68] ENGLISH HISTOEY, [march
Murray (Buteshire), on introducing the bill, explained that it provided that the selection of the persons to conduct the local inquiries should be left to the chairmen of committees of the two Houses, acting with the Secretary for Scotland, and it was arranged that while the persons selected need not be members of either House, such members would not be ineligible. With this one alteration this was practically the same bill as was approved by the select committee last session.
The precise form of objection to the bill in its altered form was expressed by Sir C. Cameron (Bridgeton, Glasgow) who saw in it the means by which Scotch members might be excluded from hearing the evidence for and against local bills. Mr. T. Shaw (Hawick Burghs) thought that a joint commission of Scottish members of both Houses should be appointed to deal with Scottish private bills on the spot where they originated. On the other hand Sir E. Eeid (Dumfries), an ex-Solicitor-General, held that the bill would be unobjectionable if the committees to consider local bills consisted. of members of either House ; while Mr. Munro-Ferguson (Leith District), an ex-Lord of the Treasury, disapproved of the form of delegation provided in the bill, and expressed a strong preference to a system of parliamentary devolution. The Lord Advocate, in explaining the constitution of the panel from which the commissioners to conduct inquiries were to be selected, said there was no intention to limit unduly the number of members of Parliament nominated upon the panel Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman thought it would be better to choose the tribunals of inquiry from among the Scotch members, and there would be no difficulty in inducing them to serve. Notwithstanding these differences of opinion with regard to the machinery required, the wish for some better system of procedure was general among the Scottish members, and the second reading was ultimately agreed to without a division.
Outside Parliament, political events were generally devoid of interest, except in so far as they pointed to something of a revival of the Liberal Opposition, but whether it was more of the Harcourt or of the Eosebery variety it was difficult to deter- mine. A controversy arose over the rough treatment of the Mahdi's remains, which had been taken from the great mauso- leum at Omdurman and scattered to the winds of the desert or to the waters of the Nile. The dogmatists, civil as well as military, were clear that the method employed was the only safeguard against Mahdism becoming a worship, and his shrine a place of pilgrimage. On the other hand, the sentimentalists insisted upon the respect due to a fallen foe, and the scandal attaching to the desecration of a dead man's grave. Neither side convinced its opponents, but the incident was utilised by platform speakers at a loss for more important matter. The death of President Faure, the election of his successor, M. Loubet ; the severe illness, and subsequent recovery, of the Pope ; the failing health of the Czar, and his intention of with-
