I desire to call the attention of the Committee of the House to what I consider to be a serious infringement of the privileges of this House, and I consider that there ought to be some protection of the rights of the House of Commons in this matter. Now, I do not attach much importance to the Amendment of the House of Lords, to which I am going to refer, except on principle, for I consider that a serious invasion of our privileges has been made by the manner in which the Lords have dealt with the question of malicious injuries. With regard to the alteration made on page 3, we have had no opportunity of considering that question. The Local Government Bill is simply a transfer of the powers from one body to another, and it is not intended to create any new power in it, does not create new powers, and this question was never mooted in this House, or considered on the Report stage in this House, but it has been imported into this Bill in another place under circumstances which I think reduce this House to a condition of mere servitude to the other House, and to a position of absurdity. If anyone will take the Lords' Amendment on page 3 there will be1 found a long Amendment extending the powers with which malicious injuries may be dealt with, and there is underlined a proviso which provides—

"Provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension."

Now, Sir, when this Bill passed the House of Lords on the Report stage and the Committee stage, no such, words were in the Bill, but upon the Third Reading of the Measure in that House, these words were inserted. Thanks to the vigilance of the officials of this House, they certainly did endeavour to protect our privileges, and out of respect for the protest made they inserted in another place these words, which are underlined. I should like to understand who is responsible for the stage direction of this House for these extraordinary words—

"The words enclosed in brackets and underlined are proposed to be omitted, and the words in italics to be inserted by the Commons."

This is the advice dictated by the House of Lords in order that they may give thing with one hand and take it away with the other, thus rendering themselves ridiculous. The thing itself is bad enough, but the headline placed there certainly gives a very strong indication of the absurdity of the position. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that you would, under ordinary circumstances, make a pronouncement from the Chair in reference to these words only for the fact that a saving clause has been inserted, and we are in that position now, taking the Lords' Amendment as a whole. The House of Lords has stated that there is to be an extension of the powers which will throw the cost of malicious injuries on to the rates. Now that is a line which rather stultifies them, and we should disallow the Amendment take as a whole. I do not propose in any way to enter upon the merits or the demerits of this question, but I will make this observation, that if we are to allow this extension and make it so wide that when you come to the question whether the tenant has kept the covenant in his lease against dilapidations or repairs, it is a very wide question whether more depreciation of that kind and questions of ordinary wear and tear will not come before the court to decide as to whether they have been done maliciously. The only other observation occurring to me is on the question of principle as regards Galway borough. I understand that the Government are going to take a firm line on the ground of Galway borough on account of the fact that it has a tendency to create a new taxing body other than the taxing body which before existed, and which the House of Lords had no business to interfere with. If Galway is sacrificed as a county borough it seems all the more necessary that we should stick up for our privileges in regard to malicious injuries. Sir, there is one other observation on a question of privilege which I desire to make in this case, and it is an important observation which I hope will be considered by Her Majesty's Government. They were good enough to agree to an Amendment of mine in this House giving over to the Corporation of Dublin the pawnbrokers' licences, amounting to over £4,000, but in the House of Lords they have inserted an Amendment giving to the townships of Rathmines and Kingstown a portion of the pawnbrokers' licences collected in that area. Now, I did think that I might have kept the Government to their pledge to give the entire amount to the Corporation of Dublin, and though the House of Lords has struck out that clause I understand that it is to be reinstated in the Commons. As regards the council of Kingstown, I am very glad indeed that the Government have seen their way to give an additional £800 a year to that town, and therefore I have no objection to the Amendment which the Government propose to make. I would like, however, to suggest to the Government that they should add to the clause which the Lords have inserted on the Report stage and which was struck out on the Third Reading, a proviso in reference to pawnbrokers extending the hours under which they now work. I think it would be a reasonable thing confined from 10 to 4 in the winter, and in the summer 10 to 7, and I think at least the winter hours should be made the hours all round, or, as an alternative, they should allow the Police Commissioners at Dublin to wink at an evasion of the law, and permit the hours to be extended in the case of pawnbrokers, as in the case of all other classes of trade. Finally, the Government have been good enough to insert an Amendment as regards the in- firmaries of the borough of Cork. I have considered this question from the point of view of privilege, and I do not think it affects it in the slightest degree, and I thank the Government for having made that change.

I trust the House will not allow an evasion of this kind. The words as we see them on the Paper are nonsense, and the Government only propose to make them sense by leaving out the last proviso. The Lords have no right to make such an Amendment in the Bill, and I should like to ask whether or not this is a matter which the Lords have no power to do in a direct manner. I should like the House to have some expression of opinion from the Chair upon this subject.

I may add, for the information of the House, that Mr. Gladstone most strongly protested against this practice in a record which he has left upon this subject.

The precedents of such a method are so clearly established that I cannot say that it is a breach of privilege. It is open to the Government or the Member in charge of the Bill to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the proviso. It is not a point of order for me to decide upon, because, if the Amendment were agreed to in the form in which it appeared upon the Paper, no pecuniary charge could result from it. All I can say is that, while can well imagine cases in which such an Amendment ought not to be made, it is a matter which must stand on its merits, and upon which the House must decide.

On the Report stage of the Bill there was an Amendment which would have had the effect of casting an additional burden upon the rates, and you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that we were obliged to recommit the Bill in respect of those clauses. Now, it does seem to me to be a very extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Government, after having decided in the House of Commons that they could not move clauses or Amendments throwing additional burdens on the rates, that now at this late stage of the Bill the Government are going to accept from the House of Lords a clause which will undoubtedly throw an increased burden upon the rates. Now, Sir, this clause provides for an extension of the power of allowing compensation for malicious injuries. Now, we all know that compensation for malicious injuries is paid from one source only, and therefore, if the clause is operative at all, it can only be operative by increasing the burden of the rates. But even if it be within the power of the Government on a point of order to accept or move such an Amendment as that now before the House, they ought not to take such a course, because it is certainly expenditure which is not in accordance with the general spirit of the discussions upon this Bill in this House, and it is a great straining of the practice of this House. Well, now, Sir, what are the motives which justify this proposal? If the Government are going to accept this I think they are bound to make some statement of the grounds on which they propose to allow the House of Lords to open up a matter which, as the honourable Member for North Louth has said, was not opened up at all in the course of the Debate on this Bill. Now, this is a proposal to extend the provisions of a very serious Act, and we consider it an extremely objectionable code of laws which apply to Ireland, and not to this country, and it is a proposal to extend them in a way which I venture to say will take a very keen lawyer to appreciate the force of. To what extent they may go, in order to be easy and clear upon the point we should have to examine very carefully the wording of the Acts and all the possible effects of the clause that is now before us. Sir, if the Government could give some reasons for this departure some public purpose might be served by the present clause; but they have not made the smallest attempt to do anything of the kind, and they have not said a single word in defence of their attitude. I humbly submit that under these circumstances it would have been much better to give way to the objection of those who consider that this proposal is very close to the border of being disorderly proceedings, and, as Mr. Speaker has said, entirely against the spirit of the relations between the two Houses.

The honourable Member who spoke last and the honourable and learned Member who preceded him have entered a protest upon a question of privilege. Now, I understand that the proceedings of the House of Lords in respect to this Amendment are quite in harmony with a practice which has been accepted by this House for more than a generation. I think, therefore, that the discussion on this technical point might now give place to a discussion upon the actual merits of the Lords' Amendment.

What we desire is that the Government should tell us that they will in some way limit the very wide sweep or scope of this clause, and let it be confined to eases of felony or where the offence was of a criminal character. I am willing to waive considerations as to the irregularity of the action of the Government if we can get something solid or some limitations which will leave things exactly as they are. If we pass these words we shall have no opportunity of amending the clause, because we shall have amended the words in the final portion of the clause. Now, I ask whether I am right or wrong in that contention, for it appears to me, from the usual practice, that if we begin by omitting the words,

"provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension,"

we shall then have passed all the other Amendments. I presume it might be done by a proviso, but I should desire to do it in some other way. But let us hear from the Government on this point. Do the Government really now accept at this hour of the day a change in the Law which for 60 years has been administered, and every word of which has been subject to as much discussion as the Statute of Frauds itself? Now, under section 135 of the Grand Juries Act of 1836, we all know what the decision would be. The case I take is this. Take the case of a house: there is a bog, and I commence to out it for turf without leave. Why, the landlord could go and get an injunction for committing malicious injury to his property. This would be a case for malicious damage, and, instead of going to the grand jury or the Vice-Chancellor for an injunction, he could go to the judge of assize for malicious damage committed upon his property, although the tenant has only done it for the purpose of cutting turf. That would not be a crime, and yet you could go before the county court judge to restrain the tenant from doing this. I must say, Sir, that I think this thing is vicious in every respect. It is vicious as an invasion of our privileges, and in order to get on and let us get through our work, I should be glad if the Government would be content with striking out those words.

The object of the Lords' Amendment is to place the law as to compensation for malicious injuries upon a rational and scientific basis. Nothing at present could possibly be more anomalous than the position in which people are placed by the Grand Juries Act. For instance, while a man can get compensation for injuries done to a barge laden with stores, he could get no compensation whatever if the cargo had been discharged. He could get no compensation for damage to a yacht and some other cases which are provided for under the 20th section, which are cases in which no compensation can be given, although the persons whose property is injured are justly entitled to compensation. Honourable Members opposite held that the words of the Amendment were too wide, and might admit claims for compensation in cases where it ought not to be granted. Now, I should like to meet the honourable Member for Louth's suggestion by substituting for the words—

"provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates," the words, "provided that this shall not extend to any case except where the act done was a crime within the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861."

Does that apply to salmon poaching?

No; but it gives the man a right to seek compensation for nothing which would subject the perpetrator to prosecution for a crime. Surely it would be absurd to say that where the injury is a crime, and the perpetrator can be sent to prison for committing it, the owner of the property injured can receive no compensation.

But it is the law in England.

It is not the law in England, because the law of compensation for malicious injury does not exist in England. We desire to make the law of compensation exactly similar by allowing compensation in both cases.

Will the right honourable Gentleman kindly read the malicious injury section?

Yes. Section 22 deals with damage done to growing trees, the next section with fruit or vegetable produce, the 24th with other kinds of produce, and the 25th section with other descriptions of malicious injuries. I submit that if we insert a proviso confining the procedure to cases in which the perpetrator could be prosecuted for a crime there will be no occasion for a wider application.

I must object very strongly to the argument of the learned Attorney General. This Amendment stows cleanly that it is an attempt to legislate by sentiment. But now, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill there are about 50 Acts of Parliament inserted, although the scope of the Bill was, as I understood it, that the powers should be transferred from the grand juries to the county councils. In reference to this matter the curious thing is that these legislators who wish to amend this Act in all its imperfections have left it for 65 yeans on the Statute Book. But if they wish to amend this Act, then let them do it in a proper way, instead of introducing such a clause in this Bill, which only refers to local government. Even these cases of compensation for malicious injuries are transferred to a higher tribunal. I have, in speaking before, only directed the attention of the House to a question which I considered was a breach of privilege, and which view is supported by the great authority of Mr. Gladstone in reference to this—what shall I call it?—I must use respectful language in respect to this clause, which is to be left out in order to put the law in order. We know the differences existing between one party and another, and I call it a fraudulent trick. Here is an Amendment which is calculated to destroy the individual liberties of this House by the device,

"provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension."

If this clause were left out, which they ask us to leave out, the Bill would be simply absurd. Here it is proposed to allow the House of Lords to tax the people, and the House of Commons is subservient enough to yield to that kind of thing. I know the practice has been in vogue for 30 years, but it has been protested against again and again, and by none more strongly than by Mr. Gladstone himself. As regards this clause, we must ask some gentleman of great Parliamentary experience to ransack his recollections, and to find out a parallel in dealing with this general matter by simply introducing some particular Amendment as in this case. The thing, Sir, is wrong, and it would be, I say, highly detrimental to the House of Commons to yield to such a thing as this. It is one of the most ill-drafted Acts that have ever been passed for some 30 years. It is legislation by way of reference throughout, and if it had not been by way of reference this Amendment could not have been inserted. If the House of Commons had taken the same course as that which is adopted by this Amendment, which we are now asked to accept, this Bill could not have been got through in any way. It is contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and it is an inno- vation of the Bill. It is a palpable invasion of our rights, and nobody with any respect for the procedure of this House could yield the privileges for which they have fought in former days. I hope this House will not accept such a specific Amendment, for it is contrary to the rules of legislation to amend a particular phase and a particular section of a Bill which only transfers powers from one body to another. If the right honourable Gentleman had followed this example he knows perfectly well that this Bill could never have been passed. If the House of Lords wish to amend these Acts, let them do it in a proper form. I am sure that the First Lord of the Treasury would have been the very first to say, having regard to the Bill as a whole, to public time, that this must not be done. I draw the First Lord of the Treasury's attention to this fact, because we cannot really protest too strongly against this system of applying from one tribunal to another.

There are two points in this discussion upon the point of order to which my honourable Friend who has just spoken has referred, and I would ask the permission of the House to say a word on that subject, because undoubtedly a subject which touches our relations in another place is a matter which ought to be very closely watched. But at the same time, while I think nobody can complain that this question has been raised, it does seem to me that the point which has been spoken of, although it has not been done for the first time, I think there have been far too frequent instances of it lately. Apparently it is one of those things which have grown up in order to get over the difficulties which occasionally arise, and must arise, in communications between the two Houses in regard to matters of taxes or of rates. I find upon this question that there is a case which appears to me very nearly, if not entirely, on all fours with the case in point. When the Irish Land Bill of 1887 was introduced into the House of Lords, certain clauses were put in the Bill. Now, under the Act of 1885 and the National and Local Loans Act of 1887, advances to tenants are allowed out of a fund with which the Lords did not deal, for it provided that those advances should be made out of the Irish Church Fund service, and there was a sub-section inserted by the Lords. That was done in the Commons, and it was agreed that those advances should come out of the fund as desired by the Lords. I think we shall all agree that this question ought to be closely watched, and we have been informed that Mr. Gladstone, a very high authority, is to be cited, as showing that this is a practice which should be closely watched. I have not had the opportunity of looking up the facts myself, but I am informed that on one occasion, if not oftener, Mr. Gladstone himself was obliged to fall back on this very device which arose in regard to certain difficulties between this House and the House of Lords. I want to say just one word upon this Amendment. We had a very long discussion in this House with regard to this clause, from a very different point of view, but evidently honourable Members, especially those who hold high positions in Ireland, will regard questions of this kind from the point of view from which we regard them in England. It has been pointed out that this class of legislation is entirely unknown in England, and one cannot help hoping that in proportion as improved government advances in Ireland the extension of this class of legislation will have a tendency to diminish. I think we ought to be thankful to the Attorney General for accepting what is undoubtedly a considerable modification of his ideas. The great evil of this class of legislation is the temptation it gives to a man to trump up charges of injury against his neighbour, towards whom he may bear a grudge. The House ought to be very careful not to admit to an unnecessary extent a class of legislation which has always been regarded with suspicion, and which he hoped would soon disappear in Ireland as it had in England.

I do not want to go into the principles of this legislation now, but I may say that it undoubtedly originates in the particular class of offences which were supposed to prevail in Ireland—I mean agrarian offences. You have elaborate and detailed provisions in the law to meet malicious classes of injury, and to attempt to extend that provision to all classes of injury—such as a boy breaking a window—is not to make the law scientific, but to introduce a new principle, which I do not suppose prevails in any other part of the world. As the clause now reads, it says certain sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, shall extend to the case of maliciously setting fire to, destroying, or injuring property of any description, whether real or personal. It is clear that the words "or injuring" are not what this House intended, and I trust they will be omitted. That, in my opinion, would be enough, and the application of the Amendment can be confined to cases where there are indictments. Offences against property are not increasing in Ireland, and most forms of property are as safe there as in any country in the world, and I suggest that the House should disagree with this Amendment as a whole, or that it should be greatly cut down.

The proposals of the Lords will improve the law, provided it is sufficiently safeguarded; the Government have already suggested one safeguard and the honourable Member has just made another suggestion. The honourable Member has urged that only cases where there are indictments should be considered. There is certainly something to be said for that, and I think it will be regarded as a satisfactory compromise if I, on the part of the Government, agree to the striking out of the words in the Lords' Amendment, and substitute the following—

"Provided that this Act shall not extend the application of the said sections to any case except where the malicious act done was a crime punishable on indictment under the Malicious Damages Act, 1861."

I do not think that is a satisfactory compromise, but I have no desire to hinder the progress of the Bill, and content myself with making a strong protest against the Amendment, even as amended.

suggested that the following words of clause 19 should be retained—

"Where any ancient monument or remains are being dilapidated, injured, or endangered, the county surveyor of any county shall report the same to the county council."

He said it was generally farmers who injured or endangered ancient monuments, and it would be a check upon them, if they knew that the county surveyor would be brought down upon them by their neighbours.

I am quite agreeable, provided that after the words "ancient monuments or remains" there is inserted "within the meaning of this section."

It is very hard to get the better of you English.

I must call the attention of the House to the fact that this is a breach of privilege, because it creates a new rating authority in the borough of Galway. It, therefore, is not in order.

I would respectfully suggest that the Government should amend the Bill so that Galway should be put in the position, of which it never ought to have been deprived, of having a Mayor and Corporation and burgesses, even although it does not become a county borough.

I do not see how such an Amendment can be moved. The Lords' Amendment is one which I cannot put to the House. I do not see how it can be amended.

I move to disagree.

This raises a question concerning district councils and boards of guardians in Ireland which has been often debated before, and in opposing the Amendment, I confess I am astonished at the action of the Government in agreeing to it. In one respect, they seem to have learned wisdom from the Debates in this House, because they have not extended the two-member provision to the county councils. But, in spite of the fact that in this House, both in the Committee and Report stages, this whole question was discussed at considerable length—in spite of the fact that the majority of the Unionist Members from Ireland objected to this provision, as certainly not calculated to improve the Bill, but rather to do it mischief—in spite of the fact that the Nationalist Members unitedly were opposed to it, and in spite of the fact that the Irish Minister himself said, in his judgment, that it would injure the Bill; and while, further, the First Lord of the Treasury stated on both occasions that it would not improve the Bill, but rather have the reverse effect—in spite of its condemnation by the grand jurors of Kildare, and other grand jurors, I repeat, that, after all this, I am astonished at the Government's attitude. In the House of Lords the Unionist peers divided on the subject, while one or two of them said that, in their judgment, the change would be for the worse, and would certainly be no improvement to the Bill; but, in spite of this concensus of opinion, and especially of that of the representative of the Government who has piloted this Bill to the House of Lords, we are asked to adopt this Amendment, although it was twice negatived in the House of Commons, and left an open one in the House of Lords. This is what I call an unparalleled proceeding. What were the grounds on which this matter came before us? It was supported, as far as I can remember, on one ground, and one ground only—namely, that by the insertion of this provision, of two members for each constituency, you would secure, or at least open the door to the introduction, upon these new local bodies, of the representatives of the old ex officio guardians and grand juries. I do not remember that any ocher argument was used. It was not contended by those who supported the Amendment that, apart from the representation of the minority, it was a proposal calculated to improve these bodies as working bodies. On the contrary, the unanimous opinion was against it, and it was said that it would make them more unwieldy and less practicable. But certain honourable Members declared that the gentry of Ireland, and the ex officio guardians were desirous of serving their country, and the only way of doing it was under this proposal, by which a district would be able to elect one Home Rule member and one anti-Home Ruler. Well, now, Sir, I wish, first of all, to deal with that argument, and I say deliberately—I may be wrong, I may be right—that the insertion of this provision in the Act will have an entirely opposite effect to that which it is intended to have. If the ex officio guardians and grand jurors are going to come before the electors in that capacity, and as representatives of the old minority, then I warn them that they will be defeated and routed. They will not be elected in any of the constituencies where the Nationalist Party are in the majority, as the representatives of the old minority who have hitherto monopolised local government in Ireland. That was not the spirit in which we were appealed to by the Minister for Ireland and the First Lord of the Treasury to adopt this Bill. We were asked not to scrutinise a man's past or present political opinions, but to take a man for what he was worth, and a local man, who was willing to work for the interest of the locality in which he lived. Speaking on behalf of the southern provinces in Ireland, and for those districts and municipal corporations where they have had majorities and power, they have not shown a spirit to act politically. I believe, myself, that if the spirit in which the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary for Ireland, on this particular point, appealed to the people of Ireland when the Bill was introduced, and in the course of its various stages of passing through the House—if that spirit had not been made manifest, there would have been shown, in the progress of these elections, that desire for separation which has been urged in the past. When you come before the people and say, "We are determined to force"—or, at all events, by a system of manipulation, and a provision specially put into the Bill, to get on to these bodies the ex officio guardians and grand jurors—I say, when you take up an attitude of that kind, I think you do wrong. If we are to be told that these old guardians and grand jurors are to be forced upon us, then I say you are running into danger. Sir, I venture to offer a word of advice to those who are advocating the adoption of this Amendment, and it is this: that they ought to abandon the principle of going before the people as the representatives of the minority. The only principle on which these boards can be worked is to give the people a voice and a fair share in the control of their affairs. I have now explained my reasons for opposing this proposal, and I would ask, how will it affect the efficiency of the boards? We are entitled to address to the Government a strong word of warning on this aspect of the question. It is a great question, without doubt. You take a people like the Irish people, who for so long have been shut out from that training in local government which has been part of the English people's life for generations and generations, and you give them a system which has this defect in its constitution. Is that fair? We are entitled to ask, nay, to demand of the Government that, unless their judgment has been convinced in favour of this provision, and which, I maintain, is calculated to injure the working efficiency of these local bodies, and increase the dangers of maladministration, that should be rejected. If it is introduced, the result will naturally be to get up in agitation for the application of the same principle to other boards. We should have a bad system everywhere, and against which we are always protesting. We have had an example of a numerous board, the vast majority of whom never attended the meetings when ordinary business was transacted, and only attended when there was a job to be done. I say this proposal will increase the number of the public boards; it will injure their efficiency, and it will divide the responsibility as regards the different districts between two representatives, where one existed before. I can anticipate that the people will refuse to be bullied, or driven into electing these men, as this Amendment provides for, and its adoption will increase the difficulties of administering the Act, so far as the Boards of Guardians are concerned. I say, solemnly and seriously, that if this perfectly useless provision is persisted in, it will be against the opinion of an overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, including more than half of the Unionists of Ireland, and will considerably shake the confidence of the people in the Government.

The honourable Gentleman began by expressing some surprise at the course which the Government has taken in moving that this House should agree with the Lords in this Amendment. I think there is no foundation for that surprise, for, if I accurately remember what took place on the discussion in this House, I gave a clear indication of the exact course we should pursue, supposing an Amendment of this kind were carried in another place. Sir, I have never concealed from the House that I do not regard this Amendment with any very large amount of favour. I do not base on it any great hopes for obtaining that representation of certain classes in Ireland, which everyone in this House, I think, desires to see. But I do not think that the honourable Gentleman gives due weight to the arguments which may be urged, and legitimately urged, on that side of the question. He looks at the prospect of members of the existing grand juries going before the new electoral bodies, and appealing to them for election, as the representatives of a minority. I think that those members of the existing grand juries who are anxious to carry on administrative work in the place of their residence will come forward, not on the ground that they represent the defunct grand juries, but as men of business intimately acquainted with the work to be done. The idea which the honourable Member appears to have, that the constituencies are to be bullied and driven into electing these members, is surely rather extravagant. I am not aware that any machinery exists by which that operation could be carried into effect. The controlling argument, which, as I understand, moves the minority to desire this Amendment, is that they feel that in the boards of guardians, where there already exist men who have served their districts for many years, it would be quite useless to expect that such men would be ousted to make room for someone else, who, however great his qualifications, would not have the same long service to recommend him. They hold—and the argument is one which has both weight and substance—that if there are to be members for the district, the existing guardians will be able to retain office, and there will be room for another guardian as coadjutator. I admit that if the Bill were drawn according to my opinions, I should adhere to the system of single-member constituencies, which has been found to work well in this country. But I think the House ought to have a great regard for the feelings and legitimate aspirations of those who are being disestablished by the Bill. Honourable Members opposite will sympathise with the feeling that if we can render this great revolution acceptable to the class which is being disestablished, it is only right that we should do so. I quite agree that we ought not to pay too high a price for it; that we ought not to destroy the efficiency of the Bill for that object; but I do not think that this Amendment would in any sense destroy the substantial efficiency or advantage of the Measure. Therefore, Sir, for my own part, I shall adhere to the pledge which I gave to the House on the last occasion when this question was discussed. In my judgment, as I said then, we ought to pay deference to the feelings of the minority, who are disestablished, and all the investigations I have been able to make show that this Amendment is in harmony with the views of the minority. For that reason, I ask the House to agree to the Lords' Amendment.

There is one aspect of the case upon which I should like to be enlightened by the Attorney General, and that is as to the numerical effect it will have upon the different wards in Ireland. The case, as stated by Members who represent Irish constituencies, is that it is perfectly possible, by doubling the whole representation, not only to increase the difficulties which at present exist, but also, in regard to ministers of religion, of getting adequate representation. These difficulties are not at all imaginary. Moreover, the numerous county boards who carry on business in a very small board-room, might become almost unmanageable. The effect of this clause is to introduce the very difficulties which certain honourable Members say it will avert. Why should you suppose that because you give two members to an electoral division instead of one, 50 per cent, of the voters will alter their opinion? They say it will increase the Orange majority; that in the Presbyterian dis- tricts it will increase the Presbyterian majority; and that in the Roman Catholic and Nationalist districts it will increase the Roman Catholic and Nationalist majority. I venture to say that this Amendment springs from Members representing a small corner of Ulster, and no doubt they calculate it will give them an increased majority; but they do not think of the minority in other parts of Ireland. The result will be that the majority everywhere will be increased by this Amendment, which is supposed to protect the minority. The day is not far distant when the grand jury element in the south of Ireland will see that their position is not to be strengthened by artificial safeguards, and provisions, and clauses in Acts of Parliament, but by identifying themselves, as their predecessors have done in past generations, with the wishes and aspirations of the people.

I quite understood my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House to say that if this Amendment, which he did not approve of himself, were carried in the House of Lords, he would accept it, and he has now fulfilled the pledge which he then gave. We have a united Nationalist opposition to it.

No, not all.

Well, almost; all the Nationalist Members who follow the honourable Member for East Mayo are opposed to it. I look upon that as being rather in its favour, because I think there must be some very good principle underlying it to induce honourable Members to oppose it. I do not know why the honourable Member for East Mayo appears to think that it would be greatly opposed to the minority in Ireland. A large majority of the minority in Ieralnd—and by that I do not mean the Protestant or Unionist minority, but the minority representing large cess-payers, more largely composed of Catholics than Protestants—are in favour of it. I think they ought to know their own business, and I venture to say that a large majority of that minority, which includes men of all classes, creeds and politics, are in favour of this Amend- ment. That is my opinion, gathered from representations made to me. The honourable Member for East Mayo appears to imagine that when these councils are established the Irish grand jurors will come forward as candidates representing the grand jurors. We intend to place ourselves before the electorate in the same way as other honourable Members. Every man who stands for any constituency always holds himself to be the best possible man, and that is the position in which Irish grand jurors will stand. They will point out that they have had experience as magistrates, and they will appeal to the common sense of the Irish people on the ground of their experience of the working of county administration, and they have done their work in the past efficiently and cheaply. I venture to say that when they make that appeal the Irish people will see very great force in it. I repeat—I may be wrong—but I think it is very probable that when the constituencies gratify their political proclivities by electing a man of their own political views they will exercise common sense and elect for the second seat a man of business habits and training, who will do the work efficiently.

Would I have any chance in North Armagh?

If the honourable Member mends his ways I think he would, but I am afraid he never will mend his ways, and I cannot hold out any prospect to him of finding a seat in North Armagh. Then, again, this Amendment would give a chance of women being elected to the council, as is done in this country. I think that would be a great benefit, and I can only say I believe that by passing this Amendment and agreeing with the Amendment of the House of Lords it will have the effect of bringing the law into confusion. Even constituted as they are at present, boards of guardians are in a state of confusion. In passing, I may say that a description is given in a Galway paper of a meeting of guardians there, and it said that the prize-fight ended by a large man hitting a small man on the jaw.

We have that in this House.

The paper went on to say that after this the board went on with its business as usual. I believe it will be found that the men who will have the most leisure, which will enable them to attend to the business of the council, will secure the confidence of the electors. I cannot conceive a very poor man leaving his farm to attend to these boards; the man of leisure and means will be the man who will attend; but I think it will be well to give these constituencies an opportunity of satisfying their political consciences, and then of choosing the best men. But I do not believe in nullifying one vote by sending an opponent to the council with him. As Irishmen are not entirely bereft of common sense, I believe and hope that political questions will be decided outside the board rooms, because I cannot conceive that Irishmen will not see that it is cheaper to forget these political differences and work for the common food of their country. That, I believe, will ultimately take place. I represent the feeling of a great majority of the ratepayers of Ireland, of all classes and creeds, in supporting the Lords Amendment.

Sir, we have just heard from the honourable and gallant Gentleman that he had an understanding with the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that in the event of this Amendment being moved by the Lords it was to be at once acceded to. The honourable and gallant Gentleman takes good care that his views are placed before the proper quarter, and the consequence is that this Amendment is inserted at the will of the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, and those Members of the other House who agree with him. I do think, Sir, that the honourable and gallant Member has not taken the best course in bringing about that forgetfulness of the past which we, at all events, wish to see brought about. He tells us, in the first place, that he believes that, with two members, one would be elected representing each political party, but he takes to himself, or to those who agree with him all the best men in Ireland.

Quite so.

Sir, I thoroughly disagree with the honourable and gallant Member. If this be his view as to introducing harmony, I can hardly see it. I protest most strongly against this Amendment, and I hope that it will go to a Vote, and be rejected.

I have opposed this proposal before, and although it looks like flogging a dead horse, I do wish to occupy the time of the Committee for a few minutes, in order to record my humble protest against the acceptance of this Amendment. I agree with what my honourable and gallant Friend says, that the larger cesspayers in Ireland are uneasy at what they conceive to be the prospect of having their pockets handed over to administrators chosen by the smaller cesspayers, but I think they are looking for a remedy in the wrong direction, and they seem to demand an artificial arrangement which would not meet the difficulty. What I regard as the very essence of this Bill is that everyone will be bound in his own interests to assist the operations of the county councils in every way, and the less we hear about religion and politics the better. I regret this Amendment, because I think it will now go before the people of Ireland, call it by what name you like, as an artificial arrangement to provide against what a certain class in Ireland fear. I must say I exceedingly regret in the first place that this Amendment was introduced in the House of Lords, and that the Government feel themselves compelled to accept it. Now, the origin of the Amendment is, I think, based on the interests of a very small handful of men in particular districts and under particular circumstances in Ireland. I do not think it has been brought forward on any general or broad grounds of policy at all. Those most active in local affairs in Ireland who occupy positions in particular districts as chairmen of boards of guardians argue from the interests of their particular districts up to a kind of general policy. I think they are making a mistake, and that they will find it out. I think, whatever the origin and cause of this proposal, the mode to which expression has been given to it in the Amendment is both illogical and unwise. If it be to secure the representation of the larger ratepayers—I will drop the word "landlord," as I do not wish to introduce any question of that sort—if it were based on a purview of the whole position it would come down to us with a proposal for dual constituencies for county councils. The county councils will, after all, be the most important bodies; they can interfere with the district councils, and therefore I cannot understand the position taken up by my honourable and gallant Friend and others who support this Amendment. Does it mean, and I very much regret it if it does, that the larger ratepaying class have abandoned all hope of being represented on the county councils? If it does not, why come down to the district councils to obtain representation by an artificial arrangement? I cannot too strongly emphasise that. If your contention is that, unless you have some special arrangement under the Bill with regard to constituencies, you will have no representation on the district councils, then it appears to me you have abandoned all idea of serving on the county councils, which, I think, is to be deplored. You say, "Give us this dual representation on the district councils, and we will get in and have that influence and power which belongs to the larger cesspayers." But does the Committee realise what this means? If, on the one hand, you abandon all idea of being represented on the county councils, and are content by a side arrangement to be represented on the district councils, what will be the position? The larger cesspayers are to have very considerable interest in the district councils and are to have none in the county councils, and by that means friction will be set up between the two bodies, each represented by a different class. Therefore I think that the policy which has resulted in this Amendment is very short-sighted. I quite recognise that one may protest in vain in this House. I quite see the position the Government are in, but if it comes to a Vote, which I do not suppose it will, I shall certainly vote against the adoption of this Amendment, because I feel so strongly the confusion of ideas and the narrowness of view by which it has been formed. In conclusion, I think you are placing the larger cesspayers in Ireland in a very difficult position by this Amendment. I think the history of its introduction in the House of Lords and its acceptance by this House will be taken from one end of Ireland to the other as an attempt to coerce the judgment of the electors, and I fear it will have the effect of starting the Bill on wrong lines. I believe myself that most people in Ireland, whether they be large or small ratepayers, do not fully realise the change this Bill is going to make in the local government of Ireland. They are full of perplexity and doubt, and some uneasiness, and I think that is a very unhealthy feeling for all classes in Ireland in which to set to work on this Bill. But by this Amendment you hoist once more the flag of class, and in that way confuse the issue, and instead of the people taking the position as a pure matter of business there will be party elements, class elements, and even religious elements. That is to be deplored. I ask myself what is to be the attitude of those in Ireland who really and sincerely wish that this Bill may bring about a new state of things, and may bring class and class together to transact business without friction or strife? I think the position win be a difficult one. What will be the tendency of the Press, which has enormous influence in Ireland, and which is being worked in such watertight compartments that really each section only represents the narrowness, of particular views. One section of the Press will rejoice that the Lords have at the last moment raised up safeguards in the interests of a certain class, and other sections of the Press will say that this is an attempt to force on them representatives they did not want, and who ought to be opposed, and so I fear it will result in a condition of things not in the interests of the country. I think it is the duty of every patriotic man in Ireland who is presumably provided with a seat by this Amendment—I say it with all humility—to co-operate with those who entirely differ from him, and that he should only come forward with the Knowledge and assurance that the rest or the community desire him to stand. That is the only position he ought to take up. I thought it would be a fair field and no favour. I certainly expected that in most parts of Ireland what is called the grand jury class might not at first obtain representation, but I thought, if they were wise and if they gave all the assistance they could to their fellow-citizens who had not the same experience and opportunity, that they would ultimately obtain representation. I think this duty is clear. I think the best course for the grand jury class, who really desire to benefit the country under the new state of things, is to co-operate with their fellow-countrymen in finding capable business men, and to give them all the assistance they could outside. They cannot get on themselves under present circumstances at all events, but with their better education and wider experience they should assist others in making the machinery work, and I am quite certain that the time will come, despite this Amendment, which I regret and deplore, when we shall all be working together to make this Bill work well.

Sir, in approaching this question of single-member divisions, I would say I was a very strong opponent in 1884 and 1885 of the transaction which took place in the year between the Marquess of Salisbury on the one hand and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean on the other, whereby the whole of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with the exception of a few double-member boroughs, were carved out into single-member districts. I think I voted against the Third Reading of that Measure, because I know the single-member division was constructed by Lord Salisbury purely as a Conservative device, in order to prevent the popular classes from having their due weight in the country. Our House of Lords, for some reason best known to themselves, have now swung round in Ireland to the very opposite extreme, not as regards county councils, but as regards district councils. The first observation I would like to make with reference to this Amendment, which was so strongly opposed by some of my honourable colleagues, is to remind them that they have assented, as regards towns, to a far more sweeping proposition, because by giving our assent to the fact that town councils shall go out en masse what have we done? We have provided not for two-member constituencies, but for three-member divisions, whereas we know the very acme of political science would be to have a single-member division only. Well, Sir, I have always been against single-member divisions, and I remain an unrepentant sinner, and consequently, when the House of Lords, in their legislative wisdom, have inserted in this Bill a proposal for two-member divisions, without any regard whatever to such questions as have been raised, I feel it my duty to give their Lordships—but for this train and trip only, as the American tickets observe—my hearty support. I should like to say one word on the general merits of this question. I feel that there is a great deal of force in what the honourable Baronet the Member for Yarmouth has said. I think, to a large extent, he is right in his view. I think he has much more senses—if he will allow me to discriminate between two such pillars of the State as himself and the Member for Armagh—I think he has much more sense than the Member for North Armagh, and therefore, perhaps, I may be excused for differing in this matter from the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, having regard to the bearing of this Amendment upon the fortunes of the Conservative Party in this House. In a few years, owing to the infinite mercy of Providence, we shall all be dead and in our graves, and that being so, I look at this Measure, not from the point of view of what is going to happen in the country in the next eight or ten years, but from the point of view that we are building up a system for all time. Feeling, as I do, that in this Amendment there is some chance for those having different opinions from those we ourselves hold being brought into these boards, and believing, as I do believe, that the proper course for a Nationalist Irishman is to try and abolish all grievances existing between one class and another, believing that when we do that the country will see that it is their true interest to make an amalgamation for a national government in that country, and that the bringing together of different sections on these boards is the best way to dissipate ill-feeling and class distinction—for that reason I think I may regard this Amendment as being highly in the interests of the Nationalist Party in Ireland. Well, Sir, there is one objection which has been, named, which, of course, I admit to some extent. It is said, "Oh! you overman these boards." That is to some extent true. But I do not follow the argument that when you have to rely upon the common people you get an unintelligent class. If you want to find intelligence you must go to the poorer classes. If you take all the men of intelligence and education who form the boards of the railway companies and banks of the country—all these are the greatest fools in the country. When you want to get real political intelligence you must go to the people, the flannel jackets; and I venture to say that if the result of this Amendment be to put two men in flannel jackets on any board of guardians instead of one, I do not think the board of guardians will suffer. So much for the general merits of the question. May I now descend from this high level of politics to discuss vulgar detail? Sir, this Amendment, as I understand, creates a curious technical distinction between towns and the country. If anyone will look at the beginning of the Amendment they will see it is only to affect a rural district. If you look at the next clause—clause 24—you will find that in any urban district the guardian for any district electoral division shall be elected by the local government electors for that division. Sir, it appears to me, therefore, that the result of this Amendment will be that in rural districts you will have double-member constituencies, and therefore give double the number of guardians in urban districts. I take the case of Dublin, or the case of Cork. Sir, I should like to know, is not the result of this Amendment this: that whereas you double the number of guardians outside in the rural areas, the city districts will be left with their existing complement of members? Am I right or am I wrong in that?

I propose to disagree with the Lords' Amendment a few lines lower down and that makes the thing right.

Of course that knocks the bottom out of my last argument.

Sir, circumstances prevented my being in the House when this question was brought on before, but I took occasion to read very carefully what was then said, so far as it was reported, and I have listened to the course of this Debate, and the result is to confirm what I gathered took place on the former occasion, and to confirm my opinion in favour of the Amendment. I cannot say I think it is of the utmost importance. I do not think it will make much difference one way or the other. I deprecate altogether the argument of the honourable Member for East Mayo, and the honourable Member for Yarmouth, that this provision will excite party passion, party vehemence, and religious strife, and result in the introduction of the worst feelings into the election of boards of guardians. Now, there is no machinery in this Amendment to give a minority a member at all. It is purely a matter of practical expediency. Are you likely to have a better board with two members allotted to each division, or if you have only one? I should have thought in this matter we might nave been guided by the light of experience, and we have had a large experience of this country of the result of double representative constituencies. An honourable Member referred just now to the fact that some of the English constituencies are still represented by two members. What is the practical effect of that circumstance in the composition of this House, and the representation, in the shape of members, there? It very often happens that where a constituency is very nearly equally divided, the effect is to return a member of each party, reducing, it might be said, the effective vote o that constituency to really nothing, but introducing into the House of Common two members, both representatives of the local feeling, and really ensuring a much fuller representation of local feeling. But that was not the general effect. The general effect was, not to bring in two men of different parties, but two men of the same party, but with this very material difference, that they represented different shades of opinion of the same party. Thus, if you had a moderate Liberal and an advanced Liberal, you had a better representation of the same constituency. I apply this to the proposed constituencies which will have to elect the members on the boards of guardians in Ireland. You will not often find, if the contests are to be waged on party lines, one representative of one party, and another representative of the other party, brought in as members of the boards of guardians. Every Nationalist is not an exact duplicate of another Nationalist.

Hear, hear!

There are differences of temperament, and you will find, even in those constituencies where both members are Nationalists, the same members are somehow or other complementary to one another.

Not always.

No, not always—supplementary. You will find it in this way: you will have a man who is more akin to the priesthood coming in with another, who is more indifferent to the priesthood. So also in those parts where there is Conservative representation. You will have a diversity in the contribution of the sentiment and feeling of the neighbourhood to the boards of guardians—to the improvement of the boards of guardians. We have, as I say, experience of the thing, in history and in this. House, and that experience is wholly confirmatory of the argument I am now using as to the advantage which is secured by double-member constituencies. I think boards of guardians will be improved in Ireland by the two members. Now, as to the representation of the ex officio guardians. If the honourable Member for Mayo is going to excite feeling in Ireland, if he is going to denounce or attempt to bully the electorate, or control them, he may, of course, excite feelings which will defeat the good results which might otherwise accrue. But the machinery of the Bill lends no power for doing it. It only enables the electorates in particular divisions to have the good fortune to return two members instead of one. Now, suppose you have got in the division a gentleman who has already served—you have in relation to the board of guardians, an ex-officio member who may have done good work. If he is able to appeal, not as ex-officio, not as a landowner, not as a person belonging to the rich classes, but if he comes forward and appeals for election as a man knowing some of the duties, and as one who is determined to give the best of his ability and time and leisure to the conduct of rural affairs, the answer he might receive to-day is: We should be glad to elect him, but we cannot refuse to elect our old member, who has done well. But a man might come forward in that way in the future, as a man on his own merits, not as the representative of a class; and I have some confidence they will not refuse to elect such men. In the same way I lay considerable stress, in relation to this matter, on the point urged by the honourable Member for Armagh—the introduction of women to boards of guardians. You will be able to bring in all their knowledge, their care, their abilities, their special qualities, very easily, by means of this proposal. I acknowledge fully that there is a possible difficulty in the suggestion of over-manning the boards of guardians. You may make them too big, and find difficulty in preserving order; but, as far as I can make out, that is not very serious. Boards of guardians have been, pretty big, and I do not think there will be any overcrowding, such as is conceived. I think the guardians, those elected, will be able to work together with perfect harmony. On the whole, I confess I feel great satisfaction in the fact that the Lords have introduced this Amendment, and that the Amendment, as I hope, will receive the approval of this House. I join with the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth in regretting that the same was not adopted with respect to the county councils, but I am content to have the experiment, so far as it goes. We have not got to the bottom of local government. It is clear, from the changes that have been made in the electorate of governing bodies of towns, we are still in the experimental stage, and this is an experiment from which I expect the best possible results, especially if it is approached in a calm, business-like way, and it is not put to the people as an attempt to secure privileges for a class.

Considerable weight, Mr. Speaker, latterly attaches to the opinions of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down upon all questions of representation; but, Sir, personal observation and inquiry in Ireland satisfy me that the majority of the Irish people do not hold the views that he has just expressed in this particular matter. On the contrary, Sir, I feel confident that the unfortunate decision which the Government have arrived at, to accept this Amendment, will be received with a very general feeling of regret among all classes in Ireland. In my humble judgment, doubling the numbers of these district councils will not only entail a large amount of additional trouble upon the localities concerned, and make these bodies inconveniently cumbrous and unwieldy, but, Sir, the knowledge that this provision has been inserted with the deliberate intention of conferring an artificial advantage upon a particular class is certain to provoke political friction; for, Sir, such an Amendment as this, coming from such a quarter, will most certainly lie interpreted in Ireland as a direct invitation to place politics in the forefront of these elections. Therefore, Sir, if the Irish grand jury class really desire that politics should be kept in the background in these contests, which, I venture to think, should be their aim and object, in their own interests, no method, Sir, could have been adopted more likely to defeat that object. Now, Sir, as my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo has pointed out, some of the grand jurors in Ireland have recognised this fact, and are strongly opposed to any such proposals. For instance, Sir, the grand jury of the county of Cork, by far the largest and most important county in Ireland, have unanimously passed a resolution condemning double-barrelled representation. For myself, Sir, I should be sorry to see the resident Irish gentry excluded from seats upon any of these new councils. There are many resident gentlemen in the county of Cork, some of them in my own constituency, whose assistance would be very valuable, and whose services, should they be tendered, will, I trust, be available. But, Sir, speaking as a resident Irishman, with some knowledge of the Irish character, I am convinced, Sir, that this result would be more satisfactorily obtained by putting confidence in that spirit of fair play which is so strong a characteristic of the Irish people, and not, Sir, by encouraging and inciting them to perpetuate political animosities, and to class distinctions, by setting up a worthless and fictitious safeguard, which cannot fail to prove a permanent source of irritation, because, Sir, it will be regarded, and rightly regarded, by my fellow countrymen, as further evidence that this British Parliament places no reliance upon their sense of justice and

Sir, what the honourable and gallant Member said does not appeal to my mind as bearing upon the discussion. It is impossible to suppose that, by introducing a question of this kind, anybody who does not desire to take offence could have offence offered him. I heartily concur in what was say by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, that this will give an opportunity which nothing else will give to increase the number of women engaged in the administration of local affairs in Ireland.

I venture respectfully to say that this Amendment is ridiculous. In the first place it is wrong, because it does not include the county councils, and it should run, "or a fair rent, as fixed by the county court judge for a holding." And when we come to the bottom of the Amendment to say that they shall regard the benefit in respect to the holding as deemed to have been received by the landlord and tenant respectively out of the agricultural grant, is nonsense. The amount to be received out of the agricultural grant, whether it be 6s. 8d. or £1 6s. 8d., is actually received; there is no deemed to be received about it. It is a question of cash coming out of the pocket of the public and going into the private pocket of an individual. There is no deeming about it. There is some catch about these Amendments. It is a most remarkable thing that the House of Lords is always so anxious to interfere with anything they think will operate at all against their own interests.

I am going to suggest to Her Majesty's, Government that they should leave out the word "reasonable" with reference to the canals; "use" is quite sufficient. The canals are far more important than the trackways.

I fail to see that any injury can be done by the insertion of the word "reasonable." I fail to see that any harm can be done by saying "the reasonable use of a canal.

I suggest to the Government that, although this Amendment is in many ways desirable, it is so drafted as to cast a reflection upon a considerable number of persons in other offices. I think it is undesirable to throw a reflection upon such a large body of officers, and trust the Government will see their way to amending this in some way.

I beg to move the Amendment.

May I suggest to the Government that the Bill should be reprinted in its amended form at an early date. There is the greatest anxiety in Ireland to see the Bill in its final shape, and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will appreciate the force of my suggestion. Them, I wish to make a further suggestion. This Bill makes an enormous number of changes in the law, and it is very desirable indeed that a revised volume of amended Statutes should be brought out. I beg, in conclusion, to congratulate the Chief Secretary, whose absence through illness we all regret, and I also wish to congratulate the Irish Attorney General, whose action in regard to the Bill covers him with credit.

I think it is only right that I should say that, while I will do my best in the matter, I have no direct authority to make any promise as to the printing of the Bill. I regret that the Chief Secretary is not able to be present at the last stage of the Bill, but things have gone so smoothly that his absence has not been felt. Ordered, that Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Sir William Walrond, Lord Stanley, Lord Balcarres, and Mr. Dillon be the Committee, to draw up reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments.

I understand that this Bill will take more time to-night than ought to be given upon a Wednesday sitting, and under those circumstances, I must, with great reluctance, postpone this Bill until to-morrow, in the hope that the House will get through the other business on the Paper.

I have an Amendment upon the Paper with regard to this Bill. We suffer under a similar grievance, and this Bill can scarcely relieve us as it is at present. Even if it was re-committed, I should very much doubt if we could make it quite satisfactory. To the Nonconformist mind, no doubt, it is satisfactory to a large degree; but we do not accept the designation of Nonconformist. This Bill provides for places of worship, and places for the solemnisation of marriage in the hands of trustees or guardians, but those words are not applicable to the Roman Catholic churches. No doubt, many of them are in the hands of trustees, but are under the administration of the Church Government. The Bill, as at present drawn, appears to me to require that the celebrant of the marriage shall be the rector of the church. Now, in many places in England, by reason of the poverty and the scattered population of Roman Catholics, very large districts are covered by a church or chapel, that it would be practically impossible for the rector, in addition to the other celebrant, to be present on every occasion that a marriage was solemnised. I understand that the right honourable Gentleman will meet me in this matter by the insertion of some words, but the reason I put my Amendment down upon the Paper was to indicate that the position of the Roman Catholics in England is very different from that of the Roman Catholics of Scotland and Ireland. The Roman Catholics in those countries, are not under the disabilities from which the Roman Catholics in England suffer, and I think the position of the Roman Catholics in England should be made to conform with that of the Roman Catholics in Scotland and Ireland; inasmuch as the Government have made this Bill a Government Measure, and that we are prepared to accept it as an interim Measure for ourselves, and we are anxious to assist our Nonconformist friends in their difficulty. I hope the Government will next Session introduce a short Measure dealing with the disabilities under which, the Roman Catholics in this country now suffer, and put them in the same position as the Roman Catholics of Scotland and Ireland. I beg to move that the Bill be re-committed.