and it had this question before it on two occasions. On the first occasion it condemned the existing system of appointment with one dissentient only. In September last the matter again came up, and on that occasion the system was condemned without a single dissentient voice. It would be quite impossible for him to lay before the House a more conclusive argument, so far as Flintshire was concerned, than the one he had put before them. He came to Parliament with a mandate from the County Council and from the constituency he represented to speak upon that question; and he asked the House, in the name of a country which had long and patiently—too long and too patiently —tolerated many grievances such as the one he had described, to pass his Resolution.

The House will not be surprised, I am sure, to learn that the people of Ireland take a very special interest in the subject of this Resolution. The question of the Magistracy is a burning question in Ireland. I think I will be believed when I assert that there is no fact which forces itself more strongly upon the attention of any intelligent man who visits Ireland with the intention of inquiring into the social troubles of that country than that what lies at the root, possibly more than anything else, of all the troubles of Ireland is that you have never been able to establish any bond of sympathy between the Executive Government and the administration of the law and the people of the country. It is not alone the denial of a legislative machine truly representative of the people of Ireland which has been at the bottom of the intensity of the demand for Home Rule, which is pressed upon this Parliament from Ireland. I have always contended that if it were possible for this House, as it might conceivably be, to legislate for Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the people of Ireland you would not get rid of the demand for Home Rule, for, whatever way you legislate in this House, the administration of the law in Ireland is not in harmony with the people of that country. The administration of the law, which comes home more than anything else to the lives of the people, is now, even under the present Chief Secretary, though happily to a much less extent than in times past, owing to the instruments which he is obliged to use in Ireland, not entirely in harmony with the people of that country; and until the administration of the law is brought into harmony with the people who have to live under the law, then, I say, you can never have contentment or peace. An hon. Member asked—What has politics to do with the appointment of Bench Magistrates?—and I think I will answer that question, and answer it to the satisfaction of every hon. Member of this House. I do not know what politics have to do with the appointment of Magistrates in England; but I do know what they have to do with the appointment of Magistrates in Ireland. If you dare to sympathise in politics with four-fifths of your people, that in Ireland is almost an insuperable bar, no matter what qualifications you may possess, to sitting as a Magistrate. There are people in our country, hundreds of men, intelligent men, well-conducted men, who are in every way qualified to act as Magistrates, and who are compelled to submit to the intolerable insult put upon them of seeing men who are not as intelligent, not as well conducted, not in any way as fit to sit upon the Bench, placed over their heads, simply because they are opposed in politics to the mass of our people. I shall now be compelled to give to the House a few figures as regards the condition of the Bench of Magistrates in Ireland. I will first give a few figures showing how the composition stands as regards religious persuasions. I must say, at the very outset, that this question is with us not a religious question, because there are not in the most Catholic corner of Ire-land people who would not be just as well pleased to see on the Bench a Protestant who sympathised with the people as a Catholic; and I know myself, in the South and West of Ireland, many Protestants whom the people would infinitely rather see on the Bench than many Catholics. I would only allude, therefore, to the religious persuasions of the Magistrates as compared with the people, because it is one of the signs which show the gross and scandalous partisanship which has characterised those appointments. The Catholic population of Ireland is over 75 per cent.—that is to say, more than three out of every four of the inhabitants are Catholics. There were, in 1886, 5,065 Magistrates on the Bench, and of these 1,229 were Catholics, and nearly 4,000 were Protestants. The population stands in the proportion of three Catholics to one Protestant, while of the Magistrates there are four Protestants to one Catholic. When we go into the figures of the counties the case comes out even, stronger. In Fermanagh County 55 per cent. of the people are Catholics. There are 86 Protestant Justices, and there are 4 Catholic Justices. In Monaghan 73 per cent. of the population are Catholics. There are 81 Justices, and there are 13 Catholic Magistrates. In Leitrim 90 per cent. of the population is Catholic. There are 80 Justices of the Peace, and of these 11 are Catholics. In the Queen's County 87 per cent. of the population is Catholic. There are 84 Justices, and 15 are Catholics. In the great County of Tipperary, where 94 per cent. of the population is Catholic, and where there are an enormous number of Catholics qualified in every respect for the Bench, there are 217 Justices, and only 59 of them Catholics. In the County of Wick-low 79 per cent. of the people are Catholics. There are 116 Justices, and there are only 13 Catholic Justices. I think it will be admitted that these figures alone look suspicious, and are sufficient ground for just complaint on the part of the Irish people. But those figures only give an inadequate idea of the grievances under which our people have suffered in this regard, because I have no hesitation in saying that the Catholic Magistrates are in a large degree worse enemies of the people than the Protestants, for the Executive Government of Ireland, or rather I should say the Lord Lieutenants, when making appointments to the Magistracy amongst those who hold the faith of the majority of the people, have selected men who are notoriously opposed in politics to the body of the Irish people, and who in many cases, I grieve to say, exhibit all the bitterness and animosity of turncoats and of traitors. In the County of Leitrim there are 71 Justices, and out of the 71 there is one Nationalist in a, county where the Tory candidate was only able to poll 14 per cent. of the Parliamentary voters—that is to say, 86 per cent. of the Parliamentary voters of Leitrim have one representative on the Magisterial Bench, and the minority have a representation of 70 out of 71. It is not to be wondered at that the Loyalist minority in Ireland should insist upon maintaining the present condition of things. In Sligo there are 78 Justices. One out of the 78 is a Home Killer. In the County of Mayo, a division of which I represent, and in which the Catholic population is, I should fancy, considerably over 90 per cent. of the whole, there are 95 Justices of the Peace, and two of these are Home Rulers; and in the County of Galway there are 196 Justices, and two only are Nationalists or Home Rulers. These figures are taken from the Return of 1886. Slight changes may have occurred since then, but those are not substantially wrong. I think it will be admitted by everyone who has any souse of fairness that those figures do constitute a grave and intolerable grievance upon the people of Ireland. I will give one more county, because I do not think it is necessary to pile up statistics. I have not selected the counties. They are taken at Random, but they are thoroughly characteristic of the state of things in Ireland in connection with the Magisterial Bench. The county I refer to is the County Carlow. The Roman Catholic population is 36,000, and the Protestant population 4,500. The Magistrates stand as follows:—There are 57 altogether, of whom 10 are Roman Catholics; but of those 10, 5 are Catholic gentry who do not reside in the county, so that in that county, with a Catholic population of 36,000 out of 40,000, there are but 5 Catholic Magistrates residing there, and, let me add, 4 of the 5 are Unionists, and only 1 is a Nationalist. Anybody who knows the County Carlow, who is acquainted with it, cannot maintain for a single instant that there are not in that county an abundance of men holding Home Rule opinions who are quite sufficient and competent to man the Magisterial Bench even twice over if they were allowed to do so. I could go on ad nauseam piling up figures of the same character; because, as I have said already, the instances I have given are instances taken at random from different counties. This exclusion, as I have already pointed out, this barrier against the appointment of Magistrates in Ire-land, is not confined by any means to any particular section or creed; it is not a question between Catholic and Protestant, because I have instances without number at my disposal of men who have been strongly recommended for the Magistracy who it could not be denied possessed every necessary qualification, whose names were sent forward to the Lords Lieutenant of Counties in Ireland, and who were refused to be appointed, who were rejected by these Lords Lieutenant, not because they were Catholics, for many of them were Protestants and Presbyterians, and in some cases Unitarians, but because they held, or were suspected of holding, the same views as are now held by Her Majesty's Ministers. I have here the names of such men as Mr. John Sterne, Mr. John Coleman, and other men of the same kind in North Londonderry, whose names were sent forward some time ago before the Home Rule Question was raised, and they were then Liberals. I think they are Presbyterian by creed, and men of standing and wealth in that district; but they were rejected by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, Sir Hervey Bruce, not at that time, because they were Home Rulers, but because they were Liberals. They were, however, afterwards appointed over the head of Sir Hervey Bruce to the Magistracy in Ireland. Already in Ireland the Lord Chancellor has exercised this right in the past, and we in Ireland are extremely anxious to see him do it again on a much larger scale. But those men, of whom I now speak, were refused to be appointed, so far as the Lord Lieutenant could refuse it 10 or 12 years ago, because they were Liberals, and the very same treatment has been meted out within the last few months to some respectable men of high standing in the County Down, whose names I have here. I may mention Mr. Robert B. Caughey, of Newtownards, a Presbyterian; Mr. Hugh Ferguson, formerly Chairman of the Newtownards Board of Guardians, and Mr. William Gibson, a Unitarian. But because these men were supposed to sympathise with Home Rulers and being Protestants—Ulster Protestants of the County Down—these men who enjoyed the universal respect of their fellow-citizens and neighbours, who had every qualification that could be imagined for the Magistracy, their claim was rejected by the Deputy Lord Lieutenant of the County Down simply and solely because they were suspected of sympathising with the opinions of the present Government. What is the condition of things in Ireland at the present moment? The condition of things is this: that to be a sympathiser with, and a supporter of, the present Government and to be in harmony with the political opinions and views of the vast majority of the people in Ireland is a barrier to being placed on the Judicial Bench. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Judicial Bench in Ireland has been turned into what is nothing short of a political engine, and that it is used for that purpose; and I say to that cause can be ascribed to a considerable extent the trouble which has arisen in Ireland, or rather the disrespect which is said to exist in that country for law and order. [Cheers and laughter.] It is all very fine to laugh, but when you sec men who are supposed to administer justice all selected from one class, and that a small minority and a small class, who are in continued conflict with the people, and if, when a man is brought up before these Magistrates, he sees no chance of impartial treatment, he sees arrayed against him the representatives of the very class who were oppressing him, then, I say, it is impossible to expect any kind of respect to exist for justice administered in such a manner. I will give one or two more instances to show I am not exaggerating or drawing upon my imagination in this matter, and I think the first case I am about to quote will bring home to any fair-minded man the reasonableness of the case I am making. Take the ease of Mr. Tener, who was brought into the County Galway as a stranger and an outsider by Lord Clanricarde to carry out the law of extermination which he is waging against his tenants. Mr. Tener was not a resident, and had no connection with any property in the county. He was brought into that county at a time, as I say, when Lord Clanricarde was waging a war of extermination against his tenants, and when Lord Clanricarde was defying and embarrassing the Tory Administration in Dublin Castle. The then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) appealed to Lord Clanricardo to stop this war of extermination, and not to embarrass the Government. What was done by Mr. Tener? While he was actually living on Lord Clanriearde's estate, and while a house was being prepared for him to live in, he was created a Justice of the Peace—a man who had no property and no connection with the county, and, notwithstanding that, he was created a Justice of the Peace—I presume at the request of Lord Clanricarde —in order that he might discharge the double functions of knocking down the houses of the tenants and afterwards sending the tenants themselves to gaol. I also wish to mention the case of Mr. Hewson, a gentleman of evil fame in connection with the Falcarragh evictions. When he came into the County Leitrim he was created a Justice of the Peace, in order that he might be the better able to carry out his functions as a land agent. That is the common practice in Ireland. The land agent, when he is brought into a county and takes up agencies, is created a Justice of the Peace in order to enable him to carry out the work of his employer more effectually. I ask hon. Members of this House, as fair-minded Englishmen, can they ask or expect people amongst whom such things are being habitually done to have respect for the administration of the law or the agents of the law? I heard an hon. Member just now speaking of the ex- treme purity of the Lords Lieutenant in England, describing the way in which the vacancies were filled up in England, and adding that the Lords Lieutenant and the Executive Government never for a moment appointed a Magistrate unless he was wanted. That may be the way in England, but it is not the way in Ireland. I will give you an instance. When the Government of Lord Salisbury came into power, and by our assistance—in 1885—they afterwards gave us a very bad reward for our good offices—when that Government came into power it lasted for 227 days. In that time they appointed 264 County and 63 Borough Magistrates, although there were no vacancies.

What are the names?

I have all the names of these Magistrates here; yes, every one of them. I am not going now, I need not say, to read out the list. I may say, however, that, on looking down the list, one would think you were looking down a list of English Magistrates. There is hardly a. name you would recognise as an Irish name. I have no doubt that a great many of them were Orangemen. Certainly they were all Tories. I have not been able to get the whole list analysed. Certainly that Government made hay while the sun shone. In the County of Leitrim, for instance, 13 now Magistrates were created, all Tories and Protestants, although up to that time there were no Nationalist Magistrates in the county, and only 11 Roman Catholic Justices altogether. I ask any Englishman present, even hon. Members sitting on Tory Benches, is that honesty? Is that fair play? Is that impartiality? Here is a county in which 80 per cent. of the population are Roman Catholics, and yet only 11 are Catholics, and there is not one in sympathy with the Parliamentary voters. Yet when there were no vacancies the Tory Party created 13 additional Magistrates.

They were appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

I thought the hon. Member knew enough to know that the Lord Chancellor is not coerced to make any Magistrates. If the Lord Chancellor thinks that the Lord Lieutenant is acting improperly, he has only to refuse to make the appointments. I only want to dispose of the argument that the vacancies may not exist. I say it is the duty of the Executive Government now in power in Ireland to do something, no matter what abuse or criticisms they may receive from those Benches; to do something to redress the inequality in Ireland, to give to the people of Ireland some foundation on which to respect the law. You (pointing to the Conservatives) have been at it for the past 90 years; and you have not brought much respect for the law, and never will so long as the system your Party supports is enforced in Ireland. You can crush the people by force of arms, or you can bind them down with Coercion Acts; but respect and love for your administration and law you could never establish in Ireland. I will tell you the reason. Because they know your law is based upon injustice. I shall say no more except just a few words, because I think we are bound to economise the time of the House. It has been my lot, amongst a somewhat varied experience in different parts of the world, to live for some time in very new communities in the Western States of America, where rough people of all kinds are thrown together, under circumstances not particularly conducive to the establishment of law and order, or respect for the law, and I never lived in any part of the world where the law was better enforced or more respected. Why was that? Because there was no man in the district who, by the labour of his hands, earned his daily bread, who did not know that he had his chance of taking part in the administration of the law under which he lived, as well as the wealthiest man in the whole district. The poorest labourer had a chance of being a Magistrate, and if he did sit on the Bench there he was as much respected, if he deserved respect, as the richest man there. My experience there, and in other parts of the world, has convinced me the surest and only way to secure respect and love for the law amongst any civilised people is to bring home to the mind of every man that they have equal rights before that law and an equal chance of taking a share and having a voice and an influence in the administration of it. If you will do that to the people of Ireland you will find there is not a people on the face of the earth more easily governed than the Irish people. I would appeal to the Prime Minister himself, or the Irish Secretary, to make some declaration to-night which will satisfy the people of Ireland that now at last, when for the first time since the Union there is in power in this country a Government which thoroughly sympathises with the masses of the population in our country, that they will use the power which unquestionably is in their hands in Ireland to remove this one great and intolerable grievance from the nocks of our people, and to commence, to some extent at least, the work of redressing the gross and scandalous partiality of the Bench of Magistrates in Ireland.

objected that the people of England should be called upon to alter their entire system in order to meet the peculiar requirements of a peculiar people like the Irish. The hon. Member for East Mayo complained of the injustice of the administration in Ireland by the Magistrates, but be had heard from him precisely the same complaint with regard to the Judges of the High Court, who were not appointed upon the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant. No doubt there might be in Ireland a body of Magistrates and Judges who might afford satisfaction in particular quarters. No doubt a gentleman who had cut off a cow's tail would have more sympathy with another gentleman who had also cut off a cow's tail; but he never yet heard, either with regard to the Judges or the Magistrates, any charge which could bear investigation on the floor of this House—never once. They in England declined to be dragged in this, as in other matters, at the tail of Ireland. The hon. Baronet who moved the Resolution in so temperate a speech said not a word against the existing Magistrates. His complaint was that there were gentlemen who should be, but were not, appointed to the Bench. But at the bottom of the whole of the argument in support of the Resolution was the allegation that the existing appointments were made upon political grounds. How was it proposed to remedy that? By handing over the appointments to a direct and distinct political personage. The Lord Chancellor sat in the Cabinet, was identified with every measure, Radical or Conservative, which the Government of the day might have placed before the people, and he would always be under pressure to regulate his Magisterial appointments so as to curry favour with the Party by whose aid he hoped to carry those measures. He had been sorry to hear from those Benches language somewhat condemnatory of the present Lord Chancellor, for there was no man living for whose character, capacity, and honesty he entertained a higher opinion. By way of analogy, take the appointment of the present puisne Judges of the High Court by the Lord Chancellor. Would any man venture to say that those appointments were made on the ground only of legal fitness? They were made every day, not on the ground of legal fitness, but of political exigency. Yet it was proposed to hand over Magisterial appointments to the very political gentleman who now made these political appointments in the High Court. The Resolution was reactionary; it would have the exact effect of doing that which it professed to undo, and he should have no hesitation in giving his vote against it.

I propose, in a very few sentences, to state the view which Her Majesty's Government take on this question. I think we shall all admit that we have had, up till now, a very valuable and interesting Debate. The Lord Chancellor, in answer to the deputation which waited on him a short time ago, expressed the opinion that while the legal right of appointing Magistrates for counties as well as for boroughs was vested in him alone, he himself did not feel justified in setting aside the long-standing practice and Constitutional usage which had grown up, of limiting the county appointments to persons nominated by the Lords Lieutenant, unless he was fortified in doing so by an unequivocal declaration of the opinion of the House. That declaration the right hon. Baronet, by his Motion, invites the House to make, and, as far as the Government are concerned, they trust the House will respond to the appeal. The Motion, I may point out, is judiciously limited in scope; it does not propose to disestablish the Lords Lieutenant from the position of a recommending authority; what it does is to take away from them the monopoly of the power or privilege of recommendation, and to open out for the information, and, if need be, for the action, of the Lord Chancellor, other sources of suggestion and advice. Now the adoption of such a Motion, no doubt, involves a condemnation of the results of the existing system. What are the facts? The effect of them may be summed up by saying that they show, when the composition of the Magisterial Bench is analysed, an enormous disproportion, out of all correspondence with the distribution of outside opinion, in favour of a particular political Party, and in some parts of the Kingdom in favour of a particular religious creed. In Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Flint Boroughs has remarked, there is not merely the political, but there is the religious, question, and no one can doubt that over a very large part of the Principality the profession of Nonconformist belief is regarded as a disqualification for the Bench. In Carmarthenshire, for instance, there was, until lately, only a single Nonconformist on the Bench, and in Denbighshire there were only seven. In many parts of Wales the restriction of the appointments to the Bench to the Conservative Party and members of the Church of England leads to the great practical inconvenience that the Magistrates who have to administer justice among a Welsh-speaking population do not understand the tongue of the witnesses. In Ireland the Lord Chancellors have from time to time taken upon themselves to do what is a very rare, if not unknown, thing in this country, to disregard and over-ride the discretion of the Lords Lieutenant. Still, as a rule, the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, as well as in England, has felt himself bound, not by inflexible, but by common, practice to follow the recommendations of the Lord Lieutenants. I will take the appointments of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Ashbourue. Between August 5, 1886, when he came into Office, and August 22, 1892, when he went out, he appointed in a country, where three-fourths of the population are Roman Catholics, 1,012 Magistrates, of whom only 166 were Roman Catholics.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many Presbyterians were appointed?

No, Sir; I cannot. The question of the hon. Gentleman is entirely irrelevant to the point. What I was saying was that in a country, three-fourths of the population of which are Roman Catholics, less than 200 out of over 1,000 Magistrates appointed by the late Lord Chancellor belong to that faith. That shows a practical, I will not say ostracism, but a discrimination habitually exercised against the faith of the majority of the people, which cannot but have the effect of permanently and profoundly impairing their confidence in the administration of the law. The present Lord Chancellor, during the nine months he has been Office, has appointed 210 Magistrates, of whom 133 are Roman Catholics. I do not know whether that will be represented as a scandalous piece of Bench-packing; but seeing that during the six years his predecessor was in Office only 166 Roman Catholics, out of 1,012 Magistrates, were appointed, I say it is high time some attempt was made to redress the balance. As it is, there are in Ireland some 5,300 County Magistrates alone, and after all the Bench-packing by the present Government 4,437 of that number are Protestants and only 873 Catholics. Though not strictly relevant to the question before the House, I have one observation to make on the criticisms passed on the action of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. It is suggested that in the boroughs my noble Friend has been guilty of extraordinary partiality and a want of a judicial spirit. When my noble Friend came into Office 22 per cent. of the Magistrates on the Borough Bench were supporters of the present Government. At the present moment 36 per cent. of the Borough Magistrates are supporters of the present Government. In other words, the Party opposite have been left in possession of nearly two-thirds of the Borough Bench. These figures speak for themselves. I will allow to those who oppose the Motion that there are two circumstances that might fairly be taken into account, and which are independent of the political prepossessions of the Lord Chancellor. In the first place, I admit that the Conservative Party have always had, and has at this moment, probably to a larger degree than ever in the past, a considerable preponderance amongst its supporters of those persons of property and of social position from whom the Magistrates have been appointed in the past. I will agree further that the existence of the property qualification, which is exacted as a condition for Magistrates in counties, though it is not in boroughs, must necessarily limit and restrict the Lord Lieutenant's area of choice. I should be very glad to think that we should have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite in removing that disqualification and in assimilating the conditions for admission to the county to those which prevail for admission to the Borough Bench. I have been endeavouring for a long time past to bring in a Bill for that purpose, and if I can get the least encouragement in the course of the Debate from the Leader of the Opposition that that Bill will be treated as a non-contentious measure—[Opposition cries of "No!" and Ministerial Cheers.] I confess I never expected it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared deliberately to maintain, for the purposes of the County Bench, the property qualification. The noble Lord (Lord E. Churchill) shakes his head; but the noble Lord is a Tory democrat.

The property qualification has disappeared long since.

Not in the counties. The noble Lord is entirely mistaken.

The property qualification for all political offices has disappeared.

I understood we were dealing, not with political offices, but with judicial offices. Is the noble Lord going to maintain that these being judicial, and not political, offices the property qualification ought to be applied?

No.

I am glad of that admission; but then the noble Lord has got to deal with hon. Gentlemen behind him, who, when I ask that the measure I wish to introduce should be treated as non-contentious, immediately indulge in a chorus of negation. The Party opposite see that the property qualification, coupled with the exclusive power of Lords Lieutenant to nominate, is their great security for maintaining the County Bench in its present position. After all allowance has been made for the causes to which I have referred, the facts cannot be accounted for without supposing that the Lords Lieutenant, or those who advise them, have been influenced in the past by political motives. I do not make any charge against the Lords Lieutenant. I know there are Lords Lieutenant who have steadily refused to nominate on political grounds, but they very frequently took a course which, though they did not intend it, had precisely that result. They went to the various Petty Sessional Divisions for advice, and they got from the Magistrates sitting upon the Bench nominations which, although the Lord Lieutenant may have been too innocent to know it, were undoubtedly inspired by political motives. I do not think I am putting the case too far when I say that we may divide the practice which has been pursued into two branches. Upon the one side, where we have had a Lord Lieutenant acting on his own initiative, we have had nomination on political grounds; and upon the other side, where we have had a Lord Lieutenant applying to the Petty Sessional Bench, we have had co-optation on political grounds. I entirely agree with those who say that politics ought not to be regarded as a qualification for the Judicial Bench. [Opposition cheers]. Yes; but if I may quote a familiar saying of an eminent Frenchman, who, when asked his opinion about the abolition of capital punishment, suggested that the assassins should set the example, I would say that it does not lie with those who have packed the County and Borough Benches with political partisans to hold up their hands in holy horror and argue, as against their opponents, that politics should have nothing to do with judicial appointments. I make a fair offer to hon. Gentlemen. Once let us redress the inequalities of the past, and we and our Party will be perfectly prepared to enter into a truce and to agree that, for the future, politics should have nothing to do with appointments to the Magistracy. I must add that I do not make any general charge against the County Magistrates. I have had an opportunity, perhaps, of seeing more of the proceedings of Magistrates than can fall to the lot of most hon. Members; and although mistakes are made from time to time, as they must he in the best-constituted judicial arrangements, I gladly yield my testimony that there is no ground whatsoever for suspecting the great majority of the Magistrates in this country either of partiality or incompetence. But it is not necessary for the purposes of this Motion, or for my argument, to allege that unfit persons are placed upon the Bench for political reasons, because, in the view of the Government, the efficiency of the persons who are charged with the administration of justice, important as it is, is not more important than securing public confidence in the administration of justice. 80 long as a state of facts exists—leaving England out of view—such as that which has been described in Wales and in Ireland, public confidence in the administration of justice is impossible. The determination of certain kinds of questions which constantly come before Magistrates must necessarily expose them to suspicion if the Bench be constituted wholly or mainly of one political or one religious Party. Take the case of licensing houses for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The appeal from the decision of the Borough Benches is to the County Quarter Sessions—that is to say, to Magistrates nominated by the Lord Lieutenant—and the cases are numerous in which the decisions of the Borough Magistrates have been over-ruled by the County Justices.

Not in the case of new licences.