Commons Sitting of 4 April 1887

MINUTES.
POTLICBILLS—Second Reading—Pharmacy Acts Amendment * [210].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Metropolis Management Acts Amendment (No. 2)* [166].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Third Reading —Local Government (Ireland) (Carrick-on-Suir) * [200], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—GENERAL POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH—PROMOTIONS.
  MR. WALLACEasked the Postmaster General, Whether information has reached him that much dissatisfaction has arisen among the operators in the Telegraph Department of the General Post Office, Edinburgh, by reason of certain promotions recently made in that department; whether the supervising class in the department has recently been increased by two supervisors; whether one of the men, who for several years past has performed the duty of relieving the supervisors during their holidays, has been passed over in appointing the new supervisors; whether it would have been in accordance with the usual practice of the department to appoint this man to one of the new supervisorships; and, if so, why has it not been done in this case; whether the first class of telegraphists has recently been increased by fourteen; whether thirteen appointments have already been made; whether the thirteen telegraphists who stood at the head of the second class, some of whom had fifteen years experience, have been passed over in making those appointments; and, if so, why; whether, in making those appointments, one man has been promoted over the heads of seven others, another over fourteen, another over eighteen; whether another has been placed in the first class, although his number in the second class was forty-seven; whether this latter telegraphist is related to the Superintendent of Telegraphs in the Edinburgh Office; whether one of the telegraphists, who has been placed in the first class, is unable to work some of the instruments in the Edinburgh office; whether another, by reason of a disabled arm, is physically incapacitated for performing work as an operator; and, if these matters or any of them are as stated, what is the explanation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have no reason to believe that the promotions to which the first part of the Question refers have given rise to general dissatisfaction. With some exceptions, the answers to the honourable Member's

  347
  subsequent Questions are in the affirmative. Of those standing at the head of the second class of telegraphists, the number passed over is five, and not 13; no one of those promoted is physically incapacitated for performing work as an operator; and all are able to work the instruments in the Edinburgh Office. The reasons for passing over the acting supervisor and the five telegraphists are that the telegraphists are not considered fit for the duties of the first class, and the acting supervisor has seriously misconducted himself. The telegraphist who stood 47 on the second class is, I understand, connected with the Superintendent by marriage. He had longer service and greater experience than any other member of the same class, the reason of his occupying so low a position being that some years ago he left Edinburgh for Greenock, and returned only in 1882, re-entering at the bottom of the Office. Since his re-entry he has been constantly employed on first class duties.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS— TORY ISLAND.
  SIR EDWAED WATKINasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to connect the lighthouse on Tory Island, off the north-west coast of Ireland, with the mainland telegraph system, by a short cable and length of land lines; whether the cost of doing such a work would be a few thousand pounds only; whether the necessity of doing this, in protection of human life, and in aid of shipping—especially of the emigrant traffic—has over and over again been influentially represented to every Government Department concerned, and, so far, in vaia; and, whether it is the fact that H.M.S. Wasp was wrecked off Tory Island and lost, in the absence of assistance, while a Government vessel, commanded by Captain Gallwey, was at the time in Belfast Lough, and did not go out to help for want of information?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I fully recognize the great importance of the question raised by the hon. Baronet. I would point out that a Committee, appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, and of which the Earl of Crawford is Chairman, is now inquiring into the subject of electrical communication between light vessels and out-
  348
  lying lighthouses and the mainland; and I have no doubt that the case of Tory Island, with that of other lighthouses, will be fully considered by the Committee

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—THE SHERIFF-SUBSTITUTE OF INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. FRASEE-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that the Sheriff-Substitute of the Long Island District of Inverness-shire, notwithstanding his having to sit in judgment in causes arising between landlord and tenant, such as poaching, rents, evictions, and the like, has for years accepted from the proprietor of the island of North Uist, the privileges of free shooting and fishing in that island, a part of the Long Island District; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the matter with the view of issuing orders that no judges be permitted to accept such gifts within the districts under their official jurisdiction?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A, MACDONALD): I believe it to be the fact that the same courtesy is extended to the Sheriff-Substitute of the Long Island District, in the matter of sport, as is very usually granted to other Resident Sheriffs throughout Scotland. I have no intention of interfering with ordinary social courtesies in the manner suggested, and, indeed, have no power to issue any orders on such a matter.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE AND LIFE SAVING HARBOURS.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to make such financial arrangements as will enable the Board of Trade to carry out the construction of such Harbours of Refuge and Life-Saving Harbours, as will tend to minimise the enormous loss of life and property which now takes place annually on the coasts of the United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): If my hon. and gallant Friend contemplates the construction by the Board of Trade of harbours out of public funds at the sole cost of the Ex-

  349
  chequer, I am afraid I cannot undertake to make the financial arrangement to which he alludes; but I hope that arrangements will be made under which the Board of Trade, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners, will be able to act in complete harmony as to policy with reference to granting loans at low rates of interest to Local Authorities and others who desire to undertake the construction of harbours.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—DESTRUCTION OF IMMATURE FISH.
  COLONEL MALCOLMasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the vast quantity of immature and unmarketable fish killed within the last month on the Ballantyne Banks; whether about 400 tons of undersized herrings were sold in one week for manure; whether the Fishery Board could put a stop to such destructive waste by enforcing the close season, which is the law at the present moment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am informed that it is true that large quantities of immature herring have been captured and sold as manure in the district referred to. After the passing of the Act of 1860 forbidding herring fishing between certain dates on the coast of Scotland, the Fishery Commissioners endeavoured to carry out the prohibition, but found it impracticable to do so. But that Act related solely to the prosecution of herring fishing, and if, as I understand, the immature fish were captured in trawls which were being used for white fishing, the law referred to in the third clause of the Question may not apply. I shall consider the question, and communicate with my hon. Friend.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT—GUN LICENCES —BALLYMACARBERY PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. PATRICK POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state if Mr. Joseph P. Mulcahy, of Ballydonough, County Waterford, applied on 15th March at Ballymacarbery Petty Sessions for a gun licence; whether the magistrates present were Mr. Redmond, R.M. and two local justices (Mr. Leachman and Dr. Walsh);
  350
  whether any person in Court opposed the application; whether the Court granted the application and Mr. Redmond, R.M. promised to have the licence sent to Mr. Mulcahy in due course; whether, after the rising of the Court, the resident magistrate informed Mr. Mulcahy that he could not grant him the licence; and, whether he can state on what grounds the licence was refused?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand that Mr. Mulcahy's application for an arms licence was made and refused under the circumstances mentioned in the Question. I shall communicate further with the Resident Magistrate on the subject.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) — MARYBOROUGII DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Dr. David Jacob, the late visiting physician of the Maryborough District Lunatic Asylum, resigned his position in that institution about nine months ago; if he is aware that the said Dr. David Jacob is the brother-in-law of Dr. Joseph Henry Hatchell, who was then and is now the resident medical superintendent of the said asylum; if he is aware that, after the resignation of Dr. David Jacob, the Board of Governors elected his son, Dr. William G. Jacob, to the same office of visiting physician to the said asylum; if he is aware that the said Dr. William G. Jacob is nephew to the resident medical superintendent of the said Asylum, Dr. Joseph Henry Hatchell; and, if the appointment of Dr. William G. Jacob to this office, of which his uncle is the resident medical superintendent, has been sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, considering th close family relationship existing between those gentlemen, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue this appointment?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I find that the facts are substantially as stated, with the exception of a slight inaccuracy in the degree of relationship. The Board of Governors having advertised the vacancy in the usual manner, elected Dr. W. G. Jacob, subject to the usual

  351
  period of probation, at the expiration of which they unanimously confirmed his appointment, and the Irish Government being of opinion that the circumstances of the case would not justify a refusal to accept the decided opinion of the Governors, have ratified the appointment.

  TOST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL ACCOMMODATION TO NEWTOWNARDS, &c.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, If he has yet received the information requisite to enable him to make definite arrangements for giving increased postal accommodation to Newtownards, Downpatrick, Newcastle, and the intermediate towns?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have received the further information which I called for respecting the mail service on the Belfast and County Down Railway, and I am in communication with the Treasury upon the subject.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) — GRAND JURY OF WICKLOW CO.— BRIDGE OVER THE VARTRY.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the Grand Jury of the County Wicklow have just thrown out a presentment for the construction of a bridge over the River Vartry, in the county town of Wicklow; whether it is a fact that the only bridge over the river has been condemned as unsafe for vehicular traffic, a condition of things to which the Judge of Assize referred in the following terms —
  "He would not undertake to advise the Grand Jury as to whether they would be liable or not in the case of accident, but he thought in some shape or form they should discharge their duty in the matter;"
  whether he can state how the Grand Jury is constituted, and whether the members of it are elected or appointed, and by whom; and, is there any superior authority to compel them to take the necessary steps, in the interests of the public at largo, to carry out works of the kind?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the Grand Jury did not throw out a presentment for the con-
  352
  struction of a bridge; but they came to the conclusion that it would be better to try to secure the existing bridge, for which purpose they have passed a presentment of £600. the matter will come before the Justices and cesspayers at Road Sessions next month, and it will rest with them to decide whether a new bridge is preferable. The constitution and functions of Grand Juries are regulated by Statute.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —TELEGRAPHISTS' OVERTIME.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that telegraphists in London are paid overtime for the work they perform between midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday; and, if so, whether he will extend this proper recognition of exceptional labour to the provincial telegraphists?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that a similar Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in March, 1886, and I am disposed to concur with the reply which he then gave. The arrangements in London differ from those in the country, and wages in London do not include remuneration for service on Sundays, which is, when performed, paid for separately. The question of pay for Sunday work in the Provinces was carefully considered at the date of the reorganization of 1881, and the scale of weekly wages was fixed so as to cover two hours' work on Sundays. Applications have been received by three successive Postmasters General for further pay in addition to that given on Sundays, and have been refused by each. I am not prepared to depart from that decision.

  POST OFFICE (METROPOLIS)—MEMORIAL OF OVERSEERS.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster General, Whether a Memorial from the overseers of the Metropolitan District Post Offices was forwarded in November last; and, if so, will he favour the memorialists with a reply to their petition?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): A

  353
  Memorial from the overseers of the Metropolitan District Post Offices was received towards the close of last year and is now under consideration. I hope to be able to reply to it shortly.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— DEATH OF HANLON— ARREST OF SUB-INSPECTOR SOMERVILLE AND CONSTABLE WARD.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether in the case of District-Inspector Somerville and Constable Garrett Ward, against whom a Coroner's jury at Youghal returned a verdict of wilful murder, it is the intention of the Crown to proceed by indictment against them as well as upon the coroner's inquisition; and, what is the usual practice in such cases?
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)in reply, said, that if a person had been brought to trial in recent times upon a Coroner's inquisition, it was a very exceptional proceeding. He did not know of such a course being adopted in modern times, and he did not propose to adopt it in this case. As to the rest of the Question, it would be clearly improper for him to make any statement.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that at Trim Assizes, in County Meath, before the late Baron Pigott, a man was tried for murder upon the Coroner's inquisition?
  MR. HOLMES MR. HOLMES, in reply, said that he was aware of the case; but his recollection was that the inquisition was quashed by the Judge, and the trial did not proceed.

  POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) — COUNTY POLICE AND MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to a recent statement made by him on the subject of county magistrates sending county police into municipal boroughs, Whether it is intended to insist on each municipal borough having a separate police force; and, if so, when such a change is likely to be brought about?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am
  354
  not aware to what statement of mine my hon. Friend refers; but it certainly is not my intention to insist on every municipal borough having a separate police force.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—APPOINTMENT OF WELSH MAGISTRATES—NONCONFORMISTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN(for Sir THOMAS ESSMONDE) Dublin Co., S.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If there are any Nonconformists in Flintshire qualified to act as magistrates; if so, why there are no Nonconformists holding the commission of the peace; if there is any likelihood of Nonconformists being soon appointed magistrates; if misunderstandings or miscarriages of justice have ever occurred in consequence of many of the present magistrates being ignorant of the Welsh language; and, if, in future magisterial appointments, care will be taken to select gentlemen who understand the language of the people?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Flint, and he informs me that he has, from time to time, made inquiries, and cannot ascertain that there, are any Nonconformists resident in the county possessing the status and qualifications prescribed by law for a county magistrate. If any should be found, and if the Bench should require strengthening, no consideration of religion or politics would deter the Lord Lieutenant from recommending them for appointment. I am not aware that any misunderstandings or miscarriages of justice have occurred in consequence of the magistrates being ignorant of the Welsh language. English is the language of our Courts of Justice, and the evidence of a Welsh-speaking witness must be interpreted into English, not by the magistrate, but by a sworn interpreter. The Lord Lieutenant will, in the future as in the past, select those men who are, in his opinion, best qualified to assist in the administration of justice.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that these sworn interpreters were often extremely incompetent men?
  MR. MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS, in reply, said, that he did not pretend to know the qualifications of the interpreters.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) —CLOSING OF RICHMOND PRISON, DUBLIN.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, before coming to any decision as to closing the Richmond Prison, Dublin, the Government will give the House an opportunity of discussing the question?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am afraid I cannot undertake to provide special facilities for the discussion of this question; but I trust to the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to find an opportunity. No doubt he will be able to do so. I have already stated that the consideration of the subject is postponed for the present.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to say what is the total accommodation in all the Irish gaols?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put clown the Question on the Paper, I will answer it.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—EARLY CLOSING AT TULLAMORE.
  DR. FOXasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received from the Town Commissioners of Tullamore a Memorial setting forth the grave inconvenience caused by the too early closing of the evening post in that town; and, whether he will change the time of closing till some hour not earlier than 9 o'clock.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have received the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member. The mail car from Tullamore has been despatched from Tullamore hitherto at an hour that would admit of the car reaching Moate in time to form a connection with the down night mail train on the Midland Great Western Railway; but I find that by sending the bags for the down mail by a train to Athlone, the mail car can be kept back at Tullamore till 11 p.m., thus affording a later despatch for letters to Dublin. The improvement must be confined to week days, as on Sundays there is no train
  356
  available for the conveyance of the bags for the down mail. I will give instructions accordingly,

  THE MAGISTRATES (IRELAND)—DR. CLARKE, OF PHILIPSTOWN, ICING'S COUNTY.
  DR. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Dr. Clarke, of Philipstown, King's County, was removed from the Commission of the Peace; and, whether he will state the reason for his removal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Dr. Clarke has been superseded by the Lord Chancellor for taking part in proceedings which were inconsistent with respect for the law, and with the free exercise of legal rights.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he doubts whether there are any Protestant Home Rulers outside the House of Commons, whether the fact that this gentleman was President of the King's County Branch of the Irish Protestant Home Rule Association had anything to do with his removal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about Dr. Clarke's religious beliefs.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the right hon. Gentleman if this case of Boycotting was amongst the statistics of crimes upon which he based his case for coercion?
  [No reply.]
  Subsequently,
  DR. FOXasked the right hon. Gentleman to say specifically why Dr. Clarke was removed from the Commission of the Peace, and whether he would lay upon the Table the communication from the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR, in reply, said, he had indicated in a general and, he believed, adequate manner, the grounds upon which the Lord Chancellor had removed Dr. Clarke from the Commission of the Peace. He could not promise to lay upon the Table of the House any further details.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— ACTION OF LIGHT ON WATER COLOURS.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked the Vice Presi-

  357
  dent of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Committee appointed in July last year by the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education to consider the question of the action of light on paintings in water colours, has made its Report; and, if not, when it may be expected?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I am informed that the Committee have adjourned until a series of experiments by the scientific experts (Dr. Russell, F.R.S., and Captain Abney, F.R.S.) on the action of light on various pigments and their mixture under diverse conditions are completed. I understand that this may be in three or four months; but it is a question which must be investigated thoroughly, and no precise limit of time can be at present fixed, as it would obviously be useless to attempt to hasten a decision.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—OPENING OF WESTMINSTER HALL.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWIOKasked the First Commissioner of Works, seeing the inclemency of the weather and the draughts that Members are exposed to in passing by the Cloister, Whether Westminster Hall cannot be opened for the passage of Members of this House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKED): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has given orders to the police to allow the passage of Members of Parliament through Westminster Hall.

  POST OFFICE— RATES OF POSTAGE WITH THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has, during the past two years, been in correspondence with the Governments of any of the Australian Colonies, in regard to reductions in the postage rates between those Colonies and the United Kingdom; and, whether those Governments have expressed to him any desire for such reductions; and, if so, whether he can lay upon the Table copies of any such correspondence?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Post Office has not, during the last
  358
  two years, been in correspondence with the Governments of any of the Australian Colonies in regard to reductions in the postage rates between those Colonies and the United Kingdom. There had been some correspondence with the Post Offices of Victoria and New South Wales on the subject of a proposal to establish post-cards between this country and those Colonies, but that correspondence would not, I think, be useful to the House, as it is not yet complete.

  NORTH AMERICA—GOLD DISCOVERIES ON THE CANADIAN BOUNDARY LINE.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received any official information of the existence of extensive gold deposits on or about the boundary line between Canada and the United States; and, what steps have been or are about to be taken to determine the exact boundary between British and United States territory in that direction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The Government have received no official information of the gold deposits referred to. The United States Government last year made a proposal for a survey of the boundary between Alaska and Canadian territory, and some correspondence has ensued upon it; but no definite result has yet been attained, and the United States Congress have recently refused the appropriation proposed for a preliminary survey.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—REPORT OF THE CHIEF REGISTRAR FOR 1885.
  MR. C. T. D. ACLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, When the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year 1885, Part II. A, which was laid upon the Table on the 10th March, will be printed and circulated; and, whether it will be printed in such a manner that it may be circulated in separate sheets, or in some inexpensive way, in order to be easily accessible to the working classes, to whom the information afforded in the quinquennial Returns which it contains is of great importance?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON)THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.), in reply, said, that the Re-

  359
  port in question was ready for press, and the printing would be expedited as much as possible. he had discussed with the Chief Registrar the means of making it easily accessible, and they had decided to issue the Report this year in six parts.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a deficiency in the number of copies of the Registrar's Returns issued, the Return for 1884 not being now obtainable, and whether he would give orders that the Office should not be so starved in its supply.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that he was not aware of the state of facts described by the hon. Member; but if the hon. Member would communicate with him, he would endeavour to put the matter right.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL ORDERS FOR SMALL SUMS.
  MR. NORRISasked the Postmaster General, If, in order to facilitate the transmission of small sums of money by the post, he will make such arrangements that Postal Orders of various values, including amounts of 1s., 2s. 6d, 5s., 10 s., and £1 may be purchased by the public in cheque-book form, say in mixed amounts of no less than £5 per book, under conditions that the orders are signed with name and address of sender, payable only to order of payee, and not negotiable?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I think I should explain that I have received a great number of suggestions with reference to the subject to which he refers, and that these suggestions are being carefully examined with a view to ascertain if any of them contain practical ideas which are worth adopting. However, I shall be glad to add the suggestion of the hon. Member to the number of suggestions to be investigated.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BOATING IN REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. LAWSONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, for twenty-seven years, the public have been able to use the whole of the ornamental waters of Regent's
  360
  Park for boating purposes; if so, why their use has been curtailed by a chain being put across one part; and, whether he will order its removal?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, that it would not be quite accurate to say that the whole of the ornamental waters in Regent's Park had always been open to the public for boating purposes; but the hon. Member's Question, no doubt, referred to the fact that a chain was placed across the water under the new bridge at the southern end of the water, opposite to Clarence Gate. This was done, he was informed, to prevent overcrowding at certain times. He would inquire into the matter, with the view of seeing whether the restriction could with safety be relaxed.

  WAR OFFICE—MR. J. FLEMING, VETERINARY SURGEON-IN-CHIEF, WAR DEPARTMENT.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Mr. J. Fleming, Veterinary Surgeon-in-Chief of the Army Veterinary Department of the War Office, is the same Mr. Fleming, F.R.C.V.S., who holds the appointment of Head Veterinary Surgeon to the North Metropolitan Tramway Company; and, if so, whether it is consistent with the proper discharge of his official duties that he should also hold a paid appointment in a Commercial Company?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, it was not a fact that Mr. Fleming held the appointment referred to in connection with the Tramway Company, which had its own staff of veterinary surgeons, but he had been sent for from time to time for consultation when any serious disease had broken out among the Company's horses. These consultations had not interfered in any way with his work; but, on the contrary, the experience so gained, especially as to glanders, had been of considerable advantage to the Service.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLE OSBOROUGH, CO. DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Osborough, Royal Irish Constabulary,

  361
  when stationed at Holywood, County Down, was twice reported for neglect of duty, and was, on the recommendation of the District-Inspector, transferred to another station; whether a memorial was received by the County Inspector of Down, from magistrates of the district, asking for the return of Osborough to Holywood station; whether, on this memorial having been forwarded to Dublin Castle, the Inspector General directed that Osborough should be sent back to Holy wood; and, whether this action of the Inspector General is in accordance with the practice always followed in such cases?
  THE CHIEF SECEETAEY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that no complaint or report was made against this constable, but that the County Inspector had given an order which led to his transfer, and that the magistrates at Holywood asked that he should be sent back on the ground of his good conduct, local knowledge, and good service, and the County Inspector complied. The matter was in the discretion of the County Inspector, and was not referred to the Inspector General.

  DUBLIN HOSPITAL COMMISSION— REPORT AND EVIDENCE.
  Dr. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Dublin Hospital Commission are yet ready; if not, will he explain the difference in their production, and when Members may expect them to be laid upon the Table?
  THE CHIEF SECEETAEY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As I have stated, in reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) a few days ago, it is understood that the Report will shortly be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant. On its receipt the Irish Government will be in a position to consider whether it, as also the Minutes of Evidence, should be laid upon the Table.
  DR. TANNEE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered all the Questions. Can he explain the delay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid, he presumed the delay had occurred with the Commission in connection with the
  362
  writing of the Report; but he reminded the hon. Member that it by no means followed, because a Report was presented, that it should therefore be said on the Table of the House. That was a matter entirely within the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant.
  DR. TANNEE: Bah! It is not.

  POST OFFICE—AUSTRALIAN MAIL CONTRACTS.
  MR. HENNIKEE HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Will the proposed Australian Mail Contracts, and the Correspondence relating thereto, be submitted to the Colonial Conference?
  TUE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My hon. Friend's Question appears to me to relate to a matter which is hardly within my jurisdiction. I may state, however, that I believe that the general question of postage with the Australian Colonies will be discussed by the Colonial Conference; and I understand the papers relating to the proposed Mail Contract will be laid before it.

  THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES — QUEENSLAND RATES.
  MR. HENNIKEE HEATONasked the Postmaster Genera!, Has he any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the whole of the Correspondence showing the circumstance which led the Government of Queensland to charge the present rate of 4d. per letter from that Colony to England, and the refusal of the British Government to reciprocate but still to maintain the 6d. rate from England to Queensland; and, to lay upon the Table of the House Correspondence relating to the project of a post-card system to Australia?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Correspondence referred to is rather voluminous, extending over a period of three years, and would be costly to print. The Question raised by the Queensland Government having been settled three years ago, I do not see that any advantage would result from printing the Correspondence asked for by the lion. Member. As regards the Question of post-cards to Australia, I have already answered the hon. Member for the Kirk-

  363
  dale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Baden-Powell).

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—DERRY PETTY SESSIONS—CASE OF ROBERT WALLACE.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Mayor of Derry and three local magistrates, at the Derry Petty Sessions on Monday last, dismissed a summons, brought by the Great Northern Railway Company, Ireland, against Robert Wallace, a commercial traveller, charging him with intent to avoid paying his fare; and, whether the magistrates acted within their powers in so doing.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. I understand that the case was to be reheard to-day on a fresh summons in a different form.
  MR. O'HANLON: My Question has not been answered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the hon. Gentleman refer to the last paragraph. Well, I do not think it any part of my duty to say whether magistrates have or have not exceeded their legal powers.
  MR. O'HANLONasked whose business it was then?
  [No reply,]

  THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE—POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH BUSINESS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the question of the manufacture and supply of stamps, post-cards, &c., to the various Crown Colonies and Colonial Governments will be one of the subjects to be discussed at the Colonial Conference in connection with postal and telegraph business; whether he is aware that in the case of India the Controller of Stamps at Somerset House is now charged with the supervision of all such work for that Empire; and, whether he will inquire if this arrangement has proved economical to the Government of India?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The question of the manufacture and supply of stamps and post-cards to the Crown Colonies and Colonial Governments is
  364
  not proposed for discussion at the Colonial Conference. The Colonies, under responsible Governments, of course, make their own arrangements. With regard to the Crown Colonies, the Crown Agents have the advantage of all the assistance that can be given them by the Department of Her Majesty's Government, and it is believed that, by their arrangements, economy is secured. It is the case that the Controller of Stamps now superintends this work for India. Till last year, separate staffs were maintained for Imperial and Indian work respectfully at the manufactories. These have now been combined under the Controller of Stamps. The arrangement has only been in operation since October 1, 1886; but some economy has already resulted to India by reason of the reduction of staff which has been found possible.

  QUARRIES BILL—REGULATION AND INSPECTION.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he intends to make his statement as to the views of the Government on the regulation and inspection of quarries, which he promised to make upon the second reading of the Quarries Bill?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.), in reply, said, that in the present state of Public Business, the Government did not contemplate introducing a measure for the regulation and inspection of quarries.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (WALES) —PROGRESS SINCE 1870.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Tice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will include in the promised Report on Elementary Education in Wales, a review of the progress which has been made in Welsh education since the passing of the Elementary Education Act of 1870?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Each general Report is designed to cover the period of two years that has elapsed since the last one was presented, and it would be impossible, with a due regard to the way in which an Inspector's time is occupied, to expect more.

  365
  Such a review as the hon. Member wishes for is to be found in the general Reports which have been issued from time to time since 1870.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could not publish officially the facts and figures published unofficially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and which was supplied to him by the Education Department?
  SIR WILLIAM HAET DYKEsaid, he did not quite understand to what the hon. Member referred. His impression was that the facts and figures referred to were abstracted from the Report. \i any further information could be obtained, he should be happy to furnish it to the hon. Member.

  POLICE PROTECTION (IRELAND) — POLICE HUT IN DRUMCRUMAN, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a police hut has been erected in Drumcruman, Lower Drumreilly, County Leitrim, for the protection of two brothers named Gilheany, one of them a bailiff; whether, in connection with a murderous assault on a man named Flynn, the Gilheanys were sentenced some years ago to a term of nine months' imprisonment each; and, from what source will the cost of the hut and the extra police come?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The police authorities have found it necessary to afford the protection stated, the lives of the two men being in danger on account of their having taken an evicted farm. The cost of the protection is chargeable to the Constabulary Vote. It appears that between eight and nine years ago these men pleaded guilty to a charge of assault, and were each sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT YOUGHAL—INJURIES TO THE POLICE.
  DR. TANNER: asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the character of the wounds stated to have been inflicted on the police during the recent police assault in Youghal, which resulted in the death of Hanlon; what
  366
  was the technical medical description of each case; and was any man confined to the house while under treatment for the alleged wounds?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): One constable had an incised wound over the left eye cutting into the bone; another, a severe contused wound on the left breast, over the region of the heart; and another, a very severe contused wound on the back of his head. The first man referred to was confined to the house while under medical treatment, but not the others. One of these, however, is reported to have suffered considerably from the effects of his wound, and the other to have been carried in an insensible condition to his bed room. There is no record as to the other members of the force who were struck with stones, as their cases were not of a serious nature.
  DR. TANNER: Might I ask how long was the man confined to the house?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the hon. Member the information; but I will make inquiries.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man was in Court next day?
  MR. O'HANLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent doctor to examine these men?
  [No replies.]

  PRIMARY EDUCATION (IRELAND) — THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF 1870.
  MR. MURPHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government would take steps to give effect to the following unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Primary Education (Ireland), under the Presidency of Earl Powis, which reports in 1870—
  "That when these hare been in operation in any school district, or within any city or town for three years, two or more schools, of which one is under Protestant and one is under Roman Catholic management, having an average attendance of not less than twenty-five children, the National Board may, upon application from the patron or manager, adopt any such school, and award aid without requiring any regulation as to religion, other than a condition that no Catholic or Protestant, as the case may be, should be present at a school not of their own denomination during religious instruction? "
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The

  367
  Government have the subject of education in Ireland before them; but they cannot make fragmentary statements on matters of policy, or, in the present pressure of Public Business, come to hasty conclusions as to the proposals which successive Governments have left undecided for many years.

  CROFTERS ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL— EXTENSION TO LEASEHOLDERS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Have the Government, now that it is proposed to extend the Irish Land Act to leaseholders, any objection to the provisions in the Crofters Act Amendment (No. 2) Bill extending the Crofters Act to leaseholders?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Crofters Act Amendment (No. 2) Bill seeks to extend the provisions of the existing Act to the whole of Scotland, and the Government are not prepared to adopt a proposal which was negatived on a Division by a large majority at the instance of the late Lord Advocate in the last Parliament.
  MR. ANDERSONAre the Government willing to extend the existing area so far as to include leaseholders?
  MR. W. H. SMITHThe Government do not see any reason for doing so.

  POST OFFICE—FREE POSTAGE TO THE SOUTH KENSINGTON EXHIBITIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Under what authority the Treasury acted in allowing free postage to the managers and officials of various South Kensington Exhibitions?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The postage of Public Departments is necessarily carried at the public expense, and the correspondence of Commissions being considered official, the Treasury has given certain privileges of free postage to Royal Commissions appointed to conduct or assist certain Exhibitions.
  MR. BRADLAUGHMy Question has evidently not been made quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to know under what authority the Treasury acted in allowing postage for the
  368
  managers and officials of the Exhibition, not the Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITHI think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The free postage is not allowed to managers and officials for their private business, but to managers and officials of the Royal Commissions in the discharge of their public duty.
  MR. BRADLAUGHI would remind the right hon. Gentleman that all the Exhibitions were not held under or by Royal Commissions. I will repeat my Question in a more precise form. It is as to the Exhibitions held otherwise than under Royal Commissions in Kensington.
  MR. W. H. SMITHMost of those have been conducted under the authority of a Royal Commission.
  MR. BRADLAUGHYes; but my Question has reference to those not under the authority of a Royal Commission.
  MR. W. H. SMITHI have answered the Question of the hon. Member—["No, no!"]—so far as I know. There is authority in the case of Royal Commissions; and if it has been given in other cases it has been by mistake. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury refused authority in the case of one or two Exhibitions, because the request was preferred by a Commission, not a Royal Commission.
  MR. BRADLAUGHI shall repeat my Question in more precise terms tomorrow.
  MR. LABOUOHERE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the circulars sent out with respect to the Imperial Institute have been posted gratis?
  MR. W. H. SMITHNo Notice has been given of the Question, and I am not able to say. I am, however, informed that there is authority for granting free postage in this case.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—QUALIFICATION OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether, having regard to the exceptional powers proposed to be conferred on Resident Magistrates in Ireland by the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, he can give an

  369
  undertaking that all Resident Magistrates who have not had a legal training will be removed, and their places filled by persons who have had legal training?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, following the precedent set, I believe, by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), one of the Magistrates must have a sufficiency of legal knowledge acting in each ease. Therefore, I see no reason, under those circumstances, for adopting the very drastic suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether there are sufficient of these gentlemen in Ireland who have had legal training to supply one for each Court?
  MR. W. H. SMITHI have reason to believe there is. If not, provision will be made to secure them.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Who is to be the judge of the sufficiency?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I must press the Question. What is the standard of sufficiency?
  MR. W. H. SMITHDoes the hon. Gentleman realize that it is quite impossible for me to give a satisfactory answer to these Questions? The Government are responsible for every appointment they make.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JURYPACKING.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, When he proposes to bring before the House his Notice of Motion—
  "To call attention to the present mode of framing the jury panel and selecting jurors in Ireland, and the reasons given for the same, and, in connection there with, to the alleged jury-packing in past and pending cases."
  MR. GEDGE: Provided I am able to do so, I propose to bring the matter forward to-night.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. BANNISTER, J.P., CORK.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the following Question:— Whether it is a fact that Mr. Bannister,
  370
  late of Belfast, manager of Goulding's Manure and Mineral Water Manufactories in Cork, has received the Commission of the Peace for the City of Cork; and, whether he is not publicly known as being an Orangeman and a member of the Primrose League and the Defence Union; and, whether the Government have had him appointed for the purpose of insulting the Catholic and National people of Cork?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Mr. Bannister has been appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the City of Cork, on the recommendation of Lord Bandon, Her Majesty's Lieutenant of the City of Cork. He appears to be a large shareholder in Goulding's Manure and Mineral Water Manufactories in Cork, to be closely connected with the commercial interests of Cork, and to be in every way fitted for the office conferred upon him. I am not aware whether he is connected with any of the Bodies specified in the Question of the hon. Member, nor do I feel called upon to make inquiry on the subject, as the fact of his connection therewith would not disqualify him from holding the Commission of the Peace.
  DR. TANNERArising out of this answer, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Bandon, the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Cork—not the City of Cork—is not also publicly known as being the chief of the Orange Society in Cork, and head of the Primrose League of the City of Cork, and also of the Defence Union?
  [No reply.]

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It may be for the convenience of the House that I should say that the Irish Land Bill introduced into the other House on Thursday is now in the Vote Office, where hon. Members interested in it can obtain copies.
PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—REFLECTIONS ON THE SPEAKER OF THIS HOUSE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have a Question to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, or

  371
  rather on a question of Privilege. I wish to know, Sir, Whether your attention has been called to a speech purporting to have been delivered on Saturday last and reported in the papers to-day, by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), and reflecting upon your conduct in the Chair. I have informed the hon. Member of my intention to put this Question to you, and I do not understand that he repudiates the substantial accuracy of the report of the speech. I further wish to know whether that speech, in your opinion, does not constitute a gross breach of the Privileges of this House? and I ask the Question, with a view of taking any further step that may be requisite, and, if necessary, of making a Motion on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether my attention has been called to some words attributed to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall. I this morning saw the speech in which the words referred to occur. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether they constitute a breach of Privilege. Unquestionably it is a matter affecting Privilege; but, of course, whether it is a breach of Privilege or not rests with the House to decide. I may say that I wish, in referring to the matter which has been brought to the notice of the House, to pass over—as I can afford to do—any personal reflection intended to be conveyed by the hon. Member upon me; but the matter is graver than that. It is not a reflection upon me personally, but a reflection upon the House through the elected Speaker of this House. If any hon. Member thinks fit to impugn my conduct in the Chair, it is competent to him to bring my conduct under the notice of the House, and by a distinct Motion to challenge every act and every word of mine. I can understand that in the present heat of Party feeling when men's passions are roused—I can understand words escaping hon. Gentlemen which in their cooler moments they would repudiate. I hope that the words of the hon. Member were not premeditated or deliberate. I can only say that it is my wish and it is my duty in this Chair to allay Party feeling, if I can—[An Ironical Cheer from a Home Rule Member]—Yes, if I can—not with standing the sneer of the hon. Member—to allay
  372
  any heat or passion in this House. But it is a strange thing, indeed, that within a few weeks after I have been invested with an absolute discretion by a Standing Order passed by the House of Commons, as to whether I shall give or withhold my assent to a Motion for closing debate—it is, I say, a strange, and I hope it is an unprecedented thing, that an hon. Member of this House should think it becoming in him to charge me in the action I took with having thereby become a partizan of either one side of the House or the other. I shall say no more to the House of Commons, because I wish, if possible, to calm down any personal feeling. I will only add this, that I am content to leave my conduct in this Chair to the judgment of every fair and right-minded and honourable man.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Mr. Speaker, I understand, Sir, that with regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and from yourself, I shall be entitled to say a few words as to my own conduct in this matter by way of personal explanation. In the first place, I wish to say at the outset that I received no information whatever that this question would be raised until I entered this House, and having come up from the country this afternoon I have seen no Report whatever of what I am asserted to have said. I do not rest so much on that; but I merely mention the circumstance to the House. And following on that, I desire to say that if what I am reported in The Times and other newspapers to have said should, on examination, be found accurately to represent what I did say, and if it does appear that I in any way expressed myself in a manner reflecting on you, Sir, as the occupant of the Chair, I should at once most humbly and most fully express my regret for having unintentionally done so in speaking on a subject on which, as an elector of the country, as well as a Representative, I believe myself entitled to comment. Having said so much, I wish to state what the position was that I endeavoured to take up, and how I endeavoured to guard myself against saying anything that would be invidious or unbecoming in me. I have regarded this as a grave Constitutional question. It has been our contention throughout the recent prolonged debates on the Closure Rule, that the closure

  373
  should be used only in the case of Obstruction, and I may add that Her Majesty's Government pledged themselves that it should be used only in such cases. I endeavoured to express my view, at any rate, that on Friday evening no case of Obstruction had, in my judgment, really arisen. And it does appear to me that when the adjournment was demanded, not by a mere handful of Members, but by the oldest and most respected Member in the House, and the principal Leader of the House after the right hon. Gentleman opposite, backed up by the whole of his Party, and the whole of the Party of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)—it does appear to me that there was primâ facie evidence of no Obstruction such as this Closure Rule was intended to meet. I brought the matter before the Gentlemen I was addressing on Saturday evening in order to raise the Constitutional question as to whether we were right in our contention, or whether we were wrong. If our interpretation of the Rule is a right one—namely, that it should only be used against Obstruction, and not when the whole of one of the great Parties in the country is at issue with the Party in power, then I contend that I was fairly entitled to comment at that meeting upon so grave a Constitutional question. If, on the contrary, the interpretation we on this side of the House have, without exception, placed upon the Rule is a wrong interpretation, and if the Rule is contrary to the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to apply to the entire Liberal Party, and if not upon the initiative of the Speaker, but of the First Lord of the Treasury, it is to be used as the means of forcing an objectionable Bill through the House which is subversive of the Constitutional rights of one great section of the United Kingdom—I thought it was best to bring out the fact so that we might be informed of it, and be in a position to ask Her Majesty's Government for a further opportunity of discussing such a grave and important point. In the next place, it was my object to point out that there was a danger as repeatedly insisted upon by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that the interpretation placed—I do not mean by you, Sir, nor by the Members of this House, but by the country—on
  374
  the application of the Rule would be inevitably such as would bring your conduct into question. That is the feeling that we on this side feared would arise from the application of the Rule. I do not say it would be right to indulge in any such feeling; I am not myself indulging in any such feeling; as I have said before, I was anxious when I made my speech on Saturday, to guard myself against falling into such an error. If I have done so, I have already. I hope, amply withdrawn any objectionable words that I may have used. But I am only asking the House to consider that it was my object in that speech to bring out the danger that had, in my opinion, actually arisen, and that had been forecast by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone); and it seemed to me that the fact that any such feeling should be suggested even was a proof of the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman's argument against the Rule in the form in which it was brought forward and passed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I believe, Sir, that the Party opposite coincide with us in our desire that nothing should be done to weaken or lessen in any way the authority of the Chair, or to reflect upon that authority. And, again, I say that if at a public meeting, in the heat of the moment, I said anything that could possibly convoy any erroneous impression that I intended to reflect on your conduct and authority in the Chair, I can only say I am sorry for it, for I had no such intention. I spoke on Saturday with a full consciousness of the gravity of the situation. I felt it to be my duty to express my opinion, however inadequately, on the present position of affairs; and with the explanation which I have now offered, I humbly submit that I did not transgress my duty in saying what I did say on such a grave Constitutional crisis.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SUEY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I understand that the hon. Gentleman has unequivocably withdrawn, Sir, any imputations on your conduct in the Chair. He has, notwithstanding, made some reflection upon me as to my conduct as Loader of the House; but I do not think that I should consult the convenience of the House if I were to enter into a debate on the

  375
  course which I thought it my duty to pursue on that occasion. I have only risen, Sir—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the Question before the House? [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
  MR. W. H. SMITHI only rise, Sir, for the purpose of venturing to assure you of the complete and absolute confidence which the House reposes in your perfect impartiality, and I am sure that the view is shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite—a view which has been so unanimously expressed on this side of the House. It cannot be denied that you have executed the duty—the important and responsible duty—imposed upon you by the Orders of this House— [Cries of "Order!" from the Home Rule Benches.]—in a way which has secured the confidence and respect of the House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have no desire, as I have no right, to prolong this very painful incident. I only wish to say that when I road the language ascribed to my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) in the newspapers this morning, I felt a very profound regret. But as to that, it is unnecessary to add another word, because my hon. Friend has made a very complete and satisfactory withdrawal, and has taken from those words any of the animus which at the first reading they may have seemed to possess. With reference to the language which you yourself have used on this occasion, it is not necessary for me to say that we, on this side of the House, should deprecate as warmly as hon. Gentlemen opposite any words used or anything done to show our want of faith in your absolute impartiality, and in your desire, which we cannot doubt for one moment, to use your great authority and position, as you have said, to allay Party heat, and rather to calm down passions than to inflame them. I hope, Sir, that this unfortunate incident may now be allowed to close.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I rise to Order.
  MR. CHAPLINalso rose. [Cries of"Johnston!"] The right hon. Gentleman said: I merely rise to say, Sir, that after the explanation of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, I do not, of course, propose to make any Motion on the question which
  376
  I brought under the notice of the House.
  MR. JOHNSTONI wish merely to say that we, on this side of the House, patiently listened to all the hon. Member for Camborne has had to say on this matter; but that, owing to the interruptions of the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) and other Members below the Gangway on that side of the House, when the First Lord of the Treasury was speaking, we were not able to hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALYMay I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House whether, before he moved the closure on Saturday morning, he had previously obtained the sanction of the Chair. [Loud cries of"Order!"]
  MR. W. H. SMITHI do not know whether it is fitting that I should reply to such a question—[Cries of "No, no!" "Do not answer!" and interruption]—but I wish to say that I did not.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: There is another question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this incident which I venture to put to you, because it is of great importance. It is whether a Motion can be made for the closure when no Motion is before the House, because, so far as I can understand the proceedings on Friday night, you had not put the Motion when the right, hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury rose and moved that the debate should come to a close? I only ask for information.
  MR. SPEAKERI have to inform the hon. Member that the Main Question was always before the House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREThe Amendment was before the House. [Cries of"Order!"]

ORDERS OF TEH DAY.

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

  HARBOUR LOANS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. R. W. DUFF, in rising to call attention to the administration of harbour loans under the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act of 1861 by

  377
  the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House, the Board of Trade should decide on the policy of the works to be undertaken, and that the functions of the Loan Commissioners should be limited to deciding on the sufficiency of the security offered by applicants for loans,"
  said, he disclaimed any intention of attacking the general policy of the Public Works Loan Commissioners—a body of gentlemen who, in the discharge of a delicate and onerous duty, had gratuitously rendered valuable service to the country. But he wished to relieve the Commissioners of certain duties which the Board of Trade had greater facilities for dealing with. He believed this opinion was entertained by some of the Commissioners themselves. In 1858 a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the harbour question, The Commissioners recommended an expenditure of £2,000,000 on various harbours throughout the country. In the Session of 1860 the late Mr. Lindsay, then Member for Sunderland, carried a Motion by a majority of 17 against Lord Palmerston's Government, declaring that effect should be given to the Commissioners' Report. The Government put the question off till the following Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not surprising that so jealous a guardian of the public purse should have looked with apprehension on the proposal to spend £2,000,000 on harbour works, and should have endeavoured to meet the views of the House with some counter proposal. The Government, accordingly, introduced the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act. The late Mr. Milner Gibson, then President of the Board of Trade, in introducing that measure, promised, on behalf of the Government, that £360,000 per annum should be paid to the Loan Commissioners to be lent at 3¼ per cent for harbour purposes, interest and capital being repayable in 50 years. The House would therefore see that a sort of bargain was struck between the Government of the day on the one hand, and the representatives of harbour interests on the other. The Government of 1879, by authorizing the Treasury to raise the rate of interest 1 per cent, broke the compact entered into in 1861. The Public Works Loan Commissioners
  378
  by the interpretation they had put on the Act had frustrated its intention. For some few years after the passing of the Act, up to about the year 1865, matters went comparatively smoothly in its working, but later on there came a serious difference of opinion between the Loan Commissioners and the Board of Trade as to the construction of the Act. Sir Thomas Farrer laid down the principle he now urged in a letter of October, 1865. Addressing the Loan Commission is, he said—
  "The Board of Trade are distinctly of opinion that the decision upon the policy of each grant should rest solely and entirely with them, and that the decision upon the sufficiency of the security should rest solely and entirely with the Loan Commissioners. This, as the Board believes, was the intention of the Government and of the Legislature, and any other course can in their opinion only lead to confusion."
  This opinion, he believed, laid down the only sound policy, and when it was departed from they got into endless confusion. In order to illustrate this he referred to two decisions of the Commissioners. They were applied to for a loan by the Hollywood Pier Company. In their answer, March 4, 1865, the Commissioners say—
  "That the Legislature in making provision for the construction and improvement of harbours by loans of money at allow rate of interest and with a period of 50 years for their repayment, had in view national purposes of trade and general utility and did not contemplate advances from the public funds to promote promenades or pleasure traffic."
  The Commissioners had previously refused a loan for the Brighton pier. He thought in this decision they were perfectly right. For Brighten Pier, even when enhanced by a band, was scarcely the "harbour of refuge" contemplated by the Act. But the House would observe that the Commissioners, in their reply to the Hollywood Pier Company, laid down a policy. The Act was intended "to benefit trade." How did they adhere to it? An application was made for a loan for Burntisland. In their reply in August, 1871, the Commissioners said—
  "The Board do not feel justified in making for purposes of trade, advances of public money under the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act at an interest of 3¼ per cent. and with a period of 50 years for repayment. They decline, therefore, in the exercise of the discretion invested in them by the Act of Parliament by which these principles are regulated, to entertain applications for loans

  379
  under the Harbour Act, except in the cases in which the works proposed to be executed are shown to be calculated to serve for refuge or shelter, or otherwise conducive to the safety of life and property."
  Burntisland was refused a loan because it promoted trade interests only, and Hollywood Pier because it did not promote trade interests. But then in the Burntisland case we were told that "refuge and shelter" were the objects of the Commissioners; but if that was so, how did we come to find £50,000 lent to Falmouth Docks, financially one of the worst loans the Commissioners made? Did the Falmouth Docks afford more shelter than a harbour would at Burntisland? The House would see that the principles successively laid down by the Commissioners involved them, as the Board of Trade said they would, in hopeless confusion. The term "shipping purposes" used in the Act would have instified loans in all these cases, provided always the security were good. But the fact was that the Act of 1861 had of recent years, in consequence of the interpretation put upon it by the Loan Commissioners, ceased to be operative. This was the opinion of several witnesses before the Harbour Committee, and it was supported by statistics in their report. Sir Thomas Farrer, in reply to a question by the chairman, said—
  "I can have no doubt that the construction that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have put upon the Act has limited the real intention of the framers of the Act and the intention of Parliament in passing the Act."
  The return showing the operation of the Act indicated how it had gradually ceased to be operative, and the time when it so ceased would be found to be coincident with the period when the Commissioners took all power out of the hands of the Board of Trade. The Act could scarcely be said to have come into full operation till 1864, In the five years 1864 to 1868 inclusive, the average grants per annum were £223,352. In the next 10 years the annual grants fell to an average of £98,264. During the last five years, by the combined policy of the Loan Commissioners and the Government of 1879 raising the rate of interest, the amount granted for home ports, exclusive of Colombo, was reduced to an average of £53,500. He was not Warning the Commissioners for the
  380
  higher rate of interest; that was arranged by the Government of 1879; but the falling off in the amounts lent dated from about the year 1869, when the Board of Trade practically ceased to have any control over the transactions. That this was the case was brought out by a Question put by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), himself a Loan Commissioner. The hon. Member inquired—
  "Is it not a pity that the public should not have the benefit of the comments of the Board of Trade?"
  Sir Thomas Farrer replied—
  "When people have taken a great deal of trouble to come to a decision, and they find that their decisions are treated as so much waste paper, they are apt to give it up."
  He believed that the influence exercised by the Board of Trade was a beneficial one in carrying out the intentions of the Act. If the House adopted this Motion, action would have to be taken to restore the functions which the Board of Trade claimed and exercised when the Act was first put into operation. So much money had been wasted in harbour construction that he could readily understand the existence of a feeling that all expenditure in such works was necessarily attended with great risk and likely to be unremunerative. No doubt, when they remembered the million and a-quarter thrown into the sea at Alderney, the failure at Jersey, the mismanagement at Wick, Anstruther, Dunbar, and other places—it was not wonderful that the House should approach the subject with a somewhat prejudiced mind. But the scandalous waste at Alderney and the mismanagement at other places did not take place under the system of loans he was advocating. Where the people had taken the initiative and borrowed money on harbour dues and other securities, where they had managed their own local affairs, in fact, where they had enjoyed "Home Rule" in this harbour question, the country had not lost a sixpence. In the cases of Anstruther and Dunbar there were special grants; they did not come under the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act. Wick was altogether exceptional. The people there wanted to spend some £40,000 on a harbour, but the plans were over-ruled by the Government of the day, who induced the British Fishery Society to contribute

  381
  for a work to cost £120,000. The harbour was a complete failure. The Wick Harbour Commissioners accurately stated the case when they said—
  "The Government is not a mere creditor, but a creditor whose action directly led the debtor into the path of ruin."
  The total amount advanced under the Act up to 1883 was £2,561,849. The interest received on this was £897,381. The interest due at 3 per cent—the rate the State can borrow money at—would be £822,428. There was an actual gain of £74,953. But against this must be put £33,992 written off for the harbour at the Isle of Man, and £61,290 in arrears. If, therefore, only £20,000 of the arrears was received—and he believed a greater amount was good— there would have been no loss to the State. The other transactions of the Commissioners showed where the loss arose that had caused the additional rate to be put on harbour loans. By the last Report the Commissioners had lent in all £54,088,000. Of this £1,852,723 had been written off; most of it appeared in what was called the closed account; and £433,853 was in arrears. The losses had arisen from £1,250,000 in Irish workhouses, £150,000 in the Thames Tunnel, in a total amount of £250,000, £100,000 in Battersea Park, and £84,000 in roads, in a total of £666,000. Except in the case of the Isle of Man, there had been nothing written off the £2,500,000 borrowed under the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act. Yet the compact of 1861 had been broken to pay for the bad debts he had alluded to. A study of the Return appeared to present some startling anomalies. There were many poor communities, fishing villages, where the height of the ambition of the people was to secure a harbour. They would toil and save for this object; a common fund was started; every house, where it was possible, are, and every boat, would be mortgaged as a security for a harbour loan, and when, by every possible sacrifice, they had got together something like a security, they were to be charged 4¼ per cent for a loan for 40 years, while here, in the centre of the richest city in the world, £150,000 was to be written off a loan of £250,000 on the Thames Tunnel, and £100,000 on the loan for Battersea Park. The loan to the Thames Tunnel was made some
  382
  time ago, but Battersea Park was a comparatively modern affair; but both transactions appeared in the accounts, and the high rate now charged for harbour loans was in consequence of the bad debts which the Commissioners, acting under instructions from the Treasury, had contracted. The Act of 1875 had put a stop to such transactions in the future. Those who represented harbour interests were entitled to say that if the Act had hitherto worked so well, that was the best possible reason for extending its operation. Those who believed, as he believed, that harbours, on properly constructed plans, were as much reproductive expenditure as money spent in sanitary purposes or in educational purposes, or any object for which loans were granted, were entitled, looking to the special obligation of Parliament, to claim that loans should be administered on more liberal principles than they were. Up to the year 1861, for the 10 preceding years we spent £300,000 on harbour improvements. Now we were lending £53,000 a-year, and spending some £20,000 a-year at Dover and Peterhead, which might possibly give the next generation two more harbours. The Harbour Committee told thorn that during the last 20 years in Prance the State contribution to harbours had been £11,000,000, and other countries had been spending larger sums than we had in developing their trade by harbour construction. The amount of loans granted between 1861 and 1883 was £2,561,849. The amount refused was £2,407,559, so that about half the sum applied for had been refused. He believed that under the system he was advocating the Board of Trade would have granted a far larger proportion of the amount asked for, and the Act of 1861, as explained by Mr. Milner-Gibson, would have had some chance of being-carried out. He now wished to refer to another grievance complained of in administering those loans. The Commissioners declined to advance money for harbour works to joint stock companies, and to private individuals. There was nothing in the Act to justify such a refusal. It was an arbitrary decision come to by the Commissioners. If a company or an individual was prepared to give ample security, he did not understand on what grounds they were to be prevented borrowing money for a useful

  383
  public purpose. The Harbour Committee, in their Report, protested strongly against this limitation, as being an evasion of the Act. Then, the Commissioners had no proper means of seeing that the money which they lent was properly expended. The original plans might be submitted to an engineer, but during the progress of the works the Commissioners had no guarantee that the plans might not be altered. They had no system of inspection. They had heard something about an inspecting engineer in the evidence before the Committee; but when he looked into the Estimates, he found only £100 a-year charged under the head of an engineer. If the Commissioners could for that sum get a competent gentleman to inspect, not only the plans, but the progress of about 20 works going on over the country, and costing some £53,410 a-year, they were certainly to be congratulated on their economical arrangements. The fact was, he believed, that there was no inspection at all after the money was lent, and it was quite possible to obtain the money for one purpose and to spend it on an entirely different one. But he proposed that they should transfer the policy of determining on the works to the Board of Trade, where they had a Harbour Department more competent, he believed, than the Loan Commissioners were to decide on the original plans, and with full power under a special Act of inspecting the works under construction. There was only one other point to which he should allude. They were told in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech that they were to have a Local Government Act. He feared, however, that it was rather a long way off; but when it was introduced he hoped it would contain provisions enabling districts to assess themselves for harbour loans, and that the Bill for Scotland would not overlook the recommendations of Sheriff Guthrie Smith contained in the Fishery Board's Report, that special facilities be given to fisherman to obtain in cases where they had already built their houses on land not belonging to themselves, thus enabling them to give collateral security. The learned gentleman to whom he had referred estimated that in his county alone (Banffshire) £58,000 which might be used as collateral security for harbour loans was not available, because fisher-
  384
  men had no legal title to their houses. If time permitted he would prove to the House that the Act of 1861, while fairly administered, was productive of great benefit, not only in carrying out such extensive works as had been undertaken on the Tyne, at Leith, Aberdeen, Eraser-burgh, Belfast, and other nourishing seaports, but also in the case of numerous fishing villages. On this account he regretted that the compact of 1861 had been broken, and that the Act had become almost inoperative. All he would further say was, that if it should be the deliberate intention of Parliament not to grant any assistance whatever to harbours, to pay no attention to the recommendations of endless Commissions and Committees, to abolish the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act, to say that England, the greatest maritime country in the world—was to be the only nation to give no State assistance to harbours, and that they were to depend entirely on private enterprise, it would be more honest to say so than to pretend to give assistance by a system of loans, when they at the same time made the conditions of those loans so onerous that scarcely anyone would take advantage of them. But he could not believe that such a course would commend itself to the House. He believed, on the other hand, that the general desire was to see the extension of a system which up to the present had cost the country nothing, and which, at a comparatively small risk to the taxpayers of the country, had contributed largely to the saving of life and to the benefit of trade. He moved the Resolution standing in his name.
  Mr. SPEAKERretired, and the Clerk at the Table informed the House that Mr. Speaker had been compelled by indisposition to leave the House, and was unable to resume the Chair:—
  Whereupon Mr. COURTNEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  MR. E. W. BECKETTsaid, he begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire. There were three reasons why the Government should not refuse to accept it. In the first place, hon. Members sitting on both, sides of the House were in favour of it, and it was not often that Ministers got the chance of meeting

  385
  the wishes both of their opponents and supporters; in the second place, the Motion did not contain or imply any criticism on any portion of the Estimates; and in the third place, it did not ask the Government either to reduce or to increase their expenditure by one penny. He did not think that, recommended by these arguments, it would encounter any serious obstacle or hostility. The Motion might be objected to on the ground that it laid down a principle, and that it was dangerous and inexpedient for the House of Commons to lay down principles. But surely the House ought not to legislate without principles, and in the present case a clear enunciation of a principle was particularly required, not for the guidance of the House, but for the guidance of a Body emanating from and responsible to the House. Such a Body ought to have an accurate comprehension of the lines on which it was expected to act, and it could only have this comprehension if the instructions given to it were full, plain, and positive. In fairness to them, and in order to avoid misconceptions in the future, it would be well if the present Motion were passed. With regard to the issue of harbour loans the functions of the Commissioners and those of the Board of Trade so overlapped each other and stood in such a relation to each other that, as Falstaff said, ''they are neither fish nor flesh, and no man knows where to have them." He had no complaint to make of the Board of Trade nor of the Loan Commissioners in their individual capacity, for he had found both civil, courteous, and ready to listen to what he had to say, and as accommodating as money-lenders could be expected to be; but owing to their respective duties being undefined it was easy for them to refuse an application by taking refuge behind each other, and throwing the responsibility of the refusal on each other's shoulders. The Board of Trade might say that they would be delighted to sanction the policy if the Loan Commissioners would find the money, and the Loan Commissioners would say they would be delighted to find the money if the Board of Trade would sanction the policy. The result was that the issue of loans that were urgently required were very often refused. They did business on the principle of Spenlow and Jorkins—
  386
  "The hand and heart of the good angel Spenlow would always be open but for the restraining demon Jorkins." Thus the game went on—
  "And enterprises of great pith and moment,
  With this regard their currents turn awry,
  And lose the name of action."
  It was obvious that Parliament must have intended that there should be a broad line of demarcation between the functions that each of those Bodies had to fulfil, and the Motion only asked the House to put a legal stamp and form on those obvious intentions of Parliament. If the Loan Commissioners were allowed any voice in pronouncing on the policy of a loan, the result was that they were rendered less capable of deciding with a perfectly unprejudiced and unclouded mind upon the character of the security offered for a loan, as the opinion of the policy would insensibly but undoubtedly influence their opinion of the security. It was extremely necessary that the functions of deciding the policy and the loans should be kept distinct. Those who, like himself, anxiously desired to see harbours of refuge constructed at various points along the coast, or at all events the existing harbours enlarged and improved, were told last year that for the fulfilment of their wishes they must look to local enterprise and local capital, assisted by giants from the Loans Commissioners. If anything was ever to be done in this direction— and much was urgently needed for the protection of life and property, and for the protection of our sailors and our fishermen—the Loan Commissioners must be easy of access, not grudging of their money or hard in their terms. It was because he believed that this Motion, if carried, would open the door to deserving applicants, and by removing one of the chief impediments to harbour loans would in some measure facilitate their issue, that he ventured most earnestly to press for its adoption by the House.
  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, the Board of Trade should decide on the policy of the works to be undertaken, and that the functions of the Loan Commissioners should be limited to deciding on the sufficiency of the security offered by applicants for loans."—(Mr. Duff)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, that recently two legal decisions had been given which greatly increased the difficulty of obtaining loans for harbour works. The decisions to which he referred sprang out of occurrences at Falmouth and Dartmouth respectively. In each case an accident occurred to a ship, and the Harbour Commissioners were mulcted in damages, with the result that their affairs passed into the hands of Receivers of the Court of Chancery. Before those decisions it was believed that Harbour Commissioners were not liable for inadvertent damage to ships, and that the loans made to them were fully secured. These decisions, however, showed that they were equally liable with Railway Companies and carriers. In these circumstances, if the law were not altered, it was very unlikely that private individuals or the Public Works Loan Commissioners would in the future be ready to advance money for harbour works. He therefore hoped that a Bill would be introduced for the purpose of rendering all loans to Harbour Commissioners perfectly safe.
  MR. J. A. BLAKEexpressed great regret that the recommendations of the Select Committee on the construction of harbours, of which he was a Member, had not been carried out. As the law stood, the Loan Fund Commissioners had the exclusive power of granting or refusing loans. The result was that localities in which it was most desirable to build harbours were often unable to obtain the necessary money. At Waterford, for example, a determination was come to eight or nine years ago to build a much-wanted harbour, and good security was offered to the Loan Fund Commissioners; but they refused to advance the money, and consequently the work could not be undertaken. He held that the question of the desirability or undesirability of erecting a harbour in a particular locality ought for the future to be decided by the Board of Trade, and that the powers of the Loan Commissioners ought to be restricted to that of determining whether the security offered for an advance was or was not sufficiently good.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. R. W.
  388
  Duff). It had fallen to his (Sir Joseph Pease's) lot to have a good deal to do with harbour loans by way of communication between the Harbour Authorities and the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Since the year 1861, when the Act was passed for granting such loans at a fixed rate of interest, upwards of £2,000,000 of money had been spent on the North-East Coast of England, with which he was well acquainted. The Government had no doubt wasted money in the localities which the hon. Member had pointed out. The Royal Commission of 1859 had reported recommending grants of money to certain harbours on the coast of the United Kingdom. The Act of 1861 was intended to over-ride that Report by granting loans at 3¼ per cent to existing harbours. Instead of money being advanced by the Public Loan Commissioners at 3¼ per cent, as was done in connection with the first Tyne and Tees loans the Act was ignored altogether, and as much as 4 per cent, and 4 ¼ per cent in some poor districts, were charged on the loans granted by the Public Works Commissioners. This meant that the interest charged by the Loan Commissioners was now more than could be borrowed from the public; and further expense at this high rate east a burden upon the industry of the localities which undertook to pay such heavy rates of interest for loans for harbour works. The promise made by Mr. Milner Gibson in 1861 had been ignored, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners had taken advantage of the wording of the Act to impose the excessive terms. He (Sir Joseph Pease) had stated his opinion that the original intention was that public money should be lent cheaply for deepening harbours, and constructing fishery harbours on the coast of an essentially maritime country. The Loan Commissioners, he understood, took advantage of the word "may" in the Act of 1861, and they set up a claim to judge of the policy of the works for which the loans were sought. Then there was another point to which he desired especially to call the particular attention of the House. This was that when the Public Works Loan Commissioners took in hand the examination of the work and the proposals of the harbour authorities, they did not deal liberally with questions submitted to them. In the

  389
  Tees case, where they had spent the sum of £1,000,000 sterling, they had borrowed three-fourths of that sum from the public; but when they went to the Public Loan Commissioners for their last loan they were told that the security they offered, which was the same as that on which a previous loan had been granted, was not sufficiently good. He and those with whom he acted was sure that the security was perfectly good, for they knew that, independently of their tolls, for every foot of water they could got in the harbour they were promoting, they should get larger ships and more foreign trade; and they thought that they had given ample proof of this to the Loan Commission. They showed a toll tariff which would give a large surplus; but the Public Loan Commissioners refused to grant them a loan. Thereupon they called the attention of the late Lord Iddesleigh, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the subject, and to the wording of the Act of 1861, and showed him that there was reason to believe that the Public; Works Loan Commissioners were not doing their duty to the harbour authorities. The noble Earl—then Sir Stafford Northcote—was good enough to take the matter into consideration. Papers were sent for, submitted to, and considered by him, and the result was that they got their loan. But if in the case of the Tees, where there was a large trade, they had been able to provide for themselves by obtaining their loans in a great measure from the public, as well as to meet the requirements of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, it did not by any moans necessarily follow that iu the case of many of the smaller harbours these promoters could provide for themselves in the same way or to the same extent. Now, if there was one thing which we ought as a nation to do, it was to promote the establishment of harbours, which would be useful to trade in times of peace, and would be conducive to the saving of life; while in times of war they would be of the highest national advantage. If, therefore, anything could be done to promote the object which he had referred to, and to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to see that it was their duty to the State to take the most favourable view of the application of the harbour authorities, he thought it would be a most desirable
  390
  thing. He believed that this object would be promoted if the Board of Trade were intrusted with the duty of judging of the merits of the proposed works. In that case he thought they would have a tribunal better fitted than the Public Works Loan Commissioners to deal with local wants, and to meet the wants especially of the communities which were least able to borrow from the public. For these reasons he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire.
  THE SECEETAEY TO THE TEEASUBY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he felt it his duty at once to state, in answer to the complaint that the rate of interest had been raised 1 per cent, that in the opinion of the Treasury, which was at least as well able to judge of the question as any outside authority, the country owed a great debt of gratitude to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the admirable manner in which they had discharged their difficult and important duties. They had executed the trust committed to them in a manner which had saved the country great loss, although they had not been able to escape loss altogether. An account had been taken and a calculation made, which showed that on the rates charged there had been a loss of interest on loans to harbour authorities amounting to £8,000. Out of 50 loans granted several would not be repaid. The rates now enforced were sanctioned by the Treasury Minute of the 18th of June, 1885. There were two scales, according as collateral security for the repayment of the loan was or was not offered. When no such security was offered the interest was 3½ per cent, when the loan was repayable in 30 years, 3¾ per cent, when the period of repayment exceeded 30 and did not exceed 40 years, and 4 per cent for periods from 40 to 50 years. When collateral security was offered, the rate was ¼ per cent lower in each case. Those rates could not be considered extravagant. He agreed that loans should be granted if possible when security was offered, but he did. not imagine that his hon. Friend would desire that the Public Works Loan Commissioners should grant loans which were really grants in disguise. It was no doubt desirable that local efforts should be aided wherever it was probable that no loss would be sustained or

  391
  that there was a general concurrence of opinion. But it would be equally conceded on all hands that too free and lavish a use of State aid tended to discourage private enterprise and to cripple local effort. So far as the Government were concerned they desired to assist local effort in the most beneficent and efficient manner possible. It must, however, be remembered that the Loan Commissioners exercised their authority under an Act of Parliament, and the obvious duty of anybody in such circumstances was not to consider whether the Act of Parliament was right or wrong, but to confine themselves rigidly to the duties prescribed by that Act of Parliament. The Loan Commissioners, in claiming the right to decide as to the policy of these loans, had been acting under their strict legal powers. It was expressly provided that in granting loans they should have regard to the sufficiency of the security for their repayment, and should exercise their judgment whether the work proposed would be so beneficial to the community affected as to justify the loan which was asked. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff) had pointed out that the Committee recommended that £350,000 should be set aside annually for these loans. The whole of that sum had not been expended. But Parliament would be unwise in fixing a definite sum like that to be spent each year, because the operation of such a rule would be to multiply the number of applicants, and it would also be necessary either to deal with applications according to priority or to the adequacy of the security offered. The proposed limit of £350,000 had not been reached, not from any desire on the part of the Treasury to impose undue limits, but because the applications had not complied with the requirements imposed. The hon. Member for Banff had referred to the differences which had arisen between the Board of Trade and the Public "Works Loan Commissioners, and he had endeavoured to show that the Commissioners were entitled to a voice as to the policy of the loans, as well as to the security which was offered for their repayment. He was glad to say, however, that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade would be able to inform the House that the negotiations which had been in progress would pro-
  392
  bably be successful. Therefore, he need not at present go further than that. The hon. Member also referred to the question of waste, and recommended that a certain proportion of the works should be undertaken by the Board of Trade, because the Board had at their disposal engineers who could inspect the works. But the hon. Gentleman himself supplied the soundest argument against Government interference. The hon. Member referred to the case of Wick, and showed conclusively that there the interference of the Government engineers led to a larger outlay than would otherwise have been incurred.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he did not mean that the engineers of the Board of Trade should lay down the works, but that there were works going on, as in the case of the Forth Bridge for instance, to which they might be sent for the purposes of inspection. He did not mean that they should be answerable for the works. The Loan Commissioners had no engineers, whereas the Board of Trade had engineers whom they could send out to see that works were carried out according to the plans.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member had referred to the case of the Forth Bridge. It was true that the Government sent engineers to inspect the works. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that that bridge was built by money advanced, not by the Government, but by the public. In that case the Board of Trade inspection was not for the purpose of seeing that the work was carried out in a particular way, but it was limited entirely to the exercise of the power of the Board to see that the safety of the public was secured. It would be most dangerous for the Government, either through the Board of Trade or any other Body, to make themselves responsible. If they sent an engineer, what would he have to do? Was he to exercise any control over the design or the construction, or was He to make any recommendations, or to insist on certain works being carried out in a particular way? If so the Government engineer, and through him the Government, would immediately be made responsible for carrying out the works. Therefore he would ask the House to hesitate before they adopted a plan of too much Government interference. Then the hon. Member alluded to the enor-

  393
  mous sum of money expended by France upon harbours; but he did not think that experience of Government outlay and Government responsibility in connection with public works in France furnished an example which it would be desirable for this country to follow. It was true that a great effort was made in France some years ago to induce the Government to aid the workpeople by finding them employment and carrying out public works. Last year it appeared that the sum of 1,000,000 francs was spent on harbour works. Opinion was greatly divided, however, as to whether the ports had derived any advantage from this expenditure. The expenditure was made on the condition that the dues should be increased, the result being that in many of the ports the trade had fallen off. The hon. Member likewise urged that the Government ought to facilitate as far as they could assistance to Local Authorities by giving them larger powers to offer as security their local rates On this point the Government were entirely at one with the hon. Member. They would raise no objection, and they thought it was extremely desirable to extend the powers which these Local Authorities at present possessed. Reference had been also made to the saving of life. Now, it was a curious fact that the evidence of the Wreck Chart went to show that the provision of harbours would not necessarily, to a very largo extent, prevent the loss of life which occurred at present. The largest loss of life took place either on coasts or in districts which were already provided with harbours, or in districts where no proposal had been made to establish harbours, He did not wish to lay too much stress upon that, and he only mentioned the circumstance in order to prevent misconception. If the Government were not able to go the whole length of the hon. Member, it was not from any disregard of the desirability of adopting every means to diminish the loss of' life which took place, The negotiations that had been in progress would, he believed, find a happy medium by which the policy and the conduct of the Board of Trade and the Public Works Loan Commissioners would be brought into harmony. He had reason to hope that his hon. Friend(Mr. R. W. Duff) would agree that if such a solution could be found
  394
  it would he much better in the interests he so well advocated than an arbitrary change by means of some violent action on the part of Parliament. He hoped, if the Secretary to the Board of Trade was able to inform the House that the recommendations of the Treasury had been accepted by the Board and by the Commissioners, that the hon. Member would feel that he had obtained all He required and would not think it necessary to press his Motion.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that difficulties which appeared to him insurmountable were placed in the way of Local Authorities desiring to obtain loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. What was perfectly clear to his mind was that the Public Works Loan Commissions had proved to be a complete failure—and that there must be entirely new legislation with regard to them. There must be complete reorganization, and a new body put in their place, who would really be effectual. It was no use going on with old machinery which had already proved practically useless. The House had had no information as to what the Government were going to do in that matter, except that some negotiations were going on between the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Commissioners which would lead to something—they were not told what. Legislation on that subject ought to be taken seriously in hand. The loans made by the Commissioners had been in nearly all cases to largo harbours. That was a mistake. He was satisfied that for the purpose of saving life the great thing was to encourage the making and improvement of small harbours. The harbours of refuge were wanted not for ocean-going steamers, but for fishing boats. In some harbours where the draught of water had previously been sufficient it was now, owing to the increased size of the boats in use, too little. The result was that those harbours were practically useless, as the fishermen could not depend on being able to enter them in bad weather at all states of the tide. Inquiry would show that a great deal of the loss of life which took place round the coasts of Scotland was traceable to the absence of harbours suitable for fishing boats. He would like to hear that a Bill was in preparation which would facilitate Local Authorities in obtaining loans for the,

  395
  construction of small harbours. Without some such power, it was absolutely impossible to give the prosperity to the fishing industry which it ought to possess. He ventured to think that, in the opinion of that House, the Public Works Loan Commissioners had been proved to be a complete failure. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might differ from him, but he ventured to think that that was the opinion of everybody capable of forming an opinion on the subject. They were not an efficient body for dealing with questions of this kind. They ought to be got rid of, and a body created which would perform, their duties more thoroughly.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think that hon. Members on that side of the House, or even right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, would agree with the hon. Member, who had just sat down, in his estimate of the services of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Those gentlemen devoted a large portion of their time to the Public Service without fee or reward, and he thought it rather hard that such strong remarks as those of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down should be made about them. The Public Loan Commissioners stood between the House and the lavish issue of public money demanded by Members who pressed their claims in a manner inconvenient to the Government of the day. The Commissioners had saved the nation the expenditure of many millions of money. He agreed with the hon. Member in one thing—there was no reason why small harbours should not be as useful for harbours of refuge as large harbours; and if money could be advanced for small harbours he, for one, would be glad of it. But to say that money advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for large harbours was money flung into the sea, was a statement which he thought would not receive the assent of the House of Commons. So far as he was aware of the views of the Commissioners, they would not consent to act as the mere agents of the machinery of Parliament, which left them no discretion. They believed they exercised real and important functions, both as [regarded policy and the discretion and judgment they had to display upon the question as to whether or not the security for the loans which they
  396
  made was sufficient. If their discretion was interfered with or taken away, he apprehended the Commissioners would resign their functions. He trusted Parliament would hesitate long before breaking down that barrier to the lavish expenditure of public money. It must be remembered that ratepayers, though a long-suffering class, had lately shown that they were not willing to add to their burdens. He would only add that he hoped that the House would hoar from the Government what had been done to make matters work more smoothly between the Board of Trade and the Treasury, and that the result would be that advances would be made more speedily and satisfactorily.
  MR. P. M'DONALDsaid, He desired to draw the attention of the House to the claims of Sligo, a port on the West, which had an extensive coasting trade with Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places. Sligo was an inlet and outlet to a large number of towns of considerable importance. In consequence of a growing trade, the Sligo Harbour Commissioners applied to the Board of Works for a loan of £15,000 for the purpose of deepening the harbour, and dredging it, and making other necessary improvements. The Board of Trade declined to grant the loan, basing their refusal on the fact that the surplus from the harbour dues, after paying the expenses necessary, was not sufficient. But the reason that surplus was so small was because the two years preceding had been unprecedented in point of weather on the Western coasts. Storms had set in and destroyed several important works, and a large expenditure was needed for their repair. It was this expenditure which lessened the surplus, rather than any falling off of the harbour dues. In April, 1886, the Sligo Harbour Commissioners applied to the Treasury for permission for a deputation to wait upon them so that they might explain more fully the several bearings of the case, but as yet no reply had been sent to that request. He hoped the necessary facilities would be given to such deputation by the Secretary to the Treasury; and, if they were, he could promise that Gentleman that such facts would be laid before him as would enable him to recommend to the Loan Commissioners to grant the required loan.
  MR. ASHER (Elgin, &c.)said, a proper appreciation of this Motion could not be attained unless the clear distinction between the class of harbours dealt with by it and harbours of refuge was kept fully before the House. He understood that, prior to 1861, the policy was to support harbour accommodation by means of grants; but, as the result of discussions in this House, the policy was adopted of providing harbour accommodation by means of loans, and not by grants, and no large harbour had since been built at the public expense except where convict labour had been employed. The harbour at Peter-head was one of that class, and was referable to a principle totally different from that which regulated the harbours pointed at in this Motion. He did not concur with what his hon. Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) said with regard to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. This Motion was not at all intended to cast any blame upon them, and he believed it was generally conceded that they had performed their difficult duty with great judgment and discretion— guarding the interests of the public in the matter of loans. But what was pointed at in the Motion was, that there was at present imposed upon them a duty which, they were not qualified to discharge—that of deciding on the policy of those works, while there was at pro-sent existing a Government Department in the Board of Trade much better qualified for the discharge of that duty. In that he (Mr. Asher) concurred. There were some general considerations with regard to the Motion which, it seemed to him, went to show that something was required to be done. Since 1861 the policy had been to provide fishing and commercial harbours by means of loans. He entirely approved of that policy. It seemed to him to bring into joint operation local enterprise and energy with the credit of the State, so that harbours could be provided with no loss to the public, and with the greatest advantage to the localities. But the broad features of the case were these. In 1861 the Legislature contemplated that, under the system then inaugurated, a sum of £360,000 might reasonably be expected to be required annually for such loans. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary
  398
  to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), that a fixed sum was not a good arrangement, and that there ought to be elasticity, so that a proper application need not be refused in any one year, because it happened that the sum fixed for the year had been expended before the application came in. But the thing to observe was that the full sum of £360,000 had never been reached in anyone year, and that, although in one year it did come up to £260,000, it had been gradually dwindling year by year, until the amount given as loans for harbours was, during the last year, £40,000 or £50,000. That would be intelligible if the necessity had diminished; but everyone who know anything of the subject was aware that along the coasts of Scotland there existed the greatest possible demand for harbour accommodation; so that they had to consider that, while the necessity for increased expenditure was annually growing, the amount of the loans was diminishing. There must be something radically wrong in a system which produced those results. In his opinion, it was attributable to the monopoly possessed by the Public Works Loan Commissioners of the policy of deciding upon the advisability of the loan and the sufficiency of the security; and, while it was quite proper that, on this latter point, the decision should rest with them, yet, in deciding on the former, they were apt to look at it too exclusively from the point of view of the Board that had to see to its securities. If the loan went up to the Public Works Loan Commissioners with the support of a recommendation from the Board of Trade, after full inquiry in favour of the policy of the loan, He could scarcely doubt that the result would be that the improvement of harbours by means of loans would be much more largely productive of good in the future than it had been in the past. Allusion had been made to the question of interest, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury indicated no intention of reduction. Now, it appeared to him that the matter of interest was one of the most essential features of the case. He was not in favour of the loans being granted at so low a rate as to entail loss to the public; but, on the other hand, he objected to a rate which was to some extent prohibitive, and which

  399
  was in excess of what was necessary for the safety of the public. He would put aside the rate for the short period of 15 years for loans, because it was beyond the resources of the places at which harbour accommodation was most needed, and loans most required, to repay the loans in a period short of 50 years. The sliding scale, beginning with a low rate of interest for 20 years, seemed plausible; but as they had no hope of repaying within 50 years, the higher rate was practically that they had to pay. But with collateral security, why should so high a rate of interest as 3¾ per cent be charged? He failed to see how the security was impaired, or the chance of repayment much impaired, by the extension of the time during which the money had to be paid. The theory of the sliding scale was, that the money was loaned by the State to be repaid in 30 years at 3½ per cent; and he failed to see why the addition of 20 years for repayment, by means of a sinking fund, should so depreciate the security as to warrant the increase of a half per cent. Looking at the great importance of providing harbour accommodation, to the immense impetus it would give to an industry in which a large portion of the population were engaged, and to the importance of the supply of an article of food, the proper policy would be to cut down the rate of interest to the lowest possible point which could be regarded as keeping the Exchequer reasonably safe. What had happened in the past seemed to him to justify a reduction, because the evidence taken by the Royal Commission showed that, so far from there having been any loss on interest, the interest actually between 1861 and 1883 amounted to £75,000, more than 3 per cent on the whole sum expended.
  MR. JACKSON: But the Government could not borrow at 3 per cent; that was why it was larger.
  MR. ASHERsaid, he had always understood that the credit of this country was such as to enable them to get money at a rate not higher than 3 per cent. Now, that was £75,000 which should not have been charged upon the harbours, and should have been saved to the several localities. Then, with regard the capital, the Report of the Commission showed that there was fair and reasonable security for these loans; be-
  400
  cause, out of a total sum lent from 1861 to 1883 of £2,500,000, there had already been repaid £694,000, while £1,700,000 was not due at the date of the Report; and there was only £62,000 in arrear. So that the experience of the past showed that those harbours were a subject upon which loans might be given with reasonable security; and the interest account showed that the interest; might be reduced with safety to the Exchequer. In these circumstances, he hoped the Government would do something in the direction of enabling loans to be more largely taken advantage of than hitherto. There was no class of the community more desirous of meeting honourably all the obligations they might undertake than the fishing population, and he felt sure it would be doing good service, not only to them but to the State, if the Government would meet them at least half-way in the effort to facilitate the carrying out of improvements on their harbours.
  COLONEL HILLsaid, he wished to urge upon the Government the importance of providing harbours of refuge on a systematic principle all round the coast, and more particularly at Lundy Island. The importance of these harbours to a great mercantile country like this could not be exaggerated. He was fully persuaded that expenditure of that kind would receive the almost unanimous approbation of the nation, and enable us to maintain our military and commercial supremacy. He would suggest that a certain sum should be devoted annually to the purpose, so that the work might go on continually.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONsaid, this question was one of particular interest to Scottish Representatives, not only because of the importance of the fishing industry in Scotland, but also on account of the more than usually intricate circumstances with which they had to deal. The hon. and learned Member fur the Elgin Burghs had not in the least overstated the case when he spoke of the enormous development that might be effected in the harbour accommodation on the coasts of Scotland, and the importance which would be given to it by lowering the rate of interest. He could speak only with regard to fishing harbours, but as the Representative of a burgh with a great commercial harbour, he could vouch for the advantage which

  401
  that burgh received from getting their money at 3¼ per cent for the construction of their harbour. In Scotland they found great difficulty in knowing where they were. It was very difficult to get clear and sufficient information upon which they could set to work. They had to deal not only with the Public Works Loan Commissioners, but also with the Board of Trade and the Scottish Fishery Board, and in the Highlands there were also questions connected with the Crofters Commission. They had no Local Authority through which the fishermen could make their wants sufficiently known locally, and there was the difficulty of finding subjects on which loans could be raised. The system of tenure in the North-East of Scotland was of a faulty nature. The system of feus had not been introduced there, and the fishermen could not raise loans on their properties. If these difficulties were removed, and clearer information were circulated, they should, have less nonsense talked about impossible fishery harbours, and more practical work would be done. Members for fishing constituencies often bad to deal with very troublesome matters connected with these fishery harbours, and sometimes gave very awkward pledges concerning them. A great deal had been said about the risk involved in the spending of money on fishery harbours. It was on account of that risk—on account of the difficulty that fishermen, who were generally men without capital, had in raising the necessary funds, and of the enormous increase which in some districts might be achieved by developing harbour accommodation in aiding the food supply of the country —it was on these grounds that they trusted Her Majesty's Government would give a favourable consideration to the case placed before them. Our fishermen had to contend with fishermen in foreign countries, who received large bounties; and the least we could do here was to secure that as far as possible they should have safety to their lives and property, and that the resources of the seas surrounding our shores should be developed to the very highest possible degree.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he had been asked to state whether any agreement had been entered into between the Board of Trade and the Public Works
  402
  Loan Commissioners. He thought He should be able to answer the question in a manner satisfactory to both sides of the House. The hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Asher) stated correctly that the Motion before the House was not in the slightest degree intended to cast any censure upon the Public Works Loan Commissioners, but it was intended to indicate that in the opinion of the House the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade was better qualified to give a technical opinion of the requirements of certain localities for harbours than the Commissioners could possibly be; and, further, that the powers of the Public Works Loan Commissioners should mainly be restricted to ascertaining whether the security offered was adequate and proper security—a question as to which the Board of Trade could not give a competent opinion. The view of the Board of Trade was perfectly in accord with that, and almost immediately after the Report of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), the Board placed themselves in communication with the Treasury with the view, if possible, of arriving at some arrangement in the direction he had indicated. The recommendation of that Committee was that to the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade should be confined the duty of deciding and reporting as to the policy and expediency of any particular work in the United Kingdom; while the question of the value of the security which was offered by the Harbour Authority should alone be dealt with by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Since that time—quite recently—the Board of Trade had been in communication with the Treasury, and he was now authorized to say that an agreement had been entered into between the two Departments, the conditions of which he would give to the House—
  "It is agreed between the Board of Trade and the Loan Commissioners that greater latitude is to he given to the class of harbour works which are to "be assisted by loans under the Harbour and Passing Tolls Act of 1861. The Hoard of Trade consent to exclude from the definition of works to be so assisted—(1) open piers, such as Brighton and Ramsey; (2) wharfs and warehouses, and other mere facilities for trade; (3) docks where dues are levied; (4) river improvements which are independent of refuge and shelter at the river mouth. The

  403
  Board of Trade will recommend harbour works for loans subject to these limitations, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners will accept the recommendation so far as policy is concerned. The Public Works Loan Commissioners remain sole judges of the security offered and it is understood that the agreement implies no relaxation on their part of the principle that they will grant no loan unless fully satisfied that the security offered is ample. If in any case the Public Works Loan Commissioners should consider that recommendations fall outside the agreed limitations, or if new questions as to the nature of works to be assisted should arise, a conference will be held between the Board of Trade and the Loan Commissioners. If the two parties should not be able to agree, the points at issue will be referred to the First Lord of the Treasury as arbitrator. Loans will not be recommended by the Board of Trade to encourage mere local rivalry."
  Further than that—
  "Reports of the Board of Trade are to be made upon the various applications for harbour loans, stating fully the grounds of the Board's recommendations. These Reports are to be laid before Parliament. The Board of Trade, in making their recommendations, propose, subject to the limitations described before, to be guided by the following considerations:—(1) That refuge and shelter should be considered more important than mere facilities to trade; (2) that fishery harbours should be very favourably considered; (3) that public trusts should be more favourably considered than mere profit-making companies; (4) that market rates should be charged to wealthy bodies obtaining Government loans, unless in respect of works which it may not be the interest of the ratepayers to make."
  These suggestions, he thought, were very fair, and would, he hoped, meet the views of hon. Members who considered that loans should be made in aid of fishing harbours rather than for the purpose of promoting commercial undertakings. As a matter of fact, private enterprise did not require State aid in this respect, because in 20 years no less than £23,000,000 had been expended by private enterprise on 17 commercial harbours. He did not think the House would consider it was in any way the duty of the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant loans solely for the purpose of promoting the rivalry in the trade of one harbour against another. That was not the object the Commissioners had ever had in view, or ought to have in view; but they ought to encourage—and by this scheme they would encourage—the fishing industry. They would, in the case of dangerous harbours, render them if possible more safe. As regarded the rate of interest, that was a question solely for the Public
  404
  Works Loan Commissioners, and one in which the Board of Trade would in no way interfere. He would point out that the agreement made between the Board of Trade and the Public Works Loan Commissioners carried out to the full the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. W. Duff) who had brought the Motion before the notice of the House, inasmuch as it gave an initiative to the Board of Trade, and because the Public Works Loan Commissioners would have the benefit of the technical experience of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade with regard to the harbours to be assisted. The only question that the Public Works Loan Commissioners would have to consider would in future be whether the security was adequate for the loan required. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press the Motion, but would withdraw it; and, if so, he believed he would find that the arrangement between the two Departments would be much more satisfactorily and expeditiously carried out than under Parliamentary interference.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: As Chairman of the Select Committee which sat upon the subject of harbour accommodation, I should like to say a few words before the debate closes. The statement made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) is what we desired, and we shall be glad to accept it as far as it goes, as it practically covers the point raised by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff). It has never been suggested that such things as promenade piers should be brought under the Board of Trade, and, in my opinion, should not be helped by public loans at all. I should have wished that the Board of Trade had gone a step or two further, and had taken upon itself the duty of discriminating somewhat more clearly what harbours should receive public assistance at all; because the principle which has been acted upon by the Commissioners up to the present is this—that whatever harbour chooses to ask for aid, provided it can give the necessary security, is entitled to obtain a loan, irrespective of how far the work is necessary or likely to be of advantage to the public at large. Now, I say that, when we are lending public money for the purpose

  405
  of providing refuge and shelter ports, we should take care that they are provided in the particular locality where they would be of the greatest possible use. That is particularly the case in regard to fishing harbours, which are to a peculiar degree proper subjects for loans of this kind. It is quite extraordinary how many of them there are, especially on the North-East coast. As a matter of fact we have a series of small fishing harbours, which on the average comprise one for every eight miles of coast; Each of these harbours has its own colony of boats, but in a storm the harbours are quite useless, and in any stress of weather it is difficult to enter them, even at those states of the tide when there is a sufficient depth of water. Now, I maintain that the proper policy for the Government to pursue, is to supplement these fishing harbours by somewhat larger harbours, capable of admitting boats at all states of the tide, at intervals all round the coast. If such a policy is adopted, the greatest care will have to be taken in selecting the places where new and important harbours could be most properly placed. For this reason, I think that considerable discrimination should be used in consenting to loans for harbours, altogether irrespective of the fact whether the security offered is sufficient or not, or whether an available harbour can be made for the money. With regard to what the Secretary of the Board of Trade has said as to the rate of interest, I quite agree with my hon. Friend the late Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) said. It is quite useless to grant loans for any less period than 50 years. I think that terra is short enough, because the works, of course, take some time to execute, and a still further time for increased revenue to accrue. With regard to the question of the decrease in the number of loans applied for, I can honestly say that the decrease is, in a great degree, due to the difficulties put in the way of obtaining them. The House has been told that in this matter a stop forward has been made, and I am quite ready to admit it. There is another question touching the same point which I should like to notice, and that is that many of these small places have existing debts already—debts due to banks, and so forth, at a comparatively
  406
  heavy rate of interest. One of the recommendations which the Select Committee thought was well worthy of consideration by the Government was, whether it would not be advisable, from the case which had been made out, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance money for the consolidation of such existing debts. I am speaking of small places, and not harbours whose debts are to be counted by thousands of pounds—but still, harbours where improvements are necessary and needed. That is a point, the necessity of which, I think, presses upon the hon. Gentlemen opposite for consideration. With regard to the action of the Public Works Loan Commissioners generally, I have no desire to depreciate the high importance and usefulness of their work, but I think they are a far more competent and useful body in reference to their ordinary work than they are in regard to harbour loans. You have got 16 gentlemen of the highest integrity, for the most part resident in the City. I quite admit that they are well enough able to judge of the value of the security offered for the construction of water works, or carrying out drainage works, or building schools; but I maintain that they do not possess the technical knowledge necessary to enable them to judge properly with regard to harbours, and I think that one of the great mischiefs in regard to harbour loans is, that they are treated on the same footing as other loans. Now, I contend that this is entirely wrong, and I will give the House my reasons why I think it is wrong. In the first place, it is a distinct breach of the pledge given by Parliament to the country. In the early part of this century any assistance to harbour construction was given by way of grant. Between the years 1800 and 1860 £10,000,000 was given in that way, of which only some £400,000 went to the smaller harbours. In 1857 a Committee of the House, followed by a Royal Commission in 1859, made some recommendations on the subject. Those recommendations were so largo that they entirely staggered right hon. Gentlemen then at the Treasury and the Board of Trade. I do not wonder at it. The policy of dealing with this subject by grants was then done away with, and in lieu of it the policy was adopted of loans at a low

  407
  rate of interest, the payment being spread over a long period of years. It i wag distinctly laid down that the rate of interest was to be 3¼ per cent, and the term 50 years. By treating a harbour loan as any other loan a distinct breach was committed of the pledge given by an Act of Parliament. The next step was in 1879, when the rate was raised practically 1 per cent. That arrangement again was modified in 1882, by allowing collateral security to be given, and in 1885 the rate of interest was lowered ½ per cent in such cases where collateral security is forthcoming. My next point is, that these loans have not been treated in the same way as other matters which came before the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The ordinary subjects that come before the Loan Commissioners are matters in regard to which Parliament has stepped in and declared that it is necessary that certain things should be done—such as schools, water works, drainage, and other objects. In all those cases you can tell what is going to happen—Parliament has compelled certain works to be done for the benefit of the people. You, therefore, know that you will have to expend a certain sum of money, perhaps, in building schools which will accommodate a certain number of children. Parliament has said that schools must be built, and we have got the unexceptionable security of the rates of the country. But in the case of harbours Parliament does not say that certain things shall be done; but if a locality comes forward and says—"We are willing to put our hands into our pockets for the purpose of making a harbour; will you lend us the money to do it?" That I maintain is a very different thing from the case where Parliament says that a certain thing must be done. There is, however, another point and that is the element of uncertainty in connection with all harbours which is inherent in the nature of the case. You never can be sure, even with the advice of the best engineers, whether when the work is completed it will not cost a good deal more than was originally contemplated, and whether it will effect the object for which it was intended. There are the inevitable risks during the construction of the works of the inroads of the sea, and there is great risk even after their com-
  408
  pletion of injury from the same cause. When the country lends money for harbour construction I think it ought to be prepared to accept that risk, and, provided the security is good enough, to hear a certain amount of the risk, in order to say that the public work for which it lends the money should fulfil the work for which it is lent. I can give an illustration of the way in which these works have been dealt with in the case of my own constituency. I refer to the harbour of Eyemouth, with which I am well acquainted. That harbour is admittedly the most suitable place for a harbour upon that coast. Expert after expert has so reported. It enjoys an admirable position for a harbour of refuge, seeing that it is in immediate contiguity with one of the most productive fishing grounds on the whole of the North-East coast. They prepared a big scheme for the construction of harbour works which was to cost £80,000, but the necessary funds were not forthcoming. In 1880 they made an application for assistance to the Scotch Fishery Board. In 1881 there was a terrible gale, and one-half of the male fishing population of Eyemouth were drowned. That occurrence naturally stirred up the people of the locality, and they were determined to do something or other to remedy the existing state of things. A smaller scheme was devised—a scheme which was to cost £40,000; but even that was considered too big, and it was not until 1880 that the locality was able to negotiate a loan of £25,000 upon the collateral security of the rates. These unfortunate people managed to negotiate their loan just two months before the reduction of the rate of interest, and the consequence is that they are still burdened with a loan of £25,000 under the old rate of interest enforced under the Treasury Minute of 1879. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was very much impressed with that case, and was inclined to give way. The people of Eye-mouth were obliged in the first instance to increase the accommodation of the inner basin of the harbour, so that the harbour itself would be able to provide for more boats, that from the increased revenue they might be able to meet the liabilities of their loan. To increase the depth of water at the entrance, it was necessary to dredge the harbour, and

  409
  when the dredging was commenced it was found that the North-West pier, which it was always intended to retain as it was had been built upon the mud, and not taken down to the rock. The consequence was that had the dredging operations been proceeded with the scour of the sea would have washed away the foundation of this pier and it would have fallen in. It became necessary to rebuild this pier before the entrance could be improved; for this there is no funds; and so the place now has a good inner basin, but no improved entrance. That is the present position of Eyemouth. The people there are fixed with a debt of £25,000. Their revenue is not likely to increase, because they are unable to afford a sufficiently good entrance to the harbour. In such a case, I maintain that it is very bad policy for the Government not to come to the rescue, and advance another £5,000 or £0,000 to complete the works. Surely if the security of the town was sufficient for £25,000, it was good enough for a further sum of £5,000 or £6,000. Because that sum has not been advanced, I am afraid that both capital and interest will be lost altogether. I think the Government should be chary in advancing any money at all without ascertaining to a certainty, in the first instance, that the particular sum. asked for will accomplish the object for which it is required. Yet this is what has happened in the case of Eyemouth. The Loan Commissioners refuse to advance the extra £5,000 or £6,000. I am afraid they will find themselves losers in the end, and in the meantime both the fishermen and the ratepayers are in a very bad way. I do not think I ought to trouble the House at any greater length on this subject; but I insist on the necessity and the desirability of doing all the Government can to assist the small fishing harbours. The fisheries of this country are of enormous value and importance. It will be found from the Returns of the Board of Trade that the value of fish caught last year amounted to no less than £6,400,000. The fishermen who live in. these small colonies are not in a position to spend large sums of money. So far as experience goes, what has occurred in the case of the counties of Banffshire and Aberdeenshire, the construction of good harbours, has been accompanied with their bringing in good revenues. I
  410
  believe that if additional harbours are provided, the result will be the same if the positions are carefully selected. The question is not only one of saving many lives, but of enabling a large number of people to live; I do appeal most earnestly to the Treasury and to the Board of Trade to do all in their power to assist this most important work.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, that having been interested in this question for more than 30 years as a Member of the Tyne Improvement Commission, and ever since he had been a Member of the House, he desired to add a few words before the discussion closed. He congratulated his hon. Friend who brought on the question on his good fortune at having obtained a calm interval in the present political strife for this discussion, and on the amount of concession which He had obtained from the Government. While the sympathies of the House were naturally with the smaller fishery harbours, he claimed for the large trading harbours, such as the Tyne, the credit of having saved the Treasury enormous sums of money by the protection which the deepening of these harbours had afforded to shipping colliers in the North Sea, which the country would have compelled Parliament to grant for purely refuge harbours. Parliament adopted instead the cheaper and better policy of improving the harbours of destination, by means of loans at an exceptionally low rate of interest, and they wanted now to go back to the original policy of the Act of 1861. That Act, as first administered, made the Board of Trade the recommending authority, leaving the Loan Commission to decide only on the security. He was glad that it was now proposed to restore the position of the Board of Trade in respect of policy. The Act of 1861 was based on the principle of exceptionally low rates of interest for harbours, and was so administered at first; and there was no reason to increase the rate as the State could borrow money at a lower rate now than at that time. Too severe a view had been taken of the very small so-called losses to the Treasury by these loans. Sea-works were in their nature experimental, and even the failures in one place were most valuable experiences for the designs of subsequent erections. He had to complain that in the Tyne

  411
  Acts, and in those of other harbours, the Treasury had inserted clauses prohibiting the borrowing of money from the Loan Commissioners, or at any rate imposing conditions of priority of security in favour of the Loan Board over other creditors. He also complained that, under the Income Tax Acts, harbour trusts were charged income tax on their surplus revenue. This surplus was necessary to satisfy the Loan Commissioners and other lenders, of the soundness of the finances of the trust, and being spent in lieu of capital was in no sense profit, and therefore ought not to be taxed.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that after the appeal that had been made to him by the Secretary to the Board of Trade he would not press the Motion to a Division. The hon. Gentleman opposite had practically conceded nearly all he had asked. He should like to know, however, whether the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be laid on the Table of the House, and on what terms the Government proposed to grant loans to individuals and Joint Stock Companies? He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would reconsider the matter, and see if he could not give them money at 3¼ per cent. The matter was of some interest; but he was satisfied with what had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that hon. Members should take care to see that this matter was considered not solely with regard to the peculiarities of the East Coast. This line of coast had many peculiarities, and was in many respects different from the West Coast. A large trade passed along it, and a large number of wrecks resulted during the course of the year. The fishing trade on the East Coast was quite different from that on the West, which, in the case of Ireland, was largely undeveloped. He hoped that the limitation of not advancing money to Trade Companies for the purpose of developing trade would not be adhered to, because it would act in a most injurious manner in the case of Ireland. It seemed to him that the Secretary to the Treasury did not go so far in the matter of interest as the Act of 1861. He thought that the interest allowed under that Act was 3¼ per cent; but in 1879 it had
  412
  grown from 3½ to 4½ per cent, which was an enormous increase. With reference to the case of Galway Harbour, he might mention the fact that every naval officer and other official who went before the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, spoke in the strongest terms of the necessity of doing something for Galway. Conservative Governments had said that they were going to establish a convict prison at Galway in order to complete the works there, and they had been continually dangling before the inhabitants the prospect of a large scheme being carried out there. If the Government meant to manage that port they ought really to do so. and not to delude the people of Galway with the expectation that they were going to make a magnificent harbour there, although they did nothing to execute it. He wished, also, to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how that Act was to be worked in Ireland, and whether that country would obtain all the advantages which were to be enjoyed by Great Britain? The right hon. Member for Berwickshire wanted what he called small fishery harbours in England into which vessels could run at low spring tides. Such harbours in Ireland, where they had not so much money, would be called very good harbours, and they would be most useful on the West Coast, where four or five of them were much needed. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out to them, as one of the great advantages which they would gain from the Government, not that they would get Home Rule, but that the advisability of establishing some deep-sea harbours on the West Coast of Ireland would be taken into favourable consideration by the Ministry. He hoped that the Government would redeem what might almost be regarded as their pledges, and construct deep-sea harbours, drawing nine or ten feet at spring tides, on the West Coast of Ireland.
  MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, the £20,000 for the construction of Arklow Harbour had been guaranteed by the neighbouring baronies, and he wished to call the attention of the House to the mode in which the money was expended.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, the case of Arklow Harbour did not come under the terms of the Motion before the House, and could not in Order be brought forward at that time.
  MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, he wished merely to state that the £20,000 was ample for the purpose of constructing a harbour at Arklow, were it not for the fact that the Board of Works proceeded on defective plans; and he, therefore, appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson)— whose courtesy during the long and protracted correspondence on the subject he was bound to acknowledge—that the poor fishermen of Arklow should not be saddled with the cost of the additional works rendered necessary owing to the bungling of the Board of Works. He trusted the Government would take this matter into consideration, and come to the conclusion that the poor fishermen and inhabitants of the town should not be called upon to make good the default of the Board of Works.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he thought it was a waste of public money to appoint Committee after Committee on this or any other subject, and then when they received the Reports of these Committees and Commissions to allow their recommendations to lie idly by. This applied in a particular degree to the question under discussion. They had already had Commissions on the subject, and hitherto, so far as they knew, no good had come to the county from these Commissions. They had cost considerable sums of money, but nothing had been done to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners. He would admit that the answer which the Government had given to the Motion at present under consideration went, to some extent, to meet the point raised, but not in a full or satisfactory manner. Hitherto it appeared that the Board of Trade and Loan Commissioners had not had their duties properly defined, and the way in which they had conducted their business had led to a considerable amount of confusion, expense, and delay. The Loan Commissioners were no judges as to where a harbour of refuge might be usefully constructed. They were gentlemen who, as a rule, were not qualified to give an opinion on this matter. The Board of Trade were, in their turn, not the proper authorities to advise as to the solvency of the securities offered for the repayment of loans given by that measure for carrying out these works. He had gathered, however, from the reply which had been given to this
  414
  Motion by the Government, that the duties of those two Bodies would in future be properly defined—that the duty of the Loan Commissioners would be confined to looking into the nature of the security offered for the loan requested, and that of the Board of Trade would be limited to considering the suitability of the sites recommended for harbours of refuge. If this was done, and the two Boards were induced to work harmoniously together, great advantage would thereby accrue to the public. It was impossible to lay too much stress on this subject, bearing in mind the great loss of life and property that might be prevented by the construction of harbours of refuge; and he urged the Government to offer Local Authorities such terms in lowness of interest and extent of years for repayment as would almost compel them to construct harbours where they were needed. It must be acknowledged, he thought, that local enterprise had hitherto done its part in the matter; but that the State had failed to do its fair share, seeing that the work was, to a large extent, of a national character. Still, he was satisfied that, if sufficiently favourable terms were offered to Local Authorities, harbours of refuge would be constructed on many parts of our coasts. Taking Waterford, in which he was particularly interested, as a case in point, he believed that if the Government offered the Local Authorities a loan for 50 years at a low rate of interest, they would remove the bar and make the harbour one of the finest and most useful in the United Kingdom, and thus prevent serious loss of life and property on the coast. In one year 36 vessels in distress came off this harbour, and he regretted to say a number of these became total wrecks. By a judicious expenditure of a little money this harbour could be rendered a place of the greatest safety.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, that the Board of Trade was composed of gentlemen who were by no means capable of deciding questions as to the construction of harbours. He felt bound to complain of the manner in which the Board of Works in Ireland performed its duties in connection with the construction of harbours. It was the slowest Board in all Ireland, and was largely composed of worn-out public

  415
  servants. He held that the responsibility of determining when and where harbours should be built ought not to be divided. One Board ought to be constituted having supreme control. The loans granted under the present system were often too small, and the result was that many harbours lacked stability and were not large enough. The time for the repayment of the loans should be extended from 60 to 63 years, and the interest should be lowered to such a rate that Local Bodies should take advantage of them. With regard to the Arklow Harbour, it was a glaring example how the work was done by the engineers of the Board of Works. The engineers of the Board knew nothing about the local tides. They drew plans which were not practicable, the result being that the works were unstable and inefficient. Instead of adopting their present cheeseparing policy, the Government should grant such an amount as would enable the works to be carried out in an efficient manner. He urged the importance of providing piers and harbours for fishermen on favourable terms, being convinced that whatever money was granted in this direction by the Government they would get ample value for it. The loans made to Harbour Boards ought not to be repayable within less than 50 years, and the cost of harbours of refuge, like that at Arklow, should be defrayed partly out of Imperial funds, the interests which they served being by no means exclusively local.
  MR. PLYNNsaid, he desired to point out that the Harbour Commissioners of Waterford had already incurred an expenditure of £2,000 in obtaining a Provisional Order, in order to obtain the benefit of a loan; but the rate demanded was too high to enable them to take advantage of the loan. It was a matter of importance that something should be done to improve the harbour. A great number of shipwrecks had occurred there in recent years. On one occasion a large barque which was unable to cross the bar went down with all hands. The case of Arklow Harbour was an instance of gross incompetency and lamentable waste of public money. He thought that in the fugitive moments which the Government had to spare from pursuits more congenial to them, they might give some attention to the development of those
  416
  resources in Ireland which, if she had the power of managing her own affairs, Ireland would soon turn to the best account.
  MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, that, in supporting the Motion, he would recommend that the interest on the loans should be materially lessened, so as to induce the Local Authorities to borrow and construct harbours, and develop the resources of the country. It was a matter of Imperial necessity that harbours should be constructed round their coasts, and it would tend to the safety of their commerce, and greatly minimize the loss of life which occurred year after year.
  MR. O'HEAsaid, that he had called the attention of the late Government to the case of two harbours in the constituency of West Donegal— Portnoo and Bunbeg—on which large amounts had been expended by the Board of Trade; but the work had been carried out in such an unskilful manner as to make both harbours a nuisance instead of a boon. He believed that two Government engineers had gone to visit that place, but he had never heard that they had done anything more. The foundations of a new pier were laid there some time ago; but that pier was now a mass of débris, and instead of a shelter it was a danger to vessels entering the harbour. At another harbour in West Donegal, a steamer which came within about a mile of the coast was unable to call in bad weather for want of a suitable pier. If something practical were to be done the people would not grudge the money.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that a similar Motion had been brought before the House last Session, but no practical result had followed. In his opinion, unless the works which were begun were carried to completion, the money might as well be thrown into the sea. From Waterford to Bantry Bay, practically speaking, although there was an immense amount of fishing on that part of the coast, there had been no money spent by the Government. He thought also that something might be done in the way of blowing up the rock which barred the harbour of Cork, if money were advanced to the Cork Harbour Commissioners for that purpose.
  MR. BARRY: I do not think that anything could have been

  417
  more clear than the speech of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. Duff) in introducing this subject to the House. I maintain that the present state of the machinery for dealing with this important question of harbours is altogether inadequate. In the course of this debate we have heard some very hard questions about the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) went so far as to say that the Commissioners have altogether neglected their duty, and have studied different interests from those of the great question with which they have been called upon to deal. Now, I do not altogether agree in that opinion. I think that under the circumstances in which the Public Works Loan Commissioners are placed, all things considered, they have discharged their duty in a very satisfactory manner. But it appears to me that they have laid too much stress upon the purely commercial aspect of the question, and have excluded altogether from their consideration matters of public policy. If the Resolution of the hon. Member for Banffshire is agreed to, the effect would be to divide the consideration of the subject into two parts—one being its commercial aspect, and the other the consideration of the question of public policy. We have also heard during the debate a defence of the Public Works Loan Commissioners by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth). The right hon. Gentleman said the Commissioners are a body of highly honourable gentlemen; that they are unpaid; and that they have discharged their duties in a manner which has been altogether satisfactory. Now, it appears to me a very poor argument to say that because gentlemen are unpaid, and are filling a purely honorary office, therefore they must be trusted with the decision of very large and important issues. My opinion is that a question of this great magnitude, affecting an important mercantile country like this—namely, the question of providing harbours of refuge—would be in much litter hands if loft to the disposal of the Board of Trade. There is a strong opinion among those who are interested in the matter that it is not only an important, but a most urgent question. A considerable amount of evidence was sub-
  418
  mitted to the Harbour Committee, which was so ably presided over by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire. That Committee took the evidence of experts —men who thoroughly understood the condition of the coast and harbour accommodation—and any hon. Member who will take the trouble to read through the evidence submitted to that Select Committee will find that the harbour accommodation, particularly in reference to harbours of refuge, is altogether inadequate around our coast. Although now two years have elapsed since the Select Committee sent in their Report, as far as I know not a single step has been taken to carry out any of the important recommendations made by the Committee, and the whole matter of securing loans or making harbours of refuge still remains with the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and nothing is likely to be done until some step is taken in the direction of the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire to remedy the evils which are complained of. I have no desire to detain the House by entering into any details upon the question; I certainly have in my possession a great deal of detailed information showing where the Public Works Loan Commissioners have already failed to discharge in a satisfactory manner their public functions in reference to harbours of refuge; but I do not propose to trouble the House with them. I will, however, with the permission of the House, submit a single case which happens to concern my own constituency, and which shows to what a lamentable extent the Public Works Loan Commissioners have acted in dealing with this important question. As far back as 1864 an Act of Parliament was obtained for the construction of a harbour at Ross-slade, in the County of Wexford, and although repeated applications were made to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to further that object, nothing was done. Pour years afterwards, on the recommendation of Captain Field, of Her Majesty's ship Helicon, the Admiral ordered a survey. That survey took place, and a Report was sent in recommending the construction of a harbour at this particular point. Again, an interval of three years elapsed before the Public Works Loan Commissioners took any action in the matter. At the end of that time they ordered a special survey

  419
  to be made by Mr. Rendel, the eminent civil engineer, and then, on his recommendation, the Public Works Loan Commissioners agreed to advance a sum of £75,000 to be secured on the harbour tolls alone; but at the same time they imposed as a condition that if they advanced that sum the promoters of the harbour should undertake to connect such harbour with the railway system of Ireland. That involved another considerable delay, which amounted to something like two years. At the end of that time a sufficient sum of money was raised locally to connect the proposed harbour with the general railway system of Ireland. A sum of from £75,000 to £78,000 was raised, and the railway was completed. The Public Works Loan Commissioners then advanced by three instalments a sum which amounted altogether to £45,000, although the original amount agreed upon was £75,000. When that £45,000 had been advanced they ordered a second investigation by Mr. Rendel, and then it was Mr. Rendel discovered what is often—indeed, I may say invariably— the case in large operations of this kind— namely, that the original estimate was not sufficient for the completion of the work. Anyone conversant with harbour works will know that it is a very rare exception for a harbour to be constructed within the original time, and certainly the Public Works Loan Commissioners, from their lengthened experience in such matters, must have known that it was a very unusual circumstance to complete the harbour for the sum of money originally demanded. Mr. Rendel sent in a further Report, stating what the amount of money was that would be necessary to complete the harbour. What happened then? The Public Works Loan Commissioners, ignoring altogether the question of public policy involved in the construction of this harbour, actually suspended their contribution towards the cost of the remaining works. The result was that, for two years and a-half, the works were allowed to stand idle and the machinery to rust. At the end of that time, acting under strong representations, they made a further advance of £15,000; but when that sum was expended, of course, the harbour still remained in a most unfinished state. Repeated applications were made to them to finish their part
  420
  of the original bargain. They were given to understand how important it was, from a national point of view, to complete these works. But it was all in vain; the works were stopped, and for a period of two years were permitted to stand idle. The same amount of dislocation followed; the plant became, to a great extent, useless, and heavy loss followed to those who had entered into the construction of the railway, on the understanding that the Public Works Loan Commissioners would advance £75,000 for the construction of the harbour. The railway remained practically inoperative, and nothing was done even sufficient to recoup the promoters of the railway for interest upon the capital they had invested. This state of things prevailed down to 1881. In that year I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the late Mr. Forster, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. After hearing what the state of the case was, that right hon. Gentleman said that the only way to recover the largo sums of money which had already been spent on the pier and harbour and on the railway was for the Government to sanction such loans as would enable the works to be completed. Backed up by that strong opinion from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by highly influential opinion in the county, a further application was made to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and again the extreme urgency of the case was ignored, and nothing was done. The next stop was to make an application for a grant under the Pier and Harbour Commission, which was then sitting under the Presidency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. J. A. Blake). The inquiry of that Commission was held in January, 1884, and an important body of evidence was placed before the Commission. The Commissioners, while agreeing as to the necessity of establishing a harbour of refuge at this particular point, and as to the desirability of the Public Works Loan Commissioners making an advance to complete the harbour works, said that they were unable to make a grant from their own funds, because the matter did not come exactly within the scope of the inquiry which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow was conducting. Another deputation, in consequence, waited upon the Treasury, and a further appeal was made,

  421
  with the result that the balance of the loan originally agreed upon has been granted. I may point out that in the interval which elapsed, and taking the two periods during which the works were stopped, an enormous loss had accrued. I cannot at this moment give an accurate estimate as to the amount of the loss, but I know that it was very large indeed; and I maintain that it is a very great reflection upon the Public Works Loan Commissioners that they should have twice departed from their original bargain to advance the sum of £75,000. It is much to their discredit that they permitted a work of national importance to stand still for a period of five years, and that then, at the end of that time, acting under very strong representations and under great pressure, they made the advance that was necessary to cover the original amount promised. I submit that under the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire such a state of things would be met in future, because an important Department of the State, such as the Board of Trade, would take the question into consideration from a broader point of view than that which is taken by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. They would allow the question of safety and the desirability of having a harbour of refuge on different parts of the coast to have due weight with them. Broader questions of policy would influence the action of the Board of Trade, whereas such considerations are altogether excluded from the deliberations of a body like the Public Works Loan Commissioners, who take a hard-and-fast commercial view only. The particular case which I have cited stands in this position—that a sum of public money, amounting in the aggregate to £122,000, has been advanced, while private money to the extent of £76,000 has also been expended; so that something like £200,000 has been advanced to make this harbour of Ross-slade. I may add that that is the only harbour of refuge between Dublin and Waterford. Under the present machinery provided by the State there is not the slightest chance of this harbour being finished. Some hon. Gentlemen may say—"Why does not the public spirit of the locality step in and stop the practice?" All I can reply to that argument is this—that the public in the neighbourhood, both landowners and
  422
  land workers—landlords and tenants— have already advanced £76,000 for the construction of the railway, and they feel and believe that the Government, through the Public Works Loan Commissioners, are directly committed and pledged to finish this work. There is not the most remote possibility that another penny of private money will be subscribed for this purpose. The consequence of the present state of things is that something like £200,000, more than one-half of which consists of public money, has been absolutely thrown into the sea, and will be irretrievably lost, unless something farther is done by the Board of Trade, or some other Department of the State, to finish the works. Knowing, as I do, that instances of this kind could be multiplied to an unlimited extent in connection with the harbours around the coast, there can be no wonder that hon. Members sitting on these Benches should feel anxious that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banff-shire should be pressed. I do not know whether the hon. Member intends to press the Motion to a Division; but, whether it is so not, I hope the Government will take the matter into their serious consideration, and will come to the conclusion, viewing the question from a common-sense point of view, that it is absurd, in a matter involving the lives of hundreds of people and thousands of pounds of property, that it should be at the disposal of a number of gentlemen merely filling an honorary position as Public Works Loan Commissioners. It is highly essential that the question should be dealt with by some great Department similar to the Board of Trade. Whether the hon. Member presses his Motion to a Division or not, I hope the Government will at once take the question into their serious consideration, and if they refuse to adopt the Resolution they will, at all events, at an early date, introduce a measure which will transfer the power of dealing with such important matters from the very unsatisfactory body now intrusted with the power to the Board of Trade or some other authority.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: I cannot rise on this occasion without expressing my very great regret at the cause which has deprived us of the services of the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker this evening, and my hope and

  423
  trust that we shall soon see the right hon. Gentleman back again. I have only a very few remarks to make upon the Motion now before the House. I think that the hon. Member for Banff-shire (Mr. Duff) is entitled to the gratitude of the Irish Members, and of those of his own country, for having brought this matter forward. Having represented at one time a maritime constituency, I fully understand—I have always understood—that the Tory Party are in favour of material advances as opposed to what I may call theoretical considerations; and I would therefore venture to express a hope that, after the many deputations which have waited upon the Treasury, we shall not now appeal in vain to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, at the moment they are passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland, to supply some salve by giving a little material assistance. In regard to the Motion itself, I believe that if my fellow-countrymen, sitting on this side of the House, had had the drafting of it they could not have expressed it in a more admirable manner than has been done by the hon. Member for Banffshire. The hon. Gentleman has entirely met our views, because what we feel is this. We have an enormous Mercantile Marine plying, it may be, from Liverpool or Glasgow, and coming in various directions down the Channel, and when there is a west wind blowing from the English Coast there is a considerable amount of life and property endangered on our side of the Channel from the want of proper accommodation. I think it is most unfair that monetary considerations should be allowed to enter into the calculations of the Government in this matter of fixing harbours of refuge. I may say that I had some bitter experience of these disastrous gales only recently, when a vessel running from Liverpool to Wexford became a total wreck on the harbour bar at Wexford, and some goods in which I was interested, and which were not insured, were totally lost. The propriety of constructing a harbour of refuge upon the East Coast has been reported on over and over again by the Government authorities, and if the harbour had been constructed the constant losses which now occur would be prevented, and a considerable number of unfortunate sailors who have been drowned would still be
  424
  in active service. I know that it is somewhat unusual to raise questions of this sort on such an occasion as this. However, I see present the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), for whom I have a great respect, although, unfortunately, I am bitterly opposed to him in politics. The hon. Member was for some years a Fishery Commissioner in Ireland, and the only political action in my life which I regret having taken was when I asked that he should be dismissed from that position. The hon. Member is well acquainted with the harbours in Ireland, and he knows that the considerations which have been put forward by my hon. Friends are quite correct. I challenge the Government to say that, from the Harbour of Dublin down to Waterford, which can hardly be called a harbour at all, there is a suitable harbour for vessels to run for in bad weather. Thirty or 40 years ago Reports were presented to the Government in favour of making this harbour of refuge; but Her Majesty's Ministers did nothing to carry out the recommendations made to them, and when we go to the Treasury, as to my sorrow I have done on three or four occasions—although I intend to go no more, unless I really have some hope —the local people who have waited upon the Government have found their wishes entirely unattended to. In this very case the people of Wexford have been befooled into constructing a railway to the village of Ross-slade, which has cost them £75,000, and the Government, after promising them material assistance, have left them in the lurch ever since. We have had some experience of the hon. Gentleman who is the present Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson); we have found him moat conciliatory, and anxious to meet the desires of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and to treat them as human beings. In this case I would make an appeal to him. We have here the whole coast embracing one-half of the East side of Ireland, which is a most dangerous coast to navigate, and it is proposed to complete a harbour into which your own vessels will run if they over get the chance. Hitherto, unhappily, they have not got a chance, and many of them have been wrecked in consequence. Is it from such trumpery pecuniary considerations as that that you

  425
  have been induced to give the conveyance of your mails to German steamers, and that you have refused to give us the very small concession we ask for? I may say that anything more contemptible than this cheeseparing policy it is impossible to conceive. You have induced the local people to lay out £75,000 in the construction of a railway, and they have been compelled to see the works they have executed absolutely rotting for the sake of a few thousand pounds, when at the same time you are proposing to build an Imperial Institute at the cost of £250,000 or £500,000. You are investing enormous sums of money in non-productive works, when the lives of your sailors and your Mercantile Marine are in daily peril. Can anything be more preposterous? I thank the hon. Member for Banffshire for having brought forward the Resolution; I think he has done a great service to the country. So far as Ireland is concerned, he can scarcely realize the amount of service he has done, because he has given us the light of his official experience. Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has turned economical—certainly a new phase in the political career of the Tory Party—I would point out that there is no class of investment which the country would so fully appreciate as the construction of these harbours of refuge. The money is not to be spent in war, or in the purchase of guns or of gunboats, but in making our harbours safe, so that our vessels, when off a difficult coast, may have somewhere to run to in the event of being overtaken by gales and severe weather. I appeal most earnestly to the Government to complete this harbour at Ross-slade. A better place could not at any time be proposed. I sincerely trust that the Government, in taking the question into their consideration, will not forget our little end of the country.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I desire to bring under the notice of the Government the dangerous positions of the shoals which exist in Cork Harbour. I believe that the shoals in question might be removed by a small expenditure of money in dredging, and money so expended would certainly not be thrown away.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question he is now raising is altogether irrelevant to the subject now under discussion.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Then I will not press it further.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banffshire press the Motion?
  MR. R. W. DUFF: No; I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EMIGRATION OF PAUPER, CHILDREN.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. S. SMITH: I rise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the Motion which stands in my name—
  "That it is expedient to relax the restrictions hitherto imposed by the Local Government Board on the emigration of pauper children, and to enter into negotiations with existing emigration agencies of established reputation, whereby such agencies may be empowered to emigrate pauper, orphan, neglected, and deserted children to Canada, or others of our Colonies, subject to reasonable regulations for the future oversight of the children."
  It is a subject which has engaged my attention for several years. I have been closely connected for 13 years with one of the most successful experiments in the City of Liverpool in regard to the emigration of destitute children to Canada. In the course of that time 2,000 children belonging to the poorest classes have been happily placed and settled in comfortable homes in Canada, and 95 per cent of them have done well, are very much better off, and have succeeded in life far better than it was possible for them to have done if they had remained in this country. It is from the experience thus gained that I am induced to bring before the House the desirability of extending the advantages of organized emigration to Canada to the vast number of pauper children now being maintained by the State.
  The average cost of emigration, including the necessary preliminary training and all incidental expenses, averages about £15 per child, while the average cost of bringing up a pauper child in this country is about £100. Allow for the cost of the establishments

  427
  and the interest of capital sunk in the building, I believe that it is not too high a figure to put the cost of a pauper child in this country at £100, as against £15, which is the cost of each child removed to Canada. Therefore, on the mere ground of the interest of the ratepayers, and on the ground of economy, it seems to me that the plan I recommend has an enormous advantage over the system of maintaining pauper children in this country. It is not, however, simply upon this ground that I bring the question forward, but rather for the reason that the children so emigrated have a vastly better chance in life than they could have as pauper children placed out at home; nor is there any comparison whatever in the prospects of a poor child brought up by the industrious people of Canada with the prospects of the same child planted out in the centre of our large cities, surrounded on all sides by temptations, and exposed to degrading influences. I hold that this is a very large question.
  The Local Government Board have under their control some 56,000 children; most of them orphans, or deserted children, who are being brought up in largo district schools. In addition to these, there are over 25,000 children brought up in industrial and reformatory schools —children very much of the same class —so that altogether in England and Wales there are 82,000 children who are brought up at the expense of the State, whose welfare would be promoted very greatly by the scheme I propose. What I have to complain of, and what I have often charged against the Local Government Board, is that, although it has granted its consent to the principle of emigration, it has surrounded it with so many practical difficulties that, to all intents and purposes, the scheme has been rendered nugatory. The amount of emigration is so small that it is hardly worth speaking of. I believe that the total number of pauper children emigrated in four years amounts to 661—a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the 82,000 children under the care of the State. I wish to exonerate the right hon. Gentleman the existing President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) from any blame in the matter. I believe he is in entire sympathy with our views—that it is his full
  428
  intention, if possible, to remove the defects which now exist, and to open the way to emigration. What I complain of is, that the action of the Local Government Board, during the last 10 years, has been such as to virtually stop the emigration of pauper children. I have been applied to myself in dozens of cases by Boards of Guardians for information as to how it is possible to obtain State aid in connection with the emigration of pauper children; I have referred them to the Local Government Board, and they have almost invariably written to me to explain that the conditions laid down by that Board have rendered it impossible for them to comply with them, and the result has been that the emigration of pauper children has been almost entirely stopped.
  I wish to explain to the House how it comes to pass that the emigration of pauper children to Canada would in nearly every case be advantageous as compared with what takes place in this country. The advantages arise in this way. We have in Canada a thrifty peasantry, the owners of their own land —a farming population spread over a vast tract of country; these farmers, in many cases, have no children of their own, or, if they have children, they have grown up and have left them, having married and settled on their own account; for it is the custom in Canada to marry early. It comes to pass, therefore, that there are thousands of homes in Canada where there is no child, and it is a great object to this class of persons to obtain children, if only for the sake of company. There is no difficulty in placing thousands of emigrated children in happy and comfortable homes much superior to those that are open to them in this country; and in the rural districts, where there are no public-houses or low surroundings, they are removed from those temptations which are so seductive to children of that class. No difficulty whatever has been found—and I speak of my own knowledge—in placing young children, both boys and girls, in comfortable and happy homes in Canada. In many cases emigrated children have been adopted and made the heirs of their foster parents, and many of these poor children, drawn from the most destitute class, have now become possessed of considerable property in Canada. The cases of bad treatment are very rare indeed. The

  429
  Canadian farmers are kind-hearted, respectable people, nearly all of them church-going, and the children are usually placed under the charge of the neighbouring clergy. They are visited once or twice a-year by ladies who are appointed visitors, and they are placed especially under the care of the clergy. I believe it is almost impossible for cases of bad treatment to occur without our hearing of them. For the few cases of bad treatment which may occur we have provided a remedy. A depot is kept open, and children who are badly treated can be returned to it. We require the farmers to sign an indenture by which they bind themselves to certain conditions as to sending the children to school and to church, and to give them wages after a certain period of service as well as undertaking to keep them well. We believe that, practically speaking, no risk whatever is incurred. In a short time the emigrated children forget their early associations, and by the time they reach manhood and womanhood they are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from ordinary Canadian citizens, and their past lives appear to them to be little more than a dream. The question has been fully inquired into and examined by gentlemen on both sides of the Atlantic, and, as independent witnesses, they all testify to the advantages of our emigration scheme. Out of 2,600 children who have been emigrated by Dr. Barnardo, only 30 have turned out unsatisfactorily. Dr. Barnardo can put his hands on all the rest of those children and declare that they are getting on well and happily in Canada. I believe that other emigration agencies have had a similar experience, and have equally satisfactory results to give. I am acquainted more or less with nearly all of them, and I believe that it may be stated broadly that from 95 to 97 per cent of the children who have been emigrated have done well, and altogether some 10,000 or 12,000 children have been sent out since the work began. Let us compare this with the scheme of boarding out in this country. In Scotland pauper children have been boarded out with great success for many years. There is hardly such a thing as a pauper school in Scotland; but all the children are boarded out. In England pauper children are now boarded out on a very
  430
  small scale, and I believe that wherever it has been done it has been attended with a large amount of success; but when we board out pauper children in this country we have to pay 4s. a-week for their board for several years. In Canada we are able to board them out for nothing. The farmers there are glad to get the children, and they soon begin to receive wages. Therefore, the cost in Canada is nothing as compared with this country. Again, in this country the children are boarded out with a very poor class of people—often labourers, who are struggling for existence themselves —whereas in Canada they are boarded out with well-to-do yeomen, owning generally 200 or 300 acres of land. They eat at the same table with their masters, and are treated in most respects the same as their own family. No one can doubt, therefore, that the homes we are able to find for these children in Canada are immensely superior to those it is possible to find for them in this country.
  It may be asked—What is the opinion of the Canadian Government on this movement? I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Canadian Government, for many years past, has given the most favourable reports regarding the movement. The late Governor General (the Marquess of Lorne) has spoken highly of it on many occasions; and Sir Charles Tupper, the Canadian High Commissioner, has, in my hearing, again and again expressed the highest opinion of the work. Times without number Members of the Canadian Legislature have expressed themselves most favourably towards this movement; and I am not aware of a single occasion on which an unfavourable opinion has been expressed in regard to it.
  There are, however, certain conditions necessary for success; and I would point out to the President of the Local Government Board what those conditions are. It is a matter which requires careful management. We are dealing with young children who require delicate handling; and the point I wish to bring before the House is this—that we must make the children fit to enter good homes, and become good members of society, otherwise the Canadians will refuse to accept them. We cannot shift the overplus of our population to Canada or elsewhere without first of all convert-

  431
  ing it into good material. If we did otherwise, the result would only be a mortifying failure. It is our duty in this, as in every other honest bargain, to give to the Colonists the article they want; and what they want is children lovable, truthful, honest, and industrious, whom they can live with, and grow up with, and treat as members of their household. Unless we can give them children of that class they will not have them at all. Before we can render these children lovable we must put them through a preliminary training; and the training must be of that motherly kind, which relies most on the culture of the affections and conscience, as is the case with all children brought up in good homes. Unless we do that we shall never succeed. The success of our scheme depends upon this—that we do give this preliminary training in all our emigration homes, and we do not send out a child to Canada until we have satisfied ourselves that he will do credit to us, and that the Canadians will be glad to have him. That is the essential condition of the success of the experiment.
  I have explained to the House the advantages derived from emigration to Canada; and now allow me to turn to the counter disadvantage which arises from the training of pauper children in thin country. In spite of the best efforts to train pauper children the results have been very unsatisfactory. I believe there is no person in this House, who has paid any attention to the subject, who will dispute the truth of what I say. I ask permission to call attention to a very remarkable document published some 12 years ago by a lady deputed by the Local Government Board—by one of the Predecessors of my right hon. Friend opposite —to examine into the results of the training of pauper children. I allude to the Report of Mrs. Nassau Senior—a highly accomplished lady of a judicial frame of mind, who devoted a considerable period to the examination of the results of the training of pauper girls brought up in the neighbourhood of London. It never was my lot to read a more melancholy document; it is little else than a list—and a long list— of the most deplorable failures. This lady testifies that not more than one-fifth—or one-sixth—of the girls who passed through these pauper schools really turned out well in after life;
  432
  that a considerable number turned out what she calls "fair;" but what she calls "fair" most of us would consider very unsatisfactory. An enormous proportion—some 50 per cent of the whole —appear to have turned out thoroughly ill. I would ask the House to read this paper, and I think they will agree with me that it would hardly be more cruel to many of these poor children to put them out of existence altogether than Rend them into the world so wretchedly equipped as wore the bulk of the children who were turned out of the pauper schools of London 12 years ago. I will read a very few lines from the Report of Mrs. Nassau Senior, which, I think, contain the pith of the whole matter. Here is what she says—
  "It must not be forgotten that to girls brought up in the artificial surroundings of Government schools the entrance into life is far more trying than to a girl who has had natural training in a family, and the experience of every day life. It is difficult to realize how ignorant these girls are of things that are familiar to most children of a few years old. I hear it from the girls themselves, from their mistresses, from the matrons of Homes and Refuges, often even from the matrons who have done their best to train the girls in school. No artificial training, however careful, can teach a girl what she learns in family life without any apparent teaching at all. I have been told by mistresses that their own little girl of seven or eight is more handy, and can be better trusted to do an errand or make a small purchase, than their servant of 15 or 16 from the workhouse school. I mention this to show that great patience is often needed on the part of the mistress if the girl is to turn out well; and it follows that the utmost trouble should be taken to find mistresses likely to train and instruct their little servants with intelligence and gentleness."
  In many cases the girls displayed an utter want of any sense of responsibility, either in regard to the value of property or the value of money; they had never been accustomed to handle money, and their conduct in many other respects was simply abominable. Now, I wish to state that at the time of Mrs. Nassau Senior's Report there was scarcely any supervision exercised by the Local Government Board over pauper children after they left school. But it has been most imperative in demanding a supervision over emigrated children, insisting on conditions almost beyond the power of any society to observe. As I have stated, at the period when this Report was written there was nothing in the shape of supervision worthy of the name,

  433
  and it is a well-known fact, often told me by the Guardians of the Poor, that a large number of these girls went on the streets, and that of all the hopeless cases which penitentiaries had to deal with, those which came from workhouse schools were the worst.
  I do not wish the House to suppose that I am charging all those evils on the system as it now exists. On the contrary, the publication of this Report led to a complete change. The girls belonging to the London workhouse schools have been placed under the charge of the Metropolitan Society for Befriending Young Servants—a very excellent institution—and within the last 10 years considerable supervision has been exercised over them. Therefore, a great change for the better has taken place since the period when Mrs. Nassau Senior wrote her Report. But, notwithstanding this fact, the testimony of the ladies who look after these pauper girls, who try to keep them from going wrong, and who follow thorn for several years after they leave the school—the testimony of all of them is to the effect that the equipment with which they enter the world is a very inadequate one, and that after all the training they have undergone they are less fit for the struggle of life than girls who have been brought up even in the poorest homes. I venture to read an extract from a letter of the Rev. Brooke Lambert—Chairman of the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants—a benevolent gentle-man, whose special attention has been directed to this matter. He says—
  "I am quite with you in wishing to see the children of paupers sent out of the country. The depletion of the labour market by the removal of these children would, quite apart from the benefit to the children themselves, do much for England. I have lately prepared a paper on the evil influence of parental control in the case of this class of children. Children are deserted and thrown on the rates until they come of an age when they can he usefully employed— that is, employed to earn money for their parents who have before abnegated the duties of parents—they are allowed to claim them, to the ruin of the children, and to the undoing of all the work done by the schools. But these (pauper) schools at best are a necessary evil, and your system is an undoubted benefit."
  The effect of pauper training upon boys is not so bad as upon girls. The boys are able to stand knocking about in the world better; but even upon them the training is very unsatisfactory in its
  434
  results. At an entertainment which was given in the East End of London some time ago, to about l,900 lads of the destitute or unemployed class, those who came from pauper schools were asked at the close of the entertainment to stand up, and it was found that there were 1,400 lads who had been in pauper schools and are now loafing about the streets of London. Now it would be impossible to find in the whole of Canada so many destitute and unemployed lads. This fact illustrates the great difficulty we have to contend with in dealing with pauper children in this country. The difficulty we have to cope with is this—we have such an overstrained idea of parental rights and parental control that we allow these children, when they leave school, to return to the care of, and to associate with, tramps, thieves, prostitutes, and other degraded characters. Everyone connected with industrial and reformatory schools knows perfectly well that after spending, say, £100 upon a child in getting it trained and instilling into it proper principles, when it gets out of school it goes back again, in too many instances, to its old haunts of wickedness, and in the course of two or three years it is as bad as if it had continued there all its life. The great advantage of our scheme is that it places the ocean between the children and their degraded relatives. It entirely removes them from this country, where bad associations abound, and after a few years the children grow up as pure in their minds and habits as the ordinary Canadian children. The fact is that in this country pauperism is hereditary. Paupers beget paupers; the same conditions go on for generation after generation, and our system of dealing with this class of people perpetuates pauperism. And this state of things will go on from age to age unless Parliament takes it in hand, and determines to put an end to such a wretched and miserable failure. I have said already that the great evil we have to contend with is that we allow degraded relatives to get hold of the children as soon as they pass out of the schools. It is a strange things that in this country, such is our regard for parental rights, that we permit, in many cases, vagabonds and scoundrels to get hold of these children, with the consequence

  435
  that they are utterly ruined for the rest of their lives. In America they have a far more rational plan. I can testify, from having read the laws of several of the States, that in America the neglect of duty which we find so common in England is punished by taking away from the parent the control of the child. In the United States the State does interpose, and it becomes the guardian of the child if the parent neglects his obvious duty. Thus the pauper children of 13 or 14 years of age, whom we surrender to the charge of degraded relatives, are in America put under the care of the State until they reach the age of 21. In the State of New York 51,000 children have thus been removed from vicious surroundings, and sent to the Western States, where they are found to do well. I wish to see extended to this country the same common-sense laws as are acted upon in America, and I hope the time is not far distant when we shall make some rational changes in that direction. Degraded and criminal parents ought no longer to have these children committed to their care.
  I think I have said enough to show the enormous advantage of emigrating these children instead of pouring them out into our over-crowded towns to compete with a half-starved population, as we have been doing for so many years. In Canada there is a great demand for the labour of children, while there is nothing to correspond with it at home.
  I wish, now, to say a word or two as to the largeness of this question; it is much larger than many people may suppose. The total number of pauper children maintained by the State in whole or part in England and Wales at the present time is 255,000; of course, the bulk of these are outdoor paupers; but, adding indoor and outdoor children together, they reach this enormous figure. There are also 25,000 in industrial and reformatory schools, 36,000 pauper children in Scotland, and probably 70,000 or 80,000 children of a similar class in Ireland. Therefore, the total number of children maintained at the present time at the expense of the State, in whole or part, in the United Kingdom, is nearly 400,000. In addition to this there are a great number of private institutions which maintain by benevolence more than 100,000 children in addition to the
  436
  400,000 maintained by the State. Therefore there are in this country altogether about 500,000 children who are being brought up at the expense of the community at a cost of not less than £5,000,000 or £6,000,000sterlinga-year. It will consequently be seen that the question is one of great magnitude, and I am sure that it must impress upon the House the importance of dealing with it in a statesmanlike spirit. If we had possessed the power, within the last few years, of emigrating these children in the way we are doing at present with the few we are permitted to deal with, what a difference it would have made in the state of the country! What an immense amount of crime, misery, and pauperism we should have prevented! The chronic condition of our large towns is that they are full of half-starved and destitute people. In the last few years the poorer classes have experienced a great increase in the difficulty of obtaining the means of living so far as our large towns are concerned. The pressure of life is becoming increasingly heavy. A very large class are dependent on charity. Everyone knows that in London destitution has been greatly increased within the last 10 years, and yet we go on pouring this enormous mass of pauper children into our towns, instead of scattering them wisely and thoughtfully over the thinly - populated Provinces of the Empire. At the present rate at which our population is growing in these Islands, if it continues until the end of another century, it will amount to 130,000,000; and in London itself, 100 years hence, there may be 25,000,000 inhabitants! Surely, then, we ought to welcome any means of spreading our population over our Colonies. I see great difficulties in the way of the State undertaking adult emigration on principles which would be safe, and which would avoid pecuniary loss; but I see no great difficulty in the way of dealing with these children, whom you can send to the Colonies, whom the Colonies are willing to receive, and who will assimilate themselves to the Colonial populations. There is no inherent difficulty in planting out almost any number of children in the Colonies of this vast Empire. Already private benevolence has sent out of the country' and planted in good homes in Canada

  437
  over 10,000 children; and one of the chief reasons why I feel so deep an interest in this question is that I see in the plan which we advocate a great relief to our over-crowded community.
  Now I ask the Local Government Board to help us. I have been appealing to them for several years in connection with this matter, and their reply has always been the same. They have always professed to be in favour of the emigration of these children; but they have done very little to promote the work, the total number of pauper children emigrated being hardly worth talking about. I say that the Local Government Board is bound effectually to take up this work, and to find out a modus operandi. It is not for them to lay down impracticable conditions; but to find out how they can make the machinery work so as to send out to Canada within the next few years many thousands of these children. That is what I expect the right hon. Gentleman to do. If one Code of Rules will not answer, let him try another until the thing is done. There are two Rules in particular which hinder this work. The Local Government Board insists that the Canadian Government shall report annually upon all pauper children emigrated. Though only a few hundreds of those children have been sent out, yet a long delay elapsed before the Report was received. I am glad to know it is satistory. But I will undertake to prove that we have done far more in Canada for the inspection of our children than the Poor Law Board have ever done in this country. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board this—that the Guardians shall be allowed a discretion in this matter; to make small grants for the purpose of emigrating pauper children; that the restrictions I have referred to shall be removed, or, at least, that some Rules that will work efficiently shall be substituted. I am convinced that until this takes place nothing will be done; but we shall have one generation of pauper children in our great towns rearing another generation indefinitely. Then there is the Regulation under which children are only allowed to go to Canada direct from workhouse schools. My experience is—and it is the opinion of all who have had anything to do with pauper children— that there is nothing which has a more
  438
  prejudicial effect on emigration work than this Rule, and that unless it is removed the whole scheme will be shipwrecked. I say let the Guardians be authorized to remove the children out of the workhouse schools, and place them in homes where they will be treated in a kindly and motherly way, and where their moral and religious nature will be developed prior to emigration. If that is not done there will be many failures which will prejudice the work in Canada. I hope that no children will be sent out of the country who have not been trained in such homes, and that all will be rejected by the emigration societies who are not found fitted for Colonial life.
  My contention then is this—that, in the first place, the restrictions I have referred to should be removed; in the second place, that the children should be taken from the workhouse schools and sent to voluntary emigration homes where they will receive proper training and attention; and, finally, that the Boards of Guardians should bear the expense of this, which need not be greater than what is now paid in the case of workhouse schools with such indifferent results.
  I thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to my appeal; and while I regret that I could not bring forward my Motion at an earlier hour, I am glad that I have been able to lay before the House a subject which has engaged the attention of some of the most wise and practical philanthropists in our country, whose plans I do not think the Government can do better than adopt. I hope we shall find that the Local Government Board will issue thoroughly practical instructions with regard to this question of child emigration, which I am convinced will do more to dry up pauperism at the roots than anything else that can be devised. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. RATHBONE: I strongly endorse the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) to the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie). I have been engaged, like my hon. Friend, in this work of emigration, and I think it is very valuable, especially in the case of girls. I would point out to the President of the Local Government

  439
  Board and the House that if the real aim is a practical one they may safely leave the management of the undertaking to those voluntary societies already enrolled. My hon. Friend has described the kind of children which alone the Canadians would consent to receive, and the fact that the Canadians take these children into their homes and retain them as they do is, in itself, a proof that the voluntary societies have done their work well. But I go farther and say that when this work was begun, 25 years ago, we were unable to carry it forward with the same precautions as we are now. But I felt then, and I told the President of the Local Government Board of that day, that even without these precautions the children were exposed to much less danger, and had a greater chance of a prosperous and virtuous life, than they had in this country. These children are taken away from surroundings which cannot be considered healthful or beneficial to them and placed in others which afford them a reasonable chance of a comfortable and virtuous life. What hope of marriage is there for girls of this class afforded hero? On the other hand, it is well known that their marriage is in Canada almost a certainty. To anyone who considers the conditions from which these girls are taken, I say it is clear that their prospects in Canada are infinitely better than they are in this country. It is within reach of such ad vantages that we should place these children; and, therefore, we contend that the Local Government Board should withdraw restrictions which prevent the attainment of this desirable object. Then there is to be borne in mind the effect which the emigration of pauper children will have upon those of the class who remain in this country. I have myself observed how the removal of even a moderate amount of labour has enabled those who remain to rise far higher than might have been inferred from the percentage of those who left. I will not detain the House at greater length than to urge upon the Local Government Board the removal of whatever restrictions are interfering with the work of the societies for the emigration of girls to Canada. If these are removed a very large number of children will be taken from what are called homes in this country, and placed in real homes in Canada. Sir, I
  440
  beg to second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient to relax the restrictions hitherto imposed by the Local Government Board on the emigration of pauper children, and to enter into negotiations with existing emigration agencies of established reputation, whereby such agencies may be empowered to emigrate pauper, orphan, neglected, and deserted children to Canada, or others of our Colonies, subject to reasonable regulations for the future oversight of the children."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): Sir, I am sure the House will thoroughly appreciate the greater portion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Flint-shire (Mr. S. Smith) in laying his facts before the House; and I am also sure that the purity of the hon. Member's motives in bringing this subject forward will not be disputed. It is the desire of the Department which I have the honour to represent, as far as possible, to encourage the emigration of pauper children to Canada. The hon. Gentleman says he does not speak on mere hearsay, and anyone who knows the interest which he takes in matters of this kind will be aware that he does not speak simply as a theorist. He is essentially a practical man, and has, therefore, the right to discuss this matter. There is another thing in which the House will agree—that, under proper regulations, great advantages follow from the emigration of pauper children. Not only is this beneficial to the children themselves, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) has said, it is beneficial also to the community in getting rid of a large amount of labour which, in this country, cannot be profitably employed. But notwithstanding the manifest advantages which follow the course that the hon. Gentleman advocates, I think the House will agree that it is essential that the regulations with reference to the emigration of children should be so framed as to secure the benefit of the children when they get to the other side of the Atlantic, and that every precaution should be

  441
  taken against the abuses which are likely to arise in the absence of such precautions. It is needless for me to point out what those dangers are. They must be perfectly well known to all who have studied these matters; and I am sure I shall carry with me the entire sympathy of the House when I say that although there ought not to be any restrictions which would unduly interfere with the emigration of these children, yet it is the bounden duty of the Local Government Board to see, in the interests of the children themselves, that certain conditions are complied with. The hon. Member for Flintshire spoke of the large number of children who are in our workhouses, as compared with the small number of children emigrated; he spoke of there being 56,000 children in the workhouses. But that at once raises a very important question. The immense majority of these children are neither orphans nor deserted, and the question which arises is as to whether the Local Government Board shall encourage by its regulations the emigration of children without the consent of their parents. For my own part, I say at once that I could not undertake to initiate any legislation which would have the effect of enabling the Guardians to emigrate pauper children in defiance of the wishes of their parents. I can sympathize with the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, that in a vast number of cases it would be for the benefit of the children that they should be taken away from evil surroundings, and from the evil influences of bad parents; but, on the whole, I think it is the lesser of the two evils to allow these children to remain here rather than to emigrate them without the consent of their parents, thus destroying that parental authority which, however abused, I believe the great majority of the people of this country desire to see preserved. I believe that if Parliament were to give power to Boards of Guardians to emigrate children without the consent of their parents, it would lead to such scandal as would be detrimental to the cause of emigration itself; and I am, moreover, persuaded that such a course would be repugnant to the feeling of the people generally. But, so far as the emigration of orphans and deserted children is concerned, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my sympathy
  442
  is entirely with him in this matter, and that anything I can do as President of the Local Government Board to put an end to unnecessary restrictions will be done. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman is rather hard on the regulations imposed by the Local Government Board. The hon. Gentleman points to two regulations as being especially objectionable. One is the regulation which provides for the inspection of children by the Canadian Government; and the hon. Gentleman said that so long as we insisted upon inspection by the agents of the Canadian Government, so long would this emigration be entirely, or almost entirely, nugatory. I am bound to say that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman there. It is perfectly true that in consequence of the Local Government Board not receiving Reports from the Canadian Government as to the children emigrated thither within the last year or two, they some time ago stopped the emigration of pauper children; but, as a matter of fact, owing to the season of the year, that action did not prevent the emigration of a single child, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the period of emigration was at an end. When the emigration season again set in, the Board had received the Report, and the bar which they had previously placed upon the emigration of children was then removed. Now, we consider that this Re-port of the Canadian Government is a very valuable one, inasmuch as it is altogether the independent Report of the agents of the Dominion. The Canadian Government express their entire willingness to undertake an annual inspection of all these children, provided their names, ages, and addresses are furnished to them. The regulation which the hon. Gentleman says interferes so much with the emigration of children is simply this, that the names, ages, and addresses of the children shall be sent to the Department of Agriculture of the Canadian Government, which shall report to the Guardians as to the condition of the children, and that the Guardians shall forward these Reports to the Local Government Board. Looking at the fact that the Canadian Government express their willingness to undertake this independent inspection, I think it is of considerable value that we should receive Reports from the Canadian Go-

  443
  vernment by means of their agents, who make personal inquiries at the abodes of the children, and see whether they are well oared for. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to do away with this regulation so long as the Canadian Government are willing to make that inspection. If there were a systematic attempt on the part of the Canadian Government or their agents to withhold these Reports, and if, in consequence of the Reports not being sent, we were to refuse to permit the emigration of children to Canada, then I admit the hon. Gentleman would be justified in the remarks he has made. But, as matters stand, we consider that the regulation has worked well, and led only to good results; and I do not anticipate that a single child will be prevented from emigrating in consequence of the regulation. The hon. Gentleman has referred to another restriction, and I am bound to say that there I think he has a better ground for objection. The second regulation which the hon. Gentleman points to requires that the children must have six months' training in pauper schools, I am by no means prepared to endorse all that the hon. Gentleman has said with reference to these pauper schools. It is true that the hon. Gentleman has quoted from statistics given by Mrs. Nassau Senior, in a Report which extends as far back as 1873, to show that the result of the training in pauper schools is not satisfactory. The results for the last year, however, show the existence of a greatly improved state of things. Of the children trained in these schools, 86 per cent are reported as "good and fair," 11 per cent as "unsatisfactory," and only 3 per cent as "bad." I think these are statistics of which the managers of the schools have every reason to be proud. When you have a number of children who are trained in the pauper schools, and it is found that of these only 3 per cent can be reported as bad, I maintain that it is not only a not unsatisfactory, but an altogether satisfactory state of things. I must take complete exception to the terms which the hon. Member applied to the training of children in these schools, when he said that they were not trained like human beings. The hon. Gentleman must know that the managers of the schools take an immense
  444
  amount of interest in seeing that the training of the children is as good as it can be. The hon. Gentleman gave, by way of illustration, a statement of Dr. Barnardo, that out of 1,900 gutter lads assembled in his Refuge on a certain occasion, 1,400 declared that they had passed through pauper schools.
  MR. S. SMITH: I said that there were 1,900 lads present, and that at the end of the entertainment Dr. Barnado asked those to stand up who had been at pauper schools, and that 1,400 stood up.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman said that 1,400 of these lads stood up, and the inference he desired to be drawn was that the training in the pauper schools was bad. But does the hon. Gentleman believe that out of those 1,900 lads 1,400 had undergone training? Is it not rather that a vast number of those lads may have been for a very short time in pauper schools—that the mothers and parents of those children having gone into the workhouses for a short time, in the meantime their children received some kind of instruction in pauper schools, but that they were not regularly trained there? I think it is impossible to say that these 1,400 lads can, in any sense of the term, be spoken of as having been trained in pauper schools. Now, with reference to the general question, I should like the House to understand clearly what is the position of the Local Government and Boards of Guardians in this matter of the emigration of pauper children. The Boards of Guardians are at perfect liberty to emigrate as many of these pauper children as they please, and through any agency which they please, so long as that agency complies with certain regulations of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board does not directly interfere in the emigration of the children; they leave it, as I think they ought to do, to the Boards of Guardians, who are the proper authorities, to judge as to the agencies through which the children are emigrated, and to see that the regulations laid down by the Local Government Board are complied with. I have now dealt with the two regulations of which the hon. Gentleman complained. I repeat, as far as the regulation with reference to the Report from Canada are concerned, that I do not believe it has

  445
  interfered with the emigration of a single child. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can give a single instance of a child being prevented from emigrating in COD sequence of the regulation which requires that Report should be obtained from the Canadian Government. [Mr. S. SMITH dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I shall be glad if he will communicate to me the case of a single child who has been prevented from emigrating in consequence of that regulation. With regard to the other regulation, I think there is much more to be said. It is to this effect—
  "A child before being sent to Canada shall have been under previous instruction for at least six months in a workhouse or a district school."
  Now, if that regulation is taken to imply that a child must have been in such a school for six months immediately prior to his emigration, then I think there is a great deal in the argument of the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about training in workhouse schools, and I am prepared to defend it as being an admirable and excellent training; but I am pre-pared to admit that there is a workhouse taint upon those children who have been emigrated direct from a workhouse school. I certainly think it is possible and probable that those children, when they get to Canada, may be at a considerable disadvantage in consequence of having been emigrated direct from workhouse schools. That regulation I propose to amend. I propose to remove a further restriction upon Boards of Guardians which constitutes one of the objections to which the hon. Member alluded—namely, the restriction as to the number of children emigrated. That restriction was only intended to apply to the year in which it was issued—the year 1883—but as no other edition of these regulations has been issued since, I can quite understand that the Boards of Guardians may have thought that the restriction was still in force. I propose, therefore, to remove that restriction altogether. Then I propose to inform Boards of Guardians that they are at liberty to contract with any emigration agencies that apply to the Local Government Board and obtain a certificate as to the efficiency of their schools, so that the Boards of Guardians may send pauper children to those train-
  446
  ing schools for any time they think fit, and pay for their maintenance out of the rates. It is quite clear, so far as the ratepayers are concerned, that it is immaterial whether the education of the children is paid for at the district pauper schools belonging to the Union, or paid for at the schools of the various emigration agencies, while the advantage to the children themselves is obvious, for they will be able to obtain a certain amount of special training for emigration, and being sent out in conjunction with other children who have not been in the workhouse, they will be, so to speak, entirely without that workhouse taint which I think might be a great bar to their progress when they get to Canada. I think, so far as our proposal on that point is concerned, that it meets the objection of the hon. Gentleman. I believe also, when the powers of the Boards of Guardians are made known, the emigration agencies will take care on their part to make the Boards of Guardians acquainted with the facilities they offer; and, under these new conditions, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see a very large increase in the number of children emigrated to Canada. I believe I have touched upon the various points to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded; I have shown that I am in absolute sympathy with him in the object he has in view, and that I intend to do my best to promote the emigration of these children under proper conditions, which will not restrict emigration, but will, on the other hand, afford a reasonable prospect of securing their welfare and prosperity.
  MR. E. R. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman has made two important concessions, and he has done so with expressions of sympathy such as might be expected from his character and from the responsibility he must feel in the Office he holds. I will venture, however, to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be induced to advance a little further; because it is most necessary, if anything substantial is to be done in the direction mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire, that there should be more elasticity in the Rules of the Local Government Board, and there should also be a disposition to advance in the matter of somewhat disregarding

  447
  parental control. On a reference to the Rules of the Board, a great change will be found necessary with regard to inspection. The families where the children are placed object to a dual series of inspection. If the right hon. Gentleman will take a freer view of the matter, and be more disposed to rely on those institutions which are engaged in the work of rescue, for which he has expressed so much sympathy, he will soon see his way to a relaxation of the Rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a really practical man, and it is of the greatest importance that Ministers of State, in dealing with men who have practically devoted themselves to the consideration of such subjects, should see with their eyes the difficulties that occur, and should make some concession to meet each case. This applies equally, though under circumstances of greater difficulty, to the larger principle of the sacredness of parental control, which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to assert almost, if not absolutely, without exception. It is a very large demand upon us to expect us to believe that under no circumstances can parents in this country forfeit the right to control the destinies of their children. Many of them have to all intents and purposes forfeited that right. I have myself passed through the right hon. Gentleman's present stage of feeling. I have gone into the matter, both in Liverpool and in the City a Division of which I have the honour to represent, with pro-conceived ideas both that to relieve parents of their children would tend to generate pauperism, and that to remove children from their parents' control is flying in the face of nature; but the more I looked into the matter the more I found that this is a mere chimerical difficulty which will have to be faced and got over. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult those who have to do with the work of rescue in Liverpool and in Glasgow, he will find that they do not appreciate the great difficulty of ignoring parental control. They believe that in such cases, with small assistance from the State, it may be got over; and that so far as the parents are concerned the great majority of them are—where it is necessary for the State to interfere—cases where parental feeling has died out, or, at any
  448
  rate, has fallen into a condition which does not require much consideration at the hands of the State. I asked a gentleman in Glasgow whether penal consequences might not be brought to bear upon the parents with success. He told me that it could not; that the parents spend much of their time in prison, and simply regard a visit there as a sort of sanitary operation from which they derive benefit and are enabled to resume their deplorable kind of life. When dealing with such people it is carrying consideration too far not to try to find out some way to carry on the experiment in which my hon. Friend and other philanthropists have had so much success; and I believe that the Local Government Board may easily invent methods for making greater progress in inducing parents, or even in over-ruling their objections, where so much depends upon it for the future of the country.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: It seems to me the discussion, so far, has only proceeded on one side of this question, and that hon. Members who have spoken have altogether failed to take into consideration the circumstances of the Colonies to which it is proposed to emigrate these children, and what may be the effect of continued artificial emigration to these Colonies from this country. The hon. Member for Flintshire has spoken of the enormous number of children who are in this sad and deplorable state of pauperism; he says that there are 500,000 in the United Kingdom, and that if the population of London continues to increase in the next century as it has hitherto increased it will amount to 25,000,000. But if the system of emigration which he proposes be carried out, we shall find that the population of Canada will become a population or colonization of paupers. There are, no doubt, too many pauper children in the country, and the question is how that evil is to be remedied. I doubt that the country is equal to acceptance of the Utopian theory of the hon. Gentleman at the present time, and I am, therefore, of opinion that some other remedies must be adopted. It seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Gentlemen is to take out of the country those who have as good a claim to remain there as any other portion of the population. We forget that the

  449
  Colonies to which we propose to send these children are already very crowded, and that many persons cross into the United States because they cannot find employment in Canada; and that the large cities of Australia furnish a parallel, but in a smaller degree, of the state of things which exists in London. I have myself seen persons who, having emigrated to Melbourne and Sydney, have been obliged to sleep without cover in those cities because they were unable to find employment. It is most unjust and absurd to emigrate these children. If the State could find some employment for them, such as would be practicable under a tobacco monopoly, for instance, it would be better than a general scheme for getting rid of the surplus population of the country. The children are reduced to their present condition mainly owing to the neglect of their parents, and you say that, therefore, the parents have forfeited all claim to have control over them. But what are the laws of the Colonies? They provide in almost every case against the immigration of paupers; and although those laws are sometimes relaxed, they will be stringently enforced as soon as it is seen that a system of private or State emigration is established here. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) appears to me to be altogether insufficient, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has practically left the matter where it was before, for I do not apprehend that the relaxations which the right hon. Gentleman promises will encourage the new system of emigration. They may remove a few restrictions; but I am glad to observe that the Government does not see its way to go into any enlarged emigration system, which would certainly be resented by the Colonies to which the children are proposed to be sent.
  MR. S. SMITH: I wish to say that I am much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met us. Although I cannot agree with all his remarks, I desire to make this acknowledgment, and will now ask leave to withdraw my Resolution.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  POST OFFICE—EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL PATRONAGE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The matter of Post Office patronage, to which I desire to call attention, is one which excites a great deal of interest in the country; but I think I shall be consulting the feeling of the House if I postpone its consideration to a more favourable opportunity. I shall, therefore, content myself with moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(MR. Conybeare.)
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I sincerely hope the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member, and I am extremely surprised that the hon. Member should have taken this course on the present occasion. When he first gave Notice of a Question on this subject he avoided putting it to me in the House. Subsequently the hon. Member gave Notice something like a month ago of his intention to bring forward a Motion impugning the administration of my Department. He had an opportunity of bringing that Motion forward on the Supplementary Estimates which he did not make use of, and on the evening when he might have done so he was not in his place. After having had the present Notice on the Paper for more than a month the hon. Member again takes the first opportunity of running away. It seems to me that an hon. Member who takes that course with reference to the Motion he has placed on the Paper is wanting not only in consideration to those concerned, but also wanting in respect for the House. The hon. Member has again the opportunity which he sought or appeared to seek of bringing forward his Motion, and he declines to make use of it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Sir, may I be allowed to make a personal explanation? The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would not, I am sure, deal with me unfairly if he could help it. I have not dealt with him unfairly, and I do not wish to do so; but he has animadverted on the fact that on the former occasion on which it was possible for me to raise this question, with regard

  451
  to which I had placed a Question on the Paper, I was not in my place. The right hon. Gentleman has not stated to the House that which he will, perhaps, permit me to state—namely, that I sent him a Notice before my Question was reached to the effect that I did not intend to proceed with it that evening, for the very good reason that I understood that another hon. Member intended to proceed with the matter in a more systematic and complete manner. That was the sole reason I did not proceed with the subject that evening, and the fact that I was not in my place when the Question was called on was due to this consideration—that having given the right hon. Gentleman Notice that I was not going to put my Question, and as he did not intimate that he would insist upon giving an answer, I had left the House before it was reached. With regard to the Supplementary Estimates, I do not recollect whether I was in my place or not when this subject could have been dealt with in connection with them; hut I was in my place the whole time we were discussing the Estimates during the All-night Sitting. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not going to "run away from my guns." I am perfectly prepared to go on with the matter at this moment if the Government insist upon it; but I really think it would he in the public interest that we should not go on with it to-night. It would be much more to the public interest that the discussion should take place at such a period when we should be likely to have it reported in the newspapers, which is not likely to be the case at the present moment. It has been insinuated by the right hon. Gentleman that I am afraid to go on with the discussion. I am not afraid, but I would remind him that if we do not proceed with it now we shall have ample opportunity of doing so when the Post Office Vote comes before us.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General is never so happy as when he is heroic. He is in his most heroic humour to-night. At 1 o'clock in the morning, in an attenuated House, he calls upon my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall to address himself to a question of considerable moment, and he amuses himself by remarking that my hon. Friend
  452
  has "run away from his guns." The best answer to that is that my hon. Friend is sitting here on my right hand at this moment, and has got all his guns —and big ones they are—behind him, and is perfectly ready to stand to them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my own part, I do not know much about the Motion my hon. Friend proposes to move, but I have one feeling about this matter. I am quite prepared, as I think most hon. Members who have been in the House for a few years will know, to support any Government, whether it be Liberal or Tory, in making progress with Public Business at a convenient time; but I would tell the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of this House, who happens to be in his place, that at 1 o'clock in the morning I am, upon principle, an Obstructionist. I think it is extremely inconvenient that at 1 o'clock in the morning, a time when all decent people are in bed, we should be debating in this House questions of great moment; and though if my hon. Friend chooses to go on with his Motion I shall be prepared to sit hero to give him what support I can, I do beseech the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to consider that the hour is 1 o'clock in the morning. [The hon. Member here paused for some time. Cries of "Order!"] I am waiting until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has finished his conversation with the Leader of the House. I should like to point out to the First Lord of the Treasury that, under the new Rule which, when we get our senses, we are going to vote—which all hon. Members, no matter whore they may sit, are going to support—we are going to finish all Business at half-past 12 o'clock. I humbly submit, therefore, that, out of consideration for the delicate nature of our constitutions, the right hon. Gentleman ought now to allow us to adjourn. I strongly support the proposal of the hon. Member that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. MOLLOY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will assent to this Motion. There is a Notice upon the Paper in which I myself feel a considerable interest—a Motion dealing with the relative cost of the Irish, English, and Scotch police. In the discussion which will take place upon that Motion I hope to be able to make some disclo-

  453
  sures of a very important character. It is impossible to go into such a matter as that at this late hour of the night. If the Motion of my hon. Friend were to be brought on to-night, it would afford us still another reason for desiring the adjournment, because this is the only occasion, under the new system which has been adopted, on which private Members can bring forward any grievance which they think of importance. It seems to me that the general opinion of the House is that the Government should agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) that it would be most reasonable that we should go to bed at half-past 12; but I would remind hon. Gentlemen that that arrangement can only be arrived at by having reasonable regard to length of speeches, and also to the importance of questions raised in debate. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree to that condition. Under existing circumstances, I would submit that, at this hour of the evening, there is yet time to consider the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall. Another hon. Member opposite has referred to his desire to discuss another Motion which stands upon the Paper. I would remind that hon. Member that the questions he proposes to raise are questions which can be raised on the particular Vote to which they relate. There is no reason whatever why the question the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Conybeare) desires to raise should not be raised on the Post Office Vote itself.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The Postmaster General does not want it so raised.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Then, to satisfy the Postmaster General and the hon. Member for Camborne, I am quite willing to sit here for some time longer.
  MR. DILLON: I have sat here the whole evening with many of my hon. Friends around me, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can complain of the part we have taken in the de-bates. We have left them entirely, or almost entirely, to English and Scotch Members. I have sat here the whole evening waiting for the very important
  454
  Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) to come on. If the Motion of the hon. Member for Camborne is disposed of, that Motion will be discussed. It is a Motion which it is very proper to bring on in the shape of an Amendment to the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, because it is a matter raising very serious questions, and questions in which hon. Members from Ireland have for a long time taken great interest. We have been endeavouring for years to bring the scandals it deals with under the notice of this country, and at last an English Member has been so struck by the facts of the case that he has been moved himself to take it up. I wish to point out that if the debate on the Post Office is to go on now we shall be obliged to have our debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wednesbury afterwards. For my own part, though I am not desirous of staying up to a very late hour, if the Loader of the House desires that we should do so in order to go on with these matters I shall be quite willing.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I would venture to point out that I am interested in a Bill which is down for second reading to-night—namely, the Metropolis Management Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill. That Bill is not blocked, and it will not take live minutes to discuss it; but I am afraid that if we go into the discussion of these Post Office questions to-night we shall not be able to take the second reading of that measure.
  MR. ISAACS: I would remove a misapprehension from the mind of the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is quite true that I have removed the block from the second reading of his Bill, but it is my intention to oppose the second reading, and when that stage comes on it will be necessary for me to ask the indulgence of the House for some little time.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House gets up remarkably fresh, not having been here during a greater portion of the debate, and thinks it is quite fair to go on with the Motion with regard to the Post Office. I think the right hon. Gentleman in this matter might have some regard for the views

  455
  of the rest of the House as well as for his own. A great many hon. Members have been in close attendance all night, while the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has been away enjoying himself somewhere else. [Cries of "Order!"] If I am out of Order in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has been enjoying himself I withdraw the expression. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General said that because my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall proposed an adjournment at a quarter past I he was "running away from his guns." I do not think that that is a statement which ought to come from a Minister of the Crown. I think it is very disgraceful indeed that because an adjournment is asked for on a Motion of this kind the person asking for it should be accused in this most wanton and almost insulting manner of running away. If there is any running away it is more likely to be on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, because he expressed a very strong desire that my hon. Friend should go on with his Motion now. Why does the right hon. Gentleman evince so much anxiety for the Motion to come on now? It is because he knows that there are few Members in the House, and because he knows that the Motion, if gone on with at this moment, is not likely to attract the attention which it would have attracted if it had come on at a more reasonable hour; it is also because he knows that at this hour the discussion would not be reported at any great length in the morning papers. Of course, the Postmaster General is very much interested in this Motion, dealing, as it does, with his position and conduct in the Office he fills. Under the circumstances, I think he ought to accede to the reasonable request which is now made to adjourn. By doing that he would show the House that he is not only prepared to meet the statement about to be made as to his Office, but that he is anxious that the statement should be made, and made publicly, before a full House, and when there would be an opportunity for the newspapers to report the debate. Under these circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House ought to give way. If he does not give way my hon. Friend will go on with his Motion, though it is
  456
  very hard lines that the Leader of the House should come down and, not having been in the House all night, insist upon our going on with the important debate at this unreasonable hour in the morning.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The real question before the House is whether the right hon. Gentleman has got his 200 Members to back him or not. If he has not, of course we can continue to debate this question; but if he has, he had better put us out of our pain at once. So far as the Motion of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall is concerned, I should like to hear it debated. My sympathies are all on the side of the Postmaster General; and if it comes to giving a vote on the matter, my vote, I think, will have to go for the right hon. Gentleman, and not for the hon. Member for Camborne; because whenever a question comes on between a preaching gentleman like Mr. Stephenson Blackwood and the head of a Department I shall always vote against the preaching gentleman.
  MR. MURPHY: I take great interest in the Motion which is down later on the Paper; but I do not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who desires to sit up here all-night to debate it. I would very much rather that it came on at a reasonable hour of the night, when one could listen to and take part in a debate with some sense of comfort; and I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to consent to the adjournment.
  MR. BIGGAR: I understood from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that this Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall would be equally well raised on the Vote for the Post Office as on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested a reasonable course, because the hon. Member who intends to bring on the Motion does not feel disposed to proceed with it at this hour. He wishes to bring it on at a time when it can be properly discussed in a full House. If the Motion were discussed to-night, the debate would not be reported in tomorrow's papers. I know nothing about the merits of the case between the right

  457
  hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General and Mr. Stephenson Blackwood. I have no sympathy for Mr. Blackwood. I know nothing about him, and I care nothing about him; but I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General in the position you now fill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must say that, as far as my memory serves me, I have not since seen anyone in that position who filled the Office with more ability. Under the circumstances, without prejudging the case against the right hon. Gentleman, I must say I think it is too late to bring the Motion forward. It is unreasonable to expect a new question to be discussed at 20 minutes after 1 o'clock in the morning, and I do not think we should be asked to make arrangements to suit such a condition of things. I would in all cases protest against it. One reason why I would like to see the matter disposed of is that I now see the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) in his place, and we may have an opportunity of raising the question of jury-packing in Ireland, which is involved in a Motion he has on the Paper. I have a very strong opinion that the hon. and learned Member would quite as soon not bring forward the Motion at all. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) is forced to go on with his Motion, the probability is that many hon. Gentlemen will leave the House, and that there will be few remaining to listen to the debate on the subject of jury-packing in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 128: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 87.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. CONYBEARErose to address the House.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already spoken.
  MR. STOREYthen rose.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERAnd the hon. Member for Sunderland seconded the Motion.
  MR. STOREYAs a matter of fact, Sir, I did not second the Motion.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThen I call upon Mr. Storey.
  MR. STOREYSir, I make no secret of the fact that a Member of the Government just now said privately to me—"I thought you never did it." I freely admit I never do it; but I repeat what I said about 10 minutes ago, that at 1 o'clock in the morning I am an Obstructionist. I entirely object—my physical state compels me to object—to sit here after this hour of the morning. I am willing to do the work that my constituents send me to do; but since the moment I came into the House I have never, except on extreme occasions, sat in the House to late hours. I cannot do it. [An hon. MEMBER: Then go home.] An hon. Member opposite says to me, "Go home;" but I humbly submit to the Conservative Party that that is not exactly what we want in this House. What we want is a temperate expression of opinion from all sides of the House. I do not often trouble the House; but I am bound to say I have consistently objected to the continual attempt to bear down any minority by the power of a majority at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. I do not insist upon it; but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), as one common-sense man to another, to consent now, at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, and especially in view of the fact that even if the Motion of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall be disposed of, there is at least one other Motion on the Paper of very considerable importance, which will occupy the attention of many hon. Gentlemen from Ireland for several hours, to the Motion which I now make, that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Storey.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has made an appeal to me which I shall not resist. It is clear to the House that the Government, at all events, have been anxious to make progress with Public Business. The Government are always anxious to make progress, and I am sure hon. Gentlemen "who have been present throughout the evening, as I have been,

  459
  with the exception of one hour, must be aware that greater progress might have been made this evening than has been made. We have recorded our protest. We think it our duty to do the best we can to forward Public Business; we have been prevented from forwarding Public Business; we have made our protest; and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Storey) will withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the House, I will withdraw the Motion that the Deputy Speaker do leave the Chair.
  "MR. MOLLOY: I only wish to make one remark in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith). I wished to make some observations earlier this evening; but, seeing that the question was being fully discussed, I abstained from doing so, and I believe other hon. Members did the same. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Motion I intended to bring forward was one which might just as well be discussed on the Estimates. I differ from the Leader of the House. If I were to open up the question which I have to open up in the course of the discussion on the Estimates it would not receive the slightest notice outside the House. I wish to make the Motion I have put upon the Paper in order to draw public attention to what I consider a scandalous matter. I do not wish to continue the discussion now, but merely to express my obligation to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made.
  MR. BIGGAR: We have had a lecture from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith); and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Storey) has spoken about the common sense of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman might have said that common sense was very commonplace. The right hon. Gentleman will not clôture us to-night, but will reserve that for another night.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will profit by the lesson which he has been taught. He has not got his "Six Hundred" present.
  MR. STOREYIn asking leave to withdraw my Motion I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in accepting my proposition.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. H. SMITHI beg to withdraw the Motion that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do now leave the Chair.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I desire to thank the Government for their courtesy in acceding to our request, and to assure them that what they have in view—namely, the promotion of Public Business—we have in view also. If my Motion had come on at this early hour of the morning I should have felt obliged to take the opportunity of reproducing the whole question on some more favourable occasion, so that the House would have had to listen twice to what I have to say.
  SUPPLY—Committee upon Wednesday.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 1.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Sir. Jackson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th March]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be deferred till To-morrow."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to know what the object of the Government is in putting this Bill down night after night. They have chosen to bring in a Coercion Jubilee Bill, which is to be taken to-morrow. To put down this Bill for to-morrow, too appears to me to be extremely inconvenient. I therefore suggest that after "To-morrow" the word "week" be inserted.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): It i possible the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) has overlooked the fact that the Bill has been put down for tomorrow to meet the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler).
  MR. T. M. HEALYWhat about our convenience? Have we no convenience?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERDoes the hon. and learned Member persevere?
  MR. T. M. HEALYI ask the Government not to put the Bill down for to-morrow, because by the time it arrives for consideration we shall all be exhausted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): As an arrangement has been made to take the Bill to-morrow it would hardly be proper to alter it now.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Octavius Morgan, Mr. Gilliat, Mr. Kimber.)

  [BILL 166.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to ask the House to agree to the second reading of this Bill, and if it were not for (he lateness of the hour (1.50) I should venture to trouble the House with some figures as to the history of the constituency I have the honour to represent. Battersea has grown more rapidly than any other district in the Metropolis; but I will not adduce all the statistics I have prepared. I will simply say that in 1855, when the Metropolis Management Act was passed, Battersea contained a population of 12,000 only, and had a rateable value of £90,000. To-day the population is 140,000, and its rateable value £650,000. In 1855 Battersea was only a 223rd part of the Metropolis, to-day it is a 36th. We, therefore, ask to be transferred from Schedule B in the Metropolis Management Act to Schedule A, which transference will give us direct representation on the Metropolitan Board of Works. If we are placed in Schedule A, out of the 26 parishes included in the Schedule there will be only nine with a larger population than Battersea, while 16 will have a smaller population. I think, therefore, we are fairly entitled to this change, in favour of which I have had the honour of presenting a Petition from the Wandsworth District Board of Works, and from the Battersea Vestry. There are one or two clauses in the Bill which will require alteration, but the alterations have been already agreed to by the Home Office.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Octavius Morgan.)
  MR. ISAACS: No one can regret more than I the circumstance that I have to detain
  462
  the House at this very late hour by any remarks in opposition to this Bill; nothing but the consideration that I am performing an imperative duty in opposing the Bill would allow me to trouble the House with any observations at this hour. It becomes my duty to let the House know, in as few words as I possibly can, what the object of this Bill is. The object of the Bill is to add another to the already too numerous Governing Bodies of London—in other words, that the parish of Battersea, which now forms part of a District Board of Works, should be taken out of Schedule B of the Metropolis Management Act, and converted into a Vestry. I wish hon. Gentlemen to know what will be the effect of that operation. You will create another Governing Body in London. You will make one Corporation more. You will confer upon this body corporate a seal, and you will create another set of officers—a vestry clerk, engineer, surveyor, medical officer of health, and a host of inspectors and other servants. What is the present position of Battersea? It forms now a component part of the Wandsworth District Board of Works, which embraces the parishes of Wandsworth, Battersea, Clapham, and Putney, all very well grouped geographically for being combined into one Governing Body. The facts to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Octavius Morgan) has referred—namely, the great increase in the population, and the great increase in the rateable value, do not alone constitute a sufficient reason for the action he proposes the House should take. I have another reason why I think this Bill should not be allowed to pass. I object very much to treating the government of London in the piecemeal fashion which this Bill proposes to do. The question of London government in its entirety must come before the House sooner or later. It is a question which many Governments have attempted to legislate upon. I think it is reserved for the Government now in power to submit a scheme of London government to the consideration of the House, and I hope the House will not increase the burdens of the ratepayers until the whole question has been considered. It would be manifestly unjust to the parishes which would be left in the Wandsworth District Board of Works if they have to bear the burdens which the present Bill

  463
  seeks to impose upon them, and to incur the expense of the officers and servants whom they now have, whilst the parish of Battersea would be relieved there from. On the other hand, it would be unfair to the inhabitants of Battersea that they should be called upon to create a distinct Governing Body for themselves; that they should be put to the expense of building a vestry hall or a town hall, and be obliged to maintain a separate set of officers. Under these circumstances, I beg to move that the Bill, be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. KIMBER: I rise to support the Bill.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKEROrder, order! Does any hon. Member second the Amendment? [Cries of "No!"]
  [The Amendment, not being seconded, was not put.]
  MR. KIMBERI represent the other parishes which my hon. Friend (Mr. Isaacs) behind me—[Cries of"Agreed, agreed!"]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Two to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented not later than three clear days before the sitting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Octavius Morgan.)

  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  (Dr. Farquharson.)

  [BILL 210.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I rise to move the second reading of this Bill. Of course, at this time of the morning, I shall not go into any detail, but merely state to the House that the measure is promoted by the Pharmaceutical Society in the public interest. It is very necessary that chemists and druggists, who have to make up our medicines, should receive a competent training before going up for examination. The general tenour of
  464
  the Bill is that the candidates for the diploma of the Pharmaceutical Society shall be obliged to attend lectures upon botany, chemistry, and materia medica, and be compelled to go through a practical training for three years. I submit that this Bill is distinctly in the public interest, and I hope the second reading may be now agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  DR. CLARK: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I regret very much so important a Bill should be brought forward at 10 minutes to 2 in the morning, and I trust my hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) will not press the second reading. The object of the Bill is to give additional powers to the Pharmaceutical Society; to give the Society, in fact, powers and privileges with which such a body ought not to be vested. Up to 1868 anyone could carry on the business of a chemist and druggist; but in that year a register of chemists and druggists was drawn up, and an examiner was appointed by the Pharmaceutical Society to give a qualification to all who practised as a chemist and druggist. Now, the Society wish to go further—they wish to be empowered to create a curriculum, and to compel those who desire to trade as chemists and druggists to pass in chemistry, botany, and materia medica. If the Society were so empowered, the chemist and druggist trade would simply be made a very close corporation, because the chemists and druggists in small towns and poor neighbourhoods will be unable to qualify. In large places like London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, where you have courses of lectures on botany, chemistry, and materia medica, it will be quite easy for students to attend the courses and qualify themselves. Up to the present time, all you have asked for is that those who practise as chemists and druggists should know something of their business. To go beyond that, and allow this body to determine a curriculum, and compel persons to go through that curriculum, will be to limit the trade to a small number of men who will make a monopoly of it. In the next place, I am opposed to the principle of the Bill. I think that all we have to do for the benefit of the public is to see that men who practise as

  465
  chemists and druggists should pass a proper examination. To allow the Pharmaceutical Society to lay down a curriculum is beyond the province of legislation. By passing this Bill we should be giving up the principle of Free Trade altogether, and we should be limiting the selling of drugs to a very small and select class. If we intend to grant any power of this kind to any Body, it ought to be to some public Body, and not to a mere society of traders who can make their own bye-laws, and whose bye-laws would have all the effect of an Act of Parliament. If my hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) perseveres with this Bill, I shall be compelled to endeavour to amend it so as to make the Pharmaceutical Society representative of the 12,000 persons engaged in the chemist and druggist trade, and not merely of the 2,000 members of the Society. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. There is no necessity for any change in the present system. The Pharmaceutical Society have passed certain rules or bye-laws which are practically illegal, and now they are asking this House to give them power which they ought to have possessed before making the bye-laws.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHANCE: I think we must support this Bill, and for the reason that it will assimilate the English and Scotch law to the law of Ireland. The law in Ireland has undoubtedly worked well. It is said there is something very severe in compelling attendance at certain lectures before examination and certification; but I think, on the contrary, it is very beneficial to the persons concerned. Everyone knows that it is a very common practice for men who have to pass examinations to go to some crammer, who fills their minds with bits of information, and that Governing Bodies, knowing that this dangerous practice has to be encountered, are often in the habit of making exami-
  466
  nations unnecessarily severe. If, how-over, Governing Bodies know that those presenting themselves for examination must have gone through a preliminary course of study, they are move inclined to let the examination partake more of a common-sense examination than otherwise. I do not think the operation of this Bill will work hardly upon any individual. The rights of old practitioners as chemists and druggists are already safeguarded under the main Act; and it is only proper, in the interest of the public safety, that men who have no qualification whatever should not have the right to dispense most powerful poisons.
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill; on the contrary, I mean to support the Bill as far as I possibly can. There are several points in connection with the Bill which have not obtained that amount of duo consideration to which they are fairly entitled. At the present time there is a great deal of discontent, because the rights of many chemists and druggists in England have not been properly respected. From time to time I have received communications from chemists and druggists, in which the writers point out that if this Bill is passed without due deliberation and proper debate, they will be placed in a position which it is quite certain the promoters of the Bill will admit is nothing else but regrettable. I sincerely hope a compromise may be arrived at. Instead of pushing the second reading of the Bill through the House to-night, perhaps it would be better if it were postponed, say, until next Thursday, or, if the House does not adjourn for Easter, until some day next week. When the second reading comes on again clauses may be submitted which will enable a great number of people who are employed as chemists and druggists, but who might be deprived of the employment by which they now find the means of livelihood, to continue their trade. There are a great many points in connection with this Bill which I should like to bring under the notice of the House, but as the hour is now so very advanced I will not do so. I sincerely trust, however, that the second reading of this Bill will be deferred for some days.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 22: Majority 54. —(Div. List, No. 88.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND).—JURY PANELS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GEDGE: Sir, I have the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To call attention to the present mode of framing the jury panel and selecting jurors in Ireland, and the reasons given for the same, and, in connection therewith, to the alleged jury packing in past and pending cases; and to move, That the present system of framing the jury panel and selecting jurors in Ireland is complicated, and has often failed to secure a jury which could he relied upon to return a verdict according to the evidence, and therefore needs amendment, yet that the charges of jury packing in recent cases have not been substantiated."
  I stated at an earlier period this evening that if I were able I should certainly bring the matter forward tonight. As at this time it is too late to have a discussion, I will state what I propose to do. When I gave Notice of this Motion the matter was of considerable importance, so much so that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) had a Notice on the Paper dealing with the Question from his point of view. But since this Notice of mine was put on the Paper the Government Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland has been presented to us, and has been printed and circulated, and, on looking at that Bill, I see that—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. and learned Member entitled to refer to a Bill at present before the House?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe hon. Member is entitled to refer to it, but not to discuss it.
  MR. GEDGEThe subject-matter of my Notice, or Resolution, will be much more conveniently discussed on the second reading or in Committee of the Government Bill, which touches the same subject—therefore I do not propose to proceed with my Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALYHas the hon. and learned Member moved the discharge of his Motion?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThat is not necessary. He does not move it— that is all.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to say—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThere is no Motion before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYThen I move that this House do now adjourn, and I do it on this ground. We have been night after night led astray by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport. He has put down this Motion relating to the Irish jury system, and has kept us here until late at night to watch it, preventing us in that way from doing other work. I think that, under the circumstances, a Motion for the adjournment of the House is the proper course to take—therefore I move it.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to second that Motion, and I do it because I desire to say that the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) is in the highest degree objectionable; and before I sit down I shall ask you, Sir, to say whether his proceedings, in view of the recent ruling of Mr. Speaker, are not an abuse of the Rules of this House? The hon. and learned Member, at an earlier period of the evening's Sitting, informed me—I dare say, Sir, you were in the House and heard it—that if he got an opportunity, he would bring his Motion on to-night.
  MR. GEDGEI said I would bring the matter forward.
  MR. DILLONI leave it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House to say what was the impression conveyed to the House by what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not for a moment propose to contradict the account the hon. and learned Gentleman has given of the statement he made; but, whatever the words he used may be, the impression conveyed to me, and to every sensible Member of this House without exception, was that if he got an opportunity to-night, he would bring forward his Motion. Now, what has been the course adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport? Why, he has put his Motion on the Paper for the deliberate purpose of preventing us from bringing the subject forward—of preventing us from discussing or even alluding to the subject

  469
  with which his Motion deals. He put his Motion on the Paper when another Motion had been withdrawn, and I am entitled, I think, to declare, looking at his line of conduct in this matter, that beyond all question, in the eyes of every frank and honest man, that was the object he had in view in putting his Motion on the Paper. Hitherto I have abstained from attributing that motive to him. [Interruption.] I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite may think as to the propriety of that motive; but I maintain that the hon. and learned Member's statement this evening fully entitles me to say—whether or not he himself considers it an improper one or not—that it was with that motive that he placed his Motion on the Paper. Now that he has an opportunity of bringing on the Motion he deliberately withdraws it. I would ask him, on the question of adjournment, whether he proposes to put this Motion on the Paper again, or whether any hon. Gentleman in collusion with him will put a similar Motion on the Paper? After what has occurred, I shall take another opportunity—perhaps one more favourable than the present—of appealing to you, Sir, or to whoever occupies the Chair, to rule whether such a course of proceeding as that which has been pursued by the hon. Member is not an abuse of the Rules of this House, in view of the ruling given by the Speaker on a previous occasion? I myself and other Members of our Party are personally and most vitally interested in this subject of Irish jury panels, and yet the hon. Member has gone out of his way to prevent us from alluding to the matter in the House. I consider the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman has been extremely unfair, and I trust that the course he has adopted will not be followed by other hon. Members. We have abstained on this side of the House from pursuing that course; but if this sort of conduct is to be repeated by supporters of the Government I think we have shown on previous occasions that two can play at such games. We can put down a series of Notices at some future time which may have the result of preventing hon. Gentlemen opposite from bringing on discussions which may be of great moment to them; and in this way, through the conduct of the supporters of the Government, a state
  470
  of things will be brought about which was characterized in one of the public newspapers the other day as proceedings more worthy of sharpers on a race-course than hon. Members of this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I rise to support the protest made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I venture to think that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) has given no adequate reason for the course he has just pursued. Surely it is not a proper thing for an hon. Member to put on the Paper such a Notice as that of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, and then to decline to move it as he has now done. We all know the object with which it was put down. I ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) what course the Government would pursue in the event of the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport being brought forward; and the right hon. Gentleman, in this House, informed me that as soon as the Resolution was moved the Government would state fully their views on the matter. I would point out that we are now precluded from hearing the views of Her Majesty's Government on this very important subject. I venture to say that not only the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport, but also the Government, by not using their influence with their supporter—and we all know the influence they possess—have not been treating the House with proper respect in this matter.
  MR. GEDGEI rise to support the Motion for Adjournment. I consider that at a quarter past 2 o'clock in the morning I might very well have excused myself from going on with this Motion without assigning any other reason. But I thought it better to give an honest, bonâ fide reason. At the time I put my Motion on the Paper, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) had not, I believe, withdrawn his Notice of Motion which stood on it. If he had done so I was not aware of it. My Notice was put on the Paper with the intention of discussing the matter as

  471
  soon as an opportunity arrived for so doing. No opportunity has presented itself up to the present time, and meanwhile the Government Bill for the Amendment of the Criminal Law of Ireland has, in my opinion, rendered the discussion of my Resolution unnecessary. It would have been out of Order for me to give this explanation in reply to the Question put to me a few hours ago. That was the reason of my conduct, and I submit that I have acted in a perfectly straightforward manner, and in accordance with the Rules of the House.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) accuses me of running away from my guns. I wonder what he would have said about his supporter, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport, if he had known about this transaction? I rise to support the protest of hon. Gentlemen behind me, and in order to express the opinion—which I think will be shared by many on this side of the House —that it would only have been candid on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport if, when he was challenged earlier in the evening as to what he intended to do, he had given the same reply as he has now given. It is obvious that the reply he made at an earlier period of the evening could have only one construction placed on it— namely, that he did intend to bring this matter forward for debate. If he had had the frankness to state the bonâ fide reason he has given now at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning, it would have saved hon. Gentlemen on this side a great deal of trouble. It would have saved many of them from the trouble of sitting here all the evening expecting his Motion to come on. If the hon. and learned Member would learn to treat hon. Gentlemen on this side with a little more frankness, it would contribute more to the harmony of our proceedings.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I hope the House will not adjourn until we have received some assurance that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have of late indulged in the practice of putting Notices of Motion down for the purpose of really preventing discussion upon the subject of the Motions, will desist from doing so. The hon. and learned Mem-
  472
  ber for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) referred to his Motion in the most flippant manner; but we are entitled to know whether it is not an abuse of the Forms of the House for an hon. Member to put down a Notice of Motion upon a subject in which he takes no interest whatever, simply for the purpose of preventing discussion? The practice is certainly one which ought to be stopped. If the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker could have foreseen the consequence of his recent ruling, I question whether he would ever have given it.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to pursue that line of argument.
  MR. M. J. KENNYI will not pursue it.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman must withdraw the statement.
  MR. M. J. KENNYCertainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw it, though I am not quite conscious of the statement I have to withdraw. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, I only wish to point out that his ruling was quite different to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Brand.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThat is the statement I have requested the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
  MR. M. J. KENNYOh! Is that the statement? Then I withdraw it. I will only say that we have a new state of facts before us, by means of which any Member of the House may, by adopting a certain line of conduct, stamp out all discussion upon a given question. The practice on the part of hon. Members opposite to which I have referred is, I submit, an abuse of the Forms of the House, contrary to the spirit of the ruling of the Chair, and one which we are entitled to protest against.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I think the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House deserves a word from the Ministerial Bench. Members of the Government are very ready and flippant with their reproaches towards hon. Members on this side of the House; but I think they would do well to set their own house on their own side of the House in order. If the course of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) is what he calls a candid and

  473
  straightforward course, I must have a very crooked eyesight indeed. The hon. Member thought it right to put down a Motion relating to one of the sorest grievances in Ireland. The question of jury-packing is one which we have sought times out of number to bring to the notice of the House. We have done so not for the purpose of delay or obstruction, but because the question is a sore and burning one in the opinion of our people. I shall not go into the merits of the question; but I do desire to mark as much as I can my emphatic protest against what hon. Members on the Tory Benches are pleased to call fair play and fair dealing. I make them a present of their idea of fair play. Hon. Members sitting near the hon. and learned Member for Stockport seem to be delighted with the great tact displayed by the hon. and learned Member; but it is false tact to put upon the Notice Paper a Notice of Motion like this, and flaunt it in our faces night after night. If the hon. and learned Member is satisfied with his arguments, why does he not give us an opportunity of debating the question? We are physically capable of debating it, and the hon. and learned Member himself seems sprightly enough. Why does he not move his Motion? If he is such a wonderful tactician, why does he not enter the arena of advocacy? I do not care to use the words which would best express the feelings I entertain of the tactics which hon. Members opposite have resorted to—no doubt, they are proud of their performances; but I think I am very near the truth when I say that their performances to-night will retaliate with vengeance on themselves. The Ministers of Her Majesty will some day have reason to regret that they have sat silently by while their supporters have made the proceedings of this House a means of insulting the Irish people.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) has done me the honour of making a personal reference to me. Early in the Session I had a Motion on this subject on the Paper, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that when he placed his Motion on the Paper he was not aware that I had withdrawn mine. I can hardly reconcile that statement with the fact that, if my Motion was not withdrawn,
  474
  he must have known it was as good a one for raising the subject as his. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) endeavoured to raise the question of jury-packing in Ireland, and I withdrew my Motion on the next day, when it was well known the hon. Member for East Mayo would endeavour to return to the subject. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport immediately appeared on the Paper, and applied the gag to the mouth of my hon. Friend. The House is aware that at that moment the liberty of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo and of three other hon. Members of the House was directly concerned in the subject of the Motion. I make the hon. and learned Member for Stockport a present of any self-congratulation he can feel as the result of the course he has pursued. I assure him he has taken a course which one hon. Member of this House rarely takes towards another hon. Member. He has taken a course which is not envied by any other hon. Member now present, for I assure him that, whatever may have been his purpose, the effect of his course has been very pitiable and contemptible obstruction.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hold in my hand a copy of this year's Dod's Parliamentary Companion, and from under the heading "Sydney Gedge" I extract the following passage, which I presume was supplied by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself:—
  "A Conservative, but in favour of 'freedom of trade, freedom of contract, freedom of bequest, freedom of speech, and freedom from State and municipal interference with individual action and enterprize.'"
  I will not comment on the amount of candour which the hon. and learned Member has exhibited in explaining the motive which has led him to put this Motion on the Paper of the House. I am afraid he will not find many hon. Members of the House so simple as to be prepared to accept in all its nakedness the statement he has made on this subject; but I take the liberty of saying that, in my judgment, the hon. and learned Gentleman might have selected some other method of displaying his desire for freedom of speech than by placing a Motion on the Paper of the House plainly designed for no other purpose than to smother deliberate ex-

  475
  pression of opinion on a topic of great public importance.
  MR. T. M. HEALYIn asking leave to withdraw the Motion, I only desire to say that, as outside we apply the term "fishy" to transactions of a questionable character, in the House we had hotter apply to such transactions the term "Gedgey."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.