1899.] The Irish Agricultural Department. [163
that country was generally approved on all sides. On the second reading (July 5) Sir Charles Dilke's chief objection was that it would sanction the increase in the number of ministers having seats in Parliament, while Mr. Dillon (Mayo, E.) f speaking for himself and not for the Nationalists, protested against the measure because it would create another Castle Board, whilst the financial proposals and the elements of popular control were alike inadequate. Mr. T. Healy (Louth, N.) took occasion to separate himself from Mr. Dillon, speak- ing in favour of the bill, which was read a second time without a division and referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, through which it passed with little delay, and was reported, as amended, to the House (July 24). The discussion on this stage chiefly dealt with constitutional points, Mr. Dillon urging that the Chief Secretary should not be President of the Agricultural Department, and Sir Charles Dilke wishing that the Vice-President should vacate his seat on appointment, but both amendments were negatived, and with a promise to con- sider Mr. Dillon's proposal to increase the provincial members of the Agricultural Board, the bill was sent to the Lords. Its reception (July 31) in the Upper House was in every respect gratifying to the Government, the principal Irish landowners on both sides expressing general approval of the measure, whilst in committee (Aug. 1) the only amendment carried was one by Lord .Templetown to omit the clause giving power to the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast and Cork to appoint representatives to the Board of Technical Instruction. Ta this restriction the Commons raised no objection, and the bill became law.
Similar good fortune did not attend the Companies Bill introduced early in the session by the Earl of Dudley. The bill differed in no important particulars from one which had been before the House for three su^essive years. It was intended to remove some of the scandals which had attended the application of the law of limited liability, to prevent the formation of fraudulent companies, and to render directors amen- able to the law in cases of fraud or false statement. The bill was for three months under the consideration of a select com- mittee composed of the leading lawyers and bankers among the Peers, and was reported to the House (May 18) in ample time for further consideration if necessary. For reasons which were never explained, but were generally surmised to be pressure from without, no attempt was made to take up the bill for two months (July 20) and the third reading was postponed until a date (Aug. 3) when it was absolutely certain that no steps would be taken by the Commons, although public opinion had been loudly calling for years for legislation in this matter.
Another measure introduced into the House of Lords under pressure from unofficial army reformers was one to put the Militia upon a more satisfactory footing. In introducing the
l2
