Commons Sitting of 15 May 1885

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For County of Denbigh, v. Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, baronet, deceased.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock, and passed.
PLBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders * [182]: Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [183].
Considered as amended—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4) * [116].

HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL (by Order.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House and of his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill to certain particulars connected with it which he thought were entitled to the consideration of the House. The Bill was called "The Hull, Barnsley, and West Biding Junction Railway and Dock Bill." There had been five Bills on that interesting subject before the House in the last five years, commencing in 1880, and continuing in 1882, 1883, and 1884. It was now proposed to amalgamate those four Acts into one Act in the present Session. The Bill purported to have been introduced for the purpose of extending the line for the compulsory purchase of land and for the completion of certain of the authorized works of the Company; but it ought to have been added—"and the abandonment and relinquishment of a railway authorized to be made by the Act of 1880." He was sorry that the Chairman of the Company (Colonel Gerard Smith) was not present on that occasion, because last year the hon. and gallant Member was in his place, and, treating the matter in a cavalier manner, the hon. and gallant Member told the House that it was owing to his inexperience of railway management that the expense of this railway had been increased from the sum of £4,000,000, which was originally thought adequate, to £5,500,000. Now, the construction of this railway was a matter which had greatly interested the public for several years. The original Stock of the Company was £3,000,000, and it was shown in the debate which took place last year that so little were the public satisfied with the soundness of this concern that, although it was thought desirable to issue the Company's Stock upon the extraordinarily favourable terms of £80 for every £100 Stock, at 5 per cent, the public only subscribed £75,000 of the money. Consequently, the Company, finding themselves in difficulties, issued Debenture Stock to the extent of £1,000,000. That was before last year; but last year the Company came down to the House of Commons, and the ordinary Rules of Procedure were suspended in favour of a Bill which en-

  601
  abled the Company to is9ue £1,500,000 of Debentures, making the Debenture Stock, with the £1,000,000 previously issued, £2,500,000, or within £500,000 of the original Share Capital of the Company. That in itself was a very unsatisfactory state of things; but the Company were now asking for an extension of the period provided by the Act of 1882 for the completion of their works. It was distinctly laid down in the House of Commons last year that if the House granted £1,500,000 additional Debenture Stock the railway would be completed for the money. But the Company, in the present Bill, under Clause 8, proposed to abandon one of the railways, for the construction of which they had obtained the public money; and in abandoning that railway they proposed to apply the money which they had raised for one of their lines—namely, Railway No. 1A—to other and entirely different purposes. He would like to know—and he thought the public were entitled to know—what was to be done with this Railway No. 1A, because, if the money had been spent upon it already, it could not be devoted to "other purposes;" and if it had not been spent there had been a direct breach of faith with the House of Commons, because it was stated last year that the sum of £1,500,000 then applied for would be adequate for the construction of this line. It was distinctly laid down in the Act of 1882 that the works were to be completed within a period of three or five years; and now, although £1,500,000 additional was granted last year, on the clear understanding that the railway would be completed for that money, this Bill, called "The Hull, Barnsley, and West Biding Junction Railway and Dock Bill," sought for an extension of time, under Clause 12, for the completion of the works—namely, three years from the passing of the Act. He was bound to say that, after the long discussion they had last year, and the very unsatisfactory appearance made by the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Colonel Gerard Smith), it was to be regretted that the hon. and gallant Member had not favoured the House on that occasion with his presence, seeing that he must, no doubt, have acquired much greater experience than he himself admitted that he had last year. On that occasion the hon. and gallant Mem-
  602
  ber candidly stated, not without some feeling of shame, that, although he was Chairman of this Railway Company, he knew nothing whatever about railway management. It must be in the recollection of the House that last year this additional sum of £1,500,000 Debenture Stock was asked for; and that Bill was granted because the President of the Board of Trade came down and told the House that it would be a serious thing, at a moment of general depression, to suspend the works. Now, as the promoters of the railway had failed to carry out the scheme they had originally promoted, he thought he was bound to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), whom he saw opposite, and who, he believed, was connected with this railway, to explain to the House the circumstances under which the promoters—under which the Company—now came forward with their new Bill. In his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion, it had been brought forward in a somewhat surreptitious manner. He had come down there on several occasions for the purpose of opposing it, and in the hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Colonel Gerard Smith) might be in his place to take part in any discussion that was again to be raised. But his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and himself had both been treated by the hon. and gallant Member in a most cavalier manner. He might mention that they could now prove that their original contention was correct, and that there were circumstances connected with this railway which entitled the House to some further information than it had yet received with regard to the object of this Bill, and if that information were not supplied he should certainly oppose the further progress of the Bill. Before he did so, however, he trusted that some hon. Member, whether connected or not connected with this railway, but connected with the railway interest generally, would get up, and, with greater knowledge than the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Colonel Gerard Smith), explain to the House what were some of the main features and proposals of the Bill. Recollecting how the public were—he would not use the word "swindled," because it was not a Parliamentary

  603
  word—but, remembering how the public had been defrauded—[An hon. MEMBER: No, no!]—well, he would say disappointed—in the expectation they had formed when they invested their money originally in this railway, he did think that some explanation was due to the House before it consented to pass the third rending of the Bill.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he very much indeed regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Company (Colonel Gerard Smith) did not happen to be present. Of course, if he had been present, he would have been able, much better than he (Mr. Norwood) was, to deal with the strong expressions which had been used by the right hon. Baronet.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I did not use them.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that, at any rate, he had heard them used.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: "Disappointed in their expectations," is what I said.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had used very strong language indeed, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had done so, because it was scarcely justified by anything the Bill contained. He was not pecuniarily interested in the Hull and Barnsley Railway and Dock Company; but, as his name was on the back of the Bill when introduced into the House, he was able to inform the right hon. Baronet that, in the first place, this Bill contained no money power whatever. Nor did it seek power to construct any new work*, except to substitute for an authorized line another line of less than a mile in length, for the purpose of forming: a more convenient junction with the Midland Railway than the line now authorized. It was also necessary to extend the line for the completion of the Hull and Halifax branch, authorized by the Act of 1882. Owing to certain financial difficulties, it had been found impossible to proceed with the construction of that line as rapidly as was originally expected.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Have the Company raised the money?
  MR. NORWOODbelieved the Company had not raised any money for that line. The money referred to in the Bill was simply money already authorized to be raised, but which the Company proposed to apply to the construction of the
  604
  substituted junction. It had no reference whatever to the Hull and Halifax and Huddersfield extension. The Bill was originally opposed by two interested parties, both of whom had been satisfied, and the Bill had been sent to the Chairman of Committees, by whom it had passed as an unopposed measure. It had previously passed a second reading without the slightest manifestation of hostility against it, and the right hon. Baronet was now taking the unusual course of opposing the third reading. He joined in the regret which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Colonel Gernrd Smith); and he thought that the hon. and gallant Member would have been in bis place if he had had the slightest idea that the Bill was to be discussed on that occasion. He believed, however, that there was very little to be explained. The Money Bill of last year passed with the full knowledge of the House. A portion of the capital had been raised, and it had been devoted to the purposes for which it had been raised.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: All the money?
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he believed, subject to correction, that a certain portion of the money had been raised; but there was really nothing in the present Bill which gave the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company any position or power different from that which it already possessed, except a power of extending the period for the construction of the Hull and Halifax Railway, and of substituting the construction of a small junction, less than a mile in length, for a junction with the Midland Railway already authorized. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would be satisfied with this explanation, and would not deem it necessary to press his opposition further.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the very unsatisfactory explanation of the hon. Member who had just sat down. His right hon. Friend and himself bad taken great interest in this Company for the last three Sessions running; and although they had never been able to prevail upon the House of Commons to arrest the downward course of those unfortunate persons who, in their capacity of Directors, were deluding the public

  605
  year after year, still, at the same time, he felt certain that Parliament would tike on itself a tremendous responsibility if year after year it consented to give large powers to the Company which would more or less enable them to extract money from the public, while time after time the Company came down to the House and confessed that they were unable to avail themselves of their powers for the benefit of the public. This was the last Session of the present Parliament. He did not suppose that his right hon. Friend and himself would be able to stop the depredations of this undertaking; but, at any rate, certain points ought to be noticed. The Company asked, according to the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), for an extension of time on account of being involved in financial difficulties.
  MR. NORWOOD: I am not aware that I used those words. If I did so, I will withdraw them. I merely meant that they had not yet raised the money.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, his hon. Friend knew perfectly well that there was no difficulty in raising money at the present day if the securities were sound. Indeed, money was cheaper than ever it was before if there was good security; but this wretched Hull and Barnsley Railway had not got 6d. on its own account, and yet it was continually coming to Parliament for fresh powers in the endeavour to offer some kind of security to the public. The Company, in their present Hill, asked for an extension of time; last year they also asked for an extension of time, and also for an extension of their powers, in order that they might complete a certain line of railway. This year they came down to Parliament and announced that a considerable portion of the railway they had undertaken last year to complete was to be abandoned. Clause 8 of the Bill gave them power to abandon Railway No. 1A, which was originally authorized by the Act of 1880; and now they asked, in addition, for a further extension of time to enable them to complete other portions of the line. In fact, this line would never be completed by the present Directors. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), and every other hen. Member who ever had a connection with this Company, knew that not a single original shareholder would ever receive back a single
  606
  6d. he had embarked in it, and which would never have been embarked but for the dangerous and special facilities which Parliament had granted to this Company. He would direct the attention of the House to some passages in the Preamble of the Bill. It said—
  "And whereas the last-mentioned sum of £1,500,000 has been duly raised, and the principal works authorized by the said Act of 1880 will shortly be completed;"
  and then it went on to say—
  "And, whereas by reason of the difficulty in raising the necessary funds for that purpose until the completion of the aforesaid works authorized by the Act of 1880."
  There was a complete contradiction between the two statements; and, as a matter of fact, there was a contradiction between the statement of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), and the view of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Dickson), who sat below him. The hon. Member opposite said that only a portion of the money had been raised, whereas his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Dickson) said that the whole of it had been raised. In the Preamble of the Bill it was certainly distinctly admitted that the money authorized to be raised had been raised. He trusted that his right hon. Friend, if he received further encouragement, would take the sense of the House upon the third reading of the Bill, in order that a protest might be recorded in the Journals of the House as to the extremely unsatisfactory manner in which Parliament had accorded special facilities to this Company.
  MR. DODDSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the discussion had expressed a hope that he would receive an explanation from an official Member of the House, or from someone connected with railways generally. Now, he (Mr. Dodds) begged to say that he was not in any way, directly or indirectly, connected with this railway or with railways generally. He was, therefore, able to speak simply in the public interest as to the facts disclosed in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the Company had obtained various Acts up to the present time for raising money; but he did not find that that assertion was justified by the provisions of the Bill. The Bill must, no doubt, be read in connection with other Acts, but it contained no

  607
  powers for increasing its capital. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill involved the abandonment of some works contemplated by previous Acts of the Company. That was true in this sense, and in this sense only—that this Bill authorized the abandonment of a spur line of railway which was to effect a junction with the Midland Railway at Cudworth; but it authorized the construction of another line as a substitute for the one abandoned, and therefore, so far as the Bill sought to abandon anything originally contemplated, it merely sought to abandon a small piece of line for the purpose of substituting another means of junction with the Midland Railway, which would be of a less expensive character. Then it was said that the Bill enabled the Company to raise additional capital. From the beginning to the end of the Bill there was nothing whatever to disturb the arrangement entered into last year as to capital, except to this extent—that the capital of the Company already authorized to be raised might be applied to the construction of another junction. In no other way did it interfere with the arrangement as to capital which received the sanction of Parliament last year. It neither enlarged nor diminished the power of the Company in that respect.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Has not money been already spent on the line which is now proposed to be abandoned?MR. DODDS said, he believed that no money had been expended on the abandoned railway; but the line sought to be abandoned was, of course, subject to the rights of such owners of land as might be affected by the abandonment in anyway whatever. It was one of the most ordinary of the Bills which came before Parliament from time to time, at the instance of Railway Companies who had been delayed in raising their capital. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) said there was an apparent contradiction in the Preamble—that it said in one paragraph that the authorized capital had been raised, while in another it asked for an extension of time in which to raise it. That simply meant that the money would not be raised immediately, and that it was not needed for immediate expenditure; and, therefore, an extension was asked of the time in which, by
  608
  previous Acts, the Company were required to raise the money. As he had pointed out, the only deviation from former Acts was the proposal to abandon a small junction in order to substitute a fresh, one. It would not alter the capital arrangement in the smallest degree; but it simply extended the time within which the money was to be raised. He knew nothing about the shareholders of the Company, nor had he the slightest interest in the railway; but he would say that persons who took shares in undertakings of this kind did so on their own responsibility, and must take the consequences. The Bill did not affect their position in any way whatever, but was confined to the two very small provisions he had explained. This was the last stage of the Bill, and he failed to see why it should be opposed by the right hon. Baronet, who had no interest in it. It was also opposed by the noble Lord, who was equally disinterested in the undertaking; and he could not understand why they should offer this opposition. If there were any grounds of opposition on the part of the public interest, such opposition would have been more properly raised elsewhere, if raised at all. He trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a third time.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had done some public service in calling attention to this Bill; but, at the same time, he thought the explanations of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) were perfectly satisfactory. It was not a matter to be wondered at that anybody who knew the history of this Company should display a certain amount of jealousy in regard to its proceedings. He had himself endeavoured, in the last Session of Parliament, to point out the unfair character of the legislation of the House in granting special facilities to this Company for raising capital on Preference Shares on Debentures; and he had called attention to the fact that many of the shareholders had been brought into the undertaking, as his right hon. Friend had stated, by being told that they would have 5 per cent

  609
  out of the capital during the construction of works. This Bill, however, did not affect that point, but it was simply a measure to enable the Company to finish their undertaking by bringing it into connection with the Midland Railway, and by extending the time for the completion of works. The Bill was certainly one which the House would feel bound to pass, seeing that it only granted to the Company reasonable facilities for the completion of their works.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he should not have risen to say a word upon the present occasion if it had not been for the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), who began and ended with one key-note—namely, that the hon. Member did not know what respect ought to be paid to the views of the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, because they had no interest in the matter. He (Mr. Lewis) certainly recollected a case where the disinterestedness of an hon. Member with reference to a Private Bill assumed a somewhat different aspect, and he had not expected that the hon. Member for Stockton, of all persons in the world, would have used such an argument. The hon. Member now contended that the disinterestedness of the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord disqualified them from offering an opinion to the House, whereas he claimed for himself the right of guiding the verdict of the House on the ground of his own disinterestedness. As he (Mr. Lewis) knew a little of the proceedings of the hon. Member, who acted as a sort of deputy for the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) in connection with Private Bill legislation, he was not disposed to take advice from the hon. Member, but would prefer that of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Sir Arthur Otway). He certainly knew enough of the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company to feel that any additional powers they sought to obtain ought to be jealousy watched. He hoped the House would assert their own disinterestedness in the matter, and display it in a rather more reasonable and consistent fashion than the hon. Gentleman—namely, in the Division Lobby.
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYtrusted that there would be no necessity for going
  610
  into the Lobby at all on the present occasion. He could not say that there was no justification for the inquiries which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had made. No doubt, the circumstances of this Company really had been of a very exceptional character, and on a previous occasion he had himself proposed that exceptional steps should be taken in order to facilitate certain proceedings on the part of the Company, having been influenced by the statement that a large number of persons would be thrown out of employment if the Bill then introduced were not passed. He had not understood the right hon. Baronet to conclude with any Motion?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: No; I only asked for information.
  SIR AETHUR OTWAYsaid, he did not think the right hon. Baronet would desire to do so after he received the information which he (Sir Arthur Otway) was able to give as to the nature of the Bill. He would first explain that the Bill had not been before him, but that, at a time when he was engaged with Public Business in the Chair, it had been passed by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John E. Mowbray). What remained for the House to consider was whether the Bill, as it was now proposed, really contained in it any provisions of such an unusual character as to require its rejection on the third reading. He could assure the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord that it contained nothing whatever to excite their suspicions. It was quite true that the capital authorized by the Act of 1884 was to be applied to certain purposes, and that the present Bill involved an apparent deviation from those purposes; but it did not do so in fact. By the 19th clause, the Company were authorized to apply the money which might have been lawfully applied for the purposes of the railway authorized by the Act of 1880, and by the present Bill authorized to be abandoned, to the construction of a line in substitution, and the money already sanctioned was directed to be applied to the construction of the substituted line. What was proposed was simply an arrangement for a junction with the Midland Railway

  611
  which would be more convenient and less expensive than the one now authorized at Cudworth. The whole length of it was under a mile. The cost of construction would be very small—about £5,000—and there would be a saving effected of about £500. He did not think the right hon. Baronet would feel it necessary, therefore, to persevere with his opposition.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Has any of the line now authorized been constructed?
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he really did not know how far any portion of the line originally authorized had been completed, but he was speaking simply of that part of the line which was before the House in the present Bill. He would repeat that he was not at all surprised that information had been sought for, because he must say that the circumstances of this railway in the past had been of a peculiar character; but in every respect, except in those which had been mentioned, the provisions of the Act of 1884 were completely adhered to.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he hoped that, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he might be allowed to say that, of course, he did not mean to put the House to the inconvenience of a division. He had merely been anxious to bring the case of this unfortunate railway, from which the public had suffered so much, under the notice of the House. He did not say that the Company were defrauding, but that they were disappointing the public, who had been induced to invest in the undertaking by the 5 per cent they expected to receive for every £80 representing £100 Stock they took up. Certainly, the explanation given by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), if it had not been supplemented by the further explanation of the Chairman of Committees, would have induced him to persist in his opposition. He begged now, having entered his protest against the proceedings of this Company generally, to withdraw any further opposition.
  Motion agreed to (Queen's Consent signified).
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTION'S.

  POST OFFICE—THE INVENTIONS EXHIBITION.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Postmaster General, Whether the managers of the Inventions Exhibition are exempted from the payment of postage for circulars, parcels, and letters; and, whether, considering that part of the Exhibition consists of illuminated gardens, bands of music, &c. and that large profits are made, and that no such exemption is granted to any similar exhibition not under a Royal Commission, he will advise the Crown that the exemption should be withdrawn?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No, Sir.
  MR. HOPWOODfurther inquired whether this exemption had not existed in respect to previous Exhibitions; and when it had ceased to exist?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am not aware that it has existed in the case of other Exhibitions. I will inquire on that point; but I was only speaking of the future.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I have the authority of the late Postmaster General for that statement.
  MR. HOPWOODalso asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Inventions Exhibition and the two previous Exhibitions have been or will be charged with Income Tax on profits as commercial undertakings?
  MR. BIRKBECKsaid, that before his hon. Friend answered the Question he wished to ask, Whether it was not a fact that in the case of the International Exhibition of 1851 a profit of about £150,000 was made, and no Income Tax paid; and, whether he was aware that in the case of the Fisheries Exhibition of 1883 all the profits were handed over to charitable objects?
  MR. HIBBERT: No doubt it is correct that the profits of the Fisheries Exhibition were not used for commercial objects, but for public purposes. In reply to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood), I have to state that, though, strictly speaking, the Inventions Exhibition and the previous Exhibitions cannot be said to be commercial undertakings, it is intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to charge Income Tax upon the profits of those undertakings.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DR. MOLONY, MEDICAL OFFICER, ARKLOW DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Dr. M. J. Molony was recently elected medical officer of the Arldow Dispensary District by a majority of the committee, but was refused the appointment of medical attendant on the Constabulary, which was given by the authorities to his unsuccessful opponent, who had only obtained his degree three weeks; whether he is aware that Dr. Molony had considerable practice in the mining and manufacturing districts of England; whether it is usual to unite the two offices in country districts where practice is limited and stipends small; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances under which the Constabulary authorities passed over an experienced medical man in favour of one who had only just obtained his qualification?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Dispensary doctors have no priority of claims to be appointed medical attendants to the Constabulary. Dr. Halpin, who was appointed in this instance, obtained his diploma as surgeon in May, 1883, and as physician in March last. Dr. Molony obtained both diplomas in December, 1882. The appointment was made by the Inspector General on his own responsibility; and he informed me that in making it he had solely in view the interests of the Force.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 84 (SEARCHES, &c.)—CASE OF MR. JOHN O'ROURKE, REDHILL, NEWPORT, CO. MAYO.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Sub-Inspector Ball, with a party of police, searched the house of Mr. John O'Rourke for arms at Red Hill, Newport, county Mayo, on the 21st of April 1884; whether, on that occasion, Sub-Inspector Ball carried off several letters, which have not since been restored to their owner; and, whether there is now any objection to restore the letters in question to Mr. O'Rourke?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that there will now be no
  614
  objection to restoring these letters, which were seized on account of their suspicious character.

  LAW AND POLICE—ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING LAWS AT DYSART, CO. ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a disturbance took place on Sunday 1st March 1885, in a public house kept by a man named Donohoe, in Thomas Street, Dysart, county Roscommon; whether some of the parties engaged in the disturbance have been sentenced to imprisonment; and, whether the police have prosecuted the keeper of the public house for selling drink on Sunday; and, if not, what is the reason of the failure to enforce the Law?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: An assault was committed on the 8th of March at this public-house on a man who was in the habit of calling there for his letters, and the assailant has been sent to prison for a month; but the police are not aware of any breach of the Licensing Act having taken place?
  MR. O'KELLY: Did not the assault take place on a Sunday morning?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; on Sunday, 8th March.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do I understand the Chief Secretary to say that the assault took place on a Sunday morning? If the public house was open for the sale of drink on Sunday, was not that a breach of the Licensing Act?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that any breach of the Licensing Act occurred.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the police undertake to make an inquiry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They have fully inquired into it, and the man has been prosecuted and sent to prison.
  MR. O'KELLY: For selling the whisky?
  [No reply.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—FIRING AT THE PERSON-CASE OF W. It. PERCEVAL.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  615
  Whether a private inquiry was held at Wexford, on the 2nd May, into a statement made by a man named William Robert Perceval, on the 27th April, that he had been fired at near Ardeavan; whether he can state what evidence was taken at this inquiry; whether it is the fact that the constabulary have come to the conclusion that there is no truth whatever in Perceval's story; and, whether a prosecution will be instituted against Perceval?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Perceval, who is in occupation of an evicted farm, reported on the 27th ultimo that he had been fired at, while driving along the road, and an inquiry has been held, under the Prevention of Crime Act, with the result that his statement is corroborated by several witnesses, and the marks of shot and pellets have been found in his croydon. The police have come to no such conclusion as that alleged in the Question.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—SEC. 9—DUTIES OF OVERSEERS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the following notice issued by the authorised agent of the Dorset Conservative Association, Shaftesbury Division:—
  "Private and Confidential.
  "Dorset Conservative Association, "Shafteshury Division,
  "Newland Offices, Sherborne, "11th March, 1885.
  "Dear Sir,
  "Having regard to the 9th section of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 (the last Franchise Act I, the duties of the overseers of the different parishes are considerably extended, so far as they relate to entering on the rate hook the name of every man entitled to be registered as a voter who is an inhabitant occupier of any dwelling house in their respective parishes within the meaning of that Act. It therefore becomes important that we should see that the overseers to be appointed in vestry during the present month shall be men who will see that the Conservative voters are properly entered.
  "With this view, I would venture to suggest that steps should be taken in order to secure, as far as possible, the appointment of overseers who are themselves Conservatives, and that you shall see that some one attends the vestry with that view.
  "I would venture to remind you that vestries hould return, previous to the 25th March, to he justices of their division, a list of men
  616
  qualified to serve as overseers, and this list should contain not less than three names. It is customary for the justices to prick the two top names in such list, unless there is some reason assigned to the contrary. You will, perhaps, bear this in mind, and see that those you wish appointed are proposed first.
  "I need hardly say, if any notion of the step I advise becomes known to 'the other side,' you may have difficulty in carrying out the suggestion, and therefore I must ask you to receive this letter in the strictest privacy.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "(Signed) J. TREVOR DAVIES,
  "Chief Agent;"
  and, whether such notice is a violation of the Corrupt Practices Act?
  MR. FINCH-HATTONinquired whether the Attorney General saw any primâ facie objection to what was, on the face of it, the object of the Circular—namely, that Conservative voters should be properly entered?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he had received several copies of the Circular, and he did not understand that its authenticity was denied. He regretted that there were no provisions in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act to deal with such a case as this; because when the Act was passed it was not contemplated that the appointment of overseers would be made a subject of political contest. Perhaps it would be enough that attention had been called to the subject, as he was sure no one would like to see overseers turned into political agents.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—ARMS LICENCE—NENAGH PETTY SESSIONS—CASE OF GEORGE NAPIER.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether George Napier, of Roscrea, was fined in a penalty of £2 10 s. at Nenagh Petty Sessions for having in his possession a revolver without having paid the usual Excise Licence; whether this is the same George Napier who was accused of "riotous behaviour" and "presenting a revolver at children" in the streets of Nenagh; whether he will receive sworn affidavits to the effect that, on the occasion of George Napier's trial before Petty Sessions Court at Nenagh, Major Waring used the words that—
  "The magistrates who gave the defendant licence to carry arms did not use discretion in doing so," "and that he handled the revolver

  617
  in a manner he ought not to have, done." "You are a Northman, and being such you ought to know better when and where to use arms;"
  and, whether, taking into account the published reports of these words of Major Waring, and his subsequent denial of their accuracy, he will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of this magistrate; and also whether he will furnish a Return of all licences to carry arms granted by the Roscrea magistrates?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that George Napier was fined, as stated, for not having an Excise licence, and that he is the person mentioned in the Question. I have received an explanation from Mr. Waring which satisfies me that he did not impute want of discretion to any magistrate; and I see no cause for an inquiry into his conduct, nor for a Return of the arms licences issued in the Roscrea district.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether he will accept the sworn affidavits?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member sends me any document I will inquire into it; but the magistrate has already given me a full account.

  RAILWAYS—SOUTH HETTON AND SEAHAM HARBOUR COAL RAILWAY—CASUALTY AT SEAHAM.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an accident to the rope-drawing waggons on the South Hetton and Seaham Harbour Coal Railway Line, which occurred at Seaham Harbour on Wednesday, by which seven very young children were seriously injured; and, if he will inquire whether any precautions are taken to prevent children resorting for play to the neighbourhood of the line?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had caused an inquiry; but the Report was not yet ready.

  INLAND REVENUE—SPIRIT DUTIES.
  COLONEL NOLANasked Mr. Attorney General, If it is legal to extract the spirits from sherry or other wine which has paid Duty without paying a fresh Duty on the spirit so extracted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): This is not a subject to which I have paid much attention; but I understand from the Inland Revenue that the Duty to be paid on the import of wine is a Wine Duty only; and no one can distil for the purpose of obtaining spirits without obtaining the permission of the Excise, and also paying another Duty.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—CRIMINAL RETURNS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If there would be any objection to laying upon the Table a Return of offences committed in England during the year 1884, similar to that from time to time made of offences committed in Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he believed the facts would be found in statistics already published. There would be a difficulty in publishing the facts in the same form as the Irish Returns; because in Ireland they were obtained from one authority—the Constabulary—and in England the Police Authorities were independent.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the figures would be prepared so as to he intelligible to the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would inquire.

  ASIA—SOUTH COAST OF ARABIA—H.M.SS. "DRAGON" AND "ARAB"—SEIZURE OF NATIVE FORTS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the blockade and capture from Machy Makiber of six strongly fortified forts on the Red Sea littoral, and the deportation of that chief and his followers to Aden, Whether the forts in question were or were not in British territory; if in British territory, whether Machy Makiber had committed any offence against British Law; if not in British territory, whether Machy Makiber was attacked on any ground connected with slave dealing, piracy, or any violation of International Law; what reason was given by the Indian Government which induced the Admiralty to allow two of Her Majesty's ships to be employed in the blockade and capture; did the capture of the forts involve any loss of life, Arab

  619
  or British; and, what was the cost of the operation, and has it been repaid by the Indian Government?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The forts in question were not in British territory. The reasons for the operations were, briefly, as follows:—The Chiefs of Shahr and Makulla had been at feud for many years. Both parties frequently applied to the Resident at Aden to settle their differences, and he, more than once, effected a truce. In February, 1881, the two Chiefs signed three alternative agreements, declaring that they would consider themselves bound by whichever of the three the British Government might consider the most suitable. The Government of India adopted the second of the three, which provided that the Makulla Chief should sell outright the whole of his possessions to Shahr, in accordance with a proposal made by the Makulla Chief himself, and known to be acceptable to Shahr. The Chief of Makulla, however, declined to adhere to the agreement, and commenced intrigues prejudicial to the British position at Aden and to the peace of the Persian Gulf. In the circumstances, it was decided that the agreement, which both parties had bound themselves to accept, should be enforced, and that the Chief of Shahr should be given the support of Her Majesty's ships. The capture of the forts involved no loss of life, Arab or British. The operations do not appear to have involved any expenditure outside the lump sum paid annually by the Indian to the Imperial Government for naval services, except 239 dollars for presents to various persons, and Rs.138.14.4 field allowances to the officers and men of the Dragon and Aral for services on shore at Makulla, which were defrayed from the Aden Treasury.
  DR. CAMERONasked whether it was to be understood that gunboats went there at the expense of the British taxpayers to enforce a civil contract?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir; they did not go at the expense of the British taxpayer. Their services were reckoned as included in the amount which the Indian Government pay to the British Government for naval services in the East.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he would call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Czar has approved the frontier of Afghanistan adopted in London by Lords Granville and Kimberley and Baron de Staal and M. Lessar; whether this frontier leaves General Komaroff in possession of Penjdeh; and, whether the Russian Government decline to give any pledges as to Herat and other parts of Afghanistan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No answer has yet been presented by Russia to Her Majesty's Government. I can give no details with regard to negotiations which are still going on.

  DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as recorded in the last Parliamentary Report, that 318 of the persons appointed as governors of district asylums never attended a board meeting during the year 1883; whether these persons consist chiefly of noblemen, deputy lieutenants, and justices of the peace, and are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant under statute; whether the duties devolving on governors include sanctioning the admission of patients, taking contracts, and general fiscal control; and, whether he will devise some system under which so large a number of the governors will not absent themselves from their duties?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not verified the hon. Member's figures; but, assuming them to be correct, it must be borne in mind that these Asylum Boards are very large, and that the object of having them so large is to secure, not that all these gentlemen—who have diversities of pursuits and engagements—should always attend, but that there shall always be a quorum for the transaction of the necessary business. I am not aware of any complaints of failure in this respect; and it is always in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to strengthen any Board when that is deemed necessary.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Can the Chief Secretary say whether it is not the case that for some years past the annual expenditure has increased from £53,000

  621
  to £210,000 a-year, and the average cost per head has increased by £6; and, whether he will inquire whether this is due in any way to the neglect of their duties by these gentlemen?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is entirely a matter of argument.

  FEDERAL COUNCIL OF AUSTRALASIA BILL.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, before the stage of Committee upon the Federal Council of Australasia Bill, he will present to the House a Paper showing what Agents General were present at the interview between Lord Derby and the Agents General of the Australian Colonies on 30th April last, and what Amendments, were discussed and agreed upon?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: There is no record of the interview between the Agents General and the Secretary of State, and I cannot, therefore, lay a Paper on the Table; but for the information of my hon. Friend I may say that there were present the Agents General of New South Wales, Victoria, New Zealand, Queensland, and South Australia; that he can see what Amendments were under discussion by comparing the draft Bill in Command Paper 0. 4,266 with the Bill as it lies on the Table of the House; and that all the Amendments which have been embodied in the Bill were agreed to by the Agents General, except in the case of Clause 31, no doubt a very important Amendment.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND)—IRISH ROMAN CATHOLIC CHILDREN IN ENGLISH PROTESTANT CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS—CASE OF ROSE DOYLE.
  MR. DAWSON (for Mr. GRAY)asked Mr. Attorney General, If he can state the circumstances under which the application of James Doyle, a Catholic of Dublin, made in the Queen's Bench Chamber, London, on the 13th of April 1885, before Mr. Justice Smith, for the restoration to him of his child, Rose Doyle, aged ten years, at present in a Protestant school at Ealing, was refused by the learned judge; and, if it is true that ample assurances wore given on the occasion that the child would be provided for equally well as at
  622
  Ealing, and in such a manner as to secure that she would be reared in the religion of the father, and instructed in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, in which she has been baptized?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he was not in a position to answer the Question, as he had no knowledge of the facts of the case, which had not been reported. He had not thought it right to apply to the learned Judge for information on the subject, as he did not wish to seem to discuss the decision of the learned Judge.

  ARMY—SMALL POX AT MANCHESTER—THE 5TH DRAGOON GUARDS.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has received the following Resolution from the Sanitary Authority of Newbridge and Curragh Camp, and if he will take any steps to comply with their request?—
  "13th May 1885.
  "The Board having considered the letter of the Secretary of State for War relative to removal of the 5th Dragoon Guards from Manchester to Newbridge, it was resolved that, though the regiment may be free from small-pox, we see from newspaper reports that the disease is spreading round Manchester into Salford, and that many persons, tradesmen and others, who will not be medically inspected, will accompany the regiment; under these circumstances the Board request that some arrangement may he made to either cancel the order for removal or delay it until the disease abates in Manchester.
  "(Signed) R. H. BOEROWES, Clerk.
  "G. MOLLOY, Executive Sanitary Officer."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The strictest orders have been given that no civilians shall be permitted to accompany the regiment to Ireland in any capacity whatever, unless they are medically examined and certified by the medical officer to be free from smallpox, or the danger of conveying it to others. Beyond this I cannot go. The Memorial referred to in the Question has been duly received.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask the noble Marquess whether the soldiers are not now in communication with their families, who are in communication with others, in a district admitted to be infected with small-pox?
  THE MARQUESS OE HARTINGTONsaid, it was not considered that there was any danger.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—REPORT OF SIR CHARLES WILSON.
  MR. GREERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any despatch has been received from Colonel Sir Charles Wilson since the 11th of February last; and, if so, whether he has any objection to communicate it to the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; Lord Wolseley has sent home a Report from Sir Charles Wilson, dated the 23rd of March, relative to the Expedition under his command to Khartoum. The Paper can be presented if the hon. Member will move for it.

  EXTRA POLICE TAX (IRELAND)—THE CORPORATION OF LIMERICK—LEGISLATION.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he proposes to introduce the promised measure relating to the enforcement of the claim of the Government on the Limerick Corporation in lieu of the ordinary process of existing Law?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A Bill dealing with this question will be introduced after Whitsuntide.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CAMP FOLLOWERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Indian Statesman of the 21st of April, to the effect that the impressment of the people as camp followers with the troops on the frontier is creating considerable excitement in the districts where it is being attempted, the villagers leaving their homes to avoid the conscription; and, if he can say what is the official report as to the proceedings referred to?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have seen the paragraph referred to. No official Report has reached the India Office that any such measures have been needed or taken; and I understand that no conscription is enforced in India.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—RELIEF OF KASSALA.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the Italian Government would send assistance for the
  624
  relief of the garrison of Kassala if directly pressed by Her Majesty's Government; and, whether, in the interests of humanity, he will make an earnest appeal to the Italian Government to lend a helping hand before it is too late?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Although it has been quite understood all along that the garrison of Kassala was never within the sphere of the British military operations in the Soudan, nevertheless great interest has naturally been felt in the fate of that place in consequence of the gallant manner in which the Commander and the garrison have held their post. Her Majesty's Government have considered various proposals embracing the subject of their relief, and have taken such measures and have offered such suggestions as they could properly offer; but, I am sorry to say, at present without any positive result. With regard to Italy, I am not aware of the state of facts to which the hon Gentleman refers—namely, the statement that the Italian Government is prepared to send assistance for the relief of Kassala if asked to do so by Her Majesty's Government. There have been communications with the Italian Government on the subject; but they are of a confidential character, and therefore I have nothing to state at present in regard to them.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked whether the garrisons of Kassala and Senaar were not among the garrisons which the late General Gordon wished to withdraw from the Soudan; and, whether the orders given to Admiral Hewett on his Mission to Abyssinia did not also include the withdrawal of these garrisons?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the withdrawal of these garrisons, if it could be effected, was always an object of interest to the British Government. What he had stated was that the relief of the garrison of Kassala had never been within the sphere of their military operations, and that was strictly correct.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—THE NEGOTIATIONS
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the right hon Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether the negotiations with Russia respecting the Afghanistan Frontier have been brought to a close; and, whether Papers on the

  625
  subject will be laid upon the Table tonight, as we were led to expect they would be?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the negotiations with Russia have not been brought to a conclusion. I understand from my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) that he is awaiting and expecting to receive through, the Russian Ambassador an answer from St. Petersburg to a communication which has been made respecting one portion of the frontier. Some days, however, may elapse—I cannot say how many—before an actual answer is received upon that part of the case. With regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, the Papers have been laid upon the Table, and will, I believe, be circulated to-morrow; but as the negotiations have not been concluded, we cannot give the House the whole case. The Papers will, I believe, break off at the time, if not sooner, of the incident at Penjdeh, and the remainder will be presented at as early a period as possible.
  MR. BOURKE: I intend to give Notice, although, of course, it is premature, that, considering the importance of this question, it will probably be our duty to call attention to these Papers after the Recess.

  ARMY-DEFENCE OF THE COALING STATIONS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, When it would be in his power to make any further statement with regard to the defence of their coaling stations, and with regard to the construction of guns, and the supply of steel required for such guns?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he thought the most convenient opportunity for making a statement would be on Vote 12 of the Army Estimates. He would then endeavour to give the Committee of Supply the fullest information in his power, both as to the expenditure on the ordinary Vote, and also as to the expenditure which had taken place on the Vote of Credit.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM SUAKIN.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any further information could be given as to
  626
  the withdrawal of any portion of the British Forces from Suakin?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not able to state yet the final arrangements as to the strength and disposition of the garrison at Suakin and the neighbouring positions. All I can say at present is that orders have been sent for the return of the Brigade of Guards as soon as possible, and that arrangements have been made for the return to Australia of the Australian Contingent.
  COLONEL STANLEY: Might I ask upon that point whether it is intended before the Australian Contingent returns to Australia that they, either as a whole or any detachment of them, should have an opportunity of coming to this country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That subject has been considered; but it has not been found that satisfactory or convenient arrangements for that purpose could be made. I do not think I could give any further information without Notice; but no official arrangements have been made on the subject.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he would repeat the Question on a future occasion.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. BULWER Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. BULWER rose together amid some cries of Order.
  MR. BULWER: I wish, Sir, to ask a Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have to fulfil an engagement on the part of the Government, that I would to-day mention to the House any Bills which might be considered of first-class importance which we intend to introduce during the present Session. In fulfilling that engagement I will confine myself strictly to matters of fact, and shall make no reference to some important Bills for the amendment of the law in England which are now in the House of Lords. Neither shall I refer to Bills of considerable importance that are already on the Notice Paper of this House with respect to England. The time has not

  627
  arrived when it would be possible to give to the House information which is usually given at the close of the Session with regard to any conclusions which the Government may have arrived at as to the withdrawal of certain Bills or proceeding with them. I will only venture to remind the House that we are now not at the beginning of a Session, and that, therefore, we shall not present to the House a list of Bills framed as if we were. We are, as I conceive, much nearer to the close of the Session than the beginning; and although many will, no doubt, be disappointed at the inability of the House to prosecute certain important and interesting subjects of legislation, yet we have this consolation—that the House has accomplished a very great legislative work already—a work, perhaps, quite enough in itself to commemorate this Session as one distinguished in the important description of its Business. The Bills which we intend to introduce are these. I may mention one Bill, though it is now on the Paper, and therefore not strictly within the purview of what I have to say—namely, the Crofters Bill, because that is a Bill to which we not only attach a very great deal of importance, but to which we also think it our duty to give a special precedence in order to its being passed into law at a very early period, if, happily, it meet with the approval of the House. There is also a Bill before the House of Lords relating to Scotland—namely, the Scottish Secretary Bill, which has just been introduced there, and which we hope will reach this House, and which we are very desirous to see passed into law. With regard to Wales, we propose to introduce a measure for the promotion of intermediate education; and in order that we may give that Bill every chance which it is in our power to afford, we propose to introduce it on a very early day—I hope, certainly, before Whitsuntide. With respect to Ireland, of course there is one subject which is not a matter of choice but of necessity for us to consider—namely, the subject of the Prevention of Crime Act. Upon that subject I have to say, without entering into any detail, which would be quite contrary to the rule and practice of the House, that we shall embody various provisions of that Act which we deem to be both valuable and equitable
  628
  in a Bill, and it will be our duty to press it upon the attention of the House with a view to its being passed into law. There are two other subjects on which we should have been most anxious had the circumstances of the Session been more favourable—that is to say, had not the House of Commons gone through already so much exhausting labour—there are two other subjects upon which we should have been most desirous to present measures to the House, one of them relating to local government in Ireland, and the other relating to land purchase in Ireland. I will not attempt to determine at this moment the comparative value of those measures, which may be differently viewed by different persons, and by different sections of the House; but I will say that both of them are measures with regard to which the Government feel that they have unfulfilled obligations, and it is a matter to them of great regret that they cannot ask the House to deal with either of them during what remains of the present Session in a satisfactory manner. ["Oh, oh!"] I am bound to say that some indications which have just reached my ears do not at all seem to weaken any opinion I might formerly have entertained as to the duty which we have with respect to those subjects, and as to the fact, very much to be regretted, that we have no power of redeeming this obligation during this year. So that, having referred to the Bills with regard to Scotland already before Parliament, and that there are important Bills in the House of Lords, I have only to mention the proposal we shall feel it our duty to make in regard to the subject-matter now touched by the Prevention of Crime Act, and also to ask the favourable attention of the House to the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill when it is introduced. I may say, with respect to the Prevention of Crime Act that we shall endeavour to find a very early day for the introduction of the Bill to which I have referred, but it will be after the Whitsuntide Recess.
  MR. BULWER,as a point of Order, wished to know whether it was competent for the Prime Minister, or any other Member of the House, after answering a Question, to proceed to make a statement having no reference to the Question answered, and so prevent another iron. Member from putting a

  629
  Question, as he was about to do when the right hon. Gentleman interposed his statement?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was quite regular. He was making a statement, and had not finished it when the hon. and learned Gentleman put his Question; and the hon. and learned Gentleman can put any Question he pleases after the right hon. Gentleman has sat down.
  MR. GORST: With reference to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, we understood him to say there were certain valuable and equitable provisions of the expiring Irish Act which he proposed to renew. I wish to know whether those valuable and equitable provisions will, when renewed, apply to Ireland only, or to the United Kingdom generally?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think I ought to enter upon any explanation with regard to the particulars of the Act. The best satisfaction I can give to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to the House, is the engagement I have entered into, that we will endeavour to find an early opportunity after Whitsuntide of introducing the Bill.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked when the second reading of the East India Loan Bill would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not name a day for the second reading; but every facility for the discussion of the subject would be afforded. With regard to the course of Business next week, on Monday the Government proposed to proceed in Committee of Supply in the first instance with a Vote on Account, which it was necessary to take; secondly, they proposed to hear the statement of the Lord Advocate on the Crofters Bill, and to obtain the first reading of that measure; and, thirdly, they proposed to take the Telegraphs Acts Amendment Bill. On Tuesday and Wednesday, as the House was aware, they would have no control over the proceedings. On Monday he hoped to be able to state exactly what they intended to do on Thursday. The Government were anxious to make what might be found the most convenient arrangement with regard to moving the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess; but he could not state until Monday what that arrangement would be.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What is the amount of the Vote on Account?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is for six weeks.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Considering the disappointment there will be that there is to be no remedial legislation for Ireland this year, I would earnestly beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether one very small measure might not be introduced—that is to say, such an amendment of the Tramways Act as will enable railways to be made in the South and West of Ireland, for which that measure was specially intended?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Nothing I have said would preclude the consideration of any proposal of the kind. I am only under a pledge to the House to state what Bills might be considered of first-class importance which would be undertaken by the Government in the present Session. When my hon. Friend says there has been no remedial legislation for Ireland this year, I would remind him that Ireland has received this year an Act of enfranchisement. [Derisive laughter from the Irish Members.] I think I heard expressions of ridicule; but I hope that measure may be considered in the nature of remedial legislation.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he meant legislation special to Ireland.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government intend to take any measures for passing the second reading of the Labourers Act before the introduction of their new Coercion Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not used the expression "Coercion Bill." ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Members.] Well, it is best to keep our good humour under all circumstances. We are very desirous of securing an opportunity of going forward with the Labourers Bill; but I am not in a positon to give a particular pledge about it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: With reference to the answer given by the Prime Minister to an hon. Member opposite, I wish to ask, if it should be the intention to extend any of the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act to the United Kingdom, whether he will give fair Notice of such intention on the part of the Government, so that the people of Eng-

  631
  land may know that they, too, are to he subject to coercion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will certainly undertake that anything that is done in relation to the subject-matter now embraced in the Prevention of Crime Act will be done with fair Notice.
  MR. SEXTONasked for what period it was proposed to ask the House to renew the Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That will be one of the provisions of the Bill; and if I state one provision of the Bill, there is no reason why I should not state the others.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—"THE PENJDEH INCIDENT"—THE PAPERS.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of his answer to the Leader of the Opposition. Do I understand him to say that we are to expect no Papers relating to the Penjdeh incident until the negotiations with regard to the proposed agreement with Kussia are completed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; It is not my duty to prepare those Papers, and the Question had better be addressed to my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). I understand the Papers now laid on the Table come down to the Penjdeh incident, and that they do not come later than the Penjdeh incident, and it is not thought there would be any advantage in laying later Papers until the matter is concluded. We trust the conclusion may be very near at hand.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—A RUSSIAN ENVOY AT CABUL.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of some importance. A statement has appeared in the papers that the Russian Government had sent an intimation that they wished to send an Envoy to Cabul. In the interests of the peace of India, I should like to know if that statement is true; and, if it is not, that there may be an opportunity given of contradicting it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I know nothing of any such application on the part of Russia.

  THE PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE VATICAN—MR. ERRINGTON.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked, Whether it was true, as stated in The Standard, that the authorities of the Vatican had given to Mr. Errington three names for submission to the English Government with reference to the appointment to the See of Dublin; and, whether the Government were now considering which of the three names they would recommend?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As far as I am concerned, I know nothing, and I will go further, and say I believe nothing. I have read The Standard with considerable care; but I am afraid I missed that paragraph.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—RELIEF OF KASSALA.
  MR. O'KELLYasked, Whether any steps had been taken on the part of Her Majesty's Government or of the Government of the Khedive to inform the Governor or Commander at Kassala that no effort was to he made to relieve the garrison, and to advise a surrender in order to prevent a massacre?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My information is only general, and I cannot answer the Question; but if the hon. Member will give Notice of it, I will take care to obtain as good an answer as I can.

  SEA COAST FISHERIES—FISHING VESSELS—TRAWLERS' LIGHTS.
  In reply to Mr. BIRKBECK,
  MR. CHAMBERLAINstated that he was glad to say that he thought they had at last arrived at a satisfactory settlement of the somewhat difficult question of trawlers' lights. The fact was that various bodies of smack owners had from time to time made alternative suggestions for the use of a distinctive light for smack owners and trawlers, and some months ago the Board of Trade sanctioned one of these proposals in the shape of what was known as the duplex lantern. That lantern had now been legalized, and would continue a legal light. The sailing smack owners, or a considerable proportion of them, had expressed preference for a white light at the masthead, together with the use of a flare, and the Board of Trade had come to the conclusion that it would be

  633
  their duty to recommend that this light also should be sanctioned upon certain conditions, which, he was glad to say, had been mutually agreed to.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—"THE PENJDEH INCIDENT"—THE PAPERS.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Prime Minister, Whether he could give the House a clearer indication when the Papers relating to the Penjdeh incident would be presented, and whether they might be expected before Whitsuntide? The right hon. Gentleman had, on the night of the division, told the House of Commons that the ratification of the proposed agreement would certainly be received, or was expected, within two or three days at latest. Several days had elapsed since then, and now it appeared that there was to be an indefinite delay.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I never stated that I could name a day within two or three days within which the negotiations would be concluded. What I certainly did was to express my opinion that it would be desirable that the House should have the whole case before it. That, I am afraid, is not quite possible. I cannot undertake to say—if it depended on ourselves exclusively I could say very well—but I cannot undertake to say absolutely, as it does not depend upon us, by what day the negotiations will have concluded. Therefore, I cannot promise to give the entire Papers by a particular day. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious that the Papers should be given at as late a day as they can be given before the Whitsuntide Recess, I myself will communicate with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with a view to see whether anything of that kind may be done.
  MR. BOURKEasked whether the Papers ordinarily coming from the India Office and those relating to the conference at Rawul Pindi, and also the despatch of the Earl of Dufferin with respect to the Russo-Afghan Frontier, would be included in those to be presented to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that the Papers which come direct from the India Office will be more conveniently included in those presented.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

FORESTRY.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,in rising to call attention to the state of Forestry in this country; and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether, by the establishment of a Forest School, or otherwise, our Woodlands could be rendered more remunerative,"
  said, that, as last year he had the opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, he would not trespass long on their indulgence. The subject was one of considerable importance. England was almost the only country without a Forest School. Such institutions existed in Prussia, Saxony, Hanover, France, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Russia, and, in fact, in almost every other country. The need for a Forest School in England had by no means reference only to the State forests. There were some 2,800,000 acres under wood; while, in the Colonies, the forests were estimated to cover no less than 340,000,000 acres. In fact, our interests in this respect were larger than those of any other country in the world. He would only give two instances out of many which might be quoted to show how much might be effected in this direction. Thirty years ago, the Landes was one of the poorest and most wretched regions in France. It had been judiciously planted, and was now one of the most prosperous. The increase of value was estimated at no less than £40,000,000. In India, 15 years ago, the net forest revenue was only £52,000; while, since the establishment of a Forest Department, it had risen to over £400,000, which, of course, would represent an immense increase in capital value. Competent authorities had estimated that there were over 5,000,000 acres of land in this country which might be planted with advantage. M. Boppe, one of the greatest French authorities, had recently visited this country on behalf of the India Office, and clearly indicated his

  635
  opinion, though he expressed it as courteously as possible, that we were behind other countries in the management of our woodlands. Our own highest authorities were of the same opinion. Mr. Brown, in his standard work on Forestry, said that—
  "If our woodlands had been judiciously managed, we should not find so great a part of the woodlands of Great Britain in the unprofitable state in which they are."
  Mr. Cruikshank, in his Practical Forester, said that—
  "Nothing was more common than to see trees planted in situations for which they were utterly unsuited,"
  and he gave many illustrations. The Journal of Horticulture said that—
  "It is little less than deplorable to witness the miles of woods that are practically valueless from a commercial point of view, whereas, under skilled supervision, they might yield a substantial revenue to their owners, and in addition be an advantage to the trading and agricultural community."
  And the same view has been ably advocated by The Journal of Forestry. At a recent meeting of the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs of Scotland, held in Edinburgh on the 8th of April last, on the motion of the Lord Provost a unanimous resolution was adopted in support of the Motion which he had the honour of moving. Indeed, so necessary was a scientific training that the officers intended for the Indian Forest Service were sent to study at Nancy. No doubt, that was an admirable institution; but, naturally enough, it was specially adapted to French requirements. For instance, one of the subjects was French law; again, of course, French technical terms were used. The India Office proposed, he believed, that a part of the course should in future be passed at Cooper's Hill, but that the students should spend some time in France to study the practical part. The fact that we had to send our young officials to a foreign School of Forestry was an acknowledgment of the truth of two things—first, the advantage and importance of the systematic course of training of those who were to be engaged in the management of woodlands; and second, that such systematic training could not be obtained in this country. With respect to the latter point, he was informed that the West Indies having recently applied to the Colonial Office for some-
  636
  one to advise them on their Forest management, it had been impossible to find any person in this country competent to do so. The Cape of Good Hope and Cyprus had also been compelled to intrust their forests to foreigners. They were indebted to the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) for several interesting reports on Forest management; but he would leave his hon. Friend to deal with them. The present was, for two reasons, a particularly favourable time for the inquiry he proposed; because Dr. Schlich, the head of the Indian Forest Service, was now in England, and, he believed, that this was also the case with his predecessor, Dr. Brandis. They would, therefore, have the advantage of the advice and co-operation of both those gentlemen. He believed, secondly, those gentlemen were, with the India Office, engaged in considering the organization of the instruction of Indian officials on the subject. He was always reluctant to ask the aid of the Government for any object that could be effected by private enterprize; but it was almost impossible for private individuals to establish for themselves a satisfactory Forest School. It was, indeed, a case which could not be left altogether to private enterprize, because a Forest School necessarily required access to a considerable area of forest. If a well-organized Forest School was established, the Indian students would afford a valuable nucleus in the first instance. He did not, however, wish to express any decided opinion in favour of the establishment of a Government School of Forestry. It was a subject for inquiry, and he thought it at least worthy of consideration whether some intermediate system might be adopted which would enable some one or more existing institutions to benefit by the national forests and woodlands for the instructions of young persons in forestry. He also urged the appointment of this Committee, on the ground that anything which tended to revive the interests of agriculture was of the greatest importance and ought to be encouraged. At present, the landed interest was so greatly depressed that they ought not to neglect any step by which its condition might be improved. To show the demand for timber, he reminded the House that our annual import was about £16,000,000. He believed that the average income derived

  637
  from woodlands might be substantially increased. Moreover, he thought it was clearly desirable that the whole question should be investigated, before the Government committed themselves to a new system of training for the Indian Forest officials. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would consider that he had made out a strong case, at any rate, for inquiry, and that the House would accede to his Motion. In conclusion, he begged to move for the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.
  DR. LYONS,in seconding the Motion, said, he would remind hon. Members that he had, for some years past, called attention to this subject in connection with Ireland. It was, undoubtedly, the case that, of late years, a very considerable diminution had taken place in the amount of wood planted. Ireland had formerly been able to carry on a large amount of iron smelting by means of her wood, and the smelting had come to an end when the supply of wood had ceased. He had to thank the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) for the ready assistance which they had given him in investigating the important subject of Forestry. In Reports, which included the greater portion of Europe, it was clearly laid down that those countries could no longer afford to export an unlimited amount of timber to this country. It was the same with regard to the United States and to Canada, where the timber had been recklessly cut down, and where constant forest fires destroyed as much timber as would have supplied European demands for some years. The hon. Baronet the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock) had referred to our timber imports as amounting to £16,000,000. That Return, he (Dr. Lyons) thought, must refer to timber alone, without other Forest produce, such as tar, pitch, resin, and bark. The whole of the Forest produce imported into this country really amounted to about £30,000,000. With regard to European countries, France was not in a position to supply all her own industrial wants, but was importing a large amount of timber every year. We must also look for a cessation of the timber
  638
  supply from the Baltic in a very short time; the countries in that neighbourhood had lately been supplying small timber, which showed that they were cutting down miniature trees. There could be no doubt that a vast amount of good had been done by the enclosure of existing forests, and the planting of new ones; and equally certain was it that one of the main economic causes which had hindered the progress of Ireland had been the destruction of her forests. The forests had been destroyed, partly in order to prevent the natives from sheltering there from their oppressors, and partly for smelting purposes. The amount of woodland in Ireland was decreasing; there were now 45,000 acres less than in 1841. The total amount of timber now standing in Ireland was only 350,000 acres. How much that was below the amount of woodland Ireland ought to possess, was seen from the fact that the best authorities had held that to keep a country in good order and insure the proper growth of crops from one-third to one-fourth ought to be protected by woodland. Moreover, it had been conclusively proved that the absence of forests was productive of torrential rains, which caused much devastation along the course of the natural systems of drainage in a country. The amount of woodland possessed by Great Britain, though much larger in proportion than that of Ireland, was small compared with other countries. In Prussia there were 34,000,000 acres, in France 22,000,000 acres, in Austria 23,000,000 acres, and in Hungary 22,000,000 acres of woodland. To the excellent management and cultivation of her forests he believed that the present prosperity of Hungary was in a great measure due. It had been well and truly said that shelter was as good as half food for cattle, and he had no hesitation in saying that the amount of timber in the British Empire was infinitely below what it ought to be for the proper protection of the soil, the proper protection of flocks and herds, and for the general development of industry. The question of our timber supplies was of the greatest agricultural, commercial, and industrial importance to this country. At present, a large amount of timber was imported into this country; and if, through the breaking out of war, one single year's

  639
  supply was stopped, many industries would be ruined, probably, for five years to come. How much might be done by the State for Forestry was, he thought, shown by the conduct of our Indian Government. The Indian Forestry Department had saved the Indian Forests from the destruction and devastation to which they were rapidly becoming a prey, and had made their administration financially and in every way a great success.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider, whether, by the establishment of a Forest School or otherwise, our Woodlands could be rendered more remunerative,"—(Sir John Lubbock,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsupported the Motion. He said, that it was Dr. Johnson who, on the occasion of his visit to Scotland, said that during the whole of his travels in that country he only noticed two trees which were large enough to hang a man upon. If that was a true picture of Scotland at that time, it must be said that the face of the country had been very much altered, and that they were fairly entitled to put forward a claim for encouragement by the Government, inasmuch as they had done a great deal for themselves—private enterprize had undoubtedly done a great deal to reafforest many of the barren hillsides of Scotland. He might instance the county of Inverness, which now contained over 900,000 acres of woodland—he thought the largest area of woodland in any county in the United Kingdom, not even excepting Yorkshire. Perhaps no stronger argument could be put forward in favour of the appointment of the Committee, as suggested, than that used by the hon. Baronet the Mover of the Motion (Sir John Lubbock), when he said that this was the only great country of Europe which took no notice at all of the national property in its forests. The hon. Baronet had said that we had 3,000,000 acres under wood in England, and yet, as regarded the proper management of that immense property, the Government did absolutely nothing. On the con-
  640
  trary, the Government, not very long ago, offered a direct discouragement to the formation of additional woodlands when the Act was passed for rating of woodlands. He did not complain of woodlands being rated. They were property, and as such should be rated; but, nevertheless, it was a discouragement to those who were inclined to continue planting to find that what must for some time to come be their most unremunerative property was to be subject to rating. What might they expect from the sittings of the proposed Committee? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said yesterday that little could be expected from a Committee at this period of the Session. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Then he must have misunderstood him. If they were not to expect the establishment of a School of Forestry in this country, an immense amount of information would, at all events, be collected and placed at the disposal of the public. It might be asked, what was the difference between Forestry and any other description of culture, such as horticulture? Why should the State be expected to take steps to encourage Forestry? There was this great distinction between Forestry and all other sorts of rural industry—namely, that it called for an amount of foresight, and patience, and self-denial on the part of those engaged in it which was not the case to the same extent with such pursuits as agriculture and horticulture. The returns were not immediate. They might expect, from the labours of this Committee, that it would make accessible to the public a vast amount of knowledge in regard to Forestry, which was not at present accessible to them. They might expect that information would be collected as to the best kinds of timber to plant. There was an immense quantity of money wasted just now in mistaken Forestry operations. No one who had spent any portion of his life in studying the subject could fail to be distressed in going through the country to see hundreds and thousands of acres of neglected woodland. Considering the amount of private energy and self-denial involved in the formation of woodlands, it was not too much to ask the Government of this country to recognize that, and to take steps to place within the reach of the public the best

  641
  possible information on the subject. The present Prime Minister, as they all knew, took a great deal of pleasure in some of the pursuits connected with the arboriculture of the country; audit was surely not too much to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would extend his energies to the constructive arts of arboriculture as well as to the destructive arts.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer the earnest appeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell); but I am sorry to say I must accompany my complete answer to that appeal with a criticism on the manner of it, and the phrase which he has employed. The hon. Gentleman said he hoped I would consent to extend my energies, and add constructive to destructive arts in respect to arboriculture. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have been disposed to contend—as I am disposed to contend—that those who cut down the trees are the only true Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman said, most truly, that there are multitudes of ill-managed woods in this country. Why are they so ill-managed? Simply because of the superstition of their owners, which prevents thorn from properly thinning and clearing them. I am prepared to contend that there is nothing that does more to increase the ground of complaint with respect to the condition of our woods and plantations in general, than that superstition of a multitude of their owners, which leads them to think that it is a kind of sacrilege to cut down a tree; and, moreover, it tends to injure their woods, instead of its being the only ready way of keeping them in a good condition. I agree cordially with the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, in thinking that it is quite worth while to appoint the Committee proposed by my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock); but I must make a certain reservation. I do not wish to be bound, on the part of the Government, to the establishment of any Forestry School, and I will give the reasons why I do not think there should be any foregone conclusion upon that subject. My hon. Friend who made this Motion—and I feel we are indebted to him and to those who have supported it—has spoken of the Forestry Schools that were instituted abroad. Now, that is quite true; but there are two observations to be made—first of all, that in
  642
  foreign countries they depend much more on the direct aid of Government than we do in this country; and, secondly, that the scale of operations to be conducted is infinitely larger. I am not quite sure that we are all agreed as to the amount of field that is open. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated, I think, that in the county of Inverness there were 900.000 acres of wood. I am convinced that that must be a complete error on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and that there can be nothing approaching to that figure in the county of Inverness. In fact, I have heard from those who have looked into the subject that the whole amount of woodland in Scotland does not reach. 900.000 acres. T would not venture to give a confident opinion upon that matter; but I am convinced it is an error to say that there are 900,000, or anything like 900,000 acres of woodland in Inverness.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I may have been wrong in the figure I have given; but of this I am sure, that the acreage under wood in Inverness is larger than in any other county in the United Kingdom.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not wish to contest that point. There are very large acreages in one or two other Scottish counties; but I am convinced that they do not amount to anything like the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I think it is 400,000 acres.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I could not afford even that. My hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) was understood by me to say that there were 2,800,000 acres of wood in England. I am disposed to question that figure also.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: That includes Scotland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: At all events, I believe this, that there is plenty of room for improvement in the management of woods in this country. Everything is done almost at haphazard. There is no fixed tradition, there is no authoritative system, and I may say, though the land agents are a body of men quite as intelligent as any other class in the community, and in many esses of very high intelligence indeed, yet it is rare to find a land agent, as far as I know, who has

  643
  any practical or useful knowledge of Forestry. You will find them men admirably qualified for every other department of their duty, and yet unable to lend assistance in this respect. I said I wished to be quite free on the question of the establishment of a Forestry School, and I mentioned one reason why we should be free. But another matter is this—allusion has been most properly made to the study of Forestry in India; and eulogiums have been pronounced, which I believe to be hardly deserved, upon the leading servants of the Indian Government who have been connected with that interesting subject. The Indian Government has had the most special reasons for giving attention to it. First of all there was the great question whether, when pursued on a large and systematic scale, it was possible to make Forestry profitable, which hitherto it had not been. I certainly have the hope that that question either has received, or is in course of receiving, a satisfactory answer in the Indian Dominions of Her Majesty. But, besides that, it must be recollected that in India there have been most important reasons connected with climate, with the provision of a due supply of moisture in the air, and with the regular growth of the food of the people, which are not present here, and which give an altogether extraordinary importance to the subject of Forestry in India. But the Indian Government had, and still has, a School of Forestry in India as well as in England; and that latter school it should be known, as I understand, though it belongs to the Indian Government, is not in any way confined to persons connected with India, or contemplating residence in India. I understand it is allowed to anyone desirous, and able to pay the necessary fees, to be a candidate for admission to that school. It is possible that very valuable assistance may be derived from that school for the purposes of afforesting in England. But I think that besides the comparatively limited scale of operations in this country we have some other difficulties to deal with which ought not to be left out of view. First, our woods are so broken down into detail, that the number of properties on which there is the amount of wood that would admit of the large application of systematic training is not great. I myself have had a good deal to do
  644
  with one estate, which, although not so large in regard to growth of timber as some estates in Scotland, is almost as large as any in England. It has somewhere about 6,000 or 7.000 acres of wood, and that is a growth extremely rare, not in Scotland, but in England. But besides the fact that our woods are so cut down into small bits of patchwork on the face of the country, it must never be forgotten that they are not kept here to any large extent for the purpose of profit as woods, but for the purposes of landscape beauty, and of pleasure and of sport—of sport above all. All these things must go, I think, to moderate our expectations as to what can be done; but, at the same time, it is quite true that my interest in these subjects has certainly caused me constantly to observe, from the manner in which woods are managed, and the degree of accomplishment and attainment brought to the management of them, how much might be gained if there were more of common tradition on the subject—which common tradition must be the fruit of a good deal of training. There are some parts in this country—in the Midland counties—where, I believe, the art of woodcutting is practised with a nicety, and, I believe, with an actual beauty, which is not to be found anywhere else; but there are other parts where scarcely anyone knows how to cut down a tree. That deficiency indicates a general want of attention to the subject. I will not enter any further into the matter. The subject is one of very great interest; and I have some considerable hope that great utility will arise from the inquiries of this Committee. I think the hon. Member who has just sat down ^Sir Herbert Maxwell) did not catch exactly what I said yesterday with regard to the appointment of Select Committees at this period of the Session. What I did say was that it was unadvisable at this period of the Session to appoint a Select Committee to conduct inquiries which could not produce satisfactory results; but as regards the Select Committee now asked for, in the first place, my hon. Friend who has asked for it has given special reasons why at this moment the appointment should be made; and, in the second place, although it is true that the working time will be short, and that a Dissolution is likely to intervene between this Session and next, still

  645
  a partial inquiry this Session may perfectly well be made, and taken up in a future Session and carried on to its completion. Therefore, it will be understood that we remain perfectly free with respect to the direction which the inquiries of the Committee may take, and the recommendations it may make, upon which it will be the duty of the responsible Ministers of the Crown for the time being to pass judgment. With that due and just reservation, I can give my hearty support to the proposal, and I sincerely hope that very great benefit may result from the inquiries which the Committee may make.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) for having brought forward the subject; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was greatly pleased at the acceptance of the Motion by the Government, for he quite agreed with the remarks that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, to the effect that the art of thinning out trees had I been tremendously neglected in this! country. It was one of those subjects which required large study, and ought to be more cultivated than it was. Few men know how to thin a plantation, and scarcely two would agree as to the proper time when the thinning should take place. It was on this account that our plantations in England had suffered so severely. He also agreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the area of land under wood in this country. He did not think that anything like the area was under wood which had been stated by some hon. Members. In the county of Sussex they had turned their attention towards growing timber, but especially underwood for the purpose of providing hop poles, hoops, and other matters, and had greatly increased the value of these woods, though he was very sorry to say that lately, not only had timber and bark fallen, but underwoods had been reduced in value quite 35 per cent. An additional result was that they found employment for large numbers of poor people during the winter months. In pursuing that course, however, they could not shut their eyes to the fact which he had just stated, that the value of this underwood and timber had
  646
  greatly depreciated; and he was afraid it would not be until there was a diminution of the supply from abroad that the value of timber in this country would rise to a fair level. He was informed, however, that nearly all the timber near the rivers of America, and except in the interior of France, Italy, and Spain, had been cut, and there was but little chance of many large supplies reaching us in the future from those countries. Therefore, there was every opportunity for the profitable growth of woods and timber; and he hoped that we, in this country, should not neglect planting such kinds as would grow fairly well on land that was not good for agricultural purposes. He believed that this Committee would do a great deal of good, and he should be glad if one of the results of the inquiry was to teach young men the art of cultivating timber. As it was, there was considerable difficulty in getting men to manage woods properly. He hoped that the general result of their labours would be to increase the growth of timber everywhere, giving increased employment to the working classes in the winter which it was hardly possible to procure in any other way.
  DR. FABQUHARSONsaid, he had great pleasure in congratulating the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) on the acceptance of his Motion by the Government. He (Dr. Farquharson) was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that at length Forest culture was to be placed in this country upon a satisfactory basis. He (Dr. Farquharson) came from a part of the country where a great deal of planting was going on, and which was well known, to the Prime Minister; and although that planting was conducted liberally, largely, and well, yet there was in it a little too much of the haphazard mode of which they had just heard. They heard a great deal in these days of increasing the agricultural output of the soil; but they heard very little about the great increase in the value of their land, which might result from a proper method of planting and growing trees on waste land. A great deal of waste land had been taken in for agricultural purposes which would never repay the expense; whereas, if it were planted, they would obtain an excellent crop of trees which would pay in every case,

  647
  and which would confer great benefits on the country in the improvement of the climate and in other ways. He thought it was discreditable that (hey had to send to France or Germany to learn a science which their young men might as well learn at home, if they had the proper materials; for he was sure that if they had in Scotland sufficient opportunity, they would be able, from the excellent woods there, to teach the young men how planting should be carried on. As an instance, he would call the attention of hon. Members to (he afforesting operations on the property of Lord Seafield, so admirably managed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce). At the present time, he had a successor to a forester who was very-anxious to obtain some instruction, so as to be able to do things on a better and more scientific scale, and he did not know where to get opportunities of instruction without sending him abroad at great expense. He should hope that, in future years, he would get that instruction at home. He was very glad to hear of the appointment of this Committee, for he was certain that from its deliberations great good would ensue. There were many thousands of acres of waste land in England that might very profitably be afforested.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the discussion came very appropriately at a time when the Committee on Irish Industries was sitting; and he had no doubt that the two Committees would recommend the Government to take greater interest than they bad hither to done in the development of those industries, including Forestry, especially as there was no part of the United Kingdom where improved methods of Forestry would be of more advantage than in Ireland. The hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons), who had made himself remarkable by devotion to this question, had dealt instructively with many branches of the subject; but there was one to which he had not referred—namely, the fact that whilst we taught our poorer children all sorts of useless subjects, we gave them no instruction in those technical arts by which they could obtain a livelihood. In the Black Forest and in Switzerland the young people were profitably employed in making the
  648
  thousands of toys which were imported into this country. There was no reason why many thousands of our unemployed and starving population might not find the means of subsistence in this industry. The Prime Minister had deprecated the interference of the State; hut the State had, in Holland, reclaimed the land from the sea, and here, at home, as he (Mr. Dawson) had said, was expending its resources in teaching many subjects to the children of the poor, which, from, a wage-earning point of view, were absolutely useless. It would be much wiser that children should receive good technical training in the trades by which they were to make their living.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was glad that the Government had consented to the appointment of the Committee; and he took as an illustration of the gross ignorance on this subject the wretched condition of the trees in Kensington Gardens. He thought one had no need to go further than that locality to see what a lamentable want existed of scientific Forestry in this country. With regard to the Indian Forest Department, great compliments were paid to it; but he (Sir George Campbell) considered they were a little too laudatory. No doubt, the Indian Government had honestly desired to establish it efficiently, and had been as successful as could reasonably be hoped; but yet it had not been so successful as some people seemed to think, because they had net had here at head-quarters a School which would be a foundation from which young men could be sent out to do good. Whatever had been done of good had been done by sending young men abroad to France and Germany, where, on account of ignorance of the language and otherwise, they laboured under disadvantages. The Indian Forestry Department had been petted and praised in anticipation; but it had not yet succeeded in establishing scientific Forestry, and its receipts were derived largely from cutting down wood, giving it something of the nature of a commercial Department.
  MR. ACKERSsaid, he was gratified to find that for once England, Scotland, and Ireland were thoroughly united on this matter, for the subject was one in which the Three Kingdoms were equally interested. There was no good School

  649
  of Forestry in the country; and nobody need go farther than our magnificent Parks and Gardens to see that the art of Forestry was absolutely unknown in this country. Thousands of our best trees were killed because similar treatment was apparently applied to all trees alike, and it did not appear to be known that what, was good for one true killed another. While agreeing with the Prime Minister that there should be no foregone conclusion, he hoped the matter would not be entered upon with the idea that a School of Forestry was not necessary, and that Government assistance should not be given to it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee he appointed to consider whether, by the establishment of a Forest School, or otherwise, our woodlands could be rendered more remunerative.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELANP)-CASE OF THE BROTHERS DELAHUNTY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. KENNYrose to call attention to the conviction and sentence of the Brothers Delahunty at the Cork Winter Assizes of 1882; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of justice, that inquiry be granted by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to investigate certain important matters which have since transpired calculated to throw material doubt upon the original conviction,"
  when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at five minutes after Seven o'clock till Monday next.