Commons Sitting of 10 August 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Small Holdings [Inquiry not completed] [No. 358].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Registration Act (1885) Amendment * [376]; Court of Criminal Appeal * [377]; Cruelty to Children (Prevention) * [378].
Second Reading—Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks [348]; Suffragans' Nomination [363]; Divisional Magistrates (Ireland) [374], debate adjourned.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Factory [273].
Committee—Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) [344]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Imperial Defence * [346], and passed.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Lloyd's (Signal Stations) (re-comm.) * [372], and passed.
Considered as amended—Re-comm.—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—County Courts Consolidation and Amendment * [263], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Mortmain and Charitable Uses * [285]; National Defence * [235]; Municipal Funds (Ireland) [371], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS—AMENDMENT.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY), in moving a number of Amendments to the Standing Orders with respect to Private Business, said, that the alterations he proposed should be made in them had been agreed upon after very careful consideration in concert with the House

  305
  of Lords. The alterations had been proposed to carry out three special objects. Many schemes now came before them for making tramroads as distinguished from tramways—that was, trams across the country, as against trams in the streets—and one set of Amendments defined these two kinds of tramways, and brought both more fully under the supervision of Parliament. The second object was to simplify to some extent, both as to their scope and repetition, the Notices to be given; and the third set secured that Private Bills in which any Public Offices might be interested should come before those Public Offices. For example, Bills in any way touching the relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies would come before the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)remarked, that some of the proposed alterations appeared to be of considerable importance; but when they had the assurance of so high an authority as the Chairman of Committees that he had carefully considered them, he thought that at that late period of the Session they might be agreed to without debate.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, what was exactly intended by the alterations with respect to tramroads?
  MR. COURTNEYreplied, that tramways running along highways would be left exactly where they were. It was proposed to give additional powers with regard to tramroads running across country which had not hitherto been sufficiently under control.
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH ACT, 1868—PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIEasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the Report of the Committee on the Revenue Departments, he can state that the Government will bring in further legislation to relieve the country from the loss incurred by the present agreement in connection with the sending of Press telegrams?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I can assure the hon. Member that I am quite
  306
  in accord with the Committee on the question of the transmission of messages on behalf of the Press; but having regard to the fact that the charge rests upon the statutory powers conferred by the Telegraph Act of 1868, and that the charges levied have been in operation for upwards of 18 years, I fear that it would be difficult to make any change. The question of fresh legislation is, however, one more for the First Lord of the Treasury than for myself.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL FOR SCOTLAND—ISLAND OF LEWIS.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that crofters in the Island of Lewis, though assessed for the upholding of roads and bridges in the Island, have no voice in the management of the Road Trust, which is composed of the proprietrix's factor and a few nominated large farmers; whether it is the case that no meetings are held of the Trustees; that no accounts of the Trust are ever printed or published; that crofters in several districts, though assessed, have no public roads to their townships; whether it is the case that William Gillanders, in the employment of Lady Matheson, the proprietrix, is the collector and treasurer to the Trustees at a yearly salary of £40; and, will the Government include the management of the roads in the Island of Lewis in the proposed Local Government Bill for Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I have received to-day the following telegram from Stornoway:—
"The Lewis Road Trustees are annually elected in terms of Section 80 of the Ross and Cromarty Road Act, 1866, which limits the qualification to tenants rented at no less than £50 per annum, four Trustees are annually appointed by the Parochial Boards of Lewis, and four nominated by the proprietor, the proprietor and factor being Trustees ex officio in terms of the Act. Meetings are held, when necessary, in addition to the annual statutory meeting, and the accounts are audited and open to inspection; but to save expense, and as the Act does not require it, they are not printed. All lands and heritages in the Valuation Roll are assessed in terms of the Act. Several townships have no road to them. The Trustees have no power under the Act to construct new roads or bridges. William Gillanders, accountant in Lady Matheson's employment, is clerk, collector, and treasurer to the Lewis Road

307
Trustees, the salary attached to these combined offices being £30, and not £40 as stated. The roads within burghs are managed by the Police Commissioners alone. Remarks only apply to landward district."

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND)—EXAMINATION CENTRES, BELFAST.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the gentleman appointed this year by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education to select Examination Halls for the Belfast centres, and to receive and distribute the signature rolls and boxes containing the examination packets and stationery to the Centre Superintendents of Belfast and the North of Ireland, had thereby, unavoidably, an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the centre numbers, the names of the students attending the centres, and the schools or Colleges at which such students studied; whether the gentleman referred to acted also as General Superintendent at Belfast, visiting from time to time the different centres in that town, and also acted as one of the examiners in English of the junior and senior grade, and was able to identify a student as belonging to a particular school or College in Belfast, or the North of Ireland, by means of the centre number written on the back of each student's envelope enclosing the answer books; and, whether he will consider of devising a system by which the name of the student and the place of education will be unknown to the examiner?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The Assistant Education Commissioners inform me that under the system of the Intermediate Education Board the students examined are known to the examiners by their examination numbers only. It is true that one of the examiners in the present year also acted as supervisor generally of the conduct of the examinations in Belfast. In the latter capacity the gentleman in question received from the office and distributed certain signature rolls which contained the numbers and names of students, but not their school or College addresses; and there is no reason to suppose that he
308
made use of his position for the purpose of identifying any of the candidates whose papers he subsequently examined.

UNITED STATES—AMERICAN COPYRIGHT—THE PROPOSED ENACTMENT.
MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the injury which will be caused to British authors and publishers, no less than to paper makers, compositors, and kindred industries of the United Kingdom, by the proposed enactment in the United States of the legislative provision that American copyright shall only be given to works composed by American labour upon American paper, has been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and what action has been taken in the matter?
THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): My attention has been drawn to these provisions of the proposed legislation on the subject of copyright in the United States. I think the provisions generally are favourable to English authors; but no doubt there is a portion of the Bill which may be injurious to English publishers and the printing trade in England. I inquired into the subject, and ascertained that so much importance was attached to these provisions in the United States that it was not at all likely that any representation from Her Majesty's Government in favour of their withdrawal would be entertained. I shall, therefore, not be able to move the Foreign Office to make any such representations. I think, however, that the matter may be further considered with advantage when we deal with copyright legislation in this country.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupposed the right hon. Gentleman would not undertake the responsibility of impeding legislation which conferred benefits on British authors?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, his impression was distinctly that the proposed legislation would be beneficial to English authors; and he should be sorry, on their account, to lose the legislation, in spite of the provisions to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Howard Vincent) referred.

CONSULAR SERVICE—THE HOSPITALS AT CONSTANTINOPLE AND SMYRNA—FEES.
COLONEL HILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now state the intention of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the excessive dues at present levied on British shipping for the maintenance of hospitals at Constantinople and Smyrna?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I regret that I am not in a position to state the intention of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the excessive dues at present levied on British shipping for the maintenance of hospitals at Constantinople and Smyrna. The matter is still under the consideration of the Departments concerned.

WAR OFFICE—ENLISTMENT IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
MR. ANDERSON(for Dr. R. M'DONALD)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the case of three young men from Branish, in the Island of Lewis, named respectively Donald Macritchie, aged 19, Donald Mackinnon, aged 17, and Malcolm Buchanan, aged 20, who, having enlisted in Stornoway while under the influence of drink on July 3, were arrested as deserters on July 18, and compelled by the local police to walk to Stornoway, without food or refreshment of any sort, for a distance of 44 miles, and have been in prison ever since; why was the bail that has been offered for their liberation not accepted; if he can explain why Mackinnon, who is under age, has been imprisoned as a deserter, when he ought not to have been enlisted without some proof of his being the full age; and, whether, if a certified copy of his birth register is produced, he will be set at liberty?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, his attention was first drawn to the matter by the hon. Member's Question, and a full Report had been called for.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—ISLAND OF LEWIS—THE SCHOOLHOUSE OF CROMORE.
DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If it is a fact that in the Island of Lewis the schoolhouse of Cromore is eight miles from a public road, that of Planasker or Macraig nine miles, those of Keosharder, Graver, and Lenmera respectively four miles; whether the average attendance at those schools ranges from 45 to 55 children, and whether each family in the district are bound to pay 10 s. per annum for road money; and, whether, considering the poverty of the people and the facility with which cheap labour can be got in this district, the Government will act on the recommendations in Mr. Machoil's Report, and bring pressure to bear on the Road Trustees to have roads made in this district, or give a grant-in-aid to carry out this necessary improvement, and at the same time prevent a number of families from dying of slow starvation for want of adequate food?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The facts in the first two paragraphs are not quite correct—Cromore schoolhouse being distant seven and not eight miles, and that of Planaskar or Macraig being eight and not nine miles distant from a public road. The average attendance ranges from 36 to 57, and not 45 to 55 as stated. The Government have no power to bring pressure upon the Road Trustees in order to compel or induce them to make roads in any district. The question of a grant-in-aid for local public purposes is a very large one, and is one of general public policy. I would point out to the hon. Member that even were such grant given the relief would only be of a temporary nature, as has already been proved by the former employment of the inhabitants for the formation of roads by the proprietor of the Island.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) LAND)—CONFISCATION OF FISHING GEAR AND COBLE IN THE CROMARTY FIRTH.
DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If, on

311
May 10 last, a fisherman of the name of Robert Hogg, belonging to the village of Saltburn, near Invergordon, had his fishing-gear and coble confiscated by the water-bailiffs of the district while fishing in the bay near his residence, without any explanation being given as to the reason for the confiscation; by what right, or under what statute, such confiscation has been made; whether he is aware that the said Hogg has fished in the Cromarty Firth for the last 20 years, in the locality in which he has now been interfered with, with a similar boat and nets, without once being interfered with; whether the water-bailiffs have a right to hold Hogg's property, as they still do, for an unlimited period; and, if he is guilty of a criminal offence, why he is not prosecuted for the same, instead of being deprived of his means of making a living for an indefinite length of time?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Last year Hogg was suspected of illegally taking salmon, and was cautioned. He was again cautioned in February last. On the occasion in question, he was seen illegally fishing during the night for about three hours, aided by three other persons, and in his boat 38 fish were found. The net was of a mesh forbidden bye-law, and was made like a salmon-fishing net. The seizure was made under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act of 1862, and Section 15 of the Act of 1868. I am not aware that Hogg had fished for salmon for 20 years with such nets and boats; but if he did so he committed an offence against the law. As already stated, he was twice warned before this seizure. The delay in instituting legal proceedings has been, in my opinion, most improper; but for this the criminal authorities are not responsible, as these cases are not reported to, or conducted by, the Crown Prosecutor. I have, however, called attention to the impropriety of a prosecution being so long delayed, particularly where articles have been seized; but I must add that it is incorrect to say that Hogg is deprived of his means of living. He has since the seizure been pursuing his proper avocation as a deep sea fisher, for which the boat and net seized were quite unsuitable.

POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—CARRIAGE OF MAILS IN THE NORTH.
DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Postmaster General, If any progress is being made in the negotiations with the Highland Railway as to the carriage of mails in the North, and at what stage they have now arrived; if it is a fact that a letter, posted at 3 p.m. in Invergordon for Dingwall, 12 miles distant, with several trains passing to and from each place daily, does not arrive at the latter place till 11 a.m. next day; is it the case that letters posted North of Invergordon are carried past there to Inverness, and are returned thence from Inverness and delivered next day about 2 p.m.; if all letters from Golspie to Inverness, 66 miles, are carried on to Inverness, sorted there, and returned Northwards again, causing a delay of about a day in the delivery of letters in the intervening districts; is it a fact that the Highland Railway Company demand £5,000 per annum more for the postal work than they used to get; if the matter has been referred to arbitration; and, at what time negotiations were entered into to have the matter settled before June 30, when the contract expired?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is understood to be the intention of the Highland Railway Company to refer to arbitration the question of the remuneration for the conveyance of the mails on the Highland Railway. The facts as regards Invergordon are stated by the hon. Member with substantial accuracy. Some portion of the correspondence from the North, however, is delivered, not the next day, but the same day. Letters from Golspie to Inverness are certainly carried on to Inverness; but this is an arrangement which I presume must be satisfactory to all concerned. If the hon. Member, however, refers to letters from Golspie to places between Golspie and Inverness—such as Dornoch, Tain, Dingwall, and so on—I have to state that they are sent in direct bags, and delivered the same day. It is a fact that the Highland Railway Company demand for a renewal of the contract £5,000 a-year, in addition to the high payment previously received. I have considered it my duty to resist this

313
demand, and leave the Company to their remedy. Various communications respecting the renewal of the contract passed between the Railway Company and the Post Office prior to June 30, the earliest being in February last. The arbitration will probably take place in October next.

IRISH CHURCH ACT—SECTION 25— RELIGIOUS SERVICES ON THE ROCK OF CASHEL.
VISCOUNT GRIMSTON(for Colonel SAUNDERSON)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the Secretary of the Board of Works gave permission to the Roman Catholic Dean of Cashel to hold religious services in the Ruin on the Rock of Cashel on July 15 last; whether he is aware that such permission is in express contravention to the 25th section of the Irish Church Act; and, whether he will take steps that no such violation of the law shall again occur?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer this Question. The Board received an application from the Rev. Mr. Kinane for permission for a procession of Temperance and other Societies to visit the Rock of Cashel on July 15, and stating it was their intention to wind up with some prayers. He was informed, in reply, to the following effect—
"That the provisions of the Irish Church Act strictly prohibited any structure vested in this Board for preservation as a national monument being used as a place of public worship; but as the Board understood that the proposed procession did not, strictly speaking, come within the prohibition above referred to, they would not raise any objection to its taking place."
The Board, on learning by the newspaper reports that a formal religious ceremony had been held on the occasion referred to, immediately wrote to the Rev. Mr. Kinane to the effect that such proceeding as that which had taken place was a violation of the provisions of the Statute, and that they would not permit any religious ceremony to be held by any denomination at any national monument under their charge.

FIRST OFFENDERS ACT, 1887—NEW ZEALAND.
MR. S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the great success attending the working of the First Offenders Act in New Zealand, and to the fact that it saved the Colony in prison expenses last year no less a sum than £3,226 5s. 9d., and to the large number of first offenders brought back to honest livelihood under its operation without being subjected to the contamination of prison influence; and, if he can give any particulars as to the operation in the United Kingdom of "The Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have seen the Report of the Inspector of Prisons in New Zealand showing that this Act has been successfully carried out there. I have no official information as to its operation in this country; but I will take steps to ascertain, as far as possible, to what extent the Act has been put in force, and with what result.

WAR OFFICE—THE ARMY RESERVE— DEFERRED PAY—CASE OF J. W. EVESON.
MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after serving for five years or thereabouts in the Scots Guards, J. W. Eveson was by consent transferred, about three or four months ago, to the Army Reserve, and received £15 of deferred pay; whether, on being offered private employment on condition of purchasing his discharge, he was informed by the War Office that the cost would be £18; whether, on subsequently forwarding his papers, he was then for the first time made aware that he must refund his deferred pay in addition; and, whether this was demanded in virtue of a Royal Warrant; and, if so, what was its date?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The proceedings in connection with the discharge of J. W. Eveson, of the Scots Guards, were entirely in accordance with Article 609 of the Current Pay and Promotion Warrant, which is a reproduction of similar Articles in force since

315
1881. If repayment of the deferred pay were not insisted upon in such cases any soldier could purchase his discharge from the Army Reserve with his deferred pay, and thus avoid all Reserve service.

ADMIRALTY (MACHINERY, &c.)—ENGINES OF H.M.S. "BLAKE."
MR. LEATHAM BRIGHT (Stoke-upon-Trent)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is correct, as stated in the Press, that the contract for the engines of H.M.S. Blake has been given out; whether the engines are to be built to a Government specification; and, whether the makers of the engines, building to a Government specification, take upon themselves absolute responsibility in regard to their efficiency in every particular?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)(who replied) said: The information given by the Press as to the contract for the engines of Her Majesty's ship Blake, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, is correct.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS BUTLER AND GREGORY.
MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Sub-Commissioners Butler and Gregory, in May last, while engaged in valuing the farm of Timothy M'Carthy, a tenant of Lord Muskerry, partook of luncheon provided by the landlord; if it is contrary to any Rule or recommendations of the Land Commission that Sub-Commissioners should accept hospitality from a landlord while performing official duty; and, considering the decisions of the Limerick Sub-Commission have given such dissatisfaction that a public meeting was recently held in Newcastle West with reference to the insufficiency of the reductions given to tenants by this Sub-Commission, he will direct Messrs. Butler and Gregory to refrain from a practice which may have the effect of lessening public confidence in their impartiality?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners informed him that they
316
had asked the Assistant Commissioners for a statement with regard to the alleged occurrence.

CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS—SUPERANNUATION.
MR. KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Minute of June 1, 1882, relative to the superannuation of writers, is applicable to writers transferred to the establishment of the Civil Service since the date of the Minute in question?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): This Minute applies only to copyists whose original employment commenced before August 19, 1871, and continued without interruption until their transfer to the establishment. It does not apply to copyists whose continuous employment commenced at any later date.

WAR OFFICE—FOOD SUPPLY OF INFANTRY SOLDIERS.
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement by Colonel Onslow, reported in The Times of June 7, to the effect that "The Infantry soldier did not have enough meals;" whether his attention had been called to a statement by Lord Wolseley, reported in the same issue, as follows:—
"That our men did not get enough to eat went without showing, because there was not a regiment in which the men did not, in a large measure, supplement the rations given them. It would be, he was sure, a wise thing if the rations of the soldiers were increased;"
whether, in view of these statements, he will make such arrangements as may be necessary for the fulfilment of the promise made to the men on enlistment that they should have "free rations;" and, whether the Commission, now sitting on the Army, could be instructed to take evidence as to the general welfare of the rank and file of the Army?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): As I stated a few days ago, I have decided to appoint a strong Committee to consider fully the subject of soldiers' rations; but I do not think that it would be a proper subject to refer to the Royal Commission which is now sitting.

METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE—FIRE ESCAPES.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the expediency of making arrangements with Captain Shaw (Chief of the Fire Brigade) to provide for a continuous attendance of men with fire escapes, so as to avoid, as much as possible, the lamentable and fatal results which occurred at the Edgware Road and Wigmore Street fires?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have communicated with the Chief of the Fire Brigade on this matter; and he informs me that, with the present number of firemen in the Brigade, it would not be possible to provide a continuous attendance of men with fire escapes; but the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a valuable one, and will, no doubt, engage the attention of the new authority in which the control of the Brigade will shortly be vested.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, this great city should be left exposed to a risk of loss of life, which they now knew was not speculative, from recent calamities between now and the appointment of the new authorities?
MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would be extremely happy to supply any remedy for the undoubted shortcomings as compared with the needs of the Metropolis, but he had no means to do so without legislation.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, that £5,000 would cover the whole of the expense necessary.

POST OFFICE—CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY—CONTRACT FOR CONVEYANCE OF MAILS.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the terms of the contract for the conveyance of the mails between Canada and Hong Kong have been finally agreed upon between Her Majesty's Government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and, if so, when he proposes to lay the contract before the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; the terms are practically agreed upon; but the contract cannot be signed in time to be presented to Parliament before the Autumn Session.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE EXKING OF WASSAR.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Memorial has been received from the ex-King of Wassar, now detained a prisoner at Lagos; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the allegations in such Memorial?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): That Memorial has been received. The Secretary of State is inclined to think that if there is a general desire among the people of Wassar for the ex-King's return, and if it would not be likely to lead to disturbances or civil war, it might be allowed, provided that adequate security were taken for his good behaviour; but further inquiry shall be made.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
MR. COBB(for Mr. PICTON)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received from the Governor of Lagos, or any of the authorities on the coast, as to the number of Natives killed within the last 12 months by persons in the employ of the Royal Niger Company?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We have not heard of any persons so killed, except in an unfortunate collision between the leader of an expedition into the interior and some of the men attached to him, which is at present the subject of inquiry.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS—REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the Vice Chamberlain, If he will inform the House what steps, if any, the Government propose to take

319
with reference to the important recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Pleuro-pneumonia and Tuberculosis in the United Kingdom recently presented to Parliament; whether anything is to be done with regard to compulsory slaughter and payment of compensation out of National Funds in case of pleuro-pneumonia, as recommended by the Committee; and, whether, in view of the grave disclosures in the Report as to the existing danger to public health by the spread of tuberculosis, it is the intention of the Government to deal with the recommendations of the Committee as to the exposure, sale, and disposal of diseased animals and carcases?
VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The recommendations of the Committee on Pleuro-pneumonia and Tuberculosis have been carefully considered by the Lords of the Council, and an Order of Council is now being drafted for their consideration, which embraces such parts of the recommendations of the Committee as can be effected without fresh legislation. The payment of compensation for pleuro-pneumonia out of the Public Funds can only be sanctioned by Parliament; but the recommendations with regard to tuberculosis can be generally carried out by the Privy Council under their existing powers.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—APPROPRIATION OF THE PROBATE DUTY GRANT.
SIR TINDAL ROBERTSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in settling the basis for the appropriation of the Probate Duty grant between the several counties and county boroughs constituted by the Local Government Bill, he will in the case of those county boroughs which have not hitherto claimed any particular grant—such, for instance, as the grant-in-aid of the salaries of Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspector, or the grant-in-aid of main roads—add to the actual amount of the grants paid to the several localities the amounts to which they would have been entitled in respect of the unclaimed grants if application had been made for them?
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The
320
Local Government Bill does not confer on the Local Government Board any power to proceed as suggested in the distribution of the Probate Duty grant. It is, of course, too late to make any alteration in the Bill in this respect; and, if it were not, I think it would not be practicable, in determining what grants were payable for certain purposes in the different counties and districts in the last financial year, to take into consideration what sums might have been payable during that year under the existing system of grants if circumstances had been different from what they actually were.

UNITED STATES—HUGH BROOKS, OTHERWISE MAXWELL, CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF ARTHUR PRELLER.
MR. KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement that has recently been published in the newspapers to the effect that Sir Lionel West has sent a Note to Mr. Bayard, the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stating that a respite was desired by the British Government for Hugh Brooks, otherwise Maxwell, who was convicted of the murder of Arthur Preller at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri; and, whether it is usual for instructions to be given to British Ministers accredited to Foreign Powers to make similar representations in such cases; and, whether, if not, he will state what are the precise special circumstances in the case of the barbarous murder of Arthur Preller which have been considered a sufficient ground for taking a course of an unusual character?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): In consequence of the urgent appeals received from Hugh Brooks' father and from his attorneys at St. Louis, Sir Lionel West was instructed to ask of the United States Secretary of State or the Governor of Missouri, as he might deem best, a respite for further inquiry; but this was to be done only if, in Sir Lionel West's judgment, there was any ground for believing that injustice was being done in the case. He replied that an application for respite had been forwarded to the

321
Governor by Mr. Bayard. We do not know whether that application was made upon Sir Lionel West's representations, or, if so, on what ground Sir Lionel West acted. It is usual for Foreign Representatives to solicit consideration by the Governments to which they are accredited of cases for inquiry into the justice of judicial sentences where primâ facie grounds are apparent.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)— KILLARNEY DISTRICT ASYLUM.
MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON(for Mr. SHEEHAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who appointed the Clerk of Works to the additional building, Killarney District Lunatic Asylum, and if the appointment has been sanctioned by the Board of Works, or by the Lord Lieutenant; whether the person appointed is already acting in the capacity of Engineer to that Institution; what training has he received to qualify him for either of those positions, and on whose recommendation have the appointments been made; and, whether these two appointments can be held by the same person?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, this Question had appeared on the previous day on the Notice Paper, and he understood that it had been answered by the Secretary to the Treasury, for the answer appeared in The Times.
MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he had any recollection of having answered the Question; and, if not, how it was that the Question appeared as answered in the London Times?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I had a written answer to the Question referred to with me yesterday. It was with other answers to Questions which I had brought down to the House. I cannot remember at this moment whether the Question was put to me or not. If it was not put, I can only suppose that the answer was sent to the Press with the other answers which I had with me, and which were all attached together.
MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, what special claim The Times had
322
to copies of Ministerial answers relating to local Irish Questions?
MR. JACKSON: The Times has no special claim. The answers are sent up to the Gallery, and dealt with by the reporters.

POST OFFICE CONTRACTS—CHARGES ON LETTERS TO INDIA.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is in contemplation to reduce the charge on letters to India and the East from 5d. per letter to 2½d., the latter amount being charged from France, Germany, and other Continental countries to English Possessions in India, &c.; and, whether it is his intention to give English and Indian correspondents the benefit of the £100,000 saved on the Indian Mail Contract this year?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am very glad to see my hon. Friend back to his Parliamentary duties, although he has signalized his re-appearance by giving Notice of a fire of Questions. In answer to this Question, I have to say that it is not in contemplation to reduce the postage on letters to India and the East in the manner suggested in the first part of the hon. Member's Question. The saving referred to in the second part of the Question is not a profit, but merely a reduction in the amount of a heavy loss. I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 14th of February last to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean).

POST OFFICE CONTRACTS—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS TO AND FROM AUSTRALIA.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether the contract for the conveyance of mails to and from Australia has been signed; under what terms are the mails being conveyed now, and what payments are being made to the Steamship Companies; when will the contract be submitted to Parliament for approval; is the proposed contract entirely distinct from the Indian contract; and, have the Australian Governments remonstrated against the days fixed for the departure of the mails from Australia, and with what result?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Contracts for the conveyance of mails to and from Australia by the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Steam Navigation Companies have been signed; and these are entirely separate and distinct instruments from that which regulates the India and China Service. The Australian Governments are not at present entirely satisfied with the arrangements made for the departure of the mails from Australia; and it is because there are the weightiest reasons against making the alteration demanded in those arrangements that the instruments referred to have not yet been laid before the House of Commons. It would be premature to submit to the House contracts embodying an arrangement which the Colonial Governments may, after all, wish to repudiate; but as soon as I am assured that the hesitation of those Governments as regards the carrying out of the arrangements has been overcome, the contracts can at once be submitted to the House. Meanwhile, the mails are being provisionally carried under the terms of the contracts; and payments on account are being made to the Companies without prejudice to the provisions of the contract relating to the ultimate approval of the House of Commons.

FRANCE—ARREST OF ENGLISH SUBJECTS AT DUNKIRK.
MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any steps have been taken to obtain from the French Government compensation for the arrest of two gentlemen—namely, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Blight, on June 11 last, in Dunkirk?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A full inquiry into the circumstances of the arrest of Messrs. Underwood and Blight has been made by the French Government; and the explanations given are considered by Her Majesty's Government to be satisfactory. The French military commandant at Dunkirk, with whom the responsibility rested, and who acted from an excess of zeal, has been reprimanded. There is no question, therefore, of demanding compensation.

AFRICA (CENTRAL)—EXPEDITION FOR THE RELIEF OF EMIN PASHA— LIEUTENANT WISSMANN.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Lieutenant Wissmann, who has lately been received by the King of the Belgians and the Emperor of Germany, is about to accompany an Expedition for the relief of Emin Pasha; and, if so, what is the nature of that Expedition?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such Expedition as that referred to.

METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE(for Mr. BAUMANN)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which was appointed in 1876 to inquire into the Metropolitan Fire Brigade; and, whether he intends to take any steps to carry out the recommendation of that Report, that the Fire Brigade should be incorporated with the Metropolitan Police?
MR. LAWSONasked, whether the suggestion so made had not been deliberately rejected by every Government that had been in power since?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I cannot answer the second Question without Notice. Certainly, it has not been acted upon so much as I know. I am aware of the Report referred to by my hon. Friend; but, as I stated yesterday, the question of a re-organization of the Fire Brigade is one that can hardly be dealt with by the Government at the present time, when the Brigade is about to be handed over to the London County Council.

NORTH BORNEO—A BRITISH PROTECTORATE.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there is any truth in the statement going the

325
round of the newspapers that arrangements are in progress for an extension of the British Empire in the shape of a Protectorate over North Borneo and other countries of the Indian Archipelago?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have already stated that the question of a British Protectorate over parts of North Borneo is the subject of negotiations not yet completed.

CRIMINAL LAW—CAPITAL PUNISHMENT—EXECUTION OF CRIMINALS.
SIR TINDAL ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a recent Report, addressed to the Governor of the State of New York, as to the best mode of conducting the execution of criminals in that state; and, whether he is prepared to recommend the adoption of either of the methods recommended in that Report—namely, execution by electricity, or by the injection of morphia, or by the lethal chamber invented for the painless killing of the lower animals by Dr. B. W. Richardson, or of any other system of executing criminals more in accordance with the humane feelings of the present day than the barbarous and unscientific method now practised in this country?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; my attention has not been called to this Report; but I have seen a copy of an Act recently passed in the State of New York providing for the infliction of the death penalty by electricity. The Government are not prepared to introduce legislation with the view of altering the method of carrying out executions. I will, however, undertake to give careful consideration to the suggestions of my hon. Friend.

POST OFFICE—PAYMENT OF THE LONDON AND DUBLIN OFFICIALS.
MR. CLANCYasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that though the men employed in the different grades in the Dublin Post Office are supposed to be on the same footing in the Service as men in corresponding grades in London depôts,
326
yet the London officials when employed on Sundays in the Parcel Post delivery receive double the rate at which the Dublin officials are paid; and, if so, what is the reason of the distinction made between the two classes of officials, and whether it will be abolished?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir; it is not a fact.
MR. CLANCY: Is it not a fact that the London men receive 1s. 6d. per hour, and the Dublin men only 9d.?
MR. RAIKES: If the hon. Gentleman will put his Question in writing, I will make further inquiry.

POST OFFICE—LETTER SORTERS IN THE HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN PACKET POST OFFICE.
MR. CLANCYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet given any reply to the Memorial from the letter sorters employed in the Holyhead and Kingstown Packet Post Office, in which they have asked to be put on an equality with all other travelling sorters, by being granted the usual extra pay for Sunday work, and to have, as regards their pay generally, account taken of the exceptional character of the service in which they are engaged; and, if an answer has been given, whether he would state its substance; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir; an answer has not yet been given. The Question, though apparently simple, involves the consideration of other allowances which the Holyhead and Kingstown sorters receive. However, I am not without hopes that a decision may now be given shortly.
MR. CLANCY: Will it be another 12 months?
MR. RAIKES: I hope not.

EAST INDIA (HYDERABAD (DECCAN) MINING COMPANY)—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE—MR. FURNIVALL.
MR. KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the statements made with reference to Mr. Furnivall on page ix. of the Report from the Select Committee on East

327
India (Hyderabad (Deccan) Mining Company), to the effect that Mr. Furnivall, who was recently in the employ of the Government of India, but has now retired on a pension, received from Mr. W. C. Watson 500 shares in the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company, "for nothing;" that he sold these shares at £11 each, and therefore realized £5,500 for them; whether Mr. Furnivall will be required to refund such sum of £5,000 to the shareholders of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company; and, whether, in the event of his refusing to refund such moneys, the Indian Government will take steps to secure the amount being repaid to these shareholders out of the pension payable to Mr. Furnivall?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the statements respecting Mr. Furnivall in the Report of the Select Committee on the Hyderabad (Deccan) Mining Company. As, however, Mr. Furnivall had retired from the service of the Government of India before the transactions in question took place, it is not within the competence of the Secretary of State to take any action in the matter.

EAST INDIA (HYDERABAD (DECCAN) MINING COMPANY)—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE—MR. HUGHES.
MR. KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the statements made with reference to Mr. Hughes, on page ix. of the Report from the Select Committee on East India (Hyderabad (Deccan) Mining Company), to the effect that Mr. Hughes, a Government official in India, one of the Superintendents of the Survey, was nevertheless allowed by that Government to be employed and paid by the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company to ascertain the value of the concession obtained from the Nizam, that he received from Mr. W. C. Watson, the promoter and director of the Company, shares of the value of £3,200, only paying £1,000 for them, and that this transaction amounted, according to the statement of Mr. Watson, to a gift by him to Mr. Hughes, who, in return, was to "work and throw his whole energies into it;" whether Mr.
328
Hughes will be required to refund this sum of £2,200 to the shareholders of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company; whether it is proposed to take, and, if so, what, steps with reference to Mr. Hughes in respect of his transactions with Mr. Watson; whether, whilst employed and paid by Mr. Watson, Mr. Hughes received any official salary as Superintendent of the Survey; and, if so, at what rate per month; and, whether the Indian Government will take the necessary steps so as to prevent for the future their officials from acting for and receiving payment from speculators in that Empire?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has noticed the statements, to which the attention of the Government of India will at once be called. Mr. Hughes's services were lent to the Deccan Company, they arranging for his remuneration. During his employment under the Company no salary was paid to him from the Indian Treasury.

LAW OF COPYRIGHT—LEGISLATION.
MR. SUMMERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that on September 14, 1886, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question, said—
"The Board of Trade fully recognize the necessity for legislation in connection with the Law of Copyright. … and that they will not fail to give the matter their best consideration during the Recess;"
and, whether he can state to the House what is the result of the consideration given by the Board of Trade to this subject during the last two years?
THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The quotation may be correct; and the result of the consideration has been that my Predecessors did not feel able to propose legislation on this subject, while, in my own time, the Government have been too much occupied with other matters. I will look into the question during the Recess.

INDIA—INLAND EMIGRATION ACT, 1882—THE COOLIES IN THE ASSAM TEA GARDENS.
MR. SUMMERSasked the Under Secretary of State for India,

329
Whether his attention has been called to the statements in the Native Press of India, which are borne out by the Reports of the Chief Commissioner and Sanitary Commissioner of Assam, that the abuses to which the coolies are subjected, in many instances, amount to conditions of slavery, and are certainly such as to demand immediate attention; and, whether he will give directions to the Executive Authorities in India to take steps at once to mitigate the serious hardships inflicted on these labourers, pending the enactment of such alterations in the Inland Emigration Act of 1882 as are evidently required?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has noticed statements of the kind referred to; but he cannot admit their accuracy. As stated to the House on August 6, the Secretary of State requested the Government of India in November, 1886, to watch narrowly the working of the Emigration Act of 1882. He does not consider it necessary to issue further instructions to the Government of India, as he is satisfied that the Government of India is alive to the importance of the subject, and has now under consideration the Memorial of the Indian Association.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE FRANCHISE FOR COUNTY COUNCILLORS—THE POLICE.
MR. BIG WOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that members of the Police Force (other than lodger voters), whilst enjoying the Parliamentary franchise, are nevertheless debarred from voting for the election of County Councillors?
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The matter is not one altogether free from doubt; but the conclusion at which I have arrived, from the advice which I have received on the subject, is that members of the Police Force will not be debarred from voting at the election of County Councillors.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS— THE SANDHURST EXAMINATIONS— MARKS.
MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary to the Trea-
330
sury, Whether there is any objection to giving the marks obtained by candidates at the recent Sandhurst examination in each of the two mathematical papers set at that examination instead of the marks obtained in the two combined; and, whether, for the future, the Rule will be laid down that the marks obtained by each candidate in each several paper set by the examiners under the Civil Service Commission will be given separately?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman will see that his Question implies doubt as to the fairness or capacity of the officers of the Civil Service Commission; and he appears to desire that material should be afforded to this House to enable it to review the course and the results of the examinations undertaken by the Commissioners. It would, in the judgment of the Government, be quite impossible to sanction such a proceeding. The decisions of the Commissioners are final by the authority of the Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council under which they are constituted. The Government have no right of interference; and, in their judgment, it would be impossible for any other authority to intervene without extreme peril to the highest public interests.
MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he had no desire whatever to review the work of the Civil Service Commissioners. All he asked was whether it would not be possible for the examiners to give the exact number of marks obtained by each candidate?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We have not thought it reasonable in the circumstances.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: Every other body of examiners does so.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS—SITTING IN DUBLIN.
MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, though the Land Commissioners have at last announced that a Sub-Commission will sit again in Dublin County in September, several Dublin cases, in which the originating notices were served 12 months ago, are not listed for hearing on that occasion; whether he is aware that the landlords in some of those cases are attempting, by threat of legal proceedings, to exact the old rents without

331
abatement; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Government will be prepared to suggest to the Land Commission the advisability of adding to the number of the Land Courts in Dublin County, or otherwise hastening the disposal of the arrears of business referred to, the delay in dealing with which has already occasioned so much hardship?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state that the list of cases for the next sitting of a Sub-Commission in the County Dublin has not yet been published. It will include all cases received at their office up to and including September 28 last. The Commissioners intend to avail themselves of the services of the new Assistant Commissioners in those districts where the claims appear to them to be most pressing.
MR. CLANCYinquired, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had found it was a fact, as he (Mr. Clancy) stated, that notices served a year ago were precluded, would he adopt the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the Question?
MR. MADDENsaid, a revision of the Sub-Commissioners rested with the Land Commission.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POST OFFICE AT CARLOW.
MR. CLANCY(for Mr. CAREW)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet come to any decision relative to a site for a new post office in the town of Carlow, the existing post office in which place has been described by the Town Commissioners, and by the Post Office Inspector, as totally unsuited to the requirements of the locality?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Advertisement has recently been made for the site of the premises to be purchased or retained by the Department for a post office at Carlow, and when all the offers have been received, no time will be lost in arriving at a decision.
MR. CLANCY: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman how it happens that matters relating to post offices in Ireland are always delayed an unnecessarily long time?
MR. RAIKES: Delay has occurred owing to the difficulty of obtaining premises. I hope, now that the premises have been got, no further delay will occur.

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADES MARKS ACT, 1883—SECTION 27— OFFICERS OF DEPARTMENTS—SIR FREDERICK ABEL.
MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)asked the Secretary of State for War, Why, and when, Sir Frederick Abel ceased to be chemist to the War Department, and if he is in receipt of any pension; whether, before taking out the patent for a smokeless explosive in November, 1886, he first obtained the sanction of the Secretary of State, in accordance with the Rule requiring him to do so; and, in regard to Sir Frederick Abel's statement that he took out the patent for the purpose of reserving to the War Department the right of making and using it, whether the right of making use of any invention is reserved to the Crown under Section 27 of "The Patents, Designs, and Trades Marks Act, 1883," and provision made by section 44 of the same Act for enabling an inventor to put the War Department in possession of any improvement in munitions of war which he may discover, so that the Secretary of State may himself take out a patent for such improvement without any particulars relating to it coming to the knowledge of a Foreign Power; and, whether the patent taken out for the manufacture of a smokeless explosive by Sir Frederick Abel, when he was chemist to the War Department, is now vested in the Secretary of State?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Sir Frederick Abel ceased to be chemist to the War Department on July 10, when he was appointed President of the Committee on Explosives. He is still in receipt of effective pay. Sir Frederick Abel's invention of a smokeless explosive was patented by him for the purpose of securing to the War Department priority of invention and the right of making and using it; and he did not think it necessary, under the circumstances, to obtain permission for so doing. The right of making use of any invention is reserved to the Crown under Section 27 of the Patents Act, subject to

333
terms agreed upon before or after use with the approval of the Treasury. It is not customary for patents to stand in the name of the Secretary of State, except in special cases of secrecy; but Sir Frederick Abel is perfectly ready to transfer his patent to the War Office.

FACTORIES ACT—MESSRS. ROBINSON, CURRIE, & CO., ABERDEEN.
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would make inquiries as to the truth of the statement that the mills of Messrs. Robinson, Currie, & Co., in Aberdeen (whose workers are at present on strike) have been for the last few years run 15 minutes per day more than the legal time; and, if he will order the practice to be stopped?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had instructed the Chief Inspector of Factories to make immediate inquiry into the truth of the statement.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— FLOODS IN THE CHALK FARM DISTRICT.
MR. LAWSONasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have caused inquiries to be made as to the flooding of houses in the Chalk Farm District of St. Pancras; whether representations have been made by the Vestry to this effect; whether a grave nuisance and danger to the health of the neighbourhood have been caused thereby; and, what steps are to be taken to remedy the defective drainage to which it is due?
COLONEL HUGHES(who replied) said: Representations have been made to the Metropolitan Board by the Vestry of St. Pancras as to the flooding of houses in the Chalk Farm District. No doubt those floodings are a great nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. It is certain, however, that the flooding is not due to the insufficiency of the main sewers under the control of the Metropolitan Board. The Board's main sewers were lowered some years since, in order that the drainage might be made more effective, and a subsidiary main sewer was made to take the storm water during heavy rain.
334
Observations, which are always made by the Board's officers after heavy storms, show that the Board's new main sewer in Kentish Town Road has never yet been filled since its construction. The local sewers, which belong to the Vestry, ought to have been lowered when the Board's sewers were lowered; but this work has not been done. The reconstruction of the local sewers at a lower level would probably be effectual to prevent the flooding complained of.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consider whether it may be possible, in the Autumn Session, to introduce a Bill for the reconstitution of the Scotch Fishery Board, a Bill to create District Fishery and Harbour Boards for Scotland, as recommended by the Fishery Board, and a Bill relating to salmon and trout fishing in Scotland?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir. The subject will be considered during the Recess.

AGRICULTURE—DAIRY SCHOOLS— THE GRANT-IN-AID.
SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the noble Viscount the Vice Chamberlain, Whether he was in a position to state what grants, if any, had been made, or if it had been decided to make a grant, out of the specially allotted sum of £5,000, to any agricultural or dairy school, or otherwise for the advancement of agriculture; and, if no such information could now be given, whether he would lay on the Table of the House a statement of such grants, and the conditions on which they had been given?
VISCOUNT LEWISHAM, in reply, said, he was unable at the moment to afford the desired information; but he would make inquiries and ascertain if it were possible to comply with the request which had been made.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—CONVICTION OF MR. J. O'KELLY, M.P.—SUPPLY OF DRINK TO IRISH WITNESSES.
MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the Solicitor

335
General for Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice in reference to the sentence of Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, M.P. It was, Whether the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to the statements on cross-examination of Constable Clear, a witness in the case, to the effect—
"That he had given drink to witnesses whom he had summoned to attend a private inquiry under the Crimes Act at Loughrea. That he gave the witnesses the drink in the ordinary course of friendship in a general way, the same as to any others, not knowing at the time that they would become witnesses, and that he had not given drink to persons after he had known they had become witnesses."
He also asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the witnesses referred to were witnesses at what were known as a Star Chamber inquiry in Ireland; whether this treating of witnesses was not the usual practice among the Constabulary in Ireland; whether the conduct of Constable Clear had not the approval of his superior officers; and, whether the cost of the drink was defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, his attention had only been called to the matter by the Question of the hon. Gentleman, and he was not in a position now to give an answer; but he would make inquiries.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether the Government will take any steps to remit the sentence passed on my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Kelly) on the evidence of persons who, according to this policeman, had been supplied with drink by him; and, also, whether the Government, who frequently issue Circulars to the Constabulary Force in Ireland, would have any objection to inform the police that it is undesirable and criminal to give drink to persons about to be examined on oath with a view to influence their evidence?
MR. MADDEN: The Question of the hon. Member is founded on the hypothesis that the drink was given to the witness. I have promised to make inquiry into the matters of fact.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take care to inquire into the point of the Question—that is, whether
336
there is any provision in the funds voted by Parliament to supply money to Constabulary to be spent in this way?
MR. MADDEN: I will require Notice of the Question.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will put the Question on the Paper for Monday, and I will require a full and complete answer.
DR. FITZGERALD: I wish to state that it was this very constable that followed me about the country when I went to Ireland to be elected a Member of Parliament.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it is true that Mr. O'Kelly, the Member for Roscommon, has been sentenced to four months' imprisonment for a speech delivered at a public meeting; whether the offence—if there was any offence at all—was not the offence of sedition, sedition being a political offence; and, whether the Government approve of a sentence usually inflicted on criminals of a burglar type?
MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the Question on the Paper.

PUBLIC HEALTH—OUTBREAK OF SMALL-POX AT MANCHESTER.
MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the inquiry into the outbreak of small-pox at St. Joseph's Industrial Schools, Manchester, will be held immediately, while the fullest amount of evidence is obtainable; whether the Report of the results of the inquiry will be presented to the House before the Civil Service Estimates are taken in the Autumn Session; and, whether the Report will include the original Report of Dr. Oldham, of Monsall Hospital, referred to in his reply of yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The inquiry will take place immediately. As to the period at which the result of the inquiry will be received, and as to what the Report will include, it is not for me to say.
MR. CHANNINGasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to a Return giving the names and ages of all the patients; their condition

337
as regards vaccination, giving the number of the scars in the same form as that given in the Report of Dr. Oldham, and the course and result of the illness in each case?
MR. RITCHIE: I will take care to give the fullest information.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to give Notice that I shall move for such a Return.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS INSPECTORS—THE SWEATING SYSTEM.
MR. CREMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the steps taken to circulate the evidence taken before the Lords' Committee on Sweating would be taken with regard to the Pauper Immigration Committee; and, whether, considering the generally expressed desire for an increased number of Factory and Workshop Inspectors, if the Trades' Unions were willing to pay the expenses of the services of an additional number of Inspectors, the Government would accept the offer, reserving to themselves, of course, the right to accept or reject the candidates proposed by the Trades' Unions?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)in reply, said, he was not in a position to give an answer to such a Question, based on a hypothetical offer of a certain organization to bear the cost of a number of public officers, without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ADJOURNMENT.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the Solicitors' Bill, which occupied the eighth place on the Order Paper, had apparently been read a second time that morning by mistake. He had waited in the House until 3 A.M., and had then left under the impression that the second reading would not be taken. In the circumstances, he hoped that the Committee stage would not be proceeded with that evening.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The second reading of the Bill was taken by inadvertence, the Attorney General not being aware of the arrangement that had been come to. The Bill will not be proceeded with
338
further during this Sitting. I may take this opportunity of saying that the Adjournment will be moved to-night after the 20th or last Government Order on the Paper (Report of the East India Revenue Accounts). The view of the Government is that the House will not desire to proceed with private Members' Bills. The arrangement will be as follows:—We shall proceed down to No. 7 (Patents, Designs, and Trades Marks Bill), and then take the Municipal Funds (Ireland) Bill, the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill, Lloyd's (Signal Stations) Bill, the Divisional Magistrates (Ireland) Bill, and the East India Revenue Accounts. I may state that I propose, at the Sitting of the House to-morrow, and if there is no other Business to be taken coming down to us from "another place," to move—"That the House, at its rising on Monday"—assuming that the Commission is fixed for Monday for the Royal Assent to Bills which have been passed—"do adjourn to Tuesday, the 6th November."
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The other Orders will not be proceeded with?
MR. W. H. SMITH: They will not.
MR. LAWSONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman held out any hopes that facilities would be given later on in the Session for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Libel Law (Amendment) Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was hardly in a position to say that facilities would be afforded. Certainly he would be glad to give all the assistance in his power to the consideration of the Lords' Amendments on that Bill, for he thought it would be a great misfortune were all the labour expended upon it to be thrown away. The House was aware that the Government must be careful about making promises in favour of one Bill of a private Member over that of another.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked what Business would be taken to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We must transact such Business to-morrow as may appear on the Paper. If we get over the Business on the Paper to-day, we must take such other measures as require consideration.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr SEXTON)asked, if the Wednesday Rule would apply to the Sitting to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it would. The House would meet at 12 o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Amendments, as far as page 2, line 34, agreed to.
    "(6.) The county council may from time to time appoint a member of the council to be vice-chairman, to hold office during the term of office of the chairman, and, subject to any rules made from time to time by the county council, anything authorised or required to be done by, to, or before the chairman may be done by, to, or before such vice-chairman,")
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked what necessity there was for such an Amendment? The Chairman of the County Council had the power to appoint a deputy.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the Government were of the same opinion as the right hon. Gentleman, and they urged that view in the House of Lords. A noble Earl—he believed Earl Kimberley—insisted very strongly that it was extremely desirable to have it expressly enacted that there should be a Vice Chairman, and the Government consented.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments to page 11, line 41, after ("last,") insert ("published,") agreed to.
    Line 41, at end insert—
    "Or has before the passing of this Act been for not less than three years a medical officer or inspector of the Local Government Board,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment; but he thought it was covered by the Amendment he had inserted at a former stage.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, it had not been expressly included, and therefore it was
    340
    thought desirable to put it right in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PICKERSGILL, in opposing the Amendment which retained for the Corporation of London the right to appoint the Recorder of the City, said, when the Bill was in Committee in that House he had moved an Amendment which proposed to transfer the right of appointing the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, and the Judge of the City of London Court from the Corporation to the Crown. The Government had at first opposed the Amendment, but eventually they yielded, and the Amendment was carried nem. con.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, that he had not assented to the Amendment. He had said "No" to it.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he did not doubt that one or two hon. Members had objected to the Amendment; but substantially there had been no opposition to it. There were two courses which were open to the Corporation in relation to his Amendment—they might either have accepted it in its entirety, or they might have opposed it. The Corporation, however, did not adopt either of those courses, but they adopted the rather ignominious policy of throwing over the Common Serjeant and the Judge of the City of Loudon Court in order to retain their right to appoint the Recorder. The House of Lords now asked Parliament to accept a divided responsibility which, in regard to an appointment of this kind, might be productive of the most disastrous results. The ground upon which the Lords' Amendment had been introduced was that the Recorder discharged duties other than those of a Law Officer; but, as a matter of fact, so did the Common Serjeant. He contended that the argument in favour of excepting the Recorder, which was based on the ground that he had certain functions to perform which were not judicial, was absurd. Great as was the disparity between the judicial functions of the Recorder and the non-judicial functions in 1837, when a Commission inquired into the subject, that disparity had become infinitely greater in the half-century which had passed since the Commission reported

    341
    and condemned the method of appointing the Recorder by the Corporation. The Recorder would not be one whit less qualified to perform his non-judicial functions if he ceased to be elected by the Corporation. The other Recorders of the country were not elected by the Corporations whose officers they were, and they had also to perform duties which were non-judicial. He thought they had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government in this matter. Nearly a fortnight elapsed between the acceptance of his Amendment by the Government and the Report stage of the Bill. If the Government had changed their minds about the Recordership, it would have been more respectful to the House if they had proposed this Amendment on Report, rather than have left it to be inserted in the House of Lords. But scarcely a month ago the House abolished a scandal which, outside a select circle of the Corporation, had been looked upon as absolutely indefensible; and he now appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to say whether he could now in honour draw back from the expressions he had formerly made use of when the question last came before the House?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that he did not think the House would agree with the opinion that the Government had in any way broken faith in this matter. What he wished to point out was that when the Bill was in Committee it was decided that, so for as particular officers of the Corporation were concerned, they should no longer be appointed by the Common Council, but be nominated by the Crown; and, although the Amendment was a considerable interference with the ancient privileges of the City, it was found to be impossible for the Government to defend the election of judicial officers by an elective Body. As far as he understood the decision of the House, therefore, it was to the effect that the appointment of judicial officers by an elective Body was not a thing which Parliament ought to continue to assent to. It was not proposed by this Amendment in any way to interfere with the decision then arrived at with reference to the Common Serjeant and the Commissioner of the City of
    342
    London Court. The duties of the Commissioner were wholly judicial, and the Common Serjeant had so few administrative duties as to be almost entirely a judicial officer. But it was different with the Recorder. For centuries the occupant of that office had two distinct functions to perform, the one judicial and the other administrative. The Government did not propose, as far as the judicial functions were concerned, that the Recorder should be appointed by the Corporation; but would the House seriously say, with reference to the administrative part of the work discharged by the Recorder in the interests of the Corporation, that there was good reason why the power should be taken away from that Body of appointing a Corporation officer for work which was non-judicial in its character? It was said that the Recorders throughout the country were appointed by the Crown, but there was no instance in any part of the country where a Recorder had to perform administrative functions akin to those of the City Recorder. All the Lords' Amendment did was to confirm the decision at which the House had already arrived. They proposed to leave to the Corporation a right which they had exercised for many centuries of appointing a high officer, who was known by the name of Recorder, to discharge Municipal duties. He could not believe that the House would assent to the proposal of the hon. Member. He, therefore, asked the House to agree with the Lords' Amendment.
    SIR HENRY JAMESin supporting the Motion to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, said, he admitted that they ought to care very little as to who elected the Recorder for the purpose of administrative duty, which, in his case, was very slight. The Recorder was the legal adviser of the Corporation of London; but so was the Recorder the legal adviser of every borough like Manchester and Liverpool. The Corporation of London was in a happier position than most other towns with respect to good advice for the purposes of administrative work. The Corporation had officials like the Town Clerk, the Remembrancer, the City Chamberlain, and certainly it could not be denied that it had better opportunities of obtaining advice for administrative purposes than any other borough

    343
    in England. He would remind the House that the three elective Judges of the Corporation sat at the Central Criminal Court, which tried one-fourth of the indictable offences in England. In two years these three Judges had sentenced prisoners to upwards of 2,000 years' of penal servitude. In that way they certainly performed more onerous duties than the Judges of the High Court. Therefore, the House had wisely determined that the scandal of appointing Judges who might not be qualified for their office ought to be put an end to. If they appointed this officer for administrative purposes, practically the Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of appointing him for judicial purposes as well. The Recorder was put in the position by virtue of his Office of trying prisoners at the Central Criminal Court. If the Recorder did not sit, there was no other person to take his place. The Corporation elected the Recorder because he had to discharge administrative duties, but as soon as he was elected he was charged with onerous judicial functions. The Corporation might elect for administrative purposes and say—"What have we to do with judicial functions?" Therefore, they would leave with the Crown the responsibility of seeing whether the Recorder who had been chosen was a person fitted to exercise judicial functions. The man chosen, while otherwise eminent, might not be qualified for the discharge of judicial duties, and the Crown would have to say to the public and to the Corporation of London that such a man was unfit to be Recorder, and it must veto his appointment. What would then happen? The Corporation could only appoint one Recorder by Charter; it could not appoint a second Recorder, and thus the bad and discredited Recorder would remain in Office, although the Crown had vetoed his appointment as a judicial officer. Having assented to the principle that a judicial officer ought not to be elected, how could the Government justify such a state of things? He confessed that for himself, he would rather have the old system, faulty though it was, than the proposal contained in the Bill as it had been altered in the House of Lords. It was the duty of the House to take on itself the full responsibility in dealing with that matter with the object of securing that the man to be appointed
    344
    to try prisoners, very many of whom did not belong to the City of London, should be appointed with the fullest knowledge of his judicial capabilities. He maintained that the Judge who was to try those persons ought to be appointed by the Crown like every other Judge in the country.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he wished to point out that, although the Recorder of the City of London was elected by the Court of Aldermen, yet the Court of Common Council practically had the election of the Recorder in its hands, because it elected the Common Serjeant, who afterwards almost invariably became the Recorder. He hoped that the House would not now go back from its previous decision on that question. The duties of the Recorder outside his judicial functions were very few, and mostly social and ornamental. He had to present the Lord Mayor to the Judges, which he usually did with an excellent and interesting oration; but that ceremony could be equally well performed by the City Chamberlain. The principle had been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the appointment of a judicial officer ought not to be left to the accidental decision of a Public Body, but should be made under the responsibility of the Crown itself; and he hoped that the Amendment of the Lords would not be accepted.
    SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he thought that nothing could have been more unfortunate than the way in which the House had dealt with that matter when in Committee on the Bill. The Amendment then made in the Bill ought to have been made deliberately and with ample notice; but that was not the case, and the result was that a plan was laid down which was unworkable from a different point of view from that indicated by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). The House had taken away the right of the Corporation to appoint the Recorder, and had not provided any salary for that officer. There was no provision in the Bill securing to the Recorder any payment for his services, and in the Municipal Corporations Act it was thought necessary to provide that the power to appoint should be accompanied by an obligation to pay. The Town Clerk was not the legal adviser of the Corpo-

    345
    ration, and the rejection of the Lords' Amendment would take away from the Corporation the power to have for important matters a legal adviser of their own selection. The Corporation had to entertain the potentates of the world, and had also to take part in important ceremonials, in which they ought to be represented by an officer of their own choosing. In the past the office had been filled by Lord Denman, Mr. Russell Gurney, and Mr. J. Stuart-Wortley, who had certainly conferred upon it more dignity than they received from it.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he denied that there had been undue haste, for the subject had been fully discussed on adequate notice on the earlier stages of the Bill, and that the Corporation had plenty of officials to discharge all the ceremonial functions which were attached to the office. The Corporation could not save the office of Common Serjeant as well as that of Recorder, so they wanted to save the richer bit of patronage. He could not help thinking that the Government had gone away from their position.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, what the Corporation asked was that they should be able to elect an officer of high legal eminence, to whom they could appeal on any important question. The House of Lords had granted that request, and he trusted the House of Commons would adopt the Amendment. He denied that the Common Serjeant succeeded the Recorder in due course, as was asserted by some. This was shown by the case of Mr. Stuart-Wortley, father of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, who never was Common Serjeant. It would always be the object of the Corportion to elect a person on whose legal knowledge they could thoroughly depend.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he thought the quarrel was one of words; the matter was conceded, and the point at issue was one of form. He intended to vote for the Lords' Amendment. The Amendment was merely a concession to the sentiment of the Corporation. He maintained that the House had got all that it really wanted. The Crown would have the right to appoint the Common Serjeant in future, and as it was customary for the Common Serjeant to succeed to the
    346
    position of Recorder in time, the object of hon. Members who were opponents of the Corporation, to have as Recorder a nominee of the Crown, would be attained. The Corporation would be sure to select a person capable of performing the very high judicial functions entrusted to the Recorder. It was but natural that the governing body of the greatest City of the Empire should desire to have a part in the appointment of an officer whose duty it was to act as their mouthpiece before the world. The object of many hon. Members opposite was clear. They wanted to do the Corporation an ill turn. They could not help their action; it was the outcome of their nature. Scratch a Radical and one found a tyrant.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, what was desired by those who disapproved of the Lords' Amendment was that the highest judicial functionary of the City should be appointed by the responsible officers of the Crown, and not elected by any body of men, however competent, and however high their character for integrity and independence might stand. He would far sooner go back to the old state of things than create a sort of twin functionary—part administrative and part judicial. One point that had been made by the supporters of the Lords' Amendment was that, if a change were made in the mode of electing the Recorder, the funds which had hitherto been available for the payment of his salary would no longer be available. Those who used that argument seemed to be under the impression that the revenues of the City of London were the private property of the gentlemen forming the Corporation, whereas they were only trustees, like all other Municipal Corporations. The City was at present paying out of public funds the salary of a public official, and it must continue to do so. Another argument was that the Recorder had administrative as well as judicial functions to discharge. But in this respect his position was not exceptional, the position of the Recorder of any large town being almost identically the same. The clause as it had come down from the Lords was not workable. He would suggest that the Government should let the clause to which the House of Commons agreed, and which contained the great principle of the abolition of

    347
    election of judicial functionaries, stand, and undertake next year to bring in a short Bill which, while duly conserving the rights of the Corporation in respect to its legal officers, would provide for the appointment by the Crown of judicial officers in the City.
    THE 'ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he felt bound to deny that this would be an unworkable arrangement, and would ask on what ground it was alleged that the Bill with the proposed Amendment was not workable? The only way in which it could possibly become so was by the Corporation appointing men to the Recordership who were unfitted for the office, and whose appointment would be vetoed by the Crown. But the experience of the past showed that there was no ground for such an apprehension. During the present century the Corporation had appointed as Recorder Lord Denman, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Russell Gurney—all men eminently qualified for the highest judicial office, and those who had watched the manner in which the present Recorder had done his work for the past 20 years must admit that he was a not unworthy successor to those men. The only way, then, in which it could be contended that this clause was not workable was for the House to shut its eyes to what had been done in the past. If the Corporation had in the past, and when wholly unfettered, selected fit and proper people, and shown by the choice they had made that they had regard to the importance of having really distinguished men to fill the office of Recorder, why should they cease to do so because their action was going to be approved by the Crown? He believed that under the Amendment the Coporation would exercise still greater caution in the future, and so far from this being an unworkable arrangement, he believed it would lead to greater efficiency and to an exercise of greater caution in making these appointments. As to the point of remuneration, the City had to give remuneration not only to a Recorder like the Recorder of Birmingham, but also to a Judge, so there was no parallel.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he thought the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General really amounted to an argument against any change whatever in the
    348
    system under which judicial officers of the City of London had hitherto been appointed. The hon. and learned Attorney General argued that since the Corporation had made excellent appointments in the past, it should be allowed to make those appointments in the future, but this very clause and the decision of both Houses of Parliament were to the effect that the present arrangement should not be continued, and that appointments which involved the discharge of judicial duties should be made by the responsible Advisers of the Crown. What was to happen in the event of an appointment being made which the Crown would not approve? That was a point on which the hon. and learned Attorney General had not touched. It was quite evident that anyone appointed by the Crown and considered fit to discharge the judicial functions of the office would be well able to discharge what had been termed the administrative or ornamental duties, whereas the converse was by no means the case. There was ample machinery in the regulations of the Corporation to make such arrangements as they might think right with regard to the secondary duties of the office of Recorder. He did not believe the clause as it stood to be unworkable, and did not think the question of salary was a difficulty. It was true that the Corporation required as adviser an eminent lawyer; and since the judicial functions were the main and essential duties of the office, the appointment ought to rest with those who were competent to form a correct opinion on the ability to discharge such judicial functions; but who was the best judge in the matter, the Corporation or the responsible advisers of the Crown, in this case probably the Lord Chancellor? He submitted that the position was in no way altered from that in which it stood when the matter was decided in Committee, some weeks ago, after a prolonged debate. The decision of the Government had been distinct and emphatic.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he spoke in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green when it was under discussion in Committee, and would have voted for it had it gone to a Division. But he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for West Newing-

    349
    ton (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) that they had obtained in this Amendment practically all they had asked for. They had been challenged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to state exactly what it was they had demanded; well, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman. What was wanted by those on his side of the House, when the Bill was in Committee, was, that a person who might be called upon to execute important judicial functions should not as such be subjected to popular election. It was provided by the Lords' Amendment that the appointment to the office of Recorder should be made by the Corporation, so far as related to its functions as one of its consultative officers, but that if it was a question of his being appointed to the exercise of judicial functions, he must obtain his appointment from the responsible officers of the Crown. It had been asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles Russell) what would happen if the Corporation appointed a person whom the Crown could not appoint to the exercise of judicial functions. He thought that the Corporation, knowing that if it became necessary for this officer to take up judicial functions he would have to go to the Crown for his appointment, would take good care not to appoint anyone who was not thoroughly qualified. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had assured the House that he had no wish to inflict any humiliation on the ancient Corporation of the great City of London. Of course, he entirely accepted the assurance; but he could not help saying that some of the speeches on the other side seemed to be inspired by this unworthy motive. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge), at the time of the discussion in Committee, had warmly repudiated any intention of supporting such a policy, and as a fair and reasonable compromise had been arrived at in the Lords' Amendment, he hoped the House would accept it.
    MR. LAWSONwished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) what would happen in case the Crown objected to confer judicial functions on a Recorder appointed by the Corporation? It seemed to him that such a state of things would, practically, cause a deadlock.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)said, the question was an extremely unpractical one. He thought it was impossible that the case put should occur. If the clause were allowed to stand as the House of Lords had amended it, the practical result would be this—that, inasmuch as the Recorder would have no right to exercise judicial functions, unless his appointment was approved by the Crown, it would simply be an appointment by the Crown of a worthy person nominated by the Corporation of the City of London. There would be no difficulty in obtaining competent men to fill the Office under such conditions.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, he was certain that if the Government bad kept good faith with the House the discussion would not have taken place. No valid argument whatever had been adduced why the Lords' Amendment should be accepted. It was desired that, if the City Corporation was to remain an integral part of the government of London, the functions of its officers should be confined within the area of the City itself, just as at present they extended over a much wider area; but the Amendment would give to an officer of the Corporation important functions outside the City. He objected to the change being made in the Bill by the House of Lords after it bad been unanimously assented to by the House of Commons. He repeated that if the Government had stood by the Bill as it left the House of Commons, this long discussion need not have taken place. He hoped the House would not go back from the decision arrived at when the Bill was in Committee. It should be remembered that when the decision was come to, the House was very much larger than now, and therefore more accurately represented the prevailing feeling. To argue that the Recorder had not only to discharge his legal functions, but had also to entertain great personages, was to degrade his position. It was most unfair that when the Government had yielded the point in Committee in that House, they should have brought it up again, and, although the City might carry their Amendments, yet the inhabitants of London would notice that it would be done in a thin House, and after the City Remembrancer and other such officials had beaten up

    351
    their recruits. The conduct of the City in the matter was another instance in which they would have to show that the existence of the Corporation of the City and the House of Lords, which had sent this Amendment down, would have to be called in question before long.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he could understand an appointment made by the Crown, or one made by the Corporation; but he could not understand an arrangement by which the appointment would be placed between the two. It was like putting it between the proverbial two stools. He looked upon it as unworkable, unpractical, and illogical. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 86: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
    Page 40, line 30, after "1865," insert "and except for rating purposes the Eastern and Western Divisions of Suffolk," the next Amendment read a second time, and amended by leaving out the words "except for rating purposes."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    COLONEL ANSTRUTHERsaid, he objected to the whole of the Lords' Amendment. He objected to the division of the county, because it would detract from the dignity and importance which the Bill proposed to confer on the Council. The House had already decided that there should be one County Council, and of five Members for the county of Suffolk one only had declared himself in favour of the division. He (Colonel Anstruther) further objected to it on account of the absolutely unnecessary expense it threw on the ratepayers in the increased burden that would fall on the county rate, and because the proposal was contrary to at least the wishes and desires of three-fourths of the inhabitants of Suffolk.
    SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYsaid, he supported the opposition of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Anstruther) to the Amendment. He would point out that the ratepayers were utterly opposed to the extra burden
    352
    proposed to be thrown on the county by establishing two County Councils instead of one. The Bill gave power to any county to divide itself if it wished. His noble Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey) would do better to wait and submit his proposition to the County Council when it met at Ipswich. He could then take the decision of those who were interested in the county. He hoped the Government would support the original Amendment, and would not be deaf to the voices of three-fourths of the population of the county. He would appeal to the Government to say whether the object of the Bill—namely, to leave matters as much as possible in statu quo, would be attained as far as Suffolk was concerned, if the Lords' Amendment were agreed to.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, it had been assumed that at least three-fourths of the population of the county of Suffolk were in favour of a united county. There were 356,000 persons in the county. Sixty thousand were in the county borough of Ipswich, which had elected to take itself out of the county, and he submitted that the population of Ipswich and the Members for Ipswich were not justified, after having availed themselves of the opportunity given by the Bill to remove themselves out of the county, afterwards to dictate in what way the county should be managed. One hundred and twenty thousand persons were in West Suffolk, and there was practical unanimity in their demand that the Government should not invade the ancient legal and chartered rights to which they had long been entitled, and they wanted to know why they should be so invaded? He was at a loss to understand, in those circumstances, how the proportion of three-fourths was arrived at. For 800 years the Western Division of Suffolk had never been incorporated with the Eastern Division, and by law at the present moment West Suffolk had secured to it financial, civil, and judicial independence. The proposed union was most distasteful to them, and they believed that it would be far from conducing to efficient management or economy. The proposed union was a case of seeking to bring grist to the Ipswich mill. He appealed to the House to support the Lords in that Amendment, making the two divi-

    353
    sions of the county, as well as one making those of Sussex, except for rating purposes, respectively administrative counties, separately for the purposes of the Act, as being eminently righteous and eminently wise, and one which would greatly conduce to efficiency and economy in the management of county business.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, he also supported the Lords' Amendment. He would hope that what had fallen from his noble Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Lord Francis Hervey) would have weight with that House. Suffolk had a population of 400,000 and a coast line of 50 miles, and it would be very inconvenient to the inhabitants to have the whole of their business transacted at a place like Ipswich.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 54: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
    Subsequent Amendments read a second time.
    Page 66—
    "(15.) The quorum of the council shall be one-fourth of the whole number of the council, and one-fourth shall, for the purposes of the section, be substituted for one-third in paragraph 10 of the second schedule of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,"—
    the next Amendment.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought that this was an imprudent Amendment.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he feared that it would be specially so in the case of London.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he happened to be in the other House when the matter was under discussion, and it was urged that, looking at the difference between a county and a borough, there were good grounds for not making the quorum so large in a county as it was in a borough. It was much more easy to obtain the necessary quorum in a borough than it would be in a large county. There was no reason to anticipate that one-fourth of the members of a County Council would not be able to transact the necessary business in a manner that would be satisfactory to the county at large. The difference between one-third and one-fourth was
    354
    not a large one. The change was not proposed by the Government, and it was assented to only in response to a good many appeals that were addressed to the Government in the other House. In the case of London, as the Council would number about 150, it could scarcely be said that one-fourth of that number would not be sufficient to transact the business.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments to page 68 agreed to.
    Page 70. At the end of Sub-section (1) add—
    ("Moreover, all cheques for payment of moneys is sued in pursuance of such order shall be countersigned by the clerk of the council or by his deputy,")
    the next Amendment.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, there was no provision for the appointment of the deputy by the Council, and so the deputy might be anybody appointed by the clerk.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would propose to amend the Amendment by making it read "or a deputy approved by the council."
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "his deputy," and inserting the words "a deputy approved by the council."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Several of the remaining Amendments amended, and agreed to. [Special Entries.]
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Before we part with this Bill, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words of a personal nature. It has fallen to my lot to be one of the most persistent and pertinacious opponents of the President of the Local Government Board during the progress of the Bill, and I think I should be failing in a public duty if I did not express my most hearty appreciation of the admirable manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has guided and directed the Bill through the House. A great deal depends upon the "engineering" of a Bill of this kind, which affects many conflicting interests and is concerned with many most complicated and difficult questions, and

    355
    I do not think I am using the language of exaggerated eulogy when I say that no Minister of modern times has conducted a measure of such a character through the House with better temper, greater courtesy, and greater fairness, than the right hon. Gentleman has displayed. I hope I may also be allowed to refer to the way in which he has been assisted by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long). The marked ability and genial courtesy exhibited in these debates by the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire have raised him to a point in the estimation of the House of which any man would be proud. We are sometimes blamed in this House for not being able to carry on the Business of the country without indulging in a good deal of Party spirit and asperity. That is inseparable from our system of Party government; but, remembering that, it is very gratifying to be able to congratulate the House of Commons upon the fact that this, which is one of the greatest measures of modern times, has not met with bitter Party opposition in its passage through this Assembly. It is not a final measure—the right hon. Gentleman himself does not pretend that it is—but it is the first volume of a mighty work, and the foundation of a great edifice. I think I may say that this Bill has been discussed with as small a modicum of Party spirit as could possibly have been expected, having regard to the nature of the Bill; and I have to congratulate the President of the Local Government Board on the great and signal success that has attended him in passing this most important Bill through the House. I have also personally to thank him for the uniform courtesy, good temper, and fairness which he has shown.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could hardly express his feelings at the extremely kind words which the right hon. Gentleman had used with reference to his conduct during the long and arduous task of passing this Bill. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman there was no Member of the House from whom he would value a compliment more than from himself. The right hon. Gentleman had stuck very closely indeed to the House while the Bill was under consideration, and he (Mr. Ritchie) hoped he
    356
    might be permitted to say that, on many occasions, he had had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assistance he had rendered to him in the object he and the Government had in view in making this a real, workable, and satisfactory Bill. He (Mr. Ritchie) started at the outset with the view of, as far as possible, endeavouring to make this a Bill not so much of a Party, as of the House of Commons. He was gratified to think that from all sides and from all Parties in the House that desire had been realized. He was very glad the right hon. Gentleman, in the kindly references he bad made, had coupled his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) with his (Mr. Ritchie's) name. He was glad to have that opportunity of bearing his full testimony to the most valuable and able assistance which he had rendered him and his Colleagues in the Government in the conduct of the measure—and not only in its conduct in the House, but in the discussion and settlement of the details prior to the House becoming acquainted with them. He hoped he might also be permitted to bear his testimony to the admirable services to the country which had been rendered by all the officials of the Local Government Board. As the House must know, the Bill had not been prepared and carried without entailing enormous labours upon the permanent officials of the Local Government Board, and he desired to recognize to the full the admirable manner in which those duties had been discharged. He was sure all his Colleagues in the Cabinet would agree with him when he said that every man in the Local Government Board, from the highest to the lowest official, who had been engaged on the Bill, had acted in a manner which entitled them to the confidence and thanks of Parliament. He hoped he might be allowed to add one word as to the drafting of the Bill. Those who were acquainted with the enormous number of subjects dealt with in it must be aware of the vast responsibility which had fallen on the draftsman, and he thought that among the Civil servants to whom the House owed so much for their assistance in the preparation of the measure he might particularly refer to the experienced gentleman who had drafted it.

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES BILL [Lords].— [BILL 285.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)

CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, that no attempt to deal with the Irish Mortmain Acts had been made since Dean Swift, in 1737, petitioned against a Bill then before the Irish House of Lords, and he wished clearly to understand whether the Bill applied to Ireland?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that it had been found impossible to make the Bill applicable to Ireland, and Amendments had therefore been inserted providing that its operation should not extend to the Sister Isle, though the words might have been clearer.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, that he had been obliged to suggest that the Bill should not apply to Ireland, as the Irish Acts were different and separate from the English Acts. But he hoped an opportunity would be found for consolidating the law on the question.
Amendments made.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, to leave out the words "peppercorn or other nominal."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Amendments made.
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 7, after the word "assuror," to insert the words "or be a reproduction in substance of a devise made in a previous will in force at the time of such reproduction, and which was executed not less than twelve months before the death of the assuror."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid, he thought the University Colleges of Wales should be freed from the restrictions of the Mortmain Acts. They had a greater claim to exemption than Oxford and Cambridge, which were already so rich, or
358
even than London or Victoria University. London, Durham, and Victoria Universities were freed by the Bill from the operation of the Mortmain Acts. He would move an Amendment to free the Welsh Colleges from this restriction.
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 41, after the word "universities," to insert the words "or the University Colleges of North Wales at Bangor, of Wales at Aberystwith, and of South Wales and Monmouthshire at Cardiff."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment. He had considerable misgiving that the exemptions from the restrictions of the Mortmain Acts had already gone rather far; and if the present Amendment were accepted there were a number of other institutions which might come forward and ask for similar exemption, and he should have no answer to make to them.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSthought he had no alternative but to go to a Division.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he would recommend the hon. and learned Member not to press his Amendment, because the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General was, he said, unanswerable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 4, after the word "society," to insert the word "denomination."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 21, after the words "extent and manner," to add the words "and nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect any of the provisions of the School Sites Acts, as any of in the Fourth Schedule to 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Francis Powell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, in asking the House to allow the Bill to be read the third time, said he would take

359
occasion, on behalf of the Government, to thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the extremely fair way in which they had met the Bill. He was aware that many of them held strong views with regard to alterations in the Law of Mortmain—he himself would like to see some changes introduced—but they had recognized that it was impossible to deal with such questions in a Consolidation Bill.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Mr. Attorney General.)

[BILL 263.] CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Amendments made.
Clause 25 (Appointment of registrars).
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, in moving an Amendment empowering the Lord Chancellor in any case, by special order, to dispense with the requirements as to standing and residence of registrars, said, he agreed that generally registrars should be solicitors of a certain standing, and should reside in their districts; but there were exceptional cases which ought to be provided for.
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 23, after the word "appointment," to insert the words—"Provided that the Lord Chancellor may in any case, by special order, dispense with the requirements of this section as to standing and residence, or either of them."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought that it would be very undesirable to have applications constantly made to the Lord Chancellor to use his dispensing power. No practical difficulty had arisen in connection with the rule at present existing.
SIR GEORGE RUSSELLcontended that the present restriction caused great inconvenience.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the law had stood as it was for the last 30 or 40 years without any difficulties arising.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 45 (Salaries of registrars).
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made to the effect that the salary of the registrar, instead of being calculated on the remuneration received during the last five years, should be fixed with regard to all the circumstances of the case, but should in no case exceed £1,400.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments made.
Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 16 and 17, to leave out the words "and by leave of the judge."—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made.
Amendment proposed,
In page 37, line 14, after the word "Court," to insert the words "unless the judge shall certify that the action was a fit one to be brought in such other Court."—(Mr. Darling.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed,
In page 38, line 28, after the word "matter," to insert the words "Provided always, That every appeal in every case subject to the equitable jurisdiction of any County Court shall be to the Chancery Division of the High Court, and be heard by a Judge of such Division."—(Mr. Haldane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 45.
Bill considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment.
As amended, considered.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NATIONAL DEFENCE BILL.— [BILL 235.]
(Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Brodrick.)

CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Amendment made.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, asked, whether his right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) would let it be clearly understood that the Volunteers and the Yeomanry would remain under this Bill precisely in the same position as they now occupied?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right as regarded the Volunteers, who would not be in any way affected by this measure. The Bill, however, would enable the Yeomanry to be called out with the Militia, which would greatly add to the value of the force.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 348.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been introduced with the object of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee over which Lord Herschell had presided. It was not proposed to take the Committee stage before November.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 15th November.

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 344.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 (Appointment of officers).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be postponed."
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, what would be the effect of postponing the clause?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that the Committee could not entertain a Money Clause until a Resolution had been set up. It would be set up to-morrow, and the clause would then be considered by the House. The House could not consider the matter until the Money Resolution had been set up in this way.
MR. SEXTONasked, whether the clause would be considered to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITHreplied in the affirmative.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause postponed.
Clauses 10, 12, 13, and 16 also postponed.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. SEXTONsaid, that before the Chairman left the Chair he should like to understand the exact position of the Bill. Could they take the Money Resolution in such order that it would be possible to dispose of that question and pass the third reading before the Adjournment?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Resolution, which would be agreed to to-morrow, would be reported on Monday. Then the clauses could be considered in Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

LLOYD'S (SIGNAL STATIONS) (re-committed) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 343.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Short title).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, this appeared to

363
be a very important Bill, but he had never heard a word about it until this afternoon. He saw that it took enormous powers to enable a private Company to deal with telegraphing. He had looked carefully through the provisions of the measure, and could not see any corresponding advantages which were to accrue to this country, or even to the First Lord of the Admiralty, from giving these enormous advantages to a private Company. The other day he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had heard the answer to a Question given by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty as to Lloyd's; and that answer was, so far as he could gather, that although Lloyd's had the power of telegraphing from a great many places, yet they never gave any notice to the Admiralty with regard to what was going on in connection with shipping or in regard to any other matters. To put in the hands of a private Company powers which were contained in this Bill was a thing which he thought deserved a great deal more attention than had been given to it, or than was likely to be given to it at that time of the Session. These powers were to be compulsory, without allowing the House or the public to know anything about it. There were a large number of reservations in the Bill so far as the Crown was concerned; but private individuals were not to have their interests safeguarded, and those interests might be affected by the Company without their consent. All, however, he would say on the matter was that the Bill appeared to him to be one which deserved far more consideration than they had been able to give to it in the short time that had been at the disposal of the Committee. He therefore hoped that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would not press the Bill, a Bill of such importance, through the House this Session.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): If the hon. and gallant Member better understood what has happened with regard to this Bill, he would not speak in the way he does of faults which he imagines he has detected in it. The measure has been considered by a Select Committee, on which were Members who took considerable interest in these subjects, and
364
who carefully considered the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in supposing that the Bill proposes to give to Lloyd's the wide powers he imagines. What it proposes to do is this. There is a general desire on the part of those interested in the Mercantile Marine for better facilities than at present exist for giving early intelligence of wrecks occurring on our coasts, and thus saving life and property where it cannot now be saved, by improving the means of communication between our lighthouses and lightships and the mainland. Well, Sir, Lloyd's Association, which, as the Committee knows, is an Association not trading for gain, but a public Association, communicated with the Board of Trade last year, and expressed their willingness, for the sake of the promotion of the interests of commerce, and those great interests to which I have alluded, to take an active part in providing these means of telegraphic communication, if certain powers were given to them to obtain signal stations for the purpose. These powers amounted to no more than this—power to acquire land on the coast near the lighthouses or lightships to an extent not exceeding two acres in any one case, for the purpose of providing this telegraphic communication between the lighthouses and the lightships and the mainland. That power is guarded first by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which is incorporated in this Bill, and under which any landowner whose land is taken can, of course, have compensation assessed by arbitrators in the ordinary way; but, further, it is guarded in this way—that no laud can be compulsorily taken except after the matter has been fully considered by the Board of Trade; a local inquiry has been, if necessary, held, and a Provisional Order has been passed through Parliament. Therefore I think that my hon. and gallant Friend and the House will see that every care has been taken to guard private rights in endeavouring to secure what I think the House will admit to be, if it can be obtained, a great public gain. I trust that the House will be willing to proceed with the Bill, because, as I have already said, there is great need of this improved means of communication. The winter is approaching; and life and property may be saved if in some places these stations can be established where

365
they are not now established. I trust, therefore, that the passing of the Bill will not be impeded.
ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he had only recently become acquainted with the contents of the Bill, and he was sorry to find himself obliged to offer some opposition to the Committee stage being taken at this time unless the Board of Trade would consent to introduce in it an Amendment to guard our interests as a Naval Power. Apparently all that had been thought of in framing the Bill had been to do what Lloyd's Association desired—to enable them to acquire land for the erection of signal stations for certain purposes as to which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade had given them a careful explanation. Of course, there was not a single man in the House who would not sympathize with what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet as to the desirability of everything being done which could be done by the erection of telegraphic stations for the purpose of trying to save life from ships that were wrecked on our coasts; but the interests of this country, so far as it was a Naval Power, had not been thought of. There was a Saving Clause in the Bill in the interests of the Admiralty and the War Office; but when they read it what did it mean? It meant that nothing in the Bill should authorize Lloyd's Association to interfere with any lands, buildings, or rights inherent in the Board of Admiralty or War Office. But he maintained that a great deal more than that was required in this Bill. If he wanted more proof of what he said, he would only point to those pieces of intelligence which had been telegraphed all over this country as to the Naval Manœuvres which were taking place all round the coasts. The Admiralty ought to have endeavoured to guard their rights in this respect, and to prevent this intelligence from being flashed all over the country. There ought to be a Saving Clause at the end of Clause 5, empowering the Postmaster General in time of war to acquire possession of all those telegraph stations for the purpose of preventing the transmission of any intelligence concerning the movements of our Fleet or the movements of an enemy's Fleet by irresponsible persons. He maintained that the clauses of the Bill had not been carefully thought out.
366
He did not care twopence for anything but our naval supremacy; and he must say that if hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite Bench did not think it right to guard our rights in these important particulars, it was the duty of someone else to take care that those rights were not jeopardized. By this Bill they were granting for all time a power which they would find very difficult to resume when they required to resume it without paying large compensation; and he (Admiral Field) would be no party to passing the Bill through Committee unless the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade would give some guarantee that steps would be taken, by an Amendment in Clause 5, to safeguard the rights of the country in the way in which they ought to be safeguarded. As to the Committee of which the right hon. Baronet had spoken, all he (Admiral Field) knew was that he had not been a Member of it, and he did not think any naval man had been on it. If there was no naval man on such a Committee, the Government should take care that naval interests were not jeopardized, seeing that we were the greatest Naval Power in the world. He was astounded that no one thought it necessary to look after our naval interests in connection with a Bill of this kind.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am astounded that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have criticized a measure he has not read. If he had read the 2nd clause, he would have found that it contained a provision for arrangements being made in regard to those stations which might be established under the Bill upon conditions which the Postmaster General shall prescribe, and which might include the very object which the hon. and gallant Member desires.
ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that a matter of this kind should not be sprung upon the House. What he maintained was that they should not try to force a Bill of this kind upon the Committee without adequate explanation of its objects and effects. This was the first time he had looked upon it. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and other hon. Members, apparently, did not understand the Bill better than he did himself. He could not under-

367
take to read all the Bills that came down in the course of 24 hours, and he maintained that the fact that he and others had not read it was an additional argument why it should not be pushed through the Committee stage in this way now.
MR. LEAsaid, there was one point he would like the hon. and gallant Admiral who had just spoken to consider. He should like to remind him of the case of H.M.S. Wasp, which went ashore on the North Coast of Donegal on Tory Island. That vessel went ashore in a thick fog in the dead of night.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I know that.
MR. LEAsaid, the hon. and gallant Admiral know that; but did he know that if this Bill had been working in all probability many lives might have been saved? As a matter of fact, there were several vessels with steam up at Londonderry which, if there had been telegraphic communication with the lighthouse on Tory Island, the scene of the wreck, would have put off to the assistance of the crew of the Wasp, and might have saved many lives. He (Mr. Lea) was glad the Bill had been brought forward, and trusted that the Committee would pass it.
MR. MOLLOYsaid, he hoped the Government would pay no attention to the extraordinary speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field), who had not read the Bill, and did not appear to understand it. As he (Mr. Molloy) had taken great interest in the Bill, and had put himself to the trouble of understanding its provisions, he could assure the Committee that it was a most useful measure, and was so in the estimation of everybody who had any knowledge whatever of its objects and its aims. As to going further in the direction suggested by the hon. and gallant Admiral it was not necessary. The hon. and gallant Admiral's argument was that in case of war those interested most in the safety of the commerce of the country would flash all round intelligence calculated to do the largest amount of injury possible to commerce—intelligence as to the movements of Her Majesty's ships, and of the enemy. He certainly would oppose the Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and would support the Bill for the reasons which he had
368
stated before, and which he need not now go into. The Bill was a good one in the interest of the whole Mercantile Navy of the country, by whom it was demanded, and in the interest of our national commerce.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad he had made a few remarks upon the Bill, because it had elicited from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a very important explanation. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had only seen the Bill that afternoon. He had, however, read it through, and what struck him was this—that the Government, having the greatest interest in these Coastguard telegraphic stations, had not thought it necessary to bring in a scheme of their own in order to keep these places in their own hands, and had allowed this most important duty to be undertaken by a private Company—such as Lloyd's. He had nothing to say against Lloyd's. Lloyd's had done a great deal of good, and would, he believed, continue to do a great deal of good; but surely the telegraphic communication all round our coasts from one Coastguard station to another, and to our lighthouses and lightships, ought, above all things, to be in the hands of the Government. He merely mentioned this because the Government seemed to be about to grant a great concession, which at some future time they might have to buy back again at the cost of a very large sum for compensation. He was glad to have heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and they only showed that Bills of this kind ought to be fully explained, so that the country might understand the objects of measures of this kind. Believing, as he did, that the suggestion he had made was the most practical one of the two, he did not intend to go further at that moment than to hint to the Government whether it was wise to go further with a measure of this kind without taking the works contemplated under it into their own hands.
MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, that for the last two or three months he had been sitting upon a Committee considering questions of this kiud, and he had been struck with the importance of the Bill. He believed that the Bill would be one which would tend very much to the saving of human life and of

369
property, and he was glad the Government had been able to bring it forward. To his mind it did them great credit, and he trusted they would carry it through Committee.
DR. TANNERsaid, he did not often find himself in accord with hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Benches opposite; but really, on the present occasion, he could not help being struck by the protests made by hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House. As a rule, on occasions of that kind, they heard hon. Gentlemen, Members of the Tory Party, getting up night after night protesting, some in a modified tone and some in a louder tone, and their protests always came to nothing. He would now allow these Gentlemen a chance of doing something, and of showing whether they were really capable of bringing their opinions to a practical point, and accordingly he was going to move that the Chairman do report Progress. Before he sat down, he should like to give a reason for doing this. What was proposed to be done in connection with this measure? They proposed to hand over to a private Company, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Admiral Field), certain privileges and advantages which hitherto had not been possessed by Lloyd's Association, and they proposed to do this because they supposed that in that way they would protect life and property along our coasts. In the next place, it must be borne in mind that Lloyd's Association would not erect these signal stations except in places where there was a great deal of shipping passing by. He (Dr. Tanner) was perfectly conversant with the South Coast of England; and at all the points which were practically of use and of manifest advantage at the present time Lloyd's had these signal stations erected. They had erected two or three lately on the South Coast of Ireland, and he believed if Parliament did not interfere with them, but left them alone to do their best, they would probably maintain their present position. It was no use trying to bolster them up. Of course, he could understand Her Majesty's Government wishing to do that. Their anxiety, no doubt, was to try and obtain the shipping vote. It was only a question, "You scratch me and I will scratch you," with Her Majesty's Go-
370
vernment. Hon. Gentlemen connected with Liverpool and the shipping interest throughout the country tried to promote Lloyd's to the best of their ability when the critical period came, in the hope that when the vote of the shipping interest was to be taken it would be cast for the Government. He could quite understand that; but would all this endeavour be to the benefit of the country generally and the people living round the coasts? He (Dr. Tanner) did not think so. The hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea) had called attention to the loss of Her Majesty's Ship Wasp. Perhaps the hon. Member knew something about the coast of Donegal; but did the hon. Member imagine for one instant that if the Committee passed this Bill Lloyd's Shipping Association or Company would go to an out-of-the-way place on the coast of Donegal to erect one of their signal stations, which would be for the benefit and protection of the shipping, and conduce to the saving of life and property? Such, he imagined, would not be the case. They would always find this Association going to places where they had already got a large amount of fishing; and the Bill would not in the least promote what he believed hon. Members desired to do in the interest of common humanity—in the interest of the protection of life and property—namely, erect the signal stations in out-of-the-way places. If the privileges and advantages proposed were bestowed upon Lloyd's, we might possibly have a few more signal stations. He noticed that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Fitzgerald), who knew something about this matter, was present. He would like to have that hon. Gentleman's opinion as to whether, if they were to pass this Bill, they would have any additional structures of any practical benefit or advantage for the protection of life and property, upon the South Coast of Ireland, for instance? He hoped hon. Members opposite would insist upon further consideration being given to this Bill, and in order that such an opportunity might be afforded he begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Dr. Tanner,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, he was bound to confess he did not think the powers proposed ought to be used by Lloyd's. He had not had an opportunity of reading the Bill until just now. The Bill had only been in the hands of private Members for an hour or two, and therefore he did not think the Committee ought to be expected to discuss it and pass it on this occasion. In his opinion the Government ought to take these powers themselves, and not hand them over to a Company.
COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, he also thought that the Government ought to take power to get possession of all the telegraph stations along the coast.
ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he begged to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He and his hon. Friends were supporters, and loyal supporters, of the Government, and he appealed to the Government, if they had any sympathy with them, not to drive this Bill down their throats. They told the Government, as their loyal supporters, that they had not had time to consider the Bill. He, as representing the Naval Service, had not yet been able to make up his mind as to the value of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had cast doubt upon the wisdom of passing the Bill, and other supporters of the Government had pleaded for delay. Why, therefore, drive it down their throats in the way now suggested? He felt strongly upon this matter. He did not oppose the Government unless he felt conscientiously bound to do so in the interest of the country and the Service to which he belonged. The Government were in possession of the whole of the Coastguard stations on the coast; and, in his opinion, the Government themselves should lay down telegraph wires, instead of allowing it to be done by a private Company. He ventured to make a respectful appeal to the Government. Seeing that they had put down other measures for November the 8th and November the 15th, he hoped the Government would postpone this measure until November 15, and allow them, in the meantime, to ascertain what was
372
the opinion of naval men and others in regard to it. This Bill had been sprung upon them by surprise. It emanated from the Lords. He had great respect for their Lordships; but he had greater respect for naval men who thoroughly understood what the country required.
MR. BONDsaid, he hoped the Government would press this Bill forward. The Bill had been in the hands of Members for more than a week, and he thought it was evident that some hon. Members who had complained of not having seen the Bill had not looked over their Parliamentary Papers. Anyone who had lived on the sea coast and witnessed the heartrending scenes of men's lives being sacrificed, owing to the want of telegraph communication, would not hesitate for a moment in voting for the Bill. If the consideration of the Bill were postponed until November, it might be at the cost of the loss of many gallant lives. He sincerely trusted, therefore, that the Government would persevere with the measure.
SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he hoped the Government would carry the Bill. He knew, as Chairman of the National Lifeboat Institution, that this was a matter of urgent importance. He was on the Board of Trade Departmental Committee last year, and that Committee went most thoroughly into the whole question. He had not a shadow of doubt that a large number of lives might be saved all round the coast of the United Kingdom if this proposal were adopted. There had been many cases brought to the knowledge of the National Lifeboat Institution where, had there been telegraphic communication from outlying islands or from floating light vessels, many lives might have been saved. He hoped the Committee would agree to pass the Bill.
MR. BIGGARsaid, there was no doubt at all it was most desirable that telegraphic communication should exist all round the coast for the purpose of promoting the saving of life at sea. But, at the same time, it seemed to him that there was a great deal of weight in the point raised by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne (Admiral Field)—namely, that it would be much better that the telegraphic communication should be in

373
the hands of the Coastguard Service. Lloyd's was a Company, formed for the purpose of a shareholder's profit, so that in reality Lloyd's wished to make some advantage out of this undertaking. He could not but say that the best way would be for the telegraphic communication to be in the hands of the Coastguards, who were under the control of the Government. There were many Coastguard stations along the coast, and it would be an easy matter for one station to communicate with another in case of need. At the same time, it was very desirable that the Coastguards should be on the most friendly terms with Lloyd's Company. He could not think this was the best proposal which could be made. What would occur would be this. Lloyd's Agency would have stations at some important points where there was large traffic; while many very large districts of coast would be entirely neglected. On the other hand, if the Coastguards all round the coast had telegraphic communications on every Coastguard station the result would be that they would have a perfect system of communication with every port.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this discussion is entirely irregular. The discussion is appropriate to the second reading of the Bill; but it does not arise on the clause specifying a short title for the measure.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 2 (Lloyd's to have power to establish signal stations with telegraphic communication).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would have any objection to insert words in this clause which would enable the Government to take possession of the wires in time of national danger?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment was too late. He had already put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. He waited awhile, because he thought it possible that some Amendment might be proposed.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) said, he had endeavoured to point out that there was ample power in the clause for the Government to do what the hon. and gallant Baronet had in mind. The clause distinctly provided that in any of the cases where land was taken for this purpose, it should be taken under such conditions as the Postmaster General might prescribe.
DR. TANNERasked, if the Postmaster General conferred these advantages or powers upon Lloyd's, what power the Government would have to insure the carrying out of the rules and regulations?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that if an agreement was entered into under the provisions of this clause, the provisions of the agreement could be enforced at law.
ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he had great respect for the opinions of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) who took such a great interest in the fishing industry; but he reminded him that if this Bill were passed it would not accomplish the ends the hon. Baronet had in view. It was not likely Lloyd's would attempt to establish the stations in parts of the country round the coast where messages would not pay for the sending. They would establish stations on prominent headlands, such as Beechy Head and the Lizard, from which they could report vessels which passed. If the Government would withdraw the Bill and allow public opinion to be brought to bear upon it, he thought they would have a very different idea permeating the public mind, and in favour of the Government doing what the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) suggested they should do—namely, lay down wires from one Coastguard station to another. Feeling as strongly as he did that this Bill ought not to be pushed on in the teeth of some of the warmest and strongest supporters of the Government—and the Government were driving the Bill down their throats in the interest of a great Society in the City of London—he begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Admiral Field.)
MR. BARINGsaid, that the single question to be decided by the Committee was, whether they wished to postpone measures for the saving of life at sea until next year? The hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field), who knew nothing about Lloyd's, said that Lloyd's only wanted to telegraph the arrival or departure of ships. What Lloyd's wanted to do was to make profit, and the way they wanted to make profit was to save loss of life and ships and cargo at sea. He trusted that the Committee would agree to the passing of the Bill.
MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, that the effect of passing this Bill would be to lessen insurance on ships, because the danger to ships would be lessened. He thought there was very great reason, therefore, why the Bill should be passed at once. Shipping had suffered great depression, and to lessen insurance would be a great benefit to the shipping interest. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne (Admiral Field) certainly appeared to have the Navy on the brain. Some hon. Members of the House certainly considered that the Mercantile Marine of the country was worth saving. He held that view; and therefore he was of opinion that the Bill might be passed with advantage.
DR. TANNERsaid, he had heard the remarks from the opposite Benches of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Baring) with considerable surprise. They were now in the month of August, and the hon. Member had made a passionate appeal in favour of the immediate passing of the Bill, so as to prevent the postponement of the taking of any step for the saving of life at sea. Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that if they passed the Bill now they would secure the immediate erection of any additional signal stations? He believed the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) was quite right. They were trying to prevent a job being perpetrated. He sincerely hoped the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and gallant Baronet would obtain the substantial support of the Committee. For anybody to state that the passing of this Bill would stud the coast with signal stations which would prevent loss of life and property during the coming year was absurd.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) would withdraw his Motion. He put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it was not the case that at the present moment the Government and the Admiralty were obliged to rely on Lloyd's for the necessary information to enable the Admiralty to make its arrangements for the defence of commerce in time of war? Lloyd's had done great service to the nation in times of peace and in times of war, and he certainly was in favour of enabling Lloyd's to take means to develop their signal system for the safety of our commerce and to give information for the protection of it in time of war. He trusted that in the interest of the Royal Navy as well as in that of commerce, in time of peace and in time of war, his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must ask the Committee to decide at once whether they would go on with the Bill or not. He thought the vast majority were in favour of the Bill, and therefore they were really wasting time in debating the point. If his hon. and gallant Friend would not withdraw his Motion let them divide upon it at once.
MR. CREMER: I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
DR. TANNERchallenged the Chairman's declaration that the Noes had it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member name another Teller?
DR. TANNER: Admiral Field.
ADMIRAL FIELD: No, no!
DR. TANNER: The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No, no!
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman fails to find another Teller the Noes have it.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported, without further Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 374.]
(Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Arthur Balfour.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and, Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he would appeal to the Government to postpone the measure until the Autumn Sitting. He objected to the financial part of the Bill, and he should wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) might be present when the measure was discussed.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. SMITH)said, that having regard to the satisfactory progress made with Business that evening he would agree to postpone the measure.
Debate adjourned till Thursday 15th November.

MOTIONS.

  REGISTRATION ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Causton, Bill to amend "The Registration Act, 1885," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Causton, Mr. Asquith, Sir Henry James, Mr. James Rowlands, and Mr. James Stuart.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 376.]

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr Anderson, Bill to constitute a Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anderson, Sir John Simon, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Rowntree, and Mr. Bradlaugh.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 377.]

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (PREVENTION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Mundella, Bill for the better Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mundella, Mr. John Morley, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Henry James, Mr. Samuel Smith, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Robert Reid, and Mr. Channing.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 378.]

  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be
  378
  nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.