hon. and learned Attorney General for MR. CLANCY: I asked the right Ireland (Mr. Gibson) yesterday for an explanation of the first Bill specified in the Schedule. No doubt his answer was intelligible to himself, but I am | afraid it was not regarded by hon. Members of the House as very satisfactory. For that reason as well as for others I beg to move the omission of this Act from the Schedule-namely, "5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 27," which is an Act dealing with the hemp and other manufactures in Ireland. I venture to say there is not one man in the House tleman who is at all acquainted with the except the right hon. and learned Genprovisions of this Act. proposed to be left out stand part of the Question proposed, "That the words Parliament is ordinarily at an end. I Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury quoted a remark which may be applied not only to the proceedings of this Session, but to all human affairs. He said it was impossible to forecast the proceedings of Parliament next year. Of course it is, but we may forecast that this Parliament will meet again next February, and that, with the exception of a short holiday at Easter, will sit right on until August. We may suppose, too, that there will be no Coercion Bill passed next year, because the Government have exhausted human ingenuity in respect of coercion to Ireland. We may assume that next Session will be more free for normal and regular legislation than this Session has been, and what my hon. Friend desires is to apply a useful spur to the Amendment proposed, in page 2, side of the intentions of the Government line 5, to leave out " 5 & 6 Will. IV., in regard to legislation. He says-c. 27."—(Mr. Clancy.) "We will only allow your expiring laws to continue in force until the end of August, unless you take care to deal with every Statute, either by way of an omnibus Bill or by separate legislation before the end of August." The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cited the case of the Employers' Liability Act, and hinted that inconvenience would arise if it together with other Acts were to cease in August next. But unless the Government deal with the Employers' Liability Act some way or other it will expire in December. The right hon. Gentleman must see that he has made no reply whatever to my hon. Friend because all the Statutes included in this Bill will expire before December next year. The Government must deal with every one of them sometime next Session, therefore any argument which applies to the Motion of my hon. Friend applies equally against the Bill as it stands. I fail to see any reason why the Acts specified in this Bill should remain in force until the end of 1888 when there will be six months of intervening legislation next year. I think the date mentioned by my hon. Friend is the most convenient one. Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 86; Clause agreed to. Schedule." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton): There are two Acts which deal with the linen industry. This Act is one for the protection of the linen industry of Ulster, and among other things it deals with the embezzlement of linen, hemp, and other materials of the same kind. There was a proposal made in this House in 1877 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the linen Acts should be consolidated. The Bill was blocked, and the result was that it was not passed into law. No opposition, as far as I am aware, has ever been made by any section of the community, either by employers or employed, to the continuance of this legislation. There have been complaints no doubt from time to time about the lowness of the wages in the industry-I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his opposition. MR. SEXTON: I must say the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's explanation is the very lamest I have ever heard. He has been asked what is the purpose of the Linen Acts, and why they should be continued. The right hon. and learned Gentleman with as much vagueness as he exhibited yesterday, has said these are Acts to deal with cases of embezzlement. But the general law prevents stealing or taking away. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there has been no complaint made from any quarter about the continuance of these laws. I cannot understand what can be the meaning of the laws, because no one can commit an offence of dishonesty with regard to the materials mentioned which is not punishable by the ordinary laws. We still wait come explanation of the use of this partisular Statute. DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): One could easily understand the retention of these laws if they were of any use in backing up the linen industry of the North of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland apparently does not think it worth his while to give us any explanation of this ambiguous Act of Will. IV. I, for one, would be very pleased to support this Act if it were really one capable of backing up and maintaining the linen industry of Ireland. If, for instance, it was for the purpose of preventing the introduction of German linen into Belfast, and of its being sold as Irish linen. The three Conservative Members for Belfast are conspicuous by their absence to-day. They would have acted wisely in attending to-day, and seeking to introduce some clause into this Bill which would deal with the standing injustice at present done to the linen industry in Ireland. It is a notorious fact that linen is sent from Germany to Belfast, bleached in Belfast, and then sold as Irish linen. We certainly hope that this Bill will not pass without the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland explaining to us what is really meant by this expiring Act. If it is of no use, it would be much better to let it expire in the due and ordinary course of things, and then bring in next year some measure which would really deal with the emergency of the case, and which would relieve the people in the North of Ireland who are now suffering. The people in Belfast are suffering as much as those of any other place, and I think if you were to allow this Act to lapse, and next year bring in a Bill dealing with the exigencies of the case, everybody would be a great deal better pleased. I call upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to save us the trouble of further expostulation; to save us the trouble of taking a Division upon this matter. If he will only rise and afford us the information we desire, he will save us from much acrimonious discussion. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine): The Irish Members say they do not care for this expiring law. Let us have an inquiry to see how far the law is necessary. I think it is very much to be regretted that when such an important question is raised no Cabinet Minister is present. MR. CLANCY: If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland can say that this Act affords protection that is not now afforded by the Common Law, I shall be quite willing to withdraw my opposition. MR. GIBSON: The utility of this Act of Parliament has never until now been called in question. A Bill was introduced on the subject by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to make this law perpetual by putting it into a perpetual code. There is a law in England which is substantially similar to this law relating to Ireland-namely, the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40. I venture to put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that Parliament is not in the habit of passing Acts of Parliament when there is no necessity for them. We cannot suppose that an Act of Parliament which was passed in the 6 & 7 Vict., with the object of preventing abuses in manufacture, and containing 35 pages, was entirely illusory and unnecessary. There is no doubt whatever that this Act of Parliament does perform very useful functions. This must be patent to the hon. Gentleman if he reads the Act. MR. CLANCY: I will persist in my opposition to the Act if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who-as we see-has the information in his possession, does not condescend to give it to the House. MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne): I do not contemplate with great satisfaction the possibility of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland reading all the sections of this Act, because it appears to me to be a lengthy Act, and probably it is filled up with such old verbiage as old Statutes were filled up with. What I desire, An hon. MEMBER: They are all use SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: They are not useless, because there are penalties provided for the breach of them. The subject was investigated some few years ago, and it was in connection with that investigation that permanent English Acts were passed. Surely hon. Members will not suggest that if these Acts were obsolete Parliament would have made them the permanent law of England. There are a number of provisions for settling disputes, and for a variety of other matters every one of which is valuable to the trade to a greater or lesser extent, but which it would take many hours to discuss. I assert that there are a number of provisions in this Act which do supplement the Common Law. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) calls our attention to any particular point, we shall be very glad to endeavour to answer him. however, to impress upon the Govern- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight): If this line of discussion were to continue, we might spend days and weeks in giving hon. Gentlemen information upon points which they ought themselves to master if they intend to oppose the renewal of a law. I assert that not only in regard to one point, but in regard to 20 or 30, these Acts supplement the Common Law, and give remedies and protection to trade that the Common Law does not give. It is somewhat strange that an hon. and learned Gentleman like the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who frequently professes knowledge of law, should ask us to read him a number of section of Acts of Parliament. In this particular Act there are provisions as to the quality of linen, and there is a provision as to the way pieces shall be folded. MR. CLANCY: I think the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) is such as to compel us to go to a Division. I am clearly justified now in having asked for an explanation of this Act, for what do we find? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) told us that this was an Act for the protection of the linen industry and other industries in the North of Ireland, and now it appears that it is an Act for the restraint of trade. SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I did not say one word about the restraint of trade. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Act, he will see there is nothing about the restraint of trade. MR. CLANCY: Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not use such a phrase; he was not such a "sillybilly" as to use an expression like that. [Cries of "Order, order!"] DR. TANNER: Well, he said he was not a "silly-billy." MR. CLANCY: That is my inference from his remarks, and I am justified in the inference when I hear there is in this Act such an extraordinary provision interfering with the course of trade as one prescribing how linen shall be folded, and another provision dealing with the settlement of disputes between masters and workmen. The sooner we get at the bottom of this matter the better-[An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!]-Yes; and I hope that the country will understand that Conservative Members are prepared to support a measure for the restraint of trade. I do not know the name of the hon. Gentleman who cheers, but I shall try to find out in order that I may bring it before his constituents. Now, this is an Act, according to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), which clearly upholds the absurd and irritating policy of the last century, which goes back to the worst days of Protection, which is actually imposing in the 19th century restrictions on trade which are supposed to have been abolished long ago in the British Dominions. Sir, I think this measure contains such unsuspected depths of iniquity that we are bound to oppose it to the very last. I repudiate the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General that we are not to ask for explanation of these Statutes. It is the business of any Member of this House who introduces a Bill to explain its provisions. It is not the business of the hon. and learned Gentleman to throw Bills at our heads, but it his business to make himself acquainted with the provisions of Bills of this kind, it is his business to explain the provisions of the Bill, and it is not courteous or civil, but it is indeed insulting to the House, for him, instead of performing this duty to expect those who object to the Bills to perform it. The explanation we have just had makes me suspicious of the nature of these old Bills, and if I do not get an explanation about every one of these Statutes, I shall be obliged to move their rejection and omission in order that we may examine them for ourselves before we assent to their continuance. THE CHAIRMAN: I think it convenient to state with reference to the future discussion of this Schedule, what must perhaps be known to hon. Members, that it is the duty of every Member of the Committee, wherever he may sit, to bring to the discussion of the subject-matters before the Committee his best ability and his best industry. But to continue a series of inquiries on matters about which an hon. Member apparently remains, I will not say purposely ignorant, but negligently ignorant, must be construed under certain circumstances, and I would be bound to so construe it, as an attempt to defeat and delay the progress of legislation. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): Hav ing some special knowledge of this trade, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. I think that this Bill is certainly not useless, but important, and so far from its being a restriction to trade, it is really a protection to the honest trader. Hon. Gentlemen will understand that it is of great importance to any trade that an article should really represent that for which it is sold. Now, let me say with reference to one class of goods, flat yarn, that it is sold according to its number, and according to its number it is well known in every market of the world. According to its number and the size of the yarn its price varies. It is extremely desirable, and indeed necessary, that there should be some provision securing that one number, one size of yarn, should not be sold for another. That is secured by making it necessary that every skein or bundle of yarn shall contain the same length of thread. That is exactly what is provided for in one section of this Act. The section indicates that a bundle of yarn shall be composed of a certain number of skeins, and that the skein shall be of a certain length, and there is a special penalty and a special mode of procedure provided for punishing anybody who sells yarn for something else than it actually is. It is of the greatest importance to the linen industry of Ireland that there should be some provision that the purchaser should get that for which he pays. MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E): I shall feel bound to support the second reading of this Bill, and the clauses that are in the Schedule. At the same time, I shall not do so for the reason urged by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but rather do so because I think there is another and far better of dealing with all these Acts. A great number of these Acts are old and obsolete, and really contain very little of use to the industries represented. What I ask my hon. Friends from Ireland to do is to do in this case, as I have endeavoured way to do in some other cases-namely, to put down Questions upon the Paper as to whether these Acts are really useful, and let us see whether we can once for all rid our Statute Book of them. I do not suppose that any of the clauses of this Act are put in force in Belfast at the present time; I should be surprised if they were. There are, indeed, a number of clauses in various Acts of Parliament which apply in some way to this country; and I think it would be extremely useful if hon. Members would make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the contents of the Acts, and let us all see if we cannot co-operate to get these old and obsolete Statutes so purged that we may be able to understand, with much less difficulty than we have at present in doing so, the utility of these Acts. MR. SEXTON: Hearing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) discourse so eloquently on the subject of yarns rather conveys to us a supreme sense of our ignorance than a sense of the utility of this measure. It may be possible that there is a remnant of utility in the Act, though I must say I have a doubt on the subject. I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his opposition any further. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. DR. TANNER: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the Survey of Great Britain Act, which stands No. 3 on the Schedule. In doing so I wish to say this. The Survey Act in itself is very good, no doubt, but at the present time it is desirable that we should have the matter dealt with in a better way. Not very long ago we had a long discussion on the extension of a certain portion of the Bill which deals in a satisfactory way with England, and which gives England certain advantages which are not extended to Ireland. It is for that reason that I rise to take exception to the Bill continuing without equalizing the law, and extending it to Ireland in the same way that it does to England. In Ireland at the present time, owing practically to the number of estates which are thrown on the market, there is a considerable amount of difficulty in dealing with the boundaries, and accordingly, latterly, we have agitated to get this 20-inch scale map which you have in England. To the advantage of all parties a long discussion took place upon this subject not so very long ago, I think in the course of last month. Well, it is not my intention to start another debate upon the subject, or to treat the matter in extenso, but I must ask the Government to give us some explanation in the matter, and to tell us what they intend to do in this business, or I must move to omit the Bill relating to the Survey of Great Britain Bill. I do not think there are any Members of the Irish Government in their places-yes, I see one—and I trust he will be able to re-assure us on this point as it is one which is exciting a great deal of interest in Ireland, and which we sincerely hope will be dealt with. THE CHAIRMAN: All that the hon. Member can do in the case of these Acts is to move to omit them, or to omit certain portions of them. It is not competent for him to move their extension, or modification in any other fashion. This is a Bill which concerns Great Britain only. THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University): I think I can satisfy the hon. Member for Mid Cork on this subject. I do not think he was in the House when I answered a Question on this subject which was put to the Government by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the hon. Member for East Donegal took great interest in the matter when the subject came up on the Estimates, and that I promised at that time to look into the matter. Afterwards when the hon. Member for East Donegal asked me a Question about it I was glad to be able to tell him that what he desires will be done. An order will be given in Ireland for a map to be prepared on the scale desired by the hon. Member for Mid Cork and the hon. Member for East Donegal. It does not require any alteration to be made in the Act of Parliament in order to enable this to be done. MR. CLANCY: I propose to move to amend Bill No. 7. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Mid Cork has given notice of an Amendment to No. 6. DR. TANNER: That is true, to amend the measure dealing with eccle |