Commons Sitting of 12 March 1886

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Parliamentary Procedure, nominated.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee — Committee deferred—Resolutions [March 11] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order) — Second Reading — Scinde, Punjaub, and Delhi Railway Company.*
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Infants* [139]; High Court of Justice (Provincial Sittings) * [140].
Committee—Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment [10]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
  MR. THEODORE FRYasked the Vice President of the Committee

  625
  of Council, If he will bring in a Bill to alter the hours of polling at School Board elections, making them the same as those in force on other occasions, as the present limit practically disfranchises large numbers of voters?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): The Education Department has received very few representations from School Boards desiring the extension of the hours of polling beyond seven hours. No Act is required for the purpose, as the extension of hours could be made in the General Order regulating the elections. But as the expense to the ratepayers would be increased, the Department has not thought it judicious to extend the hours of polling beyond seven hours until there is either a general expression of desire on the part of the School Boards or a Resolution of this House that the time for polling should be assimilated to that for the School Board for London, which is now from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—POLICEMEN AS TENANTS OF AN EVICTED FARM—CASE OF SERGEANT O'DONNELL.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Charles O'Donnell, a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary, at present stationed at Castleisland, county Kerry, has become the tenant of an evicted farm near Newport, county Mayo; and, if so, whether it is in accordance with the rules of the service for police constables to engage in the business of farming?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sergeant O'Donnell is not the tenant of an evicted farm at Newport, County Mayo. He is the trustee of a farm there, and is no way engaged in farming. The instruction to the Force is that the men should not hold farms or engage in agricultural pursuits in the district or county in which they are engaged. Sergeant O'Donnell is not stationed in the County Mayo, but in Kerry.

  BURMAH.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is proposed by Her
  626
  Majesty's Indian Government to continue the system of leasing monopolies in timber and other productions of Upper Burmah which existed under the late rule?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): No information has been received from India on this subject; but in ordinary circumstances the fiscal policy of the Government of India is opposed to monopolies.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—HOWTH HARBOUR.
  MR. CLANCYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that the Royal Harbour of Howth has not been dredged for nearly twenty years; whether the offal of the last dredging has turned into a sandbank, dangerous to life and property; and, whether, in consequence of the length of time that has elapsed since the last dredging, as well as because of the effect of the fashionable promenade called a pier, in helping the collection of stones and sand at the mouth of the harbour, the water there has become so shallow that boats have to remain for four hours at low tide before they can either enter or leave the harbour; and, if so, what steps the Board of Trade proposes to take towards rendering the principal fishing station on the East Coast of Ireland suitable for its purpose?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said: The Royal Harbour at Howth, which is under the control of the Commissioners of Public Works of Ireland, and not the Board of Trade, has not been dredged for nearly 20 years. Like all similarly situated harbours, it has a tendency to silt. The sea rises 10 feet in four hours, and fishing boats of ordinary draught enter the harbour in much less than that time. It is not considered desirable to spend any money on the harbour on account of the great decrease of the herring fishery, for the convenience of which the harbour practically exists. I regret to say that for some years the herring has deserted the East Coast, and Howth in particular. As an instance I might mention that some 10 years ago there

  627
  were caught in one day as many herrings as were taken during the whole of last year.

  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. INCEasked the honourable Member for Launceston, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, Whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have sold or let, or are ready to sell or let, any sites of land, in London or elsewhere, at reasonable rates, for the erection of artizans' dwellings, in accordance with the powers given to them and other corporations by the Housing of the Working Classes Act of last year; whether a site belonging to them, near Bream's Buildings, Chancery Lane, was formerly occupied by poor people; whether the Commissioners did not, several years ago, pull down the dwellings and eject the poor people; how many poor people were so ejected; how many years the land has now been vacant; whether they have received applications, both with respect to this site and elsewhere, for land for artizans' dwellings; whether they are now prepared to let this and other sites for that purpose; and, if so, whether they will at once make known their intention; and, whether, until the site near Bream's Buildings is actually let for building, they will take away the high railings and allow the site to be used as a playground?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. C. T. ACLAND): The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have from time to time sold or let on building leases various sites for the erection of artizans' dwellings in the Metropolis. In most of these cases the sale or letting took place before the passing of the Act of last year, and before the sitting of the late Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor. There are upwards of 20 of these sites. The total, number of the tenements for which these sales and lettings were designed to provide may be taken as nearly 2,000. In the year 1879 some ground, near to, and comprising the place then known as Bream's Buildings, Chancery Lane, had come on the expiry of leases gradually into the possession of the Commissioners. It was covered with small tenements of a very miserable description and occupied by a dense population living in degrading circumstances, and having a considerable
  628
  admixture of the criminal classes. These may have numbered 1,000 persons. The Commissioners, in co-operation with the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City Commissioners of Sewers, took measures for clearing this area as circumstances permitted, and have formed a new street through, the centre of the same and of adjoining properties. The present proximity of the Royal Courts of Justice to this ground has caused a special demand for additional offices in this neighbourhood, and a portion of the frontage has been let for that purpose. The opening of the new street has been effected between three and four years, and a portion of the total adjoining area, which comprises about half-an-acre, has already been let for the erection of offices. The Commissioners have not received any applications for the appropriation of any part of this area as a site for artizans' dwellings except from a single individual—a Mr. J. Theodore Dodd, a barrister. His inquiry was of a very general character, and he was informed that the Commissioners did not regard the ground referred to as suitable for the purpose contemplated. There is in the vicinity of the vacant ground above referred to other land, at present covered with old houses, which is partly in the Commissioners' possession, and which they would be prepared to let for the erection of artizans' dwellings if a definite and practical proposal were submitted to them. The Commissioners do not consider it would be proper to take away the existing high fence by which their ground near the late Bream's Buildings was protected in order to allow it to be used as a playground. They have, in fact, been under the necessity of increasing the height and strength of the fence in order to obviate the nuisances complained of by adjacent occupiers.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND)—BARLININE PRISON.
  MR. BAIRDasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether it is the case that prisoners, convicted in Glasgow and interned in the prison at Barlinine, are systematically liberated in the rural district of Barlinine; whether he has seen a Petition, addressed to himself or to his predecessor in office, complaining of this practice; whether the Chief Constable for the county of

  629
  Lanark has reported that the practice is bad, alike in the interests of the residents in the district and of the discharged prisoners; and, whether he is prepared to take steps to put an end to the practice?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN) (, &c.): It is true that, in accordance with recent arrangements made by the Prison Commissioners, the prisoners discharged from Barlinine Prison have been discharged at the gates of that prison. An important Petition has been received from Mr. William Cochran and other persons in the neighbourhood pointing out the undesirablity of this practice, and the Chief Constable of Lanarkshire has reported very strongly to a similar effect. The subject involves points of law as well as of policy, and I am at present in communication with the Prison Commissioners with a view to obtaining further information in order to arrive at a fit and proper decision in the matter. I can assure the hon. Member and the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who has likewise interested himself in this matter, that it shall have the full consideration which so important a question deserves, both from myself and the Lord Advocate; and the result of my decision will be communicated in due course to the parties interested.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE MEDICAL SERVICE.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether young officers of Her Majesty's Indian Medical Service are sent to India without being instructed in ambulance drill, and are thereby placed at a great disadvantage with the officers of the Army Medical Department; and, whether there is any objection to this drawback to their efficiency as Military surgeons being remedied by their undergoing a course of instruction at Aldershot prior to their departure to India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): The option of attending the Aldershot course of instruction, which in August, 1882, had been given to Indian medical officers passing through Netley, was inadvertently withdrawn in April, 1884, on the introduction at Netley of a course of
  630
  bearer company drill. This, however, will now be corrected; and as the Aldershot course must be optional for Indian officers a reference will be made to the Government of India as to the instruction in that country of those officers who have not passed the Aldershot course.

  RETIRED MILITARY AND NAVAL OFFICERS—COLONIAL EMPLOYMENT.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, if any, what objections exist to the employment of retired Military and Naval officers in our Colonies; and, whether he can state the number of officers, Naval and Military, now employed in the service of the Colonies with the sanction of the Admiralty and War Office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): There are no objections, in principle, to the employment of retired military and naval officers in our Colonies. The conditions on which such officers are to be allowed to retain their pay while in Colonial employment have recently been under the consideration of the Departments concerned, and it is expected that a decision may very shortly be arrived at. With regard to the second Question, a Return of the officers now employed in the service of the Colonies is in course of preparation for the House of Lords, and if the hon. Member desires to move for it, it can be presented to this House.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE VETERINARY ESTABLISHMENT.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a reduction in the number of veterinary surgeons in India has recently been ordered; whether, if so, this reduction was recommended or approved by the principal veterinary surgeon in India; and, on which Country the cost of the reduced veterinary surgeons will fall, until they are absorbed on the home establishment?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): A reduction of the veterinary establishments in India has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council, in accordance with the recommendation of the

  631
  Government of India, who are of opinion that, in view of the introduction of the system of station hospitals and other changes, a smaller establishment will be sufficient. It is believed that this recommendation has not the concurrence of the principal veterinary surgeon. The Revenues of India will bear the cost of the supernumerary officers till they are absorbed.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALTINGLASS UNION—APPOINTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT REGISTRAR.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the board of guardians of the Baltinglass Union, county of Wicklow, were within their absolute legal rights in re-appointing Mr. J. R. Dagg to the office of Superintendent Registrar for the district of Baltinglass, under the powers vested in them by 26 Vic. c. 11, sees. 23, 26, and 27 Vic. 90, sec. 10; and, whether, on the other hand, the appointment of Mr. Middleton to the office of Superintendent Registrar by their Excellencies the Lords Justices was illegal; and, if so, whether he will take steps for the removal of Mr. Middleton, and the adoption of the officer selected by the Guardians?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir, this matter is at present under the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. He has directed further inquiry to be made. If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the Question in about a week's time, I hope to be able to give an answer.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE TRADE IN FISH.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether information is now being collected as to the total numbers of fish taken off the British Coasts, with the ports at which they are landed, in addition to the statistics published last year as to the quantity carried by railway; and, if so, from what date such information will commence, and when and for what periods it will be published?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Board of Trade are now collecting Returns as to
  632
  fish landed on the Coasts of England and Wales, and they have commenced the monthly publication of a summary of the Returns, which they propose to continue. The question of embodying this summary in the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns is also under consideration. One difficulty is in obtaining the Returns in time for publication with the usual monthly publication. In addition, there will no doubt be an annual Return at the end of the year, in which it is proposed to embody a general view of the fishery statistics of the United Kingdom, including a summary of the return of fish conveyed from ports by railway referred to by the hon. Member, the fishery statistics obtained by the Scotch and Irish Fishery Boards, and the statistics of boats and men now obtained by the Board of Trade and published in the annual Navigation Return. I hope when we have organized our Fishery Department we shall not confine ourselves to statistics, but publish an annual Report dealing with all matters relating to fisheries.
  MR. O'KELLY: Have the Government any objection to make a similar Return with regard to Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Irish Return was made by the Irish Fishery Board. We can only give a summary of the Irish Return.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—OUTBREAK OF FEVER IN ST. GEORGE'S SCHOOLS, ASHFORD.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the President of the Local Government Board, Is it true that the Board of Guardians of St. George's, Hanover Square, were recently compelled, by an outbreak of fever, to send a large number of the children from their schools at Ashford to other district schools; is it true that an offer was made to receive the Catholic children into Catholic schools, and was refused; and, will he inquire into the circumstances, and inform the House of the grounds of such refusal?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): We are aware that, in consequence of an outbreak of fever at the schools at Ashford, certain children belonging to the St. George's Union were sent to other

  633
  schools while alterations in the drainage arrangements were being made. On the 6th of last month we were informed that about seven Roman Catholic children had been sent to a school at which it was stated they had no opportunity of receiving instruction in their religion or of attending its services. The case of two girls was specially referred to. We communicated with the Guardians of the St. George's Union on the subject, and were informed that the mothers of the two girls had taken their discharge from the workhouse on the 6th of February, and that the children had been delivered to their care. All the other Roman Catholic children, we were told, were removed on the 12th of February to the Fulham Road Workhouse, where there is a paid Roman Catholic instructor, and a chapel for the inmates has been provided, and that arrangements had been made for sending the Roman Catholic children daily to the schools attached to St. Mary's Priory.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—INCAPACITY OF HOLDERS OF SPIRIT LICENCES TO SERVE AS JURORS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that at the assizes held last week in Longford, juriors holding spirit licences were not allowed to serve on any of the several juries empannelled, although many of them are grand jurors at quarter sessions; and, whether, if it is the fact, the Irish Government will direct that in future persons holding such licences may not be put to the trouble, loss of time, and considerable expense, of coming from all parts of the Country to attend as jurors, when net considered to be worthy of that position by the officers of the Crown?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the rules for the guidance of the Clerk of the Crown prescribe that holders of spirit licences are not allowed to serve as jurors in criminal cases. I am informed that the rule is not carried out in all cases. No doubt there is something in the suggestion of the last paragraph of the Question which requires consideration.

  LONDON HOSPITALS—THE HOMERTON HOSPITAL.
  MR. GIBBasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the disclosures connected with the mismanagement of the Homerton Hospital, and to the general dissatisfaction with the administration and expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; and, whether he is willing to facilitate the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the management and expenditure of that Board?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): An inquiry was held last year by the direction of the President of the Local Government Board as to the management of the Homerton Hospital. The investigation was conducted by three of the Board's Inspectors, and extended over 39 days. The general result was that it was clearly shown that grave abuses, involving serious extravagance of expenditure, had arisen in connection with the hospital, for which, in the opinion of the Board, the committee, and especially the chairman of the committee, and certain officers of the managers were mainly responsible. The report of the inquiry has already been made public. The managers have made such arrangements as it is believed will prevent the occurrence of similar abuses in the future, and it does not appear to the Board that there would be any sufficient advantage in a further inquiry by a Royal Commission or Select Committee as suggested. It is due to the Board of Managers to add that the Metropolis is under a considerable obligation to them for the great services which they have rendered in meeting the emergencies connected with the outbreaks of infectious disease in London.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he was aware that great dissatisfaction existed in East London as to the inquiry into the question of asylums, and whether he would communicate with the Boards of Guardians of the Unions interested?
  Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I am not aware of the dissatisfaction to which my hon. Friend refers;

  635
  but if there are any grounds for the dissatisfaction, I hope the Boards of Guardians will communicate with me.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, they would do so without delay.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SALARIES OF POOR LAW OFFICIALS.
  MR. CORNWALLIS WESTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can suggest any mode by which the salaries of officials connected with Boards of Guardians can be revised, in order to meet the pressure of rates in the present state of agricultural depression?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): The Local Government Board were advised by the late Lord Chief Justice, then Attorney General, that a Board of Guardians are not legally empowered, even with the consent of the Board, to reduce the salary of an officer during the legal continuance of his office without his consent, unless the appointment or contract was in such terms as to reserve the right of altering the salary. But the salary assigned to an office can, of course, be revised when a vacancy occurs. It may be observed that a time of depression tends to increase rather than diminish the duties which devolve on the officers of Boards of Guardians.

  LONDON HOSPITALS—THE HIGHGATE HOSPITAL.
  MR. GIBBasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a Report by Mr. Shirley F. Murphy, late medical officer of health for St. Pancras, from which it appears that one effect of the treatment of small pox in hospitals at Hampstead and Highgate during recent epidemics was to spread the disease, and thus endanger the health of that part of the Metropolis; and, whether, having regard to the fact that those hospitals are in the main roads to places of great public resort, such as Hampstead Heath and Highgate Woods, he is prepared to take any steps to prevent the use of those hospitals for small pox in the event of another epidemic?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): The Highgate Hospital is an institution supported by voluntary contributions, in
  636
  connection with which my Board have no jurisdiction. As regards the hospital at Hampstead, which is under the management of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, it has been the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee and of expensive litigation. Since the legal proceedings terminated the Managers have secured an additional area of land in connection with the site. The hospital has not, in fact, been used for any small-pox patients since July of last year; and if in the event of any epidemic it should be necessary again to use it for small-pox patients it would only be for a very limited number, and in the cases only of patients who, from the acute nature of the disease, could not be removed to any hospital at a distance. The Report of Dr. Murphy has not yet been officially considered by the Managers, and, consequently, no steps have yet been taken to test the conclusions at which he has arrived.

  THE EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION—SERVICE IN THE NILE EXPEDITION.
  SIR JOHN COMMERELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If arrangements will be made by the Admiralty for allowing all Naval officers who were engaged in the late expedition up the Nile, to count the time served there as services qualifying for promotion in cases where the present Regulations do not already provide?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): This question was very carefully and thoroughly considered by the late Board of Admiralty, and a decision come to not to disturb the existing regulations issued under Mr. Childer's Order in Council of February 22, 1870. These regulations were specially framed to insure that officers should not be qualified by certain home and other appointments which did not give experience in command of a ship of war at sea until such experience had been gained. The regulations are in the best interests of the Service, and the present Board do not think it desirable to infringe them, more especially as the officers who would be immediately affected are in no way prejudiced by their being maintained.

  JAMAICA—CONVICT OFFICERS.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for

  637
  the Colonies, If the convict officers who were transferred from the English Service to the Penitentiary at Kingston, Jamaica, in October 1883, elect to return home at the expiration of their three years' engagement, the Government will defray the expenses of their passages home; and, whether they will be reinstated in the Imperial Service?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): The officers in question were not engaged for three years, but received permanent appointments in the service of the Colony. They are, therefore, in the condition of all other permanent officers, and as such cannot claim to have the expense of their return passage defrayed by the Government. The second Question on the Paper is one which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rather than to me.

  THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN ADMINISTRATION—PLACE OF INQUIRY.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any intimation of a feeling on the part of the Native community of India, that the proposed Parliamentary inquiry into Indian administration will be inadequate if it be carried on only in England, and if it be not supplemented by an inquiry in India independent of the Indian Government; and, whether the Government are willing to institute a thoroughly exhaustive and impartial local inquiry?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): A representation has been received from certain Associations in India praying that a Royal Commission containing English statesmen of front rank and competent Indians, but no Anglo-Indian officials, be appointed, which should take evidence in India. The Viceroy has been desired to inform them that it has been decided, according to precedent, to propose a Parliamentary Committee, and it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute an independent inquiry in India.
  DR. CLARKinquired on what day the subject would be brought before the House?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, in reply, said, that a Motion for a Committee was made in "another place" by his noble Friend the Secretary of State yesterday; but until the names had been submitted to the House of Lords it would be impossible for a message to be sent to the House of Commons; but when that had been done, a Motion would be made on behalf of the Government for the appointment of the Committee.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEgave Notice that, in consequence of the answer that had just been given, he should, when the Motion was brought forward, move that no inquiry into the administration of India would fulfil the just expectations of the Indian people or satisfy that House which did not provide for a local investigation independent of the Government of India.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether any facilities would be given to Natives of India to come before the Parliamentary Committee free of expense?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, that that would be a question for the Committee to consider when it had been appointed; but he imagined that there would not be any indisposition to grant any necessary facilities for the purpose of taking evidence.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—THE PATWARI BILL.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Patwari Bill, now under the consideration of a Select Committee of the Bengal Legislative Council, will not have the effect, if passed into Law, of largely adding to the number of officials in Bengal, and of increasing the public burdens, which already weigh on the Native community; whether Her Majesty's Government will produce the whole correspondence on the question of Patwaris, including the Minute of Mr. Grote and the Memorandum of Mr. M'Neile; and, whether, before the final passing of the Bill, full time will be allowed for the translation into the vernacular of the report of the Select Committee, and its circulation among the classes interested, without regard to the retirement of the Government to the hills before the heats of summer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): The Patwari Bill is to apply to one district only in Bengal, and the local Government believes that it will not increase the public burdens in that district. The Secretary of State does not think it advisable to produce the Correspendence, which is very bulky and highly technical. It is for the Bengal Legislative Council to take such steps as it may consider necessary for the due promulgation of information on the subject of the Bill.

  NAVY—ARMAMENT—GUNS AND AMMUNITION.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he could, for the convenience of the House, state, before the discussion upon Navy Estimates, the amount proposed to be taken in the Army Estimates for the provision of guns and ammunition for the Navy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): I hope the Army Estimates will be in the hands of Members before the Navy Estimates are moved; but for the convenience of my noble Friend and of others interested, I may state that they include a sum of £1,000,000 sterling for naval armaments, and about £215,000 for gunpowder and gun cotton for the use of the Navy.

  POST OFFICE—PARCEL POST TO FRANCE AND ITALY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the Papers connected with the extension of the parcel post to France and Italy, promised by the late Postmaster General, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I think the answer of the late Postmaster General must have been misunderstood. There are no Papers which would in the ordinary course be laid upon the Table; but if, when the Conventions between France and Italy have been completed, the hon. Member sees fit to move for Copies, they will be laid upon the Table as an unopposed Return.

  FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Treaty between the French Republic and the Queen of Madagascar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): In accordance with the promise I gave to my hon. Friend the junior Member for Leicester on the 25th ultimo, the French text of the Treaty between France and Madagascar was laid on the Table in print on the 8th instant, and has been distributed to Members this afternoon.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the Members in charge of the Sunday Closing Bill being unable to procure an early opportunity for continuing the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, Her Majesty's Government will afford facilities for the Adjourned Debate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; we will take an early opportunity when the Civil Estimates are being discussed to report Progress at or soon after 11; and we will put down my hon. Friend's Bill as the Second Order. But I can give no undertaking as to any stage except the second reading.

  NAVY—COASTGUARD STATION AT ENNISCRONE.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty, in May 1882, leased a piece of ground at Enniscrone for the purpose of erecting a Coastguard Station there, and have since been paying rent for said site, though not yet built on; and, whether they could now commence the erection of the buildings, so as to afford employment to the people of the district?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. W. DUFF): The site in question is held on lease dated 1st of May, 1882, and rent has been paid accordingly. The Admiralty have approved of the Coastguard station to be erected, and the buildings will be carried on during the present year, provided the sanction of Parliament be obtained

  641
  to the Vote inserted in the Civil Service Estimates by the Irish Board of Public Works, with whom the matter rests.

  DEPRESSION OF TRADE—OVERTIME IN GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the present severe depression in trade, and the number of workmen unemployed, the War Office will abolish all systematic overtime in Woolwich Arsenal, and at the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, unless some absolute necessity should require a temporary resort to such overtime?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): In cases of urgency it is not possible entirely to avoid overtime. Even if limitations of space and plant did not forbid it, there are cases in which the difficulty could not be mot by the employment of new and inexperienced hands. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that there is no desire to resort to overtime whenever it can be avoided.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will grant, as an unopposed Return, the Return relating to Woolwich and Enfield Factories on to-day's Paper?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he would be glad to consent to this Return with a few modifications, upon which he would consult his hon. Friend.
  VISCOUNT CURZONasked whether, in spite of the official announcement to the contrary, it was not really true that the Admiralty had given directions for the discharge of at least 400 men from Devonport Dockyard?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I am not aware of any such directions having been given.

  POST OFFICE—IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, What was the result of the Memorial, having 900 signatures, recently sent to the Postmaster General from the clergy and people of Gurteen, county Sligo, calling attention to the fact that the letters for Gurteen arriving at Bally-mote
  642
  by the mid-day mail from Dublin, are detained there for twenty-one hours; and, whether the Postmaster General will make arrangements for a mid-day delivery in the western towns off the line of Railway; as, if not, the acceleration of the mails will be of no advantage to the people in these places?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): There is only one post a day from Ballymote to Gurteen which carries the night mail letters, the letters brought by day mail not being numerous enough to warrant a second post. The Memorial referred to, which has received careful consideration, prays that the night mail messenger may be kept back at Ballymote for the day mail letters; but it was found on inquiry that a very large proportion of the letters for Gurteen are brought by night mail, and that such letters would be delayed between four and five hours if the post were not despatched from Ballymote until after the arrival of the day mail, and for that reason no change has been made. A day mail delivery in the rural districts far removed from the line of railway in the county of Sligo would, I regret to state, entail much greater expense than the correspondence would warrant.

  PARLIAMENT—DIVISIONS—WASTE OF THE TIME OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering that more than two hours of the working time of this House was occupied by the six Divisions taken on Tuesday night last, and also that in two of those Divisions the minority numbered less than one-sixth of the majority, he will make it one of the subjects to be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure; and, whether by amendment of Standing Order 187A, or by other methods, the time of the House may be further economised in arriving at its decisions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): Yes, Sir; the subject will come before the Select Committee on Procedure.

  ULSTER CANAL BILL.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, At what

  643
  hour on Monday he would proceed with the Ulster Canal Bill?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): At any hour.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DAWSON, in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in view of the existing depression of trade, and the large number of persons out of employment, this House is of opinion that the present is a favourable time for the Government to carry out certain valuable and necessary public works, more especially the formation of Harbours of Refuge, at various points upon the Coast,"
  said, that he felt that some apology was due to the House for his having brought such an important subject before their notice so soon after his becoming a Member. The great necessity, however, which existed for doing something for those who were out of employment, and for those who were exposed to the perils of the Coast, would, he trusted, be held as an excuse. There were two ways in which the House might approach the consideration of this Motion — either from the humanitarian or from the business-like point of view. He wished the House to consider it not as a question of providing relief for the unemployed, but to consider whether if there were certain works which ought to be carried out at the present moment, and works which were necessary, this was not on other accounts a suitable and fitting time for such works to be carried out? They had heard from the President of the Local Government Board that it had been the practice of Her Majesty's Government to urge upon Local Bodies the necessity of carrying out works in their own districts; but his point was that there were certain works which could not be carried out by the localities alone, and which required the assistance of the Executive Government of the country. He believed that it had been agreed that some money ought to be
  644
  expended upon the fortifications of the country; and, if that were so, this was surely a good time for the Government to carry out these works. The works, however, to which he more particularly referred were the formation of harbours of refuge at various points of the Coast. There were, roughly speaking, three kinds of harbours—purely commercial harbours, great national harbours of defence; and, thirdly, smaller harbours of refuge. With regard to the commercial harbours, these, he admitted, must be considered upon a commercial basis; and he did not ask the House to assert that they ought to be made at the expense of the State. The case, however, was very different with regard to the great harbours of national defence, which it was admittedly the duty of the Central Government to carry out. The East Coast of England, where an enormous proportion of our trade passed up and down, was particularly exposed in case of war to the attacks of foreign nations; and he had the authority of Sir Astley Cooper Key and Sir Frederick Evans for saying that there was not upon the East Coast a single harbour in which Her Majesty's ships could take refuge in case of damage. When one reflected upon the absolute necessity of our having the complete command of the sea to prevent our being starved into submission within a few weeks, it was alarming to think of the defenceless condition of the East Coast. From the Thames to Cape Wrath there were no fewer than 92 harbours, and of these only 12 had at this moment a depth of 8 feet at low water; while it had been declared on good authority that the very lowest depth at the entrance to a harbour ought to be 10 feet. The Government had resolved to carry out works at Dover; but why they had selected Dover in preference to Filey was one of those mysteries which they would probably never be able to fathom. Looking at the evidence of the various Committees that sat to inquire into the subject, there appeared to have been a great agreement of opinion in favour of Filey. But upon the present occasion he did not ask the House to express any opinion with regard to these large harbours. They would entail much delay in the preparation of plans and specification, and works of this kind would be practically worthless for attaining the object he had in view—

  645
  namely, the relief of present distress. What he wanted the House to consider was the subject of the small refuge harbours, which were greatly required, more especially on the East and Cornish Coast, along the Bristol Channel, and on the West Coast of Ireland. Repeated Committees had reported as to the pressing necessity of such harbours. So long ago as 1858 a Committee of that House reported that certain works of this nature were an absolute necessity, and recommended that a grant of £2,000,000 should be made to carry them out. In 1859 another Committee sat to report upon various sites, and recommended that £2,365,000 should be expended on certain works; and by referring to the pages of Hansard it would be found that in 1860 the House was asked to consider the question, and a Resolution was carried that it was necessary to give immediate effect to this recommendation of the Committee. From that time, however, down to the present, practically nothing had been done. He hoped, however, that the adoption of that Resolution might be of good omen, and that the Resolution which he was now bringing forward might also be adopted; but he trusted that the present Government would, in that event, not follow the example of previous Governments, and allow the Resolution to remain a dead-letter. In 1883 and 1884 a Committee, presided over by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), sat, and reported that nothing had been done. The average annual loss of ships on our Coasts was between 3,000 and 3,500; the annual loss of property over £2,000,000; the average loss of life between 800 and 900. It was the duty of the country to try and prevent this enormous loss of life and property. The Committee of 1884 reported that there—
  "Is on certain parts of our Coast a great and preventible loss of property and life, which would undoubtedly he reduced by an increase of deep-water harbours, which may be accessible to vessels using them at all states of the tide."
  The fishing population was deeply interested in this matter. A high authority had stated that the annual value of the British fisheries was £11,000,000, and the number of men actually engaged in the fisheries on sea besides those engaged in the fishing industry on shore was 125,000. This large population and this important source of national food
  646
  and wealth were largely dependent on the proper supply of harbours of refuge. In an admirable speech which the right hon. Member for Berwickshire delivered in 1884, he called the attention of the House to the enormous loss of life in the great gale of November 1875, and again in 1881, when there were lost in one single day on the Coast of Berwickshire the lives of 191 fishermen. So great at present were the risks to which fishing vessels were exposed from the deficiency of harbour accommodation that the authorities at Lloyd's refused to insure them. He understood by the reply of the President of the Board of Trade to a deputation last Wednesday that it was the opinion of that right hon. Gentleman that it was of benefit to fishermen that there should be a deficiency of harbour accommodation, because such deficiency made the shipowners the more careful in the equipment of their vessels before sending them to sea. That line of argument would show that the best thing to be at once done was to abolish all lighthouses and other life-saving apparatus. It had been said that England would compare favourably with the nations of Europe in what she spent. What had the Government done in the last 25 years? During that time the Loans Commissioners had advanced about £2,500,000; but other countries had done almost as much. In the same period the following sums had been spent on the same object: — Holland £2,500,000, Belgium £2,700,000, Germany (excluding Wilhelmshaven) £1,100,000, Spain £1,720,000, Italy (without Spezzia) £1,500,000, and France £11,000,000; so that whatever this country might have done it could not compare favourably with other countries, considering its insular character. It might be argued by the Government that the public Treasury was not full enough to justify the expenditure of £3,000,000 on harbours of refuge, that being the sum said to be wanted by the Society for the Extension of National Harbours of Refuge. But, however empty the Treasury might be, such a sum would certainly be voted in a case of national emergency abroad. Why, then, should it not be voted in a case of national emergency at home? It might also be objected that the localities interested should bear the burden of construction. In many cases, no doubt,

  647
  they would; but they should also be assisted by the Government, and loans should be made very easy. But in many cases the localities that most needed the harbours were just the very places that would be unable either to find the money or the security for a loan. In 1883 between the Humber and Cape Wrath there had been £1,377,000 lent to 11 harbours, with an income of over £2,000 a-year, and only £19,205 to five places with less than £2,000 income. In that district there were between 40 and 50 harbours relying mainly or entirely on fishing, and only about four of them had more than £2,000 a-year, and only eight had received loans. He also contended that the Loans Commissioners were most unwilling to make loans to private individuals or Companies, and He thought that should not be the case. In the four years ending March, 1881, the average annual amount granted was £68,000, while £250,000 was refused. If the harbours were necessary, and the people were willing to construct them, he contended that it was wrong for them to be sent empty away from the Loans Commissioners, because they were not entirely satisfied with the security which the poor fishermen were able to give. Grants of money should be made in such cases. One of these places that could not give security was Eyemouth, where the loss of 191 lives to which he had just referred occurred. Those lives would have been saved had a proper harbour existed; and the reason why there was no such harbour was that the fishermen were unable to give the security required by the Loans Commissioners. The week before last 50 lives were lost on the Coast; yet no notice had been taken of the matter. Had 50 lives been lost in Burmah great excitement would have been manifested. He held that the construction of harbours of refuge was a matter of national concern, and that this was recognized in the country was shown by the Petitions supporting the project that had come from Nottingham, Lincoln, Bradford, Leeds, and other inland towns. Nov, he would like to ask the House what would be the result which might be expected to accrue from the construction of these harbours over and above the saving of life? First, there would be an enormous development of the fishing industry, which it was estimated might
  648
  be doubled with proper harbour accommodation. In 1856 Grimsby sent inland 1,500 tons of fish; but in 1881, with improved harbour accommodation, it sent inland 50,000 tons; and it was the same with many other places. One of the great mistakes the Government had always made in regard to Ireland had been to make grants for nets and boats, when they might have done much more good by providing better harbour accommodation. The Report of the Committee that sat in 1884 placed on record that nothing was more likely to lead to the development of the resources of Ireland than the improvement of the harbour accommodation of the country. If harbours were improved and increased in number the number of fishermen would soon be doubled, employment would be found by deserving persons, and the immigration of country people into the largo towns of the Kingdom, which was so great a cause of distress, would soon diminish in its extent. As an illustration of this point, he might mention that in 1852 the harbour of Wick had over 1,000 boats employed in the fishing trade, and caught 80,000 crans of fish. At the same time the harbour of Fraserburgh had 190 boats, and caught 22,000 crans of fish; while Peterhead had 242 boats, and caught 16,000 crans of fish. In 1862 there was a difference of opinion between Wick and the authorities in London, the consequence of which was that the Wick Harbour works fell into disrepair, while Fraserburgh and Peter-head were busily employed in improving theirs. The result was that in 1882 Wick, instead of having 1,000 boats, had only 600, and caught 69,000 crans of fish against 80,000 in 1852, while Fraserburgh had come up from 190 boats to 900, and Peter head from 242 to 822. These facts were sufficient to show that a great development of the fishing industry might be expected from improved harbour accommodation. There would be a further result, which was of a purely national character. A great deal had been said about the necessity of forming a large Naval Reserve of Naval Volunteers as a means of defending the Coasts of this country. Now, if the number of our fishermen was doubled, there would at once be a recruiting ground for the Navy, and for the formation of a Reserve, which would

  649
  be an immense source of strength to this country in the event of a war. In the remarks he had made he had not ventured to specify to the House where harbours should be constructed; but he was quite satisfied that almost every Gentleman who took part in the debate would suggest a different site for such a work. He only wished to affirm the principle that these works were necessary, and would be beneficial; that being the case, they should be done at once. Some time or other such works must be done, and he contended that the present time in the condition of the labour market was a most suitable opportunity. Some of his friends had said the doctrines he had been advancing on the subject were of a Socialistic tendency. He did not think they were; but he knew that there had been former occasions when the Government of this country had given employment to distressed people. If a famine broke out in India at this moment, the Government would give its sanction to public works for its relief. In Ireland, also, in the famine years, for the purpose of giving employment, works were carried out, though many were absolutely useless. He admitted that it was not desirable that a Government should engage in operations which would of necessity clash with private enterprize. What he proposed would not have that effect, because, unless the work was of a paying nature, private enterprize would have nothing to do with it. But there were works which might, in a national sense, be so remunerative that, though not likely to attract private enterprize, a Government ought to undertake them. Something had been said about convict labour being employed in the course of time. But if they were to trust to convict labour for these works no person in that House would see the beginning of them. Dover Harbour would take 25 years; Filey would take a long time; and, unless they trusted to other labour, 30 or 40 years might elapse before the works which he had in view were taken in hand. For them convict labour was unsuited. They were too small to justify the outlay which would, in the first place, be required for the construction of barracks for the convicts. The Report of the Committee of 1884 was very strong against convict labour being made to subserve the construction of these harbours. At present we could
  650
  not shut our eyes to the fact that there was an enormous amount of suffering among the working population; and, what was more, that the long continuance of this distress might pave the way for dangerous doctrines and opinions, to which some ears might be only too willing to listen. In London it was said that some 7,000 or 8,000 men came to the Docks every day looking for work, and went away without getting it. He had heard that something like 50,000 persons in the pool and the upper reaches of the Thames were out of employment, and that in Poplar, which used to be a perfect hive of industry, one house in four in the High Street, which was a mile long, was unoccupied. Birmingham, Liverpool, Sunderland, and many other largo towns were also suffering enormously. It was impossible to give employment to all; but the Motion had been framed in such a way, by laying stress on the small harbours in various districts, that a great influx of labour would not be attracted into any one of them, and the labour of the districts themselves would be prevented from flocking into the large towns. Besides, the labour might be got cheaply. He was told that men who used to get 8d. an hour would now be glad to earn 3d. or 4d. He had to thank the House for the attention with which it had heard him, and to apologize for having trespassed so long upon its time. He trusted the Motion might receive favour-' able consideration; for it was designed to do something towards alleviating the distress which they behold on every side and deplored, and to do so in a way that would especially commend itself to this nation, that owed so much of its power and wealth in the past, and must trust so much for its very existence in the future, to the welfare of its seafaring population. Believing, as he did, that if this Motion was carried it would be the means of relieving distress and saving a preventible loss of life at sea, he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he did not press it to a division. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Reesolution which stood in his name.
  MR. BORLASEsaid, he rose to second the Resolution so ably moved by the hon. Member for East Leeds. He did so with the greatest gratification, because, at a time like the present, when it was supposed they were on the eve of a great Party struggle, it

  651
  was very pleasant indeed to find that there was a subject like that which transcended mere Party politics, and on which both sides of the House might meet together in full accord to discuss the welfare of one class, and the life itself of another. The Resolution aimed at two things, and its object might be said to be assuredly noble. It was proposed to utilize the opportunity offered by the fact of so many hundreds of thousands being out of employment, to perform one of the greatest services it was possible to render to the cause of humanity in the land. Then the question arose whether his hon. Friend who submitted the Resolution was not attempting more than he could possibly perform; whether the two objects were really germane to one another; and whether the poor persons who at that moment were out of employment were the fittest and most proper to do this peculiar kind of work; and whether that employment would do anything to relieve the vast amount of pressure now brought to bear upon the Metropolis? To this last difficult question he thought there could be but one answer. When his hon. Friend asked him to second the Resolution, he said he would do so only on one condition—that it took up the line adopted last year by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who had so truly pointed out that the small Coast harbours should, in order to be useful in saving life and property, be made deeper than they were. But if this work were to be done, it ought to be done by labour on the spot. If his hon. Friend pleaded that by work of this kind they would be relieving the pressure on the Metropolis, he ventured to think his hopes would not be verified. There was a vast pressure from the country into the Metropolis, which came for the most part, curiously enough, from the two centres where these harbours of refuge were required—namely, on the South-West and East Coasts. So far, however, as his hon. Friend's Resolution bore upon the granting of loans from the Consolidated Fund for the creation of those small harbours he was fully in accord with him, and so far he seconded the Resolution with pleasure. One of the most important documents contained in our Blue Books was a Memorandum published by the Board of Trade in 1864, and written in 1860, by Sir Thomas
  652
  Farrer, who said that even then, 25 years ago, Committee after Committee, Commission after Commission, had inquired, and were inquiring, into the subject of lighthouses, harbours, and other means of preventing shipwreck. In 1857–8 a Select Committee was appointed; but it did not specify, any more than the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, any particular points of the Coast, but roughly indicated where those harbours were required, and suggested an expenditure of about £2,000,000. As to the mode of raising the money, the conclusion of the Committee was that, to some extent, the expenditure ought to be a national one, and to some extent local. In August, 1858, a Royal Commission was appointed to complete the inquiry of the Select Committee. It was intended that this Commission should indicate the particular sites; but it did not do so, confining itself to a statement of the broad basis upon which it was desirable to proceed. It recommended that when there was an entire or virtual absence of local interests or local industry to be benefited, where the advantage conferred was exclusively on the passing trade, the cost ought to be borne by the public funds. The Commission recommended eight different districts for the construction of harbours, and an expenditure of £4,000,000 in all, of which £2,390,000 was to be borne out of the Consolidated Fund. When the fishing and trading interests were considerable they recommended a loan. A Resolution was passed in the House of Commons in 1860 which called upon the Government of the day to carry out these recommendations as speedily as possible. The Commission expected to raise £1,625,000 from local sources; but there was nothing in the evidence to justify such an expectation. When the Committee came to consider his (Mr. Borlase's) own county, the people of which were poor, they proposed to provide Cornwall with two harbours—one at an expenditure of £400,000 at St. Ives, and another at an expenditure of £40,000 at Padstow. He need hardly say that in neither one case had the recommendation of the Commission been carried out. He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a deputation upon this subject, had stated that he had not been at the Board of Trade long enough to have ransacked

  653
  the pigeon-holes on this subject; and he (Mr. Borlase) hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman came to reply to those representations he would reply from his heart, and not from the pigeon-holes of the Department. "Whether the pigeonholes were Liberal or Tory, it was always the same pigeon that came out of them. He (Mr. Borlase) contended that they were not subsidizing trade in any sort of way in what they were asking, or that they were actuated by any consideration of the value of the vessels which were lost. They asked merely that life might be protected. It was asserted that vessels were ill-found, and that to provide harbours of refuge would encourage unscrupulous owners to send their vessels to sea improperly fitted, They might depend upon it that until the principle, somewhat modified, perhaps, but still the principles of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, were put, into practice, ill-found vessels would be sent on voyages, whether there were harbours of refuge for them to go into or not. But it was on behalf of the fishing vessels for which he was there chiefly to plead. All interested in fishing, he thought, must feel the deep debt of gratitude which they owed to his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks); and the House itself must feel a deep debt of gratitude to him for having presided over the Commission which brought together such a mass of evidence on the subject—evidence that was invaluable, though not exhaustive. What his right hon. Friend pleaded for in 1880 he (Mr. Borlase) pleaded fornow. It was for the deepening of a number of little harbours, which would not cost a great deal of money, but which, being now mere tidal harbours, were traps for the unwary. Those harbours should be deepened to 10 feet, or he would say a little more, in order to provide against the dangers arising from what was now a back swell. The Commission presided over by his right hon. Friend issued its Report in July, 1884, and recommended the creation of a number of small harbours at distances from each other of about 40 or 50 miles, and also of other places of refuge, and the application of public funds to the purpose; but it did not indicate the particular places where such works should be undertaken. He need not detain the House by quoting from the Reports; but it was impossible
  654
  to suggest that loans would be of any use whatever in nine-tenths of those places. The reason was that where the physical conformity of the shore was rugged and dangerous, with high and beetling crags, there usually the land inside was bleak and uncultivated; and the resident population, as in many parts of Cornwall, consisted of humble fishermen who were utterly unable to provide money to meet such loans. They had had within the last day or two the advantage of hearing what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had to say about this matter. It appeared from what he said that he had been much troubled already for money; that he had been approached by a considerable number of deputations; and that he expected to be approached by other deputations, all asking for millions, which must be obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Borlase) did not know what other people had been asking for money; but he felt certain that the right hon. Gentleman need fear no ill-will on the part of the British taxpayer if he allowed a sum of money to be devoted to the object mentioned in the Resolution. Whether the taxpayer lived in the middle of the country or upon the shore, there was no subject more dear to the minds of Englishmen than the welfare of our sailors. Whether they judged popular feeling in this matter by our poetry, by our national ballads, by pictures exhibited in the galleries, or, if he might come to more recent times and say, by popular pieces put on the stage—there was one performing in the Strand then—in every case they found evidence of a desire to do all that could be done to preserve those in peril on the sea. Then there was the question about going to the Treasury. It was an extraordinary thing that trade could be subsidized by foreign wars; that the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the War Office, the Admiralty could approach the Treasury without any fear of being sent empty away; but when it was a question not of deliberately subsidizing trade by taking life, but of indirectly helping it by saving life, not a penny could the Home Departments ever get from the Treasury. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that on this point public opinion was ripe for action. He should like,

  655
  if he might be allowed to do so, not to indicate any particular spot in Cornwall, but to say a word about the whole county generally. He approached this question with a deep feeling of responsibility. He came from a county which had just 200 miles of Coast, from the Lizard Point, round the Land's End, to Hartland, the most wild, desolate, and bleak Coast of England, and around which there was not one single harbour which was not a tidal harbour. The prevalent gales on that Coast were from the North-West, and in that case it was a lee shore all the way. He thought if the President of the Board of Trade had lived all his life down there, and had seen some of the wrecks he (Mr. Borlase) had seen, he would not make some of the excuses which he had made in reference to this matter. He did not think he would make the excuses about subsidizing trade if he had seen, as he (Mr. Borlase) had seen, nine bodies washed into one little cove there, or that he would say harbours of refuge for the purpose of saving life were of no use whatever. He wished the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) was present. He certainly could have confirmed what he (Mr. Borlase) had stated. He would have been able to tell them how—he believed it was in 1866—there were 14 wrecks lying around St. Michael's Mount, in Mount's Bay—wrecks ranging from that of a barque to a small fishing smack. They were all well found; and it was because of the intensity of the gale, and that they had no harbour to flee to, that they were wrecked. On the Coast of the Lizard there was one spot where, within a limit of 6₽ miles, there were nine wrecks in one year, and in one case 24 people out of 25 were drowned, and that within the reach of the voices of those who were on shore. Money was wanted, and money could only come from the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned a universal panacea which they had all found so useful at the General Election—the Local Government scheme. That was a case in which they could not wait for that scheme. There were three ways only in which these harbours could be constructed—(1) by the employment of convict labour; (2) by loans; and (3) by grants from the Exchequer. He had given up all idea of having convict
  656
  labour, because he had learnt how impossible it was to employ convicts in small places on small works, without greatly increasing the cost of those works. If the question of loans were relegated to the new Local Government scheme, he thought they might bid farewell to it for a considerable time to come. Then they were left, last of all, face to face with grants from the Treasury. That was what he pleaded for, because it had been recommended by two Committees of that House and one Royal Commission; he pleaded for it because they had precedents for it. They had a precedent for it in the case of £250,000 which their Irish Friends would tell them was taken out of the Irish Church Surplus to construct harbours in their country. Then he believed an enormous sum of money had been spent some time ago on the Skerries Lighthouse, and other considerable sums had been spent on lighthouse accommodation. That was precisely on all-fours with the demands which he made. Returning to the Resolution, he could not, as he said, recommend it on the ground that it would do anything to help the unemployed of London; but he believed they could find plenty of unemployed on the spots where these harbours would be necessary; and he believed that to a certain extent, and by commencing works of that sort in the country, they would prevent any future pressure being brought to bear on London. He believed the period of adversity had turned or was turning, and that in six months or a year many industries of this country would be in a better condition than they were at present. They only asked for this as a temporary, and not as a permanent subsidy; and they asked for it with the double purpose of doing great service to humanity and of employing those who were willing and anxious to be employed in the country districts of the land.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the existing depression of trade, and the large number of persons out of employment, this House is of opinion that the present is a favourable time for the Government to carry out certain valuable and necessary public works, more especially the formation of Harbours of Refuge, at various points upon the Coast,"—(Mr. Dawson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN)said, his hon. Friend the Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. Borlase), in the very interesting and sympathetic speech he had just made, had confined himself almost exclusively to that part of the question which dealt with the intrinsic advantages of harbours of refuge. His hon. Friend, no doubt, spoke with authority, as representing, to a large extent, a maritime constituency consisting of a population of fishermen, who were entitled to the sympathy and the interest of the House as being among the most energetic, industrious, and deserving of all the classes of the population in the United Kingdom. But the argument of his hon. Friend went to this—that it was at all times the duty of a Government, out of Government money, to provide harbours of refuge around the Coast; and he was candid enough to say that he would not urge it upon the House with any idea that if these works were undertaken they would have any considerable effect upon the prevailing depression. The hon. Member, however, who introduced the Motion had called in aid the existing want of employment in order to justify his calling the immediate attention of the House to the matter; and it was on that account that he ventured now to intervene for a few minutes between the House and the President of the Board of Trade, whose Office was more directly concerned with the main purport of the question. At the same time, it was one in which he himself had always taken a deep interest, and he hoped he might be allowed to say very briefly why he could not accept the views of his hon. Friend the Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall. In the first place, the advocates of works of this kind had never been able to agree among themselves on several very important points. They had not been able to agree as to what kind of harbours the Government should construct—whether, for instance, great harbours of refuge involving enormous expenditure, and which could only, by the physical necessities and financial considerations, be made in a few places, or a number of
  658
  small harbours — not deep-water harbours—constructed at every prominent point along our Coasts. They had not been able at all to agree as to the places suitable for the construction of these harbours; but when they had gone into detail it had been found that every Representative of a fishing station or a port put forward his special claim for his particular district as being superior to all the rest. Unless the Government and the House were prepared to lay down that in all places which made out any claim harbours should be constructed at the national expense they would give great offence. Then there was the third point on which he found disagreement. What was the object for which these harbours were to be built? Were they to be built in order to save life, or for the advantage of property and trade? [An hon. MEMBER: Both.] The House would see that that was important. If they were to be built for the advantage of trade and commerce, then it became a matter of consideration whether trade and commerce should not bear the expense, and why a particular trade or commerce should be benefited when no other trade demanded similar assistance from the Government. The only ground, in his opinion, upon which there was a claim for national assistance was that those harbours would lead to an enormous diminution in the loss of life at sea. He wished that was the case; but he had convinced himself, by studying all the literature on the subject, that there was no reason to believe that any harbour that could be built would materially affect the loss of life. He believed the creation of harbours, as a matter of national importance, would have a most stimulating effect on the fishing industry, and prove of advantage to the Mercantile Marino; but he did not believe that it would lead to any considerable reduction of loss of life at sea. Let him point out why he said that. Anyone who would look at the wreck charts would find that the loss of life around the Coast was greater on those portions of the Coast already provided with harbours than on those parts entirely without them, thus showing conclusively that something besides harbours had to do with this matter, and that the conditions of loss were not removable by the erection of harbours. Then, again, it had further been found by careful examination that the loss of life within 15 miles

  659
  of the Coast was small in proportion to the total loss of life at sea. The greater part of it took place under circumstances in which a harbour could not be of the slightest advantage. Even with regard to loss of life on the Coast and within 15 miles it was found that the great proportion was due to causes altogether independent of the existence of harbours. A great many losses took place in an offshore wind, during exceptional gales, as in the case of the disaster at Shetland, where some 100 brave fishermen lost their lives under circumstances in which it would have been absolutely impossible for them to have made any harbour of use. They were caught in undecked boats, and they went to the bottom. For these and other reasons, he said, it had been found that the proportion of loss of life at sea had not been appreciably affected by the existence of harbours, or if it was affected it would be to a very small extent indeed. If even that loss of life was to be affected, he might, to use the language of his Predecessor, Mr. Milner Gibson, say—"You must find some means of towing a harbour at the back of every ship." Unless they had a harbour actually on the spot, convenient to the ship at the moment when it was in danger, it was of as little use for the purpose of saving life as if it were 100 miles away. Therefore, he did not think a case could be made out on the humanitarian ground for State assistance. But he believed a case could be made out on commercial grounds, and that State assistance the State had always been willing to afford—that was to say, upon anything like a local guarantee, the State had been willing to advance money at very low rates of interest for the promotion of such works. In doing that, he thought it had done all it could wisely do. When they called in the assistance of the Local Authority they had the advantage of local knowledge, supervision, and management in the creation of the works, and they also got a responsibility which gave them some assurance that the money would be wisely and usefully expended. If the State were to undertake the work they would have very little security that the money would be well and economically expended; harbours would very likely be put where they were not wanted, and neither trade nor anything else would be benefited. He would proceed to the matter which had brought him on
  660
  his legs—namely, the hope in which his hon. Friend had indulged that if these works were sanctioned by the State at the present time they would be a relief for the existing distress. He was very sorry that he had not been able to receive such information on this subject as he could have wished. That was not his fault. He was glad to see his Predecessor in the House. Up to the time the late Government left Office no inquiry was instituted by the Department, and the inquiry had to be commenced from the moment that he accepted Office. He sent out letters immediately to all the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis, and then to all the Vestries, then to about 100 Provincial Boards of Guardians, then to a great number of private individuals likely to afford information; and, lastly, a very important correspondence had taken place with the leading trade unions. The general results he could state in a few words, and he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with figures. The Returns of pauperism, whether in the Metropolis or in the country, showed a slight increase, an increase over the last two years on the whole of less than 5 per cent. as compared with the last year. The Returns exhibited the distress as partial; it existed only in certain Unions in the country and certain portions of the Metropolis. Although it was an increase upon recent years, it was a great decrease on some previous periods. In 1870 the total number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in the Metropolis was 160,000; whereas, at the present time, it was about 100,000. It had been as low as 86,000 in the course of the 17 years, and it was important that the House should bear in mind that the population of London had, during that time, enormously increased; so that he believed it would be found that the amount of actual pauperism in the Metropolis, and probably in the rest of the country, was less per 1,000 than it had been for a great number of previous years. That was all the information he could get as far as pauperism was concerned, and from that point of view the distress was not very exceptional, and did not require exceptional measures. The Boards of Guardians expressed an opinion that under the present law, and with the present facilities, they were quite capable of dealing with the question; and

  661
  they hoped—a sentiment in which they would all agree—that as the distress had been increased by the extraordinary severity of the weather, when the weather became milder the exceptional distress might disappear. Now, if that was all, he did not think they had much cause for alarm; but he thought it necessary to pursue his inquiries further than the Poor Law Authorities, because he was under the impression, which, he was sorry to say, had been fully confirmed, that there was a great deal of distress among the better class of artizans and labourers, which could not and did not come to the knowledge of the officials of the Poor Law Guardians. Nothing was more wonderful or more admirable than the way in which the better class of working men in the United Kingdom shrank from any resort to the Poor Law, undergoing the greatest privations, amounting almost to actual starvation, rather than have recourse to what they believed to be degradation. It had been found that the greatest difficulty of the Guardians was to induce by any means this class of persons to disclose their circumstances. At the same time, the opinions he had received were almost generally to the effect that the distress among the class to which he referred, who were, ordinarily, in continuous employment and did not generally apply for pauper relief, was now very great, and had been increasing. He confessed unless it diminished, if it even continued, it would be a matter for the most serious consideration of the Government and the House what steps were to be taken to relieve it. He, for one, had no idea of pretending that the House and the Government were not responsible for some measures to deal with this distress. Then the question arose whether a proposal such as that now before them would be of advantage to those whom it was intended to benefit? State works of every kind always laboured under this disadvantage—that they were uneconomical, for the reasons which he had stated in connection with harbours. Moreover, another serious objection to them was that of necessity State works must be local—that was to say, the State could not undertake large works in every locality, but only in a few. Therefore the relief given by such works would be confined to a few districts. He could assure hon. Members that the existing distress I was not confined to London; it was almost
  662
  universal throughout the country; and in every district and in every Union there were persons belonging to different trades, skilled artizans as well as unskilled labourers, who were at the present time in want of employment. Therefore, what was necessary, if they were to deal with it effectually, was that the works should be undertaken in every Union; and if the State were now to undertake works, he thought there would be the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the country if these works started only in one or two localities. But if the works were required, and must ultimately be undertaken in each locality, then he could not see what reason there was why the State should interfere. The responsibility both of initiating and managing them ought to rest on the Local Authorities, who had certainly the power of managing them better and cheaper than could otherwise be done. If the works were to be universal, there would be no advantage in the State undertaking them. The locality must, of course, pay its fair share, and it would be much better that it should pay directly, and have the control and management of them. Therefore, his hope and belief was, that the ultimate remedy for exceptional distress of the kind they had to deal with was to be found in the increasing activity of Local Authorities, which he believed had already been very considerably stimulated, and which he hoped further to stimulate, and which might, no doubt, be assisted by liberal terms in the shape of loans from the State for those purposes for which loans were provided. But when the hon. Member opposite suggested that a great harbour at Filey, for instance, or at some other part of the Coast, would be in itself an assistance to the unemployed, he thought the hon. Gentleman really could not have worked out the problem.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that he had expressly confined himself to the question of the construction of smaller harbours.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the hon. Member had spoken at some length upon the question of works at Dover and Filey; and he had thought that it had been more particularly with regard to works of this description that the hon. Member had been pressing his Motion on the Government. ["No!"] But whether they were dealing with two or three great harbours on the Coast, or with 30 or 40 smaller harbours, in all

  663
  cases the same thing would happen. In the first place, they would have to call in a certain number of skilled labourers. Harbour work was not unskilled work. Employment such as under-water work, for instance, required persons to be trained for it for a long time. Therefore, what they would be doing by abnormally increasing this kind of work would be to bring into a particular trade a number of persons who would not otherwise be brought into it. Sooner or later this work would cease, and then there would be a surplus of workmen in a trade which had been artificially stimulated. But the amount of labour which was now seeking employment, and which could be used on harbours, would form a very small proportion indeed of the total expenditure in wages. And how was that labour to be brought to the spot? The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Dawson) spoke of 7,000 persons who were daily applying for work at the East End. He (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that if the hon. Gentleman were to apply to them not 1 per cent would accept his offer. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen who said "No" knew nothing whatever about the conditions of this very peculiar population. He could tell them of a Relief Committee that offered to 135 of these men extra work at 2s. 6d. a-day in sweeping the streets. Only 15 accepted the offer; and of the 15 only 11 appeared at the work, and only five remained at it. There were a number of persons—a floating population—who would not accept fixed labour of that kind. And as to the population they were most desirous to benefit—skilled artizans and others, who were out of their regular employment—many of them could not undertake harbour work if it were offered to them. He had got a most touching account of a case in point. In the Prescott Union, where there were a great number of watch-movement makers out of work, the Guardians had opened a stoneyard for their advantage, and what was the result? These poor fellows had explained to the Guardians, and the Guardians supported their representation, that if they were set to stone-breaking their whole facility for their work would be absolutely and permanently destroyed, and that when trade revived again, as they hoped it might, they would be useless except for
  664
  the lowest kind of labour. And what was true about the watch-movement makers of Prescott was true also of the jewellers of Birmingham and the engineers and fitters, workers in the textile factory, with whom fineness of touch was of the greatest importance, and people of that description. Thus the class for whom the greatest consideration was necessary would be absolutely without any benefit from the proposal of the hon. Member. But there were other difficulties as well. How were these works to be conducted? Did the hon. Member propose that the Government should itself undertake to carry out the works for 40 or 50 different harbours throughout the country, to send their own engineers down in each case to superintend the works, and their own officers to supervise the workmen? Because if he did not, and if they were to be conducted, as they were at present, by contractors, he might be quite certain these contractors would not take the class of people for whom he wished employment. These could only get employment under special circumstances, by making it a condition that only these men should be employed; but their work would not be so valuable as that of persons accustomed to it. That was another practical difficulty which he thought would seriously interfere with the advantages expected from this proposal. Another point was that a long time would be required for making the plans and estimates of these works. There was absolutely no kind of engineering work at the present time so difficult as the making of harbours, and, unfortunately, about which so little was known, many of the harbours which had been designed having proved utter failures; therefore the greatest care and consideration were required for the plans and estimates before such works were undertaken. If they were to spend 18 months or two years in preparing plans for these harbours—and he sincerely hoped the hon. Member did not contemplate a continuance of the distress for that time—he assured him that they would before that time have to find some other remedy. He did not think it necessary to carry this argument further, except to point out one consideration which was really of great importance. The hon. Member proposed that for the first time the State should undertake the work of private

  665
  enterprize. The hon. Member told them there were some precedents in his favour; but he had to go for them to India and to Ireland, both of them countries in which exceptional circumstances had alone justified the intervention of the State, and both of them countries in which, he was sorry to say, there was at present no efficient and satisfactory system of representative government. But the hon. Member did not tell them there was any precedent in the United Kingdom; and, as a matter of fact, there was none. Of course, there would be in everybody's recollection the case of the distress in Lancashire at the time of the Cotton Famine. The number of people applying for relief in that county at that time went up from 69,000 to 248,000; and in consequence of the utter cessation of work in large districts immense numbers of artizans were thrown out of regular employment. It was true, the State on that occasion gave assistance to the Local Authorities by lending money on terms which, at that time, were exceptional. These terms had since been made general. It was by the assistance of these loans that the Local Authorities in the case of the Lancashire Cotton Famine were able to deal with the distress, and to establish relief works which became necessary. And that was, as he had already pointed out, the form of relief which would be best calculated to deal with the distress, and which he submitted as an alternative to the proposal of the hon. Member for Leeds. But if the State were for the first time to make an exception, and to undertake public works of a kind which were now, and had been for a long time, undertaken and carried out by private enterprize, let the House consider the serious consequences which would immediately follow. They would put a stop absolutely to all private enterprize in the United Kingdom. Take this one question of harbours. In the course of the last 20 years in 17 ports alone of the United Kingdom there had been spent by private enterprize £23,000,000, and these ports did not include London, Bristol, and some other large places. That was nearly double the whole amount of money that had been spent by the six other great maritime nations of Europe, which had all had recourse to State aid as a means of providing harbours. Now, if localities knew that they could obtain more harbour accommodation,
  666
  or that there was a chance of obtaining harbours at the expense of the State, was it likely that this expenditure would continue, or that any fresh expenditure would be undertaken? He firmly believed that if the Motion of the hon. Member were passed, and the Government were now to give it effect, that the first result would be that within 12 months there would be more people thrown out of work who were now employed, or likely to be employed, in harbour works by private enterprize, than any number which the State could possibly provide for. For these reasons, although he sympathized most heartily with the desire of the hon. Gentleman both to provide for the safety of our seamen and to provide for the relief of those who were temporarily in distress owing to the present depression in trade, he could not invite the House to accept the Motion.
  MR. E. W. DENISONsaid, the House had had a very serious and important admission from the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Chamberlain), to the effect that the distress in the country was almost universal, and, further, that the distress was of a most aggravated character. This statement, he thought, no one would be inclined to question. Neither would it be disputed that the depression in trade had been followed by the usual consequences—fall of profits, reduction in wages, and increase in the number of unemployed. The distress being very great, something must be done for its relief. The unemployed had, so far, borne their hard lot in an excellent spirit; but too great a demand must not be made upon their patience. It should be remembered that an idle population tended in time to become a criminal population; and they were early taught that for idle hands there was mischief found to do by a certain personage. Men without employment accepted suggestions, pondered over ideas, and contemplated actions which they would have regarded with abhorrence in days when, to-morrow, work was certain, and to-morrow's bread assured. At the present time the air was tremulous with agitation, and there was little doubt that we were on the border land of a vast social upheaval; and it was better that, if it were to come, it should come in a peaceful and Constitutional way than by force and violence. It did not require the French Revolution

  667
  to teach us that starving men were not apt to use rose-water. It was necessary, therefore, either to remove the causes of the existing depression, or to counteract its effects. Great was the power of that House; but he was well aware that forces beyond the control of the British Parliament regulated trade and commerce, though, undoubtedly, its action could affect those forces for good or for evil. Certain large projects which would have been beneficial to trade were abandoned when Lord Salisbury ceased to be Prime Minister. Further, the agitating zeal of some hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches was much calculated to shake that confidence without which there could be no successful trade. The only way to relieve the prevailing distress was to find employment for those who were unemployed. They did not ask for charity, but for work, which should be of service both to themselves and to the State. The hon. Member who had brought forward this subject had pointed out one direction in which this work might be supplied. Everyone who knew the North-East Coast was aware that it was a Coast of iron, which rose up out of the sea in an unbroken and terrible wall. Driven by the stress of the North-East gales, the seamen had no haven in which to take refuge, and unless they kept away from that inhospitable shore must perish. He had no hesitation in saying that hundreds of lives and many ships might be saved if there were a harbour on that Coast; and any relief work which would save life and property would amply repay the original outlay upon it. The President of the Local Government Board said it would take a long time to prepare plans for harbours; but the plans for a harbour of refuge on the North-East Coast were already prepared, and were the sanction of the Government given the work could begin to-morrow; and this statement held good for other parts of the country, engineers having plans for dealing with every conceivable place where harbours might be constructed; and as to Local Authorities borrowing money, it would be necessary first to create the Local Authorities, and it would take a year or more to constitute, them. He was greatly surprised to find that the President of the Local Government Board, who had been described as "the cherub that sits up aloft, to watch
  668
  over the life of poor Jack," should oppose this Motion, which, if carried into effect, would do so much for the safety of life at sea. One of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments was of the most extraordinary character. He said that distress was universal, but that the relief which public works would give was only partial. If this argument were carried to its legitimate conclusion it would close the boxes at the Mansion House, and would button up our pockets. It would forbid us to give a shilling to the man who was starving on our doorstep, because we could not give shillings to all the starving men in all the streets of London. According to the right hon. Gentleman, if they could not help all they must not help anyone. Legislation, too, would be greatly curtailed if only those Bills were to pass that redressed all the grievances of all the people in the United Kingdom. Then the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the great things to be expected from private enterprize. But if they were to wait until private enterprize invested money in harbours of refuge such harbours would never be constructed. Portland and Plymouth Breakwaters would certainly never have been raised above the waves by private enterprize. The supporters of the Resolution before the House did not ask the House to do anything extraordinary at this time of distress which it would not be well to do any time. Were they to commit themselves to the doctrine that they were to refuse demands which were right and reasonable because a concession to such demands might hereafter lead to demands which were unreasonable? The question was, could they do anything which would, at the same time, help the unemployed, and be of public advantage? The President of the Local Government Board asked the late Government what was their policy as to the unemployed? He had now to answer that question himself, or was the answer to be reserved until April 1, when the secrets of every Ministerial heart were to be made known, and the contents of Pandora's box were to be disclosed? At all events, they had a right to ask whether the views of the Government were in accordance with those of the Foreign Secretary, who lately advocated the curtailment of the hours of labour? Those views were essentially Socialistic. They were identical with the views of the

  669
  speakers at the Trafalgar Square meeting, which put a thorn into the side of the Home Secretary. Were those views to be adopted by the Government? At present they stood in this position—that one of their prominent Members had borrowed the Socialistic clothes at the time of the late Election, and then, when they came into Office, they prosecuted the Socialist leaders. Gentlemen on the Front Bench had, no doubt, their dreams of immortality. They could not trust for that to their legislation or to their speeches. Their legislation might be undone, and their speeches forgotten—but there was one thing to which they could trust—that was to the honour which was gained by those whose names were carved and engraved on public works. So far as hon. Gentlemen opposite had gone, history could only recognize their genius for destruction. If they cared in the least about their future reputation, they ought gladly to agree to a Resolution which would enable them to give proofs of constructive ability. Bearing in mind the urgent need that existed for relief works, he had been astounded to hear that the Government intended to oppose the Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the hon. Member who had brought forward the Resolution had apologized for taking charge of so important a subject. He felt sure that everyone who had listened to the hon. Member's speech would agree that no such apology was needed. The President of the Local Government Board, in his reply to the hon. Member, had shown himself opposed to the construction of harbours, and appeared to think that harbours were of very little use indeed, except for commercial purposes, and that they would hardly at all serve the purpose which the hon. Member had in view—namely, the saving of human life. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in localities where harbours most abounded loss of life mostly occurred. That view was in direct opposition to the opinion of the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire was Chairman in 1884; for in the Report of that Committee it was stated that the great loss of life and property at sea would be reduced by an increase in the number of deep-water harbours accessible to vessels at all
  670
  states of the tide. One statement the right hon. Gentleman had made was of so extraordinary a character that he could not let it pass without comment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be of opinion that it was highly desirable that County Authorities should borrow money for the purpose of constructing harbour works; and he intimated that it was not necessary to wait for the new Local Government scheme, leaving the House impressed with the idea that there was but little hope of the early production of that scheme. That County Authorities should be allowed to borrow for the purpose under consideration was a most extraordinary doctrine. The magistrates in Quarter Sessions constituted the only authority that could possibly exercise the power; and to encourage a body, which, however public-spirited, was not, and did not profess to be, representative, to burden counties with any charges for purposes, however useful, was a doctrine which he did not expect to hear in that House, and least of all from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with not having instituted inquiries as to the extent of the distress during his tenure of Office. As a matter of fact, he did cause inquiries to be made, and he received from the Local Government Board Inspectors throughout the country Reports on the condition of the population. From those Reports he had gathered that it was not among the people who ordinarily applied to the Poor Law Authorities for relief that distress of an exceptional kind existed. The President of the Local Government Board had committed himself to some propositions which might be very embarrassing to him in the future. The right hon. Gentleman said (1) that it was chiefly among the artizan and skilled labourer class that distress prevailed; (2) that this class could not, from the character of their training, take advantage of ordinary relief works, such as making harbours and carrying out sanitary improvements; and (3) that the Government were responsible for dealing with the distress of these persons.
  Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I said both the House and the Government were responsible.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Exactly so. The House and the Government were bound to deal with the distress of those classes; but not in the way of sanitary

  671
  works and analogous undertakings carried on by Local Authorities. How, then, did the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with them?
  Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I thought I had made that perfectly clear in my speech. I said I relied, at all events for the present, upon the stimulus which I thought had been given to Local Authorities to carry out the very kind of works of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken—namely, sanitary and all other kinds of work connected with the usual business of Local Authorities.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had undoubtedly dwelt upon the utility of that class of works, and in that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he concurred; but in another part of his speech he had pointed out the inefficacy of public works to meet the case of skilled artizans; and if their case could not be met by sanitary works executed by Local Authorities, what scheme of relief had the right hon. Gentleman in his mind? The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the case of Prescott. How were the watchmakers of that town to be relieved if, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, they could not take advantage of harbour or sanitary works? What scheme was the right hon. Gentleman hatching by which he would give relief to this most deserving class of persons? Two, and only two, methods of meeting the distress could be conceived. One was that the Local Authorities should themselves at once take in hand the watch-making industry, and the other that the Government should have recourse to fiscal expedients with the view of protecting that industry from foreign competition. He need hardly say that he did not recommend either course, nor could he conceive of any Government making such a proposition; but if neither of those expedients were to be adopted, what possible scheme could the right hon. Gentleman have in view? Turning now to the main proposition contained in his hon. Friend's Motion, he agreed with the President of the Local Government Board. He agreed that only very partial, if any, relief could be afforded by the construction of harbours to the class whom they chiefly desired to benefit. The distress might be diminished in the localities where
  672
  such work was instituted; but to the great centres of industry, which were the scenes of the most acute distress, no relief would be brought. Then, supposing it were determined to construct harbours, by what means were the authorities to select for employment upon the work those most in need of it? They were too apt to forget that the money they were spending was not created by a fiat of that House, but was itself drawn largely from the wage-earning class; and where it was not so drawn, it was drawn from that capital which would go to support the wage-earning class. His hon. Friend represented Leeds. How could the construction of a great harbour of refuge on the Coast of Cornwall affect his hon. Friend's constituents? Almost the only way in which they could be affected would be by their having the privilege of paying for it. Therefore, though by constructing such a harbour they would possibly diminish the congestion of labour in Cornwall, they would be doing so at the cost of the very class whom they desired to benefit. But while it was unquestionably true that to undertake works for the sake of giving employment would not benefit but injure the working classes, it was also true that if the erection of these works was in itself desirable now was the time to carry them out. Depression in trade was accompanied and marked by a general lowering of wages; and, therefore, if it were the fact that harbours were required in the public interest, there could be no better moment for constructing them, for in that way they would possibly relieve local distress, and they would certainly construct them at less cost to the public Exchequer. The House and the country had no reason to complain of the manner in which the debate had been conducted. No nobler subject could be offered for their consideration than the relief of distress; but there might be temptations to rashly adopt measures which might appear for the moment to diminish the acute symptoms of the disease, but which would in reality only aggravate them. He was glad to see, by the prevailing tone and by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no danger of falling into that particular error. But while the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that, in

  673
  the interests of the labouring classes themselves, anything in the nature of State public work would be folly, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether this was not the proper opportunity for carrying out the harbour works which had been so often recommended by Commissions and Committees. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could give any indication, however faint, that he would favourably consider the very limited proposal of the Committee of 1884, he hoped his hon. Friend behind him would think that by his admirable speech he had got all that he could expect, and that he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
  MR. BRADLAUGH, said, he wished to give his reasons for voting against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds in the event of its being pressed to a division. There was no more dangerous tendency at the present time than the tendency on the part of many Democratic advisers to urge upon those who accepted their counsel that it was the duty of the Government to provide, in seasons of distress and misery, for such distress and misery by special Government action. An hon. Member who supported the Motion said that the unemployed asked for work, and if we wished to relieve the distress it must be by employing the unemployed. It was a dangerous doctrine to teach that it was the duty of the Government to provide employment at all. He submitted that that was not, and ought not to be, one of the functions of Government; and that if such a function could be discharged with advantage it was only in countries where despotic institutions prevailed, and there was no incentive to individual effort. The kind of claim which was made in this Motion on behalf of the poor was one which, if acceded to, would do them more irretrievable and lasting mischief than any other kind of ill that could be done them. If they taught people that when they were hungry the Government had food for them and work for them, they would give them the right to expect, when hungry, that the Government would fulfil their promise. They had seen, within the last few days, a special tendency on both sides of the House to complain that reductions were being contemplated in great Government works; and
  674
  these complaints had been made quite independent of the consideration whether the reductions were well or ill-advised. They were complained of solely on the ground of the prevailing distress. But on that ground they might justify any extravagance. That which Government works did was to relieve only, in the slightest degree, and very temporarily, the hungry few, while by their addition to expenditure they created a permanent approach to hunger on the part of the many. The great difficulty they had to contend against was the possibility that this country would have less produce-earning ability in the struggle with other nations. They had to face enormously increased Expenditure year by year, and with this the increase of indebtedness; for although it was true that the National Debt had nominally decreased, they had side by side with that an increase of the Local Debt to an amount exceeding any reduction of the National Debt, and the aggregate of the Local Debt was to him a National Debt, which the nation had, in some fashion, to acquit itself of. If the proposal for one kind of works were acceded to on the ground stated, there was no defence against similar proposals for the other kinds of work. But his objection was simply this—that Government interference destroyed and neutralized the self-reliance and individual action of the Local Authorities. It was only from these that they could getredemption; and Governmental relief of the moment was a permanent paralysis of the nation.
  MR. J. A. BLAKEsaid, he wished to urge upon the House the necessity which existed for the construction of harbours of refuge along the Coast of Ireland. The question was one that had been already very fully considered. In 1857 there was a Committee of that House which fully considered the matter, and they came to an unanimous Report in favour of such works. That Committee was followed by a Commission, including men of authority on questions connected with the sea and engineers; and they recommended certain harbours of refuge, of which two were to be on the Coast of Ireland, and a half-dozen on the Coast of England. In 1883 a Select Committee was appointed, of which he was a Member, and again the necessity and advisability of having such works carried out was

  675
  pointed out and agreed to. He contended that no Member of the House could consider the subject with any care, or have regard to the necessities of the case, without arriving at the conclusion that there was grave and crying necessity for the construction of these works. Some of the most leading nautical men in the Kingdom had been examined at the inquiries to which he had alluded, and expressed themselves in favour of these harbours of refuge. It was not true that the absence of the latter would result in sailors remaining more constantly at their work at sea; and it was also untrue that the question of insurance afforded an argument as against the existence of such harbours; and there was no doubt in the world that hundreds and hundreds of lives would be saved if such ports of refuge existed along the Coasts. Having been an Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland for many years, he could bear personal testimony to the fact that the construction of such harbours would be productive of incalculable advantages to the fisheries' industry, and that was surely a most important consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Local Government Board had dwelt very largely upon the desirability of these works for the purpose of relieving distress. He confessed he sympathized very strongly with the existing distress; but he would have preferred that the consideration of these harbours should have been put forward on other grounds. He wished to touch upon the question of a harbour at Waterford. Where such harbours were most desirable, from an Imperial point of view, they conferred very little local benefit. The evidence taken before the Committee that considered this question showed that, from an Imperial point of view, there could be no more important site for a harbour of refuge than Waterford. Ireland had paid far more than her share to the Imperial Exchequer; and he thought he was justified in saying that Ireland would be satisfied to take back some of the millions which England owed her in the form of works of the kind contemplated in the proposition before the House. He had no hesitation in saying—and he spoke with considerable experience on the subject—that both in the direction of humanity, as well as of the maritime interests of
  676
  the United Kingdom, there could be no outlay of public money more advantageous than a judicious expenditure upon harbours of refuge along the Coast.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that in the Report of the Committee in 1884 and 1885 he thought it was conclusively shown that not only was it desirable that harbours of refuge should be provided on different parts of the Coast, but that of all the points on the Coast the Coast of Cornwall was most in need of such harbours, and most in need of such consideration, if only because of the great poverty of its inhabitants. He could not help feeling, however, that the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), were really unanswerable. While they had a perfect right to insist upon the necessity for carrying out these harbour works in the interest of the seamen, as had been so often recommended by Commissions and Committees, he thought they were trailing a herring across the path, if he might say so, when they linked with that suggestion the question of providing work for the unemployed. In his own mind, he thought those who represented maritime constituencies should assist those who were the backbone of the first line of defence of this country—he referred to the seamen, who were in many cases practically disfranchised, and had no direct representation, and who in many instances were obliged to be away from their home during the time of a General Election. He, for one, was not disposed to go to the length proposed by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who demanded these undertakings of the Government because of the distress existing in the country at the present time; but he should like to point out that the establishment of these harbours of refuge—small harbours, not great national harbours, like those at Dover and Cardiff—would constitute remunerative labour in the best sense of the word, because such harbours would tend to develop the fishing industry, and consequently to increase the food supply of the country; and if, at the same time, they had the courage to put down those pernicious "rings" which existed in some places, and which caused tons of

  677
  fish to be destroyed in order to keep up the prices, they would be conferring a great boon upon the poor of our large towns. The evidence given before the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) showed conclusively that, in the opinion of the best authorities, the establishment of a harbour in Cornwall—at St. Ives for instance—would be a national undertaking in the widest sense of the word, and in no sense a merely local matter. But what he wanted to impress upon the House was the fact that if they set the unemployed to work all round the Coast at the present moment, they would not in a few years be any better off than they were now. They had the figures of the Local Government Board to show that, according to the statistics of pauperism, the condition of the people was not much worse now than in previous years; and, indeed, it was no use shutting their eyes to the fact that this condition of things was chronic. If that were so, as undoubtedly it was, where was the use of starting relief works, or raising Mansion House Funds, for the purpose of temporarily staving off what was recurring year after year? £70,000 or £80,000—what was it? A mere drop in the bucket—a flake in a snowstorm. As John Stuart Mill had said, what was required was more distribution, and a larger remuneration of labour; and these, in his (Mr. Cony-beare's) mind, were the great desiderata for meeting the existing evil. They did not act sufficiently upon the principle that the labourer was worthy of his hire.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject before the House. It was the establishment of harbours of refuge round the Coast, and the employment of the population upon them. They were not discussing the general question of pauperism.
  MR. CONYBEAREremarked, that he was endeavouring to show that, in connection with this question of the establishment of harbours of refuge, they had to consider—and it had been considered at length by hon. Gentlemen who preceded him—the general question of destitution. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that he is out of Order in not confining himself to the Question before the House.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had to apologize for having travelled beyond the record, and he would not pursue that line of argument. He only wished to point out that in proposing to establish harbours of refuge they really did not meet the great social difficulties which faced them. Such works could at the best be only palliative, and in the course of a few years after they had finished all their undertakings they would find themselves in just the same difficulties that they were in now.
  MR. GILESsaid, he did not desire to argue this matter upon the side issue of finding employment for the unemployed. As the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said, the construction of harbours of refuge involved very difficult engineering problems. In these works many skilled engineers and skilled artizans; but only a small portion of the present unemployed labourers would be required. Whatever labour was employed, it would be of advantage to the unemployed; and in these times of destitution every little helped. Now, the Government had established a very good precedent by commencing a harbour of refuge at Dover, although there might be some doubts as to the necessity of a harbour of refuge at that place, it being so near to the Downs, which formed a natural harbour for the Channel. There were many other places on the Coast where harbours of refuge were much more required than at Dover; and he suggested that the Government should consider the question in a broad and comprehensive spirit, and not confine their attention solely to Dover. The Government had at public cost provided ships to protect the nation; and he maintained, therefore, it was part of their duty to provide harbours to protect the ships. Of course, he fully admitted that when they came to determine the different localities in which harbours of refuge should be made, they would have conflicting interests on all sides to contend with. To-night an Irish Member had advocated the making of harbours on the Irish Coast. The Representative of a Cornish constituency had advocated the construction of a harbour on the Cornish Coast; and a Gentleman from Yorkshire had advised the Government to construct a harbour on the Coast of

  679
  Yorkshire — he supposed at Filey. Despite these conflicting interests, he thought the Government would be perfectly justified, and he thought the public would not grudge the expense, in following out the precedent they had established by the commencement of a harbour of refuge at Dover, and establishing similar harbours of refuge elsewhere. Much had been said in the course of the debate about the necessity of small harbours. It was well known that small harbours were particularly necessary on the North-East Coast, in connection with the fishing trade; and, although he quite agreed it was not the duty of the Government to provide funds for the construction of harbours in the interests of localities, he thought some assistance, by way of loans from the Imperial Exchequer, ought to be given to localities which were struggling to make harbours for themselves. That was a subject well worthy of consideration; and he trusted the Government would without delay give their attention to it.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he thought it was very dangerous for Parliament to endeavour to relieve temporary distress by means of public relief works. He was fully persuaded that there had been times of more serious distress than that which existed now; and he believed that constant reference to distress in the House of Commons only tended to increase distress, because it taught people to depend upon the House rather than on themselves. It was not wise to relieve distress by expending public money, because that money came from the people who were just above the class who were driven to relief. The opinion prevailing upon the Opposition Bench was that the only way to relieve distress was to expend public money in its relief; and he had no great desire to nurse poverty. What he wished was to get rid of it. What they ought to do was to set to work manfully to relieve the causes which led to destitution; and his own belief was that the future relief of distress was to be found in an increased cultivation of the soil; and a very remarkable illustration of the end of State relief of the distress was afforded in France. Constant attempts were made by the late Government of France to relieve distress; and the consequence was that the country
  680
  had been almost landed in the position of being crushed by the weight of poverty. The greatest danger to the commerce of England was in loading the country with obligations of debt we should have some difficulty in getting rid of. There was no doubt that in the future the great commercial contest would be fought out by England and America; and it appeared to him that in view of that contest we ought to endeavour to lessen our national obligations, rather than to increase them. He had no great faith in the construction of harbours by the State; but he had faith in the provision of harbours by Local Authorities, who, understanding the wants of the district, could spend much more carefully than the State. He protested against the idea of relieving the distress by increasing our obligations in the shape of constructing harbours of refuge out of the national funds.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he thought that this question should not be considered merely from the point of view of the distress which undoubtedly existed amongst the working classes, but also with reference to the question of the lives of seamen. The providing of harbours of refuge for the purpose of saving the lives of seafaring men was one of the most important matters which could engage the attention of the House. The reasons upon which he would base his claims on behalf of Waterford Harbour were not local reasons merely, but the much broader reasons of national necessity. The Report of the Commission, which had already been laid upon the Table of the House, showed that in one year alone no fewer than 32 vessels had been sighted in distress on the Waterford Coast and on the South Coast of Wexford. Many of those vessels were wrecked. The harbour was at present of quite a sufficient depth for the trade of the port, but was quite insufficient as a harbour of refuge for the English nation's great shipping; and this was, he believed, a point of great importance. The Royal Commission had spoken in the following terms concerning this harbour:—
  "Looking at the many advantages possessed by this harbour (Waterford), which occupied an important point on the South-Eastern angle of Ireland, near the entrance to St. George's Channel, we concur with the Committee of the

  681
  House of Commons (which had reported in favour of it) that it is most desirable that these great natural advantages should be turned to account, and a sum of money laid out in the deepening of the bar."
  The Report, further, went on to say that the conversion of Carlingford into a harbour of refuge, and the improvement of Waterford for the purpose of making it a harbour of refuge, with the excellent natural harbour of Cork, would provide ample accommodation between Lough Strangford and Wicklow, and diminish the casualties amongst the numerous shipping passing through the Irish Channel. He believed that if the views of that Commission were carried out they would be able to provide accommodation for ships of all tonnage at a comparatively small outlay at Waterford. The dredging of the entrance to Waterford Harbour at the bar would enable the biggest ships afloat to lie in there in any weather. A great ironclad was nearly destroyed at Waterford a short time ago, as also the Germanic, a Transatlantic steamer, which had been unable to get over the bar, and which had, therefore, to be taken by tugs to Liverpool in very bad weather, on account of breakage of the shaft. An outlay of £50,000 would be sufficient to do all that was required—a small sum when the vast importance of the work to be done and the benefits which would accrue to the shipping of the English people were considered. On these grounds, he believed he had established a strong case for the improvement of the harbour of Waterford, not upon local but national grounds.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he had not intended to take part in this debate but for some observations of the President of the Local Government Board with reference to harbours of refuge. As one who had had practical experience of these matters, having spent four years before the mast and a year behind the mast, and having had his own life saved by a harbour of refuge, he believed these harbours were very much wanted. He represented a county to which, if this Motion were carried, it would be certain to apply. At Wick there was a natural harbour, which only required a breakwater to be one of the finest harbours of refuge in the Kingdom. It was in a place where a harbour of refuge was wanted probably more than
  682
  anywhere else in Great Britain, since from the Moray Firth to the Orkneys there was no harbour, even for a fishing barque. There was, moreover, a considerable trade there from the East of Scotland to the Atlantic, and also a considerable trade from the Continent to the East of Scotland. Time after time Commissions had reported in favour of forming a harbour at Wick. The cost would be at most £250,000, which amount would have by this time been saved in the value of shipping lost, besides the loss of many lives between the present time and the time when the work had been recommended by the Harbour Commissioners. Only last year, he believed, there was as much money lost as would have provided a breakwater across the mouth of Wick Bay. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seemed to think that harbours of refuge were of no value; but he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would take a trip round Scotland he would change his opinion. Many sailing ships were lost by having to make for distant harbours of refuge against head winds, going ashore owing to their leeway. Not only would a great harbour be of great value locally, but it would also be valuable in a national sense. It would provide a refuge and accommodation for largo ships, and for the fishing boats that carried on work there. There were in this part of the Coast a largo number of small harbours which had been constructed under old Acts which were now practically useless, because the herring and other fisheries now required larger boats, and a little more money expended on them would again render them useful, and would have the effect of preventing many of the people engaged in the fishing industry from leaving, as they were now compelled to do, and going into the large towns, there to swell the number of unskilled labourers, and augment the distress which prevailed in these centres. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the money in connection with the construction of harbours would be spent principally upon skilled labour; but he had himself seen the making of a good many harbours; and, notwithstanding the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, he knew that the great bulk of the money was not spent upon skilled labour, but

  683
  upon the labour of those who excavated by spade and shovel. In his opinion, money could not be better spent than in the direction proposed. It would, practically, be a method of insurance against the loss of life and valuable property. The present condition of the country in this respect was not very creditable to us. Almost every other civilized country spent 10 or 20 times as much on works of this kind as we did. It was not at all creditable that while they could get so much money from Parliament for purposes that were not useful—for foreign wars and Colonial aggression—it was so difficult to get money in order to promote the comfort of the people and increase the wealth of the nation. He had very great pleasure in supporting the Resolution of the hon. Member, which, if carried, would, in his opinion, not only go a long way towards preventing a number of men from being driven from their homes and adding to the amount of unskilled labour in towns, but would also prevent a great destruction of valuable life.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he did not altogether agree with the theory that the State was bound to find work for the unemployed. If that view of the State's obligations were to prevail, there would be no end to the demands that would arise. He also thought that if, by way of relieving distress, the Government started works all over the country, many of them would turn out valueless, and thus public money would be wasted. But when there were useful works to be carried out, it was desirable that the Government should proceed to carry them out at a time when there was a dearth of employment, and when labour was cheap. He thought that the Government might very well, in times of distress such as the present, expend £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a-year on useful public works. He would not advocate the making of useless harbours for the sake of giving employment. But if certain harbours were urgently needed, now was the time to make them. He was a Member of a Committee which recently inquired into the question of harbours, and which was presided over by the present Comptroller of the Household (Mr. Marjoribanks). This Committee reported in favour of three harbours of
  684
  refuge for the East Coast—one for Cornwall, and two on the Irish Coast. He could not see why, when the House had appointed a Committee which went fully into the question, they should not give effect to its recommendations. The Committee was, no doubt, a Committee of the last Parliament; but, practically, it was a Committee of this Parliament. If they did not proceed with all the harbours suggested, they ought to commence with one or two of them. It was a remarkable fact that they were building a harbour at Dover which was not recommended by the Committee. In doing that, he considered they were throwing over the Report of the Committee. It was said that the construction of such harbours as these would not give any work to men who belonged to the class of the unemployed. But the hon. Member who had just sat down had shown that they would; and he himself, after some experience, could corroborate that view of the matter. He held that when localities were desirous of constructing harbours their efforts ought to be aided by an apportionment of Imperial funds. Many places were quite unable to defray the cost of the work themselves. Galway, for example, had exhausted its resources in an abortive attempt to construct a harbour. If assistance were given to that town the work might yet be completed. That it was very desirable that Galway should have increased harbour accommodation was shown by the evidence given before the Committee in 1884 by all the naval officers consulted. With free labour the harbour could be constructed at a cost of £100,000, and with convict labour at a cost of £30,000 or £40,000. He suggested that when competing claims should be set up by neighbouring seaport towns, a Commission might be appointed to decide where the harbour should be constructed. The President of the Local Government Board had raised the objection that there was no settled agreement as to the kind of harbour which should be built. Of course there could be no such agreement, because the character of each harbour must depend upon the conditions of the locality and upon the uses to which it would be put. Ireland use to receive £8,000 a-year from the Treasury for the purpose in question; but for the last three years the money had not been

  685
  given. He would only add that he hoped there would be a division on the question, and that the House would recollect that the issue was really whether they should rescind the Report of the Committee which had devoted so much time and care to this subject.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, there was no generosity so great as that of A when he thought that B ought to give something to C. The question of a national harbour was an entirely different question from that of the construction of a commercial harbour, which was the subject under discussion; and he did not think it was necessary to come to the State to aid merely commercial harbours. He had the honour of being the Chairman of the Tees Conservancy Commissioners, and he could say that they had improved their rivers and built piers at the cost of upwards of £500,000, and not a single penny of it had come as a gift from the State. All of it had been raised by means of local sources, or was in course of repayment to the State. The money, or rather part of it, had been borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; some of it at 3½ per cent; but that rate of interest had been increased to 4 per cent. His only complaint against the State was that this additional ½ per cent had been added to the rate of interest. The people who had made the Tees what it now was relied only upon themselves; and he considered that there was no community so poor that could not contribute something towards the construction of a harbour which their trading interests required. An hon. Member had spoken in favour of constructing harbours of refuge; but that was not a matter which was fairly before the House. The Tees was used as a harbour of refuge; its trade had been increased, and the river had been deepened, so that from a depth of 3 feet 8 inches at low water spring tides they had now a depth of 21 feet and 16 feet rise of tide, enabling commercial vessels to enter the port at any time of tide, and at high tide water for the largest ships. The Conservators of the river had done what they could to meet the existing distress in the country by putting on a number of men out of employment; but it was a mistake to suppose that any great amount of unskilled labour could be employed
  686
  on this class of work. On the Clyde about £1,500,000 had been spent, he believed, on the river, and, in addition, some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 on other works. All that was done by local money. And so it was with the improvements on the Tyne, where some 200 or 300 vessels usually took refuge, having scarcely any dues to pay. If money was to be given away, he would ask whether it should not be given to those who helped themselves, rather than to people who had done nothing in the way of helping themselves? If Gentlemen came to that House and asked those who had built their own harbours without aid from the State to help them with public money in building theirs with State-found money it would be a very one-sided proposal. He intended to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, and he had given this explanation in order that his vote might not be misunderstood. He hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the discussion, and would not insist on going to a division.
  MR. YEOsaid, that the question before the House had been discussed almost from every point. All agreed that harbours of refuge were necessary, not only on the Eastern Coast, but for the Coast between Bristol and Swansea. He rose to say a word on behalf of those ports that could not help themselves. Wherever it could be shown that dangers existed, it was only sight that we, as a maritime nation, rhould see that, as far as possible, our sailors were saved from the dangers which beset them. One hon. Gentleman who had spoken had mentioned hundreds and thousands of pounds spent in deepening the harbours in the locality he represented. He (Mr. Yeo) could also speak of hundreds and thousands spent in harbour improvements in the locality in which he lived; but his point was this—that in those particular localities there was a large existing trade, which justified this large expenditure, and which enabled the Local Authorities to borrow money upon the security of the tolls, and thus to enter on a large outlay of this kind. But there were other localities in which that condition did not exist; and his contention was that they, as a nation, were not only justified, but it was a duty laid upon

  687
  them to do their part towards making those localities safe. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he contended that the construction of harbours of refuge were desirable not only on strategic and humanitarian, but on economic grounds. Statistics told them not only the number of lives lost, but of millions of money—about £2,000,000 annually—squandered on our Coasts. Was it not inconceivable that, after the Report of the Commission that the loss of life and the loss of property would be greatly reduced if these harbours were constructed, no steps whatever had been taken to carry out that recommendation? A great deal of stress had been laid that night upon the necessity for deepening and improving the small harbours round the Coast. He did not deny the importance and the claims of those small harbours, for the improvement of which Imperial assistance was asked to supplement local effort; but he would remind hon. Gentlemen that there was another class of harbours in connection with which no such question arose. Looking back to the Report of the Royal Commission, they would find that that Report recognized that there were large national harbours which it behoved the nation to provide. He would appeal to the Government, and ask them to set about that work. One wondered sometimes at the zeal shown by the Government in thinking that the shipowners of the country should do their duty. That zeal on the part of the Government was commendable; but while they were looking for the mote in the eyes of the shipowners, they forgot all about the beam in their own eyes. He said the duty of the nation was to provide these national harbours, and he regretted that the President of the Local Government Board should have given it as his deliberate opinion that these harbours of refuge would have no effect in saving life. He thought it was a poor compliment to the Committees and the Royal Commission that the right hon. Gentleman should express an opinion in direct conflict with the views of a number of practical men. Common sense would seem to convince one that the construction of these harbours would result in the saving of some lives; and, for his part, he was rather tempted to accept the opinion of a body of practical
  688
  men than the individual opinion of any one Gentleman, however well-informed, or however high his position.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he believed that anyone who had taken cognizance of the facts put before the House by so many speakers must feel that by acceding to the Resolution they would be doing good by both hands—on the one hand, to sailors, by providing a refuge from the perils of the sea, and on the other hand to labourers, providing a refuge from sheer destitution. Different parts of the United Kingdom had been brought under the attention of the House. The claims of the English Coast, East, South, and West, had been supported; but there had been only slight notice given to Ireland. But the South Coast of Ireland, with which he was well acquainted, had special claims. It was the point to which the great commercial traffic between the United States and Great Britain tended, and where harbours would be of the greatest advantage. On the South Coast of Ireland there were many points which could each be turned to account, notably to the advantage of the fishing industry, which the House had been told was of the highest practical importance; and, if that was so, there was no part of the Kingdom where the fishing interest more deserved the fostering care of a benevolent Government than in the South of Ireland. Along the whole Southern Coast of Ireland, outside and beyond those harbours which nature herself provided, there was no harbour actually constructed by man. On the English Coast harbours abound; but very little money, indeed, had been spent on Irish industries, and scarcely anything to promote the fishing industry. In these times of depression and semi-starvation he held it to be the stern, imperative duty of every man having the welfare of his country at heart to pay attention to this subject. In Ireland this would be followed by the most beneficial results; for he was sure that the South Coast of Ireland presented many points that might be turned to practical account. He sincerely hoped that the debate would bear good fruit, and that the subject would not be shelved indefinitely.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA)said, he must compliment

  689
  the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Dawson) upon the able statement he had made to the House. The question was one which interested and excited the sympathies of hon. Members, whatever might be their nationality. Every hon. Member, he was sure, sympathized with the desire to relieve the distress of people on land, and to prevent loss of life at sea. But he hoped in this, as in all things, the House would be practical, and would arrive at a sound conclusion. With respect to harbours, his hon. Friend the Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) had told him not to ransack the pigeon-holes of the Board of Trade, lest he should find in them something relating to this question left by his Predecessors. He could honestly say that he had found nothing left by his Predecessor which indicated that any sort of progress had been made in the matter. He agreed with the introducer of the Amendment that mercantile harbours ought to be provided by mercantile communities. The hon. Member had, however, spoken on behalf of a smaller class of harbour. He entirely sympathized with the hon. Member in the desire to do everything that could be done, not only for the Mercantile Marine, but also to promote the great fishing industries of the country, and to insure the safety and the lives of our seafaring population. But when a request was made that these works should be done by the State itself, it should not be forgotten that there had been an enormous expenditure all round our Coasts on small harbours during the last 20 years, and that this expenditure had been met by loans from the Government, which were being paid back with rapid punctuality and regularity. When one fishing community was paying for its harbour, and meeting its engagements with regularity, how could they propose that another fishing locality, which was, perhaps, a rival to the other district, should have its harbour made for it without any cost or responsibility whatever? The community which was discharging its duty and helping itself would be taxed in order to assist the community which was not helping itself. The Committee had recommended that loans should be made on easy terms to districts where harbours were necessary, and that such districts should be encouraged in that way to construct their own harbours.
  690
  That, in his opinion, was the proper course to pursue. He should like to call the attention of the House to the evidence of a gentleman than whom no one was better acquainted with the interests of the fishing industry and the great need of harbours round the Coasts of the United Kingdom—he meant Mr. Spencer Walpole, who occupied the position of Fisheries Commissioner for many years. When before the Committee he was asked a question as to whether the construction of fishing harbours ought to be undertaken by the localities or by the State, Mr. Walpole stated that he very strongly held the opinion that the construction of such harbours ought to rest with the locality and not with the State. He was asked whether he could give any reason for that conclusion, and he said that, in the first place, the construction of a harbour always tended to increase the value of property in its neighbourhood; and, therefore, that if the State should construct the harbour the whole community would be increasing the value of the property of a small section of it. That was a strong argument, for within his own knowledge land which had been worth only £10 an acre by the construction of a harbour became worth £1,000 an acre. If the value of property in the neighbourhood of a harbour was so enormously increased, the owners of that property ought to come forward and contribute to the construction of the harbour. In the next place, Mr. Walpole said that it would be almost impossible for the State to provide harbours on all parts of the Coast, and that it must of necessity give the preference to some districts over others. Then, again, Mr. Walpole said that he thought the granting of State aid discouraged the local people from making the efforts they would otherwise make. If it were once understood that the State was going to construct harbours, no locality and no private individual would ever construct one for themselves, but would wait and hope to obtain a State grant. That was perfectly true; and while he thought it extremely desirable that this harbour accommodation should be provided, he thought that the proper course was to aid Local Authorities as far as possible in providing the accommodation for themselves, and he did not think that the accommodation should be provided by a direct

  691
  grant in favour of one locality at the expense of another. A remark which he had made to a deputation with reference to shipowners being more vigilant had been somewhat misunderstood. What he said was only a quotation from his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board when President of the Board of Trade, who stated that the greater loss of life at sea was rather due to improper equipment or to unseaworthy vessels than to any lack of harbour accommodation. By far the greater loss of life round our Coasts was beyond the 15 miles limit, and therefore independent of harbour accommodation. All the evidence went to show that the loss of life among fishermen was not due to lack of harbours, but that the greatest loss arose at sea. It was shown by Mr. Gray, of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, that in seven years there were 605 British vessels lost, with a total of 1,565 lives. Pour hundred and three of these lives were lost within a limit of 15 miles of the shore, 454 lives were lost somewhat beyond the 15 miles limit, while 708 lives were lost at sea. It appeared, therefore, that out of 1,565 lives lost in seven years 708 were totally unaffected by want of harbour accommodation. It had been admitted that the State works ought not to clash with private enterprize; and it seemed to him that Mr. Spencer Walpole's evidence showed that these grants could not be made without clashing with private enterprize, and without putting a stop to private enterprize, and that they would, therefore, hinder rather than aid the object they had in view by making State grants. The next question was whether, if the Government decided upon making a number of these harbours at once, it would assist the distressed classes now unemployed, and, if so, to what extent it would do so? He had consulted Sir John Hawkshaw on this subject, as he was an authority upon harbour questions and a most experienced man. When he asked Sir John Hawkshaw how far the construction of harbours would help the unemployed classes he said that he did not believe that they would be able to find employment for any of the distressed classes in London, but that they must get the unemployed classes from the neighbourhood of the harbours. Then it would be a year, or a year and a-half,
  692
  before the harbours were begun, for surveys and plans of the district would have to be made and skilled men accustomed to blasting operations employed to clear the site, and it was more than probable that before the harbour could be made homes for the workpeople would have to be built. Sir John Hawkshaw said that the tunnel which had just been completed under the Severn required 3,000 men to be employed, and their first duty had been to spend £50,000 in building houses for the workmen. It would be a long time, therefore, before men could be got at work. In the next place, as strong, hardy men would be required for work on the harbours, he did not see how the unemployed classes of the towns could be employed. The largest amount which it had been suggested should be spent on the construction of harbours was £6,000,000, extending over a period of six years. That would be £500,000 a-year, and what amount of employment would £500,000 a-year give? The wages of the labouring classes of this country amounted to between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 a-year. The £500,000 it was proposed to spend would have to go, to a large extent, to pay for skilled labour, for engineering talent, and for supervision, and very little would be left for the employment of unskilled labour. The £500,000 a-year for the purpose of giving employment would be, therefore, a mere bagatelle, merely a drop in the ocean. If they wanted to employ labour they could do it very much more effectually than by voting money in that House for the building of harbours. Let them remove the restrictions which Parliament had put upon the subscription of capital for useful enterprizes. Only yesterday a deputation waited upon him with reference to the employment of £1,500,000 upon the construction of a railway between Derbyshire and Yorkshire, in which a seven mile tunnel would occur. The Midland Railway Company guaranteed a minimum dividend, of 3 per cent upon the capital; but the difficulty was that the House would not allow interest to be paid upon subscribed capital during construction, and it was impossible to obtain the capital without. He maintained that the House, by passing the Resolution of Tuesday last, with reference to the Man-

  693
  chester Ship Canal Bill, allowing capital to have free play, did more to promote the objects in view than it would by passing any number of Resolutions of this kind. Sir John Hawkshaw had assured him that, supposing the Government were to propose such an enterprise, nothing could be done in less than a year and a-half. A Bill would require to be brought in, private property would have to be taken, and the whole scheme would have to be planned; and before all that could be done, the Government hoped, at least, that the present distress would be a thing of the past. He had consulted another great authority, Sir Robert Rawlinson, of the Local Government Board, and that gentleman declared that the last thing the Government should do was to contemplate the employment of men with a view to relieving distress among the industrial classes. Let them stir up the Local Authorities. The Local Authorities would do these things much better than the Government, because they knew exactly who were in a distressed condition and the kind of men to employ. He ventured to say they had two or three speeches in the course of the evening that had contributed not a little to the value of the debate. He had never heard his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board make a better speech; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had, with admirable force, given the House some sound doctrine; and there had been a speech delivered from below the Gangway by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) especially, which every Member of the House should welcome, and none so heartily as those who called themselves the Conservative Party, for it contained a sound principle, on which it was to be hoped the government of this country would always be conducted. It was an excellent thing when a man in the position of the hon. Member for Northampton told the working classes not to look to the Government for employment, but to their own organizations and to their own local governments; and to maintain that character for independence, which, after all, had always been the pride of the English working classes, and which was the best safeguard against Socialism. He ventured to warn the House against the attempt to relieve
  694
  distress by employment afforded by the Central Government. Let them look at France. From the baneful system of State employment, begun under the Empire, that country had never been able to shake itself free. Only the other day he observed that on the mere rumour of fresh works being started by the Government, 100,000 immigrants from the Provinces came flocking into the capital, many of them to go away disappointed, and many to remain to swell that wretched proletariat which was the terror of the French governing classes. What was wanted in this country was more temperance and thrift; and while he did not want to say one word that should be thought mockery in this time of distress—for he, and every Member, sympathized with the distressed condition of the people—yet, after all, they must hope that from this present adversity they would pluck the bright jewel of virtue and honesty and independence, and that they should learn from this lesson the great value of sustaining the national character on the old lines of self-help and self-reliance. He would promise this to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson)—that he would give the most careful attention to the Report of the Committee, and would do whatever he could to help the classes for whom he had interested himself—the fishermen and the seamen—not only to promote their industry, but to preserve their lives, If he failed, it would not be for want of sympathy, or from want of will to render such help as was within his power.
  Mr. DAWSONsaid, that after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman he should be willing to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. LANEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt on the propriety of neighbourhoods which required harbours of refuge relying on their own resources for their construction. That might be all very well for England; but the circumstances of Ireland prevented her people from relying on self-help. The owners of property in that country never came forward to bear their share of any burthen for the benefit of the locality with which they were connected, and with which it might be reasonably expected that they would identify themselves. It was well known that in the Eastern parts of Ireland, where harbours of refuge were required,

  695
  people in the different localities had been quite willing on every occasion to come forward and bear their part of the expenses. This was notably so in the case of the large works commenced and completed at Arklow and other places; but it was quite useless to ask the Local Government Board to assist in works of this kind in those districts of the West of Ireland, where the people were starving, and where the poor rates had been raised to the very highest pitch. The speeches which had been made to-night by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Blake) and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had been pointed more to the expenditure of public money in the districts where the people were unable to bear any share of the expenses, rather than to those prosperous and rich districts on the East and North-East Coasts of Ireland in which harbours had already been constructed. He assured the House that it was through no want of inclination on the part of the poor people in those localities that they did not contribute to the expense of constructing the harbours; it was simply because they were utterly unable to do so. Lately, he himself had occasion to serve upon a committee of gentlemen in the South of Ireland who had undertaken the task of providing fishing boats for the fishermen of the South-Western Coast. These gentlemen, out of their own pockets, undertook to supply large boats, costing from £600 to £800 each, to the fishermen on the Coasts of the counties of Cork, Kerry, and Waterford; but the fishermen positively refused to become responsible for the boats, for the simple reason that there was no fishery harbour along the whole Coast line in which they could safely anchor the vessels upon the return from fishing. That was one of the proofs the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board asked for, that the people of the locality were anxious to help themselves. The Irish people had been constantly taunted with coming for grants from the Imperial Parliament; but it had been proved here, during the last few weeks, that instead of the Irish people always coming as beggars to the Imperial Parliament they were contributing far more than their share of the Imperial taxation to the Exchequer, upon which they made
  696
  such futile claims from time to time in favour of useful measures, such as those contemplated in this discussion. He thought that the principal point which had been advanced by Irish Members in favour of the strengthening of fishing harbours had been unnoticed by many speakers. The Irish Representatives did not appeal to the House to construct fishing harbours for the mere purpose of providing temporary work. They took a more far-reaching and wider view of the matter than the mere temporary employment of idle hands. It had been seen that wherever in Ireland harbours had been constructed for the benefit of the fishing traffic an excellent traffic had been established, and thriving localities had arisen all around the harbours. Buildings had been erected for the curing of fish, and the result was that in all of those places which were formerly dependent upon the poor rates, which were never more than a few weeks removed from the point of starving, there flourishing communities had sprung up, and there was no such thing known as poverty or starvation. That was the reason the Irish Members regarded it as their imperative duty to press the question upon the right hon. Gentleman with the pertinacity with which they had done that evening, and not merely for the purpose of providing a few months' work for men who were now out of employment. He did not think the argument which was used by the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench was one which ought to be allowed to weigh very much with the House—namely, that it would take a couple of years at least to provide the plans and specifications and estimates for these harbours of refuge. There was an old adage, "Where there's a will there's a way," and another, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." If the Representatives of the Treasury in the House were actuated by a sincere wish to see these works commenced they could in a very few days—not weeks or months—provide the estimates and specifications necessary for the small harbours, which only required upon then an outlay of £40,000 or £50,000. He knew one harbour, that of Ballycotton, in the county of Cork, which would only cost something like £20,000 or £30,000. The pier was not completed yet; but it had been pushed

  697
  forward so very rapidly lately that the fishermen of that place were able to use it to a very large extent. Only by today's post he had received a letter from the pastor of the parish, acknowledging the great benefits which had been derived by the fishermen of the district through the harbour, though the work was not yet completed, and also acknowledging that the people of the district were in a large measure indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) for the grant which was given to them by the Government for the harbour. It was by the construction of other harbours like that at Ballycotton that the greatest amount of good could be done for the fishing industry in Ireland, and not by the construction of large harbours of refuge, which would cost something like £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 sterling. Such costly harbours might be wanted in England; but in the case of Ireland what was wanted was a series of small harbours such as he had referred to. He trusted that the President of the Local Government Board and the officials of the Treasury would turn their attention to this subject, and be able to see their way to meet the views which he (Mr. Lane) and his hon. Friends had expressed in regard to the harbour accommodation on the Coasts of Ireland.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — NOTICES OF QUESTIONS.—RESOLUTION.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in rising to move—
"That, pending the judgment of the House on the Report of any Committee appointed to consider the Business of the House, it shall be an Order of this House:
"That Notices of Questions be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, without reading them vivâ voce in the House, unless the consent of the Speaker to any particular Question has been previously obtained,"
said: I am anxious that the House should allow me, for a few moments, to bring before it the special question of which I have given Notice. Now, Sir, I am quite aware of the force of the argument which may be raised against this Motion—namely, that the Government having proposed to constitute a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the Procedure of the House,
698
it is, therefore, premature on the part of any hon. Member to approach the subject in a fragmentary manner in an endeavour to grapple effectively with it. The branch of the subject, however, to which I wish to call attention is one upon which there is practical unanimity in the House. I believe that the disadvantages of the present system have shown themselves to be so great within the last few years, that the House will have no difficulty in arriving at a unanimous decision concerning the need for improvement. The object of my Motion is, if possible, to prevent what has really become a great waste of public time. There can be no doubt that the Questions put in this House have assumed, in recent times, a most inordinate length, and there can be little doubt that the Forms of the House have been much abused. Formerly, it was always understood that the Questions should be submitted to your judgment, Sir, in order that you might eliminate anything of an argumentative nature in them, or anything outside the limit of a proper Question. But the habit which has been adopted within the last few years has been to place Questions before the House without due Notice, thereby escaping the supervision of yourself and of the Officers of the House; and by that means many Questions have assumed that argumentative character which it was originally intended not to allow. I propose my Motion with a view of putting a stop to this irregularity in our proceedings, and to bring back the Questions to the form formerly adopted. I believe the adoption of the Motion which I have ventured to place on the Paper would leave the Questions very much in the position which they occupied until recent years. Perhaps I may be allowed to show the House how these Questions have grown in modern days. I can remember the time when, in the ordinary practice of the House, it was very rare to see on the Notice Paper more than 20 Questions. I have here a list showing the remarkable way in which they have grown. Up to 1874 there was hardly an occasion when that number of 20 was exceeded, and the House proceeded with the real Business of the evening at a reasonable hour. On the 23rd of June, 1874, the number of Questions rose to 37. In 1880 they rose to 44 on one occasion, and later in

699
the same year to 47. In 1881 the number of Questions was 57; in 1884 the number rose to 61; in February of that year to 63; in April of the same year the number was 72; in November, 1884, the number rose to 87; and in December the number was 78. In March of the present year the number, on one occasion, was 77; while yesterday the number was 86. Not only has the practice of putting Questions grown immensely, but there has arisen another practice of putting a number of supplementary Questions which spring out of the answers given, with the object of arguing against the view drawn out by the original Question, thereby becoming a sort of speech, and involving a great waste of the time of the House. I believe that this is contrary to the spirit in which Questions should be brought before us, and certainly constitutes a great waste of the time of the House. Hon. Members are aware that, in recent times, the House did not begin Business till 5.30, or even later; and I venture to think they will agree with me in saying that Questions have, in fact, grown to be an abuse of our proceedings, and of the legitimate opportunity which undoubtedly ought to be afforded of making inquiries on important subjects of Ministers. To remedy the abuse, I think it is not necessary to wait for the decision of the Committee on Procedure; and the Motion which I have placed on the Paper is that all Questions should be submitted to you, Sir, or to the Officers of the House, without being read vivâ voce in the House, unless your consent should have been previously obtained. I will not detain the House further, because I believe that there is great unanimity on the subject; and I have ventured to bring it forward because I believe that the House has the remedy in its own hands, and may, to a very considerable extent, remove the grievance of which we complain. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
SIR ROBERT POWLER: I beg to second the Motion; and before the right hon. Grentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises to reply there is one point to which I should like to call his attention. I know there is a legitimate complaint on the part of the Government of the great waste of time which takes place in reference to putting
700
Questions on Mondays and Thursdays, which are Government nights; and what I wish to ask is, whether something cannot be done in order to secure that Questions shall be answered more generally on Tuesdays and Fridays than upon Government nights? Friday is a semi-Government night; but it not unfrequently happens that no Government Business is transacted on Fridays, and it seems to me that it would be for the convenience of the Government to substitute Tuesdays and Fridays for Mondays and Thursdays. Now, I understand that there is an indisposition on the part of Members of the Government to answer Questions on Tuesday nights. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), when he was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, particularly requested the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool (Baron H. De Worms), who was then Member for Greenwich, to address his Questions on Government nights, because, in that case, he was sure to be present. The consequence is that a whole string of Questions is put down on Government nights; while the Paper on other nights is comparatively free. I should have thought that the Government would rather object to their time being occupied, instead of that of private Members, and it is with this object that I have called attention to the matter. I certainly shall support the Motion which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. I believe there will be great unanimity upon it, and I hope the House will adopt it, without waiting the decision of the Committee on Procedure.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Notices of Questions be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, without reading them vivâ voce in the House, unless the consent of the Speaker to any particular Question has been previously obtained,"—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I will first answer the Question which has been put to me by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down,

701
and I can assure him that the Government have no feeling whatever as to the putting of Questions on Government nights. If they have any preference on the subject—not that I am entitled to express any preference on their behalf—it would be rather in favour of Questions being asked on private Members' nights. I do not know who is the informant of the hon. Member as to the desire of any Member of the Government in regard to the putting of Questions; but the doctrine, as I have always understood it, is that it is the duty of every Member of the Government to be here at 4.30, and to remain until the rising of the House, and I believe that in whatever capacity we may serve we always fulfil that duty, and it is not within my knowledge that any Members of the Government have departed from that rule. In regard to the Motion, I can express my entire concurrence with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, though it is a delicate matter for a Member of the Government to express an opinion upon, as they are the victims in the matter. It is not for them to complain. Everybody must feel that the growth of Questions is a serious evil, and that it has made a very serious inroad upon the Business of the House. When I first became a Member of the House there were few Questions put, and those only on really important subjects. It was rarely that they occupied a quarter of an hour; whereas they now frequently take one and a-half and even two hours. It is, of course, for the House to judge what steps they will take in the matter. The Government have no authority to intervene, or to dictate to the House in any way upon the subject. If I may venture to allude to what takes place outside the House, I must say that I cannot but observe that in the newspapers the Questions occupy very often twice as much space as the rest of the report. So long as the newspapers thus encourage the practice it will continue. Personally, I should be glad to see a return to the old practice, when none but really important Questions were asked. Everybody will agree that some Questions are much more important than others; but it is not so much the actual Question as the preliminary canter which is objectionable. There is generally a sort of hostile counter-Question, and then Questions are asked one against
702
the other, which not only occupy time, but excite a certain amount of warmth, of feeling. As to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, it is well-known that the Government have intended to submit a proposition to the same effect to a Committee of Procedure; and, therefore, if the House is generally in favour of the Motion, I shall be happy to support it. If the first clause of the Motion were omitted, and the last sentence were agreed to, it would become a Sessional Order, and would read thus—
"That Notices of Questions be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, without reading them vivâ voce in this House, unless the consent of the Speaker to any particular Question has been previously obtained."
I would appeal to the House to adopt the latter part of the Resolution; because, if it becomes a Sessional Order, it will conduce to the saving of time, and will prevent the fighting Questions and the counter-Questions which we all deprecate, and which have become such an irregularity in our proceedings. In that form I shall be happy to support the Motion.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am delighted to hear that it is the duty of the Members of the Government to remain till the rising of the House; but I am afraid that it is a rule—as it was shown to be last night—more honoured in the breach than the observance. I have listened with pleasure to my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and I have no objection whatever to the main part of his Resolution. Indeed, our own proposals went further, and required that some kind of classification of Questions would be made. But the Committee will deal with the whole subject, and will consider any proposals which Her Majesty's Government may think it proper to make. I will only venture to say this in regard to Questions put in the House—that although they may not form part of the most important Business of the House, yet, at the same time, it must be admitted that they excite a great deal of interest, for at no time during the evening is the House so full. Therefore, though we may be extremely anxious, as far as we can, to classify Questions, the House would not be very willing to limit the right of addressing Questions to the Government of the day. I hope, too,

703
that the Government will remember that the time of the House is occupied, not merely by the Questions put, by also by the answers given, which I trust the Ministers will make as concise as possible.
MR. DILLON: I do not rise for the purpose of making any special comments of my own, but merely to say that I think some of the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, and from hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion, deserve a better answer than they have received. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition to talk about the classification of Questions; but it must always occur to hon. Members who represent Irish constituencies that, for many years, Question time has been for Ireland the most important time of the House. But Questions which are of the greatest interest and importance to hon. Members from Ireland and their constituencies may not appear of equal importance to the Authorities of the House, or to those right hon. Gentlemen who have very much the direction of the Business of the House. The privilege of putting those Questions is the only possible means at our disposal for bringing serious grievances to the notice of the House, and of frequently getting them redressed. Unattached, as I am, to either of the great Parties in the House, I feel bound to take this opportunity of protesting, in the strongest possible way, against the theory being accepted by the Committee which is supposed to deal with the Rules of Procedure in the House that Questions, although they may occasionally swell to a considerable length, at any time result in the waste of the time of the House. There was one striking observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was that he had noticed that the public Press devote a larger space to reporting Questions and answers than to the other political Business. Now, in the course of some years spent in political life I have noticed that the public Press is very much in the habit of reporting what the public want to read; and no better proof can be given than that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman that the public take a greater interest in the Questions and answers than in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen.
704
So far, therefore, from adopting the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would, on the contrary, be only reasonable and right that the Committee to whom we are about to refer the Rules of the House should take into their consideration for their guidance what the action of the Press is. I think, also, that we might, with benefit to ourselves, notice what part of our proceedings is reported at the greatest length, and get an indication from it of the importance which the public attach to our proceedings. I will only add, in conclusion, that if the practice of asking Questions in this House has had an extraordinary development, it is due to the fact that the House is becoming steadily more and more democratic. There is a larger section of private independent Members who, while they continue upon certain great issues to follow the Leaders who sit upon the Front Benches, are not content to do nothing but vote. After the first year, or even the first few months of the new Parliament are over, it will be found that the only way for a Member not high among political Parties of the House to direct attention to a grievance and to get it remedied is by asking Questions.
MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I entirely agree with the observations of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon); because I think that if we curtail the Questions we shall be curtailing the Privileges of the House. It is not the use, but the abuse, of Questions that is objectionable. There has, however, been a reason for the multiplication of Questions of recent years, and that is the persistent encroachment upon the rights of private Members which was made in the last Parliament by the Government. If you attempt to dam up water in one direction it will burst forth in another; and, therefore, pressure has been put upon hon. Members to bring forward grievances in the shape of Questions. But the object of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) is to do away with a manifest public nuisance; and I think the House will concur with my right hon. Friend that the nuisance is one which ought to be checked. No one wishes to curtail the right of Members to question Ministers; otherwise Ministers would soon become despotic. Much of the abuse of questioning is not

705
in the Questions themselves, but in the ambiguous manner in which they are answered. At the same time, there are, undoubtedly, a large number of Questions which are purely of local interest; and I think the House will agree that if anything is to be done we ought to insist that they and the answers should be printed and circulated. [Cries of "No!"] My hon. Friends say "No;" but there are a large number which are of interest only to a small number of Members—probably not more than 100 persons—out-of-doors. And ought a small Question, which concerns 100 in number of individuals, to stop the whole Business of the nation? It will be quite possible to preserve the right intact, and at the same time to lessen the time occupied by frivolous, local, and unnecessary Questions. I have already suggested whether it would not be possible for you, Sir, of your own motion, to take the initiative, and direct certain Questions and answers to be printed without a distinct order from the House. There can be no kind of objection to that course, and I think it would be a useful proceeding if it were adopted.
MR. SEXTON: I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowen) in one respect and disagree with him in another. There is nothing surprising in finding the two Front Benches agreed on such a Motion. If Ministers had their way they would gladly assent to any Motion for putting an end to Questions altogether; for it is one of the most irksome proceedings of the House, in the opinion of Ministers. I do not think, however, that the convenience of Gentlemen who are liberally paid to devote themselves to the public service, or their opinions, should be conclusive on the present question. I disagree, however, with my hon. Friend on another point. He has spoken of local Questions, and I find that a strange misapprehension exists on this subject. It is precisely to that class of Questions known as local Questions that it is necessary to attract the force of opinion in the House and the country. In matters of Imperial policy relating to some matter within the common knowledge of the Empire there is not much danger of harm. The danger is when some Jack in Office in a remote locality tramples on the rights of the people. It is exactly where there is no free current
706
of public opinion in Ireland that Members ought to appeal to that publicity which the House and the Press of the nation provide. I invite hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and in all parts of the House to consider this as a question, and to regard it as one which affects the well-being and the right of their constituents. Although hon. Members may rush at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they may find, in the end, that they have come to a hasty conclusion, and, when it is too late, that they have given up one of their most valuable rights. I must say I think, in regard to the Motion before the House, that it is a matter which had much better be left to the discretion of the House than settled by any hard-and-fast rule. I think, Sir, if you were questioned on the subject, you would admit that your attention has already been drawn to the practice of reading out Questions in advance. A short time ago I was obliged to call attention to the practice resorted to by certain Orange Members of reading out Notices of Questions of a vexatious and frivolous character; and when, in the face of the House, I appealed, Sir, for your judgment, you stated that you desired to have the opinion or action of the House upon this practice of reading Notices of Questions in advance. Since you were pleased to deliver that opinion from your place, the Orange Members have been reduced to dumbness. No one Member of the Orange Party has ventured to read out a Notice of a Question. Then, I think, Sir, that your opinion may be left to fructify in the minds of hon. Members before we are driven to adopt so severe a measure as this. Then, in the second place, we are waiting for the decision of the Committee on Procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wishes to carry the matter still further, because he wishes to leave it in your hands to classify the Questions.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I proposed that it should be referred to the Committee on Procedure.
MR. SEXTON: I apprehend that all Questions of this nature should form part of the subject referred to the Committee; and the right hon. Gentleman is, I believe, to be a Member of the Committee which it is proposed to nominate

707
to-night. Therefore, it is hardly fair that he should take upon himself to anticipate the work of a Committee of which he is to be a Member. There are to be 33 Members of that Committee, and I trust that this, as well as all other questions in regard to the Procedure of the House, will be left to it, and that the House will not be placed in the absurd position of arriving at a conclusion which may turn out to be contrary to that which the Committee may adopt.
MR. CRAIG-SELLAR: I dissent altogether from the views of the hon. Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton); and I should be glad, if I were in Order, to move an addition to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), to the effect that the Standing Order should not only extend to such Questions as he suggests, but that Mr. Speaker should be authorized, or a Committee should be appointed, with authority to distinguish between Questions that are local and Questions that are Imperial, and that local Questions which could be answered very much better by the Department should be answered by the Department, either by communication or letter from the Minister in charge of the Department, whereas Imperial Questions should be answered by Ministers in the House. Many of my constituents write to me on matters of local interest, and I have always found, on going to the Department, that I could get a much better answer than I should have got if I had put the Question to a Minister in this House. I also find that the answer obtained in this way did not take up more time than the preparation of a Parliamentary answer; but there was a considerable amount of practical convenience gained both in the information supplied to my constituents, and in saving the time of the House by preventing unnecessary Questions from being put to Ministers. I think, therefore, there ought to be some means of distinguishing between local and Imperial Questions, so that local Questions might be answered by the Department and Imperial Questions in the House of Commons. We have had since the new Parliament assembled some 60, 70, and even 80 Questions asked of the Government
708
in the course of a single day. But how many of them are Imperial Questions? The bulk of them are local Questions, which would be much more satisfactorily answered by the Department. The suggestion I would make is that a Committee should be appointed to consider what Questions should be put in the House from day to day, and to distinguish and divide them between Imperial and local Questions. Then I think that the Standing Order proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex would do much to stop the plague of Questions now inflicted upon us. In olden times there used to be a deluge of Questions before Easter and Whitsuntide; but that was accounted for by the fact that hon. Members were about to leave town for the holidays; but the deluge now begins from the commencement of the Session. I think that such a Committee as that which I have suggested would do a great deal to stop the evil, and to give the House more control over its Business. And there are other matters which may be usefully referred to this Committee—for instance, the question of balloting for precedence in regard to Motions. I might say a good deal about that, for it is a practice which is, undoubtedly, liable to great abuse. In a local paper I happened to read the other day, it was asserted that certain hon. Members had combined together in order to avail themselves of the ballot in favour of a particular Motion.
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is travelling away from the Motion before the House. The Motion is—
"That Notices of Questions be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, without reading them vivâ, voce in the House, unless the consent of the Speaker to any particular Question has been previously obtained."
The hon. Member will see that that Resolution has nothing to do with the question of balloting for priority.
Mr. CRAIG-SELLAR: Well, Sir, I feel that I was on the border land, and almost beyond the limits of the debate before the House, and I bow at once to your decision; but I hope the House will consider the feasibility of the proposal I have made—that there should be some means whereby the Questions

709
should be divided into Imperial and local Questions. I hope the Select Committee on Procedure will take up the subject, and consider it with the view of making some provision with regard to it.
Mr. PULESTON: I cannot concur with the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because there must be a great difficulty at all times in determining what is an Imperial and what is a local Question. For instance, only yesterday there was a Question on the Paper which was of immense consequence to my constituency; but, at the same time, it might fairly be considered an Imperial Question. Nevertheless, that Question might have been put aside as a local Question if a Rule of this sort were adopted. I think, however, that this is an appropriate time for discussing the subject, because the Committee on Procedure is about to be appointed; and it would be prudent, I think, to enter into these questions so as to obviate any little difficulty that may hereafter arise. Therefore, I trust that I shall not be considered entirely out of Order in view of the importance of the question. I quite concur in the remarks which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) that the Questions are becoming more numerous in consequence of the difficulty in procuring days for private Members. I have had for some time on the Paper of the House a Resolution upon which I propose to discuss the Rules of Procedure. That Resolution, in my humble opinion, would not only meet the point which has been raised tonight, but also many other important questions in connection with the Rules of Procedure. The effect of that Resolution is that no Questions of any kind should be put on the Paper for Mondays and Thursdays, unless declared by the Speaker to be of an urgent nature; and I would also propose that the House should commence its Business promptly at 4 o'clock on Mondays and Thursdays, without the interposition of Private Business.
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is going away from the Question before the House.
MR. PULESTON: I bow, Sir, at once to your decision; but I thought it was a matter which was germane to the Resolution
710
before the House. I will simply add that I quite concur, as far as it goes, with the expression of opinion conveyed in the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet; and I will only take this opportunity of expressing a hope that the question may be carried further, and that the Government may see their way to indicate to the Committee that the Motion I have on the Paper may be considered to be a practical solution of the difficulty.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I earnestly trust that if there is to be anything done in the matter it will not be in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Craig-Sellar).
Mr. BRADLAUGH: There is a question, Sir, which I desire to put to you, as to what will be the effect of agreeing to the Resolution as it stands—whether, at Question time, any oral Question whatever can be put—as to the conduct of Business for example? It would appear to me that, if this Resolution be carried, no Question can be put, unless Notice of it has been given in writing beforehand.
MR. SPEAKER: As I read the Amendment upon the Paper, it refers to Notices of Questions intended to be asked at Question time on a future day; and, according to the strict interpretation of the Resolution, no oral Question could be put without Notice at Question time, unless with the consent of the Speaker.
MR. BRADLAUGH: The question I wish to put relates rather to a number of Questions, which are frequently asked, as to the conduct of the Business of the House for that particular night, and perhaps the following night. There would scarcely be an opportunity of consulting you, Sir, upon such questions.
MR. SPEAKER: In that case no Notice of the Question would have been given. That is how I understand the Amendment.
Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Before we go to a division, there is a question which I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understood him to suggest that the first branch of the Question should be omitted, and also that the last sentence should be left out. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby): No!] It

711
would be a moot point whether that ought not to be done, although I am not disposed myself to support the general proposition contained in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). I think there ought to be some liberty allowed in extreme and urgent cases for Questions which may spring up without Notice; and in the event of my right hon. Friend so framing the Amendment that it would permit all Questions of urgency to be put without Notice I shall support it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I fancy that the right hon. Baronet who moved this Resolution cannot have given due consideration to all the circumstances of the case. I am am sure that he has given full consideration to the question of Procedure, and he is certainly one of the most painstaking Members of the House; but, as I read the Amendment, Notices of Questions are to be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, and it may mean that no Question whatever can be put unless Notice in writing is given of it.
MR. SPEAKER: I must state to the hon. Member that Questions without Notice are a different matter. The Amendment only relates to all Notices of Questions; and I understand the Amendment to apply simply to the giving Notice of Questions which it cannot be expected should receive an immediate answer which may be irregular in form, and may contain impeachments against individuals—Notices which would, undoubtedly, be rejected at the Table, but which are given orally, and appear in the Papers.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I object in the strongest manner to any decision being taken upon so important a question to-night. The whole question of our Rules of Procedure is about to be referred to one of the strongest and most experienced Committees ever appointed by this House. I understand that the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) is to be Chairman of the Committee, and that the Leader of the Opposition will be a Member of it. Surely such a Committee will be able to arrive at a satisfactory decision upon the whole matter, and this must necessarily be one of the questions discussed and decided
712
by the Committee. I should be very sorry if the House were to come to a snatched and hurried conclusion upon the question now. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has intimated that he intends to make a proposal before the Procedure Committee which will fairly include the subject dealt with by the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet, as I am informed he intends to propose that a Committee should be appointed by Mr. Speaker for the purpose of classifying and controlling the Questions.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: That was one of the proposals contained in the Rules of Procedure submitted by the late Government at the opening of Parliament.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I understood the right hon. Baronet to repeat that proposal to-night. No doubt, it is one of the questions which must come before the Committee on Procedure. Then why enter into a small portion of a subject like this now when there is no actual necessity for doing so? I think that it would be grossly disrespectful to the Committee we are about to appoint if we were to pass this Resolution; and in order to give the House a better opportunity for consideration I will move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I hope that the House will decide the question without an adjournment of the debate. Every hon. Member must have noticed the growth of the practice of giving verbal Notice of Questions containing matters of argument and controversy. Allow me to remind the House that although the Committee on Procedure is about to be appointed.
MR. SPEAKER: The Question now before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
MR. SEXTON: Before a division is taken, I hope the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington), who, I understand, is to be Chairman of the Committee on Procedure, will pardon me if I make an appeal to him on a small matter, and ask him simply to say whether it is right

713
that this question should be decided before the Committee meet?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is that the debate be now adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The question of who will be the Chairman of the Committee on Procedure will rest with the House itself. The question now before the House is an extremely small one, and I should have thought it possible for the House to arrive at a decision upon it. I am sorry that there should be any necessity for limiting in any degree the right of putting Questions in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the noble Marquess that the Question now before the House is that the debate be now adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: All I wish to say is that the Question before the House appears to me to be an extremely small one, and I do not see that a sufficient reason has been given why the debate should be adjourned, or why the House should not decide upon the question at once.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 235: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 29.)
Words added.
Original Question put, and negatived.
Resolved, That Notices of Questions be given by Members in writing to the Clerk at the Table, without reading them vivâ voce in the House, unless the consent of the Speaker to any particular Question has been previously obtained.
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—MR. HENRY M'DOUGALL, AGENT OF THE GORMANSTOWN ESTATE, CO. MEATH.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CLANCY, in rising to call attention to the case of Henry M'Dougall; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to institute a prosecution
  714
  of Mr. Henry M'Dougall, agent of the Gormanstown estate in the county of Meath, Ireland, who recovered money under the Arrears Act in a case in which no arrears were due, either under the section of the Arrears Act which is concerned with such cases, or for perjury,"
  said: I feel it will be my duty to trespass on the time of the House for a short time for the purpose of drawing attention to the facts of this case. My principal object is to ascertain whether the administration of justice in Ireland is to be above suspicion, or whether it is to be merely used as an instrument of oppression in the hands of an unscrupulous agent. I believe I shall be able to show that the recovery of money by Mr. M'Dougall in this particular instance was a clear swindle, because no arrears were really due. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Arrears Act of 1882 provided that before any arrears could be recovered certain formalities must be observed; and, among other things, it was enacted that both landlord and tenant should make an affidavit to the effect that certain arrears were due. The Act further provided that anyone making a false affidavit should be punishable, on conviction, with fine and imprisonment, and experience has shown that this provision was not unnecessary. Swindling of the description contemplated by the Act of 1882, in Section 7, has been discovered of recent years in several cases, and it is a remarkable fact that the criminal in every instance—at least, within my knowledge—has been among that class of persons who, in Ireland, are perpetually talking of the dishonesty of the Irish tenant, and the necessity of reforming the Irish laws. The discovery was first made in the case of Mr. Henry M'Dougall. M'Dougall, unfortunately, has had under his control upon the Gormanstown Estate, in the county of Meath, a considerable number of tenants. Some of those tenants, through the operation of the villainous system of rack-renting which has been carried on for so many years in Ireland, in order to screw out the interest on the debts of bankrupt landlords, naturally fell into arrears which they could never pay. Others, by the manful exercise of thrift, which the landed proprietors have never even pretended to commiserate, have continued to this day to pay the landlord up in full. But both of these classes

  715
  were equally fish to the net of the landlords' agent. Whether a tenant owed rent, or arrears of rent, or not, Mr. M'Dougall, as I am informed and believe, made all of them inducements to swear that they owed rent; and, moreover, he himself swore that they were in arrear. One of these tenants happened to be a man named Francis Carolan, and he discovered the real nature of the act he was called upon to perform in the attempt of M'Dougall to obtain arrears of rent under the Arrears of Rent Act. He absolutely declined to be a party to the fraud, and having, in a striking manner, manifested his objection, he was brought, in an ostentatious manner, before a magistrate to make an affidavit that arrears of rent were due on his holding. But, in the presence of the magistrate and of other tenants, he declined to make such a declaration, on the ground that it was false. Even that does not seem to have prevented M'Dougall from getting the arrears he claimed from Francis Carolan. This, Sir, I think, is an astounding fact, which it is the duty of the Land Commission to inquire into and explain at once. M'Dougall got the money, and from the day on which he made the false affidavit—namely, the 9th of December, 1882, down to November, 1885—he never said a word or gave a hint that he had been guilty, not only of perjury, but of fraud the year before. But, in November last, the matter fell into the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who has the reputation in Dublin and throughout Ireland of being a man whom it is dangerous to attempt to deceive. The moment it came into the hands of my hon. Friend M'Dougall was detected, and he has himself supplied the best proof of his guilt by refunding the money which he had fraudulently obtained three years before. Having done so, he found it necessary to make some excuse, and the excuse he gave was that some clerk of his had omitted to make certain entries in the ledger. He also said he had several hundred cases to deal with, and that he had not had time to take the pains in the case which it would be necessary in ordinary cases to take; and he added that he made some sort of restitution to the tenant by crediting him with the omitted half-year's rent. It seems to me—and
  716
  I think the House will agree with me—that the last point of M'Dougall's defence is no answer at all to the charge made against him. A common highwayman in this country would think it a very capital arrangement if, by refunding the money he had stolen, he could avoid a prosecution, and escape the consequences of his guilt. Now, as to the other points, I must confess—and I say it frankly—that if it were true that M'Dougall had carelessly and negligently performed his work for the benefit of the tenants, and had not really had time to examine into the matter, I would be inclined to let the matter pass, and say no more about it. I would attribute it to an act of ignorance on his part, and I should say that probably he intended to be honest, but in the multitude of business transactions he had not time to be so. But, Mr. Speaker, the point in this case is that before this man got the arrears of rent his attention was specially drawn to the facts by the action of the tenant to which I have already referred. I will read a very short extract from an affidavit which has been made in this case by Francis Carolan, the tenant. He says—
  "I further say that I was asked by the bailiff of the said Henry M'Dougall to attend before a magistrate for the purpose of obtaining money under the Arrears Act, and at the time I was not aware what the Arrears Act really meant; but when I discovered I had to swear there were arrears due I refused to do so, and walked away from the magistrate and the other tenants."
  Now, surely that was an incident which ought to have weighed with M'Dougall — which ought to have made him pause and examine his books to see whether a mistake had been made by himself or anyone in his behalf. That is not all. Francis Carolan was the one tenant on all the estate who never owed any arrears. He was the one tenant whom M'Dougall could never have suspected to be in arrear. He had always paid his rent to the day; and even before M'Dougall had been warned by the action of Carolan himself he could not possibly have suspected that this tenant was in arrear. M'Dougall got the money from the Arrears Court, and, as I have already said, from the time he got the money, in December, 1882, down to last November, when he was brought to book by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny

  717
  (Mr. Chance), he never said one word, or gave one hint, that he had got the money under the Arrears Act. The whole circumstances seem to me to be totally inconsistent with the absence of criminal intent on the part of M'Dougall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), however, could not see anything wrong in the conduct of M'Dougall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had a keen scent for "Boycotters" in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught; but he had neither nose nor eyes nor ears for the land shark and grabber of the Gormanstown estate. His counsel, Mr. Coll, was interviewed, but all to no purpose. All he would consent to do with regard to the charmingly innocent M'Dougall was to write to the Land Commissioners and request them to get him kindly to explain whether he had any explanation to offer. I have not great experience in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] Some of the hon. Gentlemen who cheer me ironically perhaps have quite as little; but I cannot help characterizing this conduct on the part af a Law Officer of the Crown as extraordinary. I imagine that this conduct will, in the eyes of the House, appear still more extraordinary when I read a letter which was addressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) to Mr. Coll, the Crown Solicitor of Dublin, and, of course, road and answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is the letter—
  "You will remember that some time ago I laid the papers in this matter before you with a view to a prosecution of M'Dougall. You then refused to prosecute, but asked my permission to lay the papers before the Land Commission. Subsequently you informed Mr. Friery that you did lay the papers before the Land Commission, and had not since received from them any instructions; and on your suggesting that M'Dougall had probably made some mistake, Mr. Friery undertook to give several cases in which M'Dougall received money for arrears when none were due, and that if you gave an undertaking not to prosecute the tenants who were deluded into making the joint affidavit that such arrears were due the information would be given you. No letter was received from you since, and on the 14th instant I wrote to the Land Commission to know what had been done; and, to my astonishment, I have received a letter, stating that, at the request of the Attorney General, M'Dougall was asked for an explanation, with the result that he refunded the money. I now require to know if it is the intention of the Attorney General to prosecute M'Dougall under
  718
  the section in the Arrears Act which deals with such cases, or am I to assume that he declines to take any further proceedings in the matter?"
  The letter is dated the 16th of January last, and it was answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—or, at least, by Mr. Coll—through the late Attorney General's direction, with an intimation that he saw no reason to change his previous opinions. Here was an offer which, I think the House will agree with me, ought to have set the Criminal Law in motion against M'Dougall. I hold in my hand now a list of 11 cases—and I beg the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) to the fact—in which I am informed there are receipts now in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny—receipts given in M'Dougall's own handwriting, and which receipts show that in every one of these 11 cases M'Dougall received money under the Arrears Act through fraud. I may mention that in one of these cases he received the money through the false oath of a man who was not a tenant at all; and that, in another case, he did not commit a fraud upon the Government, but upon the tenant. In order to get the money he was obliged to swear, in 1882, that all the arrears for 1881 were wiped out; whereas now I understand the hon. Member for South Kilkenny has in his office in Dublin a receipt from M'Dougall, bearing date February 23, 1883, for rent due in March, 1881. That is to say that, having got from the Government money on the representation—the false representation—that all the arrears in 1881 had been wiped out, he comes, two years afterwards, upon the unfortunate tenants for the very arrears which he had sworn had been wiped out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General would not inquire into these matters; it would have been too disagreeable, I suppose, to M'Dougall, the Loyalist. I have every reason to say that hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland will believe that if M'Dougall had been a Nationalist tenant instead of a Loyalist land agent he would now be in gaol, instead of being allowed to roam through the country committing crime and outrage by extracting infamous rack rents and burning the houses of victim tenants. I do not think anyone will be found to say it

  719
  is a good thing to teach the Irish people that dissolute criminals may go free simply because they belong to the so-called loyal classes. The action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General in this case seems to me to be little short—if it is at all short—of a public scandal. The administration of justice, marked by such incidents, is, in my opinion, more calculated—infinitely more calculated—to bring law in general in Ireland into contempt than any number of speeches which could have been made in the course of 12 months in opposition to the Executive Government. I assert, without any hesitation, that it is such incidents in the administration of justice in Ireland as these which have made Dublin Castle stink in the nostrils of the Irish people, and which have made law in Ireland and its instruments to be regarded, not with veneration or respect, but with disgust and indignation. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to repair the omission of the late Attorney General for Ireland, and, by prosecuting M'Dougall, to prove that British law in Ireland has terrors not only for the poor and humble, but also for the rich and the high-placed, some of whom are to be numbered amongst the prime factors of crime and disorder in that country. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to institute a prosecution of Mr. Henry M'Dougall, agent of the Gormanstown estate in the county of Meath, Ireland, who recovered money under the Arrears Act in a case in which no arrears were due, either under the section of the Arrears Act which is concerned with such cases, or for perjury."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. HOLMES: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member who introduced this matter to the notice of the House has not merely made an attack upon Mr. M'Dougall, but has added to it a very strong and emphatic attack upon myself, I trust the House will allow me to say a few words before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) interposes
  720
  in the debate. I must ask for a certain amount of the indulgence of the House in reference to this matter, for the case of Mr. M'Dougall was one of many hundred cases that came before me during the seven months that I held Office; and it is very difficult for me at the present time, without having access to the official documents, to recollect all the facts and circumstances connected with it. At the same time, being reminded to a certain extent by what the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) has said tonight, and being further reminded by an answer of the Chief Secretary on a former occasion, I think I can recollect sufficient, for my present purposes, of the case that was brought before me. Before I go further I desire to say that whoever Mr. M'Dougall be, or whatever his position in the country may be, I never heard of him either before this transaction or since this transaction, except in connection with this present proceeding. He has been referred to by the hon. Member who moved this Resolution as one of the loyal classes. Whether he be a Loyalist or a Nationalist I do not know, for I never heard his name before I heard it in connection with the proceedings to which reference has been made. That being so, I may call the attention of the House to the fact that under ordinary circumstances, where the Attorney General is called on to interpose in a prosecution, the person who has within his knowledge the facts of the case takes steps, either by summons or by warrant, to have the matter investigated before a magistrate, and to have information taken in the ordinary form. Under no circumstances does it become the duty of that Court to return the person so charged for trial if it thinks the case has not been sufficiently established. Well, in this particular instance it so happens that that step was not taken; but what did occur was that in the year 1885 there was brought before my notice in an informal manner certain transactions which occurred in 1882. Now, it appeared tome, on looking into the matter, that the charge was made against the man, not for receiving money himself, because I believe it is true that Mr. M'Dougall never put a single penny of the money in his own pocket, but for making certain statements by virtue of which his employer received a sum of £3 10 s. or £3 15 s.,

  721
  and it occurred to me that under the circumstances it would be rather a harsh step, without further inquiry, to prosecute this gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] I use the word gentleman in the way I use it in reference to any other person who is brought to my notice under similar circumstances. Well, inasmuch as the whole transaction had occurred in the Land Court, it seemed to me that the Land Commission was the tribunal which ought to investigate it. Accordingly, I got the Crown Solicitor, who transacts business for the Attorney General, to send the matter to the Land Commission for the purpose of having it investigated. Well, Sir, in due time I got a communication from the Land Commission, to the effect that this Mr. Henry M'Dougall was the agent, I believe, of Lord Gormanstown and other persons; that he had no less than 1,500 tenants in reference to whom applications were made under the Arrears Act; that the names of these tenants were set out in long schedules; and that upon Mr. M'Dougall's attention being called to this particular case he admitted he had made a mistake in putting the name of Carolan forward. It was explained that the payment by this particular tenant had not been posted up in the ledger by the clerk who at the time was in Mr. M'Dougall's employment. The explanation seemed to me satisfactory, and, under the circumstances, it struck me that after an interval of three years it would be a most extraordinary proceeding to institute a Government prosecution. Accordingly, I intimated that, having regard to the Report I had received, I saw no reason whatever for the Attorney General to intervene. But it was perfectly open to any person, no matter who he might be, to bring this man before the magistrates to have the matter fully investigated, and to have the adjudication of a tribunal upon it. A letter has been read by the hon. Member, written on a later occasion, in which the writer, the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), said he would give instances of some other tenants who were in a similar position, provided an undertaking were given by the Crown Solicitor that the persons should not be prosecuted for joining in making a false affidavit. When that was brought to my notice, I gave the answer which I have given on every single occasion on which
  722
  any suggestion of that kind was made to me during my term of Office—namely, I would make no terms whatever with any person who alleged he was party to a crime—I would make no terms whatever with him as regards the giving by him of any evidence upon the subject. If such a person chose to give evidence, well and good; but I would not be a party to making with him an antecedent agreement, a course which seemed to be most injurious to the administration of justice. Allowing that a mistake had been made in this case, which was one of 1,400 or 1,500 which had to be dealt with, it seemed to me not a case for a prosecution, at all events, without those preliminary investigations before a magistrate which are commonly made in such circumstances. I am very sorry I have been obliged to trouble the House with this explanation. Cases of this kind came before me frequently, and I assure the House that again and again I have interfered to prevent the prosecution of peasants in Ireland for perjury, because it appeared to me that the offences were committed in ignorance or in mistake; and exactly upon the same principle I acted in this particular case, without knowing anything at all about Mr. M'Dougall's antecedents.
  MR. DILLON: I do not desire to trespass for any great length of time upon the attention of the House, although this is a case of very considerable importance. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to the very clear statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin (Mr. Clancy), who knows the details much better than I do. I know, however, the character which Mr. M'Dougall bears. I know what the people think of Mr. M'Dougall. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a most extraordinary inclination on the part of some hon. Members to laugh; but I put it to hon. Members opposite, is it, or is it not, a matter for importance, if people look upon a given man as a tyrant? It may be subject for laughter here, but it is not a subject for laughter in Ireland. I maintain that it is of the greatest importance in a case of this kind to know how the people of the country regard the man whose conduct is complained of. I listened with surprise and astonishment to the statement of the right hon. and

  723
  learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), that, though he has lived all his life in Ireland, he has never heard of Mr. M'Dougall. We all remember the recent occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, at a critical moment in a critical debate, forgot the date of a recent shocking murder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be able to forget anything that does not suit his purpose. Sir, it is an astonishing fact that any man who has lived in Ireland for any length of time, and more especially a man who has had to do with the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland, should never have heard of Mr. M'Dougall. I have heard frequently of the gentleman. I have nothing to do with the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland; but I am in the habit of travelling about the country, and I regret to say that anybody who travels in certain districts in which this gentleman's sway extends is sure to hear from the people of his reputation. I recollect that when, on a very recent occasion, I was in the houses of some of the people who have the misfortune to live under M'Dougall, one man said to me with the greatest earnestness—"Is it true that M'Dougall is in the hands of the police?" If hon. Members had seen the delight pictured in that man's face, they would have easily understood the feeling of the people towards Mr. M'Dougall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman unconsciously let the cat out of the bag when he said it would have been a rather harsh step to prosecute a gentleman. What our friends asked him to do was not to prosecute this man for the sake of the amount—the £3 10 s. or the £3 15 s.—but to prosecute him because he had violated the law. The people believed that Henry M'Dougall had violated the law, and they believed, moreover, that the man could violate the law with impunity as long as such Gentlemen as the late Attorney General for Ireland were at the head of the Government; they believed that while the machinery of the law was put in motion against poor peasants this land agent could set the law at defiance. It was not a question whether M'Dougall gained £10, or £15, or £100 by this violation of the law; but it was whether he had knowingly committed the violation. If it could be
  724
  shown, as we say it could, that he had wittingly and knowingly, not in this single case alone, but in 10 or 11 cases—indeed, we do not know in how many other cases out of the 1,500 with which he had to deal—broken the law, we cannot understand why the late Attorney General for Ireland should refuse to institute a prosecution. Let me say that I think it a strong argument in favour of there being a prosecution that there was this widespread feeling amongst the people that the man had broken the law. If he had made a mistake, he certainly ought not to have objected to a prosecution, because he would have had an opportunity of clearing his character. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wound up by saying, in a very impressive way, that he would make no terms whatever with the person who was ready to confess he was party to a crime. I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has always carried out that principle. We know that the Irish Government are ever ready to make terms with such men, and that they are ever ready to put large money rewards into the hands of informers against the unfortunate tenantry. We find that now, when dealing with a gentleman, a totally new principle is introduced—they will not accept the evidence of a peasant against a gentleman; but they are quite ready to accept the evidence of a peasant against a peasant.
  MR. SEXTON: It is not very easy for the Attorney General for Ireland, or for anyone who has been Attorney General, to surprise an Irish Member; and I confess that the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) did not surprise me when he said he did not know whether M'Dougall was called a Loyalist or not. We all know that Irish officials have so much work that they never stop to inquire what are the politics of any person against whom complaint may be made. I shall not dwell upon that point; but I must observe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's plea that he has not been able to obtain exact information appears a lame and faltering one, in view of the fact that this Motion has been on the Paper a fortnight. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish us to understand that the present occupants of Dublin Castle would have refused him access to official documents?

  725
  We know that when once a man in Ireland finds his way to Dublin Castle he very easily finds his way to return to it at any time; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had really desired in the last fortnight to investigate the figures and facts of this case, I am sure his learned and courteous Successor would have afforded him every facility to do so. As a reason for not being acquainted with the facts of this case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pleaded that he had had to deal with many cases of this kind. Why did he never prosecute in any of them?
  MR. HOLMES: I did not say cases of this kind. I said I had to deal with several hundred cases; but the cases bore upon every branch of the Criminal Law.
  MR. SEXTON: I suppose the rest of the cases had to do with Nationalists. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the complainants might have proceeded by way of summons. He knows very well that in Ireland, in cases of this kind, there must be initiative action by the Crown, or there would be no action at all; when the responsible officer stands up and says the Crown will take no action at all, that is equivalent to saying there would be no prosecution. Was there ever heard, in a deliberative Assembly, such an argument as that this swindler is not to be prosecuted because he did not put money into his own pocket? Are we to understand that fraud is to be condoned by the Law Officers of the Crown because the perpetrator of the fraud does not pocket the profit of it? Mr. M'Dougall was the agent, and did not pocket the rent; but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that M'Dougall pocketed the poundage, or the percentage on the amount of the collection? But whether he did or not profit by the transaction makes no difference in the case. ["Oh, oh!"] Is it the view, then, of hon. Gentlemen who adorn the Benches above the Gangway, that a man may commit frauds with impunity provided he does not pocket the proceeds? Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to understand the plea that M'Dougall made a mistake. Francis Carolan, the tenant, refused to make an affidavit that he was in arrear; and, therefore, it is perfect nonsense to say M'Dougall confounded the case with any other. The
  726
  right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland says he had a great many cases to deal with in the course of the seven months he was in Office, and that as he looked at the case through a telescope at Dublin Castle he had no opportunity of close examination. [Cries of "Order!"] There is nothing wrong in speaking about a telescope. My hon. Friend near me, the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who will, if necessary, enlighten the House on the subject, was the solicitor for the tenant in the case. He is here, and informs me that it was, practically, a contested case; that the tenant went into Court to prove his inability to pay his rent; and that the presumption was that Mr. M'Dougall must have closely examined the facts and figures of the case. M'Dougall was a party to a series of 11 affidavits, in some of which it was stated that arrears were due, so as to enable him to make a raid upon the public money. Some of the affidavits proved that arrears were satisfied up to the date the Act prescribed they should be satisfied; and as soon as the affidavits had served his purpose, Mr. M'Dougall turned round and proceeded against the tenants for the arrears he swore had been satisfied. Will anybody say that could have been a mistake? He first committed a fraud on the Government, and then turned round and collected the arrears from the tenant. Well, the late Attorney General for Ireland has given us an effective proof to-night of the hollowness of the code of morals which governs the proceedings of the Law Officers in Dublin Castle. He admits that evidence was tendered to him, evidence of the tenants—we say 11 tenants are ready to offer evidence against this man; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is indignant at the idea of his making terms with persons who are parties to a crime. He considered that such terms with such people would prove injurious to the administration of justice. Now, I ask any Member in the House whether the administration of justice is more injured by the refusal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring these cases into Court, so that fraud may go unpunished, or by the acceptance of the evidence of one class of the criminal parties to secure the conviction and punishment of the

  727
  other? I maintain it would be less injurious to the administration of justice that one class should be punished than that all the offenders should go unpunished. He will not accept the evidence of any person who has been a party to a crime. Why is there not the same rule applied when a gentleman, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman called Mr. M'Dougall, is concerned, as when a peasant is concerned? When there is a gentleman in the question, the Crown officials will take no steps; but when a peasant has been the accused party, what have they done? By day and by night Crown Solicitors have gone into the cells of the prisoners and induced them to turn Queen's evidence. We know that convictions have been procured by the acceptance of evidence of those who were tainted with crime. We know that men have been threatened with the penalty of the scaffold if they would not give evidence. If that is to be the rule with one class of criminals it ought to be the rule with all. Certainly, I think there never was a case in which Queen's evidence ought to have been more readily received and sought than the case which has been brought to the notice of the House tonight. It is a most instructive commentary upon the principles which have hitherto governed the administration of justice in Ireland, that only a very few days before the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared the great speech in which he asserted that the ordinary law was not sufficient for the punishment of peasants he refused to put the ordinary law in force against what he calls a gentleman.
  THE CHIEF SECERTARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It was said in the early portion of this evening's proceedings that it was indispensable for hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to have the opportunity of bringing the affairs of their country from time to time before the attention of the House, and from that doctrine I do not now dissent. But I have felt, since the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy), who has made this Motion, began his speech, what I have often felt before in the House—that there is no place in the world less fitted to discharge the functions of a Court of Justice than the House of Commons. We have not all the facts before us, and we are not all, perhaps in
  728
  so judicial or impartial a frame of mind as to enable us to arrive at a proper and just conclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) assumed that I should interpose in the debate; but I hardly see what part I have to take in it. The answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) on, I think, the 25th of last month, really summed up all I have to say on the subject. It was to the effect that if the hon. Gentleman has the material on which the Government could found a prosecution, it surely is his business to bring that material before the Attorney General (Mr. Walker). If it is so brought, I can promise, on behalf of the Irish Government and of the Attorney General, that it shall be considered. This invitation was addressed to the hon. Gentleman now more than a fortnight ago, and I do not quite see why he should have taken the course of bringing the subject before the House in this form, instead of bringing it before the notice of the Law Officers.
  MR. CHANCE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misapprehension. I did not ask any Question on this question, and I got no answer.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I ought to have said the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). Upon the information at present before the Government there does not appear to be evidence of criminal intent on Mr. M'Dougall's part; but if a case can be made out the Attorney General for Ireland will consider it. That is the offer I made the other day, and by that offer I still abide.
  MR. CHANCE: The right. hon Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) commenced his speech by saying that there was no place less fitted to discharge the functions of a Court of Justice than the House of Commons. I think there is one place less fitted, and that is Dublin Castle. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no evidence of a criminal intent on the part of Mr. M'Dougall. It seems to me that he would not have made such an observation if there had been any Law Officers on the Treasury Bench. I should say that if a person stole a watch from the right hon. Gentleman the

  729
  Crown officials would not pause before arresting him. There would be no suggestion of an inquiry as to the existence of a criminal intent. In this case it has been admitted, not only by the late Law Officers, but by Mr. M'Dougall himself, that the money was obtained, and that he had no right to obtain the money. Is it not a question for a jury whether there was any criminal intent on his part? I think it is. Moreover, I think a jury would be more fitted to ascertain whether or not there was any criminal intent on the part of Mr. M'Dougall than the Law Officers of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to withdraw my Amendment. I will take care that the information in the case is laid before the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Supply—Committee deferred till Monday next.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 10.]
(Mr. Mayne, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Sexton, Mr Sheehy.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 10.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you do report Progress. I think, considering the importance of the measure, and having regard to the number of Amendments on the Paper, it would be well if the Government were to see their way to afford an opportunity of bringing this Bill on at an hour when we can properly discuss it. There is no hostility on this side of the House to the principle of some of the Amendments, or to the principle of the measure; but we feel that it deals with some questions which will certainly raise a prolonged discussion, and one which we cannot hope to finish at this late hour of the night. I am sure we shall all be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) will undertake to use his influence with Her Majesty's Government to induce them to give some facilities for the consideration
  730
  of the Bill at a reasonable hour—say, not later than 12 o'clock. I have no wish that the Bill should be postponed sine die; but I feel that if it be pushed on at this hour of the night the result cannot be satisfactory either to those who support it, or to those who have Amendments to propose.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brodrick) that there are a great number of important Amendments on the Paper, and that this is rather a late hour to bring on the discussion. No doubt the discussion will occupy a very considerable time; therefore, so far as the Government are concerned, we are quite willing to acquiesce in the postponement of the debate. At the present moment it is impossible for me to name a day when the discussion can be resumed; but I think I can promise, on behalf of the Government, that we will do our best to find an occasion on which the Bill can be suitably considered. Of course, I cannot promise that it will be made the first Order; but it shall be brought on at a comparatively early hour.
  MR. SEXTON: I think it is well I should say that the Irish Members strongly object to the adjournment of the debate. We sat here for hours last night, through the debate upon the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill—sat here until 2 o'clock this morning—in the hope that this Bill might be taken. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) also sat here with great patience and self-denial. The hour became too late to take the Bill; but it is now an hour earlier. I regret the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), for I can see no reason for it. I ask the Committee to remember that the second reading of this Bill was passed without a division. There was almost perfect unanimity. The hon. Gentleman himself admits there was unanimity of opinion concerning it, and how he reconciles that admission with the belief that there will be a pro-

  731
  longed discussion upon the clauses is more than I can fathom. Besides, his interest appears to be new-born, because the solitary Amendment on the Paper in his name only appeared this morning. I trust the Committee will consent to take the Bill now. Later in the Session we shall, no doubt, have matters of the greatest importance to occupy our attention.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton) must recollect that it is quite possible to assent to the second reading of a Bill, and yet feel that the Bill requires very long and careful discussion in Committee. One of the proposals of the late Government with regard to the Business of the House—a proposal which it is understood the present Government are prepared to consider very favourably—was that all contested Business should cease at 12 o'clock. I do not think it is at all reasonable to commence this important Business at 1 o'clock in the morning. Hon. Gentlemen must recollect that, after all, this Bill has in its progress up to the present time been singularly fortunate. It has been read a second time, and the Session is still young. It has reached a stage when it is impossible to block it; and therefore, if the adjournment is carried, I cannot see that there will be any difficulty in bringing on the discussion at an early date. Hon. Gentlemen have the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) that the Government will do their very best to bring the Bill on at a reasonable hour; and, that being so, I hope no objection will be raised on the part of hon. Members from Ireland to the Motion to report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): If both Parties are agreed as to the desirability of an adjournment of the debate the Government will offer no opposition. At the same time, as we are not able to hold out any definite prospect of the renewal of the discussion, I think the Committee might go on for another hour, and see how it gets on. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway will not press the Bill on to any undue extent.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) was in the House
  732
  when the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) spoke. We heard nothing from the Chief Secretary of these alternatives; we heard nothing of these precedent conditions to the acceptance of the Motion for Adjournment. We understood the Chief Secretary was prepared, on behalf of the Government, to agree to the Motion to report Progress, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not recede from the position he so categorically took up.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I spoke after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I had a Notice on the Paper for a Return, but it was blocked by the hon. Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton). I shall certainly insist upon dividing on the Motion to report Progress.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) seems to be very fond of throwing over his Colleagues. Early in the Session, upon the Employers' Liability Bill, he stepped in exactly as he has done to night, and reversed what a subordinate Member of the Government had announced.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There are no subordinate Members of the Government.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That makes matters all the worse. The Chief Secretary for Ireland announced his assent to the Motion to report Progress; but down came the Chancellor of the Exchequer, threw over his Colleague, and seemed surprised that we find fault with him for behaving in such a manner.
  MR. DILLON: I have only one remark to make. I think the statement just made by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) is one of the most extraordinary I ever heard. We heard the other day a speech from the hon. Gentleman in favour of the Labourers' Act, and now we find that because a Return of his is blocked by the hon. Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he is going to take revenge by going to a division, and by destroying, perhaps, the only chance which we may have this Session of passing the Bill. If the hon. Member thinks he is going to pose before the labourers of Ulster as their friend, and then blocks this Bill, the labourers of Ulster will know of it.
  MR. BRODRICK: I regret the species of intimidation which is practised by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The Committee have every right to discuss this question in the interests of this country, as well as of Ireland, at a proper time of night; and this lifting of a sword, so to speak, over the heads of hon. Members from Ulster, is one of the most monstrous attempts to intimidate this Committee that can be made. I really must be allowed to say a word as to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt). We are quite familiar with the system which the present Government pursue. One of them enters into an arrangement, and then another comes forward and breaks it up. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) has pledged the Government to use their exertions to bring this Bill on at a reasonable hour, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not present—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was present.] Then I am still more surprised at the utter disrespect he has shown for his own Colleague. We really do expect that the right hon. Gentleman will show some degree of respect for the under takings which have been arrived at. Here we are, not one word of hostility to the measure having been said up to the present; but I must point out that if the Motion to report Progress is made the occasion for a long and angry discussion, the only effect will be that every Irish Bill from now to the end of the Session will be blocked the very moment it is put on the Paper. We have foregone the right which we might have exercised, had we been desirous of doing so, of blocking this Bill. Under these circumstances, and considering the good feeling shown by the Committee upon the subject, I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider his demand. His refusal will only lead to a protracted discussion on the question of postponement, which may occupy the whole of the time he proposes to give to-night to the consideration of the measure.
  Mr. HOLMES: I wish to appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway not to press this Bill forward to-night. I laboured as hard as anyone in the House last Session in regard to this subject, and I regard the
  734
  present measure as containing some very valuable improvements of the Labourers' Acts; but, on the other hand, I think that some of its provisions require very deliberate discussion. I would, therefore, suggest that, as it is now 1 o'clock, and as the discussion of the clauses of the Bill will take some hours, we should be allowed to report Progress. If hon. Members go on now, they may not have concluded their labours by 5 o'clock in the morning; and I do not think they will desire to adopt such a course as that on the present occasion. We have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) that he will bring the Bill on upon a Government night, and I will promise hon. Members every assistance in my power towards bringing it on at an early hour. It would be unreasonable, under the circumstances, to insist upon the Committee continuing at this hour. I am anxious that this matter should be fully and freely discussed; but I think this is not the hour to discuss it.
  MR. JOHNS: I trust that the Committee will excuse me for rising to discuss this matter—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Question that I now report Progress.
  MR. SEXTON: It appears to me that the majority of the Committee want to go on. No one has spoken against continuing, except the son of an Irish landlord who is hostile to the Bill altogether. I have to thank the right hon. and learned Member the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) for his support; but I cannot understand how it is that he is willing to go on at 2 o'clock in the morning on some other occasion, but is unwilling to go on at 1 o'clock this morning.
  COLONEL WARING: It appears to me that it is unreasonable to us to go on to-night. This Bill affects the interests of a large class of Irishmen whom we represent, and therefore we wish to have an opportunity of airing their grievances before the Committee. I do not mind the hour; but I do not think we can fairly ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to keep a House to discuss this matter at such an hour. I think, however, that we might expect the right

  735
  hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) to be a little more explicit in his promise as to bringing the Bill on on a future occasion. The clauses will not take long to discuss if the Government can find a night; and, for my part, I am only too anxious that the matter should be threshed out without delay. If the hon. Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) wishes to put obstacles in the way of the Bill being discussed, all I can say is that the Ulster Members are perfectly prepared to discuss it at any time, although we prefer that it should come on at an earlier hour.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 75; Noes 132: Majority 57. — (Div. List, No. 30.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Construction of Act).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. TOMLINSON: I think really that we have reached an hour at which it is desirable that we should report Progress. I do not think that there is any objection to the taking of the clause which has been proposed; but I think that we are now arriving at that part of the Bill which deserves considerable discussion. I, therefore, beg to move that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  MR. SEXTONintimated that, after having taken the sense of the Committee, he and his Friends would not now oppose the Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): The Committee knows perfectly well that if a certain number of hon. Members in this Committee insist upon continuing to repeat Motions for the adjournment at 20 minutes to 1 o'clock, it is simply wasting the time of the House to resist them. Already more than half-an-hour has been wasted which might have been devoted to transacting the Business of the country; and, therefore, I cannot recommend the Committee
  736
  to waste their time in discussing Motion after Motion of this character.
  MR. BRODRICK: The waste of time has been wholly due to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. In deference to his usual Friends below the Gangway here, he chooses to throw over his own Colleague, and the result is that he finds hon. Members are not inclined to submit to such a course. Besides, it appears from the division just taken that we are in no less a minority than we usually are; and, therefore, we have a right to ask that this Bill shall not be proceeded with at this late hour. The waste of time is solely due to the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I must say that, if this is a sample of the waste of time which is to go on as long as the right hon. Gentleman remains in charge of the Business of this House, the result is likely to be serious. I think that hon. Members from Ireland will do well to enter into communication with the Government as to bringing on this measure at a proper time; and, in the meantime, I beg to support the Motion that you, Sir, report Progress.
  MR. DILLON: All I am desirous of pointing out is what the real nature of the proceedings we are now witnessing is. This Bill is one on which there was never any intention to hold much discussion. There is no argument at all before the Committee why we should not have gone on doing what we could until 2 o'clock. So far as I can observe, even amongst the hon. Members returned from Ulster, a large section are opposed to this obstruction—for that is the only name it can be called by. In point of fact, it is really worth observation that of the Members from Ireland there are not above three who are not willing and anxious to go on with this Bill. It is perfectly absurd to make observations about difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know what that difference of opinion is. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has always shown an anxiety to meet the views of the Irish Members—["Hear, hear!"] English Members cheer that in an ironical manner; but I do not think it is any disgrace for an Irish Chief Secretary to attempt to please the people

  737
  of Ireland. At any rate, I do not think that the present Chief Secretary will think it a disgrace. The right hon. Gentleman is always considerate; but I think he has stated what is somewhat beyond his powers. He is not the Leader of the House of Commons. He said he would endeavour to bring on this Bill on some future day at an early hour. Then, probably, after consulting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he came to the conclusion that it would be outside his power to do this—or, at any rate, that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and that we had better go on with the Amendments as quickly as we can. What happens? Why, an English Member who has no real standing at all in this matter—for the Bill does not apply to either England, Scotland, or Wales—a Member who has no standing in the matter, except one that we thoroughly understand, who sits here to represent not his constituents, but his class in Ireland, comes forward to do what that class has systematically done, not only here but in Ireland—namely, obstruct measures intended for the benefit of that country. It is merely for the sake of pointing out the nature of this obstruction that I have said these few words.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I wish to say one word with regard to my statement assenting to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I assumed—and I had reason for assuming—that the hon. Gentleman had understood from Irish Members that the adjournment would not be disagreeable to them. That being the case, I said Her Majesty's Government would accept the adjournment. I said more, and I repeat it now—namely, that if an adjournment takes place, Her Majesty's Government will do their best to bring the Bill on on an early day and at as early an hour as possible. It might have to be a late hour; but it would, at any rate, be the earliest hour possible.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the few words that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman will have thrown a calming influence over the Committee. I think the Leader of the House indulged in a very superfluous attack upon us on this side of the House when he said that we desired to obstruct the Business of the House. [Sir WILLIAM
  738
  HARCOURT: I did not say so.] I was amused when I heard the Irish Members describe a Motion for the adjournment of the House at half-past 1 in the morning, as "Obstruction."
  MR. DILLON: I said, obstruction of particular measures.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Obstruction of particular measures is, of course, obstruction. I would make this proposition to the Committee—that we should proceed with the Bill until we have disposed of Clause 2, and that we should then stop before we come to controversial matter. That, combined with the promise of the Government that they will find a day when this Bill can be brought on at a reasonable hour, ought to satisfy hon. Gentlemen that there is no desire to obstruct the Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: It is useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persist in the face of so many Gentlemen opposed to proceeding with this Bill to-night. It is useless, also, I think, to characterize what has taken place. Every Member of the House must have his opinion of it, and will not need any statement from me to educate him. Here is a Bill that is one of urgency in Ireland, because it deals with matters which are taking place every day there. It affects the homes and the welfare of the labouring population of Ireland; therefore the vast majority of Irish Members are anxious to go on with it. If we are compelled to submit to-night—no; not compelled, for they are not strong enough to compel us—but if we do submit, I trust the Government will find us such reasonable opportunity of dealing with the Bill some other night as will place us beyond the reach of such an attack as has now been made.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not sufficiently well aware of the engagements for next week to be able to fix a particular day. I can only say that we will endeavour to carry out the undertaking of my right hon. Friend (Mr. John Morley) as well as we can. I cannot go further than that at present.
  MR. SEXTON: Then we will pass Clause 2.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Under the circumstances I withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Amendment of 46 & 47 Vict., c. 60, s. 5, as to certificate of sanitary offices).
  Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Johnston,) put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  INFANTS BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill relating to the guardianship and custody of infants. I may explain that the object of the measure is to give mothers a voice in the guardianship and custody of their children. The Bill was discussed at considerable length in the House of Lords last Session, and passed that House.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask if this is the same Bill as that which was before the House last year?
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Yes.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, and Mr. BRYCE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 139.]

  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE,

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure do consist of Thirty-three Members."
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I do not rise to object to the nomination of this Committee. It is an admirable Committee in many ways; but I should like to point out that it consists almost entirely of one section of the House—that is to say, Gentlemen in Office, who have been in Office, or who wish to be in Office. These are all admirable men, no doubt; but it seems to me that there
    740
    is an entire want of commercial men on the Committee. I should like to know why the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) is not upon the Committee? This inquiry will not only affect the Procedure of the House; but it will also have to do with the arrangements of the House. It is contemplated to make an alteration in the Kitchen arrangements, and I think, therefore, that some private Members might have been appointed to take part in the investigation. There are Members who devote themselves to the Business of the House, and others who spend a great deal of time in other avocations, and these, amongst whom are not a few connected with the Legal Profession, should, I think, have been allowed some voice in this matter. Although, no doubt, the Report of this Committee will carry great weight, we must feel that the body is composed almost entirely of one section, and private Members will have a right to criticize the Report in many respects. If the Committee reports in the sense indicated by the Resolutions of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I shall reserve freedom to myself to oppose those propositions when they come before the House.
    Mr. PULESTON: I would observe that it is useless to appoint a Committee on such an important subject as this, unless it is thoroughly representative. It is always usual in cases of this kind to appoint upon the Committee some of those who have paid special attention to the subject in hand, and who are interested in it. I entirely concur in the remarks of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I think it would not be at all satisfactory to confine this Committee to hon. Members who will not have the entire confidence of the House. If you do that, your action will only lead to unnecessary discussion, which might be avoided by making the Committee thoroughly representative.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I am sorry that there is no Ulster Representative of the Conservative Party on the Committee. We are a small Party, no doubt, but we represent a large interest and should have a voice on this Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure do consist of Thirty-three Members:—The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Marquess of HARTINGTON, Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Sir ARTHUR BASS, Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Mr. BRIGHT, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. DUFF, Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Sir JOHN GORST, Mr. GOSCHEN, Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. T. M. HEALY, Mr. HOLMES, Mr. ILLINGWORTH, Mr. LEAKE, Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Sir JOHN MOWBRAY, Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, Sir RICHARD PAGET, Mr. RAIKES, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. CRAIG SELLAR, Mr. SEXTON, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. STANHOPE, Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. WHITLEY, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Nine be the quorum.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    Resolutions [11th March] reported.
    First Two Resolutions agreed to.
    Third Resolution postponed.
    Subsequent Resolution agreed to.
    Postponed Resolution to be considered upon Thursday next.

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (PROVINCIAL SITTINGS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Whitley, Bill to provide for Provincial Sittings of the High Court of Justice in certain populous places, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Whitley, Mr. Forwood, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. Hutton, Lord Claud J. Hamilton, Mr. Mather, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Agnew, Mr. Powell Williams, and Mr. E. R. Russell.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.