I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the extension of the Temperate House at the Royal Gardens, Kew, recently sanctioned, will be commenced; and, whether the delay has been caused by the Office of Works, or by the authorities at the Gardens?

Preparations for the extension of the Temperate House at Kew Gardens are being made with all possible dispatch, and tenders will be invited almost immediately, so that the work will probably be ready to be put in hand about the beginning of June. There has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Office of Works, and nothing but the most harmonious co-operation on that of the Director of Kew Gardens.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have received any further information as to the existence and present position of the French expeditionary force which was rumoured to be approaching the neighbourhood of the British sphere of influence on the Nile?

We have not received any further information tending to show that any French force has entered the country in question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the fortified posts established by Colonel Colville and Major Owen, on the occasion of their recent expeditions in Unyoro and on the Nile, have been abandoned; if not, will he state the exact position of those which are still retained, and the garrisons left in each, and whether they are under English or native commanders; and if he can state whether any of the forts established by Captain Lugard, and afterwards abandoned by order of the Government, have now been re-occupied?

The posts in question have not been abandoned, except Wadelai, where no new fort was made, and where there were only some locally enlisted troops, who were afterwards disbanded. The posts are at Kachumas, to the south of the Kafu river; Baranwa, on the Kafu; Hoima, near Kabarega's old capital; Kitanwa, near the Albert Lake; Kibiro and Mahaje Kahir, on the Albert Lake. They were, at the date of our latest information, held by 400 men, and were under the direct superintendence of British officers. It has been found necessary to re-establish two posts for the security of Uganda in the country where the forts of Captain Lugard mentioned in the last part of the question were placed. These are in Usungara and Toru.

asked whether it was not the fact that the British flag has been hoisted at Wadelai?

I think the whole account of that was given about a year ago, when Major Owen went to Wadelai.

Are we to understand that any of these forts are considered by the Government as being outside the Uganda Protectorate, and within Unyoro Territory?

Yes; most of the forts are outside Uganda Protectorate.

Then I should like to ask the hon. Member a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether, after the expedition "with the object of breaking Kabarega's power," reported by Colonel Colville July 15, 1894, Lord Kimberley replied, 23rd November—

"You should "be careful to keep your action within the limits of such measures as may be necessary … in order to provide for the defence and security of the Protectorate;"

whether, after the letter of November 1894, reported by Captain Thruston to Colonel Colville, as sent by the former to Kabarega, making "the first condition … "that you should become an obedient British subject," the Foreign Office, 6th April of the present year, observed—

"No such condition of peace should be insisted on. Unyoro is outside the limits of the British Protectorate, and neither the chief himself, nor any of his subjects, can be considered as under the protection, still less as the subjects, of Her Majesty;"

and whether, having regard to further recent operations against Kabarega, in which it is reported that the Acting Commissioner of Uganda has been killed, the Foreign Office will insist that their cautions thus given should be fully acted on?

The forts are outside the Uganda Protectorate. There does not seem to be any necessity for repeating instructions sent as lately as April 6 of the present year, and in view of the fact that the latest information received states that Kabarega had raided two provinces of Uganda, no instructions to withdraw from the forts could be sent without endangering the safety o Uganda itself. Captain Dunning, the only officer who is reported to have died of a wound, was not the Acting Commissioner of Uganda, and we have no news of any other British officer being injured.

What are the provinces that have been raided by Kabarega?

We must wait for the despatches before we can give details, The telegram only said "two provinces."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that he has refused permission (hitherto annually granted) for the Lichfield races to be held on War Office lands; and, if so, for what reason?

From a military point of dew it was considered undesirable to hold a race meeting so close to barracks occupied by young soldiers, and I failed to find any circumstances of a local nature in favour of these races which would outweigh the military objection.

wished to know whether the then Secretary of State for War, the present Lord Cranbrook, did not distinctly tell the inhabitants of Lichfield that the buildings connected with the military estabishment would be so arranged as not be interfere with the races, and would probably last for two centuries?

said, that he knew that it was to be in the power of the military authorities of the day to do what they liked in the matter. He was not a connoisseur in race meetings, but he understood that this particular meeting was not what might be called from the outside point of view a first-class meeting. Therefore, nothing damaging to the interests of horse-breeding was likely to be caused by the action of the Authorities.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that there is in use in the Denmead School, under the management of the School Board of Hambledon, Hants, "the Children's Hymn Book, arranged in order of the Church's year," and containing hymns which cannot properly be sung by the children of Nonconformists, and that the School Board have declined to discontinue its use, alleging that it is used with the sanction of the Education Department; and whether the Department will take any action in the matter?

Hymns are constantly used in Board Schools without, so far as I know, in any way infringing the Act of 1870. The statement by the Board, which is to the effect, as I understand, that the hymns used in the school have received the sanction of the Department, must be due to some misunderstanding. It is, I believe, quite incorrect, as the Department have no such power. The Department is of opinion that, in consideration of the provision of the Act of 1870 and the general circumstances of the case, School Boards will be wise to refrain from providing hymn-books for the children which are connected with any particular church or denomination, and to which objection might be taken by some of the parents. This is, I believe, largely the practice of School Boards throughout the country.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has observed an advertisement in The Times purporting to give from the "Post Office Guide" the rates of postage for The Times Atlas to the British Colonies and Dependencies, and also to the principal foreign countries of the world; whether he has noticed that there are 38 different rates of postage for the 74 countries in the list, based upon no common principle, most of them far exceeding the freightage paid upon a ton of merchandise, the charges being higher to our Colonies than to foreign countries, for instance, to British Guiana 7s. 6d., to Dutch Guinea 4s. 6d., and to French Guiana 3s. 11d.; to Cochin China (French) 4s. 8d.; to Hong Kong (British) 5s. l0d.; to Egypt (under England) 5s., and to Massowah (Italy) 3s. 8d.; to Tunis (France) 3s. 1d.; to the Congo Free State (Belgian) 3s. 5d.; to the Gold Coast (British) 8s. 3d.; to the Cameroons (German) 4s., and to the French Congo 3s. 11d.; and, finally, to British New Guinea 8s. 3d., and to German New Guinea 4s. 10d.; and, whether he will endeavour to arrange with the other members of the Postal Union for the establishment of a general parcel post (the United States being included in the scheme) at uniform rates, based as nearly as may be on the actual cost of transmission and delivery?

The advertisement to which the question no doubt refers gives the cost of an 11 1b. parcel sent by parcel post to various places abroad by British, Colonial, or foreign services, or a combination of such, as the case may be. The endeavour of Her Majesty's Government in entering some years ago on this service, of which it had no experience, was to fix the rates in accordance with the estimated expenses, with some margin to secure the State against loss. As experience has been gained, rates found to be more than duly profitable have been reduced; and the process is still going on. But the circumstances are so dissimilar in this country and foreign countries, that, with every desire for a more uniform tariff for places abroad, I see very little likelihood of attaining entire uniformity; on the basis of expense such a tariff is simply impossible. One important difference between our system and that of the Postal Union is that we recognise the difference of cost as between light and heavy parcels, while the Union does not; hence, while a comparison of rates to foreign countries and Colonies shows an advantage to foreign countries in regard to heavy parcels, it shows a great advantage to Colonies on light parcels. A comparison of parcel post and freight rates would not be apposite, as the latter do not include collection, inland conveyance, customs formalities, or delivery.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Paupers (Scotland and Ireland) Return, which was ordered to be printed on 18th February, will be distributed to Members?

The Return referred to by the hon. Member was issued on Saturday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain how it is that Mr. Daniel M'Coy, of Cooltoman, Shanagolden, County Limerick, who applied to the Board of Works last November for a loan for drainage, has been delayed since, answering one set of questions after another; whether his last replies were satisfactory; and, if not, in what particular; and why, if they were satisfactory, no reply was given to his application?

I find on investigation that the delay has been caused by the applicant's dilatoriness in answering the necessary inquiries. The Board of Works are now awaiting the Local Inspector's Report on the case. The number of such cases in his hands at this time of year is very large, and some days may pass before it is sent in; but there will be no undue delay on the Board's part in dealing with. In answer to a further question asked by Mr. MICHAEL AUSTIN,

said, that he hoped a definite reply would be given in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1894, in which he insists upon the urgent necessity for the removal of the barracks adjoining the National Gallery, because of the possible danger of fire, and suggests that, pending their promised removal, a further extension of the Gallery to the westward might be made to give some much-needed additional space for the national collections; and, whether he is taking any steps to give effect to this recommendation?

My attention has been called to the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1894. I have no doubt that every effort will be made by the authorities of the War Department to push on the new buildings at Millbank as soon as they enter into possession of the site, so as to allow for the removal of the barracks adjoining the National Gallery at the earliest possible date. Apart from the question as to whether a portion of the barrack-yard could be spared for an immediate and small extension of the National Gallery westwards, I am strongly of the opinion that it would be inconvenient and undesirable to carry out the extension in a piecemeal fashion. The designs for a more complete building can be prepared in 1897, so as to be in readiness for beginning its construction in the following year should funds be available.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Colonel SAUNDEHSON), I beg to ask the Postmaster General when it is proposed to build the post office at Portadown?

As stated on the 21st of February, in reply to a similar inquiry, the question is more properly one for the Secretary to the Treasury. The plans were approved by me at the end of February, and I understand that the Board of Works in Ireland will probably be in a position to invite tenders for the work some time next month.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Town Council of the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme has recently, by an alteration in its bye-laws, very largely increased the market tolls on agricultural produce; whether such alterations have been approvd by any Department of the Government; and, whether, in view of its serious and damaging effect on the agriculture generally of the district, he will intervene to procure a reconsideration of the subject, or will suggest what action should be taken to that end?

I have been in communication with the Town Council of Newcastle-under-Lyme on this subject, and I am informed that in no case have the tolls on agricultural produce been increased, but that, on the other hand, they have in several items been decreased. The tolls have not been approved by any Department of the Government, the Mayor, as Clerk of the Markets, being empowered under a Local Act to fix the amount of the tolls to be collected. The matter is not one in which I have any authority to intervene, and I can only suggest that the agriculturists of the district should bring their case under the notice of the Town Council with a view to its further consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General—(1) whether, on two occasions recently, the American mails made up in London on Saturdays have reached New York within a few hours of those made up the preceding Wednesdays; (2) whether, as now arranged, in consequence of the slow speed of the Britannic and Germanic, compared with that of the Lucania and Campania, there will be every fortnight this year a practically simultaneous delivery at New York of the Wednesday and Saturday mails; and (3), whether, in future mail contracts, precautions will be taken against depriving the public of a semi-weekly delivery of the mails at New York?

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is, Yes; and this is one of the minor drawbacks which occasionally qualify the public advantage of introducing such swift boats as the Campania and Lucania into a mail service. With regard to the second paragraph of the question, I am glad to be able to assure the House that there will not be every fortnight this year a practically simultaneous delivery at New York of the Wednesday and Saturday mails. As far as can be judged from the information in my hands, this is not likely to happen on many occasions in the next few months. Nevertheless, I have already called the attention of the contractors to the postal disadvantage resulting from the juxtaposition of slow and fast boats, and have ascertained from them that they have re-engined the Germanic with the view of securing a considerable acceleration by that vessel; and I have also obtained from them a promise to curtail the use of the slow boats as far as possible. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that the arrangements for accelerating the American mail on Saturday, which was rendered possible by the Saturday half-holiday, have reduced by at least four hours the interval between the sailing of the Wednesday and Saturday packet.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether one of the principal officers of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentonville, is over 70 years of age, and has completed more than 40 years' service, and, if his acceptance of a higher salary, based upon the Government scale of pay on the transfer of the prisons, brings him under the usual regulations governing retirement from the public service; upon what date is it proposed to retire him; and, in view of that fact, that one-fifth and three-fifths respectively of the first and second-class clerks are already at the maximum of their ranks, whether he will recommend the Treasury to enforce Section 36 of the Prisons Act, 1877, and retire the officer referred to and others who come within the provisions of that section, in order that the serious congestion in promotion may be relieved in those other ranks.

The statement in question as to the age and length of service of this officer is correct. His rights are preserved, as I stated the other day, by Section 35 of the Prisons Act, 1877; his salary remained unaltered, but he has been granted a house allowance which, however, does not bring him within the rules as to retirement which govern the Civil Service. The Treasury has no power under Section 36 of the Prisons Act to compel the retirement of an officer transferred from the Local Service and protected by Section 35.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although used and unused Foreign stamps could formerly be sent by book post, in January last a new regulation provided that only used stamps could be so transmitted; whether he is aware that the used stamps, and particularly rare varieties, are as a rule just as valuable to a thief or other possessor as those which are unused; whether it is still permitted to post a stamped and addressed envelope in an open envelope or cover by book post, although, if the stamp be unattached to the enclosed envelope, the whole must be sent by letter post; and, whether in view of the fact that Foreign stamps are largely exchanged or sent for inspection by post, he will allow such stamps to be enclosed, used or unused, in an open envelope, or cover, for transmission by book post, as was formerly allowed?

The new regulation to which the hon. Member refers was introduced in order to check the objectionable practice of sending paper money (which term includes postage stamps) by post in open envelopes, and I think it is a wise provision. Under the Postal Union rules, obliterated as well as unobliterated stamps are excluded from transmission by book post; but within the United Kingdom obliterated stamps are at present allowed to pass by book post, though I can hardly suppose that valuable stamps would often be sent in such a way. It is still permitted to enclose in an open packet a stamped addressed envelope forwarded in order that such envelope may be returned through the post to the sender of the packet.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can now state when the Military bands will commence to play in the Royal parks?

A military band commenced to play in Hyde Park on Saturday afternoon last, and I am informed by the Adjutant-General, on behalf of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, that bands will play there for the present on Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., or later when practicable. [Hear, hear.]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that it was reported at a meeting of the Leicestershire County Council that anthrax recently broke out on a farm of Mr. Warren, at Arnesby; not only cattle, but human beings and all kinds of animals were attacked that the farmer and 16 men were ill at one time of this disease, one man dying at the Leicester Infirmary; that a woman was stung by a fly and died from anthrax; and that cats, dogs, and birds also died; and whether it is true that, in reply to an application by the County Council asking for an Inspector to be sent down to make inquiry, the Board of Agriculture replied that they had not a professional officer to send down?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that an application has been made to his Department by the Leicestershire County Council for the assistance of a professional man to inquire into the cause of an outbreak of anthrax at Arnesby, in. that county, of so severe a character that, in addition to the loss of the farmer, 16 residents are said to have been attacked by the disease, to which one of them succumbed; that his Department replied that they had no professional man to send; and, whether he will consider of providing some means by which some help and advice might be promptly given to a local authority doing its utmost to stamp out such a pestilence, and will issue such instructions as will insure immediate attention to the matter?

I may perhaps reply at the same time to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for the Harborough Division also asks me on this subject. It is the case that an outbreak of anthrax which led to the loss of two cows and a ewe recently occurred on a farm at Arnesby, but the statements made as to loss and injury to human life appear to have had reference to an outbreak which occurred nine years ago, and I do not gather that any such loss and injury has taken place on the present occasion. I am always very anxious to afford Local Authorities any assistance in my power, and the information we have issued on the subject of Anthrax has been more than usually elaborate. But, as the hon. Member is aware, the business of dealing with outbreaks of this disease rests with those authorities, whose duty it is to employ such veterinary assistance as they may require, and I regret that it is not in my power, nor is it in my opinion desirable, that I should afford them relief in this respect, especially in a case in which no special features present themselves.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is anything to prevent the Imperial British East Africa Company from immediately surrendering to the Sultan of Zanzibar the concession which they hold from His Highness' predecessor; whether Her Majesty's Government declines to permit such a surrender to be, effected until such a time as Parliament has voted a sum of £50,000 in respect of the cancelling of the Charter and the transfer of the Company's assets to Her Majesty's Government; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will indemnify the Company for the expenses which the latter will incur in maintaining the administration of British East Africa until such time as Her Majesty's Government is able to fulfil the agreement into which it has entered?

Since the final acceptance by the Company on the 11th of. April, no time has been lost in preparing to execute the legal formalities necessary for the transfer of the £200,000 belonging to the Sultan of Zanzibar, but some time must still elapse before these are completed, and this part of the arrangement has not, therefore, up to the present been delayed by the fact that a vote has not been obtained in Parliament. A sum will be taken in the Vote on Account before Whitsuntide in respect of the arrangement concluded with the Company, and that vote will be regarded as the authority of Parliament for carrying the whole agreement into effect.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the interregnum in the administration of British East Africa, Her Majesty's Government will forthwith complete the agreement come to with the British East Africa Company by inviting Parliament to provide the necessary sum of £50,000 by means of a Vote on Account, or other method, which will avoid the serious delay incidental to the ordinary course of Supply?

Yes, Sir; the matter will be included in the Vote on Account which will be taken before Whitsuntide. That will be the proper opportunity for Parliament to express an opinion on the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the day?

I cannot. It will be just before Whitsuntide.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any further information as to the proposed destruction of the Falls of Foyers by a public company; and whether he has made any further inquiries with regard to the matter?

I have made further and careful inquiry. I am informed that every precaution which is possible will be taken to minimise the interference with the natural beauties of the place, though I fear from what I am told that those beauties will be less natural than before. But the Government has no power whatever of intervening. The position of the matter was discussed at the annual meeting of the County Council of Inverness-shire, held last week, and it appears, from the proceedings recorded in the Press, that the matter will again be referred to them at their next meeting in October.

Do I understand my right right hon. Friend to say that the matter is not yet settled?

It is practically settled. The only body able to interfere is the Road Board, and, I believe, they have decided not to interfere.

asked whether he was aware that although the ornamental waters of Foyers might hereafter be conveyed in a more utilitarian channel, enough would be left in that neighbourhood of the grand and the beautiful to satisfy the sentimental yearnings of the hon. Member for Peterborough?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of Lord Morley's and Lord Helper's Committees in reference to the administration of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea?

The recommendations of Lord Morley's Committee may be regarded as merged in those of Lord Belper's Committee. The latter are at present under my consideration, and I hope to be able to give effect to a large proportion of them; but as the changes to be effected will require Treasury consent, I cannot at present specify the proposals which will be adopted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps are taken, if any, to ascertain the number of Second Division clerks who are eligible for promotion to the First Division; whether a list of such candidates is kept; and what measures are adopted for their promotion?

Every clerk after eight years' service is eligible, if specially recommended by the head of his Department, for promotion. The number of such clerks in each Department is known to its head, and it rests with him to make the special recommendation if he thinks it is warranted by the clerk's exceptional merits.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a contract for conveying to Calcutta 11,000 tons of Middlesbrough rails has been given to the German "Hansa" Line of steamers, for the reason that the German tender was 6d. per ton lower than any English tender, making a total difference on the contract of £275; whether he is aware that in the case of loss by collision by fault of the captain the only redress against a German ship is recovery of the sunken wreck, whereas a British ship-owner would be liable up to £8 per ton register; whether the matter of insurance has hitherto been considered of such importance by the Secretary of State for India that he has refused shipowners the benefit of the negligence clause; and whether he can state what steps have been taken in this case to insure the said rails, and at what cost?

No contract for conveying rails to Calcutta has been entered into on behalf of the Secretary of State for India with any foreign firm, the shipment of Government stores being confined to vessels sailing under the British flag. In cases where the manufacturer undertakes to deliver goods in Calcutta at his own risk, he of course chooses his own means of conveyance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reply from Her Majesty's Consul at the port of Antwerp with reference to the circumstances attending the signing on of the crew of the steamship Ethel Ratcliffe?

We are informed that the Shipping Master engaged by captains to select a crew and by seamen to find employment make a charge for their services according to the custom of the port, and that the sailors and firemen of the Ethel Ratcliffe will therefore not have been exempted from paying the usual fee, irrespective of their getting advance notes or not. The Consul states that he has no personal knowledge as to whether in the present instance the issue of these notes was made conditional upon the payment of the charge of three gilders, as advance notes are always handed to the men by the Captain and Shipping Master after the crew have left the Consulate. The Consul says that he certainly did not use his influence to procure the men at the wage of £3 for able seamen and £3 5s. for firemen, nor does he consider it part of his duty ever to interfere between the contracting parties in a matter of this kind unless called upon to do so, which seldom or never happens. It is also incorrect to state that the police were called into the Consular Office to prevent a disturbance, no such request having been made and no police officer having entered the Consulate. It appears that the shipping office being situated in the Sailors' Home, there are always a large number of men congregated about and in the building, and with a view to possible disturbance the police are stationed in the neighbourhood. The practice at Rotterdam is for the Master, or his deputy, the Shipping Master, to make terms with the crew before they enter the Consulate, and the Consul states that he does not have and never has had any business transactions with shipping agents.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not issue instructions to the Consuls to prevent shipmasters from transacting their business in Consular offices?

It does not seem to me that there is any occasion to issue fresh instructions to Consuls. In any case the Foreign Office could not issue further instructions without having the opportunity of consulting the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Board to instruct the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Tower Hill, London, to take down the statements of the crew of the steamship Ethel Ratcliffe, which crew recently signed articles at Antwerp, and allege that they were charged three guilders each before they could get their advance notes?

There will be no objection to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office in London receiving any statements of the crew of the Ethel Ratdiffe.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in consequence of the many complaints made by British seamen in regard to the question of engaging and discharging seamen, also the question of the shipping fees charged, and the general treatment of seamen in the ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and New York, he thinks it desirable that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into and thoroughly investigate such charges?

As far as the particular complaint into which we have made inquiry is concerned, it does not appear that there is occasion for such an investigation. I have received some further letters relating to other places, but it will be necessary to confer with the Board of Trade before expressing any opinion upon them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state the number of shipowners and shipping companies who are at present employing Lascar or Asiatic seamen; whether he can state the names of those owners or companies who are complying with that section of the Merchant Shipping Act which provides that all seamen shall have 72 cubic feet of space; whether he can also state the names of owners or companies who are not complying with this section of the Act; whether notices have been served on owners or companies who have failed to comply with the section of the Act referred to; and whether it is his intention to take any action, with a view to enforcing the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act?

As I informed the hon. Member, on the 9th April, there is some conflict between the requirements of the Imperial and Indian Acts bearing on the subject to which he refers. Every effort will be made to remove this conflict, and mean while it will be made known as widely as possible that the provisions of the Imperial Act must be complied with; and the Board of Trade Surveyors in this country are giving special attention to the matter. I am not prepared to state the number of owners at present employing Lascar seamen. Nor do I think it necessary to publish the names of those owners who have been complying with the Indian rather than with the Imperial law, especially as I am informed that they have shown every willingness to amend their practice upon its illegality being explained to them.

I should like to ask whether a British ship owned in an English port must comply with the Colonial Act or with the Imperial Act?

I have already stated that we conceive that as regards this point the provisions of the Imperial Act apply.

Then I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce the Imperial Act on English ships in English ports, by compelling them to provide 72 cubic feet?

We are enforcing the Act now.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland—(1) whether he is aware that an eviction notice has been served on Donald M'Iver, a crofter on an estate at Ferrytown, Balblair; that Donald M'Iver was a tenant holding under a lease which expired in 1890, and since that time has been a yearly tenant at a rental of £4 4s.; and that at Martinmas last he was only £2 in arrears; and (2) whether with the view of protecting such tenants and preventing landlords anticipating the Crofters' Bill, the forces of the Crown will not be used for the purpose of evicting tenants whose leases have expired since the passing of the Crofters' Act of 1886.

I have received a further report from the Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty, in which he informs me that M'Iver was a tenant holding under a 19 years' lease, which expired in 1890. He was allowed to remain as tenant from year to year by tacit revocation, but from 1890 onwards he did not pay his rent. For crop and year 1891 he paid 16s. only, and for 1892 and 1893 he paid nothing. In September 1894, after being brought into Court, he paid the arrears £11 16s. due for the three years subsequent to the conclusion of his regular lease. For crop and year 1894 he has paid as yet nothing, and is due £2 2s. for the half-year past at Martinmas last. In regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question on the 23rd of last month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, (1) whether the news has been confirmed that Umra Khan has been interned by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and will he be handed over to the Indian Government; (2) whether this Umra Khan is the chief of the same name who in 1891–2 was engaged in raiding on the territories of the Ameer in the districts around Asmar; (3) whether on that occasion, when the Ameer's commanders proposed to make reprisals, His Highness was warned by the Indian Government against doing so, on the ground that Umra Khan's territory was outside the sphere of influence of Afghanistan; (4) can he state to the House the terms of the ultimatum which was recently sent to Umra Khan by the Indian Government, and was it received by him before the British troops crossed the British frontier on 2nd April; (5) and can he also give the terms of the proclamation by the Indian Government to the surrounding tribes?

I have no official confirmation of the statement that Umra Khan has been interned by the Ameer, and will be handed over to the Indian Government. My answer to the second and third clauses of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative; but Asmar was not occupied by the Afghans at the time referred to. The terms of the ultimatum and of the proclamation will be included among the Papers to be presented to Parliament; but I am not yet in a position to say when the presentation may take place. The proclamation of the Indian Government has already been published in the Press.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the date of the Ordinance providing that Ministers and others entitled to the prefix "Honourable" in any of the self-governing Colonies should receive the same designation in this Country; and whether Members of the legislative councils in the Crown Colonies are excluded from the scope of the Ordinance; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State will recommend that they shall rank during their stay in England in all respects as if they were from a self-governing Colony.

said, there is no Oordinance providing that Ministers and others entitled to the prefix "Honourable" in self-governing Colonies should receive the same designation in this country; but in June 1893 the Queen—to quote The London Gazette—

"approved of the use and recognition throughout Her Majesty's dominions of the title of Honourable at present only appertaining locally to Members of executive or legislative councils in Colonies possessing responsible government for so long as they main remain entitled thereto, whether for life or during tenure of the qualifying office."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Officers of the General List Indian Army, in view of a collective promise with reference to promotion and pension made to all Indian Officers (including the cadet who entered the service up to 1861) that is to say, the Officers now complaining of unequal treatment—by a Despatch of Sir Charles Wood, then Secretary of State, published to the Indian Army as G.G.O. 632, of 4th August 1864—will he explain whether the assurances of "promotion through every grade with the pay thereunto belonging," and the right to Indian pension maintained, include the grade of colonel with colonel's allowances, mentioned in paragraph 81?

The passage in the Order of 1864, quoted by the hon. Member, refers to the prospects of promotion and pension under the rules then in force, including the succession to the colonel's allowance; but, as regards the officers who entered the service since 1858, this promise is subject to any change that might be introduced into the Service.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Belfast Irish News of the 2nd inst., from which it appears that the Procurator Fiscal at Hamilton had, on the 30th ultimo, to take the dying deposition of a young man named Joseph Rankine, of Airbles, who had his spine dislocated at an initiation into the second degree of Orangeism in Motherwell; whether he is aware that young Rankine was blindfolded, and, while undergoing certain rites, fell to the ground and was picked up unconscious; whether he is aware that some time ago David Hall, while going through a similar process of promotion at Belfast, by ascending "the first three steps of Jacob's Ladder" blindfolded, fell back and was killed; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter, to see if any steps can be taken to save the members of this society from the danger to which this mode of promotion exposes them?

From the information furnished to me, it appears not strictly correct to say that the Procurator Fiscal was sent for to take the dying deposition. Joseph Rankine attended a meeting of an Orange Lodge at Motherwell, on Saturday the 27th of April last, to go through the ceremony of initiation into the second degree of Orangeism. I am informed that he was taken blindfolded into the hall, and was there put into a blanket, or net hammock, and swung about in it. By an unfortunate accident, his neck received a twist during these proceedings. He called out that he was injured, and the ceremony was at once stopped, and Rankine was conveyed home, and examined by two medical men. They were both of opinion that he had sustained a fracture or dislocation of the spine at the back of the neck which would probably prove fatal within a few days. He is, however, still alive, and his condition is regarded as more hopeful; but I am told that if he survives he will probably be paralysed for life. No blame was imputed by Rankine, or his friends, to anyone. The witnesses refused to describe the ceremonies practised on the occasion, on the ground that it is against the rules of their society to do so. With regard to the case of David Hall at Belfast, I am informed that, on 7th July 1893, he attended a meeting in the Orange Hall for the purpose of getting a "degree" in the society, that his eyes were covered with a handkerchief, and that in stepping on to a table he lost his balance and fell back, sustaining such injuries to the spinal column as resulted in his death. The jury returned a verdict that—

"he came to his death from the effects of an injury accidentally received, or by misadventure."

There was no secrecy observed in this case, and the members of the lodge volunteered to give all necessary information. It is difficult to say what steps could be taken to protect the members of such societies from dangers to which they voluntarily expose themselves.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether there has of late been any extensive felling of trees in Richmond Park; whether such felling has been undertaken for any purposes save those of arboriculture—that is, the necessary thinning of woods, and the removal of aged and unsafe trees; and whether all removal of timber is accompanied by the planting of fresh trees?

There has been no extensive felling of trees in Richmond Park. All the felling that has been done has been for the purposes of arboriculture, viz., the necessary thinning of plantations and the removal of trees dead, unsafe, or absolutely unsightly. In the last few years the amount of planting that has been done has far exceeded the removals.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has been able to consider the further information submitted to him in regard to the unsanitary and dangerous condition of the poorhouse at Loch-maddy, Inverness-shire; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy the existing state of things there?

The Local Government Board have not yet been able to inform me of the result of the meeting of the Lochmaddy Poor-house Committee which was to be held on the 9th instant. I will give the matter my careful consideration when the report is laid before me; and we are pressing to have it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been come to as to who is to be appointed Governor of New South Wales?

This matter is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State. He is not yet in a position to make any recommendation to the Queen, but hopes to do so shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, on what principle the percentage of Foreign and Home produced meat which may be issued to the troops is based; whether that percentage only applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether it holds good in the case of each separate station; whether it applies to both beef and mutton, or whether in the case of mutton no restriction exists; what is the estimated saving for this year by the purchase of foreign and colonial meat; and, whether he can state what has been the estimated saving since the rule was established in 1890?

Up to December, 1888, the trade in frozen or refrigerated meat had not been largely developed, and no restriction had been necessary on its supply. It was ascertained, however, that the contractors were issuing some of this meat mixed with home-killed meat; and, as it was unquestionably a cheaper article, though not as a rule inferior in quality, it was decided that the State should have the benefit of the lower price by calling for tenders from contractors who were to be permitted to supply frozen or refrigerated meat on not more than four days a week. In 1890 it was found more convenient to substitute a maximum quantity for a maximum number of days; and 60 per cent. was adopted as a rough substitute for four days out of seven. The percentage applies to each station at which frozen meat is supplied, and it includes frozen mutton as well as refrigerated beef; but mutton must never exceed one-seventh of the total issue of meat. Mutton can be issued all the year round; refrigerated beef only from October to July, inclusive. This period was extended last year, May having previously been the limit. The saving effected cannot be stated, as the tender is at an average price for the whole supply, and the fluctuations in home and foreign meat prices from year to year preclude comparison; but there is no doubt that the saving is considerable. I may add that I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks this question, because categorical replies upon nearly all his points were made to him by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on May 12th, 1893.

Is it not the duty of the Government to carry out the doctrine of free trade in this as in other respects?

The duty of the Government raises a very wide question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to a statement that the Gordon Highlanders stationed at Rawal Pindi are, in general, Presbyterian in religion, and that they are without a Presbyterian chaplain; and, whether this is a fact; and, if so, whether a Presbyterian chaplain will be appointed?

I will inquire into the facts of this case, as to which I have at present no information except that, according to the Returns, rather more than half the Gordon Highlanders are Presbyterians?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will have the exterior of Wellington Barracks coloured or painted!

The periodical painting of Wellington Barracks inside and outside, is due this year, and will be carried out.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir J. B. Thurston, Governor of Fiji, has arrived in England; whether Sir J. B. Thurston devised, and has continuously defended, the scheme of Native taxation that has been in operation in Fiji for several years past; whether he is aware that this taxation scheme was characterised at the outset by Sir William Hackett, the first Chief Justice of Fiji, as unvarnished slavery; and, also, that Mr. G. A. Beauclerc (clerk of Native taxes and Native accounts in Fiji) stated in a recent Report to the Governor that, owing to the continual exactions of the chiefs, for their own personal aggrandisement, added to the preparation of produce in payment of the Government tax, the Natives were kept in such continuous servitude that they had not time to provide sufficient food for their families or proper dwellings, and that the women, being similarly compelled to raise tax produce for the Government, were unable to bestow proper care upon the nurture and care of their infants, with the inevitable result of a large infantile mortality; and, whether, in view of this strong official condemnation, Her Majesty's Government contemplate any action in the direction of a radical alteration in the mode of raising the revenue in the Crown Colony of Fiji?

Sir John Thurston, who had a share in devising the Native taxation system of Fiji, has arrived on leave, and Her Majesty's Government will confer with him on that and other public questions; but, in saying this, I must not be taken as admitting the correctness of the view implied in the highly argumentative question of my hon. Friend, nor as implying that there is any intention of departing from a system which, as I have already stated, is believed on the whole to have worked fairly well.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that, in the Chancery Division on 8th inst., Mr. Justice Homer, in the case of Putney Burial Board v. Balfour and others, granted an injunction against the 100 and 300 yards ranges being used for rifle practice on Wimbledon Common on account of the danger to life of persons occupied in or attending funerals in Putney Cemetery? and, whether, this being so, he will bring to the notice of the War Office the advisability of doing away with the shooting on the 200 yards range as dangerous to the lives of the inhabitants and others frequenting Wimbledon Common?

The military authorities carefully inquired last year into the safety of the Wimbledon ranges, with the result that the short ranges were found to be capable of being safely used. The judgment referred to by the hon. Member, in so far as it touches the question, confirms the view that the 200 yards range is free from danger, and under the circumstances I do not see any necessity for stopping firing at that range.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason why the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have not given judgment in the case as to the validity of marriages in Malta, which was finally argued before the Council on 20th February 1894; and whether, seeing that the ancient practice whereby the Governor of Malta has issued licences empowering the Protestant clergy in Malta to solemnise mixed marriages, when the parties so desired, has been suspended for upwards of five years, in order that the decision of the Judicial Committee might at the instance of the Government be obtained, he can take any steps to expedite the delivery of judgment by the Privy Council?

The Government have no control in any way over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I cannot answer in any way for them.

May I inquire whether the Government will instruct the Governor to resume the issuing of licences?

I am afraid I am not sufficiently acquainted with the question to answer.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great additional labour which will be imposed upon the Chairmen of Standing Committees by the proposed appointment of a Standing Committee for the consideration of Scotch Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown, he will take steps to strengthen the Chairmen's Panel, at present limited by the Standing Order to six Members, by adding one or more Members thereto?

I will have inquiries made into that matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the tenure of the present Government there have been no extensions of the telegraph system in the western mainland of Ross-shire and in the Island of Lewis; and that for some time past there has been no additional expenditure in improving the postal facilities there; and whether, seeing that the development of the fishing industry is of great importance to the people of these districts, and that to a certain extent it is dependent upon better telegraphic and postal facilities, the Treasury will waive or modify its rule which requires guarantees, and give to the Postmaster General discretionary power to deal with the needs of districts where the people are unable to provide guarantees?

I will ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question to the Postmaster General; it is a matter he is more familiar with than I am.

I have already put the question to the Postmaster General; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the purse-strings so tightly that it is impossible for the Postmaster General to do anything. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to relax the stringent rules laid down by the Treasury.

My hon. Friend knows that this is a matter in which I have taken a personal interest. I will see what can be done.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state at what date there will be introduced into Parliament the Bill promised by the Prime Minister to enable Colonial Judges to take their seats on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

The Bill, I understand, is to be introduced at once into the House of Lords.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, and it is whether he will be good enough to state the cause of the delay in the issue of the Writ for Warwick and Leamington, and the date on which he will cause the Motion to be made for the issue of the Writ?

I understand that all the formalities connected with the Peerage of the late Speaker have been completed, and it will be gazetted to-morrow, and I have no doubt that the new Writ will be moved for in regular course.

said, the Report of the Resolution on the Budget would be taken that night and the Bill brought in; he proposed to take the Second Reading on Thursday, and to take the first Vote in Supply on the Civil Service Estimates on Friday.

Sir,—I have to call your attention to the presence in this House of a nobleman—[Cries of "Stranger!"]—who at the last General Election was elected a Member of this House, who took his seat accordingly, and who since then, I am informed, has become a Peer of the realm. I have to ask you, Sir, in these circumstances, whether the noble Lord has a right to be within the Bar of the House, and, if not, what steps will be taken in consequence of his being here?

Without anticipating the action of the House upon this suggestion, I think it is right I should ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact that, since he last sat in this House, he has succeeded to the Peerage of his father, the late Earl of Selborne?

Sir,—I am not a Lord of Parliament, but I am a Peer of the realm.

I also ask the noble Lord the further question, whether he has applied, or whether it is his immediate intention to apply, for a Writ of Summons to the House of Peers?

Sir,—I have not so applied. It is not my intention at present so to apply; and I claim still to be the duly elected representative of West Edinburgh.

The right of the noble Lord to vote is a question for the House itself, not for me. But I think it is right I should point out to the House, that although many cases have occurred of Members standing in the position in which the noble Lord is at this moment, there is not an instance on record, as far as I am able to discover, of such a claim being made as that made by the noble Lord to sit and vote in this House. Under these circumstances I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw below the Bar until the question of his right to sit and vote has been decided by the House.

Sir, In these circumstances, unusual and important from a constitutional point of view, the House will expect from me, in. the position I occupy, that I should tender some advice to the House as to the course that ought to be pursued. I have had occasion carefully to consider this matter in reference to the Committee which has sat on the vacating of seats and the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds in the case of Lord Coleridge, and, without endeavouring to bind anybody by the opinions I am about to express, I should like to state to the House what, as far as I can ascertain, is the Parliamentary law in reference to this matter. I will endeavour to state three propositions as clearly and concisely as I can. I put out of consideration altogether the case of Scotch or Irish peerages, because they are governed by entirely different rules and laws which were laid down by Statute at the time of the Union, and I must be understood now to speak only of an English peerage, governed only by what I may call the common law of Parliament. Now, as far as I can ascertain the matter, I think these propositions are correct. An English peer by patent—I say by patent because the old rules with reference to peerage by writ are somewhat different—I am speaking now of the case of an English peerage by patent, which is the case of the Earl of Selborne—on his succession to the peerage he becomes not only a peer of the realm (which the noble Lord stated that he was), but also a Lord of Parliament. The distinction which the noble Lord has drawn is one in which I cannot agree. The second proposition is that his right to a seat in the House of Lords is as much inherent and inseparable from his succession as his title to the dignity. I believe those two things are inherent in the succession. He cannot divest himself either of the right to the dignity (of that there can be no question) or to a seat in the House of Lords any more than a Member of the House of Commons can divest himself of his seat by resignation or abstention. We all know that can only be done under the statute of Anne by the acceptance of office. The noble Lord may think fit to abandon his title. He may call himself "Mr. Palmer," but he would still be Earl of Selborne, or he might abstain from performing the necessary formalities qualifying him to exercise his right to sit and vote in House of Lords. His right would exist all the same. The preliminaries taken in order to obtain the writ of summons are proof of birth, marriage of parents, production of patent, and so forth. But these are only formalities to enable a right to be exercised which already exists. In the same way a Member elected to the House of Commons cannot sit and vote until he has brought his writ to the Table and taken the oath, but he is a Member of the House of Commons from the date of, and by virtue of, his election, before he comes to the Table, and I imagine that if he were called upon to serve on a jury—from which a Member of the House of Commons is exempt—the exemption would take place though he had not come to the Table and taken the oath. In like manner, on his succession to the peerage, he becomes a Lord of Parliament, and incapable of being a Member of the House of Commons, though he may not have qualified by taking out the writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords. The writ of summons does not create the right. It presupposes that it exists. It is like a summons to a meeting of a body of which a man is already a member—for instance, the Privy Council. There are many Members of the Privy Council. When a Cabinet meets a summons goes out to certain members who sit in the Privy Council. The summons and the inquiry upon which it is founded is only to ascertain the individual in whom the right exists. The practice of the House of Commons has been not to issue a new writ until the writ of summons has gone in the House of Lords; because that is the best and most authentic manner in which the House can be informed that one of its Members has become a peer. But in the interval, before the issue of the writ of summons, sometimes there is a considerable interval. In that interval no Member of this House has ever, in fact, sat or voted after his succession to the peerage, and it was to terminate that interregnum that the Chiltern Hundreds was given to Lord Coleridge. The writ of summons, however, though the simplest and best means of informing this House that one of its Members has succeeded to a peerage, is not the only method, and in case for any reason the writ of summons is deliberately withheld, the House will make its own inquiry into the facts, and if satisfied of the succession to a peerage, will issue a new writ. This was laid down distinctly in 1830, in the case which occurred in the borough of Beer Alston. An hon. Member moved—

"That the Speaker do issue his warrant for a new writ for the borough of Beer Alston in the room of Lord Louvain, now Earl of Beverley."

The hon. Member said:—

"The Speaker having inquired, when the subject was mentioned to him yesterday, whether the usual words, 'now summoned up to the other House of Parliament,' were added to the Motion, and having been answered in the negative, was pleased to recommend that reference should be made to the precedents for the purpose of seeing whether such addition in the terms of the Motion was not essential."

Therefore, there was a Motion made without allegation that a summons be issued, which is the usual, and, under the particular circumstances, the proper allegation, because that is the evidence upon which the House acts as being the best evidence that can be got. But the Speaker laid down this doctrine (in which I may be permitted to say I entirely concur). He said:—

"There could certainly be no doubt that if a Member of this House became a peer the House can order a new writ to be issued in his room, and consequently unseat him without the House of Lords having issued such summons."

That is the critical point.

"But, then, the House would require evidence, positive evidence, that such a Member had really become a peer. This had been the uniform course. The House must have sufficient proof, and it was true that the issue of a summons by the other House was not essential to the sufficiency of proof. The issuing of such a summons alone would be sufficient proof. It had always been taken as such. But it did not follow from that that the House might not have sufficient proof without the summons, or if they were negligent in issuing the summons such conduct on the part of the Lords could not estop the House of Commons from doing that which the law of the land justified them in doing, or in calling upon them to do—to issue the writ."

That is to say, if there were laches in the House of Lords, or the House of Lords deliberately did not issue the summons, the House of Commons would act on the fact that the Member had succeeded to the peerage; and, in fact, that is so, if the House of Lords not only had not issued the summons but had refused to issue the summons. So it is perfectly plain that the same principle applies whether there are laches in not applying for, or in the House of Lords not issuing the writ of summons. The Speaker in 1830 repeated, that the House must have sufficient evidence of the fact that a person had become a peer. Now, is that a true doctrine?

What was done in that case?

I am going to state what was done—

"Thereupon the Speaker said he had received information that Lord Louvain was going to apply for a writ of summons, and having received an assurance that that course would be taken he requested Mr. Leader to withdraw the Motion, which he did."

It was for this reason, no doubt, that you, Sir, put the question to the noble Lord, whether he intended to apply for a writ of summons. If he said he intended to apply for a writ of summons, that would determine the case. Then, of course, there would be no reason to do anything more. It might be left until the writ of summons was issued, and we could proceed upon it—

"As soon as the fact of the succession to a peerage has been ascertained by this House, the writ will issue, of course, the Member becoming in fact a Lord of Parliament, and as such incapable of sitting in the House of Commons."

The House, therefore, if satisfied that Lord Wolmer has succeeded to the peerage, and consequently become a Lord of Parliament, would be justified, and, indeed—as Speaker Manners-Sutton, in the Beer Alston casa, said—would be called upon to issue a new writ for West Edinburgh, having made such inquiries as may be necessary to ascertain the fact of his succession to the peerage. It is true that, in answer to your question, Sir, the noble Lord said he had succeeded to a peerage. But I do not think the House could be satisfied with that evidence alone, which ought to be taken in the formal manner in which it would be taken in the House of Lords, before the writ of summons was issued, the evidence being there being marriage of parents, succession, and patent. A man might think he had succeeded to a peerage and be mistaken, as happened in the case of Lord Dursley, who claimed the Berkeley peerage. Therefore the House of Commons should satisfy itself of the succession of Lord Wolmer to the Earldom of Selborne, and, having done that, I have pointed out what its decision would be. There is no doubt but that the House will take a proper course, and the noble Lord, by bowing to your recommendation to retire until the matter has been decided, has given us ample time to take a proper course in this matter. There is a Committee sitting now on the question of the vacating of seats, and I submit to the House that it would be convenient that we should refer to that Committee to ascertain whether or not Lord Wolmer has succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne. If the Committee report to us that he has so succeeded, it will then, I imagine, be the duty of those who are responsible for the proceedings of this House to move thereupon that a new writ be issued, and, if that course commends itself to the House, it would be a proper thing to put down on the paper this evening a motion of reference to that Committee to report to us on the facts as they find them. In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the question raised, I would submit that the instruction to the Committee should be that the fact of the succession of Lord Wolmer to the Earldom of Selborne be ascertained in the same manner as that in which the House of Lords would ascertained that fact if it were asked to issue a writ of summons. We should then be in exactly the same position as we should be in on the issue of a writ of summons by the House of Lords, only we should have made that investigation for ourselves in the absence of an investigation by the House of Lords which will not be made, but will be defeated by the noble Lord not applying for a writ of summons.

In substance I entirely concur in the course suggested by the Leader of the House, although I have one small suggestion to make with regard to the method in which that suggestion should be carried into effect. While I agree with the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, at all events we must regard with great sympathy the attempt made by my noble Friend, Lord Selborne, still to remain a Member of this House so as to be able to work in a sphere which he has so long adorned. For my own part, if my settled conviction on this subject could be shaken, it would be shaken by my sense of the great loss, not only to the Party to which I belong, but the whole House has suffered in the course of one week by the loss of two of its Members who have done so much to adorn our debates. Putting aside all legal technicalities, and putting out of sight all precedents and all those utterances, occasionally ambiguous, and, I fear, sometimes contradictory, which may have been made by various authorities, what we have to consider is the broad, practical effect which would follow from the success of the policy which Lord Selborne desires us for the first time to take. It seems to me that every subject of Her Majesty has a right to be either a representative in this House or in the other but that no subject can have a right to choose what his status shall be. We cannot, in addition to Peers of Parliament and Commoners, have a third class to whose own good will it shall be left to decide whether they shall have the status of Commoners or the status of Peers. It is evident that in that case I an ambiguous class would be brought into existence if we were not ourselves to insist upon the course recommended by the right hon.. Gentleman opposite, of ourselves moving a writ if a Peer of the realm did not apply to be made a Peer of Parliament or for a writ of summons to be issued. Under those circumstances, I conceive that it is a matter of secondary importance and interest to try to extract a perfectly consistent and harmonious theory from all the utterances of great lawyers and great speakers on this question during the last 500 years. That would be a task worthy of the antiquarian, and perhaps an appropriate occupation for the Committee which is now sitting upstairs of which I am a Member. But upon the broad issue—it is not a technical or legal issue—raised, there can be no doubt that by what is called the hereditary principle a man must accept a particular status, and cannot be allowed to choose for himself whether he shall retain some other status. There is a case not wholly analogous to that of my noble Friend, which has also come under our notice within the last few days, which it may well be worth the while of the House to consider, and which might with propriety be referred to the same Committee. If a Peer succeeds to a deceased married brother, he is not, I understand, qualified for the other House for some months, and yet, according to habitual practice, it is not customary that he should continue to sit in this House. That appears to me to be extremely unjust. There is a case in our history which occurs most readily to us, and which shows the danger to the community of a Commoner suddenly being made a Peer by the death of his married brother, and being unable to address either branch of the Legislature in his capacity of a Minister. If Lord Chatham had died and left a widow, Mr. Pitt, according to our practice, would have been a Member of neither this nor of the other House of Parliament for some months; at any rate, he would not have been qualified to take part in the Debates of either House. That is an anomaly quite unjustifiable in theory, and it ought to be removed. But that anybody should be able to do that which my noble Friend now proposes to do—namely, to defer to a convenient season his becoming a Member of the other House and during that season to remain a Member of this House—would not be consonant with the interests of the other House, and certainly it appears to me that it would be very derogatory to our own dignity. May I say that if we are going to appoint a Committee to inquire whether the present Lord Selborne is a, person to whom a writ of summons ought to be issued for the other House, I think that that might be referred to a different and smaller Committee than that unwieldy and rather august body to whom has been entrusted the duty of investigating an interesting historical matter, and of which I am a Member.

I am sorry to admit that I do not agree with either of the two Leaders of the House. I confess that my sympathies are wholly with my noble Friend in this matter. If any way could be found in which my noble Friend could continue his services in this House, I for one should be very glad to assist in bringing about such a result, but I think that it is perfectly fitting that a question of this delicacy and importance, which has now arisen for the first time, should be submitted to a Committee. I complain, however, of the nature of the reference which is to be made, and which I think the House, upon consideration, will see is altogether too limited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that it shall be referred to a Committee which is now sitting, and the reference contains instructions to report on all the circumstances connected with the vacating of seats. We—the Committee—are therefore instructed to report on the principle involved as well as upon individual cases. Let me put a case to show the absurd position in which we may find ourselves. Supposing that this Committee, after carefully considering the matter, came to the conclusion that a Peer of the realm was not necessarily a Lord of Parliament. That is possible; but under the reference they would have in the first place to report—[Cries of "Order."]

I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no Motion before the House, and that notice has been given of the kind of Motion that will be proposed, and when the Motion is made there will be an opportunity of discussing the terms of the reference. The right hon. Gentleman can speak only by the indulgence of the House.

I beg pardon. I was under the misapprehension that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the Motion.

I did not propose the Motion, because I thought that, in relation to a question of this gravity, the Motion ought to be put upon the Paper. I will fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there should be a small and independent Committee appointed to inquire into this matter.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to put the Motion down for Thursday next. It cannot be taken after Twelve o'clock. It would be most convenient to defer the whole discussion until the Motion is on the Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give notice of his Motion tonight?

Yes, to-night, for discussion to-morrow.

said, he knew that it was only with the indulgence of the House that he could make a few observations, but as his noble Friend had been directed to retire below the Bar he could not speak on his own behalf. [Cries of "Order."]

I think that it would be better that the hon. Member should postpone his remarks until the Motion is upon the Paper, as they might lead to a general discussion on the subject.

said, that he should be sorry to do anything irregular. He would like to point out that they were in a very extraordinary position. [Cries of "Order."]

I would rather abstain, in the interest of the noble Lord; but if the right hon. Gentleman desires it I will move this moment that the Writ be issued, and that will put an end to the whole matter. I do not think the two right hon. Friends of the noble Lord have been very well advised, but in these circumstances I move that a new Writ be issued for West Edinburgh.

said: I will state my reason for making the Motion. I do not mean to press it, but it will put the House legally in order, and the discussion, if there is to be a discussion upon that, may be adjourned. I think that is the proper way in which to raise the matter, and I shall move that a new Writ be issued for West Edinburgh, and then we shall see what course the House will desire to have taken.

put the question that a new Writ be issued for the election of a Member for West Edinburgh "in place of Lord Wolmer, who is now Earl of Selborne."

No allegation—merely "in place of Lord Wolmer."

I cannot help thinking that the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is somewhat hasty—[Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"], and has placed the House in a somewhat difficult position. What was the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman? Having, in the first instance, told the House that it would be impossible, and contrary to precedent, to move for the Writ until, at all events, proof had been given of the accession of Lord Selborne to the Peerage, and some days must necessarily elapse while that proof was being sought for, the right hon. Gentleman then gets up and moves the immediate issue of the Writ in a fit of temper. [Loud Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]

I must object to a statement of that kind, which the right hon. Gentleman knows to be unfounded. [Cheers and cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have made that Motion in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to speak. It was necessary to have a Motion before the House in order that anybody might speak. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Curzon) desired to speak. I have already stated that I was not about to press that Motion to a Division to-day, but I have made that Motion with the intention of an Adjournment in order that the House might take proper measures with reference to the Committee. To state that I have made that Motion in a fit of temper shows that, I think, for the moment the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten himself.

said: Before I repeat the statement which I have just made I will justify it. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the kind when he made this Motion. [Cries of "He did!"] When he made this Motion the reason he gave—[Cries of "Order!"] Do not let the House run away. I am sure I shall recall to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen the exact words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said his right hon. Friends—meaning my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Courtney) and myself—had been very ill-advised, and in consequence of that he would make the Motion. That is what I call making the Motion in a fit of temper. [Cheers and cries of "Oh!" What I have to say in the matter is that the moment you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to me that there was no Motion before the House I stopped abruptly, having only just commenced my argument, and agreed to reserve it till such time as the Motion should properly be laid before the House. What justification was that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer jumping up and immediately moving the issue of the Writ? Having done so, no doubt he recognised the mistake he had made. [Laughter.] Of course he did. He recognised that he was going to ask the House to do the very thing which ten minutes before he had told them they could not do, namely, to issue a Writ far West Edinburgh without knowing whether Lord Selborne is a Peer or not. I really think that it was quite unnecessary for him to make a Motion of that kind. We were perfectly content that the matter should go over till a future day, and that the question, which, after all, ought to be discussed in perfect good humour, should be postponed. For my part I am totally unable to under-seand the feeling evinced in a question of high constitutional importance. Surely we ought to be able to discuss that with perfect coolness and impartiality. I recognise that I am, on the present occasion, at any rate, in a minority in this House. It is evidently not a Party question. There are at least as many hon. Members on the other side who disagree with me as on this side; but I hope, notwithstanding that, that the House will allow me very briefly to state the reasons which have led me to object to the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bear in mind what it is we are discussing—nominally whether the Writ should issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to explain that he is perfectly willing that this matter should be adjourned while the question is referred to a Committee. My first point is this—and upon that I hope I shall have the general assent of the House—that if you refer it to a Committee, you shall refer, not part of the question, but the whole question—you shall, in fact, refer to the Committee what has already been referred to the Committee on the Vacation of Seats—namely, whether a person who succeeds and becomes a Peer of the realm does of necessity become a Lord of Parliament, and is thereby excluded from sitting in this House. If you do not refer the whole question, you will run the risk of settling this question in a sense which may be inconsistent with the settlement of the general question. My second point—and this I address to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—is this. I think my hon. Friend suggested that the matter should be referred, not to the Committee already sitting, but to an independent Committee. There again, if I may venture to submit to him an objection, it appears to me that it would not do to have two Committees sitting on the same subject at the same time, for you might have the extraordinary result of two inconsistent decisions. Surely you must leave this whole question to the decision of one Committee, whether it be the existing Committee or a new one. There is one other point: that is, the question whether you have gone far enough in referring exclusively to the status of Lord Selborne. You, Mr. Speaker, said, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated, the statement that there never had been, to the best of your knowledge and belief, any previous case in which a Peer of the realm had either sat in this House or claimed to sit in this House. But I am under the impression that that is not the case. I am under the impression that there has been a case of a gentleman who is entitled to claim his position as a Peer of the realm and a Lord of Parliament, who has refrained from applying for a Writ of Summons, who has refrained from taking any of the steps necessary in order to establish his position as a Peer, who has appeared as a candidate before a const tuency, has been elected by that constituency, and is now sitting in this House. (An hon. MEMBER: "A Scotch Peer.") No. It is an English Peerage that is in question. [Cries of"Name?"] If that be so should not the reference to the Committee be wide enough to cover that case also? Is it right and proper, if this matter is for the first time to be decided, that reference should be made to a single case which has been openly and frankly brought before the House when there is, as I believe, one case—there may be others—to which exactly the same argument will apply? As to the general question, I think it has been very fairly stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As I understand the matter, there is no statutory provision in regard to this subject. My noble Friend can sit and vote in this House, if this House will allow him, without incurring any penalties, or without its being in the power of any person to contest the matter in a Court of Law. It is, therefore, wholly a question for this House. The House of Commons has never, so far as I know, decided the question heretofore. It has to decide a new point—a point no doubt of the greatest importance, and it must decide it, I think, as a matter of expediency. Therefore I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. But my right hon. Friend goes on to say that, dealing with it as a question of expediency, it cannot be expedient that a man should now for the first time be allowed to choose his own status—whether he shall be a Lord of Parliament or a Member of this House. I do not think that accurately describes the situation; I believe that choice has already been exercised, and therefore, may be exercised again. The case I should quote is that of Lord Palmerston. He deliberately chose his status. He might, by making his claim, have become a Peer of Ireland, and as such he would probably have become a Lord of Parliament. But in order to avoid that, and with no other reason whatever, he refused to make good his Irish Peerage, and sat and voted as Leader of the House of Commons. Therefore, I say, the point is not new. There have been precedents, although not raised in quite so simple a form as the one before us. I hope the House will not allow its prejudices to be enlisted, but will allow of a full and fair inquiry, which will take into account not merely the case of my noble Friend, but all similar cases that may exist at present or may hereafter be brought before us, so that once for all the principle may be decided by the House. One word more before I sit down. If we were dealing with this question as a matter of expediency do not let us pass over altogether the possibility of the interests of the constituency. What is to happen if this House practically expels my noble Friend, or decides that he shall not be allowed to sit and to vote? Suppose thereupon that he goes down for a new election, and suppose that his constituency of West Edinburgh, sympathising with him and willing that this great constitutional question should be fought out, re-elects him to this House. This House has been engaged from time to time in contests with the constituencies, but although it has always had the legal power and the executive power, it has in the long run always been worsted. What I would urge is, that it is worth while considering very carefully what course we take, lest we should find once more we are acting in a way which is really hostile to the intentions and desire of the constituency,

asked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to move the new Writ that afternoon, but to state the terms of the proposed reference to the Committee before the close of the Sitting?

I will consider that suggestion. My notion is, that it will be most convenient to the House that we should not continue this discussion now, but that we should adjourn the Debate on the Motion for the Writ, and I will consult the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to the Committee and put down the terms of reference, and then I would propose that we should take the Motion tomorrow night.

I have no great desire to take much further part in this Debate, but I think it would be probably more convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to put down his Motion as the first Order to-morrow. There is evidently a great divergence of opinion on this very grave question. As I gathered from the cheers of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, there are great constitutional authorities who do not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or myself, and I think it would be better we should deal with the Motion to-morrow as the first business; nor do I see any reason why it should last more than two hours or two hours and a half. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say he will consult me as to the terms of reference. Probably he and I will find it very easy to come to an agreement, because we agree as to our general policy; but there must evidently be an opportunity given to those Gentlemen who do not agree with us to put down Amendments. I hope, therefore, it will be found possible to put the Resolution in their hands informally to-night, so that before to-morrow they will be able to give notice of their Amendments.

I will try to do that. I do not think there will be much difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to what the form of reference should be. Of course this is a matter of grave importance, and I shall not resist the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion should be the first Order. I hope there will not be more time than is necessary occupied on the subject. I think now I will withdraw this Motion, which I only made in order to regularise our discussion, with a view to substituting for it the Motion for the reference to a Committee tomorrow.

wished to point out that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition, weighty and powerful as they were, must not go forth to the country as statements absolutely acquiesced in by the bulk of the House, because very different opinions might be expressed on the subject.

, resuming the Debate on the Amendment, said, that by the 32nd section of the Bill, which was the one to which these words referred, there was to be a special set of persons created in the Church in Wales during the time after the passing of this Bill and before the date of Disestablishment. It was provided by Section 32 that the Queen might, in the case of a vacant Bishopric, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury or any three Welsh Bishops, fill the vacancy, and any Bishop so appointed should not be summoned to or qualified to sit in the House of Lords. The second sub-section provided that any other vacancy might be filled up as if this Act had not been passed, but the person so appointed should be subject to the provisions hereinafter mentioned. The effect would be this: If the Bill passed, and there was a vacant Bishopric in the Church in Wales between the time of the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, that Bishopric would be filled up in a way that was entirely new—namely, by Her Majesty upon the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh Bishops. But a Bishop or an Incumbent so appointed could only exercise the functions and receive the emoluments of his office until the already fixed date at which the Disestablishment should take effect, and it appeared to him a somewhat serious thing that that office should be created. He could not see any reason why, during the time before the date of Disestablishment, if any vacancy should take place, a Bishop should not be appointed having the full rights of any other Bishop. The same observation applied to Incumbents. If Section 32 passed as it stood, they might have a small group of incumbents who, having been appointed between the date of the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment, were in an altogether anomalous position. At the time of the date of Disestablishment they would remain Incumbents, and so far as he could see, would have the legal rights and positions of Incumbents subject to this—that they would get no income at all, and new appointments would have been fixed upon places without any income whatever from Church funds. That seemed to him an undesirable arrangement. There was one class of persons for whom, if compensation were to be given—as he thought it should—some clause of this kind would be required. If it were proposed that some provision should be made for curates in the Church in Wales, then undoubtedly some words of limitation might be required to prevent the appointment of curates for the purpose of obtaining the advantage of compensation. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to compensate curates at all, and there was no class of persons which might be called into existence for the purpose of getting compensation. That seemed to alter the case altogether from the case of the Irish Church Bill. Suppose this Bill were to pass this year, but was nut to come into force for eighteen months, he could not see why, if a vacancy took place six months hence in one of these parishes, the clergyman appointed should not be in full possession of the rights and emoluments, and have a permanent income like the other clergymen of the Church. The effect of this clause would be to set up a limit. There would be an altogether anomalous class of persons who would stand in a different position from either of those who had their appointments before the passing of this Bill, that was, after the date of Disestablishment. Suppose the Church were disestablished, it would be for those who were to carry on in these dioceses the useful work that belonged to the Church in Wales to try and create another organisation which would have to find its own funds and to constitute its own ecclesiastical polity. But the Bishops who were appointed by the Crown under this Section 32 would remain Bishops of the dioceses to which they were appointed, and although they remained Bishops of these dioceses, there would be taken from them, according to the scheme of the Act, everything they required for supporting the work they were doing. He hoped upon reconsideration the Home Secretary might see that it would be reasonable in this respect to modify the Bill, and, while fixing the date of Disestablishment at such a time as he thought right, to give all the persons concerned the opportunity of preparing for the change which at that date was to take place. It was not reasonable to put in a provision, of this kind by which the Act would begin to operate long before the date of Disestablishment was reached. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman might to some extent reconsider his answer, and be prepared to make not a large but a not unimportant concession.

could only repeat his former answer. This clause was an exact reproduction mutatus mutandis of the provision dealing with the same subject-matter in the Irish Act; and it was placed in the Bill for exactly the same reason, namely, to prevent the growth of vested interests in the Church between the date of the passage of the Bill and the date of Disestablishment. That was an essential safeguard. The Suspensory Bill proposed to bring about the same state of things. The right hon. Member for Midlothian accomplished it in connection with the Suspensory Act of 1868. The present Government were following his example, and for the same reasons, by declaring that in the interval which they reasonably allowed between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, the growth of new interests should be postponed.

admitted that the clause was an exact reproduction of the words of the Irish Act, but it did not reproduce all the Irish Act. If they were to follow the precedent of the Irish Act they must do it all through. He failed to see the justice of following the precedent only when it appeared to penalise the Church, and disregarding it when by so doing they would inflict some extra injury upon the Church. There was a very good reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not follow the Irish Act in this case. The Church in Ireland was the Church of a small minority, and it was perfectly well known, even before Disestablishment, that there was not the slightest chance of there being a resident clergyman of the Disestablished Church in every Irish parish. Now, the Welsh Church covered the whole of the Principality, and even after Disestablishment it was hoped that it would still be possible to maintain a resident clergyman in every single parish in Wales. But if the Amendment were not accepted, it might be absolutely impossible, between the two dates, to get any clergyman appointed. If no vested interest were allowed to be created, it might be impossible for private patrons to find anybody who would be willing to accept the position of clergyman under the existing circumstances. It was true that if the Amendment was accepted vested interests would be created for 16 months; but, on the other hand, it would be a great disadvantage to the Welsh people if, until the time of the constitution of the representative body, no provision at all were inserted whereby, of necessity, Clergy should be nominated to vacant benefices.

said it seemed to him there was the widest difference between this Bill and the Irish Church Act, because Clause 66 of that Act provided that between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment those benefices were to receive income as aforetime.

said, that up to the present date it had never been absolutely decided what the position in regard to income was of clergymen appointed ad interim under Clause 66 of the Irish Act.

said, that by Clause 32 of this Bill some provision was made for appointments in the suspensory period; but he also found that if any clergyman, at present having a vested interest, accepted a preferment during the suspensory period, he by that act lost the right to compensation in respect of the benefice which he had vacated, while he acquired no right of compensation in respect of his new office. In Clause 66 of the Irish Act, however, there was an exprsss provision to the effect that any one who, during the suspensory period, vacated one office in order to accept another, retained the right to compensation in respect of the office which he vacated. And the reason was obvious—for, unless some such provision was made, no sensible man, having regard to his duties and responsibilities, it might be as head of a family, would give up any position which he held, however humble, and to which a right of compensation attached, for the purpose of taking another place which would yield him no compensation. The effect would be to limit the choice of successors to those outside the Welsh Church and, so far, to paralyse the Church.

undertook to consider the point raised by the hon. Member before Clause 32 should be reached. The hon. Member would probably agree that the question could not be discussed fittingly on the particular Amendment now before them. The point, however, was well worthy of consideration.

said, that the Government had carefully considered the question as to the necessity to make a similar recital in this Bill, and they had been advised that it was not necessary to do so. This Bill would have to receive the assent of Her Majesty, and it certainly could not receive that consent, unless Her Majesty had consented to place her patronage at the disposal of Parliament.

quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to argue that it was absolutely necessary that the Crown should consent to the contents of this Bill; but still, he thought that it was a desirable thing that there should be general words to that effect in the preamble. He only mentioned this in order that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the matter.

said, he did not know by whom the right hon. Gentleman had been advised. Probably it was by the draftsmen of the Bill, and he ventured to say that the practice of draftsmen at the present day, wilfully to destroy the preambles of Bills was a very unfortunate thing. Preambles often contained historical statements of great value, and the insertion of those words in the preamble of this Bill would be a record of the fact that Her Majesty had assented. It was not of course, a matter of contention, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider it.

said, he was glad to hear this pleading for the aptitude and accuracy of preambles. He remembered when a certain Bill was before the House not long ago, the Government proposed to insert words in the preamble to secure the supremacy of the Crown, but were told that the preamble was worthless.

said, that the point then taken was, that the insertion of the words in the preamble was not sufficient. The right hon. Gentlemen would remember that the contention was, that although there were words in the preamble, the body of the Bill ought to carry them out.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said that, so far as the question was one of compensation, it would be more properly discussed on Clause 18, and he should defer any observations on compensation until they reached that clause. The larger question raised was that of disestablishment and disendowment of the Welsh Church, quoad livings in the gift of Her Majesty or of private patrons. Would it be satisfactory to have the nomination to one class of livings vested in the representative body, and the nomination to another class left in the hands of private patrons, after they had ceased to have any interest in them?

explained that he meant by a subsequent amendment to keep the endowment for these livings, and, if they were taken, to say that the patron should have a right to compensation.

said, that was, no doubt, the logical sequence of the amendment, so that what was proposed was partial and optional disestablishment and disendowment, and it would be left to private persons to say in these cases how far disestablishment and disendowment should be carried. That struck at the root and principle of the Bill.

said, that under this Bill there might be cases in Wales—there would certainly be such in England—in which the endowments would remain; and what was then to become of the right of patronage?

said, he ought to have referred to that point. The hon. Member had quoted the section of the Act of 1871 dealing with the class of cases to which the right hon. Baronet referred—that is to say, cases in which endowments of the Church were not affected by the general disendowment of the Act. These cases were reserved, and there ought to be a similar provision in this Bill. He would give the matter his attention.

continued, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had thought out the matter of private endowments. A private endowment ought to remain where it was given, and the patronage would remain also. He hoped the point would be considered before they reached the private endowment clause. He understood the amendment to raise the whole question of the way in which the Bill proposed to take away the right of patronage to livings. He thought this was the proper time to make a protest, and would support the hon. Member if he divided the Committee.

quoted, in support of what he had said with regard to private lay patronage in the Disestablished Church of Ireland, a letter he had received from one of the highest authorities on ecclesiastical matters in that country, whose name, however, he was not at liberty to mention. The writer said:—

"The right of advowson was taken from individual patrons by the Irish Church Act, and compensation given to the patrons accordingly. Under Section 70 of that Act, certain rights of patronage were reserved, having regard mainly (if not exclusively) to trustee (as distinguished from parish) Churches. The Church of Ireland, in her own Statutes, has made provisions (whether wisely or unwisely) for a benefactor obtaining a right of presentation under certain exceptional circumstances, and under certain rigid conditions. As a matter of fact these provisions have not been put in force save in a very few cases, and in those with which I am acquainted, the parish has reserved the right of buying back its liberty to have an incumbent appointed in the ordinary course, viz., by a Board of Nomination, in which the diocese, the parish, and the Bishop all have a voice."

said he desired, as having been nominator in the largest diocese in Ireland since the date of Disestablishment, to say that there were some cases in which there still remained, outside the Irish Church Act, lay patronage in the Church of Ireland. Lay patronage, generally, was dealt with by a Board of Nomination, consisting of elected laymen and clergymen, from the various parishes in the diocese. But there were cases, some in large towns, and others in country districts, in which, by the Irish Church Act, the right of the lay patron to nominate clergymen was continued. And in the Statutes of the Church of Ireland provision was made for regulating such patronage.

said he took a different view as to the rights of patronage, from those of some of his hon. Friends. He had always regarded them as a trust, and not as private property, although the law had distinctly made them personal property. He regarded the terms of the Amendment as rather too sweeping. Although he hoped the Bill would have the effect of stopping the sale of livings, which was so great an evil in the Church, he thought the right of private patronage should, in certain cases, be maintained. In Ireland there were cases in which the right of next presentation was kept and never sold. If the words of the Amendment were retained, the right of private patronage would be absolutely swept away, and not merely money value, but spiritual duty, which was the most important. He hoped the right of private patronage would be retained, although the value of the living might go.

said he believed the right of private patronage originated in exchange for generous endowment on the part of a pious donor. He did not speak as an accomplished historian—far from it; but he understood that in the early days of the Church certain pious persons allotted a rent-charge on their land for the service of the Church, and in return received the right of presentation to the incumbency. This being so, Parliament had no right, in the nineteenth century, to take away from them the right to obtain which they gave their money to the Church. He deprecated the traffic in the sale of livings as much as anyone, but the Committee should look at these things rationally, and if pious persons in past ages, in return for their endowments to the Church, received certain rights, those rights should be preserved to their representatives at the present day. If the right of next presentation were conveyed to a discreet and careful purchaser, as pious and desirous of the welfare of the Church as the person by whom it was conveyed, that purchaser should receive just and fair treatment at the hands of that House. As long as a private patron, whether an original settlor or a purchaser, fulfilled his trust to the Church, showing he had the interests of religion and the Church generally at heart, he should be treated with every regard, and not have his rights forfeited.

also supported the Amendment. He said there was something that private patrons valued more than the fact that they had a valuable piece of patronage to bestow, and that was the privilege of appointing those whom they knew would do their duty faithfully and loyally by these parishioners. Such patrons as these would infinitely prefer to retain these privileges than receive the miserable compensation the Home Secretary contemplated in this Bill. They would view with great apprehension and anxiety the proposal that presentees to the livings should be appointed by Parliament as often as not for political reasons more than for any merit of their own. For the reasons he had given he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if he went to a Division.

hoped that he should be allowed to say a few words in reference to this Amendment, because this proposal had deeply stirred up the minds of people, and especially those of his constituents. A great number of persons objected most strongly to this proposal for the Disendowment of the Church, and therefore they were anxious that no opportunity should be lost for doing everything that was possible to mitigate the evil in the event of the proposal being carried into effect. There were some 350 or 360 livings in Wales belonging to lay patrons, and the amount proposed to be taken by the clause would be something between £360,000 and half-a-million a year, and to take away property of that extent without compensation would be a monstrous abuse of Parliamentary procedure. He was aware that it had been said that property of this kind was a mere trust, and that the lay patrons who sold the next presentations were guilty of a breach of trust. No one could object to traffic of that kind more than he did himself. These benefactions had a respectable origin, and a large number of lay patrons regarded their right of presentation as a sacred trust to be exercised for the spiritual welfare of the community. In such cases he maintained that such property ought not to be lightly dealt with. As it appeared that the Government did not intend to give way upon the point, he hoped that the hon. Member would go to a Division, when he should certainly support him.

said that he should like to say just one word in reference to the system of compensation that had been adopted in the case of Scotland.

Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that no question of compensation arises here. The only question before the Committee is that which relates to the preservation of the rights of lay patrons.

only wished to point out that a Conservative Government had adopted a certain principle in their Scotch Bill.

said it was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had desired to keep the two questions of the retention of the rights of lay patrons and that of compensation separate, but he did not see how that could be done. When they were asked to put an end to the rights of the lay patrons, they must look at the further clauses of the Bill and see what was to become of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that the difficulty would be dealt with under the subsequent clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Irish precedent, but in dealing with this question hon. Members would not feel themselves bound by that precedent. At any rate, however, the lay patrons were treated much more favourably under the Irish Act than it was proposed to treat them under the provisions of this Bill. Under this Bill, the lay patrons were to be deprived of rights which had a real market value. As regarded the right of the lay patrons to compensation, he must remind the Committee that compensation had been given even to those who were the possessors of slaves, whose rights were taken away by Parliament. These rights of presentation were held, not only by lay patrons, but by the Lord Chancellor, who was the keeper of the Queen's conscience, and it was certainly a most important question how these lay patrons were to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. He should most certainly support the Amendment if the hon. Member who moved it were to press it to a Division.

said, that he did not think it was at all unreasonable that this question should have been raised. The clause, as it stood, would operate as an entire prohibition to the exercise of the right of lay patronage. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary intended to take away the rights of lay patrons without giving them compensation. However, that was a matter that could be dealt with later. He entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet the Mem-for the Kingston Division (Sir R. Temple) that a great number of the lay patrons regarded their rights of presentation as a trust reposed in them which was to be exercised for the spiritual benefit of the Church. He should support the Amendment.

asked whether there was anything in the Bill that would protect the rights of those who had given Benefactions for the endowment of Benefices, and now enjoyed the right of presentation to these Benefices.

asked whether there were any provisions in the Bill to safeguard future Benefactions to the Church.

said, he thought he could give a satisfactory answer to both questions. The House would observe that the absolute prohibition was qualified by the introductory words, "save as by this Act provided." Therefore it was competent for them, at a later stage, to introduce supplemental limitations and qualifications which would be perfectly consistent with the prohibitory words of this clause. Therefore, the House was not stopped from considering the matter by passing the clause in its present form. As he indicated at an earlier stage, they ought to make provision in respect of those private benefactions which were not made the subject of Disendowment at all. With regard to the other question, it was quite clear that the representative body ought not to be in the least degree debarred from exercising the same freedom which the Irish body appeared to have exercised in making arrangements for its own future Government. If the words of the Bill were not sufficient he would see that they were extended.

desired to move the following Amendment: "Clause 1, page 1. line 13, leave out 'ecclesiastical.'" He had, he said, put down the Amendment because he did not know what was the meaning of the Government in departing from the corresponding Irish Act and inserting these words. In the Irish Act the words were, "Archbishopric, Bishopric, Benefice, or Cathedral there referred to," and the phrase "ecclesiastical office" was not used. Besides ecclesiastical offices held by ecclesiastics, there were also offices held by lay officials, and he should like to know the reason for extending the meaning of the clause. If it were to cover not only offices held by ecclesiastics, but also those held by laymen in the Church, why was it necessary to have this word "ecclesiastical" at all, instead of applying it to all offices connected with the Church? If the Interpretation Clause stood, he could not see any purpose in this word "ecclesiastical."

remarked that the hon. Gentleman's criticism was fair. The words "ecclesiastical office" were used here in order to avoid the redundancy of "Archbishopric, Bishopric, Benefice, or Cathedral referred to" used in the Irish Church Act. They had proceeded to define "ecclesiastical office" which would include such offices, for instance, as lay rectors and lay vicars. He was not himself wedded to the expression "ecclesiastical office."

asked whether the Chancellor of a diocese and Diocesan Surveyors would be included in the expression, "ecclesiastical office." For his own part, he thought "ecclesiastical" was a better form of defining what was meant than would be secured by the omission of the word.

thought this was rather a technical question, but before coming to the Definition Clause, he would see if it was necessary to make the language more specific. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division, his impression was, that a Diocesan Surveyor did not hold any office in connection with the Church. Such an official, he understood, was paid according to the work he did, and had not a salary out of the funds of the Church. What it was meant to apply the clause to was, any office in the Church to which the holder had been appointed in virtue of some right in the patron, and the emoluments of which were derived from the endowments of the Church.

did not think it made very much difference whether the word "ecclesiastical" was left in or not, but expressed the opinion that the Definition Clause would have to be carefully remodelled in order to exclude or include certain of these offices.

observed that it was obviously intended by the Bill to deal with all offices which derived their emoluments from the endowments of the Church. There were some offices at the present time in connection with which fees were paid, such as the fees paid by Churchwardens at visitations. If it were desired that such fees should not continue to be chargeable under the altered circumstances, something would have to be inserted in the Bill to provide for it.

considered that the language of the clause as drawn was so wide as to include other than endowed offices in connection with the Church.

pointed out that under the Irish Church Act, sextons, and like officials, were admitted to be ecclesiastical persons, and were allowed to commute

intimated that after what the Home Secretary had said he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved "Page 1, line 13, leave out 'or connected with.'" The words, he said, were so wide that their inclusion would lead to certain difficulties. The preceding words were:—

"After the passing of this Act no person shall be appointed by Her Majesty or any person, by any existing right of patronage, to any ecclesiastical office in or connected with the Church in Wales."

If the words "or connected with" were to be left in they would apply to the case of offices which the Bill had no intention of dealing with. For instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury held an office which might come within the description of being connected with the Church in Wales. But he thought the Committee would agree that it was not intended that the Bill should apply to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the Metropolitan of the whole Church, including the Church in Wales, and yet, how was it possible to say his great office was not in some way or other connected with the Church in Wales? He begged to move the Amendment.

replied, that of course it was not intended that the Bill should apply to such an office as that held by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to disestablish it by what was called a sidewind. The words "or connected with" were used in the Irish Church Act. He did not mean to suggest that that invested them with any sacred sanction. They did, however, happen to be the words used in the Irish Church Act, and they had been repeated here because the Government were afraid they might fail to sweep within the scope of the Bill some posts which, though technically not in the Church, were so connected with it that they ought to stand or fall by the same consideration that applied to offices in the Church. It was rather a question of draughtsmanship, and was a matter which might also be cleared up by a fuller statement in the Definition Clause of what was meant by the term "office." He would suggest that it might be better to leave the word as it stood until they came to the point.

said, the words in the clause, would be literally read by anyone cognisant of Church order to entirely include all offices connected with the Church of England. The words of the clause ought not to be left so that they might possibly be interpreted to cover a wider field than was strictly intended.

said, he could not assent to the construction the hon. Member had put upon the words, but rather than occupy time in contesting the matter, he would accept the Amendment.

said, the insertion of the word was unnecessary.

said, he adhered absolutely to what he had said.

said, that as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had reckoned more Nonconformists than there was population in the island. There were 76 parishes in Anglesey, and 68 of the clergy, but how many Nonconformist resident ministers were there? Only 21, and, consequently, although there was a larger number of chapels, a great many of the parishes were absolutely bereft of pastoral care except that which they obtained from the clergy.

asked whether these figures related to one, or to all the Nonconformist denominations?

said, he was speaking of Calvinistic Methodists. The Committee would observe that there were Calvinists in every parish, so that the argument was perfectly sound. In the vale of Towy there were 61 parishes, and only 18 Calvinistic Methodist pastors; in Radnor there were 36 parishes, and two pastors only of this denomination; in Brecon there were 92 parishes, and only 11 pastors, whereas there were 102 clergy; in Pembrokeshire there were 110 parishes, and only 18 pastors; and, finally, in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, there were 280 parishes and 103 pastors, while the clergy numbered 450. In addition to that it must be remembered that nearly half the parishes were absolutely bereft of Nonconformist ministers of any kind. Pastoral care was absolutely essential, but it followed that in nearly half the parishes of Wales it could not be said that the Nonconformist bodies would succeed to the work of the Church. The Church alone occupied the ground. He hoped that, though so seriously hampered, the Church would continue to do her work, though, of course, if this Bill were passed she would not be in a position to do so much as at the present time. The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that the Nonconformists would occupy the ground, entirely failed him, because, although they proposed to take away the power of the Church, they would do nothing to replace the clergy by Nonconformist ministers. Was it not intolerably mean to expect the Church to do that work which it was admitted was essential, and yet to take away from them their endowments and position by which in the past they had been able to do it? Surely the labourer was worthy of his hire. The replacement of the clergy by Nonconformist ministers would not satisfy him, but he had made every concession to the Government in this matter. He did not pretend that if this Amendment were inserted he should approve of the Bill, but he wished to see how far the Government would really go, and he, therefore, appealed to them to leave the Church in full possession of her endowments in parishes where there was no resident minister of any Nonconformist denomination until such a minister was appointed. It was a tremendous concession, and he thought the Amendment a very moderate one.

said, the Amendment was unworkable and entirely unnecessary. He only got up lest it should be supposed that no answer being given, the assertions of the noble Lord, who spoke with scant knowledge of the subject, were accurate and well founded. Of course, the noble Lord had his knowledge at second hand. They knew where it came from. They knew it was totally inaccurate, and inaccurate to the knowledge of the person in high authority who supplied that information to the noble Lord. The noble Lord had argued from the facts, as they related to the Calvinistic Methodists, who have an itinerant ministry, and he put that forward as proof that there was no pastoral care of the people by Nonconformity. Was there any parish in Wales that had not got its Chapel? Was there? [Sir R. WEBSTER: "What about its minister?"] Was there a Chapel which had not got its minister, whether he resided in the parish or not? ["Oh."] He asserted, as against the assertions of the noble Lord, that there was no country on the face of the earth where the ministerial and pastoral duties to which the noble Lord referred were so well fulfilled as in the Principality. The noble Lord said there was no resident ministry, and that the people were deprived of pastoral care during six days of the week. There were, however, people in the Principality who took care of the religious services in those villages even though the pastor might not be there, who were as godly, as pious, and as capable as the minister himself to carry out those functions. To say that there was none to visit the sick, to administer consolation to the bereaved, was a libel on the Welsh people. Was it not astounding to hear the noble Lord make such statements when it was admitted that the vast majority of the people belong to the Nonconformist denominations? There was, he repeated, absolutely no truth whatever in the noble Lord's assertions, which showed utter ignorance of the whole subject.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Asquith) spoke with perfect ignorance of North Wales. The hon. Member sat for Glamorgan, and the House might not be aware how entirely distinct North Wales was from South Wales. He had spoken as if he knew what was going on in North Wales, but yet he had never denied the fact that in half the parishes there was no resident minister other than the clergy of the Church. The reason was that the system of Calvinistic Methodism was the itinerant system. But the point which the noble Lord had made—and he could prove its truth out of the mouth of the Calvinistic Methodists themselves, was this—that the Nonconformists did not attend to the poor, and could not attend to the poor. At Llandudno they had a Committee to inquire as to how it was their numbers were falling off, and the answer was—neglect the poor.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is going very wide indeed of the subject-matter of the Amendment.

said, the want of pastoral care and the neglect of the masses was the very groundwork of the Amendment. Which was the system that would help the poor of Wales best, which would give most strength to the religious well-being of the people—the itinerant system or the pastoral system? His noble Friend's Amendment said—take not away the one until you somehow or other supply the other. That seemed the only worthy way of looking at the matter, and he very much regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite should have ventured to contradict the facts.

said, he had lived in North Wales longer than any man in the House. and he asserted deliberately that every single word spoken, by his hon. Friend in his short and temperate speech, was quite as applicable to North as to South Wales. As to the Amendment, it was ridiculous and unworkable.

said, they all agreed with what the noble Lord said about the resident ministry and their excellent work. But it must also be remembered that the work which was done under the system of the Church of England by the resident rector or vicar, was, under the system of the Nonconformist Churches, performed by those who were not resident ministers but deacons or elders. It was a different system. Each had its merits, but it would be going rather far to say that because the Nonconformists proceeded upon a different system, therefore they did not discharge the great work which all denominations in common aimed at. Be that as it might, it was the system in Wales, and when the hon. Member for Shropshire talked of pastoral care and neglect of the masses, he must bear in mind that the Welsh masses preferred the system of Welsh Nonconformity. It was the system with which they were familiar, and he saw no reason to think that any Amendment would alter the preference which for many years past they had shown. He thought the noble Lord could hardly expect the Committee to take his Amendment seriously. The operation of this Amendment would depend upon a mere accident. If there did not happen to be in a parish a resident minister belonging to one of only four specified Nonconformist denominations, the Amendment would apply. Why had the noble Lord confined his choice to four denominations?

said, that he would willingly include others.

asked whether the noble Lord would include Roman Catholics.

Certainly.

said, that at any rate the Amendment as it stood related only to four denominations, and its application would depend upon such accidents as whether a Nonconformist Minister had continued to live or had died within a fixed period. It would not be reasonable to say that in a Disestablished country there should be little accidental cases where the Church should be reestablished. Then these little cases themselves would be liable to extinction in the event of the appearance of resident Nonconformist ministers.