penal laws imposing restrictions on Roman Catholic religious orders, to make Roman Catholics eligible for the Lord Chancellorship of Great Britain and Lord-Lieutenantcy of Ireland, and also to alter the statutory Declaration made by the Sovereign on accession. Mr. W. Redmond (N., Clare, E.), who moved the second reading, described the Declaration as an outrageous insult to Roman Catholics. They did not object to the Coronation Oath pledging the Crown to maintain the Protestant religion, but they did to the description of transubstantiation as idolatrous and superstitious. It was not essential for ensuring the Protestant succession, and passionate appeals for its removal had come from all parts of the Empire. But his colleagues would consider any alternative method of removing the Roman Catholic grievance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kavanagh (N., Carlow), a Protestant. Mr. Asquith, speaking only for himself, approved the admission of Roman Catholics to the offices in question, and regarded the Declaration as unnecessary, the Protestant succession being secured by the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. The Declaration dated from Charles II.'s reign, the worst period in English history, and was then exacted from all holders of municipal or State office. In the British Empire there were some 12,000,000 Roman Catholics, whose beliefs were branded just when they were anxious to welcome the Sovereign. He thought the time had come to abolish the Declaration, but, should its retention in an altered form be desired, it would be difficult to find a substitute not offensive to Catholics and yet satisfactory to those who desired the Sovereign to declare himself Protestant, and he suggested the appointment of a fully representative Committee to undertake the task.

Mr. McArthur (U., Kirkdale, Liverpool) moved the rejection of the Bill. The Roman Catholic Church was a political as well as a religious body, and held that heretics ought to be convinced or killed. The Jesuit Order had been suppressed at one time or another in every country in Europe. We were laying up trouble for the future by admitting monks and nuns expelled from France. If the Sovereign was to be Protestant, his representative in Ireland and the adviser of his conscience should be so likewise. Religious processions and the carrying of the Host should not be legalised. As to the Declaration, he would be glad to see it made less irritating to Roman Catholics, consistently with the guarantee of the Protestant succession, but the movement was a stalking horse for the removal of that guarantee. Mr. Boulton (L., Ramsey, Hunts), seconding the motion for rejection, pointed out that the Roman Church looked forward to the conversion of England, and cited the interference of the Pope in Canadian politics in 1888. Among subsequent speakers Mr. Clancy (N., Dublin Co.) referred to the efforts of British Ministries [between 1880 and 1890] to get the Pope to declare against the Land League. Sir John Kennaway (U., Honiton, Devon) supported the rejection of the Bill as a measure of national

self-preservation, and Mr. T. Healy (N., Louth, N.) argued that a Home Secretary, a Lord Chief Justice, and other dignitaries had been Roman Catholics, and that a statute of Edward VI., still in force, asserted transubstantiation. Moreover, many Churchmen could not make the existing declaration. Mr. Massie (L., Cricklade, Wilts) also insisted that Roman Catholicism had a political side, and that the recent history of the Jesuits abroad indicated the danger of removing the restrictions on religious orders. Lord E. Talbot (U., Chichester, Surrey), a Roman Catholic, asked if the Prime Minister really meant business, and said that the Government must give a lead. Mr. Belloc (L., Salford, S.), another Catholic, laid more stress on the burden of the laws against the religious orders than on the Declaration, and supported the Bill, first because it was required by consistent Liberalism, and next because England would need Irish support amid future perils. After other speeches the debate was closured and the second reading carried by 133 to 123. But on the motion of Mr. Dunn (L., Camborne, Cornwall) the Bill was shelved (by 124 to 121) by reference to a Committee of the whole House. Some Nonconformists abstained.

The second reading of this Bill provided an argument for the Inspection of Convents Bill. Leave to introduce it was asked by Captain Craig (U., Down, E.) on May 18. He explained that he merely desired to put monastic and conventual institutions, which would be multiplied after the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities, on the same footing as Protestant institutions; but Mr. T. P. O'Connor (N., Scotland, Liverpool) denounced Orange bigotry and declared that monastic bodies were the only real bodies of Christian Socialists, and leave was refused by 175 to 90.

Meanwhile the House of Lords had done some legislative work and had discussed several important topics. The final stage of the Indian Councils Bill (May 4, p. 82) was preceded by the second reading (by 75 to 18) of the Child Murder Bill, enabling sentence of death to be recorded without being pronounced on conviction of a woman for the murder of her infant child, provided that the judge was convinced that she had not fully recovered from the effect of her labour and that the sentence was not likely to be carried out. Lord Alverstone moved the second reading; the Lord Chancellor supported it, referring to the defeat of the clause he had attempted to have added to the Children Bill (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1908, p. 221); the Earl of Halsbury and Lord James of Hereford thought it would remove a strong deterrent to infanticide. It reached the Commons, but was dropped early in October. A Vehicles on Highways Bill, fixing a speed limit, was discussed on May 5, but dropped; so was Viscount Hardinge's Hops Bill, which was taken through Committee on May 12, the Government holding aloof as their own Bill had just been introduced (post, Chapter IV.)

penal laws imposing restrictions on Roman Catholic religious orders, to make Roman Catholics eligible for the Lord Chancellorship of Great Britain and Lord-Lieutenantcy of Ireland, and also to alter the statutory Declaration made by the Sovereign on accession. Mr. W. Redmond (N., Clare, E.), who moved the second reading, described the Declaration as an outrageous insult to Roman Catholics. They did not object to the Coronation Oath pledging the Crown to maintain the Protestant religion, but they did to the description of transubstantiation as idolatrous and superstitious. It was not essential for ensuring the Protestant succession, and passionate appeals for its removal had come from all parts of the Empire. But his colleagues would consider any alternative method of removing the Roman Catholic grievance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kavanagh (N., Carlow), a Protestant. Mr. Asquith, speaking only for himself, approved the admission of Roman Catholics to the offices in question, and regarded the Declaration as unnecessary, the Protestant succession being secured by the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. The Declaration dated from Charles II.'s reign, the worst period in English history, and was then exacted from all holders of municipal or State office. In the British Empire there were some 12,000,000 Roman Catholics, whose beliefs were branded just when they were anxious to welcome the Sovereign. He thought the time had come to abolish the Declaration, but, should its retention in an altered form be desired, it would be difficult to find a substitute not offensive to Catholics and yet satisfactory to those who desired the Sovereign to declare himself Protestant, and he suggested the appointment of a fully representative Committee to undertake the task.

Mr. McArthur (U., Kirkdale, Liverpool) moved the rejection of the Bill. The Roman Catholic Church was a political as well as a religious body, and held that heretics ought to be convinced or killed. The Jesuit Order had been suppressed at one time or another in every country in Europe. We were laying up trouble for the future by admitting monks and nuns expelled from France. If the Sovereign was to be Protestant, his representative in Ireland and the adviser of his conscience should be so likewise. Religious processions and the carrying of the Host should not be legalised. As to the Declaration, he would be glad to see it made less irritating to Roman Catholics, consistently with the guarantee of the Protestant succession, but the movement was a stalking horse for the removal of that guaran

Mr. Boulton (L., Ramsey, Hunts), seconding the motion for rejection, pointed out that the Roman Church looked forward to the conversion of England, and cited the interference of the Pope in Canadian politics in 1888. Among subsequent speakers Mr. Clancy (N., Dublin Co.) referred to the efforts of British Ministries [between 1880 and 1890] to get the Pope to declare against the Land League. Sir John Kennaway (U., Honiton, Devon) supported the rejection of the Bill as a measure of national

of the aged Irish poor of their pensions, and had given British journalism of the meaner sort an opportunity to cast aspersions on the Irish nation. He complained that appeals against the decisions of Pensions Committees were dealt with in secret by the Local Government Board, and that the Treasury had made the validity of claims dependent on their confirmation by the notoriously inaccurate Census statistics of 1841 and 1851, while the researches of pension officers had also been inaccurate. Mr. Gwynn (N., Galway) said that the "lie" that 50,000 pensions had been granted wrongfully in Ireland had too good a start to be overtaken. Mr. Moore (U., Armagh) and Mr. Craig (U., Antrim, N.) said that the administration of the Act in Ulster was satisfactory. Mr. Hobhouse, Secretary of the Treasury, defended the Government, explaining that the proportion of applicants to the total population over seventy had been so much larger in Ireland than in England as to call for inquiry, but that there was no foundation for a general charge of fraud; and Mr. Birrell gave further figures, mentioning that of the 10,891 rejections of claims on appeal 4,418 were on the ground of insufficient proof of age, 1,800 because they had received poor relief-a rule he should like to relax, because there were no friendly societies in Ireland—and 4,320 because the applicants' means disqualified them. This question bristled with difficulties owing to the complexity of the household budgets sent in by the applicants, some of whom farmed over 300 acres, and possessed horses, cows and implements of husbandry. The authorities tried to deal with all cases in a rational and friendly spirit and did not want to raise difficulties.-The Nationalists, however, were still dissatisfied, and continued their criticisms for the rest of the time available.

The principle of payment of members of Parliament and of the transfer of election expenses to the Imperial Exchequer was approved more definitely than in previous sessions on Wednesday, May 13, when two Liberal members, Mr. Higham (Sowerby, W.R. Yorks) and Mr. Fenwick (Wansbeck, Northumberland), respectively moved and seconded a resolution declaring that the existing practice precluded many constituencies from a free choice of candidates, and that any general franchise reform Bill passed before the dissolution of this Parliament should make the change in question. Mr. Harcourt, speaking for the Government, left the question to the House, but approved of the resolution, which was advocated by a number of speakers, Sir William Bull (U., Hammersmith) and Mr. Rees (L., Montgomery District), however, opposing it, though the former approved of the payment of election expenses by the State. He argued, however, that it would logically entail the payment of all members of local and municipal councils. The resolution was carried, after closure, by 242 to 92.

The Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill was debated on Friday, May 14. It proposed to repeal the remnants of the

H

penal laws imposing restrictions on Roman Catholic religious orders, to make Roman Catholics eligible for the Lord Chancellorship of Great Britain and Lord-Lieutenantcy of Ireland, and also to alter the statutory Declaration made by the Sovereign on accession. Mr. W. Redmond (N., Clare, E.), who moved the second reading, described the Declaration as an outrageous insult to Roman Catholics. They did not object to the Coronation Oath pledging the Crown to maintain the Protestant religion, but they did to the description of transubstantiation as idolatrous and superstitious. It was not essential for ensuring the Protestant succession, and passionate appeals for its removal had come from all parts of the Empire. But his colleagues would consider any alternative method of removing the Roman Catholic grievance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kavanagh (N., Carlow), a Protestant. Mr. Asquith, speaking only for himself, approved the admission of Roman Catholics to the offices in question, and regarded the Declaration as unnecessary, the Protestant succession being secured by the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. The Declaration dated from Charles II.'s reign, the worst period in English history, and was then exacted from all holders of municipal or State office. In the British Empire there were some 12,000,000 Roman Catholics, whose beliefs were branded just when they were anxious to welcome the Sovereign. He thought the time had come to abolish the Declaration, but, should its retention in an altered form be desired, it would be difficult to find a substitute not offensive to Catholics and yet satisfactory to those who desired the Sovereign to declare himself Protestant, and he suggested the appointment of a fully representative Committee to undertake the task.

Mr. McArthur (U., Kirkdale, Liverpool) moved the rejection of the Bill. The Roman Catholic Church was a political as well as a religious body, and held that heretics ought to be convinced or killed. The Jesuit Order had been suppressed at one time or another in every country in Europe. We were laying up trouble for the future by admitting monks and nuns expelled from France. If the Sovereign was to be Protestant, his representative in Ireland and the adviser of his conscience should be so likewise. Religious processions and the carrying of the Host should not be legalised. As to the Declaration, he would be glad to see it made less irritating to Roman Catholics, consistently with the guarantee of the Protestant succession, but the movement was a stalking horse for the removal of that guarantee. Mr. Boulton (L., Ramsey, Hunts), seconding the motion for rejection, pointed out that the Roman Church looked forward to the conversion of England, and cited the interference of the Pope in Canadian politics in 1888. Among subsequent speakers Mr. Clancy (N., Dublin Co.) referred to the efforts of British Ministries [between 1880 and 1890] to get the Pope to declare against the Land League. Sir John Kennaway (U., Honiton, Devon) supported the rejection of the Bill as a measure of national