To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in a portion of the North. Dublin rural district, it had been decided, previous to the recent extension of the boundaries of the city of Dublin, to erect a number of labourers' cottages, with plots of land attached, and that, owing to the inclusion within the city of the district referred to, it has been impossible to add any plots of land to the cottages in question; whether he is aware that the tenants of those cottages entered into agreements to pay rents calculated on the assumption that half-acre plots would be attached to the cottages, and have since paid such rents, though they have got no land attached: and whether he will take steps to enable the Corporation of Dublin to carry out the housing scheme in the district mentioned as originally formulated. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The tenants agreed to take a cottage, with yard and plot of ground, "containing in the whole not more than half-an-acre." The Corporation are advised that they have no legal power to comply with the application for larger allotments.

To ask the Secretary of the Treasury if he can say when a reply may be expected to the representations made to the Hoard of Customs in February last on behalf of the Customs boatmen. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher) Proposals affecting the whole Waterguard Department have been made by the Board of Customs, and are now under the consideration of the Treasury.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Board of Customs have recently selected four Customs boatmen of from eight to nine years' service for promotion, on examination, to the rank of preventive officer, thus passing over some 300 men of longer service; and whether, seeing that such promotions have previously been made with reference to seniority, he will explain upon what principle the present selection has been made. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The Board of Customs are calling up sixty boatmen for qualifying examination for the grade of preventive officer. Of this number fifty-five have been selected with reference to seniority and character as in previous years, and the remaining five by selection from the whole class of boatmen on the ground of special merit.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of districts in England and Wales in which smallpox is now prevalent, and the number of cases; and whether in any district the number of eases has been so great as to lead to special measures on the part of the local authority, (Answered by Mr. Walter Lang.) Since the beginning of the year 2,397 cases of smallpox have been reported to the Local Government. Board as having occurred in 212 urban and 59 rural districts. The outbreak is practically confined to Eng- land and Wales north of Birmingham, but it is chiefly in towns of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the North Midlands that the disease is prevalent. Seventeen of the larger towns in those districts have had a considerable number of cases. I am glad to say that the sanitary authorities of the places concerned have been very active in taking measures with a view to stamping out the disease. Many of the places affected have been visited by a medical inspector of my Department, and in most of the other cases I have communicated with the sanitary authority on the subject. I shall continue to watch the course of events and to urge on the local authorities the adoption of any measures which may appear to the medical advisers of the Department to be desirable.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the obstruction of the station master and officials of the Great Northern Railway at Strabane in preventing free passage through their premises of persons desirous to get to the Donegal Railway, certain passengers to both Great Northern Railway and the Donegal Railway have been obstructed and refused admission to the platforms by closed doors and porters collected to keep them out; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, with a view to preventing its recurrence. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Yes. Sir; representations were made to the Board of Trade, and the Department entered into communication with the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland with the object of ascertaining the facts of the case. I gather that the whole question resolves itself into a dispute about an alleged right of way, and the determination of such a matter as that rests, of course, with the Courts of Law and not the Board of Trade.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland if he is aware of the state of Kinvara Harbour owing to the accumulation of silt and want of pier accommodation; and whether the claim of this harbour to receive assistance under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act has been favourably considered; and, if so, when will steps be taken to carry out the improvement. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The allocation of the funds provided by this Act will be discussed at the conference to be held to-morrow.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the gun cotton that exploded in Woolwich Arsenal on Monday, 16th February, 1903, causing the death of two workmen, and injuring severely three others, was manufactured by private contract or at Waltham Abbey. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This gun cotton was supplied by a private firm, and was under trial at the Arsenal.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the demand notices for the Property and Income Tax were issued in Scotland in the months of September, October, and November, generally two months earlier than in England; and whether, having regard to the promise made last session by his predecessor, the dates of collection of these taxes will be made the same henceforth in both countries. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) As the facts referred to are somewhat complicated I have caused a Memorandum to be prepared, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member; he is at liberty to make any use of it which he desires. He will observe that there is now no ground for the impression that Scotland is more strictly treated than England. The first notice in Scotland is a notice of assessment as well as a first demand note. Accordingly it is sent out at approximately the same time as the English notice of assessment.

I should not like this Bill to be read a second time without a few words from the Government Department responsible for a, measure of this kind. Although the Bill passed its Second Reading by a very large majority on a previous occasion, it unfortunately met with an untoward fate elsewhere. The Bill has been very much criticised both in the Press and in other places, and the allegation has been made that when it passed its Second Reading in this House last year that result was obtained without the matter having been sufficiently considered by the Government. I state most emphatically that there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. In the first place the Bill has been most carefully considered by my Department, which is responsible for the Poor Law administration of the country; it has been carefully examined by experts and men of great experience in the administration of the Poor Law, and I have most carefully considered it myself. In addition to that the Bill was most carefully considered by the Cabinet as a whole, and it was decided that it was worthy of the support of this House and one which we sincerely hope to see accepted and placed on the Statute Book. I know that the Bill has met with the opposition of the Charity Organisation Society and its secretary, Mr. Loch. Everybody who is familiar either with former Poor Law administration, or with charitable administration generally, must be convinced of the admirable work done by Mr. Loch and his society; and if only people would consult what is the best way of dealing with unhappy cases of destitution brought to their notice, I say it would be far better to keep their money in their pockets or give it to the Charity Organisation Society than to pay it out in casual relief. It is impossible to over estimate the good work done by the Charity Organisation Society and its able secretary, but notwithstanding that fact I cannot agree with them that a Bill of this kind would tend to weaken the administration of the Poor Law, or would bring us back, as some have alleged, to the condition of things revealed in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1834. Nobody desires to do anything, either by legislation or anything else, to bring us back to the condition of things which prevailed before the Poor Law Act was passed. On the contrary it is because I am convinced that a Bill of this kind would not only not weaken, but would rather strengthen, the administration of the Poor Law, that I ask the House to read it a second time. It is said that this Bill would not do any good, for under the existing law Boards of Guardians have a discretion to consider the amount received from other sources by applicants for relief. I am, as a rule, strongly in favour of maintaining the independence and the position of local authorities, and of reserving to them their discretion. But this is not a case in which the discretion of the Board of Guardians meets the difficulty; and for two reasons. In the first place, what the members of the friendly societies ask for, and are entitled to, is that they should be given this privilege as a right, and that it shall not be dependent on the discretion of any Board of Guardians; and in the second place, a very unfortunate result follows from the different action of different Boards of Guardians. It may be that there are two men living on the confines of different Unions. In the one Union special consideration is shown to the case of one of the men in his application for relief, while in the adjoining Union the applicant is put on a level with the other paupers. Can hon. Members wonder that in the latter case the man has a feeling of degradation and asks the question: "What was the good of my joining a friendly society"? in the wise administration of the Poor Law, which has been the practice now for sixty years, we desire to do two things. In the first place, to separate the wastrel from the unfortunate; and, in the second place—and this is by far the most important of the two—to strive to teach the people lessons which will lead them to be self-supporting in the future and not to need the assistance of the Poor Law. We have done a great deal in recent years in regard to the first. In the large Unions very different accommodation has been provided for the honest, suffering poor; and I am happy to say the treatment of the wastrel, while not inhuman or unchristian, is much more severe and better regulated than it used to be. I hope that that will always be the case. But it is in the promotion of thrift, of self-help amongst the people, that we are likely to find the best remedy for pauperism in the future. I am sure that tin's Bill will have the effect of teaching the people that it is worth their while to join Friendly Societies, and to make an effort in the days of their strength and prosperity to be independent of the Poor Law when the day of sickness comes. I have been anxious not to occupy unduly the time of the House, for I believe that this Bill meets with general acceptance. I think that idle and baseless allegations have been made against the Bill. I support the Bill with the utmost satisfaction because I believe it is a step in the right direction, and that legislation of this kind will be likely to teach the people to be self-respecting, thrifty, and provident, and so to build up a self-reliant community.

said he took a somewhat different view from that which had just been stated by the President of the Local Government Board. He did not think that anyone would accuse him of want of sympathy with providence on the part of the people. For a good many years he had brought in a Bill which he called the "Thrift and Out-door Relief Bill." There were two or three very serious matters which, it seemed to him, had been overlooked in the present Bill. For example, it gave prominence to one special form of thrift—that was to say, it compelled men, if they were to get a special benefit from their thrift, to enter a Friendly Society. But there were other forms of thrift that ought to be en- couraged, such as the Post Office annuities, and it was sometimes inconvenient to join a special form of Friendly Society. No doubt the Friendly Societies were doing an immensely good work, but, at the same time, it was well known that many of them were not in a sound condition, although many of them were alive to the necessity of putting themselves in a secure position. Now, this Bill simply said that a man should belong to a Friendly Society. It did not specify the particular Society, or the time he must have been a member of it. He believed that a general scheme would have been very much better. From the criticisms which had been made on the Bill last year by Mr. Loch in connection with out-door relief, he was afraid that unless it were made something like his own "Thrift and Out-door Relief Bill" not much good would be done. There was no doubt that the great test for out-door relief was destitution, and under the present law it was proved that the more improvident a man had been the better chance he had of getting relief. That was an evil in the past and was working very much to the detriment of the promotion of thrift. Unless a lever were provided for promoting self-help and self-reliance no good would be ultimately done, but a great deal of harm. The great object they ought to have in view, however hard it might prove, was to induce people to make an effort to help themselves. He hesitated to oppose the Bill, but when it came to the Committee stage he would move Amendments which would strengthen the principle of thrift, as he did not think that the Bill went far enough in that direction.

said that some of the pensions given to soldiers were so very small that it was impossible for them to live upon them. He was anxious to see a provision for such cases included in the Bill, because it was a very serious thing for recruiting for the Army when it was understood that a soldier might be put into the workhouse when receiving a small pension.

said he was glad they had received the promise of support from the Government in reference to this Bill. He spoke as a member of a Friendly Society conversant with the working of such bodies, and he was sure the words which had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board that afternoon would be received with gratitude by all Friendly Societies. He represented a class of people in Lancashire, many of whom received wages under £1 per week, and who, out of that money, endeavoured to put by something for a time of sickness and old age. Under the rules of these associations, after a man had received a certain amount of full pay and of half pay, he was put on quarter pay, which became practically a pension. A small sum was paid to him although he was not ill in the sense of being confined to bed, but was ill enough to be unable to work. That pension or quarter pay amounted to 2s. 6d. or 3s. per week, and he thought it was most unfair that the Guardians should take into consideration at all any amount like that. When a man had been provident enough in the past to secure for himself this small amount of money, some assistance in addition, he knew, was a great help. He believed that in many cases this relief was absolutely essential, but it should be made known to the public that there was a difference between a man trying in the best days of his life to prepare for old age and those who did not try. Those two classes of men should not be treated under the Poor Law equally. He desired to thank the President of the Local Government Board for his sympathetic references to Friendly Societies, and to say that the supporters of all such Societies would equally thank him.

This is a Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton and myself for the purpose of increasing the jurisdiction of local courts in the administration of justice, and also with the object of decreasing the delay in the trial of questions and the cost of obtaining judgments. No notice of opposition to the Bill has been given, and the question has been so frequently discussed in this House that I think it needs but little advocacy on my part. The jurisdiction of the County Courts rests on the Act of 1888; and. speaking generally, the limit of that jurisdiction is £50. The object of the Bill is to substitute in the County Courts Jurisdiction Act £100 for £50 where the latter sum appears. The House will, I think, agree with me that, having regard to the existence of the County Courts, the development of their jurisdiction, and the confidence which the public have in them, the time may be considered to have arrived when this extension of their jurisdiction is perfectly justifiable. I would not take the House through the alterations proposed in the original Act—the alterations being mainly verbal. In Section 56, what I may call the personal jurisdiction of the Court has been increased from £50 to £100, and others of a cognate order. There are cases, such as that of a minor who seeks to recover wages, where the jurisdiction is increased from £50 to £100, and there are provisions of a similar character which refer to the recovery of small properties. Frequently a trespasser has to apply to the High Court for such relief, and the costs there are often as much as the fee-simple value of the property. These cases will now be subject to local jurisdiction. Again, on the question of costs the present fide is that where less than £20 has been recovered in the High Court in an action which might have been tried in the County Court, no costs, are recovered, and if the sum is between £20 and £50 scale costs only are recoverable. That indicates that in the opinion of Parliament there should be a proportion between the amount sued for in the Court and the costs to be awarded. When one thinks of the very large expense frequently incurred in eases for advocacy, for witnesses, solicitor's fees, and the like, especially when the action is tried at a distance from where it originated, I think it ought to be a very serious question of principle which would justify a recourse to the High Court for the recovery of any sum less than I have indicated in the margin of the Bill. I speak from experience, having been registrar of a large County Court for many years. There is public confidence in these Courts; their judgments have worthily secured the approbation of public feeling; the administration of justice in them is acceptable; and the change which I venture to advocate is one which is desired. I confess, if I were dealing with this subject from an ideal instead of a practical point of view, my own proposal would be to confer unlimited jurisdiction on County Courts, with the right of removal to the Superior Courts of any proper case approved by a judge. The present rule is that parties may agree to give the County Court unlimited jurisdiction, and the consequence of that rule is that one party very seldom approaches the other to ask for that consent, because it is thought to indicate weakness, and would probably lead to a refusal. But if unlimited jurisdiction were given prima facie with the right of removal on any question of fact or law, I believe that a very large part of the litigation of this country would be transacted in the County Courts. I say this, firstly, because I believe the tribunals have the confidence of the public; and, secondly, that a trial on the spot, with certainty as to when the case would be reached, instead of witnesses and others being delayed in some assize centre, or in London, with uncertainty as to the hearing of the case, would be endorsed by public feeling, and would conduce, as far as practicable, to the principle of the local administration of justice. The success of the district registrars of the High Courts is appreciated locally; but the trial cannot take place locally. It may take place at an assize, which involves cost and delay. Owing to the Judicature Act and the County Courts Acts, many local courts, like that of Hull, have fallen out of practice, and are not resorted to because the Judicature Act has not been applied to them by the authorities, who prefer the jurisdiction of the County Courts. But if an improved practice, making the local courts more available, is refused, I think a great claim is established for some increase in the jurisdiction of the County Courts. I am informed, and believe, that the Bar, as a whole, would not be opposed to this change. It would not affect the leading members of the Bar; and, as regards the Junior Bar, they are now more localised, and the various local courts would have the advantage of their advocacy. While the system continues as it is, and while so many actions have to be entered for trial in London, the expense in many cases, especially those covered by the Bill, must be out of all proportion to the amount involved; and it is with the object of securing more certain and less expensive justice that I have introduced this Bill. It has the support of the Incorporated Law Society, and of Chambers of Commerce; and I believe it has the support of the public generally. I quite admit that, owing to the somewhat sudden ending of the debate on the Address, the Bill may come somewhat suddenly on the legal authorities; but I am going to make a proposition to the Attorney General which I hope he will accept. I quite agree that no private Member could hope to carry a Bill of this character through the House if it met with the opposition of the Government. Therefore, I would propose to the Attorney General that he should consent to the Second Beading, and I will at once say that the Government can then exercise control over the Bill. If they feel it ought to be enlarged, or that some additional provisions as to practice should be introduced, or that the time has not yet arrived for it, I am quite willing to sacrifice my own opinion, and to invoke the aid and co-operation of the Government in securing what I believe to be a large and beneficial measure in the interests of the local administration of justice. I hope, in these circumstances, the Attorney General will see his way to accept what, in my opinion, is a reasonable proposition.

There is one observation of my hon. and learned friend which, I think, everyone who has had any experience of legal matters will confirm, and that is the extent to which County Courts have earned the confidence of the public. They have done most admirable work and are admirably conducted. The question of extending their jurisdiction has been brought forward from time to time. A great many proposals have been made, one by my hon. and learned friend himself, that the County Courts should have unlimited jurisdiction, giving, at the same time, complete power to the High Court to remove cases which seem to be more properly tryable in the High Court. Any proposal of that kind, although it may be discussed in a general way, is one which cannot be possibly made the subject of responsible action except after a very exhaustive inquiry. My hon. and learned friend referred to the suddenness with which this Bill has come on, and, owing to that, I am not in a position to say anything with regard to the action which the Government will take on the matter. I have personally very different views on the subject; but, under the circumstances, I think it is proper that I should not enter into any statement which would be merely a statement of my own personal views. The whole matter is well deserving of complete inquiry, but I am bound to say that I think it is a matter that should not be dealt with except as a whole. There are other matters with regard to County Courts which require consideration; and I have very great doubt as to the propriety of proceeding in the way this Bill proposes. I think the subject is one of grave importance, and that action should not be taken except upon some definite principle. There is no definite principle in fixing £100 instead of £50.

Or in fixing £50.

I agree, but £50 being there I think before we alter it we ought to see on what principle we are to proceed. There is no more principle in one than in the other, but before we take action we ought to arrive at some definite principle. In these circumstances, I am not going to ask the House to vote against the Bill. I cannot, however, give the support of the Government, and I must reserve complete liberty of action as to its further stages.

said he was glad to have heard the Attorney General's sympathetic reply, but he could not quite agree with him that there was no basis of principle about fixing £100 as the maximum limit. If he rightly recollected, £100 was the limit up to which the High Court could remit an action on a contract to the County Courts; and in the discussions he had had with County Court judges and with barristers, who practised largely in the County Courts in South Wales, it had often been re presented to him that the raising of the limit from £50 to £100 in the case of personal actions, to which the Bill referred, would be of advantage to all concerned. What was the present position? If a man owed him £50 he could sue him in the County Court. If a man owed him £75 on some contract he had to take his action to the district registrar, go through the form of issuing a writ in the High Court, and then take out a summons before the district registrar to have the action remitted to the County Court. Of course, there were advantages in going to the High Court, because it was quite possible that as a creditor for £75, he might obtain his judgment more quickly than by going to the County Court; but he was told that the general feeling of the trading community, at any rate in South Wales, was in favour of raising the limit from £50 to £100, in order to facilitate the decision of disputes, not of a very large character, and the collection of debts of not very great amount. He therefore thought the Attorney General, when he came to consider the matter, would see that there was real ground for raising the limit from £50 to £100. He admitted that there must always be difficulty and hardship to some people by fixing a limit; but the real reason why many, who considered the question of extending the limit, fixed upon the £100 limit, was founded upon the practice in law in regard to the remission of actions from the High Court to the County Court. It was perfectly evident that if unlimited jurisdiction were conferred on the County Courts a very largo alteration would have to be made in regard to the law of the County Courts, and in regard to the conditions Hi practice. He hoped the Attorney General would allow the Bill to go to a Second Reading, and he could then consider whether Amendments were required in order to make it a good and practicable measure.

said the Bill proposed a reform in a direction which he himself had advocated for many years. He understood that the Attorney General had not been able to ascertain the opinion of the Government on the measure; and he did not think that the House would expect the hon. and learned Gentleman to express a definite opinion on it unless he had had a full opportunity of considering it. The strong argument in favour of this or some other similar or more extended reform was that only in one respect was their jurisdiction limited to £50. In the administration of estates they dealt with amounts up to £100, and in Admiralty cases they dealt with considerably larger sums of money, and decided the most difficult questions that could arise. There seemed to him to be no conceivable reason why, in the ordinary case of the recovery of a private debt, which was after all only a simple contract, the jurisdiction should be limited to £50. The administration of justice in Scotland had been alluded to as an analogy, but the sheriffs of Scotland, who stood in exactly the same position as the County Court judge in this country, and who, by the way, received only about half the salary, had unlimited jurisdiction. There was no doubt the administration of justice in Scotland was exercised extremely well, and no one had ever heard one word of complaint with regard to the way in which justice was administered in that country. This was a small reform. All that was desired was that the jurisdiction should be extended from £50 to £100. He, in fact, was astonished at the moderation of the mover of the Bill in asking for so little. He himself would have asked for a great deal more. Then came the case of analogous changes which would no doubt have to be made if there was extended jurisdic- tion. If there was any desire to make other changes in the Bill they might be made with the consent of Parliament, and thus make the measure more valuable. If that were so, and if that Bill was allowed a Second Beading, and was referred to the Grand Committee on Law, there might be an instruction to the Committee to widen the scope of the measure to effect some desirable changes in the practice of the County Courts.

said although this Bill did not apply to Ireland, everybody knew that if it was carried for England, in a very short time similar legislation would be initiated for the sister country. He had had considerable experience of the working of the County Court system of Ireland, and after much anxious consideration he was of opinion that this Bill ought to be allowed a Second Reading. Its only fault was that it did not go far enough. He could never understand why there should be any limitation to the jurisdiction. The County Court judges in either England or Ireland, and he believed in Scotland as well, were men of considerable experience in their profession, and he saw no reason, if they were competent to decide questions involving sums of £50 and £100, why they should not be entitled to adjudicate when much larger matters were indispute. His idea was that every suitor should have the option of going to the County Court in the first instance, there should be no limit of jurisdiction as to amount, and it should be the right of the defendant to apply in a proper case to have the matter transferred to a higher Court. That was absolutely the converse of what at present existed. That would meet all cases and be of great public benefit, because at the present time many persons who had rights to assert were deterred from coming forward to assert those rights on account of the expense. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time. He would extend the power of appeal so as to prevent injustice being done, and if that were achieved he had no doubt that the course of justice would be greatly advanced by giving every citizen a right to go to a cheap Court to assert his rights.

said he had heard with pleasure that the hon. and learned Attorney General had no intention to oppose this Bill. It was a matter of great urgency to the public who wanted cheap and rapid justice. He rose to support the appeal made to the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee with the instruction suggested.

said he accepted the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and with the hope that the Government would consent to the Bill going to the Grand Committee, he begged to move that this Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Law, and that it be an instruction to that Committee, if it thinks fit, to extend the scope of the Bill so as to not only extend the jurisdiction, but amend the practice of the County Courts.

The instruction cannot be moved without notice.

Then, Sir, I simply move that the Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.

I am conscious I am going to introduce a Bill dealing with a difficult and delicate question, but I introduce it on the authority and responsibility of the Incorporated Law Society. I am glad I can say to the learned Attorney General that this Bill has already passed in another place, having been moved, I think, by Lord Macnaghten, and supported by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls—eminent legal authorities. The question of defaulting solicitors has, unfortunately, been too often before the public and before the House; and, while every member of that honourable profession must regret that such is the case, they must also concur in the demand made, both by the public and in this House, that they should do their best to prevent occurrences which are injurious and wrong from every point of view. And, that being so, I shall ask the House not to refuse the means to enable them to carry out what I believe is a general and most proper feeling on the part of the public. I may say at once that statutory powers for these purposes have been given by Parliament to the Incorporated Law Society as the registrar of solicitors, and that they have exercised those powers, not only with great responsibility both to the public and to the profession, but, I believe, with great judgment and discretion, and certainly with an honest and honourable desire to do what is right amid many conflicting interests. I have not the honour to be a member of that Committee, and therefore; I say, with the certainty of conviction, that in my opinion, these statutory duties are well and properly performed, and certainly with an honest desire to fulfil the requirements of Parliament and of the public. It was the former practice of the Society—as the registrar of solicitors—not to renew the practising certificate of a solicitor who had, possibly owing to misfortune, become bankrupt. But under the authority of a case tried in the Divisional Courts some years ago, the Society exercised discretion in the matter—and exercised it honestly and properly. However, more recently the matter was taken to the Court of Appeal, which held that there was in law no such discretion, and, therefore, whatever the circumstances of the bankruptcy of a solicitor, there was compulsion on the part of the Society to renew the practising certificate. The former practice worked well, and I know of no case of hardship arising under it. I think the House will agree that there are many cases in which it is most desirable that that discretion should be exercised. A bankruptcy may often be a misfortune, and when it is so it is greatly to be regretted. But this Bill applies only to undischarged bankrupts, and though there may be cases of undischarged bankrupts which have been equally caused by misfortunes, the discharge is not refused by the Bankruptcy Court. It is quite true that the discharge may be postponed for two years where the minimum dividend of 10s. in the has not been paid, and that is a provision in the Bankruptcy Act of 1890 which I myself introduced into this House. Again, there is discretion in the Bankruptcy Court to refuse the discharge if the bankrupt is held to be responsible for the occurrence of the bankruptcy. I think I may say that an undischarged bankrupt may be in that position owing to a possible miscarriage of justice, but the immense probability is that his position is due to circumstances over which he had control. However, I think the House will agree with me that when there has been anything criminal or objectionable from an honourable standpoint, and even when there has been, perhaps, though I urge this point less strongly, a mere want of means in carrying on a profession which demands some means, and without which means there may be temptations, I say I think the House will agree that a Committee with statutory powers and responsibilities, inquiring into these circumstances may well, in addition to other statutory powers, be vested with the discretion of refusing to renew the certificates. If the Committee should exercise an unwise or improper discretion, there is provided an appeal to the Master of the Bolls. And here I may say that the Master of the Rolls approved this Bill when it passed in another place. Under these circumstances, I think the House will say that unless there is some strong ground for the belief—which I hope is not the case—that these powers have ever been administered harshly or improperly, a discretion under such circumstances in the case of undischarged bankrupts—a discretion protected by a right of appeal to the Master of the Rolls—may well be entrusted to the Society. The only other provision in the Bill is that the Society shall have access to the file of the Bankruptcy Court, so that it may be informed of the whole circumstances of the case. To this there can be no objection. This Bill, I find, applies to Ireland, and I can only say to hon. Members from that country that if they prefer that Ireland shall be dealt with separately in this matter I am quite willing to undertake not to proceed with that part of the Bill. Although I am in favour of uniform legislation, and believe that that is the proper line in dealing with these questions, still if hon. Members object to the inclusion of Ireland, I am content to leave the matter in their hands, and will not persist in pressing that provision. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill with a full sense of responsibility and with a strong belief that it is a proper one and that the powers proposed to be granted will be properly exercised.

said he regretted that if the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill were pressed to a division it would be his duty to vote against it, because it seemed to be quite unnecessary for all reasonable purposes. It proposed to make the lot of certain solicitors unduly severe. The proposition of the hon. Baronet amounted to this—that they were to invest the Incorporated Law Society and the judges with absolute discretion, and with the power of making something a crime which might not be a crime at present. Bankruptcy was no crime, and to make it a crime seemed to him to be the main effect and intention of the promoters of the Bill. The proposal was that any solicitor applying for a renewal of his certificate should, if he were an undischarged bankrupt, be liable to have it suspended by the Incorporated Law Society. Now it was suggested that an undischarged bankrupt was different to a man who had obtained his discharge in bankruptcy, and that he ought, therefore, to be treated differently and more severely. But the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt might be as much a misfortune as the fact that he was a bankrupt at all; and if it was the case that his failure to obtain his discharge was owing to no misfortune of his own, but was a pure misfortune, it seemed an extraordinary proposal that that class of bankrupt should be selected from among other men for especially severe punishment, and that he should be deprived of the means of earning his livelihood for ever afterwards. That surely was a proposal which would not commend itself to men of common sense, and he failed to understand why it was made at all. If a man had been guilty of some disgraceful act in the exercise of his profession, the present law provided ample means for the punishment of such an offence. He imagined that the Incorporated Law Society after the conviction of such a man, after even the public exposure of such a man without conviction, would have no difficulty whatever in applying to the Court, and in doing so successfully, in order to have him struck off the rolls. As a matter of fact that was what happened every day. Fortunately in Ireland they were not troubled with those matters so much as they were in England, and any person who had read the English newspapers, particularly the London newspapers, could not fail to be struck with the fact that there had been an abnormal number—even taking into account the large number of solicitors—of the members of the profession who had been proved guilty of misconduct. Therefore, he was not surprised that some such proposal as this should have been made. But in Ireland they were in a better position. Nothing like the same number of such cases had occurred there, so that so far as Ireland was concerned there was no reason for the application of so severe a remedy. But what was to be said of the further proposal that the Incorporated Law Society, composed of persons of the same profession, should be constituted a tribunal to investigate the conduct of their fellows, invested with the power of deciding, apparently without evidence and in the absence of the parties, questions which might deprive members of the profession of the means of earning their bread in the country of their birth? He would not invest any body of men with such a power, while, if there was any body which less than another should be entrusted with such a power, it was surely the Incorporated Law Society. That body should be the first to call to its aid, in the work of purifying the profession, some outside body which could not be accused of being influenced by motives of professional jealousy. The Bill gave an appeal to the Master of the Rolls in England and the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, who, also, he believed, might sit in camera. No judge ought, and he did not believe that men like the present occupants of the offices referred to would like, to be entrusted with such a power. There was no reason for the Bill; it would inflict unnecessary hardship and be contrary to the recognised principles of jurisprudence: and on these grounds he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

rose to continue the debate, when—

called attention to the fact that less than forty Members were present.

There being less than forty Members present, the sitting will be suspended until four o'clock, unless in the meantime a quorum is formed, in which case business will proceed. If no quorum be formed, the House will be adjourned at four o'clock.