Commons Sitting of 31 March 1882

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Lynn and Fakenham Railway; Thames Deep Water Dock Railway *.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Settled Land* [120]; Conveyancing* [121].
Withdrawn—Chaplains to Workhouses, &c.* [10].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LYNN AND FAKENHAM RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought that the ground of the opposition which he had to offer to the Bill might be stated very shortly. In the first place, he wished to explain that he gave an entire adherence to the principles which usually governed the proceedings of the House with respect to Private Bills—namely, that unless some novel principle were involved, or unless some very special conditions existed in a particular case, it was desirable, as a rule, to send a Bill upstairs in order that it might be threshed out by a Select Committee. That was undoubtedly the rule, and he should be glad to follow it now; but he believed he should be able to show the House that special circumstances existed in this case, and that there were vital principles involved to which the House ought not to assent without full consideration. The fact that the House consented to read these Bills a second time at all was a proof that the House desired that, when necessary, they should receive full consideration. He admitted, however, that the case of sending a Bill upstairs was somewhat strengthened when the Bill itself was in the nature of an Omnibus Bill, because they could not reject such a Bill without defeating a good many parts of the scheme which they had no real wish to reject. He had endeavoured to get rid of this difficulty by placing on the Paper a Resolu-

    463
    tion precisely defining the limits of his opposition; and, having done so, he was ready to say to the promoters of the Bill that if they were prepared to meet him by striking out that part of the Bill which dealt with the particular portion of the line to which objection was raised, he would at once withdraw his opposition to the Bill so amended, and allow it to be read a second time and sent to a Committee upstairs. He had heard it stated that there existed a strong feeling in Norwich in regard to the defective nature of the present station accommodation. He could very well believe it. He could very well understand that great advantage would accrue to the inhabitants of Norwich from the construction of a central station; but, as a matter of fact, it would be easy to show that this particular scheme was not the only one possible, and that by rejecting one part of the Bill they would only be postponing the matter for a year, and enabling the promoters to apply to Parliament another year for an amended scheme. The grounds of his opposition to the Bill were clearly expressed in the Resolution on the Paper. In the first place, it was contended that the Bill unnecessarily interfered with the precincts of Norwich Cathedral. There had been circulated among the Members of the House within the last day or two a map which he ventured to describe as a very misleading map. It had been prepared by the promoters of the Bill, and its object was to show that although, technically, the line would interfere with the Cathedral precincts, yet, as a matter of fact, it passed at some distance from the actual precincts of the Cathedral. The truth of the matter was, that it was proposed to carry the line through an inclosure commonly known as the Cathedral precincts, although he readily admitted that the part of the inclosure through which the line would run was not occupied by Cathedral buildings. But he might venture to rest his case in regard to this Cathedral property entirely on the tenderness which Parliament always manifested in regard to places of this description. That tenderness might be based on the higher ground of the associations which these places created in the minds of all of them, even in these somewhat too practical times; or it might be based on the desire to preserve the privacy of places
    464
    devoted to repose and study, and the desire to keep open spaces in the neighbourhood of our large towns. But, whatever the feeling might be, nobody would dispute the special tenderness of Parliament in this matter. If they wanted an instance, it would be found in the case of the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, and the grounds and gardens connected with them. Parliament had always anxiously guarded the people connected with those Colleges from the intrusion of the Railway Companies. It was upon similar grounds that he trusted the House would show its tenderness in regard to the present Bill. The fact was, that he was opposing the Bill not mainly upon the extent of the interference with these precincts, but on the ground of the principle of the interference; because he believed, if this part of the Bill were to be passed, the thin end of the wedge would be introduced, and a vital precedent would be created, which might be used in a damaging manner hereafter in dealing with similar cases. The second ground of opposition was the interference of the Bill with the historical gateway. Now, the gateway within the precincts of Norwich Cathedral was one which belonged formerly to a Benedictine Monastery, and it was supposed to bear date as long ago as the beginning of the 14th century. It was one to which a special interest was attached by antiquarians; and yet it was included, he was told, within the limits of deviation of this Bill. It was quite true, as stated by the promoters, that it was not intended to pull down the gateway. The promoters alleged that they were not going to interfere with it at all. But what was the fact? They were going to run an embankment, from 18 to 25 feet in height, immediately in front of this gateway, isolating it entirely from the rest of the precincts and the close, and shutting it up in a narrow space between the river and the embankment, entirely destroying all the beauties of the spot which had been so much appreciated. He did not wonder, then, that a strong feeling had arisen in Norwich and elsewhere against the Bill. All of them knew that the feeling was not confined to Norwich, but that it extended all over the country. The Society of Antiquaries in London felt strongly on the

    465
    subject, and desired most anxiously that this gateway should be preserved. Of course, they would all admit that if it was absolutely necessary for the sake of public improvement, and if it could be shown that the requirements of the public were paramount, and that, in spite of all the objections he had urged, it was essential that the railway should be brought in at this particular spot, then he would be one of the first to admit that the Bill must be passed. But that was not so. Anybody who took the trouble to look at the map could satisfy himself in five minutes that the construction of the line in this particular spot was not in the least degree necessary, but that a small deviation would carry it across the river at another point, without interfering with the gateway, and consequently removing all objection. It was on these grounds that he ventured to move the Resolution which stood in his name, believing the House did not desire to establish so dangerous a precedent; and that, while anxious to give all reasonable facilities for the extension of railway enter prize where it could be proved to be necessary, the same jealous care which had always been displayed where interests of such great importance were affected would continue to be exercised.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not desirable to proceed with a Bill which unnecessarily interferes with the Cathedral Precincts at Norwich, and with the ancient historical gateway there,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had entirely covered the ground which he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had proposed to occupy in the Motion for the rejection of the Bill which stood on the Paper in his name. If the House accepted the Amendment, as he trusted it would, his Motion would be rendered altogether superfluous. But, beyond the points urged by the hon. Gentleman, it was as well to add this also—that, although the course which the line was proposed to take would only touch portions of the precincts of very little im-
    466
    portance, yet, as it was intended to construct a central station in Norwich, which would be very close to the Cathedral buildings, it would seem to be absolutely impossible but that, at some time or other, the contingency to which the hon. Gentleman referred must come, and the extension of the central station, with sidings in the direction of the Cathedral precincts, would be inevitable. He did not object to the Bill on general grounds. He knew it was necessary to the town and city of Norwich that there should be a central station, and he disclaimed all hostility to the Bill. But he did think that, under the circumstances, the House should be invited to pronounce an opinion whether they would sanction an entirely novel course in regard to the lines on which railways in future were to be constructed; so that if they were to permit Railway Companies to invade these open spaces, they should in this case do it with their eyes open, before sending the Bill to the House of Lords.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he had the honour to act as Chairman of the Committee by which the extension of this line into Norwich was sanctioned two years ago, and he therefore hoped that he would be allowed to state a few facts. The railway was one which had had a stormy existence during the time it had been before the world. It was originally a small line through Lynn to Fakenham; but the promoters saw that it was possible by its means to open out a fresh communication between Norwich and the great Midland districts. It was strongly approved by the landowners, who were anxious to break down the monopoly of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and in spite of great opposition and contest, lasting over four or five weeks, the Committee unanimously decided to sanction the Bill. They were told that there was not the slightest chance of the line ever being made; but within the two years which had since elapsed he believed it was rapidly approaching completion, and that it would shortly be opened into Norwich itself. He need not say the line passed through a very important district—important to the agricultural industries of Norwich, and to the much larger connections it opened up. It was now naturally exciting a great deal of alarm by the proposal to enter, in however

    467
    small a way, into the Cathedral precincts; but he thought that a greater objection to it in the minds of many was that it had committed the greater audacity of attempting to compete with the Great Eastern Railway in that district. As the line was originally passed, a station was sanctioned in the north part of the city of Norwich, and one chief recommendation of that station at the time was that, although not central or convenient, it would be the means of clearing away some very bad rookeries and some very poor buildings which it was most desirable to remove. But it was always felt that it would be a great advantage if the station could be brought to the southern side of the town, in the hope of connecting it with the other railways. The reason of the alteration now proposed was that it was felt desirable to bring this railway, feeding a very important agricultural district, into immediate communication with the Cattle Market of Norwich. That was felt to be a most important object by the Corporation of Norwich, who would, no doubt, be represented in the House that day, and who, by a large majority, had passed a resolution approving of the Bill. At the same time, he could not wonder for a moment at the jealousy which had been excited by the proposal, both on the part of the Dean, who was the natural guardian of the Cathedral and of its precincts, and of the public, whose interest was naturally and laudably on behalf of these ancient monuments of which the people were so proud in England, and for the preservation of which the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was constantly asking the sanction of Parliament. But the question was really whether they were in a fit condition in that House to decide the matter on ex parte statements, either on one side or the other. If they took upon themselves the responsibility of accepting the Amendment, the case made out in its favour ought to be an absolutely unanswerable one. In this case there was something, at all events, to be said on the other side. His hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill said that it unnecessarily interfered with the precincts of the Cathedral at Norwich. He (Sir John Kennaway) held in his hand a letter from a Norwich clergyman—Prebendary Brereton—in which that gentle-
    468
    man said that the proposed railway would be nearly a quarter of a mile from the Cathedral, and that, although it crossed a portion of the precincts, it would do them no injury. Indeed, it was in the very position of the railway at Oxford, with which the hon. Gentleman had compared the proposed line. It would no more interfere with the Cathedral precincts at Norwich than the line at Oxford did with the gardens and Colleges there. And, further, he was told that these precincts at Norwich were neither ornamental nor attractive, being nothing more than tumble-down buildings and groups of pigsties. Nor was it intended to isolate or intercept the interesting old water-view; but the railway would pass at a convenient distance from it, and so high as to leave the gateway uninjured. He did not vouch for these statements; but, as he had told the House, there was a Norwich clergyman who did vouch for them. Of course, the statement about the thin end of the wedge they had often heard before. This, however, was a case that ought to be decided on special merits; and where there were these strong differences of opinion, the best place for settling them was a Select Committee upstairs, where every statement could be thoroughly examined, and a fair hearing given to all the parties concerned.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he sympathized with the feeling of the Dean and Chapter with regard to the sacredness of these precincts, and he should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, if he did not hope that he could see his way to a very fair compromise between the Dean and Chapter and the promoters of this railroad. He had been spoken to on both sides of the question, and he therefore desired to effect a compromise. The question was this. There was really a double opposition to the proposed line. There was the opposition of the Great Eastern Railway with regard to competition in Norwich, and also the opposition of the Dean and Chapter, founded on the more reasonable grounds so eloquently stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). He wished to have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Play fair) for a few moments while he stated what the nature of the compro-

    469
    mise he had to suggest was. The objections raised to the line by the Dean and Chapter were because the line went right across the Cathedral precincts, and proposed by an embankment to shut out the water-gate. That water-gate was a monument of great historical value, and therefore, in the first place, the Dean and Chapter did not wish the precincts to be touched; and secondly, they did not wish to have the water-gate shut out from view. He was authorized by the promoters to state that if his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, they would undertake entirely to abandon the line through the precincts of the Cathedral, to carry the line over the river and back again, so as to skirt the precincts without in any way affecting the Cathedral property, except in two small corners, which it would be absolutely necessary to cross in order to avoid blocking up a public road and destroying some vinegar works, the compensation for which would be very large. By this means there would be no embankment in the Cathedral precincts at all, and no shutting out of the water-gate from the public view. The deviation would go to the other side of the river, and the line would run then upon the south side, and thus approach the central station which it was proposed to make near the Cattle Market. The promoters proposed to carry out this compromise in the following way. There would be some difficulty in carrying it out this year, unless they could make private arrangements with the owners of property. They would therefore withdraw that portion of the Bill this year, on condition that the Dean and Chapter would not oppose their application next year for a Bill in the terms he now suggested—namely, to leave the precincts entirely free except at these two corners which it was a matter of public necessity to take. The water-gate would not be interfered with, and the embankment and other works would be carried to the other side of the river. He thought the offer was a fair one, and he hoped his hon. Friend, on the assurance he now gave, would withdraw his opposition to the Bill.
    MR. TILLETTsaid, he held in his hands a Petition from the Corporation of Norwich in favour of the Bill. After referring to the project contained in the Bill, it went on to state that the proposed
    470
    railroad would be of great advantage to the city. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill that there was considerable alarm in the locality in regard to the provisions of the measure. He (Mr. Tillett) was rather surprised to hear such a statement; and it was a singular fact that no Member representing the locality had come forward to move the rejection of the Bill in the place of the hon. Gentleman. He observed on the Paper three Notices of Amendment—one by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), another by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), and a third by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); neither of whom in any way represented the district. Surely it was remarkable, if so strong a feeling existed in Norwich and the neighbourhood against the measure, or against the particular part of it to which reference had been made, that neither of the Members for Norfolk, nor either of the Members for the City of Norwich, had been induced to come forward to move the rejection of the Bill. The fact was, that the strong feeling in Norwich was in favour of the Bill. The inhabitants desired to have a central station, as the hon. Gentleman had rightly observed; and he (Mr. Tillett) thanked the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Kennaway), who was Chairman of the Committee two years ago, for the reference he had made to the actual facts of the case, because he was quite convinced that a considerable number of hon. Members who had cheered the statements made in opposition to the Bill did not know the locality, or the nature of what was called the contemplated invasion, or what was the real aspect of this picturesque water-gate. The fact was, that there would be, as things stood, three railways in the city of Norwich—one of them with a station at a place Heigham, in the north-west corner of the city; another with a station called Victoria, on the south side; and a third in connection with the Company opposing the present Bill. It was extremely inconvenient and perplexing to the public to have these distinct and distant termini for approaching the city of Norwich; and this Bill proposed to construct a central station, and to extend the terminus of the Lynn and Fakenham Rail-

    471
    way from somewhere about Heigham in the north-west corner to the foot of the Cattle Market. Norwich being the Metropolis of a large agricultural district, and one of the principal Cattle Markets in the Kingdom, it would be of great advantage not to Norfolk only, but to the Northern and Midland districts, to have this station constructed. It was because the Bill proposed to give to Norwich the prospect, and also the assurance, of a central station that the people of Norwich were strongly in favour of its being sent to a Committee. In 1845 the Great Eastern Railway Company, or rather the Associated Companies that were afterwards amalgamated under the name of the Great Eastern, did actually project an extension of this railway to this very spot, or near to it. They applied to Parliament for a Bill in 1845, and obtained the sanction of Parliament to it. They thereby recognized that it was important and desirable for their own interests and the interests of the community that this central station should be made. But from 1845 down to the present time not a single step had been taken in the direction of carrying out that which was the implied purpose of the Railway Company. And now that Norwich saw the chance and the promise of a central station, the inhabitants were very anxious indeed that the House should not allow the Bill to be strangled in the way now proposed, but that it should be sent upstairs and be inquired into, so that the real interests of the public and the real interests of the agriculturists might be considered in the matter, and that it should not be made a mere question of bargaining between the Dean and Chapter and the promoters of the undertaking. He held it to be exceedingly inconvenient that questions should be raised upon the details of Private Bills in this way. The House was already overcharged with Public Business, and questions of urgent importance in which the entire nation was concerned could hardly be advanced a single step. There were now before the House some 180 or 200 Private Bills upon which questions of this kind could be raised and the Business of the country be almost put a stop to. That would not only be a source of great inconvenience to the House, but it would be a source of injustice to the
    472
    country, because hon. Gentlemen would attend the Sitting of the House at 4 o'clock who had received private letters and been invited to discuss these questions upon ex parte statements, without having been able to hear the evidence of the engineers or to look at the proper plans. If this course were to be sanctioned, there was extreme peril that undertakings of the greatest importance to particular localities and to the community at large might be put an end to by an opposition raised in this way. He had no wish to pronounce an opinion in favour of every detail of the present Bill. If it could be shown that it was not necessary for the line to go through the precincts of the close; if there was a wanton and unnecessary invasion of what was called the sacred close; then let a Committee ascertain the fact on the evidence of the engineers, and let them decide accordingly. But the question ought not to be decided by the House upon a one-sided statement. He was able to confirm the assertion already made, that this railway did not propose to go within a quarter of a mile of the Cathedral at the point where it passed the property of the Dean and Chapter. He believed that 400 yards, or thereabouts, was the distance at which it passed the meadows, and it did not touch a single building upon the property of the Dean and Chapter. It came up to a street called Cathedral Street, at a distance of more than 300 yards from the Cathedral. He was prepared to concede that if the line unnecessarily intruded upon the privacy and seclusion of the Cathedral precincts, it ought to be resisted; but that was a question for a Committee upstairs, and he should not complain if, after hearing all the evidence, a Committee arrived at the opinion that such an objection was a fatal objection to the Bill. What he objected to was, that in that House, upon mere ex parte statements, they should be called upon, without having before them the substantial facts of the case, to reject the Bill.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that, by the indulgence of the House, he wished to say one word in regard to the compromise which had been offered by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He was afraid that he was not able to accept that compromise. The proposal

    473
    of his hon. Friend was, first of all, that the line authorized to be constructed by Part No. 6 of the Bill should be withdrawn for the present year. So far he had no objection to make. But his hon. Friend went further, and proposed that he (Mr. Stanhope) should give an undertaking that no opposition should be given by the Dean and Chapter, or any other person in whose interests he had been speaking, next year, when a Bill was to be brought forward for a railway which would cut the Cathedral close in two different places. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Only two corners.] It must be obviously clear that he could not accept a conditional scheme of which he knew nothing whatever upon a mere statement of this kind by his hon. Friend. Such a scheme, when submitted to Parliament, might be found to be in the highest degree objectionable; and, therefore, he must reluctantly press the Resolution.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he should not have troubled the House if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Tillett), who had stated that no Member who had any connection with the county of Norfolk had been found to put down his name in opposition to the Bill. Now, when he looked at the Notice Paper, and found that three Notices had already been given for the rejection of the Bill, he considered it unnecessary, although a Norfolk man, to add another, or otherwise he should undoubtedly have done so. It was scarcely necessary to remind the House that this was not a case of opposition to the whole Bill. The Company promoting the Bill had a station already at Heigham, and the opposition was only directed to a portion of the present scheme—the portion delineated on the map by a red line. No objection was raised to the construction of a line to Norwich from the station at Heigham, but only to that portion of it which ran through the precincts of the Cathedral. He agreed with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), in all the objections he had so eloquently urged against the invasion of the precincts of the Cathedral, and also to the contemplated appropriation of open places in that already crowded city. At the same time, he should have
    474
    thought that the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would have been in many respects a reasonable one, because the railroad would then be carried on the opposite side of the river, and there could be no very great objection to the slight invasion of the Cathedral property which would then he necessary. The junior Member for Norwich (Mr. Tillett) said the great object of promoting the line was to bring the station into the Cattle Market in the centre of the city. He should have thought that the Corporation of Norwich would themselves have been extremely jealous of having this space in the centre of the city occupied by a station of that kind, and that they would have preferred a station in another and more convenient place, exactly opposite the station of the Great Eastern Railway Company, which led to Yarmouth and the Eastern Coast. He felt it necessary to point out that if the Bill was to pass in its present form, and if this was to become a great cattle line, passing cattle through Norwich to the Northern and Midland districts, it was quite obvious that an increase of station accommodation would be required as the cattle trade developed, and if that accommodation could not be found in the city it must be found somewhere close at hand. They would not be able to obtain this increased accommodation in the direction of the river, as the hon. Member for Norwich had shown; and if it was hereafter found necessary to provide it, the provision must be made not on the river side, but by further encroachment upon the precincts of the Cathedral. He thought that was a fatal objection against allowing the Bill to pass in its present shape. At the same time, he would repeat that the compromise which had been suggested was not an unreasonable one to consider. As to the question in dispute being one between two Railway Companies, he had nothing to do with that. He had no interest in either of the Companies, and he ventured to think that getting two railroads into Norwich might, after all, be of no very great advantage to the citizens of Norwich, so far as competition was concerned. Hon. Members knew very well, from past experience, that even where the public had two Railway Companies to deal with, those Companies had only

    475
    to put their heads together, and the public found themselves ground between two millstones instead of by only one.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thought the promoters of the Bill must see that there was a strong feeling in the House against interfering with the precincts of the Cathedral more than was absolutely necessary. The compromise suggested by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was practically a new suggestion, and was altogether outside the limits of deviation contained in the Bill. He would suggest that the promoters should withdraw Part 6 of the Bill, which authorized the construction of the works that were objected to, and go on with the other parts of the Bill against which there was no contention. If this suggestion were accepted the Bill might be read a second time, and the promoters would be able to bring forward a Bill next year without any pledge on the part of the Dean and Chapter. He would, therefore, suggest that the promoters should give an undertaking that Part 6 of the Bill should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) should then withdraw his opposition to the Bill.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had no right to speak again; but, with the indulgence of the House, perhaps he might be permitted to say that the promoters of the Bill authorized him to state that, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), they would withdraw that portion of the Bill which affected the precincts of the Cathedral.
    SIR WILLIAM FFOLKES, as Vice Chairman of the Company who were promoting the Bill, said, he would be happy to give a guarantee on their part that that portion of the measure which referred to the precincts of the Cathedral of Norwich should be withdrawn.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that, upon that understanding, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    DUBLIN CITY MARKET COMPANY.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under a Bill obtained some years ago by the Dublin City Market Company, authorising them to buy houses in South Great Georges Street, Dublin, Mr. Joseph Fishbourne was appointed arbitrator, but resigned without making the awards; whether Mr. Posnet was appointed arbitrator in the room of Mr. Fishbourne, and, in several eases heard by him about a year ago, has not yet made awards; whether the Market Company are throwing down houses adjoining those in respect of which, after a period of a year since hearing, awards have not yet been made; and, whether he can say how soon Mr. Posnet may be expected to discharge his functions?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had no responsibility in the matter, which lay within the province of the Board of Works. He believed that as much progress was being made as possible.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MESSRS. CROTTY AND OTHERS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that seven persons, namely, Messieurs Crotty, O'Brien, Clune, Scanlan, Hogan, and Marogire, of Scariff, county Clare, and John Gregg, of Tulla, in the same county, were arrested under the Coercion Act on the 17th ultimo, and confined in the lock-up, or "black-hole," of the Police Barrack at Tulla from about 11 a.m. on the 17th ultimo, till about 3 p.m. on the following day; whether, during the time referred to, none of the seven men were permitted to leave the "black-hole" for any purpose whatever; and, whether this "black-hole" is a place that measures eight feet by seven?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, these men were not arrested under the Protection Act. They were arrested on a charge of treason-felony. They were brought to Tulla on the 17th ultimo, and were committed on the 18th. In the meantime, they were detained in the Tulla police barracks. He was sorry

477
to say that the room in which they were kept was a small one; but there was no probability of obtaining cars on the same day to remove them, the police having been "Boycotted" by the car-owners. They were removed to Ennis the next day on cars brought out from that town. During the time they were in the barracks at Tulla they were allowed to see their friends, and relieved of as much restraint as was consistent with their safe custody.

STATE OF IRELAND—OUTRAGE AT DERRY.
MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a serious outrage, said to have been committed upon some of the servants at Government House, Derry, during the visit of the Irish Society to Derry in August 1880, was reported to the Constabulary; whether said outrage was ascribed as a party one to the Roman Catholics of the neighbourhood; whether, during subsequent inquiries by a detective into an alleged larceny of spirits and wine, the property of the said Society, it transpired that no such outrage had been perpetrated; whether the supposed outrage was not an act done by the servants themselves; and whether this is the first occasion that strong suspicion has attached to some of the employées of the Society in connection with serious party outrages in Derry not long since; and, whether, in view of the stigma placed upon the Catholics of Derry, he will order an independent investigation into the circumstances?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the occurrence referred to in the Question took place in August, 1879, and was believed at the time to have been a party outrage. A magisterial investigation, however, failed to elicit any evidence implicating any parties. He believed some wine, the property of the Irish Society, was alleged to have disappeared at the railway station at Londonderry; but it subsequently transpired that it had been correctly delivered. He saw no necessity at present of ordering an investigation.

INLAND REVENUE STAMPING DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND).
DR. CAMERONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his
478
attention has been called to the inconvenience suffered by persons in Glasgow requiring forms to be stamped, through the necessity of sending them to Edinburgh, and the great delays which frequently occur through the inability of the Edinburgh office to overtake its work; whether it is a fact that on the 9th of March the Controller of Inland Revenue at Edinburgh advised the Department at Glasgow, that, owing to the demand for penny forms, consequent on the adoption of limited liability by the Scottish banks, large orders for "one penny" forms could not be supplied from Edinburgh in less than three weeks, while by sending them to London or Manchester for stamping they could be obtained in one week; and, whether he will consider the propriety of establishing in Glasgow an independent stamping department?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I regret to learn that there has been some delay in obtaining the necessary stamped forms in Glasgow. It was due, I am informed, to the adoption of limited liability by the Scotch banks; and, in order to meet it, the assistance of the Stamping Departments in London and Manchester has been called in. This arrangement, it is believed, is approved by the principal persons concerned. The pressure due to temporary causes would not, in my opinion, justify the expense of a Stamping Department at Glasgow, in addition to that at Edinburgh.
DR. CAMERON: Would the noble Lord recommend the Committee to send the press of work to London, or somewhere else, where it could be done, so as to enable the work to be got through?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: That is what I have stated is being done. The work is sent to Manchester and London.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JAMES DOOLEY.
MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. James Dooley, at present detained under the Coercion Act in Clonmel Gaol, had at the time of his arrest a licence for the sale of arms; whether such licence was revoked fourteen days after his arrest; whether all his arms and ammuni-

479
tion were at once given up to the police; whether he has since been unable to obtain payment, as provided by the Arms Act, for such arms, although four months have elapsed since they were surrendered; and, whether he will inquire into the cause of this delay?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that this prisoner was arrested on the 18th of November, his licence for the sale of arms was revoked on the 19th of November, and the arms and ammunition which belonged to him given up to the police on the 14th of December. The person acting on his behalf sent in a bill for the price of the arms, £54 odd, and he was asked for the invoice, which he failed to produce. That was the reason of the delay.
MR. REDMONDasked if the man was to be left without the price of his arms until he produced the invoice, which, perhaps, was lost?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could get another from the person from whom he purchased the arms.

VACCINATION ACT (1867), SEC. 31.
MR. BURTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that section thirty-one of the Vaccination Act of 1867 was obtained from Parliament on the express understanding that it was needed in order to give jurisdiction over children born before the new Act came into operation, but since the Act of 1853; and whether, as the section is no longer needed for its original purpose, and as there are no children now to whom the rest of the Act does not apply, he will consider the propriety of ordering the use of Section 31 to be discontinued?
MR. DODSON: The Question of my hon. Friend is based upon an erroneous assumption. There is nothing in the Act of 1867 limiting it to the children referred to; and, so far from there being any understanding that Section 31 should be limited as suggested, it is so drawn as to include all children, whether born before or after the passing of the Act. I cannot, therefore, assent to the conclusion that the section in question is no longer required for its original purpose. I am desirous that the powers of the section should not be abused; but I have no authority to order the use of it to be discontinued.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. RICHARD HODNETT.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Richard Hodnett, suspect, while in Cork Gaol, was called on by two gentlemen on the 3rd February; whether the gentlemen were informed by a warder that Mr. Hodnett refused to see them; whether he is aware that Mr. Hodnett denies having given any such message; but, on the contrary, states that he was anxious to see his friends; and, what notice the Government propose to take of the matter?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that two men called on Mr. Hodnett, while in Cork Gaol, on the 3rd of February. He was informed of their arrival, and he stated to the warder that he could see no visitors that day. The warder informed the two visitors accordingly.
MR. HEALYsaid, the truth of this statement was altogether denied by Mr. Hodnett.

INTERNATIONAL LAW—THE SPANISH STEAMER "LEON XIII."
DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the master of the Spanish Steamer "Leon XIII." having been imprisoned by the British authorities at Singapore for refusing to produce the engineers of the vessel, British subjects, whom he had arbitrarily placed in irons, the vessel a fortnight ago "escaped" from Singapore, carrying off the engineers in question; whether, before escaping, she complied with the Law as to clearance at the Custom House; if not, whether he will insist upon the Spanish Government restoring to British jurisdiction the British subjects thus piratically carried off; and, whether he will instruct our representative at Manila, whither the "Leon XIII." is bound, carefully to watch over their interests?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The statement of my hon. Friend with regard to the imprisonment of the master, and the escape of the engineers, of the Leon XIII. is substantially correct. No Custom-house exists at Singapore; but the engineers in question have been handed over to the British Consul at Manilla.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—SUPERANNUATION OF DR. ALEXANDER SMILEY, MEDICAL OFFICER AT BALLYCURRY.
MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Dr. Alexander Smiley, who had served for nearly thirty years as medical officer of the Ballycurry Dispensary district of the same Union, had been compelled by broken health (brought about by the arduous duties he was called on to discharge) to resign his office, had been recently refused any superannuation allowance by the guardians of the said Union, although the dispensary committee of the district had unanimously recommended him for a pension; and, if so, what was the reason assigned for such refusal; and, whether, considering the public disadvantage that a medical officer should, at the age of sixty-four, after thirty years' service, and in ill health, be compelled to persevere in the attempt to perform his duties, night and day, in a district the area of which is 14,215 acres, with a population of 4,533 persons, mostly in poor circumstances, he would take some steps to avoid this public evil?
MR. W. E. FORSTERunderstood that, in the main, the facts, as stated in the Question, were correct.
MR. BIGGARasked by what evidence the right hon. Gentleman said the last portion of the statement was correct?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it almost spoke for itself. It would be very hard that an officer who had attained the age of 64 years should be obliged to perform the duties of such a district.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he asked the Question with reference to the two last lines, which stated, "with a population of 4,533 persons, mostly in poor circumstances."
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am afraid it is the case with many people in Ireland.
MR. BIGGAR: No; it is not.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE, SCHEDULE VI.—PUPIL TEACHERS.
MR. SALTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any represen-
482
tations have been made to him as to the inconvenience that will arise in certain of the elementary schools in arranging the daily school-work, if the teaching hours of the pupil teachers are reduced from thirty hours to twenty-five hours per week, as proposed in Schedule VI. of the new Code; and, whether he will consider the possibility of some modification of this general restriction, under the authority of the inspector or otherwise?
MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that representations had been made to him as to the inconvenience that would arise in certain elementary schools if the teaching hours of the pupil teachers were reduced from 30 to 25 per week, as proposed in Schedule VI. of the new Code; but he thought they were made under a misapprehension. Existing contracts were not at all affected by the change. It was only the contracts of the pupil teachers in the future that would be affected; and they should be very both indeed to increase the hours, for they believed pupil teachers had been greatly over-worked, and that there had been a great deal of suffering in consequence. If inconvenience were found to result from the regulation, it could be modified; but he would wait for experience of its working before taking any step in that direction.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. THOMAS BRENNAN.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Thomas Brennan was suddenly removed, a few days since, from Kilmainham to Naas Prison, after an imprisonment in the former place for a period not far short of a year, many months of which he had spent in the infirmary of the Prison, where he was at the time of the order for his removal; whether the removal of Mr. Brennan was so suddenly executed as to prevent him from seeing, before his departure, his regular medical adviser, Dr. J. E. Kenny; and, whether the removal to Naas cuts Mr. Brennan off from Dr. Kenny's care; whether Mr. Brennan has been for some months in a precarious state of health; whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Report on Mr. Brennan's condition, made by Dr.

483
Robert MacDonnel about three months ago, and, since then, by Dr. Carte, the official medical attendant at Kilmainham Prison; and, whether any reason can be assigned for the removal of Mr. Brennan, in his dangerous state of health, from a prison, in which his own medical adviser had daily access to him, to one in which he is totally deprived of the exercise of that gentleman's skill and care?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Thomas Brennan had not been removed to Naas Gaol, but to Kilkenny. It was not the fact that he had been so suddenly removed as to prevent his having been seen by a doctor before he left. He was informed two days before of his intended removal, and, in accordance with his wish, Dr. Kenny saw him before he was removed. Dr. Carte also saw him. Thomas Brennan was in his ordinary health, and for some time back no reasonable complaint had been made on the ground of ill-health. Instead of the change being dangerous to Mr. Brennan, it was thought it would be beneficial. He did not consider he was called upon to lay upon the Table the certificate of the doctor.
MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House why Mr. Brennan was removed to Kilkenny?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the reason Mr. Brennan was removed to Kilkenny was that the Executive found it necessary to secure the safe-keeping of the prisoners; and also to prevent their carrying on practices for which it had been found necessary to detain them, and to prevent them carrying on communication with outside parties.
MR. SEXTONgave Notice that he would move for Papers bearing on this question.

STATE OF IRELAND—RIOT AT BALLYRAGGET.
MR. PATRICK MARTINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Adams, of the Munster Circuit, who acted as counsel for the next-of-kin of James Mars field, in respect to whose death the jury at the inquest, held in Ballyragget, returned a verdict of wilful murder against the sub-inspector in charge of the police, which has been lately
484
quashed by the Court of Queen's Bench, on the application of the Attorney General for Ireland, stated that when the first witness on behalf of the next-of-kin, John Delaney, of Abbeylaix, attended at the police barracks, pursuant to the coroner's directions, in order to identify the sub-inspector who gave the order to charge, Delaney, on entering the police barrack, was threatened, and it was stated his name would be taken down for the purpose of having him prosecuted; whether, during the inquest, and within forty-eight hours after this threat, John Delaney was in fact arrested under the Coercion Act, and has been since detained in Naas Gaol; what is the date of the warrant under which the said John Delaney was arrested; was not the said John Delaney at the time conducting a considerable business in Abbeylaix, which has been greatly injured by his detention; and is it the intention of the Chief Secretary to prolong the imprisonment of Delaney, which has now continued over five months, or to direct an inquiry into the circumstances of his case?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, he was not informed Mr. Adams was present. Delaney was arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act, on the 17th of October, under a warrant dated the 14th instant. His case was under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. PATRICK MARTINasked whether, if it was proved to the satisfaction of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Mr. Adams and the Coroner were present, any steps would be taken for the release of Delaney?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought not, and for this reason—he thought it would be a bad precedent to establish—that of making counsel in a case a witness in the case.
MR. PATRICK MARTINasked whether, in point of fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had received information to the effect that Mr. Adams was not present?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have received no information at all about Mr. Adams.

ARMY—QUARTERMASTERS SERVING IN INDIA.
Colonel ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will make Clauses 198 and 201 of the Royal Warrant applicable to Regiments serving in India, with a view to enable Quartermasters of those Regiments to obtain the advantages to which Quartermasters serving elsewhere are entitled; and, if he will state the reason why Quartermasters serving in India, who hold the rank of Captain, do not receive the allowances always granted in India to officers of that rank?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that, so far as their English pay was concerned, Quartermasters of regiments serving in India came under the conditions and rates of the Royal Warrant referred to in the Question. With respect to their Indian pay and allowances, the Government of India would be addressed in view of their reporting on the subject of the hon. and gallant Member's Question; but he had to observe that the rank held by Quartermasters serving in India, as elsewhere, was honorary and relative only, and did not, therefore, necessarily carry with it the pay and allowances of substantive rank.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE—ARTICLE 109, G.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, under the New Code (Art. 109, G. IV.), it is intended that scholars who may choose to remain at school after passing Standard VII. should contribute to the Grant made to their school, either by their attendances (Art. 13), or by their passes on re-examination in Standard VII?
MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that it was the intention of the Department that scholars who remained at the school after passing Standard VII. should contribute to the Grant.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Are those attendances to be included in the average attendances?
MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly.

EGYPT—ROBBERY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
486
If he has received any communication from our representative in Egypt regarding the robbery, reported in the "Globe," of all the effects of six English gentlemen, who have been travelling in the Atbara Mountains, by an Abyssinian tribe; and, whether the Egyptian Government have been asked to send assistance to these gentlemen?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No information has been received from Her Majesty's Agent in Egypt with regard to the robbery of Englishmen by Abyssinians in the Atbara Mountains; but as it is known that some of the party are personally acquainted with Sir Edward Malet, there is no doubt that he will do all in his power to assist them.

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—THE NEW WAREHOUSING SCHEME.
MR. SPENCER BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it is still intended to enforce the superannuation of those upper division clerks of the Customs Warehousing Department in the prime of life who do not wish to undertake service in the Outdoor Department, while retaining in other departments some thirty clerks who are upwards of sixty years of age?
MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will inform the House what are the immediate and prospective savings, if any, in the Estimates, from the impending changes in the Customs Department; and, whether they will not involve the superannuation of many public servants in the prime of life?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: It is impossible, in the present state of affairs, to give a definite answer either to this Question or to the latter part of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark. When we know how many of the warehousing clerks are willing to accept posts in the re-organized Department, and how many wish to retire, we shall be in a position to consider whether it will be necessary to compel any officers under 60 years of age to retire. I hope it will not be so necessary; and we shall endeavour to avoid this result by every means consistent with the interests of the public service. As regards the former part of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, I have to state that the Estimates now before the House are framed on the

487
basis of the old establishments. The changes are expected ultimately to produce a considerable reduction of expense; but the amount of that reduction cannot yet be stated. Economy was not the first motive for making the change.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. ALLIS, CULLINANE, FLOOD, AND DALTON.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will have any objection to allow the four Poor Law guardians of Tipperary Union, at present confined as suspects in Kilkenny Gaol, Messrs. Allis, Cullinane, Flood, and Dalton, to be released on parole in order to take part in the election of officers for their union on Tuesday next?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he did not think that was a ground for releasing the prisoners in question.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—OUTBREAK OF FEVER IN CLONMEL GAOL.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give the House any information as to the outbreak of fever in Clonmel Gaol, and as to the disposition or removal of the suspects therein confined? The hon. Member said he put the Question in consequence of a telegram he had received stating that this was the second outbreak of fever in the prison, and that prisoners were put in the cells next those where the sick prisoners were, and no attention had been made to complaints.
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had sent a telegram that morning directing the Governor to inform him if fever had broken out in Clonmel Gaol, and, in reply, he had received a telegram which stated that a case of typhoid fever had occurred. The inspector and architect of the prison had gone to see what could be done for the safety of the prisoners; but he had not yet received their Report.
In reply to Mr. HEALY,
MR. W. E. FORSTERassured the hon. Member that he would do all he could in order to prevent a spread of the fever; and he should at once telegraph to inquire as to how the prisoner was who had been attacked by the disease.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MARTIN O'SULLIVAN.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Martin O'Sullivan, who was arrested on the 23rd June 1881, was deprived by the Governor of Limerick Gaol of his necktie; whether, although Mr. O'Sullivan demanded it several times, the Governor refused to give it up; whether it is true that the flags in one of the yards in Limerick prison on a wet day are so covered with water that the yard cannot be exercised in, and that in another yard there is a closet which sometimes emits such an odour as to prevent the suspects from going within a long distance of it; whether it is a fact that, when letters are stopped by the Governor of Limerick Gaol, he will not return to the suspects the penny stamps on the back of the envelopes; and whether it is true that, in this and other gaols, suspects are charged for having their cells cleaned?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that when Mr. O'Sullivan was arrested he wore a large green tie with "Land League" and a harp without a crown worked in with white silk. The Governor took the tie from him. He asked for its return, and it was refused; but when he was discharged it was returned to him. There was a closet in the yard; but it was a good one. During alterations portion of the yard was exposed to the bad weather; but it was now enclosed. In future, when it was necessary to stop a letter at Limerick Gaol, the stamp would be returned to the sender. It was quite true that the "suspects" were charged 1d. a-day for having their cells cleaned, unless they did it themselves; but that matter was discussed last year, and he did not see any reason now for making a change.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—SLAVERY IN THE MALAY PENINSULA.
MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers which will show the policy in reference to slavery pursued by the British Government in the protected Native States in the Malay Peninsula; and, what steps have been taken subsequent

489
to the Despatch of the late Secretary of State of March 5th 1879, to promote the Abolition of Slavery in Perak?
MR. COURTNEY: Papers on this subject shall be prepared and laid upon the Table of the House. The existence of slavery in the Malay Peninsula attracted the attention of the late Secretary of State, who took steps to secure its gradual extinction; and in the despatch of the 5th of March, 1879, gave orders to prevent the application of the system of debt-slavery to any new cases. In a despatch written on the 4th instant the Earl of Kimberley directed the Governor of the Straits Settlements to report on the progress that had been made towards the extinction of debt-slavery since the despatch of his Predecessor.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, SEC. 8—"ADAMS v. DUNSEATH."
MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Cullen, tenant, Bunbury, landlord, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 24th instant, in which Judge O'Hagan commented on the "extreme difficulty of the task imposed on the Land Commission" by section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act, which requires the Court, on application, to fix a specified value of a tenancy with a view to a subsequent sale, and expressed a wish that he could, if possible, evade the difficult task thus imposed on the Court; whether he is aware that the same difficulty has arisen before the Sub-Commissions all over Ireland, and resulted in extreme divergence of practice and procedure among those bodies; whether it is the case that one Sub-Commission has decided that its duty, under the circumstances referred to, is to fix the highest market value of the tenancy as the specified value, while Mr. Justice O'Hagan has expressed an opinion that the specified value should not be the highest market value; that another Sub-Commission was in the habit of fixing, as the specified value, the maximum amount of compensation for disturbance which the tenant would be entitled to if arbitrarily evicted, and without any reference to the tenant's improvements, but was subsequently compelled to change this practice; that one of the Sub-Commissions has refused to fix a specified value at all, unless specific evidence on the point is
490
offered, while all the other Sub-Commissions fix the value without any evidence on the point having been offered, and discourage the practice of offering such evidence; whether it is the case that the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, in their respective judgments in the ease of Adams v. Dunseath, expressed contrary opinions as to the meaning of the phrase "true value" of a tenancy; whether it is a fact that the power of fixing a specified value does not apply at all when a holding is subject to the Ulster Custom; and, whether, having regard to the difficulties and contradictions which section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act has given rise to, the Government will take steps to have it repealed?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have telegraphed to Dublin; but, unfortunately, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, it is impossible for me to obtain either the verification or the correction of any of the recitals contained in this Question. I may, perhaps, remind the hon. Member that when the Land Act was in Committee, this rather important subsidiary provision of the Act was almost the only one which passed through the Committee without any opposition or discussion whatever. I do not think a single word was said on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman were correct in the allegations contained in the Question, we should be very desirous to know what are the views of the Judges and Commissioners about it—what light their experience may have thrown on the question; and we shall consider all information so obtained on that and other points without any prejudice whatever. With respect to the closing paragraph of the Question, and the engagement to make an amendment on the Act, I must refer the hon. Member to what I ventured to say a few days ago, and repeat that the Government must depend on the co-operation of the House with respect to their passing measures through the House, and be cautious as to engagements on that subject until they have secured an opportunity.

STATE OF IRELAND—MURDER OF MR. A. E. HERBERT.
MR. BOURKEinquired of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give any information to the House with respect to the

491
report which appears in the papers of the murder of Mr. Herbert, J.P., of Killentenna, Castleisland, county Kerry; and whether any arrests have been made?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am sorry to say that the report is true that Mr. Herbert was murdered last night. He was fired at, and one of the shots struck him in the right lung. I have not heard whether any arrests have been made.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE)—THE DEBATE OF THURSDAY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he had to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while he referred to a statement made with reference to him on the previous evening by the Premier, and which he was perfectly astonished to read in The Times that morning. The Prime Minister said—
  "We have to deal, for instance, with an amplitude of speaking. I am myself charged as an offender in that respect, and the other day I was taken to task for the length of my speeches by the hon. Member for Derry. I am not at all prepared to deny that there is ground for the complaint which the hon. Member made. A great deal of responsibility attaches to one who holds high office, or is the Leader of a Party; but look at the condition at which we have arrived. The hon. Member for Derry reproved me for amplitude in perfect good faith, though he is not the Leader of a Party, nor the holder of a responsible office, and yet the speech in which he reproved me for amplitude was very nearly two hours long."
  Now, he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was wholly and entirely mistaken with reference to the person whom he supposed to have made those remarks. Neither in the House nor elsewhere had he ever charged the right hon. Gentleman with "amplitude of speech"—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—and the only speech of any length that he had himself delivered this Session was on the occasion of the Motion censuring the House of Lords, when he had spoken, not for two hours, but for one hour and 10 minutes. He had looked at the report of this speech, and he found there was no trace whatever of the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He had only further to say that in this speech there was only one reference to the Prime Minister. He spoke of the right hon. Gentleman's speech as
  492
  reminding him of one of those fitful Atlantic storms, through which he had frequently passed—it was very fierce, very grand, very short, and left no trace behind it. He was, in fact, a most intense admirer of the oratory of the right hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would either give him some reference to correct what must be his very bad memory, or would withdraw what he had said.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I had no knowledge that the hon. Member was going to raise this question, or I would certainly have referred to the reports, in order that I might have been able to verify the accuracy of, or to withdraw, what I said. The House will bear in mind that in referring to the criticism of the hon. Gentleman, as I supposed it to have been given, I fully and frankly acknowledged its justice; but I observed that the criticism was delivered in a speech which I believed approached two hours in length. In the first place, then, I will give the hon. Gentleman my recollection, which, I think, is pretty accurate. He did say the speech was very short; but he added the very significant words, "for him"—a very concise and very effective criticism, of which I make no complaint whatever. In respect to the speech of the hon. Member, I really spoke according to what I believed to be the case, and I had paid some attention to the clock in the course of the speech. If I have over-stated the case against the hon. Member, I am sincerely sorry for it.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, Whether the time has been fixed for taking the Navy Estimates; and whether there is any other information the Government can give us as to Business?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am glad the Question has been put. I will state what I think ought to be the course of Business. The House is aware that we propose to take the Miscellaneous Estimates on Monday. It will, however, be necessary, in consequence of circumstances that the House knows very well as to the date before which the annual Mutiny Bill must pass, that we should put down the second reading of that measure as the first Order on Monday. If the se-

493
cond reading be not taken to-night, it will be the first Order on Monday. We are already pledged to take the discussion upon the Army Estimates on Monday, the 17th—the first day after the Recess. We have considered whether it will be most convenient for the House that after that day we should proceed on Thursday with the Resolutions relating to Procedure, or whether we should consider further financial questions which have to be discussed. In the first place, we have a pledge, not so definite in point of time, but we have pledged ourselves to the Navy Estimates; and, in the second place, the time of year will have arrived at which it will be desirable to make the Financial Statement. Upon the whole, I think it would be most convenient and most satisfactory to the House if we take those subjects which are more or less allied together; and we therefore propose to take the Committee on Navy Estimates on Thursday, the 20th of April, and the Financial Statement on Monday, the 24th. After that we shall have the ground comparatively clear; and it will be more convenient to the House to take the subject of Procedure consecutively, so far as we can make it consecutive.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked when the Education Estimates would be taken?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, these Estimates would be taken first on Monday.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked what Business was to be taken at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday?
MR. GLADSTONE: That must depend, in some degree, on the proceedings on Monday.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question with regard to Mr. Dillon. It would be in the recollection of the House that Mr. Dillon was not a robust man. He was suffering from a hereditary illness, which was intensified by his confinement. Mr. Dillon was not a complaining or squeamish man, although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) once called him a coward. Mr. Dillon had, he believed, made no request for release in consequence of ill-
494
health; but he was a medical man, and as he (Mr. Cowen) was informed that, in his own judgment and that of his friends, Mr. Dillon's health was now in a serious condition, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether he had received any representation on the subject; and, if so, whether he was inclined to entertain it favourably?
MR. DAWSONsaid, he had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Dillon a few days ago, and he could corroborate all that had been said as to the state of the hon. Member's health.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish I had received Notice of this Question, for I should have brought down a Report of an independent medical man of considerable position as to the state of Mr. Dillon's health. The medical man examined Mr. Dillon, and certainly he gives a Report which is an encouraging one. He is better than he has been. But, apart from this, I have no objection to state here what I have stated before—and Mr. Dillon has been informed of it by one acting on my behalf—that the doors of Kilmainham are open to him if he is willing to go abroad.
MR. SEXTON: Would you state the name of the medical man?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot recollect it; but I know it is a gentleman of high position.
MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he will release Mr. Dillon if he goes abroad from Ireland or from the United Kingdom?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Abroad from the United Kingdon.
MR. HEALY: Shame! you offer transportation.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am informed by his friends that it would be for the benefit of his health that he should go abroad. I again say if he likes to go to the Continent he can.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE)—THE DIVISION ON THURSDAY NIGHT.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private Notice. I beg to ask him, in view of the fact that the Government majority of 140 was in the division of last night reduced

495
to under 40, and of the fact that a large number of the supporters of the Ministry voted only under severe pressure, and in fear of dissolution—[Cries of "Oh!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now importing into his Question matter of debate.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Very well, Sir; I shall only ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to press further their Resolution which establishes the elôture by a bare majority?
MR. GLADSTONE: In the Question of the hon. Gentleman, as he has just given it, he call my attention to certain matters and allegations which he conceives to be of very pregnant importance with regard to the state of the Government majority; but in the Notice which he says he was good enough to send me, there is no reference to these great and important facts which he thinks it necessary to introduce as a preamble to his Question. With regard to the Question in the form in which I have received it, I have only to say, Sir, that the 1st Resolution is before the House in the form which the Government think best, and that we have no change in regard to the decision of last night to announce.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in rising to call attention to the Lands in charge of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales; and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the position of the Ecclesiastical Commission with reference to the Lands and other Property vested in the Commissioners, and also into the work, in connection with real property, of the Church Estates Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales,"
  said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the affairs of the largest, the most wealthy, the most widely-operating, the most powerful, and the most dignified Corporation under the
  496
  Crown. The business of the Ecclesiastical Commission was conducted by gentlemen of much respectability, while in the Commission were included 52 persons who were the highest functionaries in the State, the Church, and the Judiciary. The connection of those great personages with the Ecclesiastical Commission was, however, simply ornamental, except in the case of the Bishops. Five Ministers of the Crown were placed upon it to show that the Commission had public and official sanction; and it was on record that Lord Palmerston, while occupying the Office of First Minister of the Crown, did on one occasion attend the business of the Board. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I have done it.] That occasion was one in which this House had given some attention to matters connected with the Deanery of York; and what Lord Palmerston experienced on that occasion was that, whatever his power in this House, he was in a hopeless minority at the Board of the Ecclesiastical Commission. But for the information with which the Prime Minister had just honoured him, he was not aware that any Prime Minister had since entered the offices. Judges were placed upon the Commission in order to give the public confidence in the operations of the Board; but no Judge, with the exception of Sir S. Lushington, whose Court was a sort of half-way house between Church and State, had ever attended the meetings. It was supposed, at the outset of the Commission, that the Judges would attend and give their opinion upon matters of law; but no one would regret that they had thought it inconsistent with their duty to attend at the office of the Commissioners when a question might be referred to them which would afterwards have to be submitted to them in their judicial capacity. The Bishops and Deans had practically been, and were at this moment, the governing majority; and the House would not greatly err if it arrived at the conclusion, in regard to the Commission, that it was practically only another form of Upper House of Convocation. His remarks would deal wholly with the landed estates and other property in charge of the Commission. It was, as it were, by an accident that in 1843, by the instrumentality of Sir Robert Peel, this great Commission obtained the power of sale and purchase of land, under which it had conducted such

  497
  vast operations. Sir Robert Peel proposed that a loan of £600,000 should be advanced from Queen Anne's Bounty to the Commissioners; and, in order to give better security for that loan, power of sale was given to the Commissioners, under which they had conducted their operations for the last 30 years. The Commissioners had, at the present time, investments in the Three per Cents amounting to over £5,000,000, of which a sum of £1,500,000 was derived from the proceeds of sales, which they were bound to re-invest in the purchase of land, but only "so soon as it might be convenient." The House would probably be aware that after the full development of the work of the Commission in 1850, the design and scope of their operations assumed this form—that they were prepared to take over from Ecclesiastical Corporations, from Bishops, Deans, Chapters, and Incumbents, their separate estates, guaranteeing to them a certain statutory income, authorized and fixed by Order in Council; and ultimately, having enfranchised their land and re-arranged those properties, to return the estates to their hands in sufficient extent to provide in perpetuity the income arranged by Order of Council to be given to them. What had been the results in reference to the endeavours of the Commission to go forward in this great undertaking? In the process of enfranchisement the area of Church lands—now including more than 500,000 acres—had been considerably reduced, because, while the Commissioners had been active in purchasing outstanding terms of leases for lives, they had over large areas sold the reversionary interest to the life tenants. From time to time episcopal and capitular estates had fallen into their hands, and there were only two Bishops—those of Llandaff and Bangor—whose estates had not passed on to the books of the Commission. In the operations of the Commission it had been assumed, as a matter of public policy, that Bishops and Deans and Chapters should have estates; and it was always held that when these estates had been enfranchised and had been "ring-fenced," they would pass away from the Commission into local control, under these conditions—that should the income prove more or less than the statutory salary, it would be for the profit or the loss of the incumbents. A
  498
  Bishop, who took his estate back from the Commissioners—an estate supposed to yield his statutory income—farmed it, in fact, upon a lease for his life, and took it for better or worse. He had no interest in his successor, nor could it possibly be of interest to him to execute upon it the improvement which landed property must at all times require. It was assumed by the Commission that this work would be soon accomplished, and that the surplus in the hands of the Commissioners would have been determined long ago. In 1863 a Select Committee of that House was appointed to inquire into the then state of the Ecclesiastical Commission. One witness of authority gave his opinion that this re-disposition of estates would be completed in 1870; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who was for many years, from 1855, a responsible Member of the Commission, deliberately gave it as his opinion that all dealings with these estates would be ended in 20 years, and that then all these transactions would be completed. He did not regret, for reasons which he should presently state to the House, that the evidence upon which that Committee proceeded had been disappointed; and it was impossible to conceive a state of things more utterly unlike a realization of the predictions of the right hon. Gentleman than that which now existed. There were at present 30 Bishops, including two Archbishops, in England and Wales, and they were all Members of the Commission. Of these, only three—Canterbury, Hereford, and Lincoln—had taken back the re-arranged estates from the Commission; and it was a fact of great significance that no fewer than nine Bishops, whose estates had been rearranged and returned into their hands by the Commission, had handed them back again into the permanent custody of the Commission, making them, in fact, a permanent agency for the management of episcopal estates. Those Bishops were York, Durham, Carlisle, Chester, Ely, Gloucester and Bristol, Norwich, Worcester, and Peterborough. The estates of Rochester, Salisbury, St. Davids, St. Asaph, Ripon, and Oxford, were in the office undergoing rearrangement, so that, since the last Committee of Inquiry, there had been a wholly new departure, and the Com-

  499
  mission had a practically permanent work upon its hands, and had now charge of nearly all the episcopal and a great number of the capitular estates. The system of accounts was condemned by the Committee of 1863, and had never been reformed. It was not easy to get at what was the real income of the Commission; but it appeared certain the rental of the estates vested in the Commissioners was not less than £880,000 per annum. The rental of agricultural land was about £300,000. The Commission derived nearly £150,000 a-year from rents of houses and premises in and about London; £270,000 a-year from tithes and corn rent charges; more than £200,000 a-year from mineral rights; and, in addition, large sums were received from ground rents and manorial fees. From the episcopal estates, given back after enfranchisement, they received more than £40,000 a-year, and £32,000 a-year from estates to be applied to specific purposes. Lord Chichester stated to the Duke of Richmond's Commission that the extent of the agricultural land managed by the Ecclesiastical Commission was 250,000 acres; but he thought his Lordship must have omitted the estates given back, and now permanently in the hands of the Commissioners. At all events, it was certain that the Commissioners dealt with an income in connection with real property not far short of £1,000,000 per annum. The Select Committee of 1863, which included Mr. Lowe, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Bouverie, and Lord Robert Cecil (the Marquess of Salisbury), arrived at two conclusions, which he desired especially to press upon the attention of the House. He frankly admitted that he would much rather his request for a Committee were negatived than that it should not be plainly understood that the design of a Committee, if a Committee be appointed, was to devise means for carrying into practical effect the two neglected conclusions of the Committee of 1863—namely—
  (1.) "That the system of throwing permanently the administration of large properties scattered over the whole country into the hands of one central body is objectionable;"
  and—
  (2.) "That, independently of the political objection to such a concentration of property, this system unavoidably consumes a considerable part of the revenues of the Church in the
  500
  expenses of valuing and re-valuing lands, and in the maintenance of a large establishment of secretaries and clerks. Your Committee are of opinion that this excessive expenditure is to be attributed in some degree to the fact that estates so widely dispersed are placed under the management of one Corporation."
  He was not indifferent to the welfare of the Church; but he did not profess that that was the mainspring of the action he was taking that night. He was moved to ask for the appointment of this Committee because he thought that the ownership of land by Corporations was, in the words of the Select Committee, "highly objectionable," because he thought that such tenure of land was contrary in the highest degree to public policy and injurious to public interests. As to the limit he sought to impose in that respect, he held it to be a cardinal maxim of public policy that dispositions which took land permanently out of the ordinary conditions of proprietorship were to be defended only by showing that the particular dedication was of such necessity, or of so much value to the common wealth, that an exception should be made in its favour. His main object was thus plainly declared. He did not desire the appointment of a Select Committee without an understanding that the execution of that public policy was to be a main line of its inquiry. He need not hesitate to recommend a purely economic policy on the ground that it would be productive of great material advantage to the Church. He ventured to say that the Ecclesiastical Commission was unrivalled amongst all the Public Offices of the country for what he might term respectable extravagance, though he did not mean that there was extravagance within the office of the Commissioners. The golden stalls of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners seemed to him to be filled with solicitors and land agents. So far as he could make out, the expenses of the Commissioners for last year, including £55,000 for the erection of buildings and works and for drainage, amounted to about £170,000—that was to say, a charge of about 20 per cent upon the gross revenue of the Commission. If, instead of £5,000,000 of Consols, the Commissioners had all their property similarly invested—with the exception admitted in his statement in definition of public policy—their expenditure would be reduced by nearly £150,000 a-year. He

  501
  was not one of those who thought that the value of land in this country would fail to increase. He believed that at the present time land was a good investment, and that at no very distant time it would tend to increase in value; and those who, having regard to the cost of the Commission, might be unwilling to part in any way with their landed property, should bear this in mind—that while undoubtedly there was a probability that the value of land would increase, he did not think there was a probability that the value of the estates in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would augment by an accretion of £150,000 a-year. But, looking as he did at this matter from the point of view of public interest and policy, he turned his attention to the far greater advantage which, in his opinion, would accrue to the public from giving freedom to this vast area, which included some of the most fertile land in the country. He was a determined opponent to life tenancy in lands; but he believed the most disastrous to public interest was clerical tenure. He had observed with interest that one of the Assistant Commissioners had informed the Duke of Richmond that glebe lands were among the worst farmed lands in the country. Lord Spencer, before he quitted the Commission, asked Mr. Coleman—"What have you to say about Church estates?" to which the Assistant Commissioner replied—
  "Take glebe lands; are there any estates that are much worse managed than they? I say, for this reason, that the tenant is a life owner and in the most limited degree; it will not he his son or any relative of his own who will succeed him, and he gets as much as he can out of it during his life."
  A fact worthy of notice was that the Duke of Richmond had received a Report from one of the assistants to his Agricultural Commission, stating with something very like complaint that "up to the present time the Commissioners have not adopted a tenant-right agreement." He gave his opinion deliberately that the remuneration of solicitors, surveyors, receivers, and architects, who last year appear to have charged in all something like £80,000, had been a very near approach to a scandal in the business of the Ecclesiastical Commission. There had been involved a continuous and needless waste of the funds of the
  502
  Church. One great cause of the waste had arisen from the practice of paying their solicitors by fees instead of by salary. Why could not the Ecclesiastical Commission, which was at least 20 years behind the fulfilment of the expectation of its founders, adopt the same principles of payment as the Post Office or the Treasury? It had been said that the present system conduced to the quick despatch of business; but, considering its dilatory proceedings, he did not think much could possibly be lost in that way The business of the Treasury and Post Office was conducted by salaried solicitors and surveyors, and was quickly and satisfactorily done. He had always heartily believed in the doctrine set forth by Edmund Burke, who said—
  "That all public estates which are more subservient to the expense of perception and management than of benefit to the public revenue ought, upon every principle, both of revenue and of freedom, to he disposed of."
  He would give an example of one of the 937 "Special Accounts" of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The very considerable estates of the vicarage of Rochdale long ago passed under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Commissioners were managing those estates, which were, or would be, worth more than £25,000 a-year, with very considerable ability; but they were doing it under conditions to which he made the most strenuous objection. There were politicians of all sorts in the borough of Rochdale—including, no doubt, men who were in favour of that policy which was called the Nationalization of Land—who were prepared to recommend that a Department of State should deal with farm leases and building leases, with sites for churches and for public-houses, and with all the claims of priority and pre-emption. He had always opposed those ideas as visionary and impracticable. He had always maintained the advantage of the institution of private property in land, and he had always contended that private property in land was the means by which they could secure its best cultivation, and the largest production; but if the farming of the Rochdale Vicarage estates by this Department in Whitehall, on a system which must, of necessity, be most inconvenient and expensive, was to be defended, what answer were they to give

  503
  to those working men who were asking them to undertake the Nationalization of the whole land of the country? Were they to say that the Nationalization of Land was bad, while they contended that Corporations could farm and control estates like these in all parts of the country? There was no hon. Member in the House who did not know that this system was bad; that with the best intentions such management from Whitehall must be extravagant, dilatory, and tending to an imperfect use of the land. One singular feature of the Ecclesiastical Commission had been that when public opinion was turned upon it there was an immediate disposition to reduce expenditure. Within 30 years the Commissioners had spent more than £1,000,000 in agricultural improvements. There was a strong stimulus in that direction. The land agents received 5 per cent—£50,000—upon that outlay. Well, he had put this Notice on the Paper in 1880, and again in the Session of 1881. It was a curious coincidence that in February, 1881, the Estates Committee came to the conclusion that, as a general rule, the commission of 5 per cent on such improvements should be discontinued, and should be covered by the 4 per cent commission upon the rents. They had made further savings in the same direction. That showed the inevitable extravagance and development of a great land agency department. Next, as to tithes. According to present appearances the tithes in the charge of the Commission would, at no distant date, be trebled, and would exceed £600,000 a-year; and thus nearly one-sixth of the whole tithe-rent charge of England and Wales would be administered by the Commission. He should hope that, in these circumstances, if a Committee were appointed, they might entertain, perhaps through the machinery of this Commission, the question of the redemption of tithe. That would be a measure advantageous both to owners and occupiers of land. Then there was the question of copyholds. The Commission was lord of many manors, and by a curious practice the deputy-stewards gave no account of a moiety of the fees. He hoped that, while preserving the existing right of lord or tenant to compel enfranchisement, a general Statute might bring about the extinction of copyhold tenure
  504
  within a period from the date of such a Statute of 10 years. He did not doubt that the case was made out for the appointment of a Select Committee; for not only had the propositions of the Committee of 1863 been neglected, but the evils against which those propositions were directed had immensely increased. The case was strong beyond denial; because the evidence upon which that Committee rested as to the termination of the estate business of the Commission had been utterly falsified by the results. He would fortify himself with a venerable authority with whom he did not often agree—namely, Lord Grey. In 1861, Lord Grey, alluding to the Greenwich Hospital Estates which had since been disposed of, said—
  "The proper mode of guarding against the evils anticipated is by selling the property. I am persuaded that the public is essentially a bad owner of landed property."
  He hoped that sentiment would meet with general assent in that House. He acknowledged that it was most creditable to the distinguished ecclesiastics and Members of the Legislature who had guided the business of this great Commission for 40 years that he was constrained, not by considerations of personal courtesy, but by honest recognition of facts, to say that this vast business, set in the midst of so many and great dangers, had been free from scandalous report.
  MR. JAMES HOWARD, in seconding the Motion, said, the management of the ecclesiastical property of this country was a very great scandal; and, moreover, the plan adopted with regard to its management had a tendency to retard agriculture. That such was the case might be seen from a very interesting Report on the agriculture of Durham, published in the journal of the Royal Agricultural Society. Although improvements in the management of the estates of the Ecclesiastical Commission had taken place of late years, it would be seen from the Report of the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Coleman, that very great improvements were still needed. While £8,700 had been put down for drainage in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, £33,000 had been put down as the cost of official management, and £16,000 as the amount of charges by actuaries and others. If the estates were in the hands of private

  505
  owners, most of these official expenses would be saved, and a considerable addition, by the sale of the lands, might be made to the number of the landholders of the country. He contended that it was undesirable that land should be held in perpetuity; and especially that in England, where the amount of land was most limited, Corporations should have such a grip on our broad acres.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the position of the Ecclesiastical Commission with reference to the Lands and other Property vested in the Commissioners, and also into the work, in connection with real property, of the Church Estates Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GOSCHENremarked, that there was but one part of this large subject on which he desired to say a few words, and that was the broad principle of the possession of land by Corporations such as the Ecclesiastical Commission. His hon. Friend had covered a great deal of ground, and nearly all the ground he covered was interesting and well deserving the notice of the House. He meant such points as the management of the property by the Commission, the question of the redemption of tithe, and many others which had been alluded to; but he wished to confine his remarks to that part of the speech which dealt with the question whether it was to the public interest that these Corporations should have so large a portion of the soil of this country? Now, upon that subject he had long had a very decided opinion, and it was, he thought, in 1874 that he called public attention to this matter, not only as regarded the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but also as regarded most corporate bodies which held so much land. He raised the question at that time whether it was desirable that the Statute of Mortmain should practically be entirely neutralized? He was glad to think that there was a very considerable consensus of opinion on this point—that it was to the interest of the country that these Corporations should
  506
  begin to sell their land. When he had the honour of being the First Lord of the Admiralty he acted, with the consent of the Government, upon the principle he had previously enunciated, and they sold a considerable part of the Greenwich estates, which at that time belonged to Greenwich Hospital, and that policy was continued by their Successors, the Conservative Government. He asked himself, when he was at the Admiralty, whether it was right for a Department which had charge of the enormous interests of the British Navy to be troubled at the same time with the management of vast estates, and to have to settle questions of leases and improvements, and generally to occupy the position of landlords? Fortunately, at that time the Civil Lord (the Earl of Camperdown) was very conversant with the management of estates; but it would have been a great anomaly for a Civil Lord who did not happen to be conversant with such subjects to have to consider questions of leases, drainage, and improvements. In the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners things were so far different, that here was a body of gentlemen who were trained to the work; but he thought his hon. Friend had, to a great extent, established that it was exceedingly difficult for them to manage these estates with all the advantage of private landlords. He did not mean only the advantage to the owner of the land; but he also alluded to the advantage to the tenant occupying the land and to the public interest. He was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward this question now; because it appeared to him that if there were previously foundation for a change of system as regarded the ownership of land by Corporations, the events of the last four or five years, and the general turn which agriculture had taken, had strengthened the argument for the change which ought to be made. All that they had heard during the agricultural depression seemed to show that land was a less desirable kind of property for these Corporations to hold than was believed before. The fluctuations in the rents, the lowering in the value, and all the difficulties that had surrounded the ownership of land were all difficulties in the way that were not thought of when agriculture went smoother. They had seen that many

  507
  questions had been raised between landlords and tenants during the last four or five years; and he did not think it was probable that the discussion upon those questions would be lessened during the next four or five years, although it was to be hoped that better times for the agricultural interest would smooth the way in many respects; but, at the same time, he would ask the House if it was desirable these Corporations should have to undertake with their tenants the decision of the very complicated questions which had now arisen between landlord and tenants? There would be the question as regarded the Agricultural Holdings Act. Public bodies had been in this position—that they had not known whether or not to carry out that which had been the intention of the Legislature. They had been unwilling in some cases to avail themselves of those contracts which had been pointed out by that House as most desirable as forming an arrangement between landlord and tenant. He looked at this question upon the principle that it was undesirable that these Corporations should occupy so great a proportion of the soil of the country; and also upon the more modern ground that the pursuit of agriculture had become more and more a difficult business, requiring more scientific knowledge and more constant attention, both from the landlord and tenant. Upon these grounds, it seemed to him there was a case made for establishing the principle that these Corporations ought by degrees, without creating a depression in the price of land, to pursue the policy of selling rather than purchasing. He did not know what might be the best plan to pursue with regard to the Committee asked for; but whether the Government thought fit to grant the Committee or not, his hon. Friend had done good service by drawing the attention of the public to this most important question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should, at this early period, state the position of the Government with regard to this Motion. I should be very glad, indeed, if I could regard it as a subject entirely dissociated from the position of the Government. I do not think it is so. It appears to me that its magnitude, its complexity, its relation to the large question of principle, are such that in-
  508
  evitably cause it to assume an aspect of inquiry whether the Government are at the present moment prepared to deal with it or not. I do not think it would be advisable for the Government to assent to the appointment of this Committee as a mere matter of examination into the prudence of the detailed Rules under which the detailed business of the Ecclesiastical Commission is conducted. It is obvious that the question of the constitution of the Commission is open to a good deal of observation. It is rather constituted upon the basis which was the favourite one in former times that of filling bodies of this kind with large numbers of persons already charged with heavy duties and great responsibilities, under the notion, which modern experience has not favoured, that a composition of that sort was not the way to secure an efficient and satisfactory transaction of Business. It is, however, one of the few propositions of my hon. Friend with which I cannot agree, that the Commission assumes, in its practical character, the aspect of another Upper House of Convocation; because, if I am correctly informed, the Bishops, with the exception of one or two, and especially the Bishop of London, who is on the spot, rarely attend its meetings. The attendance of Her Majesty's Ministers is also rare. I myself have attended one or more meetings of the Ecclesiastical Commission as a Minister; but upon the special occasion when Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, we attended a meeting on the question of principle as regarded the salary of the Dean of York, and I am sorry to say on that occasion there was a considerable collection of Bishops, and we had the misfortnne to be left in a minority. Upon the whole, it would be a mistake to consider this Commission as one, in the main, under ecclesiastical influences. I am bound to say, in my belief, the Commission, when its transactions come to be examined, would not come badly out of the inquiry. I mean, if you grant the principles upon which the Commission was founded; if you grant it is right that Corporations of this kind should exist to be the largest landowners in the country. It is, therefore, no discredit to the Commission at all if I admit that inquiry into the management of a Body of this kind by Par-

  509
  liament is not only a thing perfectly natural, and to be expected, but it is almost the duty of the Legislature that such inquiry should be made. It implies no discredit, no suspicion as towards those who are charged with the practical management of this Commission, and who, I believe, have applied themselves with zeal and general efficiency to the transaction of the business which it has in hand. I believe that in their capacity as landlords they have made great efforts to improve their estates. In the county of Durham, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have expended in improvements upon farms in the shape of buildings, £120,000; and in the shape of drainage, about £70,000. That is no inconsiderable sum within the limits of a single county. That does not touch the question which is the main subject of my hon. Friend's Motion. If this were only a Motion for Inquiry into the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I should feel that inquiry was one of so limited scope that it might be within the power of independent Members of the House to conduct it to a satisfactory conclusion; but it is obvious, and my hon. Friend makes no secret of it—in fact, he rather makes it the main point of his Motion—this object is to raise the question whether the holding of land, to a large extent agricultural, by a Body of this kind is an economical management of the public resources, and whether it is for the advantage of the country the land should be held. Now, upon that subject, I must say I agree entirely, in my own personal conviction, with what has been stated by my hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I am adverse to this method of holding land. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners offer to us one large case; but my hon. Friend very well knows that there are other cases which, likewise cannot fail at some time to draw seriously the attention of Parliament. I do not speak now of the Crown Lands. In my opinion, the Crown Lands form a case by themselves; and it would not be perfectly accurate, in my opinion, to speak of the Crown Lands as held under mortmain. I give no opinion upon that subject at the present time. It involves a multitude of considerations quite apart from those raised by the present Motion. I
  510
  am extremely glad my hon. Friend has raised this question alone; for, undoubtedly, it has been matter sufficient to draw our attention to. But when I consider the question whether the appointment of this Committee would be expedient at the present time—if it is to consider not merely the detail of the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the basis on which that institution stands, the question raised is one for the consideration of the Government, who are virtually asked to say whether they are in a condition at the present time to charge themselves, in the face of the House and the public, with the responsibility as well as the labour of conducting an inquiry into this kind of property. Well, I am bound to say that this is not the case. The unfortunate topic on which we were engaged last night, viewed in its largest aspect—namely, the incapacity of the House, under its present arrangements, to transact Business, and to meet the calls which naturally belong to its province—is a topic which returns upon us at every point. We have charged ourselves, in the face of the country, with obligations to endeavour to deal with certain subjects of great public interest; and now, when the Session is somewhat advanced, instead of being able to add to our obligations, we have to admit that our means of action seem month by month to diminish. Everything, so far as our view is concerned, must depend upon the efficiency, energy, and completeness of the arrangement which the House may make affecting its own procedure, and affecting its own method, in order to enable us to get at this question in a satisfactory manner. My hon. Friend will feel that it would not be creditable to give an engagement to undertake this subject, unless we were prepared with the means to redeem that engagement. We cannot afford to make such an addition to the labours with which we are charged. We sympathize entirely with the purpose of my hon. Friend—at any rate, to this extent—without seeking to pledge Parliament beforehand, that we would ask Parliament to recognize that the subject of the holding of land in mortmain by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was a proper and fit subject for searching investigation; but we cannot see that our powers enable us to carry

  511
  forward an inquiry of the kind at the present time. There is a plan which seems to promise very large advantage. The money invested in best securities at moderate rates of interest would be a profitable investment, as compared with an investment in land held under unfavourable circumstances. Strong as the Ecclesiastical Commission is, when we compare its position with the perfectly deplorable position at this moment of the individual clergy who happen to be dependent upon the land for their income—although its position is strong in comparison with theirs, its position is weak in regard to the general management of its estates. A body of this kind has not that independence in the face of its tenants which a private landlord has; and I believe the reductions which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have been obliged to make under pressure to their tenants have been larger than those which private landlords have had to give. Nor can I fail to agree with the advantage of bringing into the market a considerable portion of the surplus, which, instead of being held under the present limitations, might pass into the hands of private proprietors, and become naturally the subject for the exercise of the energy and application of the capital which they would apply to their private purposes. I am glad that this question has been raised by my hon. Friend. I regard with goodwill the operation that he has taken in hand. I wish we were in a position in which we could promise the House to become responsible for the institution of this important and searching inquiry; but I must not shut my eyes to facts, or to the question, how much can we redeem of the promises that we have already made? And I feel convinced that my hon. Friend will admit that there is force and justice in my plea when I say that, in these circumstances, we ought not to offer a new promise. Sir, I shall be very glad when the House is restored to some part of its natural freedom, and is able to put forth those energies—which, so far as the capacity of its Members is concerned, or the goodwill of its Members is concerned, I believe never were more abundant—to put forth those energies at a time when we could be said to have emerged from the difficulties in which we are engaged. I feel
  512
  that the premature appointment of a Committee of this kind, unless it could be followed promptly to its natural conclusion, by carrying forward for a very important end the legislation for which it would probably lay, as, I think, sufficient and ample grounds, might, instead of advancing, retard the progress of the views which my hon. Friend wishes to propagate; and, therefore, I hope he will not be surprised, and will not think it implies any inadequate appreciation of the subject or any want of sympathy with the views that he is inclined to propose, if I say that I trust we shall not be called upon to give a vote at the present moment on the Motion that he has made; and that, at any rate, the Government would not be parties to the responsibility of entering into an engagement which they doubted their present capacity to redeem.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYsaid, he wished to point out several inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arnold.) First, it was desirable to remember that the four last Bishoprics—namely, Manchester, Truro, Liverpool, and St. Albans—were without landed estates, so that the inquiry could not refer to them. The hon. Member said that the total land reached 250,000 acres, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) said it was time they began to sell. The House would be, perhaps, surprised to hear that during the existence of the Commission, taking sales on the one side and purchases on the other, no less than 416,117 acres, formerly the property of the Church, had been enfranchised, and were now in lay hands. The land now held by the Commission, in their own right and in possession, was not 250,000 acres, but 190,000. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) quoted some figures about drainage. Why did he begin with drainage? He looked to the Report of the Commission for 1881, and he found in that year £47,000 spent on farm buildings, and the year before £52,000 on the same item. Was that a fair way of stating the case—to give the small item about drainage, and leave the larger items alone? Since the Commission was instituted up to the 31st of October last the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had spent a total on farm buildings and improvements of £1,032,715, and on

  513
  drainage £242,995. As to the surveyor's charges, he did not deny that the figures were large. The object of the Ecclesiastical Commission had been to keep the expenses of their operations within the lowest possible limits, and to revise and reduce them from time to time as occasion arose. The scale of these expenses had been originally settled on what was then regarded as a moderate ratio in 1851. It was settled by Lord Chichester, who was universally recognized as having the greatest knowledge of estates' management, as he (Sir John Mowbray) could testify, having had the honour of being associated with him for eight years. The scale of charges was reduced in 1857, again in 1864, again in 1873, and again in 1881. The late Mr. E. J. Smith—and he could not mention the name of Mr. Smith without expressing his sense of the great services rendered to the Church and the Commission by that eminent man—stated to the Committee of the House in 1863 that the total costs of the change of system from beginning to end would scarcely exceed a single year's income from the gain thereby obtained. After the Report of the Select Committee in 1863, Her Majesty's Government called the attention of the Commissioners to that Report, and the Ecclesiastical Commission went fully into every question raised in it; and their statement, embodied in the Annual Report of the Commissioners, was laid before Parliament in 1864. Since that there had been no proposal in either House of Parliament for a change in the constitution or practice of the Board. In that very year Parliament gave the Ecclesiastical Commission additional power; and since then more than 100 Acts had been passed, affecting the Commission more or less, and giving new or altered functions to the Board, some handing over property, as at Rochdale and elsewhere; others, such as the Endowed Schools Acts and New Bishoprics Acts, giving them very considerable discretionary powers. Parliament had thus, over and over again during 18 years, exhibited the utmost confidence in the judicious management of the Commission. No doubt the Commission had committed many faults; but, on a review of their situation, he challenged the hon. Member to show that they had in any way abused the important trusts that
  514
  had been committed to their charge, misapplied their revenues, or mismanaged their property. Were they, then, not entitled to the confidence which the country had reposed in them for so many years? What was the great object with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were appointed? It was that they might, by a judicious management of ecclesiastical property, increase the Church revenues, so as to enable them to relieve the spiritual destitution of the country. And what had been the result of the Commissioners' efforts in that direction? They had augmented the value of the livings in upwards of 4,700 out of the 15,000 parishes into which England and Wales were divided. Then, again, did the hon. Member know the difference between the estimate which was originally made of what the action of the Commissioners would produce and what had been actually realized? During the period the Commission had been in existence they had added a sum of £19,000,000 to the property of the Church, besides having elicited a further sum of £4,000,000 in the shape of contributions from private sources—thus making a total sum of £23,000,060, for which the Church was indebted to the exertions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners during the past 40 years, representing an annual income of £690,000. Let the House contrast this with the state of things anticipated in 1836 or realized in 1863. In 1836, a Royal Commission reported that they anticipated that the property which would accrue to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would leave about £134,000 a-year available for augmenting small livings. In 1863 his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) stated to a Select Committee that the amount already actually exceeded that sum, and reached £146,000; and he (Mr. Walpole) added his belief, if the Commissioners went on, they would ultimately be able to realize to the Commission for the purposes of the Church a further surplus income of £150,000—making a total of nearly £300,000. But in 1881 they had doubled that sum. They had added to the property of the Church and re-distributed funds to the extent of £690,000 a-year, and the work was still going on. They were advised by their very cautious and experienced

  515
  actuary that for some years to come there was every prospect of their being able to do what they had done for many years past—namely, adding year by year an additional capital sum of £600,000, representing an annual income of £20,000 in perpetuity to the Church. Such a work as the Commissioners were now doing had not been accomplished since the Reformation; and the question was, should they be allowed to go on or not with that beneficial work? The great object of terminating the wasteful system by which Church property was divided between lessors and lessees was not yet entirely accomplished, and could not be so for many years. Some leases would expire in 1884, others granted on lives or for 40 years' terms had longer periods to run. The expenses, it was said, were great, but the work was arduous. There was every conceivable kind of holding and every conceivable sort of property, from Northumberland to the Land's End, and from Wales to Norfolk. They had manorial rights, with an endless variety of customs—foreshore rights, mineral rights, and fisheries. The Commissioners were owners of coals, lead, ironstone, agricultural land, building land, tithes, and woods. There were surveys to be made, titles to be investigated, rights to be asserted, rights to be defended, and liabilities of every kind to be discharged. The work, he maintained, was, upon the whole, well done; and until Parliament had decided the great question of the tenure of land by Corporations, let them not interfere by Committee and stop the great work which had been so long going on to the benefit of the Church and the nation.
  MR. PUGH, who had an Amendment on the Paper to add—
  "And also into the management of the Crown Lands in Wales, by the Department of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues,"
  said, that, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and from the hon. Member for Salford, he should not think of taking the sense of the House upon that Amendment on the present occasion; but he hoped to have an opportunity at another time of bringing the important question which it raised before the House. He thought there could not be any question as to the undesirability of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners continuing to ad-
  516
  minister estates. That administration was only carried on at a very great expense. He was exceedingly sorry to hear from the Prime Minister that he did not think the Government would be in a position at present to take up the question; but he felt sure that as soon as the Government were able to take it up it would give unqualified satisfaction, not only to the people of the country generally, but also, he believed, to the Church itself.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDcontended that the Commissioners must not be regarded as an entity like other Corporations. They were, in fact, stewards who had for their clients not only every Bishop in the Church, but a great number of the clergy also. There could not be better evidence of the good management of the Commissioners than had been given by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray). Not only had they maintained the value of the property as it was intrusted to them, but they had increased it by exchanges and enfranchisements and good management. The Prime Minister had suggested that money payments would be more convenient than land as ecclesiastical endowments; but nothing was so fluctuating as money, and nothing so permanent as a representative of value as land.
  MR. J. W. PEASEsaid, that, as he represented a county (Durham) in which the Commissioners had a great amount of property, he felt obliged to say that, so far as his observation went, the management of the Commissioners was in all respects excellent. The Commissioners had lost an able and devoted servant in Mr. E. J. Smith, whose death was severely felt throughout the whole county of Durham. He wished also to bear testimony to the political impartiality always manifested by the Commissioners. In his county Party feeling ran high; but the agents, solicitors, and other persons connected with the Commission did not allow themselves to be influenced in the slightest degree by political considerations. He admitted, however, that in small transactions the expenses were very high; he had seen cases where the law costs, in the case of the redemption of copyholds, &c., exceeded the whole value of the property. But the real question, as had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the Prime Minister, was the general

  517
  policy of so much land being owned by Corporations in mortmain. He fully agreed with his hon. Friend on that subject, and hoped he would be able on a future occasion to bring the question in a riper and more general form for the consideration of the House.
  MR. DODDSexpressed his regret that the Commission had lost the valuable services of Mr. Edmund James Smith. Probably there were few men in the House who had had more to do with the Commission than he had, and he must say that in every department there was scarcely anything which he did not admire in the management of that Commission. But it appeared to him that the point of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Salford did not refer so much to the general management of the Commission, but to the management of their landed estates. The Motion really had reference to lands and other property vested in the Commissioners, and the work of the Commission in connection with real property, and when he told the House that the episcopal, capitular, and other estates in the county of Durham, now under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, extended to upwards of 40,000 acres, with an increase amounting to over £109,000, the House would imagine that they were largely interested in this question. What he felt was that the management of these estates would be better left in the hands of individual owners than under the control of the Commissioners, because the former would be persons living in the county, and knowing the best means of utilizing their holding. He, however, hoped the present Motion would be withdrawn, and that on a future occasion it might be brought forward again in an amended and more advantageous form.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, while he believed the Commissioners had done their duty, he thoroughly concurred in what the Prime Minister had said, that no Corporation could properly do its duty to the land. The personal residence of the landowner, when that could be obtained, was of more value than any charitable pecuniary contribution. He fully concurred in the remarks of the Prime Minister, and of the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Goschen), as to the great importance of getting these landed properties out of mort-main.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in asking permission to withdraw his Motion, disclaimed any desire for the appointment of a Committee merely to inquire into the business and general management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and expressed his gratification at the statements made by the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

HERRING BRAND COMMITTEE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DUFF, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Herring Brand Committee, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, effect should be given without delay to the recommendations of the Report of the Herring Brand Committee,"
  said, he would not enter into any controversial matter as to the merits or demerits of the herring brand practice, as to which there was a good deal to be said on both sides. He craved for the Committee's Report that it was based on the preponderance of evidence laid before them; and he could only say that if the majority of the fishcurers and fishermen wished to retain the brand, and were, at the same time, willing to pay for it, he was not aware that there was any valid reason why it should not be continued still. What he proposed to deal with was the recommendations of the Herring Brand Committee; and the chief of those recommendations was that the surplus brand money should be appropriated for purposes beneficial to the fishermen and the trade. He had to state to the House what he meant by the surplus brand fee. In the year 1854, an Act of Parliament was passed imposing a fee of 4d. per barrel for every barrel of herrings branded with a Government mark. At the time this Act was passed it was distinctly stated that this fee was for defraying the expenses incurred; but since the Act was passed the herring fisheries of Scotland had so largely extended that, besides paying the expenses, the brand had been a considerable source of revenue. The existence of the herring brand surplus had been often denied; but it was distinctly proved before the Committee that the surplus, allowing for the largest expenditure, amounted to £31,571, and the surplus paid into the Treasury for

  519
  the year 1880 amounted to £0,502. It had long been contended that this surplus ought to be applied to some purpose beneficial to the fishery interest; and the first recommendation of the Herring Brand Committee was that it should be applied to works on the piers and harbours of Scotland. The necessity for increased harbour accommodation seemed to be universally admitted. It had been pressed on public attention by too many lamentable disasters—disasters causing an appalling loss of life among the fishermen, and misery to all those dependent on them. The disasters in the Shetland Islands last August, and on the Berwickshire Coast last October, must be fresh in the memory of hon. Members. In the year 1879, the loss along the North-East Coast of Scotland, of fishing and coasting vessels, bore the saddest testimony to the want of adequate harbour accommodation. He therefore thought this was a very appropriate purpose to which to apply the surplus brand fund. But if the question were looked at from a national point of view, he ventured to say that a far larger claim than that he was now making might be substantiated. The Imperial policy appeared to have been to get as much money as possible out of Scotland, and to spend it on harbours in the Southern parts of the Island. £1,250,000 had been thrown into the sea at Alderney. Sums of nearly equal amount had been spent on Holyhead, Portland, and other English harbours; while, in the meantime, Scotland had been put off with a grant of £3,000 a-year to the Fishery Board, and a few grants of comparatively trifling sums to harbours, not very happily designed, at Wick, Anstruther, and Dunbar. He thought that the propositions put forward for the allotment of those fees to the purpose of improving the Scotch harbours were very modest. He might say that they were distinguished by the extreme modesty which usually characterized Scotch applications to the Treasury. The case for aid to Scotch harbours was strengthened when it was remembered that there was not now, as formerly, any fund which they could draw upon for assistance. Many of the harbours along the North-East Coast—harbours which the trade and fisheries had entirely outgrown—were constructed at the close of the last and the commencement of the present century, by
  520
  the great Scottish engineers, Rennie and Telford, out of money drawn from the Forfeited Estates Fund. Speaking as a loyal subject, and also as a landowner, he would not affect any regret that that particular source of revenue was not likely to be revived. He referred to the Forfeited Estates Fund merely because, since it had been exhausted, he knew of no public fund for harbour improvement which had taken its place. The Royal Commission of 1859 reported that certain specified sums should be given by the Treasury to different localities for constructing harbours, on the understanding that those localities provided a proportionate amount; but that amount was so large that it was never forthcoming, and consequently the recommendations of the Report were never carried out.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. DUFF, resuming, said, that when he was interrupted he was referring to past legislation with regard to the harbours. From various causes the Act of 1861 had become almost inoperative, and, therefore, there was additional reason for granting aid from other sources. He wished, at the same time, to express a very decided opinion that the best means Government could adopt for assisting harbours was to lend money at the lowest possible rate of interest to supplement local efforts. Such a policy, in his humble opinion, would be attended with far better results than spending a large sum of money on any particular harbour. If the Scottish Members would concentrate their energies in inducing the Government to restore in its integrity the Act of 1861—which would be of general benefit—they would be doing far more good than by pressing the claims of any particular place for special assistance. With regard to the next recommendation of the Committee, that of extending the functions of the Fishery Board, he might say that there seemed a strong desire expressed by the Scotch Members, and by the public in Scotland who were interested in this subject, that the functions of the Fishery Board should be extended; and he had reason to believe that the recommendations of the Report in that respect had the approval of the Government. In connection with the

  521
  duties he should like to see the Board undertaking, there was one he particularly wished to mention. He referred to the protection and the jurisdiction respecting mussel-beds. To those not acquainted with the practice of their Northern fishermen, this might seem a small subject; but it was really one of very considerable importance to the fishermen; and perhaps the House would realize this when he mentioned that it was calculated that in the district he represented each individual fisherman required in the course of the year two tons of mussels for bait. Now, he thought that one of the duties of the Board should be to encourage and protect artificial mussel-beds. Then the law respecting the right to mussel-beds was somewhat obscure, and gave rise to many disputes. The Government, he thought, should deal with the rights of mussel proprietors in the same way as they did with salmon proprietors. That was to say, where the proprietor of the land could show no Charter to the right of mussels the Crown should enforce their rights, take possession of the beds, and let them out to the fishermen. That was done in the case of coast salmon fishings, as he knew from personal experience. He succeeded to a property where the proprietors had always fished the sea for salmon; but when he was called upon to give a Charter he found he had none to produce, and the Crown seized his salmon fishings, and added insult to injury by proposing to let them to him at an exorbitant rent. He mentioned this control over mussels as one of the duties a Board with more extended powers might usefully perform. One other subject to which he should like to refer was the subject of telegraphs. The Report of the Committee recommended that facilities should be given, especially on the West Coast of Scotland, for extending telegraphic communication to all the important fishing stations. Applications from his hon. Friends the Members for Inverness and Argyllshire were now before the Postmaster General with reference to this subject, and he trusted they would receive the most favourable consideration, because it was very important that the fishery stations should have telegraphic facilities. The recommendation that an enlarged Fishery Board might deal with scientific questions regarding the artificial propagation of fish,
  522
  which had been so usefully followed in America, was well worthy of consideration. He regretted that the hon. Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake), who served on the Committee, was not in the House, because he had visited the United States, and his information on this point was most valuable. There was no industry that he was acquainted with—certainly no industry in the North of Scotland—which had grown with such rapidity as the fishery. No other industry that he knew of was capable of such extension, for the resources of the sea appeared to be inexhaustible. In many counties in Scotland the value of the herrings taken at the different stations exceeded the annual amount of the rental of those counties. In the Fishery Board Returns the value of herrings alone in 1880 was given as upwards of £1,800,000, and it was stated that their value in that year exceeded by 73 per cent the average value for the last 10 years. He, therefore, saw no limit to the increase of the herring fishings, provided that there was given proper assistance. He thought this industry was one which was well worth the attention and the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. He was very glad to see that when the Civil Service Estimates were produced the Government had given an additional grant of £3,000 to the Scotch Fishery Board. He understood it was given in consequence of the Report of the Committee. If that was the case, he had to thank Her Majesty's Government for so far carrying out the recommendation of the Report, as the amount given was, he admitted, a fair average of the surplus of the brand fee. He trusted that, if the brand fee went on increasing, as he believed it would, the Government would give the increased surplus back for some object beneficial to the fisheries, and that in other respects they would see their way to carry out the recommendations of the Report, which, if adopted, would, he believed, aid and encourage the development of a very important, but hitherto too much neglected national industry.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, in seconding and cordially supporting

  523
  the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), gave it as his opinion that no greater good could be done by the Government than by taking up the question of how to construct successfully harbours in Scotland. The Government were still engaged in assisting harbours in other parts of the country. For example, they had recently given £15,000 to Ardglass Harbour, on the East Coast of Ireland, and were about to give a like sum to Arklow, within a few miles on the same coast; and to lend, in addition, the large sum of £20,000. If the Government continued to give these grants of money, he thought it was their duty to ascertain whether or not the designs of these works were of such a nature as to fulfil their purpose. If an inquiry were made to see what mistakes had been made in the past, in unsuccessful attempts to construct sea-coast harbours, in order to ascertain what should be avoided in future, he believed the coasts would soon be covered with harbours. It was a curious fact that there was no money so difficult to obtain by loan from capitalists as that with regard to the building of harbours; yet he believed there was no public work which could be successfully undertaken that would pay the country better than harbours would. There was a small harbour in his own county (Kincardineshire), and he believed if it were enlarged and improved the value of the fish caught there would more than equal the whole of the land rental in the country, which was about £180,000. He cordially joined in the recommendation of his hon. Friend, that the formation and constitution of the Fishery Board should not only be improved, but its duties extended, so as to have a jurisdiction over all kinds of fishing, and over all harbours aided by Government funds. In France, Germany, and Norway they had statistics of the whole fish caught along their several shores; but in England, the great statistical country, which prided itself on its statistics with regard to its trade and commerce, they were entirely ignorant—except as to the herring—with regard to the other portion of the great industry of fishing. Yet, in a Report on the Fisheries, made about 16 years ago, by well-qualified Commissioners, of whom Mr. Caird, Dr. Huxley, and the present Chief Commissioner of Works were Members, it was
  524
  fully shown that no portion of the land could supply wealth so easily as that which the sea could. If the fisheries were properly developed by means of safe harbours, to which boats could run in safety after being exposed to a four hours' gale, it would be found that an acre of sea ground on certain banks of the coast would greatly surpass in value the produce of similar extent in land. Then, with regard to the objection to applying the brand to Scotch herring barrels, on the plea that Irish barrels did not need to be branded, it must be stated that the herrings taken on the Coast of Ireland were not so suitable for export as those taken on the Scotch Coast, and the Inspector of Irish Fisheries had reported that the branding system was not well adapted for Ireland. Then, with regard to a further development of good fishing grounds, the Government might aid by surveying vessels, because there were banks on the Coast of England where fish abounded, which were partly defined; but in Scotland they were deficient of information of that kind, which would be of great benefit to the fishermen. There were many banks lying off the North-East Coast of Scotland full of fish, but their boundaries and positions were still only known to a few fishermen. The kind of fish, and the food for fish there existing, should be inquired into by the Government. In every other branch of industry millions were spent by the State to collect information; but no such assistance was given to collect information about our great fish industry. As to the herring brand fees, the Government had made a good beginning by giving a grant of £3,000; but he claimed that the whole surplus fees collected on account of the herring brand should be given to the Coast of Scotland. The inhabitants along the Scotch Coast gave a certain sum of money for a particular trade, and that money should not be spent over the whole United Kingdom, but should be used for the benefit of the Scotch people themselves. If they could improve their harbours and extend their fisheries as they had been doing within the last few years, instead of £3,000 they ought soon to have a surplus of 8,000. But the first and foremost consideration now was how to construct sea-coast harbours with success; and this the Government could alone ascertain by instituting an inquiry into the many past failures in harbour

  525
  works, which had entailed the loss of millions of money.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, effect should he given without delay to the recommendations of the Report of the Herring Brand Committee,"—(Mr. Duff,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ALEXANDER GOEDONapproved the remarks which the hon. Members had made in regard to the necessity of improved harbour accommodation. He quoted a Return which he obtained a short time ago from the Board of Trade, showing that during five years, between the Pentland Forth and Fifeness, no fewer than 367 vessels had been lost. On one night, the 18th of August, 1848, 124 boats were wrecked, and no less than 100 lives were lost. He did not quite know, however, what it was that the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. Duff) recommended the Government to do, he was so very vague. With regard to the brand fees collected on the Coast of Scotland, he thought it right that these should be applied in the districts where they were collected. Last year there were no fewer than 2,173 herring boats fishing from three ports in this country and employing 21,430 persons, compared with 245 boats employing 2,485 persons engaged at Banff, Buckie, and Findhorn. He maintained that the Government in spending this fee money should spend it in the districts where it had been raised; because if that was not done the money raised by the herring fishermen would be spent for the benefit of the cod and ling fishers, who gave nothing at all to the Government. Therefore, he thought that the application of the money generally all over the coast would benefit those fishermen who did not raise the fee, and he hoped the Government would bear that in mind in distributing the money. The Government were not able to distribute the excess of the fees. By the Act of Parliament they were bound to pay them into the Exchequer. They could not give money, except what was actually wanted for the expense of the branding; therefore, it was entirely delusive to talk about returning. The Government might give a grant of
  526
  money from the Exchequer as they had done now; but he should like to ask the Lord Advocate how the £3,000 was to be spent—whether it was to be on the same footing as the statutory £3,000 which the Board had every year to spend, or whether it was to be spent according to the will of parties who might apply for it? He hoped it would be placed as the statutory £3,000, which required that the party receiving the money should provide themselves a certain proportion of the amount that was spent. He wished also to remind Her Majesty's Government that, with reference to the proposed alteration of the Fishery Board which had been suggested, that the Fishery Board had been appointed solely for the benefit of the trade of the herring fishery; and all their correspondence, and all their duties, were connected with the mercantile men in commercial matters. But it had been proposed by the deputation which the hon. Gentleman referred to that the duty of protecting the rod fishing in the rivers inland should be placed upon the Fishery Board. As now constituted the Fishery Board had nothing to do with salmon. Therefore he must protest against any interference with the very important interest now confided to them, unless they were prepared to create a separate or additional Board to carry out the new duties. They need not foster the cod and ling and other fishing, because they did not require it. The best plan would be to reduce the brand to one-half. It was now 4d. per barrel and 2d. the half barrel. A short Act of Parliament amending the present Act would relieve the curers of the payment of one-half of the fee, and that he believed would be accepted by them. Irish fishermen, finding they could not cure herrings in Ireland, came over last year, and no fewer than 49 boats came to the harbour of Aberdeen, and did better than our own people. If any alteration was to be made in the Fishery Board, which he thought very likely possible, he hoped it would be done after public inquiry, and not in consequence of the deputation to which the hon. Member had referred. Half the Members of the deputation did not know what they went there for. He himself did not know until they got into the room. He protested against that being taken as an expression of the opinion of the people of Scotland as to any change

  527
  in the Board. He could not help fearing that if they joined the two duties they must have a joint Board. Inland proprietors must be represented on the Board as well as the great coast trade in herrings, and they would then have two separate interests, and a great deal of unpleasant work would go on in the endeavour of one party to get money for the benefit of inland as against deep-sea fishing. He maintained that the herring fishery trade was far more important than anything else; and he certainly hoped the Government would not interfere with that trade without public inquiry.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that the necessity for further harbour accommodation had been brought home to him in a most terrible and a very close manner. On the 14th of October, between the Tweed and North Berwick, no fewer than 200 fishermen lost their lives in a single morning. That disaster would have been vastly increased had it not fortunately happened that the Dunbar boats had reached the harbour before the storm came on, and the Berwick boats had not gone to sea at all. In Berwickshire, out of a total of 500 fishermen, 175 were drowned; and there were 129 out of one village. It was difficult to convey any idea of the distress and misery which he witnessed in that village. If a similar disaster had happened on a railway, or from any other cause, there would have been Commissioners sent down to make inquiry, and all sorts of suggestions would have been made; but in this case no suggestion of any kind had been made by anyone of responsibility. He had no hesitation in saying that this disaster took place simply, solely, and entirely because there was no harbour to which the boats could run. The boats that did escape were boats that put to sea, and were out 56 hours, finally putting into the Tyne. It would be of considerable advantage to the fishermen of Scotland if the functions of the Board in Edinburgh were extended, to take notice of everything connected with the coast and deep-sea fisheries. He was very grateful for the additional £3,000 that had been granted. He did not mean to say that their fishery harbours should be constructed by grants from Government; but grants were useful and acceptable in aid now and again. They must look to local exertions. What they expected was that great facilities should be given
  528
  by the Public "Works Loan Commissioners for an object so desirable as the construction of a fishery harbour. As far as the North-East Coast of England and Scotland was concerned, he did not think that very much had been done, in consequence of the Act of 1861, on behalf of the fishery harbours. Between the Humber and Cape Wrath, to 11 harbours having incomes of over £2,000 a-year, £1,377,000 had been advanced. These were almost wholly commercial harbours. On the same portion of the coast to five, out of over 40 harbours with incomes under £2,000 a-year, and dependent mainly or entirely on the fishing industry, only £19,200 had been advanced. He thought the Fishery Board in Scotland should take care of the harbours. They would help them very much in this matter, because they would be able to give information as to the points most advantageous where harbours could be placed. He was not at all disposed to have harbours stuck here, there, and everywhere. He believed the little tidal harbours were simply man-traps and delusions that lured men to their death. They created a small colony of fishermen, and when a storm came on the men hailing from them rushed to these places, often to meet their death.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, as he had the honour of being Chairman of a Royal Commission for the Fisheries of the Northern Coast, he would not like the discussion to end until he had said a few words upon the subject. He did not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon), who desired to limit the Board of Fisheries to the care of herrings. He was, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, a Commissioner of that Board; but he thought, instead of limiting its action to the herring fishing, that its functions ought to be extended so as to promote all the fisheries, and the interests of the fishermen engaged in those fishing stations. Nor could he understand why he would restrict all the £3,000, which represented the money derived from the brand, to the interests of the herring fishing. They could not divide a harbour. A harbour might be as useful for cod or ling fishing as for herring fishing. The wider they could make the Board, and the less restrictions they put upon it, the better. The hon. and gallant Member did not desire to give special encouragement to cod and

  529
  ling fisheries, and yet such aid would in reality best promote the growth of herrings. Let him give one curious illustration, which showed how closely all the fishings were related. Parliament interfered a great deal too much in its legislation with regard to fisheries. One of the restrictions in an Act now repealed was to enforce a close time for the herring fishing during a certain number of weeks or months, in which the herrings might be allowed to breed. Now, what was the effect of that legislation? Its effect was mainly to destroy the herring fisheries, and the reason was this. Man was the least enemy of the herring. His catch was perhaps not more than a few per cent as compared with the destruction which was caused by other enemies of the fish of the sea. The close time in the herring fishing gave an unexpected protection to cod and ling. At certain times cod and ling could only be caught with herring bait, so that the close time for herring meant a close time for cod and ling as well. What was the consequence? They did not know how many cod and ling there were in the sea; but they knew how many cod and ling were salted. Now, in the Commission on which he sat, he had the honour of Professor Huxley as one of his Colleagues. They frequently dissected cod, and they had found in their stomachs no fewer than 14 undigested herrings; but giving only six herrings a day to the cod and ling which were caught and salted, they would, had they remained in the sea, have devoured more herrings than all the fishermen in the United Kingdom, although 600 were added to their number. Therefore, the interference of the Legislature for the protection of the herrings was merely a law for an enormous destruction of the herrings. He quite agreed with the Report in saying that they should do nothing except to allow Nature to go unrestricted in her ways. There were balances of Nature with which, when they began to interfere, they interfered wrongly. He thought it important to broaden the duties of the Fishery Board under its re-organization, owing to the resignation of that efficient officer, Mr. Primrose. It would be very difficult to find a Secretary of equal ability and devotion to the service; but they might arrange the duties of the Board in a different way. He was speaking entirely independent of the Government, and as the case presented itself to
  530
  his mind. He did think that a Board of Fisheries, which was to extend its influence and take in all the sea fisheries of the Kingdom, ought to have very efficient officers, and an efficient Inspector, so as to enable them to make those scientific observations, and give that scientific aid, which had produced important results in foreign countries. It was often said the herring was a most capricious fish. For a certain number of years it came to one part of the coast, and then deserted it. There was no caprice in that. They ought to know the meteorology of the sea, the effect of temperature of the ocean, and of the food presented to the herring under different conditions; and if they had scientific officers who could make these observations, which they were accustomed to make in America with so much advantage, he thought they could understand much more what was going on, and enable fishermen to take more advantage by the knowledge thus derived. It was for that reason he was anxious to see, in any re-organization of the Board now under the consideration of the Government, that while their functions ought to be broadened, so as to promote the building of harbours, they should understand also that part of the money should be devoted to proper efficient officers, who would be enabled to superintend fisheries with a knowledge of science; and, with such a re-organization and such officials, he believed they would find that the great value of the fisheries now going on in Scotland and the Irish Coast would be very largely improved by the application of knowledge to this subject.
  THE LOED ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought he might say, on the part of the Government, that they were by no means unmindful of the importance of the recommendations in relation to the Board contained in this Report. In regard to the first part, he might state that in the month of December, when the Estimates were being prepared, the Fishery Board were requested by the Treasury to forward to them a statement setting forth the reecipts and expenditure connected with the branding; and, in the statement forwarded, the amount of the receipts for the year 1881 was given at £8,236, while the expenses were given at £5,419, leaving a surplus for the year of £2,817. The Treasury had resolved to make a

  531
  grant of the surplus, and they had not limited themselves to that precise amount, but had given the nearest round sum above it by introducing into the Estimates for the current year a sum of £3,000 for harbour purposes, in addition to the sum ordinarily granted for that object; so that his hon. Friend would see that in putting in this additional sum they were giving rather more than the aggregate gain on that head. He hoped that would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. A question had been put as to the manner in which it was proposed that that money should be expended. The intention in that matter was, that it should be expended under the direction and at the sight of the Fishery Board, a proposal which, he believed, would also meet with general acceptance. Something had likewise been said with regard to the application of any profit resulting from brand fees to telegrams; and while he quite agreed with what had been said by one of his hon. Friends as to the impossibility of dividing the money applicable to harbours between white and herring fishing, where both kinds of fishing were practised from the same harbour, it would seem just that in the other matter—that was in regard to the telegrams—where there was room for distinction, any money resulting from brand fees should be applied to the part of the coast from which the brand fees were gathered—that was to say, to the East and North-East Coasts, because it was there alone, and not on the West Coast, that the branding system prevailed. He was happy to say that even that appropriation, which would probably commend itself to the sense of fairness of the House, would comprehend the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, where there was great need for additional telegraphic facilities as an aid and assistance to the herring fishing. The next point which had been referred to was the re-organization of the Fishery Board. That matter also was under the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but it was not a matter as to which a resolution could be arrived at immediately, because—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock till Monday next.