said he desired to express his dissent from the Motion, but at the same time he recognised that, as it was down in the name of a member of the Government, it was sure to pass, and therefore it was useless to divide against it. This question had been debated in the House of Commons on four separate occasions, and its principle had been accepted by Parliament. Scottish opinion was in favour of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee of Scottish Members, but that proposal had not met with the support of the Government. Instead of that they had the proposal to send it to a Select Committee of fifteen Members, and he would ask any one with the slightest experience of the procedure of the House if under such circumstances the Bill had the slightest chance of passing this session. It would be practically impossible for the Committee to report in time for the Bill to pass into law, and the whole of the proceedings would be useless, because the Bill would be dead at the end of the session. He therefore viewed with extreme regret the throwing away of what he regarded as an opportunity of passing a Bill which embodied a sound progressive principle. It was very rarely any Scottish Member secured a place in the ballot, but this little opportunity having been obtained, he urged that it should not be sacrificed for want of the few hours necessary to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Law or a Committee of Scottish Members. They were not advancing the Bill one single stage by the action they were that day adopting. If the Bill were to go to a Select Committee, even if the Committee reported this session, it would not be much advanced, because it would still have to go through the Committee stage. Practically every Scottish Member had pledged himself in favour of the Bill, and the day had gone for beginning again de novo. If there was any desire to pass the Bill this session, why should they not refer it to the Grand Committee on Law or a Committee of Scottish Members? That was the only possible way by which it could be passed. There should be no mistake; to adopt the Motion was to kill the Bill for this session, and he thought it was a matter of extreme regret that that should be the position. Even if he were to ask for it, the hon. Gentleman in whose name the Motion stood could not give an undertaking that the Bill would be considered if it came back, because there was not time, and the Government was not in a position to give facilities for the passing of the Bill. If the Government, however, would give the same undertaking as they had given with regard to the Feeding of Children Bill and assist in every possible way in order, to get it passed, his objection to some extent would be met. He certainly protested against going back and renewing the inquiries which had taken place under the auspices of the House into the question of the taxation of land values. They had got far beyond that stage, and he thought the feeling of Scottish Members was almost entirely in favour of the measure. He considered they were throwing away an opportunity of passing a measure which embodied an important principle which it was desirable should be carried into law.

^* said he greatly rejoiced that the Government proposed to refer the Bill to a Committee other than a Standing Committee. He believed the Bill was not suited for discussion by a Standing Committee. It contained many propositions which, if brought before a Standing Committee, would be found to be controversial in character. A condition of congestion was already threatened in connection with the Bills which had been referred to the Standing Committee on Law, and they had seen instances where Bills had been destroyed by delays in proceedings before Standing Committees. He was sure that as the result of referring Bills to Standing Committees the intention of the House had sometimes been defeated. Another reason why he wished to express his satisfaction with the present proposition was that he did not think this Bill could be discussed adequately by a Standing Committee. The proposals contained in the Bill were, in his opinion, wholly inconsistent with those in another Bill now before Parliament. The intention of this Bill was to limit open spaces, whereas the other Bill, which was in the hands of the Government, was meant to facilitate the provision of open spaces, and thus render our towns more suitable places of habitation for decent citizens. In view of this inconsistency, he thought that a Select Committee should consider the proposals in the two Bills with a full appreciation of the difficulty of reconciling them, and should present a report to the House such as would tend to make legislation on the subject more useful.

said he was glad the Government had adopted the Motion which he put on the Paper directly the Bill had been read a second time. He did not share the opinion that it was adopted with the object of killing the Bill.

I did not say that.

hoped, however, that the Bill would be killed as the result of inquiry. He believed they wanted more inquiry. They had a very important inquiry on the subject some years ago by a Royal Commission, which reported at great length, but that Royal Commission had been persistently misquoted ever since. He remembered going to a very important banquet at which a prominent politician made a great speech, in the course of which he said that for many years the Radicals had been sneered at as ignorant demagogues because they had advocated the taxation of land values. Then he went on to say that they learned on the authority of two gentlemen of the Treasury, Sir George Murray and Sir Edward Hamilton, that in the taxation of land values there was an inexhaustible source of revenue. He (Mr. Cox) afterwards looked up the report of the Commission, and he found that what those authorities really said was that there was no inexhaustible source of revenue in the taxation of land values. For every one person who read the report of the Commission there would be at least 10,000 who would read the speech, and this showed how delusions were propagated. It seemed to him that there was a case for further inquiry, and it was for that reason he suggested that in appointing a Committee the Government should not follow the usual practice of picking out men who had committed themselves to one side or the other. On the contrary, they should, if possible, pick out fifteen persons who were not committed on the subject, so that they might have as far as possible an impartial tribunal. That would give a chance of getting a real verdict on the subject. He was himself so confident that when this subject was inquired into the whole delusion would disappear, that he should be very glad indeed to see the English Bill now before the House read a second time and referred to the same Committee. He did not see why this Government, which contained a good many members of Scottish extraction, should be ready to make an experiment on poor little Scotland. He hoped before they were subjected to this danger they would have a full and impartial inquiry by a Committee composed of persons not previously pledged one way or the other.

^* said he entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston. He did not think the House understood the important changes which the Bill was likely to make in the system of local taxation in Scotland. The most important principle in the Bill embodied in the 7th Clause was given away by the Lord Advocate in his speech on the Second Reading, and he thought that that alone was sufficient to show the absolute necessity of having the matter thrashed out.

said he was strongly in favour of the Bill, and should be keenly in favour of its going to a Scottish Committee. At the same time he wished to tell the House of the situation in which he found himself and of the circumstances under which it was proposed to send the Bill to a Select Committee. The Grand Committee on Law had become extremely blocked, and among other measures there was before that Committee the Workmen's Compensation Bill. Any one who knew the contentious matter in that Bill would recognise that it would occupy the time of the Committee for a considerable period. The Scottish Members had met and considered the situation, and their elected leader, the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, put the Question to the Prime Minister whether, in the circumstances, he would remit the Bill to a Select Committee.

Was it not the case that the Scottish Members were told that the Government would grant any other committee but a Grand Committee?

said that that was not the case. They were told if that were moved the Government would dissent from the proposition. It was moved, and the Scotch Members then, through their representatives, asked that the Bill should be remitted to this Select Committee. They having asked the Government to do that, and having obtained that pledge, the Government were there in fulfilment of their pledge. He entirely dissented from the view that anything should be done to kill the Bill, and also from the view that the election of the Select Committee to sit upon the Bill would necessarily have that result. The Select Committee was largely master of its own procedure, and it was his earnest personal hope that the labours of the Committee might effect such a scrutiny of the whole matter as would enable the Bill to be passed in this session, or at all events enable it to be so shaped as to afford a speedy opportunity for legislation on the subject. He should endeavour to inspire all the members of the Committee with whom he had any influence to urge on their proceedings, and it was his earnest hope that before the end of the session they would have the Bill. His own view was entirely antagonistic to that of the hon. Member for Preston. The hon. Member had said there were delusions with regard the Bill. He agreed, and he hoped that a very few sittings of the Select Committee would blow into the air such delusions as those held by the hon. Member. The Government accepted the principle of the Bill, and they wanted it to be moderately, skilfully, and carefully engineered. The suggestion of the Scottish Members that it should be sent to a Select Committee had been agreed to, and upon the whole he thought, under the circumstances, it was the best way in which to get the Bill forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of fifteen members.

said the net result of reference to the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, appeared to be that the two sets of Acts referred to all mines of all descriptions, but it did not appear to him to be a very convenient method of legislating. They had no reference whatever to quarries, but they were brought in by the Act of 1894. Thus they had to consult no less than five Acts to see what class of property the section actually referred to. Not only so, but the machinery provided under the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act was quite different. In one case they had an elaborate schedule, and the Secretary of State might make any alteration he liked, and in the other case there was no schedule at all. It appeared to him a very inconvenient way of legislating. It led to endless disputes in the law courts, and toa great deal of uncertainty as to what the Act really meant. Clause 1 referred to accidents in or about mines and quarries, and it was quite evident they must know exactly what they meant by a mine. The definition of a mine in the Coal Mines Regulation Act was one thing and the definition in the Metalliferous Mines Regulations Act was a somewhat different thing. The definition in the Coal Mines Regulation Act included machinery, but in the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act it did not. A mineowner would thus be in the greatest possible doubt as to what accident he was bound to report under the two Acts. No doubt he would be told that the Home Office would tell him, but it was not for the Home Office to decide. The Act of Parliament was the only authority the owner or agent was bound to recognise, and he was entitled to have, and the House was bound to make, his obligations under the Act absolutely clear and plain. He (Lord R. Cecil) had drafted a clause which he believed exactly carried out the sense of the Government clause, and, if there was any blot in it, it could undoubtedly be remedied. He earnestly appealed to the House to take this opportunity of protesting against this referential system of legislation, which had no advantage whatever. The reason for adopting it was well known. It was to enable departments to conceal exactly what it was intended to do, and to pass Bills through the House without dissent. It was not right, however, merely to save time and trouble, to legislate in that way, and to create difficulties for those who had to abide by the Act. He ventured, therefore, to move the clause which stood in his name, and he trusted the House would support his protest.

New clause.

"(1)—(a) On or before the twenty-first day of January in every year the owner, agent, or manager of every coal mine shall send to the inspector of the district on behalf of a Secretary of State a correct return specifying, with respect to the year ending on the preceding thirty-first day of December, such particulars as the Secretary of State may prescribe of all accidents which occurred in or about such coal mine during the year to which the return relates, and disabled for more than seven days any person employed in or about such mine from working at his ordinary work; (b) On or before the first day of February in every year the owner, agent, or manager of every metalliferous mine shall send to the inspector of the district on behalf of a Secretary of State a like correct return; (c) On or before the first day of February in every year the owner, agent, or manager of every quarry shall send to the inspector of the district on behalf of a Secretary of State a like correct return.(2) The expression "coal mine" means and includes mines of coal, mines of stratified iron-stone, mines of shale, and mines of fire-clay.(3) The expression "metalliferous mine" means and includes every mine of whatever description other than a coal mine.(4) The expression "quarry" means and includes every place (not being a mine) in which persons work in getting slate, stone, coprolites, or other minerals, and any part of which is more than twenty foot deep.(5) The expression "mine" includes every shaft or pit in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven, and all the shafts, levels, planes, works, machinery, tramways, and sidings, both below ground and above ground, in and adjacent to and belonging to the mine.(6) The expressions "owner" and "agent" shall have the same meaning as in The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887."— ( Lord R. Cecil. )

Brought up and read a first time.

Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."

^* said the House would observe that the noble Lord had not raised any point of principle. He did not object to the legislation proposed, but merely desired that legislation should be enacted in a different form. They agreed heartily and cordially that legislation by reference was an objectionable thing, and should be limited wherever possible, but there were occasions when it was infinitely the most convenient form for all concerned. In this particular matter, the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act required the owners, agents, or managers of mines to send to the Home Office annual returns, and it was now proposed to add to those returns particulars of accidents. Surely the simplest way of attaining the object they had in view was to say that in those annual returns, which were well understood by everyone concerned, should be included the particulars they required with regard to accidents. The noble Lord had pointed out that there were certain differences of definition between the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, but those differences were purely of a verbal character and of no importance. They had never given rise to difficulty and had caused no litigation. On the other hand, the clause proposed by the noble Lord would cause several difficulties. There was no provision made for any penalty for any breach of the obligations laid upon the mine-owner, his agent, or manager, and the Home Office would have no power to enforce the requirements which the Bill set forth. It would, moreover, necessitate two returns, and would occasion a large number of consequential Amendments, which had not been placed upon the Paper, and which would throw the House into difficulty and confusion. The same point was raised in Committee, and it was agreed that the proposals in the Bill were by far the best.

said he merely suggested in Committee that the Government should take the clause back and bring up a properly drafted one. They had not done so, and therefore this was the only course open to him.

^* said the matter was fully argued in Committee and the noble Lord had very little support. Under those circumstances he hoped the House would support the view taken by the Home Office and the Standing Committee on Law, and would not accept the Amendment.

said he had, in and out of season, when in opposition, made it as difficult as possible, and he should continue to make it as difficult as possible, for any Government, where they could properly legislate without referential clauses, to adopt that method of legislation. He did not think they were wasting time in using the Rules of the House to call attention to the matter. A very interesting work had been written by the Clerk of the House, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, in which it was pointed out that although in certain cases they must legislate in this way, there were various objections to it. If he were in the Government, and if he wanted to make it difficult for the House to move Amendments to a Bill, he dared say he might be wicked enough to make it as little clear and as short as possible, but there was no reason at all for it in this case. This was not a contentious measure in any sense, and nothing would be easier than to draft a clause similar to that drafted by his noble friend. It might be quite true that he had omitted to put in any provision for a penalty, but that could easily be remedied. There were no Parliamentary exigencies which made it necessary to avoid simplicity. On the contrary, it was essential that the Bill should be as clear as possible. By referring to the Memorandum preceding the Bill, they would see the character of the Bill at once—

"As regards mines, the chief effect of the Bill is, first, to make more definite the existing requirements as to reporting accidents causing serious personal injury; secondly, by requiring annual returns of all accidents which disable for more than fourteen days, to bring a much larger number of accidents than at present under the notice of the Department."

They thus said that the object was to make more definite the existing requirements as to reporting accidents. The clauses relating to factories and workshops were much more simply drafted. He supposed that in the preamble the Government found it necessary to be quite clear in order to avoid all the pitfalls. There was no reason why they should not have done the same with regard to the coalmines and quarries. He was in entire agreement with the noble Lord, and on any and every opportunity when this form of legislation was proposed he would feel it his bounden duty to call attention to the matter, and, if necessary, to aid anybody in the House to dissent from it.

said he did not believe any Government had any such idea as to concealment of their intentions in the drafting of a Bill. He believed they had two objects in view: one to save time, and the other to throw additional work on the Law Officers. No class of cases gave him more trouble when he was a Law Officer than those where they had to sit down and make out a long schedule of Acts of Parliament with sections referring to others which were repealed. He would give them an example from the present Bill. If they looked at the schedule they would see that Section 11 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, was to be repealed from the beginning to the word "injured respectively," but for all he knew that might end in the middle of a sentence. If, a question having been raised about it, they happened to take up the Act of 1872 and they had not this Act before them, they knew nothing whatever about the extent to which it was repealed. The noble Lord had taken considerable trouble in drafting a section. The Under-Secretary had made a very important speech showing great acquaintance with the subject, but he had not pointed out what objection there was to the section drafted by the noble Lord. The wording might in some respects be open to objection, but the Undersecretary had the most skilled draftsmen in England at his command, and he had only to send for them to have the matter put right in a very few minutes. The noble Lord had pointed out the great difficulty there was in referring to various Acts and ascertaining the proper definition of a mine. The Under-secretary had said there was no difficulty, but, he himself had seen litigation as to whether the Acts applied to slate, sand, and various other matters. Over and over again these matters had come up, and the noble Lord would confer a great benefit if he could induce the House to have a mine clearly defined. He would like to know from the Under-secretary whether the noble Lord had properly defined coal mines and metalliferous mines, and, if not, in what respect they were improperly defined? Would it not be much more convenient for every man who had to deal with this Bill as an Act to take it up in black and white and road it, rather than to have to go through numerous Acts of Parliament? If the definitions were correct, why did not the Under-secretary accept the noble Lord's Amendment? They were all agreed upon this matter, which was merely one of drafting. Would the Under-Secretary undertake, if the Bill were allowed to go through now, when it reached another place, to have this clause redrafted, and have it by that means made clear in the Act of Parliament? If that undertaking were given, he was sure his noble friend would not proceed further with his Amendment.

said he had not had the advantage of hearing all the speeches that had been delivered, and therefore he hoped that the House would pardon him if he touched upon points which had already been dealt with. An objection had been taken by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Glamorganshire to legislation by reference. It was, no doubt, frequently objectionable, but there were cases in which it was absolutely necessary. For instance, what did they mean to do, and what were they doing by this Bill? They proposed to attach certain obligations to the owners of certain classes of mines. But there were general obligations relating to mines already. There was an Act relating to metalliferous mines, and another relating to coal mines, dealing with the notices and the particulars which were to be supplied with regard to accidents. The particulars required under those Acts were clearly set forth in them, and clearly it would be undesirable, cumbrous, and useless to repent all those sections in the provisions relating to notices and particulars which were to be found in this Bill. He dared say it would be useful to make every Bill which came before this House a codifying Bill, but such a course would certainly not facilitate legislation, and in this case he did not think it would lead to intelligibility and clearness, because they would have not only to codify the whole of the law but to import into this measure a bundle of sections which had no application to the branch of the subject with which they were dealing, and that, of course, would not improve the Act. Surely the best plan under the circumstances was to say that wherever particulars were required to be notified in other statutes relating to mines and quarries, those particulars should be implified in the way described in this Bill. That was not legislation by reference which in any way tended to obscure the action of the Government, but was the shortest and simplest way of dealing with the matter. It might be said why not put the whole of the legal obligations of mine owners in one Bill, ["Hear, hear"] An hon. Member said "hear hear," but the matter was not quite so simple as it appeared to him. It was a far better plan to recognise that the practical common sense of the matter was that coal mine owners and quarry owners must have a working knowledge of and make frequent reference to the principal Acts relating to their own interests. The coal mine owner must often have to refer to the Act of 1875, and in the same way the owner of metalliferous mines would also have to refer to the Metalliferous Mines Act. It was not necessary, therefore, to repeal those Acts, and they must leave to the mineowner the obligation of looking at them and learning his obligations. The mine owner had no difficult in doing that, and it was not an unreasonable thing to say that in addition to the obligations the mine owner was under in the principal Acts, he was also under the obligations contained in this Bill. There was nothing so very wrong, therefore, in legislation by reference of this kind. His right hon. and learned friend had asked what there was wrong in the definition given in the Amendment of the noble Lord. He would reply, what was there wrong in his own definition?

said there was nothing wrong in it, because it did not exist.

asked why, if there was nothing very wrong in that case, the noble Lord should object to it? He was anxious not to misconstrue or misunderstand what the noble Lord said, but he had referred to the fact that in one of these definitions of a mine there was a reference to machinery, and that there was no reference to it in dealing with quarries. What did it matter; it was quite immaterial.

said perhaps he might be allowed to explain, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear his argument. It was not the difference between a mine and a quarry he alluded to, but the difference between two different kinds of mines which the Government had lumped together.

replied that even supposing they were lumped together they were both brought in under the provisions in regard to the notification of accidents, and if they were to do that by going beyond the scope of this Bill and going into distinctions as to different classes of mines, there could be no use in those distinctions, because the Bill covered thorn all. He did not think the noble Lord had very much improved the old definition by his proposal. The provisions of this Bill would cover all mines and quarries which were anywhere dealt with, and he hoped the House would not be led astray by discussions of this character about legislation by reference, and apply them to the very simple provisions of a very simple Bill.

inquired what was the meaning of Sub-section 2, Clause 2

said the sub-section dealt with causing any fracture of the head or of any limb. Surely the hon.and learned Gentleman, who had had a very long experience, should know what that meant.

said that was not the sub-section he referred to, which was on the next page of the measure.

turning to the page in question, said the sub-section ran—

"The same sub-section shall be substituted for so much of Section 11 of the Metalliferous Mines Act 1872, as is repealed by this Act, both as respects the application of that section to metalliferous mines and as respects its application to quarries."

His hon. and learned friend said he did not understand that.

said he did not say he did not understand it, but asked for explanation.

said that if his hon. and learned friend did understand it, he did not see why he should call upon him to explain it.

^* said the hon. and learned Solicitor-General came into the House when the Government had had a full opportunity of fairly saying that they would endeavour to make the Bill clear in another place, and without having heard any of the speeches made in support of the Amendment, suggested that there was no difficulty in understanding the Bill. There were many difficulties, e.g., whether a place was or was not a quarry. Let them take the case of coprolite works, it was a matter of the greatest difficulty to find out whether a particular pit came under this Act or not, and to determine the question would require most careful research. The landowner, whom the Solicitor-General said would know without any trouble, would know as much about the matter as the Solicitor-General knew about Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 of the Bill. In his opinion this was an exceedingly bad case of legislation by reference, as was shown by the passage which the Solicitor-General himself read. Ninety-nine men out of a hundred, whether lawyers or not, would not understand it. Nobody objected to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone and no possible harm could be done to anybody by making the matter clear by the insertion of the clause.

^* said objection was taken to it. There was an objection to the non-insertion of the penalties.

said that at all events there was no objection to it except with regard to the non-insertion of penalties. He had the greatest doubt as to whether that was necessary at all, and fifty lawyers could be found on one side and fifty on the other out of a hundred with regard to that question. But if it was necessary there was not the slightest difficulty in inserting two lines in the House of Lords to put the matter right. He thought the attitude the Government had taken up was due simply to Departmental pride.

^* wished to say a word in support of the Bill. As far as the workpeople to whom this Bill would apply were concerned, they perfectly well understood its provisions and agreed with them. They had fully discussed the matter, and considered the Bill to be a satisfactory solution of the difficulty which it proposed to deal with. As to the question of legislation by reference, he thought that the discussion between legal gentlemen on both sides of the House should not be allowed to obstruct a measure of this importance.[Cries of "Oh."] Well, he thought it would be obstructing it, and if allowed to continue might tend to delay and possibly to defeat the measure. Of course, he recognised that that was the business of the Opposition, and he supposed they would claim it as a victory if, by challenging the drafting of the measure, they succeeded in defeating the measure itself; but the working men wanted the Bill, and did not wish that it should be defeated, or a victory gained by the Opposition at their expense. They would, therefore, like to see the Bill pass.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 41, Noes, 231.(Division List No.47.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

^* said that the three new clauses† standing in the names of the hon.

† The new clauses referred to were as follows:

To move the following Clause:—" The words 'in which he has completed not less than three years approved service' contained in Section 4, Subsection 4, of The Police Act, 1890, are hereby repealed."

To move the following Clause:—" All periodic payments regularly

Member for the Ecclesall division of Sheffield, the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green, and the hon. Member for Northampton, respectively, were out of order because they proposed to lay an increased charge on the rates, which could not be done on the report stage of a Bill.

made to a constable for his services as such whether ordinary or special, but not including allowances in lieu of emoluments in kind, shall be treated as part of his pay and shall be take into account in calculating pension."

To move the following Clause:—" Where a constable has the free use of a house, the money value of such user shall be included in his annual pay and be pensionable on retirement."

Amendments proposed—

"In page 1, line 22, at beginning, to insert 'Where such a direction is given."

"In line 22, to leave out 'a' and insert 'the.'"—[ Mr. Herbert Samuel. )

Amendments agreed to.

^* moved (in line 24 of Clause 1) to leave out "shall not," and insert "may, if such continuous service extend to three years." He said he moved this Amendment in Committee and was not very successful there, but he hoped it would commend itself to the House as an Amendment which would do justice to a large body of men who were deserving of every support. The Bill itself in its first clause said that the police authority might direct that the pension to which a policeman was entitled after serving a number of years should be practically fixed, and that if he continued to serve he should not be liable to certain forfeitures under the Police Act of 1890. This was a sort of plum offered to the police to continue to serve after they had become entitled to a pension. The Amendment related to Sub-section 3, which said that, if in order to induce men to continue on in their service they should receive extra pay, that pay should not be taken into consideration in order to increase the pension.

I think the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member is to lay an increased charge on the rates, It may possibly do so. If that is so, and I think it is, the Amendment of the hon. Member is out of order.

May I point out it is optional? It gives an optional power to increase the charge.

If there is any option to increase the charge we must assume that occasionally that option will be exercised.

^* said he would move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston, in his absence, as it seemed a reasonable one and the Government were prepared to accept it. It was clearly right that if the extra pay was not to be pensionable, so also it should not be sub- ject to any deduction for pension purposes. That was the intention of the Bill, and the Amendment was really a drafting Amendment which would make a little clearer the object in view.

Amendment proposed—

Amendment agreed to.

moved to leave out in Clause 2 the words, "the police authority shall, and if he," and insert "or." He said the Amendment had been rendered necessary by something which had happened since this Bill was considered by the Grand Committee. Section 2 of the Bill was drawn and was considered by the Grand Committee upon the assumption that the law was that, within the meaning of the principal Act, service must be continuous in order to rank for pension. At that time that was the decision of the Court of Appeal, but since then a case had been carried to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords had reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and of the Court below. The law, therefore, now was different from what it was assumed to he when this clause was considered, and the Amendment of which he had given notice was simply intended to carry out the law as declared by the House of Lords. As the Clause stood it provided that it should be at the option of the police authority to reckon discontinuous service. The House of Lords had declared that service, whether continuous or discontinuous, must rank for pension. He did not think he need pursue the subject further, as he understood the Amendment was recognised as being just by the Government.

Amendment proposed—

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said the purport of this Amendment had been accurately stated by the hon. Member, and it was unnecessary for him to amplify it. The Government were glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed—

Amendments agreed to.

^* explained that the Amendments to Clause 5 standing in his name were consequential. The object of the clause was as follows. Cases had occurred in which chief constables had remained in office to a very advanced age. Instances had even been known of chief constables over the age of eighty, and standing joint committees of counties and watch committees of towns were generally on very good terms with their chief constables, and were unwilling to dismiss them; consequently, those very undesirable cases had arisen. There had been a general desire, except perhaps on the part of some of the chief constables, that the Civil Service rules of compulsory retirement at sixty-five should be applied, and Clause 5 of the Bill effected that. Cases, however, had come to their knowledge of superintendents and deputy chief constables to whom its provisions might also with great advantage apply, and the purpose of this Amendment was to make the whole clause apply not merely to chief constables but also to any officer of police above the rank of inspector.

Amendments proposed—

Amendments agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Justices of the Peace (No.2) Bill

Read a second time and committed for tomorrow.

, in moving the Second Reading, said the Bill was one of a purely technical character to make provision for a legal difficulty which had arisen in connection with the administration of the local registration of title in the county of Cork. He should not have thought it necessary to say anything to the House about it, but notice of Motion that the Bill be read that day six months having been put down by the Members for Dublin University, he though he ought to explain briefly the object of the Bill and what the necessity for it was. It really was intended to supply a clausus omissus in the Registration of Title Act of 1891 which escaped notice until it was discovered by the law officers of the late Government when advising on a matter towards the end of last year. The way it arose was this. The Act of 1891 provided by Section 4 Sub-section 2, that there should be for each county in Ireland a local Registration Office, and the 5th Sub-section provided that—

"Each local office shall, subject to the direction and control of the Registrar of Title in such manner as shall be prescribed, be under the management and control of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace of the county. But if such person is not, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, qualified to discharge the duties of the office, such office shall, subject as aforesaid, be under the management and control of such other person, being a solicitor, as shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for that, purpose."

The Government of the day appointed as Clerk of the Peace for the East Riding the late Mr. O'Grady, and no practical difficulty arose, because the Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding was a very old man, who made no claim to the office, and he was considered incapable of discharging the duties. The important point for the House to remember was that one register was established for the entire county of Cork, and one person was appointed registrar. In the county of Cork there were two officials who fulfilled the requirements of the Act— namely, the Clerk of the Peace and Crown for the city and East Riding of the county, and the Clerk of the Peace and Crown for the West Riding, the latter of whom was styled Clerk of the Peace and Crown for the county of Cork. In 1891 an Order in Council declared that until further Order the local registration office for the county of Cork should be under the management and control of the Clerk of the Peace for the East Riding, and the duties were from that time discharged by Mr. O' Grady who filled this office. Mr. O'Grady died in 1905, and Mr. Wright succeeded him as Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the city and East Riding of the county of Cork. An Order was made on the 1st of September, 1905, appointing Mr. Wright to the office of Registrar, and the appointment was subject to the same infirmity as the previous Order appointing Mr. O'Grady. Then Mr. Fitzgerald, the Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding, submitted that he was the proper person to be appointed, on the ground that he was Clerk of the Crown and Peace of and for the County of Cork, and the Law Officers of the day advised that both Clerks of the Peace were entitled to act for their respective ridings, and that it was not possible for the executive Government to select one of them only; in other words, that the Order of 1891 was invalid. It was necessary, therefore, to have a separate registry for each riding, and steps were taken to make Bandon the centre for the West Riding, and Cork the centre for the East Riding. That was the condition of affairs when the matter came before the Law Officers of the present Government. It was found that extreme inconvenience would be caused by this division. A good many farms were partly in one riding and partly in the other, and it would have been necessary that such farms should be registered in both ridings, and as regarded the future, when transactions in land took place, it would be necessary to search both registers, as there was nothing on the existing register to show in which riding any particular land was situated. It was provided in the Bill that there should be only one local registry for the county, situated in the city of Cork, and the Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding was selected as the registrar. He thought the House would see that there was every reason for that selection. The Order in Council dated March 1, 1879, which created the two offices, constituted a Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the city of Cork and the East Riding of the County, and a Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the West Riding, the latter being appointed under the style and title of Clerk of the Crown and Peace of and for the County of Cork. Under that Order the Clerk of the Peace for the East Riding discharged certain distinct duties in connection with that riding only, and the Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding had to discharge all the other duties connected with the entire county. Under the Order of March 1st, 1879, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the City of Cork and the East Riding received a salary of £1,000, and the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the West Riding £800. The Clerk of the Peace for the East Riding was by virtue of his position as Clerk of the Peace for the City the local registrar in bankruptcy, for which he received an additional £250 per annum, and this work must take up a considerable portion of his time. The Clerk for the East Riding received for his bankruptcy work £250 a year, and altogether he had £1,250 a year. If he was appointed also local registrar of title he would receive £1,450 a year as against £00 received by the other officer. It seemed to him, therefore, that it would have been unreasonable to select of these two officials the one with the larger duties and greater salary, and to deprive of the office the one with more leisure time and a smaller salary. So by the Bill they provided that the Clerk for the West Riding was to be the official appointed. And so strong was the case apparently in favour of that view that he understood the Clerk for the West Riding was advised by a very eminent counsel in Ireland that he was entitled to that appointment.

Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise him he was not?

^* replied that he advised him, following the advice given by his right hon. friend opposite, that it was impossible under the present law to deal with him as being the person entitled to the office. That advice was given by an officer of the late Government, and they adhered to it. But it would be very unsatisfactory to leave the matter in that position. It would be a highly inconvenient arrangement, merely for the convenience or for the sake of two officials, unnecessarily to divide the register of the county and to set up two registers where for the last fifteen years there had been one register alone. The third clause of the Bill merely provided that acts done prior to the passing of the Act by either Clerk of the Peace should be valid, because there had undoubtedly been some irregularity in the proceedings from the beginning, and it was doubtful whether there was any person who could legally discharge the duties. He begged to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."

said this Bill required explanation not upon questions of technical detail to which the learned Attorney-General had treated them, but in regard to the fact that the Irish Government were attempting by it to perpetrate a gross injustice and a gross job. The Chief Secretary was well aware of the feeling that existed in Ireland about this measure, and he was purposely absent upon this occasion because he was ashamed of the Bill, and before he concluded he thought every man in the House who heard him, and who without prejudice weighed the matter, would see that a dirtier piece of work had not been perpetrated by any Government. The Attorney-General had said that doubts had arisen as to who was to be appointed to this particular office.

^* : No person can be specially appointed. The Act provides that the person holding a particular office is to do the work.

said he would relate the facts. The Local Registration of Title Act was passed in 1891, and under it the Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland were to be appointed the local registrars of title. Upon the passing of the Act, there being two such Clerks in the county of Cork, the Judge who passed the Act, who was then Attorney-General for Ireland and now Mr. Justice Madden, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, determined that the proper person to appoint in Cork was the Clerk for the city of Cork and the East Riding, because he had the city of Cork under his jurisdiction, which was by far the largest part in relation to the work to be done. Mr. Standish O'Grady held the office from 1892 down to last year, when he died. The Liberal Government which was in power from 1892 to 1895 never questioned the Order then made by the Lord Chancellor and Judge Madden. Mr. Standish O'Grady happened to be a Catholic and no question was raised about him. Last year the Under-Secretary. Mr. J.B. Doherty, wrote to Mr. Henry T. Wright, a Crown Solicitor who he believed was a man of great eminence in his profession, saying he had been nominated subject to certain conditions and stating—

"You will become by virtue of your being Clerk of the Crown and Peace the local registering authority, and be entitled under Section 7 of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act 1891, to such increase of salary for additional duties imposed upon yon by the Act as the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Treasury may direct."

He asked the House to note that in making the offer of that appointment to Mr. Wright, one of the inducements held out by the Government was that Mr. Wright was also to perform the duties and have the salary of the Registrar of Titles.

^* : The right hon. Gentleman advised that that was irregular and illegal.

What was the date of that letter?

The 29th August, 1905. On those conditions the offer was accepted by Mr. Wright, who gave up a most lucrative practice and also the appointment of Crown Solicitor for Cork County. On September 1st the Lord Chanceller handed him a document confirming the appointment. Mr. Wright entered upon his duties there and then. The right hon. Gentleman had said this was a Bill of a merely technical character. It was a Bill to take away an appointment conferred under the hand of the Lord Chancellor, and what the the House was asked to do was to cancel the late Lord Chancellor's appointment—

^* : No.

Simply because there had been a change of Government. He ventured again to say that a dirtier piece of work had never been attempted in the House of Commons. The Attorney-General had said there was a flaw in the appointment.

^* : It was discovered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (pointing to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University), and I challenge him to deny it.

said he asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day, would he allow the matter to be brought to the courts of justice to be determined, and what was the answer? "No; it would take too much time. Let my Bill come on, and let my big battalion come down here. They will far more easily get over a difficulty of this kind than the courts of justice." That was a nice denial of justice by the chief Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland. Would the Attorney-General say that, because his opinion differed from that of a Lord Chancellor and a judge of the High Court, it was justice to this man that he should be deprived of the opportunity of placing his case before the legal tribunals of the land? The Attorney-General knew that this was a job; he knew that he dared not let it go before the courts. He knew he had been invited to do so, and he would not allow it, because, as he (Sir E. Carson) would explain later, it was all a part of another and a larger transaction. But, assuming for a moment that there was a flaw in this appointment, some one had to be appointed to the office. Did the Attorney-General deny that?

^* : Yes I do. The Act says that it is a particular official who is to discharge the duties—that the person who holds a particular office is to discharge the duties.

Exactly; and so that is the case now. But what did the Attorney-General proceed to do? He gave the Attorney-General the full benefit of what he had just said; but what the Attorney-General proposed to do was to take the appointment away from the man who, at all events, was attempted to be appointed, and who had given up his office as Crown Solicitor and his private practice on the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor and a judge of the High Court that he would be entitled to the office, and to attach to the office a man who had no claim to it. He asked the Attorney-General whether that man had any claim to it?

^* : Yes, he had a claim.

said he had a letter in his possession from the Under-Secretary in Dublin Castle to Mr. Wright, dated March 2nd, after the time when the hon. and learned Gentleman became Attorney-General. That letter stated—

"Adverting to previous correspondence in reference to the office of local registration of titles; I am directed by the Lord-Lieutenant to inform you that the matter has been again referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and they advise that neither Mr. Wright nor Mr. Fitzgerald as Clerk to the Crown and the Peace for the county and the city of Cork and East Riding of the County of Cork is so entitled to the office."

So that what the Attorney-General said was that, having himself advised that this gentleman had no claim to the office, he wanted to turn out the man who had been appointed and put in a man whom he admitted had no claim to the office. Now, he put this question to the Attorney-General, did the hon. and learned Gentleman deny Mr. Wright's competence to perform the duties?

^* : No.

Does he deny Mr. Wright's abilities?

^* : I know nothing about the one gentleman or the other.

said he thought the Attorney-General might be generous to the man to whom he was going to do this wrong. Did he deny Mr. Wright's position? Did he deny that in the service of the Government Mr. Wright had discharged his duties with the greatest ability and the greatest possible courage?

This is a cross-examination.

said that though he had never met Mr. Wright, he had always heard of him as a gentleman of the highest position in his profession. He would tell the House the whole of the matter of which this was the crown and coping-stone. Mr. Wright, as a Crown Solicitor in Ireland, had from time to time had to undertake very unpleasant duties, and last year, especially, with reference to police matters which had raised a great deal of feeling and riot in Ireland. That gentleman had to ask a bench of magistrates to return for trial a number of men who were so engaged. The chairman of the bench happened to be a justice by virtue of his being chairman of a county council; his name was Mr. George Howard. When the matter came before the bench the magistrates refused to adjudicate upon it, and adjourned the case for four months. At the end of that time they adjourned it again, and then Mr. Wright had to make application to the King's Bench to compel the magistrates to adjudicate upon it. When the order came down to them, they proceeded to adjudicate upon it by convicting the parties charged of a common assault, which they had not the least power or authority to do. Then another order had to be got from the King's Bench Division to set aside that conviction, and eventually the whole proceeding was set aside, and costs were given against the magistrates. What followed? On the change of Government the magistrate against whom two orders had been got for illegality was promoted to be a Land Commissioner, solely in consequence of his action on that occasion. If he was informed rightly, the Attorney-General could tell the House that the costs given against that magis- trate by the King's Bench Division were forgiven.

^* : No.

Have they been paid?

^* : I am not aware whether they have been paid or not; but I know they have not been forgiven.

said that this gentleman who broke the law was appointed a Land Commissioner, and Mr. Wright, who was his opponent in all these proceedings and who upheld the law, was deposed from his office. That was the sole and whole object of the Bill. He maintained that it was a disgraceful Bill, and that the absence of the Chief Secretary was due to that fact. The Attorney-General could not produce any precedent for a Bill of this kind. If there was any question of a flaw in the appointment of this gentleman, by all means let a Validating Bill be passed. The Bill before the House, if passed, would be nothing more nor less than the record of a public scandal. He ventured to tell the Attorney-General that whoever had put upon him this dirty trick in the early stages of his experience of his office was not at all his best friend, and if he was prepared to lend himself to carrying out such enactments as this he would find that he would not, when he demitted office, leave it in the same dignified position in which he found it.

said that this was an exceedingly interesting debate. When he came into the House he wondered to see so many Ulster Members present, and he knew that there was something afoot. When he saw both the Members for Trinity College in their places he really could hardly believe that a matter affecting the count of Cork could have produced such an impresion on those gentlemen. Then he learned from the late Solicitor-General for England that this was a "job," and he at once understood what had assembled the hosts from the North of Ireland. The late Solicitor-General had used curious language. He had called this "a dirty and disgraceful job." He did not object to the language, but it struck him as being rather strong. What were the real facts? On Mr. Standish O'Grady's death in 1905 a new appointment had to be made, and, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Wright, whom he agreed was an eminent solicitor and a man of the highest character, was appointed. Was Mr. Wright legally appointed to the office? That was the point they ought to settle before they came to any question of its being a disgraceful job. He had a copy of the Law Officer's opinion upon that appointment, the opinion of the junior Member for Trinity College concurred in by that eminent lawyer Lord Atkinson, dated October 25,1905. They said that the position which had arisen was a peculiar and difficult one, and they thought that upon the true construction of the statute and order there must be two appointments to the office of the Registry of Land Titles. Therefore the appointment of one officer was ultra vires because there ought to have been two appointments. The Bill proposed to amend that illegality. A Tory gentleman was appointed illegally, and yet hon. Members opposite talked of jobs. Was not the whole country carried on by jobs?

You ought to know.

said that the right hon. Gentleman knew as well as he did that no office with a salary attached had ever been allowed to go to a man who did not agree with his party. The whole country had been full of jobs for the last twenty years. [A NATIONAL MEMBER: And a bad job they have made of it.] The Bill simply proposed to amend the illegality. That was the whole matter, and he was really astonished at the right hon. Gentleman using such language.

I am not astonished at you.

said he had had discussions with the right hon. Gentleman before, but would hon. Members opposite who were Mr. Wright's friends tell the House under what circumstances this illegal appointment was made, and whether it was known to be illegal at the time it was made? The whole question seemed to him to be really a very simple matter and one which certainly ought not to prevent the Bill from being read a second time. An illegal appointment was made. Did those who made it know it was illegal? Was it a job? Further, was there anything done after the legal opinion of the late Attorney-General and Solicitor-General that it was illegal?

There is no such opinion. Let the matter be sent to the Courts; that is the way to test it.

said it was the duty of the law officers to advise the Government, and they had advised that this was illegal. Did the late Government do anything to put it right? No. With that opinion of their own law officers in their hands they sat tight, and so did Mr. Wright. All that the Bill sought to do was to bring order out of confusion. Meanwhile the public had been suffering while all this fight was going on between the lawyers; many purchasers of farms could not get their titles. If it was going to be a question of discussing jobs he warned the House from his experience that the discussion might become interminable. He did not think it fair that the right hon. Gentleman should bring in the Wintergrass case, in which Mr. Wright only did his duty. Why should the right hon. Gentleman attack Mr. Howard? He was just as high-minded a man as Mr. Wright, and he was elected Land Commissioner because he was one of the very best out of the thirty-two candidates that sought the office. He was appointed for that reason and for no other, and it was rather too bad to embroil him in this matter. If there was a job there were two of them: one the appointment of Mr. Wright, and another, according to the right hon. Gentleman, in the appointment under this Bill.

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down either had not had time to read his brief or had not been supplied with proper materials.

I have no brief.

said that as the hon. Gentleman had done him the honour to refer to an opinion which he had given, and had expressed the view that in bringing in this Bill the Government were only acting upon the advice of the late law officers of the Crown, perhaps he might be allowed to assure the House that there was not one single particle of truth in that statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, in his keenness in this matter, had handed to an hon. Gentleman sitting below the gangway documents which he had declined to place upon the Table of the House. These included an opinion given by himself and Lord Atkinson on October 25th last. He hoped to show that the hon. Gentleman opposite had, probably unconsciously, completely misrepresented the purport of that opinion; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite who had done the same, had not the same excuse for doing so. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well what that opinion was, because, before pressure was brought to bear upon him to alter his views and to bring in this Bill, which was a complete revolution of the views which he first formed of this question he affirmed the opinion that had previously been given by his late colleague and himself. He would explain to the House very briefly—because the matter was a technical one—what was the position that had arisen, and what was the difficulty which had to be met, as he was confident that when hon. Gentlemen opposite knew the truth of this scandalous job they would not soil their fingers with it. What was the position on October 25th last year, when the late law officers were consulted? There had always been a separate Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the East Riding of the county of Cork, as distinguished from the West Hiding of the county, and the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the East Riding always had attached to his office the clerkship of the peace for the city of Cork. In 1891 when the Local Registration of Title Act was passed a provision was inserted that the local registrar of titles should be the gentleman who for the time being occupied the position of Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the county in which the appointment was made. In 1891 when the first appointment became necessary under that Act, the then Lord Chancellor, (Lord Ashbourne) construing it to the best of his ability, came to the conclusion that the clerk for the East Riding, having the clerkship for the Crown and Peace for the city of Cork, was the proper person of the two to occupy this post. He (Mr. Campbell) did not stop to consider whether that was right or wrong, but a well known Roman Catholic solicitor practising in Cork at that time, Mr. Standish O'Grady, was appointed by Lord Ashbourne to the position of local registrar of title under that Act. Within a year a Liberal Government came into office and Lord Ashbourne was succeeded by Lord Chanceller Walker. That Liberal Government remained in office for a number of years, and during all that time while Mr. O'Grady occupied the same position which Mr. Wright filled today his appointment was never challenged by Lord Chanceller Walker or the Liberal law officers of the day. He hoped and believed that Lord Chanceller Walker was in no way privy to this disgraceful Bill and had never sanctioned it. Again, in 1894, Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the West Riding, and yet, although according to the right hon. Gentleman he had some sort of grievance, he had never discovered it, and had never put in any claim or suggestion that there was anything wrong in the appointment of Mr. Standish O'Grady. Mr. O'Grady occupied the appointment without challenge or demur from any quarter until his death in 1905.What would the House think of the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland —who was supposed to be the loader of his profession—that he knew nothing whatever of the position or ability of Mr. Wright in face of the fact that that gentleman was one of the leading solicitors in Ireland for thirty years, and for ten years under a Liberal Government as well as under a Unionist Government had served his country with great courage and ability as Crown Solicitor for the entire county of Cork? On September 1st, 1905, Mr. Wright received a letter from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland asking him would he surrender his Crown Solicitorship and his private practice in consideration of his being appointed Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the East Riding of Cork and the city of Cork, and on the condition expressly stated that he also was to be local registrar of titles. He accepted the office on those conditions. In October the question was raised by the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the West Riding as to whether Mr. Wright was entitled to the registrarship for the entire county, and the matter was referred to the law officers. The law officers advised that the true and proper solution was that each of those gentleman represented a count in itself, because in the order which had been quoted by the Attorney General—part of which he had omitted—it was expressly stated that the two ridings of county Cork should be treated, for judicial and administrative purposes, as separate counties.

Why was not that seen to on Mr. Wright's appointment?

said probably it was assumed that the precedent which had been set in the case of Mr. Standish O'Grady should be followed in his case. The advice given by the law officers was that, the two ridings being separate counties, Mr. Wright was entitled to be Registrar for the East Riding, and Mr. Fitzgerald for the West Riding. Would the House believe that the opinion given by himself and approved by his colleague and the then Lord Chanceller was approved of and adopted by the present law officers in the month of February last?

I take it that the present law officers agreed to the illegality.

said the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to that. What they agreed to was that under the true construction of that Order in Council and the Act of Parliament the proper solution was to treat these two ridings as separate administrative counties, and to leave Mr. Wright as the local registrar of titles for the East Riding and to appoint Mr. Fitzgerald as the local registrar for the West Riding. On October 25th last that opinion of the then law officers of the Crown was communicated to Mr. Wright, and he, like the gentleman he was, at once agreed. He was perfectly satisfied, and acquiesced in it. On December 6th, the late Government went out of office, and on February 9th, the present law officers of the Crown, having considered the matter for six weeks, advised the present Government that the advice given by him (Mr. Campbell) was correct and that there should be two registrars of title, one for each separate riding of Cork. On February 9th a communication was made to Mr. Wright to that effect. What could be more unjust and unfair for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to pretend to the House that this Bill was to carry out the opinion given by himself in October last? Why had not the truth been told to the House? When this job was left to the Attorney-General and his colleagues and the Chief Secretary was ashamed to sit beside him, why did not the right hon Gentleman make a clean breast of it? The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to tell the House that he had written to Mr. Wright that he was entitled to hold on to the East Riding and the city of Cork. On March 2nd, three weeks after February 9th, a letter was written to Mr. Wright telling him that the law officers had reconsidered their opinion. He wondered what pressure had been brought to bear in the meantime; he wondered whether the hon. Member for the city of Cork had intervened in this matter on behalf of his former election agent. The letter of March 2nd was as follows—

"Adverting to previous correspondence on the subject of the arrangements to be made for the local registration of title for the county of Cork I am directed by the Lord-Lieutenant to inform you that the matter has been again referred to the law officers of the Crown. They advise that neither Mr. Wright nor Mr. Fitzgerald is Clerk of the Crown and Peace for Cork. In their opinion the Act of 1891 contemplated only a single office and prohibits a solution of the difficulty by the appointment of you and Mr. Fitzgerald as local registrar each for your own riding. The case appears to be one of clausus omissus to be dealt with by legislation."

Mr. Wright, when he received the letter, put upon it the only construction that he could, that the present Government were going to introduce legislation to carry out the opinion that had been given that Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Wright were jointly entitled to hold this office between them, and being left under that impression he took no steps to put his case before the Government. But Mr. Fitzgerald was not so inactive, and the result was the present Bill. The Bill introduced in this form expressly deprived Mr. Wright of any part or share in the registrarship of title of any part of the county of Cork, and put into the office the former election agent of the Member for the city of Cork, giving him not merely the local registrarship of the entire county of Cork, but throwing in the city of Cork, of which Mr. Wright was Clerk of the Crown and Peace. A more scandalous, unjustifiable, and indefensible job had never come up for the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had sought to defend the proposal by saying that Mr. Fitzgerald had more duties to discharge in connection with the county than Mr. Wright. He entirely denied that. The salaries were fixed having regard to the responsibility and nature of the work, and those salaries showed that the position held by Mr. Wright was looked upon as the more responsible of the two. It came to this, that while for fourteen years a Roman Catholic gentleman was allowed to hold this position without challenge from any quarter in the city of Cork, under conditions identical to those of the office held by Mr. Wright, Mr. Wright, as a Protestant, had to be got rid of. Mr. Wright had done his duty in a way that earned for him the commendation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose when he was Chief Secretary and the commendation of several Chief Secretaries since, and because he discharged his duty with ability and courage he now had to be got rid of without a shred of compensation, and was to be deprived of the post in the faith of obtaining which he sacrificed his entire professional practice. That was to be done in the professed interests of efficiency and economy, but the Attorney-General knew that the only object of the Bill was to inflict a stigma on a public servant with a splendid record. The post was to be handed over to gentlemen about whom he would say nothing disparaging, except that Mr. Wright was in his profession considered to be head and shoulders above him. This gentleman, it was admitted, had no claim to the office, and Mr. Wright was not even to be allowed the ordinary right of a British subject to have the question decided in a Court of Law. Why was he refused this right? That was perhaps the most disgraceful part of the whole business. If the question was to be determined in a Court of law the job could not be carried out. That, then, was the whole of the disgraceful and squalid story. Though the Government by superior numbers forced the Bill through the House, it would never disgrace the Statute book of the country.

^* said he desired first of all to call attention to a remark which fell from the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who began his speech by referring to the large number of Ulster Unionist representatives who were present. He would just like to point out to the House that in the south and west of Ireland it was necessary frequently for the Protestant population to go to Ulster in order to have such a matter as that under discussion brought fairly and clearly before the House. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was favoured by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure in a manner which they on the Opposition side of the House considered most unfair. They were all anxious to obtain the correspondence which had passed and the Law Officers' decision, and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland was pressed to lay the Papers upon the Table. He declined to do so, although to-day they noticed that the Papers had been handed to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who immediately took them to the Leader of the Home Rule Party.

The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I did not take any papers to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.

No, I have had no papers.

^* said that at all events they had just been consulting together. Though they (the Ulster Unionist Party) did not know the person whom this Bill chiefly concerned—Mr. Wright—either personally or in any other way, but desired merely to see justice done, they had asked that these Papers should be laid on the Table of the House. On these grounds, and because the Chief Secretary was not present, he held that the House had been treated very badly, and the transaction in question was rightly described as a job. There had been similar instances in the House. There was the instance of the Rathmines and Rath gar Bill which the House refused to be sent upstairs. They had also seen similar tactics in regard to the Assistant Land Commissioners who had been sent away instead of being re-engaged as had hitherto been the custom. He put this particular Bill in the same category with the two instances he had mentioned. Were the Unionist Members for Ulster who had the Protestant interests of Ireland at heart to sit silent and not put the whole truth before the House? They were there for a duty, which he trusted his Ulster colleagues and he would never fail to discharge, namely, to protect what they considered was right, and to expose, where they could, what they considered was wrong. They wished in this matter to have the clearest light, and to have the Chief Secretary present in order to answer some of the questions in regard to which the Attorney-General for Ireland admitted he was unable to put the House in possession of full information. The representative of the Irish Government should be in his place when such an iniquitous Bill was brought before the House. Those who voted for the Bill as it stood would not do so on its merits, but purely and simply because they were called into the Division Lobby, many of them without having heard the arguments. If this and other Irish measures of the Government were the inauguration of a system of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas, it was certainly not governing Ireland justly or according to the ideas of legality. Sooner or later this sort of measure would recoil on the heads of the Government. A wrong would be done to a man who had done his duty fearlessly, and the Protestant people in that part of Ireland looked for the protection of this Protestant House.

said that absolutely no reply had been made to the grave and serious charges put forward, with the exception of a very lame and ineffective explanation by the Attorney-General, who had confessed that he was not conversant with all the facts. The hon. Member for South Tyrone—who now appeared to be looking forward to a more distinguished career in the future— had come to the assistance of the Government in regard to these most disreputable charges. After the very serious and grave charges which had been made they were entitled to demand from the Chief Secretary an answer. Therefore he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

formally seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—( Mr.Thomas Corbett. )

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 251; (Division List No.48)

Question again proposed.

^* said he could not say whether he was more indignant that this Bill had been brought before the House, or more deeply sympathetic with the Law Officer of the Government who had to introduce such a measure. He was sorry that the speeches of the two hon. and learned Members for Dublin University should have been delivered to a very limited audience, and it was because the House was now better filled that he would briefly recite why he and his friends felt so very indignant that this Bill had been introduced. The Bill had been characterised as a job. He ventured to call it one of the most glaring jobs that had ever been brought before the Imperial Parliament. A certain office under the Crown became vacant in September last, and it was duly filled up. No possible fault could be found with the gentleman appointed, and although a weakness in the appointment was subsequently discovered by the Law Officers of the late Government, the Law Officers of the present Government agreed to the solution suggested for the legalising of the appointment, and the present holder of the office was led to understand that a Bill would be introduced to put the matter right. No notice was given to him that it was proposed to remove him from office. There was a direct and close connection between the hon. Member for Waterford and this endeavour to put out of office one gentleman and to present it by legal enactment to quite another, and he wished the House fully to grasp how unreasonable and outrageous was the proposal, which was brought before the House in such a plausible manner. He had no fault to find with Mr. Fitzgerald or the manner in which he had fulfilled the duties of the office he at present held, but still less could fault be found with Mr. Wright, whom Mr. Fitzgerald was to supplant. He wished the House fully to gather that this change was taking effect because the Attorney-General was in the hands of the United Irish League in this matter. The only possible fault that could be found with Mr. Wright was that he was known to be a Protestant and a Unionist, and that in the furtherance of his duty to his King and country he had had to prosecute one to whom His Majesty's Government had recently given a distinct mark of preferment. He referred to Mr. Howard, who was lately appointed a land commissioner; he was a gentleman who had twice refused to fulfil the duties of the magistracy, and who had had to be ordered by the High Court to fulfil these duties in connection with distinct illegalities. This was the class of man to whom His Majesty's Government were willing to give substantial preferment. No possible fault could have been found with this Bill if it had been introduced to make it legal that there might be two registrars of title in the East and West Ridings of the county of Cork. But it was seriously proposed to remove from office Mr. Wright, who had been discharging the duties for the last five months. He thought the House had distinct reason to complain that the Chief Secretary was not present when this important debate was taking place. He was not prepared to believe that the Chief Secretary know all the facts, because if they were known to him he was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would not stand by the Attorney-General and support him in connection with such an iniquitous measure as this. He did not expect support from the Nationalist Members in this matter. The incident showed the close connection between the Government and the forces of disloyalty in the south and west of Ireland. Were they to take this matter as a sample of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas? He only wished that the electorate of Great Britain could have the incident brought before them in all ts fulness, because it would be a distinct eye-opener to them as to the way in which justice was being dispensed in Ireland. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had told the House that the appointments to all Government posts were jobs, and he could not help remembering that the hon. Gentleman not very long ago was glad to accept a responsible and well-paid position from the late Government. It was only when the late Government did not see fit again to include him that suddenly everything which the Unionist Party did was called a job or even something stronger. He did not think, therefore, that anything that might be said by the hon. Member for South Tyrone was likely to turn the House from its plain duty, which was to reject that Bill. He begged to move its rejection.

seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. He said he objected to the measure firstly because it wore the aspect of proscription of a political opponent. He objected to it also because he thought it was rather a breach of faith with an honourable man who had accepted an appointment from the late Government on certain very specific terms. Again, he objected to the Bill very strongly because he thought it was a very unfortunate precedent to ask the House, so largely composed as it was of Members not learned in the law, to decide what appeared to him to be a very difficult legal question. It was conceded on all hands—even by the hon. Member for South Tyrone—that Mr. Wright was a very meritorious gentleman, and up to September last he was a solicitor with one of the largest practices in Minister. One of the terms laid down in the letter conveying to him the offer of the position at Cork was that he would become the local registering authority and be entitled to such additional salary for the duties of that position as might be directed. The effect of the Bill now before the House would be to deprive him of £200 accruing from that source, which income he had before his eyes in accepting the appointment. It was said that there was some technical invalidity in the appointment. He could understand a Bill brought in to get over that difficulty, seeing that the man who was appointed had given up his private practice. Assuming that there was any error at all, which he doubted—because for years and years his predecessor held the position under the same conditions and nobody alleged that there was any illegality— this was a new precedent; an Act of Parliament ought to have been introduced to validate the appointment in regard to which there was a technical flaw. This Bill, however, was a measure to take away an appointment from a man who had received it and to give it to an absolute outsider. He would assume that there was a difficulty about appointing Mr. Wright, but the late Law Officers of the Crown so advised. The present Law Officers concurred that there was a difficulty because the county of Cork was divided for administrative purposes into two counties, East Riding and the West Riding. The late Law Officers suggested that as a technical breach of the law had arisen the obvious course to take was to appoint Mr. Wright for the East Riding and the other gentleman for the West Riding; in fact, that the inheritance should he divided between them. Mr. Wright admitted that that was a fair way out of the difficulty, and the Attorney-General and his colleagues conceded that it was a right and legal thing to do, and caused Sir James O' Doherty, the Under-secretary, to write on the 9th of February to Mr. Wright, to the effect that the management and control of the Registration Office should be under him and Mr. Fitzgerald. That seemed a fair working arrangement, but the Bill before the House provided for a most unfair arrangement. On the 2nd March, the present Law Officers of the Crown were of opinion that neither Mr. Wright nor Mr. Fitzgerald was entitled to the office. The Attorney-General changed his opinion for the third time between the 2nd of March and the 13th of March, when this Bill was presented to the House. The Bill would establish a novel precedent, because it asked the House, composed of a large number of gentlemen who were not learned in the law, to decide a most difficult point of law. Moreover, the majority of the Members had not heard the debate.

They were fortunate in that.

said he entirely concurred. He had always been under the impression that the proper course to take in regard to such questions was to raise them before the Courts of law. The junior Member for Dublin University and Lord Atkinson both thought there was a doubt, and they devised a way out of the difficulty. Then the present Attorney-General and his learned colleague looked into the matter and gave two different opinions.

^* : I beg your pardon. I gave only one opinion on this matter, and that opinion concurred with that of the right hon. Gentleman the late Solicitor-General.

said he was sure the Attorney-General had stated what he believed to be correct, but the inference from the letter of the 9th February was that the Law Officers of the Crown concurred in the opinion given by their predecessors.

^* assented.

said that some one must have advised the Irish Government to adhere to the opinion of their predecessors. But on the 13th March they introduced this Bill. The question should be decided by a Court of Law, and not by a vote of the House of Commons. He was reminded of the old controversy which arose in the famous O'Connell trial, as to whether the lay Members of the House of Lords should take part in a division. The learned law Lords who heard the appeal strongly pressed on the lay Lords not to take part in a division on a pure question of law. The lay Lords did not do so, and walked out of the House, and he believed that from that day to this they had never taken part in a legal division; if they did so, they would reduce the administration of the law to a perfect scandal, because they would decide cases in which they had not heard one word of the arguments on either side. In this matter hon. Members who were quite incapable of understanding a question of law would flock into the lobbies and vote upon and decide this legal question, and by that means take away from a man an office to which he was appointed, and confer it on another man. He protested most strongly on this point, because it seemed to him it would create a most unfortunate precedent if the House of Commons were asked to decide what was primarily and properly a matter to be dealt with in a Court of law. If the Attorney-General was of opinion that Mr. Wright was not properly appointed, let him obtain a quo warranto against Mr. Wright, and let the Law Courts decide the question. If this were done both he and the hon. Member for South Tyrone would be satisfied—

Amendment proposed.

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

said he really felt bound to begin by apologising to the House for continuing by even a few words the extremely instructive and futile debate which had been taking place for the last three hours. There were, he thought, forty-two orders upon the order paper, and the Bill which they were now discussing was the fourth of those orders. The discussion began at four o'clock, and it was now seven; all that time had been wasted upon this Bill, and yet an hon. Gentleman above the gangway told him, or rather menaced him with the intimation that the discussion might last for several more hours. The Opposition Benches above the gangway, occupied by hon. Members from Ulster, were crowded and enthusiastic for the first time in the history of the Ulster Party for nearly twenty years. He saw every one of them in his place for the first time, and though he had listened to many eloquent and vehement speeches from the late Attorney-General for Ireland, who held that position for three weeks, the eloquence and vehemence which he had brought to the discussion of this Bill caused all his previous performances to sink into insignificance. Did the House, however, realise what all this magnificent display meant? These hon. Gentlemen declared that the Union was in danger, and disloyalty was on top in Ireland. But what really was the cause of all this? A job of £200 a year in Ireland. Yet these hon. Gentlemen who declared that for the good of England, and for the good of Ireland, this Parliament should have the direction and the settlement of all English, Irish, Scotch, and Imperial matters, were not ashamed to come and take up three hours of the valuable time of the Imperial Parliament in discussing a question of whether one lawyer or another should get a job of £200 a year. He did not wish to be misunderstood when he passed that criticism. He was delighted, because he regarded every debate which took place upon Irish affairs as an educational debate, and he was sure that the education of the House proceeded much more rapidly under the instruction of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway than it would do from any speeches which could be delivered from below the gangway. This discussion, indeed, showed the true inwardness of Unionism, to which other names were given, such as loyalty, patriotism, Imperialism, but it all came down to jobs. What briefly were the facts of the question? He said "briefly," because the matter had been discussed as if it were one of great complexity. It was a very simple case as he understood it. The last Government before they went out of office indulged in what he thought he might describe without exaggeration as one of the most indecent orgies and debaucheries of jobbery in the history of politics, and that was saying a good deal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, one of the members for Dublin University, made himself Attorney General for three weeks, and the Government were so eager on their jobbery that they actually did not wait till the places were vacant before they appointed men to them. There was a gentleman called Wade, and there was an impending, but not an actual vacancy in one of the legal Land sub-Commissionerships. He believed the existing holder of the office had still two or three months to run, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were determined that none of their friends should be forgotten, and without waiting for the end of the term of office of the existing legal sub-Commissioner, they appointed Mr. Wade in his place. When the present Government came into office they, of course, discovered what everybody in Ireland knew before, viz., that the appointment was illegal and they withdrew it, but with as much consistency as one could expect from any Government—Liberal or Conservative—they had reappointed him since, although only temporarily. One of the late Government's little jobs before they left office was to appoint Mr. Wright to the clerkship of the peace for the East Riding of Cork, thus adding to that gentleman's other emoluments £200 a year. It was then discovered by the late Government that this was an illegal appointment. [Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL laughed.] The right hon. Gentleman laughed, but he was laughing at his own opinion. It reminded him of an occasion when a rival dramatist of Oliver Goldsmith said of his "She Stoops to Conquer" that the comedy of Oliver Goldsmith did not make him laugh, and Goldsmith retorted that the tragedies of his rival did make him laugh. He had often laughed at the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, especially those which dealt with tragedies, but he did not know that the right hon. Gentleman would come to laugh at them himself. The right hon. Gentleman discovered that this appointment was illegal, and that this man had got a job illegally, and all this fire and fury to which the House had been listening was because the present Government did not continue the office to which this man was appointed illegally, and because this poor suffering man was left with a miserable salary of only £1,200 a year. Hon. Members shed tears of blood for this poor pauper with £1,200 a year, who he should say had very little to do for it. Because the Government found themselves in a position in which they were unable to continue this man in his office without illegality, they had brought in a Bill to unite in one person these offices for the two Ridings of the county of Cork. He understood that the appointment was not to be given to Mr. Wright but to Mr. Fitzgerald, and in this connection he might allude to the fact that something had been said about the United Irish League. It had been represented that the origin of this action by the Government was due to that body, but not a single Member of the Party led by his hon. friend the Member for Waterford had interfered and his hon. friend had not interfered but had declined to interfere in all these questions of rival jobs. He (Mr. O'Connor) was not interfering because he eared for Mr. Fitzgerald. He did not care whether Mr. Fitzgerald or Mr. Wright had this job; it was nothing to do with him. Mr. Fitzgerald, moreover, had nothing to do with the United Irish League, and was a Crown officer before that League came into existence. Mr. Fitzgerald received £800 a year, and when he obtained this post he would have £1,000, which would still be less by £200 than the salary received by this alleged victim of oppression. It was a cruel thing that the Protestantism of England should be appealed to for the purposes of upholding jobbery. He had great respect for all kinds of religious faith, if they were sincere, but to put one forward for the purpose of making capital in the interest of legal jobbery was a course which he thought would have the contempt of every honest man. In conclusion he congratulated the House, and especially the majority of the House, on the object lesson they had had of the high purposes of Unionism and the honest methods by which it was defended.