asked whether the War Office would give an undertaking not to go to any townships which were already supplied by the Dublin Corporation with water, so as to make a contract with them over the heads of the Corporation? He believed that this clause somewhat contravened the Standing Orders; and he hoped the Government would use their good offices to secure the suspension of the Standing Orders in the House of Lords.

said that the Government would consider any steps which might be necessary to secure the Bill passing the House of Lords. He thought it obvious that the other condition mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would be acceptable to the War Office.

The next new clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Belfast, is out of order. The clause runs:—

said he believed it was a perverse use of private legislation that a question touching in no way the purpose or object with which the Bill was originally introduced should be allowed to be imported into the Bill. Such a course was calculated to deter corporations from coming to this House in redress of grievances. The gentleman on whom it was proposed to confer a permanent appointment was a member of his election committee, and an influential supporter of his, but all the same he deemed it to be his duty to the citizens of Dublin, as well as to the honour of the House, to oppose the Motion.

was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as the second Teller, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

hoped the Chairman of Committees would advise the House against the acceptance of this Amendment. It raised exactly the same question in principle that had been thrashed out in Committee upstairs with regard to Kingstown and other townships. The case of Kingstown indeed rested not on mere contract, but upon statute; yet the Committee upstairs found it necessary to agree with the views of the Corporation that all these matters should be revised. It would be most unfair, seeing the Corporation had not an opportunity of considering the matter, to insert the Amendment.

said that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Dublin had come upon him by surprise, but he had made himself acquainted with the question as far as he was able. The Committee had gone fully into the subject, and they had given their decision. The hon. Member was now seeking to upset a decision come to after full inquiry, and, in accordance with the principles which he had always followed, he thought it would be inadvisable to disturb the arrangement made. He should therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member, and would advise the House to follow the same course.

hoped that the House would not go back upon the decision of the Committee, which had been arrived at after full discussion.

hoped that the House would support the Committee. The proposed clause had been before the Committee and was seriously considered in all its bearings. The Committee, after due deliberation, came to the conclusion to allow the Dublin Corporation to enter into the new arrangements as proposed by the Bill.

appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause.

, in moving to leave out Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive, said that if he succeeded in his Motion nearly the whole of Part III. of the Bill would disappear. He maintained that the Committee had gone beyond the instructions given by the House. As introduced, the Bill was an extremely simple and short proposal, merely asking the right to carry out by law an agreement with the various townships of Dublin, to charge them for the excess of water taken. Originally, one of his colleagues in the representation of Dublin, wishing to give their constituencies a franchise in the widest sense, presented at the Table an Instruction for the extension of the franchise. That Instruction, he was informed, was ruled out of order, and he believed properly so. But the Instruction which was refused from the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division seemed to have been accepted afterwards when moved by the hon. Member for North Louth. Following on that Instruction was a second Instruction, wide in its scope and general in its terms, including almost every officer of the Corporation. The Instruc- tion gave power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election and tenure of office of aldermen, councillors, and assessors, and as to the appointment and tenure of office of any officers annually elected by the Corporation, or appointed by any persons nominated by the Corporation. This was so wide in character, so general in its terms, and far-reaching, that it would be perfectly possible for the Committee upstairs to consider whether the chaplain whom the Lord Mayor appointed, his secretary or coachman might not be made permanent officers of the Corporation. As a matter of fact, one of the officers who obtained a permanent appointment under that Instruction had no connection in an official capacity with the Corporation.

asked whether the hon. Member was speaking on the omission of Clause 15 or the question to omit Part III?

said the hon. Member would not be in order unless he was moving the omission of Part III. generally.

said all the objectionable clauses to which he referred were dependent on the franchise clause. If the House decided to strike out the franchise clause, it would be in a position to deal with the Bill as originally introduced, and it would secure a safe passage; elsewhere. No one who had read the observations elsewhere of the Earl of Morley could fail to see——

Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the franchise clause?

The hon. Member is not in order in referring to proceedings in another House.

said he was following the example of the Leader of the House the other day. If by his Motion he appeared to be restricting the franchise to his own constituents, and if he was supported by his colleagues in the representation of the city, it was not because they had any fear of the extension, but because he believed that this system of engrafting the franchise on private Bills was calculated to deter persons coming forward in the promotion of private Bills. He believed it to be a vicious principle, and, if persevered in with regard to this Bill, it would bring it to ruin elsewhere. The franchise provisions which had been drafted in connection with this Bill were rude and clumsy. They were absolutely unworkable. The promoters of this Bill had, in a series of rough-and-ready clauses, thrown together different franchises. There was a general provision that the registration law for Parliamentary purposes should apply also in respect of municipal purposes in Dublin. But rough-and-ready clauses like these could not effect the object for which they were intended. As to Sub-section 4 of Section 16, the whole registration law of 50 years had been crammed into it. The sub-section would take away from the Court of Queen's Bench the jurisdiction which it at present exercised in restoring to the Burgess Roll burgesses whose names had been wrongfully struck off. Under the schedules of the Parliamentary Registration Acts there were forms of objection to names proposed to be put on the Parliamentary Roll. These same forms were supposed to be capable of being used under the rough-and-ready clauses of this Bill in the case of claimants to the municipal vote. They would not, however, be really applicable, and it would be impossible to sustain objections in the Revision Courts. He was not opposed to a proper extension of the franchise, but he objected to these clauses because they were offensive to the municipality and burgesses of Dublin, who had not been given an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon them. He might be told that the general body of the citizens were in favour of this change, but he maintained that it was to those who were already in possession of the municipal franchise that the right belonged of pronouncing judgment upon a Bill of this kind. He appealed to the House to refuse to assent to proposals of this kind in a private Bill.

said that in the case of Derry, the House had already this year extended, by means of a private Bill, the municipal franchise to those who possessed the Parliamentary vote. The Derry Improvement Bill had now received the sanction of the House of Lords. What the Bill before the House provided was that all persons within the municipal area of Dublin who possessed the Parliamentary franchise should also enjoy the municipal franchise, certain freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Dublin, but not in the city simplicites, being excluded. His hon. Friend said that there would be great difficulty in making up the Municipal and Parliamentary Roll, but at this hour the Parliamentary and municipal franchise lists were made up together in England, and there was no difficulty about the matter. Last year that practice was embodied in a Bill that passed through the House of Commons, and his hon. Friend who was on the Grand Committee who considered that Bill took no objection to the franchise, the only objection raised by him being that the Measure would extend the franchise to women. The hon. Member's argument that this Bill must cause complications and difficulties seemed, therefore, to be disposed of. His proposal was simply to extend the English law to the case of Dublin, so as to give the people of Dublin the same advantages as the people of England enjoyed. There were precedents for legislating in this way in a private Bill. In 1883 the same thing was done in the Rathmines Bill; and in 1893 in the Blackrock Drainage Bill, and this Session franchise clauses had been inserted in private Bills concerning Derry, Belfast, Drogheda, and Waterford. The real reason of his hon. and learned Friend's objection to the franchise clauses of the present Bill was that they provided for a minority representation. At present the Conservatives held 11 seats out of 60 on the Dublin Corporation, while under this Bill they would have 20 out of 60 seats. That was the sole objection which existed to his franchise clause. There was nothing better for preventing a Corporation from falling into mismanagement than the existence of a good stout party of opposition.

said he had no wish to go into the merits of the Bill, but what he thought the House ought to consider was whether it was convenient to the House at large or calculated to contribute to the good conduct of the business of the House that these controversial matters affecting the political franchise should be introduced into private Bills. In days gone by all private Bills were dealt with on the floor of the House, but that was found to be an intolerable nuisance, and the practice was abolished, and the principle of referring private Bills to Committees upstairs was established. There was no principle more strongly insisted on in the composition of Private Bill Committees, than that, as far as possible, the subjects that came before them should be approached in a judicial spirit and apart from all political feeling. The House would at once see that if questions involving keen political contests were to be relegated to Committees upstairs, those Committees would not be allowed to decide such questions. They were sure to be reopened in the Whole House, and the House could not fail to see the grave inconvenience of such a practice. The result of bringing such matters on to the floor of the House was that they were no longer dealt with in a judicial spirit. The question involved in the provisions now under discussion had not been dealt with by Parliament in its strict sense, and therefore hon. Members brought these provisions forward in private Bills as a substitute for the consideration of the whole question by Parliament; and thus, by a retrogade step, the consideration of private Bills was being brought back to the floor of the House. To show there was no very great accord on this subject, they had Members representing the various sections of the Irish Party differing upon it. He hoped the House would put its foot down and reject these clauses, by way of emphasising its intention not to allow private Bill legislation to be mixed up with political matters of this kind.

said that when the right hon. Gentleman opposite complained of these clauses being introduced into a private Bill, he must have forgotten the history of this question in Parliament. The Irish Members regretted very much that it should be necessary to introduce proposals in a private Bill. But who was to blame? The blame rested with Parliament, which had shown itself incapable or unwilling to deal with the question. If the House of Lords had allowed the House of Commons to assimilate the law in this respect in Ireland to that in Great Britain, this inconvenient course need not have been adopted. But when the ordinary channels through which justice might be obtained were blocked, it was only natural that hon. Members should have recourse to any means which might offer themselves in order to obtain these privileges for the municipal electors in Ireland. He therefore thought there was no force whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's objection. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to the difference of opinion in the ranks of the Irish Party. That was often the case on private Bills. He himself was opposed to the Motion to omit these franchise clauses. He objected to jerrymandering the city of Dublin, and he objected to an artificial system which was not applied to any other city being applied to the city of Dublin.

rose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the Louth Division. He had intended to vote for the clause if he had been fortunate enough to introduce his Amendment to give the franchise to women; but as he was not able to do that, he should vote against the clause.

desired to know how it was that this notice of Motion was in order, seeing that a similar notice of Motion that he had put down upon another Bill had been ruled out of order.

The hon. Member is referring to a matter which has nothing to do with this question. The only question before the House is whether Clauses 15 to 18 shall stand part of the Bill.

repeated that he had been told that a similar notice put down by him was out of order. He was himself in favour of the extension of the franchise, and Clause 15 had his entire approbation; but there were other clauses attached to it which undoubtedly took away the value of the franchise clause. He would appeal to Conservative Members on the opposite Benches, who were finding fault with the course now being taken, to ask the Government to bring in a Bill to equalise the franchise in Ireland with that of England.

said that as a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill in the first instance he desired to explain his position. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division objected to the inclusion of these clauses on the ground that he had not had sufficient notice.

No. Because they were not submitted according to the Standing Orders of this House to a meeting of the citizens of Dublin.

said he understood the hon. Member to say that the matter was sprung upon the citizens of Dublin. However, if he desired to recede from that position he (Mr. Farrell) did not object. They could discount pretty readily the professions of the hon. Member in favour of extending the franchise in the widest sense when the three clauses which would do so as widely and generally as any other Act could do, were the subjects of the Motion which he now made to the House. He (Mr. Farrell) thought it would be bad treatment on the part of the House towards the first Committee as well as towards the Committee which considered the Bill on the second occasion if the House was now to go back on a decision, which he might say was unanimously arrived at on the second occasion. The position of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division was one that nothing could satisfy. Alone he stood out in opposition to the other Members of the City of Dublin, because on the second occasion at all events it was quite clear that none of them thought fit to put in an appearance before the Committee. The position was quite clear. They had an opportunity of giving to the citizens of Dublin a franchise clause without any extra cost whatever. The hon. member for the Harbour Division spoke of the Bill to be introduced next year, but he had elicited from the Lord Mayor that that was to be an omnibus Bill. Why should objection not be taken to the inclusion of the franchise in that Bill on the same ground as it was taken in the present case. The decision of the Committee after careful consideration ought to be upheld by the House.

said the contention of the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed intensely ridiculous—that because Members of a certain Committee took trouble with the consideration of a Bill therefore the House was to abrogate its function of deciding as to the merits of the Bill. But he had risen for the purpose of making an appeal for his hon. and learned Friend not to press the Motion to a division. The view he took was this—he was strongly in favour, as he believed all sections of Nationalists were, of the extension of the franchise to the bulk of the people, and he did not sympathise at all with the right hon. Member for Thanet in his complaint as to the inconvenience of the course of tacking on this clause to a private Bill. Of course that course was inconvenient. It was almost an improper one, but it had been rendered necessary by the persistent obstinacy of Parliament in refusing to redress a grievance which was admitted by all sections and all parties. Long ago, by universal consent, a Bill ought to have been passed into law assimilating the franchise for municipal purposes in Great Britain and Ireland. That had not been done, and the result had been that they had been forced to take advantage of these illegitimate opportunities, if they liked so to call them, of getting the franchise extended piece-meal to different parts of Ireland. He succeeded on a similar Bill for the city of Waterford in getting the franchise extended, and it would therefore be ridiculous for him to take up the position that an opportunity of this kind should not be seized upon to extend the franchise whenever they could. The position of his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly intelligible. He was in favour of the extension of the franchise, but what he objected to was that the extension of the franchise in this Bill had been coupled with an interference with the mode of election and other matters of that kind, such as there was no precedent for with regard to any of the private Bills in which the franchise had been extended up to the present. In taking up that position his hon. Friend had behind him the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Dublin and therefore he was perfectly justified in his action. On the question of minority representation it would be improper and out of order to say anything at that stage; so far as the principle was concerned and were it extended all over Ireland, he would be the last to say a word against it. His hon. Friend's position was, that he objected to the franchise proposed to be extended in Dublin, being hampered in the particular case of Dublin to the exclusion of the rest of the country by certain clauses providing for minority representation. That was a perfectly plain and intelligible position, but the particular Motion which his hon. Friend had moved was to strike out those clauses which dealt with the extension of the franchise alone. Therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend, as he was of the same view as himself with regard to the extension of the franchise, that he should allow these clauses to pass without a Division, and reserve his opposition for the subsequent clauses which dealt with the creation of this artificial mode of election.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

I will preserve that Amendment.

said it was not necessary for him, in asking the House to reject these clauses, to occupy its attention at any great length. These clauses raised for the first time in any municipality in Ireland the question of minority representation, and he repeated on behalf of the citizens of Dublin that if minority representation ought to be extended, the extension should include other parts of the country, and they would have no objection to minority representation. But here was a case in which one city was taken, and practically its charter was broken up. An arrangement in force since 1840, which safeguarded the rights of the minority was destroyed by this sub-division of wards, and an artificial system was introduced by grouping.

rose to order. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member did not include the question of grouping.

Clause 20 has to do with grouping.

said that was so, but the Amendment of the hon. Member came in on line 21.

said the Motion of the hon. and learned Member was to omit Clauses 19 and 20. He should put the question that the clauses down to line 18 stand part of the Bill.

said the proposal of the hon. and learned Member's clause was that the whole of the corporation should go out of office every three years, and the effect was to limit the franchise preventing burgesses in wards where there were three vacancies from voting for more than two. It was the first time the experiment was to be tried in any Irish municipality, and in face of the facts that no opportunity had been given to the citizens of Dublin of considering the proposal, and that it was emphatically condemned by everybody who had spoken on the subject as representing Dublin, he appealed to the House not to force this upon the citizens of Dublin. The hon. and learned Member had no claim to speak in any representative capacity for Dublin, and of all shades of political opinion the hon. and learned Member would be the last the citizens of Dublin would select to speak for them in the House. Having represented the City of Dublin for eleven years, and having the support of two colleagues in the representation of the city, he felt he was not making an unreasonable demand when he asked that an indignity of this kind, which implied that the minority had not been treated fairly, and that the citizens of Dublin could not be intrusted with the franchise which obtained elsewhere, he thought he was not making an unreasonable demand to the House for the rejection of these clauses.

said as regards Dublin this would be an innovation on the present state of the law, but could anyone pretend to deny that it was desirable, when extending the franchise to make this reform? Of course, when new machinery was proposed in any Bill, it was met with the objection that it was novel and would prove unworkable. Such phrases he had himself used, no doubt many times, and naturally, when these hardy annuals sprang from the mouth of his hon. Friend, he was not in the least astonished. There were precedents for the proposal in the clause, and it was recognised in English School Board elections. A precedent existed in Belfast, and by arrangement between the Catholic Bishop and the Town Clerk, Catholic representation was secured in that Orange city. He repudiated the charge of "jerrymandering," there was nothing of the kind in the proposal. The principle of minority representation had existed since 1840, and the passing of the Corporations Act. The gentlemen who arranged the lists were called assessors, and in the appointment of these and the arrangement of the lists regard was had under the Corporations Act for minority representation. This had been in vogue for half a century, with the result that in the City of Derry, in spite of the narrow franchise, the Catholics of Derry were able to return a Nationalist assessor. In dealing with elections of councillors, it was as desirable to have as full a representation of the citizens as possible. True, the outlying townships were Conservative and did not allow Nationalists to sit on their boards, but he hoped to see the city extended, and these boards coalescing and consolidating with Dublin, and then minority representation would be needed for Nationalists, and they would have the benefit of these clauses. It was impossible to secure minority representation without adopting the principle of grouping. Long ago he advocated the principle of minority representation, and more than elsewhere was it desirable to have full representations of opinions in Ireland, and though now he was attacked for proposing an innovation, he felt sure that when it was embodied in the law, and its effects experienced, there would be a demand for its extension to the rest of the country.

said if the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the position that he desired to secure the representation of the minority as it was required in Belfast, his position would he tenable and his argument unanswerable. In Belfast there was a large Catholic population without representation on the Corporation, and if in Dublin there was a large and influential Protestant population without representation the position of the hon. Member would be impregnable. But the fact was, and it had been repeatedly pointed out in Debate on the Belfast Bill, the Protestant and Unionist minority were represented on the corporation to a larger extent than their numbers could properly demand. The demand for this proposal did not come from the Protestant and Unionist minority, and no reason existed for applying to Dublin a system which did not exist in any other municipality in the three kingdoms. His own views on minority representation were, he believed, in agreement with those of the hon. and learned Member. When the question arose in the Debates on the Home Rule Bill in 1893, he spoke strongly in favour of securing minority representation in the proposed Irish Parliament, and he would be delighted to see it established throughout Ireland, but there was no demand for this artificial system in Dublin, where the minority were properly represented at the present moment. If this system of minority representation, which in principle was a good one, was to be applied to Ireland at all, it ought to be applied impartially to all parts, and after careful consideration by Parliament, and not by the operation of a clause in a private Bill. There were precedents for extending the franchise by private Bills, but there was no precedent for a private Bill altering the mode of election. The grievance was intensified enormously by the fact that it was done without consultation with the citizens of Dublin, and without the approval of any section of opinion in the city or the corporation. All sections of the Corporation were unanimous in opposing these clauses, and the minority repudiated the protection which the hon. and learned Gentleman pretended to offer them. Not a single meeting had been held in favour of the clauses, and there had been many resolutions passed against them.

said that he objected to the clauses on two grounds. The Committee had already passed clauses extending the franchise; and these clauses were disfranchising in their character. Further, they conveyed a gross insult to the City of Dublin. The case of Belfast told strongly against these clauses. In Belfast, so great was the intolerance of the Protestants, that the Catholics never had any representation on the corporation. But in Dublin no complaint had been made of the intolerance of the Catholic majority. The cumulative vote was demanded for Belfast; but the Government declined to give to Belfast an artificial system of voting, which was not in existence in other cities of the United Kingdom. Now it was proposed to submit the City of Dublin to the humiliation and insult which the Government declined to inflict on Belfast. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, with great and unusual generosity to his opponents, said that he wished to give 10 seats in the corporation to the Unionist Party; but he could not share that generosity. In the past the Unionist Party had had a fair share of representation and of the emoluments of office. The system of voting proposed was entirely novel; it was not known to the English law at all; and on this occasion he felt bound to support the hon. Members for the City of Dublin. The application of so great a change as minority representation in municipal government ought to be the subject of consideration in a public Bill. He, personally, was distinctly opposed to minority representation in municipal government, but at any rate it ought not to be brought forward for the first time in a Water Bill.

appealed to the House, in the interests of business, to come to a decision on the question under consideration.

said that if he thought that the Unionist minority would be benefited by the passing of these clauses, he would willingly support them. But he was informed that, taking the proposal as a whole—the extension of the franchise and the mode of voting—the Unionist minority would be a smaller minority in the future than it had been in the past, if the clauses were passed. This particular clause of the Bill would be useless, even if it did not in the long run leave the Unionists worse off than they were now. Therefore, speaking for himself, he should take on himself the responsibility of voting with the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. It was, he thought, a serious matter to reflect upon, that without one word from the Government Benches, the new system of voting should be introduced in a private Bill, and a revolution effected in the municipal government of the capital of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the Unionist representation in the Corporation of Dublin now with what it was likely to be if this clause were added to the Bill. It must be remembered, however, that the House had already passed the clauses extending the franchise, and the question for the hon. Gentleman to consider was whether in this extension some provision for the representation of the minority was not essential. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly contend that the position of the Unionist Party without the extended franchise and without this clause would be so favourable as under the Bill as it stood. He could not agree with his hon. Friends near him that the Unionist Party would have no grievance if the franchise were simply extended without any means being taken to give them a voice in the affairs of the Corporation, He had made inquiries from gentlemen on both sides of politics in Dublin, and he was told that there was one ward in which it was possible that the Unionists could obtain representation with the extended franchise. That was not a position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could regard with favour.

What I said was that under the scheme of the Bill—the whole scheme—the minority in the Corporation would be smaller by a great many seats than it is now.

said the position of the right hon. Gentleman was clear—he wanted to wreck both the extension of the franchise and the minority representation, but that position was likely to confuse the House. It would be impossible, without this provision, for the Unionists to carry more than one seat if they did that.

My information is that if these clauses are not inserted elections will turn in the future not on politics, but on business capacity.

The elections always have turned on politics.

May I be allowed to say that at the last election for Lord Mayor, the Nationalists were only successful over the other side by six votes.

Those Nationalists who on that occasion voted with the Conservative Party were denounced. He perfectly understood the system. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] The fact remained that if, under the extended franchise, the elections were fought on political grounds, the Unionists would not be able to get representation in more than one ward, if in that; and an influential section of the people of Dublin would be kept out of the council. In form he admitted that the plan of the clause was new, but in substance there were many precedents for it. There had been three extensions of the municipal franchise in Irish towns through a private hill, and in each case a maimed franchise had been adopted in order to carry out local agreements. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. Redmond) in the case of Waterford, and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in the case of Drogheda, had been instrumental in introducing these maimed franchises, which really gave protection and representation to minorities. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that while he approved of minority representation, and had supported the principle by his votes in the House for the last 30 years, he was of opinion that so important a subject should be dealt with by the Government in a public Measure. He should, therefore, vote against the clause.

was also in favour of minority representation, but considered that the principle should be applied equally all over Ireland, and not piecemeal to Dublin. The scheme of the Bill was revolutionary. Neither the citizens, nor the political associations, nor the working men's societies wanted it. He had received letters and resolutions from his constituents, protesting against the clause, and he intended, therefore, to vote against it. He maintained that this Bill, so far from increasing the number of minority members in the Corporation, would reduce the number, as he was informed, to five or six. A revolutionary Measure of this kind should not be introduced dealing with the city of Dublin alone. A public Bill dealing with the franchise question ought to be brought in extending such provisions to the whole of the country.

said that the clause would save the Corporation, £300 a year. As the revising barrister had to do the work he did not see why they should provide a sinecure at the expense of the ratepayers for assessors.

thought that it was desirable that members of the Corporation should not be eligible as candidates for offices in the gift of the Corporation, such as the offices of Town Clerk and City Marshal. He therefore could not consent to the omission of the clause.

hoped the clause would be omitted. The had been no abuse in the Corporation under the existing state of things. The clause provided that no one should be eligible as a candidate for a post under the Corporation who had been a member of the Corporation within 12 months of the election. There might be on the Corporation a gentleman specially qualified to act as City solicitor, but this clause would preclude him from being appointed.

took objection to the first part of the clause because it would attach the condition of permanency to the position of Corporation officials who had hitherto been elected annually. A Corporation was not a permanent body quoad the members who composed it. Its members were liable to be turned out if the electors thought that the work of the Corporation had not been efficiently performed. That being the case, the Corporation ought to have full control over the officials charged with the duty of carrying out its wishes, and such control might be impaired if those officials held office permanently,

expressed the same opinion. The clause would make the officials of the Corporation its masters when they ought to be its servants. It could not be said that under the existing system any official of the Corporation had ever been capriciously evicted.

said that there were precedents for the proposals of the clause with regard to the Corporation officials both in English law and in a Provisional Order Bill recently passed relating to Armagh. He was himself rather against the plan of giving a long tenure to officials, but, having regard to the precedents, he thought the clause ought to be accepted. The clause in other respects was most salutary. It was nothing short of a public scandal that members of the Corporation should be constantly canvassing for official posts, and the clause would prevent jobs.

, rising to Order, said that under the Instruction moved in the House the Committee were entitled to inquire into the appointment of any officer elected by the corporation or by anybody appointed by the corporation. The Sub-Sheriff was appointed by the High Sheriff, and by the Act which regulated the appointment of the High Sheriff it was provided that the corporation should nominate three persons qualified to fill the office, and that the Lord Lieutenant should appoint one of the three persons so nominated to the office. He contended that the High Sheriff', therefore, did not come within the instruction under which Clause 26 was inserted. The instruction to the Committee was that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the law as to the election of the aldermen, councillors, etc., and also of any officers annually elected by the corporation. He submitted that that did not include the Sub-Sheriff, as he was not appointed by a person appointed by the corporation. The Committee, in giving the Sub-Sheriff a permanent appointment, bad exceeded their powers, as he was appointed by the High Sheriff, who, in turn, was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

The Council, as I understand it, nominates three persons, and out of those three persons the Lord Lieutenant appoints one to fill the office of High Sheriff. The High Sheriff appoints the Sub-Sheriff, and the question is whether the Sub-Sheriff is a person appointed by the Corporation. It seems to me that the Sheriff is not a person appointed by the corporation within the meaning of the Instruction, and therefore the Committee in dealing with the office of Sub-Sheriff have exceeded their powers under the Instruction.

Then I beg to move that Clause 26 be struck out.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the Royal Commission on Vaccination has been sitting over six years, he can hold out any hopes that they will be able to publish the result of their investigations in time for the Report to be laid before the House by the end of the present Session?

The Commissioners hope to be able to submit their Report to Her Majesty in time for its presentation to Parliament before the close of the Session. If, however, they are unable to do so, the Report will be, by Her Majesty's permission, presented in dummy with a view to its being circulated to Members during the Recess. In either case, it will be, I hope, in the hands of Members within the next four or five weeks.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state the number of eviction notices, under the Seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, which have been served in Cavan County since the passage of that Act; in how many cases were tenants whose tenancies were so deter" mined readmitted as caretakers, future tenants, and present tenants; and in how many cases were the holdings left derelict, and the tenants wholly dispossessed after service of these notices; and, can he state the number of County Cavan estates now pending sale in the Land Judges or Land Commission Courts?

The number of eviction notices under Section 7 of the Act of 1887 served in County Cavan between the date of the passing of the Act and the 30th June, 1896, was 2,842. But in 452 cases only were the notices followed by actual eviction proceedings. I have already more than once explained that Government has no effective means at its disposal of obtaining reliable, or even approximately reliable, information as to the numbers of tenants restored as either "present" or "future" "tenants, but I am told that out of the 452 cases of actual eviction proceedings to which I have referred, the tenants were readmitted in 257 cases, either as caretakers or tenants, leaving only 195 cases in which the holdings were left derelict and the tenants wholly dispossessed in the period mentioned. The police have no records to show what has been done in the 2,390 cases in which eviction proceedings did not follow the service of notices, but it may be assumed that in the great majority of these cases settlements were arrived at between landlord and tenant. The statistics of the Land Judge's Court do not enable the Registrar to state the number of estates for sale in that Court according to counties. There are six estates from the county, in which sale proceedings are now pending in the Land Commission Court.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, can he state in whose hands the old Military Barracks at Belturbet now is; whether it is proposed to use it for Military purposes again; and, if not, what the War Department intend to do with it.

The Barracks at Belturbet are in the charge of the Military authorities. They are liable to be used when there is not room in other barracks in the districts.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can state why the Hulme Cavalry Barracks, Manchester, and the Regent's Road Barracks, Salford, are being dismantled of all the Military fixtures if the War Office have not as yet decided what is to be done with regard to the garrison in Manchester and Salford in the future; and whether he can say how soon the decision of the Military authorities with regard to Manchester and Salford will be made public?

There is no present question of demolishing or dismantling the Hulme Barracks which are now occupied by troops. The barracks at Salford have such unsatisfactory drainage that they cannot be occupied without very considerable re-construction. The question is before the Military authorities, and all the circumstances will be carefully weighed, some little delay will therefore occur before a decision is come to.

Will the question be considered on military apart from political grounds?

Yes, Sir, certainly on military grounds. In answer to a further question from Mr. GALLOWAY,

If any decision is arrived at I will communicate to the hon. Member. The question must be decided before any money is expended on barracks.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether the Government after the careful consideration which they promised at the commencement of the Session to give to this subject, have come to any decision regarding the supply of food and forage to the Army; and, whether they see their way to giving our own in place of foreign agriculturists the benefit of the money paid by the taxpayers in this country for the support of the defensive forces of the Empire?

It has not yet been possible to arrive at any decision regarding the supply of meat and forage to the Army. The question is one involving many serious points—not the least of which are those relating to expense, and to change in the present military system. The inquiries are being pursued in the hope that some solution of the question may be found which, either wholly or in part, may meet the object which the hon. Member has in view.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) with reference to the late promotions to the first class of female telegraphists in Belfast, how many were so promoted, and what is the average length of service of each; how many were on that occasion superseded, and what is the length of their respective services; and also what were the grounds upon which these supersessions took place; (2) whether he is aware that those superseded have performed and continue to discharge similar duties as those performed by those by whom they have been superseded, and that similar duties in other large offices are participated in by members of the service holding the rank of first class telegraphist; (3) whether it is alleged that the supersessions in this instance are due to those superseded not being efficient in the manipulation of telegraph instruments; and (4), whether, seeing that the alleged disqualification is due to local administration which debarred them from attaining a high standard of proficiency, and that at least two of those superseded are equally as efficient as some of the present members of the first class, he will reconsider his decision in the matter?

The number of women telegraphists recently promoted was seven. Their length of service ranged from 13 to 7½ years, the average being about 9½ years. Five women telegraphists were passed over, and their length of service was about 25 years in each case. These five were passed over because they were not qualified to perform the duties of first class telegraphists. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative; but such work forms only a portion of that for which the promoted telegraphists may be made responsible. The answer to the third paragraph is, Yes. The Postmaster General has no reason to suppose that the disqualification of those who were passed over is due to any default in the local administration. The promoted telegraphists worked under the same conditions as the others. I have answered the hon. Member's Question, though I hope that the House will allow me to add that injury will be done to the Public Service, and pain may be caused to individuals, if questions are frequently asked as to the grounds on which promotions are made or refused.

Is it not a fact that the superseded telegraphists are now engaged on duties—public and departmental—as important as those of the telegraphists who superseded them?

For a portion of the time they are—at the beginning of their new service. But the promoted telegraphists are liable at any time to be called upon to take much more responsible work, and it is for that work that those not promoted are not fitted.

Did any of them fail? Is it not fair that they should have an opportunity of trying that work?

Order, order! The hon. Member's Question has been fully answered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he can state how many sworn inquiries were held during the year 1893, 1894, and 1895, arising out of the election of poor law guardians in Ireland; (2) and, whether he will take steps to have elections for the position of poor law guardian in future carried out under the Ballot Act.

The number of sworn inquiries held during the years mentioned in connection with the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland were 13 in 1893; 8 in 1894; and 12 in 1895. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the proposal in the second paragraph, and I cannot give any pledge in the matter at the present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that potato disease has already extensively appeared in the Western portion of the County Cavan; and can he state whether potato spraying has been recommended in this district by the local authorities, or have steps been taken by the Government to make the application of strawsonite to prevent disease easy of access to the poorer class of the inhabitants, to whom the potato crop is so essentially necessary?

I understand that the potato disease has made its appearance in some parts of the County Cavan, but that the potato crop, generally, looks green and healthy and no substantial damage has yet been done to the tubers. There appears indeed to be every reason to believe that the yield of the crop will be equal to, if not above the average. I am not aware that the spraying of the potato plant with strawsonite or other solutions has been recommended by the local authorities in West Cavan. Copies of the leaflets prepared by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission with directions for the use of spraying machines and various mixtures used, were largely circulated amongst Boards of Guardians in Cavan and elsewhere, together with the recent special Report of experiments conducted by the Department in the season of 1895. Everything has been done by Government which experience suggested, to give publicity to these documents, and otherwise to bring home to the minds of the farming classes in Ireland the beneficial results following upon a timely application of, the solutions referred to, and the Government believe that the efficacy of these applications is now very well known throughout the country. Notwithstanding this, however, I am informed that only a small proportion of the farmers: in West Cavan have made use of these; appliances and solutions during the past season.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, has he read a minute of the evidence taken at an inquest in Cookstown touching the death of a boy of 14 years of age, named Patrick Coleman, from which it appears that the verdict of the jury at their adjourned meeting of the 10th June was that, in their opinion, the deceased Pat Coleman came to his death from strangulation, but by what means they were unable to find; and, what steps the Government propose to take to clear up the mystery of this boy's death.

I am asked by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to say in answer to this Question that he has carefully read the report of the evidence given at the inquest. Since the inquest, the Police have been investigating the case, but no evidence has as yet been obtained to implicate any person, or even to show that the death was not accidental.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department has obtained the report of the sanitary officers of the Town Council of Heywood as to the sanitary condition of St. John's School; whether the Department has ordered an examination by its own inspector in respect to the sanitary condition and the structural fitness of such school, and also of the other public elementary schools in the town; and, if so, with what result; and whether the question of additional school accommodation will now be reconsidered?

University: (1.) Not yet. (2.) Yes; and the inspector has reported that the school is in a good sanitary condition and that the premises are generally satisfactory. (3.) Inquiries are being made as to the question of additional school accommodation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the parties concerned declarations concerning the statement that, on the burial of Robert Tomlinson in the churchyard at Shirland, near Alfreton, the rector objected to a Nonconformist burial at five o'clock in the afternoon, and required that it should be at three o'clock; and, whether such requirement was contrary to the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880?

Yes, Sir, I have received statements to this effect from those in charge of the funeral and have been tunable to obtain any satisfactory explanation from the rector who simply denies their accuracy. It seems clear that under Section 3 of the Act objection cannot be made to a funeral taking place at five o'clock in the month of July except on some one of the grounds mentioned in the section; the section does not exclude a mutual arrangement between the parties, but in default of any such arrangement, or of a written intimation from the incumbent that the hour fixed is inconvenient, it is provided (by Section 4) that the burial shall take place at the time specified.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the regulations for examination for County Surveyorships in Ireland, service as County Surveyor's Assistant would count as giving qualifying experience for an appointment as County Surveyor, if the examination was successfully passed?

Candidates for County Surveyorships in Ireland are required to show that they have been engaged in the practice of their profession in a responsible position, in charge of important works, for not less than four years, one of which at least shall have been spent in Ireland. A County Surveyor's Assistant would be eligible to compete provided he fulfilled the requirements of the regulations, but the mere fact of his being an assistant would not necessarily qualify him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the action for assault brought by the Mayor of Sligo, in the Borough Court of Sligo, against District Inspector Carden, from which it appears that in his evidence the Mayor stated that he did not consider it any part of his duty to protect the street preachers, that under no circumstances would he protect them, and that this evidence was followed by applause in the gallery; and whether the conduct of the Mayor of Sligo and the management of the Borough Court will be brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant?

I have received from my hon. Friend a newspaper report of the proceedings referred to, which, however, hardly seems to warrant the construction placed upon it in the Question.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Colonel RUSSELL), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the very general complaints made of the ammunition supplied for the Lee-Metford rifle at Bisley; whether the Militia have also made similar complaints: and whether he has any reason to believe these complaints are well founded; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this most serious danger to our military efficiency?

Complaints have been received from Bisley of a certain number of hang-fires, but no such complaint has come from the Militia. No pains will be spared to discover the origin of these hang-fires and to prevent a recurrence of the defect; but it is satisfactory that except in respect of the ammunition supplied at Bisley, no complaints whatever have been received, although 303 ammunition has been fired by the Regulars throughout the year.

Will the hon. Member inform the House from what firm or Government factory these useless cartridges were obtained?

That subject is under investigation; we are endeavouring to see whether we can trace them.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman had received a report from the secretary to the National Rifle Association with regard to the defective cartridges alluded to in the Question, and also with regard to the Martini-Henry cartridges, which had likewise proved defective?

Such a report has been received. The investigation will deal with both points.

What was the age of the ammunition?

I cannot say; we are looking into the whole subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a petition has been received by the Foreign Office from the widow of Dr. S. R. Boyce, a Parsee medical officer lately employed under Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General in British Central Africa, who lost his life in a slave expedition, near Lake Nyassa, for a maintenance allowance for herself and her two infant children; and whether, in view of the fact that in attacking the slave dhows, the commander of the expedition having been killed and the second officer severely wounded, Dr. Boyce led the men, and fell a victim to treachery on the part of the Native Chief Makinjira, the Foreign Office will take such petition into favourable consideration, and grant a maintenance allowance to Dr. Boyce's widow and children, who have been left utterly destitute by his death?

Yes, Sir; I am happy to inform the hon. Member that, in reply to representations from the Foreign Office, the Treasury have recognised the meritorious character of the case to which he alludes, and have granted a pension of £33 6s. 8d. per annum to the widow of Dr. Boyce, together with a gratuity of £23 for her two children.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan (Mr. SAMUEL EVANS), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount the Public Works Loan Commissioners are authorised to lend to local authorities; what is the total amount such Commissioners are authorised to lend to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan; what is the total amount such Commissioners are authorised to lend to the County Council of the county of Glamorgan; and what is the total amount which the Commissioners have already advanced or lent to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan?

The sum named in this year's Public Works Loans Bill to be issued to the Public Works Loan Board for the purpose of making local loans is £1,500,000. The persons to whom loans may be made are not always local authorities in the sense of the hon. Member's question. The present Bill, for instance, takes power to lend for the construction or improvement of canals. There is no apportioned limit to the Public Works Loan Board's power of lending to any particular local authority. The amount depends, amongst other things, on the local authorities' powers of borrowing. The Board keep no record of the amounts advanced to each individual county. To select the amounts advanced to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan would entail considerable labour, and perhaps, in view of what I have said above, the hon. Member will not press his request.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Admiralty has yet made any reply to the representations received from the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board for Scotland as to the necessity for further assistance in policeing the Scottish inshore waters against the depredations of trawlers acting in defiance of the law?

A reply from the Admiralty has been received, and the matter is still under consideration of the Departments concerned. As the hon. Member is aware, many considerations must be taken into account before a definite decision can be arrived at.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it will be possible for him to arrange that the reports of the Inquiries into the four railway accidents which have recently occurred in and near Preston can be issued before the end of the Session?

I am afraid that the short time available before the close of the Session will make it impossible to comply with this request, but I shall be happy to present the reports if I receive them in time. The Inquiry into the 3rd accident has not yet been held.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Lords' Amendments to the Coal Mines Regulation Bill will be considered?

I cannot say at present, as the Bill has not been returned yet from the Lords.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give such notice as will enable missing Members, who are greatly interested, to return to town—as, for instance, the hon. Member for Rhondda, who is detained elsewhere on mining business?

I will do so as far as I can, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is very difficult at this period of the Session to give much notice.

Even a notice of two days would be useful.

had given notice of the following Question:—

"To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest on a child held at Poplar on Monday last, when Dr. Cooper Harrison, the medical witness, attributed the existing prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhoea among children in the East End of London to the scanty supply of water, and also stated that in his own house the water was not turned on more than one hour a day, and that there was a filthy deposit in the water supplied; and, whether, in these circumstances, he will make further representations to the East London Company of the urgent necessity for improving both the quantity and the quality of the water which they are supplying to their customers?"

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as stated in the Zanzibar Gazette of 1st July, Mr. Commissioner A. H. Hardinge has left Zanzibar for a six months' holiday, and what steps in that event Her Majesty's Government propose to take to carry out the pledge given to Parliament on 27th March last, that Mr. Hardinge would go back to Zanzibar in the autumn with instructions to carry out immediately the abolition of the legal status of slavery?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Government intend to take in fulfilment of their promise to consider the abolition of the status of slavery in Zanzibar, in view of the fact that Consul General Hardinge has arrived in this country?

Her Majesty's Government are already engaged in considering, in consultation with Mr. Hardinge, the best method of carrying out the pledges which they gave to the House earlier in the year.

I understood the pledge to be that this would be carried out during the autumn?

No, that it would be carried out on the return of Mr. Hardinge to Zanzibar. I do not exactly know the date of his return.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that large numbers of slaves are from time to time being openly sold in Mogador and other seaport towns in Morocco contrary to prohibition, Her Majesty's Government will communicate with the British Minister at Tangier with a view to representations being made to the Government of Morocco against the continuance of this traffic?

Instructions have from time to time been sent to successive British Ministers at Tangier to take every favourable opportunity for urging on the Sultan the suppression of the traffic in slaves. As recently as March last Sir Arthur Nicolson was reminded of these instructions, which there is no doubt that he has borne in mind. He will however, be asked to report upon the matter.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any substantial progress has been made since the discussion on 24th April in the efforts instituted by the Secretary for Scotland to bring about an agreement for an extension of the territorial limit for fishery purposes on the North Sea?

Communications on the subject are still in progress between the Department: concerned, but an agreement in the direction suggested in the questions of the hon. Member has not yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as regulars have been, and in all probability will be, for some months encamped at Aldershot in what is practically a standing camp, he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of the medical authority to the necessity of recommending the general officer commanding to make requisition for these troops being supplied with tent floor-boards, in place of their providing themselves at their own expense with these boards, as in many instances they are doing at present?

The Secretary of State has every confidence in the discretion of the general officer commanding, who has power to move in this matter if he thinks right.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men provide these from their own funds?

No, I am not aware of that. I think the hon. and gallant Member, as a military man, must be aware that it is not desirable for the Department to interfere except at the desire of the commanding officer.

Quite so, but I will take an opportunity of pointing out that payments are now made from the canteen fund.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by Mr. Conacher, Manager of the North British Railway, before the Select Committee on the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Bill, in which he stated that the earnings of the west Highland Railway were most disappointing, and had only amounted to about five guineas per mile per week, or less than half what was estimated; and whether, in view of these facts, he still intends to push forward a Bill by which £260,000 of public money is to be advanced to this company for their Mallaig Extension?

I have seen the evidence referred to. Mr. Conacher put the traffic on the West Highland Railway for the year 1895 at five guineas per mile per week, and for the year just closed at £5 11s. per mile per week. It was only opened in August, 1894. He added that, having regard to the through traffic which the Mallaig line will command, he put the two lines very much on the same footing. On this basis the Bill would involve at the outside a charge on the Treasury of £2,000 a year for 30 years, not an advance of £260,000; but, as the receipts will certainly increase, the real cost will be much less. I certainly intend to proceed with the Bill.

beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in Scotland it is unlawful to shoot game on a Sunday, 14-day game licences are available for 14 days exclusive of Sundays?

The licences in question are granted under the Act 46 Vict. cap. 10, Section 5, which provides that they are to be granted for a continuous period of 14 days. They cannot, therefore, be made available for a period of 14 days exclusive of Sunday?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, in the distribution of honours in celebration of Her Majesty's long reign, will take into consideration the claims of officers of the police force, who by long and meritorious service are deserving of distinction at the hands of Her Majesty?

There is a general rule, the propriety of which I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, which forbids discussion in this House of the question of distribution of honours by Her Majesty; but the Prime Minister will, of course, give due consideration to any representation that may be made to him.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state on what day the Indian Budget will be taken.

said the House would probably be asked to consider the Indian Budget on Friday next week.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will have an Inquiry held into the result of the working of the Merchandise Marks Acts as affecting British trade and shipping, and the ad- vertisement it gives to foreign goods, resulting to some extent in the shipping trade of Hamburg already taking precedence over Liverpool?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I think the matter is one calling for inquiry, and I will consider during the Recess whether it should be by a Committee of the House or otherwise. I must not, however, be understood as expressing any opinion on the cause of the increase of the shipping trade at Hamburg.

asked whether it would be impossible for hon. Members to Divide against any of the Votes remaining over after the discussion of Supply had been brought to a close by the new Standing Order?

It will certainly be possible for hon. Members to Divide against any Vote, though I hope it is a privilege of which they will avail themselves sparingly. [Laughter.] I shall endeavour to bring on the Report stage at a convenient hour next day, of those Votes which cannot be discussed in Committee. If the Committee stage is passed soon after 10 on Friday there will be time to deal that night with the Report stage.

asked whether the London University Bill, which had just come down from the Lords, would be proceeded with?

No, Sir; there is no idea of taking it. It cannot be proceeded with if there is serious opposition.

asked whether the Ordnance Vote would be taken first on Friday?

Yes, Sir; and the Local, Government Board Vote will be taken first on Monday.