is properly my duty to call on the Secretary to the Treasury to proceed with his Amendment. MR. BUCHANAN asked, was it not open to raise the whole question on a Motion for the re-committal of the Bill? EARL PERCY asked, was there no means of moving that the Bill be postponed? MR. SPEAKER: I will read the new Standing Order in reference to the matter, which will answer the question whether it is possible to move the recommittal of the Bill "When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a Bill as amended in Committee of the Whole House has been read, the House do proceed to consider the same, unless the Member in charge of the Bill shall desire to postpone its the Bill." consideration, or a Motion is made to re-commit Therefore, at this stage, a Motion to recommit the Bill could be made. ter, some of which seemed to him were, by the clauses of the Bill, very difficult to determine. There were some parts of the Bill of which he believed Friendly Societies and Savings Banks approved; but there were other clauses to which they had determined objection. By some of the clauses of the Bill Directors and Managers of Savings Banks were made responsible for the duty payable to Government. It might be true that they were not made legally responsible in one sense; but they objected to the responsibility being thrown on them of saying when duty was payable, and they considered the obligation should not be cast upon them of determining whether a customer had duty to pay, and they preferred that the present system should exist-that in all cases probate or letters of administration should be produced. The only argument against that was that there must be some expense; but by this Bill it was proposed that they should be called upon to pay on legacy receipts, which simply added to the expense. The clause was somewhat confused, because it placed nominations and wills and intestacies in the same cateMotion made, and Question proposed, gory. A nomination for £100 of a per-That the Bill be re-committed." son coming with a legacy receipt might (Mr. Whitley.) be dealt with; but in cases of intestacy or wills there might be five or six legatees to be dealt with, and that was a responsibility the banks objected to. A probate would be granted free of duty up to £100, and therefore there could be very little expense, and it was only when the assets amounted to more than £100 that probate would be payable; and why a legacy duty stamp should be required in addition, it was impossible to conceive. To make banks responsible for paying legatees when there was a simple way of payment by executor or administrator, was a new feature altogether to which Savings Banks decidedly objected. Why were they to be placed in a position so different to other banks? Why were they to make inquiry into the circumstances of their customers? MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is discussing the whole of the Bill. According to the Standing Orders the House should properly proceed with the consideration of the Amendments, unless the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill should wish to postpone the Question that the Amendments be now considered. It VOL. CCLXXX. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. WHITLEY said, he was in hopes his hon. and learned Friend would agree to a postponement; but that not being so, he begged to move that the Bill be re-committed. MR. STUART-WORTLEY said, he was in the hands of the House. But hon. Members had had full warning of the Bill coming on in all its stages, and the Amendments made in Committee were brought fully to the notice of those the Bill most affected. Of course, if the Bill were re-committed now he would lose a stage, and the House knew that was a serious thing at this period of the Session. His hon. Friend's objections were directed against Clause 9; but there were many Amendments before that clause would be reached which might be disposed of now. Then, if the questions raised by Clause 9 appeared to be of such difficulty and complexity that the House was unwilling to discuss them now, it would be for the House to say when further progress should be made with the Bill as amended. At all events, his hon. Friend might agree to allow the Amendments to be disposed of until those to Clause 9 were reached. EARL PERCY said, his hon. and learned Friend might be assured that neither the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) or anyone else had any 3 N desire to impede the progress of the Bill; but he imagined the reason for the Motion of the hon. Member was to give his hon. and learned Friend the opportunity to see if he could accept such modifications in the Bill as would make it satisfactory to those who complained of its present form. He was sorry his hon. and learned Friend did not now see his way to accept the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool; and he confessed he thought the hon. Member was, under the circumstances, justified in opposing the present stage, and he trusted that with some further consideration the Bill might be made more acceptable. He (Earl Percy) had received many communications on the subject, which showed there was a very strong feeling on the part of Managers of Savings Banks and Friendly Societies in reference to it; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would think it advisable to postpone this stage of the Bill, or assent to some amendment in the points in dispute on Clause 9. MR. DILLWYN said, he had given Notice in reference to the Bill a week ago, and he was quite ready to proceed with the consideration. But he thought it would be wiser on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to consent to the re-committal of the Bill. There was a great deal of apprehension in regard to the Bill on the part of Managers of Savings Banks, and he felt sure that if the Bill were re-committed there would be no desire to impede it. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would consent to the proposal, and he did not think time would really be lost by so doing. MR. COURTNEY said, he thought it was rather to be regretted if the Bill were re-committed. The whole difficulty arose upon Clause 9, as to which there was a great deal of apprehension; but he thought that a little attention paid to the wording of that clause would remove all alarm. He observed that there were no Amendments directly attacking that clause; but the House might deal with the Bill until that clause was reached, and then adjourn further consideration until time had been given to draft Amendments. MR. WHITLEY expressed himself as quite willing to agree to that proposition, and begged leave to withdraw his Motion. Earl Percy MR. A. J. BALFOUR said, he thought it would be a good thing to carry out that suggestion, provided that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would not bring on the Bill for discussion at an unreasonable hour. The Half-past Twelve Rule could not, in this case, be applied by means of a Notice of opposition; so, before the House proceeded with the earlier clauses, the hon. and learned Member should give a pledge that Clause 9 should only be discussed at a reasonable hour of the night. MR. BUCHANAN said, if the Bill were re-committed it would be a more convenient method of discussing the clause. In a discussion upon this stage the hon. and learned Member himself could only speak once in explanation of his measure; but, in Committee, the discussion would have much more freedom. MR. STUART-WORTLEY said, only by the indulgence of the House could he speak again. He was willing to give the undertaking not to proceed with Clause 9 on the present occasion; but to comply with the demand of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would be almost to give an undertaking that the Bill should not proceed this Session. How would he define a reasonable hour? At the latter part of the Session, 1 or 2 o'clock was not an unreasonable hour. At all events, he would not discuss Clause 9 that night. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Bill considered. On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment made :-In page 2, after Clause 4, insert the following Clause: (Nominations by Savings Bank depositors.) "A depositor in a Savings Bank, not being under sixteen years of age, may, by writing under his hand delivered at or sent to the office, nominate any person, not being an officer or servant to the husband, wife, father, mother, servant of the directors (unless such officer or child, brother, sister, nephew, or niece of the nominator), to whom any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds, which may remain due to such depositor at his decease, may be paid at such decease, and may from time to time revoke or vary such nomination by writing under his hand similarly delivered or sent; and, on receiving satisfactory proof of the death of a nominee the sum due to the deceased deposi nominator, the directors shall pay to the tor, provided it does not exceed one hundred pounds." Clause 1 (Extent and short title of | 2, line 30, leave out "of a society or Act). registered bank." On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments made:-In page 1, line 18, after "Britain," insert "and;" line 18, after "and," insert "Except section nine of the same, and so much thereof as relates to Trades Unions to;" Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6 (Provision in case of intestacy and no nomination). On the Motion of Mr. STUARTWORTLEY, the following Amendment made:-In page 3, line 8, leave out and in line 19, after "Islands," insert-trustees," and insert "directors." "And except the said section nine and so much as relates to Industrial and Provident Societies, and to Trades Unions to the Isle of Man." On the Motion of Mr. STUARTWORTLEY, the following Amendment made:-In page 1, line 19, leave out "Friendly, &c. Societies Nominations," and insert" Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies." Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 2 (Definition of terms). EARL PERCY rose to ask the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield whether he would give the House some further pledge that he would not introduce the Bill for discussion at an inconvenient hour? His intention, doubtless, was fair enough; but he had said nothing as to the hour after which he would not bring on the Bill in future. They had a right to press the hon. and learned Member to name some definite hour. MR. SPEAKER: The noble Earl is not speaking to the Question. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be postponed to Monday week."-(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.) EARL PERCY said, he would now ask the hon. and learned Member to name an hour after which he would not bring on the Bill ? MR. STUART-WORTLEY said, ho was entitled to ask in return what, in the opinion of the noble Earl, was a reasonable hour? EARL PERCY said, 12 o'clock. MR. R. N. FOWLER said, it was obvious that, to a private Member at that period of the Session, any time. before 2 was reasonable. Motion agreed to. Further Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 9th July. TITHE RENT CHARGE RECOVERY. STUART (Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Cropper, Mr. Pell, On the Motion of Mr. WORTLEY, the following Amendment made-In page 1, line 26, after "in," insert "and whose affairs are actively managed by." On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments made:-In page 1, line 25, after "bank," insert "and of a Post Office Savings Bank Insurance; page 2, line 7, leave out "or "The Government Annuities Act, 1882;' line 8, after "applies," insert "and a Post Office Savings Bank; "line 18, after "Bank," insert "and of a Post Office Savings Bank Insurance; " and leave out "the Post Office where the same is established," and insert "the General Post Office." Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 (How a nomination may be made). On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment made:-In page "That it is inexpedient, in the opinion of this House, that any Bill should be proceeded with until a better system is arrived at of obtaining the average value of corn grown in this country." Such an Amendment as that, if carried, would stop further legislation in the House, and the point upon which he desired to have the Speaker's ruling was the use of the words" any legislation." As a precedent in point, he would refer to the debates upon the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill in 1873, in the course of which an Amendment was given Notice of by an hon. Member, worded in a similar manner- "That the House declines to entertain any legislation affecting the burdens upon the ratepayers, &c." This was held to be out of Order, the Speaker deciding that it could not be put to the House. It would be observed that he raised the very same point which had already been decided by the Speaker ipsissimis verbis. If that was so, then would not the same objection apply to the Motion of the noble Lord, and would not the Bill stand as an unopposed Order of the Day? MR. PELL said, he would also direct the Speaker's attention to what took place on May 18 last year, upon the second reading of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) moved an Amendment which the Speaker ruled was not relevant to the Bill before the House, and thereupon refused to put the earlier part of the Resolution, only permitting the latter part, which was relevant, to be discussed. The present Amendment of the noble Lord would touch every Bill before the House; and if the House accepted it there would be an end of legislative work for the Session. MR. SPEAKER: I understand the contention to be that the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord the Member for North Northamptonshire is irregular and irrelevant, and therefore does not apply in blocking the Bill. The Amendment appears to me to be relevant to the Bill. I cannot rule it out of Order. I think his intention might be more correctly expressed by the noble Lord, yet I cannot say the Amendment is irregular. MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON said, there was another point to which he wished to call the Speaker's attention. The Amendment opposed the progress of the Bill "Until a better system is arrived at of obtaining the average value of corn grown in this Country." Now, the Bill had nothing to do with SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, this was not a Bill he could recommend the House to accept. No doubt, the subject-matter was of considerable importance; but he did not think that an Act of Parliament simply enacting that doors should open outwards was at all adequate, or the proper way of dealing with a matter of this description. Without going further, he would advise the House not to read the Bill a second time. MR. ONSLOW said, he quite understood the feeling that prompted the hon. Member in introducing the Bill, and it dealt with a matter in which he was interested, since his attention was drawn to it while serving for two years on the Committee on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. At the same time, he agreed with the Home Secretary, and did not think the subject could be dealt with by the Bill before the House. A clause in the Bill provided that doors should be such a manner as to open outwards." "Hung or placed in any public building in But what was a "public building?" According to the Bill, a "public building" meant "Any building used as a place of public amusement or entertainment, or for the holding at one time of one hundred persons, or a larger number of persons, for any purposes whatso ever." some manner for better exits from theatres and public halls. But this Bill Second Reading deferred till Wednes- did not meet the exigences of the case, day next. and the House should not be called Mr. Stanley Leighton upon at that hour to give it a second Question to add the words " upon this reading. day three months."-(Mr. W. H. James.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT said, he thought the principle of open doors might be modified in Committee. The statement that this was legislation in a panic was groundless, and he hoped the Government would not oppose the second reading, but would be content to move Amendments in Committee. MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD said, RIDG he was disappointed that his Bill did. not meet the views of the Home Secretary. He was not aware that there was any objection in his mind. He well remembered that when the question was asked whether the Government had any proposal in view to meet the admitted danger, the Home Secretary said he had no intention of submitting any measure on the subject, and therefore he (Mr. Kennard) had prepared this simple MR. WARTON said, he thought it Bill, to which he hoped the House was necessary to watch the Home Sewould give a second reading. In Com-cretary's words. The right hon. and mittee he would be quite ready to take learned Gentleman had said the atteninto consideration such Amendments as tion of the Government was directed to would make the Bill useful; but, of this subject; but there was no pledge course, the Bill was at the mercy of that they would take any action upon Her Majesty's Government, and theirs the matter. The Government ought to must be the responsibility of reject- do something in the matter; and unless ing it. a pledge to that effect was given the House ought to pass this Bill. MR. STUART-WORTLEY said, he thought that the Government should. give some assurance that they would in some way deal with the subject by enforcing regulations dealing with what was a very serious matter. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, if a pledge were required that the Government were addressing their attention to it, he would give that pledge; but the proper way of dealing with it would, he thought, be under the Building Act. This Bill would condemn the Houses of Parliament, and provide that the doors of the Division Lobbies should open outwards, and the responsible official of the House would be subject to a penalty, for the House was unquestionably a public building. He did not think this was a serious manner of dealing with a serious question. MR. W. H. JAMES objected to legislation in a panic. The accident at Sunderland occurred only 10 days ago; an inquiry was to be held in a few days-on Monday; and it would be an extraordinary proceeding for Parliament to legislate upon a matter of this kind before that inquiry had been held. He had an opinion as to that disaster in a direction towards which the attention of the House had not been drawn, and he should move that the Bill be read that day three months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the MR. WHITLEY said, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be withdrawn. The Government had said their attention was directed to the subject, and he had no doubt they would do something. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MOTIONS. 18.00 DETENTION IN HOSPITALS BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for extending to certain hospitals the provisions relating to workhouses which enable the detention therein of persons affected with diseases of an infectious or contagious character, said: Although I have no doubt that the amendment of the law which I ask leave to introduce may give rise to a good deal of opposition, I hope the House will be disposed to allow it to be introduced without opposition this evening, and be content to take the discussion on the second reading, which I will undertake to move at a time when it can be conveniently and adequately discussed. It may, however, be appropriate that I should say a few words as |