Commons Sitting of 2 July 1888

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right honble. James Lowther, for Kent County (Isle of Thanet Division).
SELECT COMMITTEES—Corn Averages, nominated.
Report—Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland) [No. 255].
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bann Drainage* [312]; Barrow Drainage* [313] Shannon Drainage* [314]; Slander Law Amendment* [316).
Report—Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment [86]; Public Houses (Ireland) (Saturday Closing) [3], consolidated into the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) [315].
Withdrawn—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [96].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Commons Regulation (Therfield Heath) * [301].
Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets)* [291]; Local Government (Ireland (Coleraine, &c.)* [297].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. AUSTINsaid, he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention
    16
    to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Motion of which the hon. Member had given Notice must be moved after the Bill had been read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time, "put, and agreed to.
    MR. AUSTINsaid, he would endeavour to be as short as possible in the statement he had to make in moving that the Bill be referred to a special Hybrid Committee. The Aire and Calder Navigation Company was first called into existence in 1798. They were constituted Trustee Conservators, and, as their Bill stated, undertakers of the great water-way between the West Riding of Yorkshire and its only seaport, the Port of Goole. The Company had since become to all intents and purposes a private trading Company; their shares were never published, and there was no public record of their receipts, no public audit of their accounts, and they had the entire control of this great water-way as a simple trading Company. That a private Company should have control of this ancient river had long been a source of public dissatisfaction. In 1820 they obtained an Act of Parliament authorizing them to make a Canal from Knottingley in the West Riding to the seaport of Goole, and a clause was inserted in the Bill providing that the Canal was to be rated by agricultural value. An important statement had recently been issued in justification of the present Bill, from which it would appear that they had expended £2,000,000 on the extension of their docks and works. The Bill now applied for large and wide powers, and he maintained that there was no longer any justification for the exemption in regard to rating which had hitherto existed. The greater portion of the £2,000,000 expended on additional works had been really paid out of the profits arising from the navigation. Yet the Company gave it as one ground, notwithstanding that they had been able to pay in addition handsome sums as dividends, that the exemption should be continued. Now, he maintained that the Company ought to be just, and fulfil its proper obligations to the heavily-taxed farmers of the district before they came to Par-

    17
    liament with a Bill of such a large scope, and justified it on the ground that they had been great public benefactors. In order to show what the Company were asking the House to sanction, it was only necessary that lion. Members should read the Preamble of the Bill. It was promoted for the purpose of authorizing the undertakers of the navigation of the Rivers Aire and Calder, in the West Riding of the county of York, to construct certain works, to abandon certain other works, to maintain and enlarge existing works, and for other purposes. His proposal was that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee; so that, before Parliament consented to grant the powers now asked for, the whole position of the undertaking should be inquired into, in order to see whether the Company had fulfilled their obligations, and how they now stood in regard to various Acts of Parliament passed since the Canal was originally called into existence. As he had said, an Act was passed in 1820 exempting the under-takers from paying rates for more than agricultural value. But those powers were limited to works that were to be constructed within the period of 10 years, and he would call the attention of the House to the position of the Canal as it stood during those 10 years under this provision, and also how it stood now, and how it had affected the Port of Goole. When the concession was granted in 1820, as far as the Port of Goole was concerned, there were simply two small docks, capable of taking vessels of 100 tons burden. In 1887 steamships were able to enter the docks of 2,500 tons burden, and there was a tonnage at Goole in 1841 of 383,000 tons. In 1887 that amount of tonnage had increased to 1,200,000 tons, and the principal portion of that increase had taken place within the last 10 or 15 years. The increase in the last 10 years had been 75 per cent. There were now 41 steamships running into the docks, and the number of trading vessels had increased in proportion. During the last 20 years there had been a harbour constructed, 250 feet long, a ship dock of 700 feet, a railway dock of 600 feet, an Aldam dock of 461 feet, a steamship dock of about 4 acres, a barge dock of 900 feet, and a further steamship lock of 260 feet, a new lock just completed of 500 feet, together with
    18
    a graving dock of 225 feet, now being lengthened. Patent slips, many cranes, tip, and patent hoist capable of lifting 75 tons, timber ponds, warehouse conveniences, and all the appliances of a large and flourishing seaport; but, nevertheless, the entire rating of those magnificent docks and works came under the Exemption Clause, and the amount paid, including warehouses and the whole of the works, was only over £1,000 a-year; while at Grimsby docks, of a similar capacity, on the other side of the water, were paying from £3,000 to £4,000 a-year. There was a circumstance he might mention, in connection with the matter, which he thought would show the spirit in which the Company had carried out this exemption, and the grievous injustice inflicted upon the community so far as the Poor Law Unions were concerned. He thought the fact he was about to mention would astonish the House, if anything could astonish it, in regard to the proceedings of this Company. Previous to 1845, the site of one of the Company's docks was a market garden rated at £4 an acre. The Aire and Calder Company took possession of this market garden, converted it into a magnificent steam-ship dock, and, according to the agricultural standard of value, they did not even pay £4 an acre, but were rated at the very lowest agricultural value—namely, £2 an acre. Nevertheless, from the magnificent steamship dock which had been erected upon that site, the Company were sending out ships to every part of the world. So far as the contribution to the rates was concerned, the appropriation of this market garden by the Aire and Calder Company had reduced the contribution to the rates from £4 an acre to £2. When the Canal was opened in 1826 or 1827, the canal boats plying upon it were of limited capacity, with a tonnage of not more than from 40 to 60 tons. But now what was the position of the Canal? The Canal had been enlarged, deepened, and widened; the locks had been extended so that vessels of 130 tons burden could pass up and down the Canal, sea-going vessels could load goods and pass through the Canal at Leeds, and pass the Goole docks to the German Ocean. He could not imagine, then, that they would in justice continue to maintain the exemption from rating. The exemption was

    19
    not continued by Parliament in the Act of 1828, and it would then appear that Parliament became jealous in regard to the exceptional powers they had conferred. In 1828 the Company applied again to Parliament for further powers to construct further works; but the Committee to whom the Bill was referred refused to make any further exemption. Since then there had been an enormous increase in the value of the Canal. In 1845 the Act was passed which constituted Canal Companies, jointly with Railway Companies, general carriers. The Aire and Calder Company had simply been up to that time collectors of dues; since then they had been traders. Perhaps it would be desirable that he should contrast the rates paid by this Canal Company and by railways of the Lancashire and Yorkshire, which passed through the same agricultural district. The railway, which began at Knottingley and ran parallel with the Canal to Goole, was rated at £600 a-mile; whereas this Company only paid £33 per mile. The North-Eastern Railway, passing through another district, and approaching the seaport of Goole from another direction, was rated at £800 a-mile. The Canal approaching Goole from Lincolnshire, with not one-fourth the traffic upon it which the railway had, was rated at £300 a-mile. He thought those facts formed an ample justification for the Motion. It was most desirable that the whole proceedings of the Aire and Calder Company should be overhauled before any further extensions were granted. If that were not done, and the Bill were allowed to pass through the House, what would be the result? As he had already pointed out, the Company had large powers to appropriate property for private purposes. It was desirable, in the interests of the ratepayers of the district, that the position and proceedings of the Company should be thoroughly inquired into by a special Committee of the House. He understood that an objection would be made to the Motion, on the ground that other Canals enjoyed the same exceptional privileges. He believed that there were some few other undertakings in a similar position. But he could not help being reminded that whenever they approached a public grievance, and made an endeavour to rectify it, they were always told they had selected the
    20
    wrong time. He believed there were some 25 Canals in existence that were fully rated, and he hoped the House would deal with these questions of exemption from rating as they arose. The Poor Law Guardians in the locality asserted that this Company were not content with declining to pay their fair share of the public obligations in the maintenance of the poor collected in the district, but filled the Poor Law Union houses with pauperism the Company itself created. Bargemen, porters, coalheavers, and others similarly employed were not the most thrifty or prudent of men. The result was that the tenant farmers. were obliged to maintain them, while this great trading Company practically went free. It was the duty of the House of Commons to redress the grievances of the people, and he did not think it was possible to call attention to a greater grievance than that which existed in connection with the exemption of this Canal Company from contributing its proper proportion to the rates. There was not a class of men so patient under adversity, so untiring in their industry, so frugal in their habits, and so free from the spirit of public turbulence as the tenant farmers; and he appealed to the House in the name of justice on behalf of the tenant farmers, to pay some attention to their interests and grievances. He hoped that before the Bill left the House full and ample justice would be done to them, and that a full, impartial, equitable, and just rating provision would be introduced into the Bill. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
    COLONEL GUNTER, in seconding the Motion, said, he did not oppose the Bill in any way, but simply asked that an inquiry should be instituted into the state of circumstances which existed now in comparison with what it was in 1820. The Aire and Calder Canal was private property, and it was the only private property in the whole of the district that was not rated at its full value. The question brought before the House by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Austin) was one of great importance to his constituents. It affected them materially, and they were naturally much interested in it. When the Canal was made in 1820 the Port of Goole was a small

    21
    fishing village with something like 400 inhabitants; it was now a large town containing more than 14,000. When the original Act was passed, it was never anticipated that the Aire and Calder Navigation would ever attain the great position it now held. In fact, the dimensions of the locks and of the Canal, which were specified in the original Act, had been so much altered and enlarged that it was suggested that it was only fair that inquiry should be made as to the position of the rating question in regard to the Canal. Another point for the inquiry of the Committee was this—when the Canal was originally formed it was only intended to take tolls from boats making use of the Canal; but now the Company were general carriers themselves, both in regard to foreign and home goods. There were also great anomalies in the rating of the Aire and Calder Navigation. That part of the Canal which stood in the Hunslet and Wakefield Unions was rated at its full value. At the upper end of the Canal there were 684 yards, which were made up before 1820, and consequently were not exempted by the Act passed in that year. Those 684 yards were rated at £572 per annum, or about £1,500 a-mile; while the rest of the Canal was rated only at £33 a-mile, being the agricultural value of the land. Consequently, that small portion of 684 yards was paying more in rates than the whole of the remaining portion of the 17 miles. That being the case, the ratepayers in the locality were anxious to have the question inquired into. As he had said, they were not there to oppose the Bill in any way. They simply asked for an inquiry, and if the House, or the Committee, in the event of the Motion being acceded to, were to say that they considered the rating fair as it stood, all well and good. All they asked was that there should be an inquiry by a Committee. They would have taken up a different position, if it had been possible; but in the Bill now before the House no question of rating was raised, and consequently the ratepayers and the rating authority of the district had no locus standi to go before a Committee and oppose the Bill. Therefore it was necessary to raise it before the House, and to take the unusual course of asking that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee. In other instances,
    22
    such as that of the Liverpool and Leeds Canal, the principle of rating especially had been changed; and, therefore, they were not seeking to establish a new precedent. It must be remembered that Aire and Calder Navigation had had the benefit of this small rating for 70 years, and what the Company now asked was that the concession granted to them in 1820 should be continued and made to apply to a further extension of works. He wished to know if the ratepayers were never to have a chance of having the property re-valued, and placed in the position of other private property? As the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Austin) had pointed out, there was a large floating population in Goole, composed of labouring men and others, who, when they were ill or became paupers, came upon the rates, and the ratepayers had to support them. One point had not been referred to, and he believed that advantage would be taken of it by his hon. Friend the Member for the Basset-law Division of Notts (Mr. W. Beckett), who, he believed, was about to oppose the Motion—namely, that it was undesirable to make the case of this Canal exceptional; but that a general Bill should be brought in dealing with all canals. He thought, however, that the Aire and Calder Canal was in a totally different position from any other canal in the United Kingdom. In fact, the proprietors of the Aire and Calder Canal were the sole owners of the Port of Goole, and, therefore, there was no prospect of their being opposed there. They also enjoyed a monopoly of the Aire and Calder Canals, and also of the Ouse from Goole to the mouth of the Trent. Therefore, what might be proper in regard to other Canals, he maintained was not right or just in this particular instance. He begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Osgoldcross (Mr. Austin).
    Motion made, and Question proposed'
    "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee to consist of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection.
    That all Petitions relating to the rating of the Navigation or other property of the Undertakers presented against the Bill, within the time limited by the Standing Orders, be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses, be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit

    23
    and counsel be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners.
    That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire, if they think fit, into the present mode of rating of the Aire and Calder Navigation Undertaking and property to all poor rates and other local rates, and whether it may be necessary or expedient to modify or alter the Undertakers' rights or privileges with respect thereto under any of their Local Acts or otherwise, and to make provision in the Bill for the same accordingly.
    That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    That Three be the quorum of the Committee."—(Mr. Austin.)
    MR. W. BECKETTsaid, he hoped that the House would not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Austin). Before dealing with the proposal itself, he wished to say that it was an extremely inconvenient practice to raise the general question of rating upon a Private Bill, which was simply promoted for the purpose of enlarging and extending the works of a particular undertaking. He was not there to say whether the general subject of the rating of canals was a fair one for discussion in that House or not. Perhaps it might be; but what he maintained was that the opportunity ought not to be seized of introducing the thin end of the wedge as to the general rating of canals into a Private Bill. Hon. Gentlemen who were now supporting the proposal before the House had had a full opportunity of placing their views before the Committee of the House of Lords, but they had not availed themselves of it. The Committee of the Lords sat for some time to consider the Bill, and eventually it was passed as an unopposed measure. It was quite true that on the third reading in the House of Lords a noble Lord presented a Petition purporting to be signed by a large number of land-owners and others in the West Riding of Yorkshire; but on examining the Petition he found that the signatures to it were only 42 in number, and were entirely confined to a very small district extending from Goole to a place five miles to the west. The opponents of the Bill had neglected to bring forward their case when the measure was before the House of Lords; and the effect of the Instruction, if it were adopted, would probably be to compel the promoters to withdraw the Bill altogether. From the remarks which had been made by the hon. Gen-
    24
    tleman opposite, it might be inferred that the Aire and Calder Canal was practically exempt from rates altogether. The hon. Member said that the rates paid to the Company amounted to only £1,000 a-year; whereas last year the whole amount paid for rating was £3,600. In the town of Goole the docks and other works belonging to the Company were rated at the very fair value of £500 an acre, and it was the agricultural land which the Canal traversed that was rated at only £33 an acre. The distinction was drawn for the reason that many years ago it was considered that the construction of canals ought to be encouraged, and on that ground the liability, so far as rating was concerned, was reduced. The Aire and Calder Canal was no more in an exceptional position than a dozen other of the principal canals of the country. The hon. and gallant Member for the Barkston Ash Division (Colonel Gunter) was badly informed, because, as a matter of fact, the principal canals of the Kingdom were exempt from the liability of rating. It had been the policy of Parliament of late years to encourage the extension of canals, and to oppose the absorption of them by railways; but the effect of adopting this Instruction would be to place a great burden upon the proprietors. If the Bill should not be proceeded with, it would not only be a great detriment to the Canal itself, but also to the town of Goole, which, it could not be denied, would be largely benefited by the extension of the Canal. The Aire and Calder Company had been alluded to as an extremely wealthy Company, paying large dividends; but the House had not been told that the Company was paying £70,000 a-year in dividends some years ago, while it was now only paying dividends to the extent of £50,000 a-year. The effect of imposing heavy burdens upon it would be to increase the tolls and rates charged upon goods, and to place additional burdens upon the general community. He trusted that, on general grounds, the House would not accept the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austin) to give this Instruction to a special Committee. It might be the policy of Parliament to consider in some other Session whether all canals should not be rated alike; but he objected to the Aire and Calder Canal being singled out, seeing that it was in

    25
    no respect in a different condition from many other large canals.
    COLONEL DAWNAYsaid, he earnestly hoped the House would consent to the Instruction. The hon. Member for the Basset-law Division of Nottinghamshire said that was not a proper opportunity for bringing the matter forward. It was, however, the only opportunity that could be had. The hon. Member said that the town of Goole paid a large sum in rates last year. They knew that 684 yards were rated at nearly ££1,500 a-mile, but their grievance was that the 17 remaining miles were rated at virtually next to nothing—namely, £33 a-mile; while railways in the same district were rated at from £600 to £800 a-mile. They were told by the promoters of the Bill that the form of rating was usual, and had applied to other canals; but that was hardly the case, because this form of rating was only in force with regard to a very few canals constructed before 1845, when the Canal Companies were converted into general carriers and their position altogether altered. Goole, which had only 415 inhabitants in 1820, had now become a flourishing port, and the traffic in that port had increased during the last 10 years by more than 50 per cent. What he wished to know was, whether this Canal Company were to be allowed to increase their works for ever to an unlimited extent, without being required to contribute their fair share towards the rating of the district through which it passed? An attempt to extend the existing exemptions in 1828 failed. He would give the House a statement in regard to the way in which Private Bill legislation was conducted many years ago by a statesman whose opinions would be received with respect and attention in every quarter of the House—namely, Lord Grey, who was then a Member of the House of Commons. Lord Grey said that in the earlier part of his Parliamentary life the manner in which Private Business was managed in the House of Commons was nothing short of a scandal. Whenever a Bill was promoted for the benefit of speculators, there was as energetic a Whip and as large an attendance of Members as if some great political question was about to be decided. Therefore, according to the testimony of Lord Grey, the fact that the sanction of the Legis-
    26
    lature had been given to a particular scheme in those days did not appear to be worth much, and there were strong reasons to believe that that legislation ought never to have been made at all. He, therefore, hoped the House would send the Bill to a Select Committee to decide what should be done in the matter.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Basset-law Division of Nottinghamshire seemed to be of opinion that the question was not one that ought to be considered by a Select Committee upstairs, but ought to be settled by some general measure. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, he wished to point out that by an alteration made in the Standing Orders at his (Sir Bernhard Samuelson's) instance a few years ago it was distinctly laid down that whenever a Railway or Canal Company came to Parliament for further powers its existing powers might be reviewed. Before submitting that Standing Order to the acceptance of the House, Mr. Speaker Brand, as well as his counsel, the late Mr. Reilly, was consulted, and it was held that it was a fair and proper Standing Order to propose. The Standing Order was thereupon adopted, and it laid down that whenever a Railway or Canal Company came to that House for further powers, it should be within the competence of a Committee of the House to say whether the rates formed a fair question for revision. Whether the point now raised or any matter of detail in regard to this particular canal was a subject for revision or not was a separate question altogether; but there saw no objection whatever to the subject being fully inquired into by a Committee upstairs.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words on the subject. He had been asked to do so, because he was Chairman of the Canal Association; and as legislation which affected one canal must indirectly have an influence upon another canal, he desired to express his opinion that those who proposed a reference to this special Committee had not laid before the House any reason why the procedure in that case should not follow the ordinary course. It had been competent for those who were now introducing the matter

    27
    to present a Petition against the Bill, so that they might be heard before the Select Committee, and stand or fall by the decision of that Committee. The course adopted by those who proposed the Motion appeared to him to be highly inconvenient. The question was raised at a late period of the Session, and if successful must be fatal to the Bill, because there would be scarcely any limit to the length of the inquiry which the Hybrid Committee was invited to make, and if the investigation was full and complete a large amount of time must be consumed. It was, therefore, not probable that the inquiry could be completed during the present Session in sufficient time to allow the Bill to pass. It had been the policy of Parliament for some years to encourage the extension of canals, and to do all that could be done to improve the water-ways of the country. He thought that those who took an interest in canals and in the improvement of British trade had reason to complain when canals such as the Aire and Calder, which endeavoured to give improved facilities, had an attack of this character made upon them. That Canal was not exempt from the payment of rates, except in a partial and limited way, and in regard to a considerable portion of it, was rated not on agricultural value only, but in accordance with the value of surrounding property, part of which was of a high character, and accordingly the Canal was rated upon a high scale. Reference had been made to the dividends which were obtained by the Company, and it was said that those dividends were too large. If they were large he did not see why the Company should be punished because they were rendering great service to the community. It was not true that the Canal was rated at a nominal figure. The rates paid in Goole last year amounted to £1,450, and the total rates paid by the Canal property were £3,600. Some comparison had been made between Grimsby and Goole with regard to the amount of rates; but surely there was a considerable difference in the value of the property in the two places. Goole, although a rising place, was not in the same scale of prosperity as Grimsby, and he asked why should this attempt on the part of the Canal Company to improve their property be made the means of taking away
    28
    from them the privileges which were given to them in former days? The Canal had been conducting its operations for nearly 100 years, and all that they asked now was that the House should allow the Bill to follow the ordinary course—namely, to permit an inquiry to be made of the ordinary character, and not to embark at that late period of the Session in the long inquiry which would, in all probability, be fatal to the passing of the Bill, and would be here-after a discouragement to great Canal Companies to make those improvements which it was desirable they should make in the interests of the public.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was not able to agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. F. S. Powell), nor did he think that the observations of his hon. Friend had any special application to the proposal now before the House. The House had been told what dividends this Canal Company had been paying; but they knew nothing of what the capital was upon which the dividends were paid. [Mr. W. BECKETT: £1,500,000.] He had now succeeded in extracting some little additional information; but even now the whole case was not fully covered. He wished to know whether that Parliament was to be governed by the policy of the Parliament of 1820? Another question was, whether the tenant farmers, who had been so long treated with injustice, were to continue under extraordinary burdens, in order that the burdens of this very wealthy Company might be lightened? It would appear that not only had large sums of money been paid in the shape of dividends, but that large additional works had been carried out. The Standing Order passed at the instance of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Banbury Division of Oxfordshire (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) provided that, whenever a Canal Company came to Parliament for new powers, an opportunity should be given to the House to review the position of that Company. In the case of this wealthy Company, considering the peculiar position in which it stood, he did not think the House ought to refuse an inquiry which might have the effect of removing a gross injustice.
    MR. COWLEY LAMBERTsaid, the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottinghamshire

    29
    (Mr. W. Beckett) complained that the House was asked to pursue a very inconvenient course. It might be an extremely inconvenient course for the hon. Member and others who were possibly connected with the Canal. Now, he (Mr. Cowley Lambert) had no connection with it whatever, but stood there as an outsider; and he was, therefore, disposed to treat the question as one of fairness and equity. The hon. Member said that it was introducing the thin end of the wedge; but he forgot that the Aire and Calder Navigation Company had been introducing the thin end of the wedge for some time. It was certainly unfair for a Canal Company to enlarge its locks and improve its private property as the Aire and Calder Company had been doing for many years past, and then to ask the House to legalize their operations under exceptional circumstances. They were now proposing to deepen the Canal by raising the banks for some miles from Goole, in a somewhat similar manner to the Manchester Ship Canal, so that large vessels might pass through; presently they would come to that House for power to widen a bridge, and at the same time to legalize the raising of the banks, which now they were doing without leave. It was said that the ratepayers ought to have represented their case in the House of Lords; but when the Bill was before the House of Lords the ratepayers had no more locus standi than they had now. Being a question of rating, and consequently a money question, the House of Lords had no power to deal with it. The hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division had pointed to the fact that the Petition presented to the House of Lords against the Bill only obtained 42 signatures; but he forgot to state that the signatures included the seals of a number of Board of Guardians who represented a population of 350,000 persons. He did not think the House need be under any fear that the promoters would withdraw the Bill if it were referred to this Committee on the ground that the trade of the district would be damaged, because the traders were simply the Aire and Calder Navigation Company themselves.
    THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the hon. and gallant Member for
    30
    Thirsk (Colonel Dawnay), in the observations he made a short time ago, quoted a passage from Lord Grey, in which that noble Lord expressed an opinion that the Private Bill legislation many years ago was in an unsatisfactory state. There might, perhaps, be said the same thing now; only, instead of the many suffering injustice for the few, the few might suffer for the many. In the absence of knowledge there was much the same risk as ever. Now, at all events, it was desirable that the House should know exactly what they were going to assent to if they adopted this Instruction. It was represented to be a case in which a wealthy Company was concerned; and, of course, where there was a wealthy Company on the one side, and a large body of ratepayers on the other, the interests of the multitude were more likely to be studied than those of the few. The question, however, was not so much between the tenant farmers of the country as between the landowners and the proprietors of the Canal. How was it that this contestarose? It arose in this way. In the year 1820 an Act of Parliament was passed authorizing the construction of this Canal, and in that Act it was provided that the land taken should be rated as agricultural land. That was the principle followed at that time as the general principle in respect of the rating of canals, and was no special provision provided for the benefit of this canal. On the contrary, it was common to all canals then and for some time afterwards, and was still the law in respect of a great many canals. They were not rated as they would be rated now, at their full value as railways were rated, but only upon the value of agricultural land. That was the principle in force in 1820, and the proposal now made in respect of this particular Canal was to refer to a Committee upstairs the question, as between the land proprietors and the Canal proprietors, whether that rule of rating should be altered or not. He was not going to lay down any abstract proposition upon the matter; but he must say that the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for the Banbury Division of Oxfordshire did not bear out what his hon. Friend asked the House to support. It was quite true that some years ago a Standing Order was adopted,

    31
    providing that whenever a Railway or a Canal Company came to that House for new powers it should be possible to examine previously authorized rates; but that meant the rates charged by the Railway or Canal Company for the business done, and the provision was that whenever new powers were sought of from Parliament in respect of a new undertaking, it should be possible to examine the rates levied in regard to their pressure upon the ocmmunity. In this case, it was not a question of re-examining the position of traffic rates as between the Canal Company and its customers, but a question of re-examining the position of poor rates between a Canal Company and its neighbouring landed properties. He would not say that that was a question which could not be considered; but he wished the House to understand what it was doing, and that it was doing something very different from what was authorized by his hon. Friend's Amendment of the Standing Order. It would not be an inquiry into the general question of the rates that were levied; but an inquiry into the propriety of an arrangement sanctioned by Parliament in 1820 which now affected the land-owners of the district adversely, as between them and the Canal Company. He thought it would have been much better to appoint a Committee specially for the purpose of reviewing this question of canal rating generally, rather than to seize the opportunity of a Canal Company coming to Parliament to force this revision of the principle of rating upon it. He thought the House should be warned as to the danger involved in such a proceeding, and he hoped that if it referred this Bill to the Committee proposed it would have some respect for the principles to which he had called attention.
    MR. GILESsaid, the Company obtained their exemption under an old Act passed in 1820, and he thought the present was just the very opportunity to seize for redressing a grievance. The Aire and Calder Company had had an immunity from taxation during the last 68 years, and he had no hesitation in saying that if such a clause as that which was inserted in the Act of 1820 was attempted to be passed now it would be ignominiously
    32
    rejected. The law as laid down in the Act of Elizabeth was that rates should be paid on the full annual value of the property let from year to year. He need only ask what would be the value of the Aire and Calder Canal if it were to be let at that moment? A pretty good indication of its value was to be found in the admission that a portion of it which did not come under the Act of 1820 was rated at £1,500 a-mile. He might point out that even hospitals and the property of scientific societies were subjected to rating; and as the law was enforced in in the case of everyone else, he did not see why Parliament should not interfere with the unjust exemption claimed by the Aire and Calder Canal Company.
    MR. WADDYsaid, that this Canal passed through a division not far from that which he had the honour to represent. He, therefore, could not help saying that the Chairman of Committees had put the matter upon an entirely false basis. Nobody proposed for a single moment to mulct this Canal Company. The fact was that for a long time indeed the Company had practically been mulcting the ratepayers. Whereas it was admitted that a certain principle of rating which was now used all over the Kingdom was a sound and proper mode of rating, this Company, and this Company alone, had succeeded in escaping from it for a very considerable period. What amount of work it had piled up in the meantime it was not necessary to inquire into; but all they said was that as the Company were now coming to Parliament for full powers to be conferred upon them by new legislation they should be proposed to go before a Select Committee in order that their exceptional privileges might be dealt with, and that their property might be subjected to the ordinary and just rule of rating which was applied to the property of everybody else. If the Bill were referred to a Special Committee an opportunity would be afforded of ascertaining what was the proper amount at which the Canal ought to be rated. There was no proposal to mulct the Company, but simply to see that the necessities of the unfortunate ratepayers were no longer neglected.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL. [Lords] (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
    MR. BIGGAR, in moving the adjournment of the debate until Thursday next, said, the Bill had passed the House of Lords, so that an adjournment could make no practical difference in reference to the final stages of the Bill. The Amendments which were on the Paper, although numerous, would make no difference in the principle of the Bill. They were, however, Amendments which ought to be considered on their merits, and as an interesting discussion was likely to arise on a cognate measure that was about to be introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he thought it would be convenient to adjourn the debate until Thursday, The hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond), who took a great interest in the Bill, was not at that moment present, and it was desirable that he should have the opportunity of stating what were the views of Mr. Paulton in regard to the measure. He, therefore, begged to move, that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he trusted that the House would not assent to the unusual proposal of the hon. Member. The Bill was originally an unopposed Bill, but out of consideration for the views of some hon. Members it had been referred to a Select Committee, of which he had the honour to be Chairman. The Bill had already been subjected to a most exhaustive and careful inquiry. The Amendments to which the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had referred were not brought before the Committee as they might have been, and, instead of being minor Amendments, they went to the very root of the Bill, and if carried in their entirety, they would destroy the measure, and make the scheme it was intended to promote absolutely impos-
    34
    sible. The hon. Member had adduced no sufficient reason for a postponement of the Bill. The House was fully able and quite prepared to decide every question, and he, therefore, trusted that the Motion would be assented to.
    MR. JORDAN, said, he thought the proposal of his hon Friend the Member for West Cavan to adjourn the debate was a most preposterous one; that his hon. Friend had certainly assigned no sufficient reason whatever, except that some hon. Member had favoured him with a telegram indicating that he was anxious to present the views of a Mr. Paulton. He certainly thought they would be going out of their way to postpone the legislation of that House in order to study the convenience of hon. Members. The matter had been before the North of Ireland for the last 15 years, and there was a strong desire felt in that part of the Kingdom that the Ulster Canal should be made navigable. The Bill in some shape or other had now been before the House for five years, and before the public for 10 years previously. When the Bill came before the House as an unopposed Bill, a Motion by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that it should be referred to a Select Committee was agreed to, and now the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) desired that it should be re-committed to the whole House. He (Mr. Jordan) was afraid the proposal of the hon. Member for West Cavan was made, not for the purpose of adjournment, but for the purpose of killing the Bill altogether. The Canal was much wanted, and the needs of trade in that locality required it. In the North of Ireland the people were of one accord in relation to the necessity of rendering the Canal navigable.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was now going into the merits of the Bill. He must confine himself to the Question of Adjournment.
    MR. JORDANsaid, he would only appeal to the Southern Nationalist Members to vote against the proposal of the hon. Member for West Cavan, and to give them Home Rule in the North of Ireland for the management of their own affairs.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, that whatever other Southern Nationalist Members might do, he, for one,

    35
    could not yield to the request of the hon. Member (Mr. Jordan). The proceedings of the Select Committee on the Bill might or might not deserve all the praise which the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Stansfeld) had bestowed upon it. He quite agreed that the labours of the Committee had considerably improved the Bill. The whole question, however, before the House was whether this was a convenient time for taking a debate upon the Bill, and he was of opinion that it was not. In the first place, a considerable portion of the time devoted to Private Bill legislation had already been consumed upon another measure, and it was exceedingly undesirable that the whole of the time of the House should be appropriated to the consideration of Private Business when there were important matters of public interest on the Paper for consideration. There were numerous Amendments upon the Paper with which it would be impossible to proceed in the limited time at their disposal, and the result would be, that if they were compelled to go on with them, the discussion must necessarily be confined within very small limits indeed. He would not discuss the nature of the Amendments on the Paper now, but would only say that they were important Amendments which well deserved the attention of the House. They were Amendments which would require some discussion, and they certainly did not deserve the strong attitude which the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Jordan) had taken with regard to them. It was most unfair to expect that they could be discussed in the time now at their disposal, and all they asked was that they should be allowed a reasonable opportunity for discussing them.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he regretted that he was not able, at that moment, to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan. His hon. Friend was of opinion that the interests of every individual in Ireland would be injuriously affected; but he thought that if the Bill were proceeded with then, there would be due time to consider it. If the Motion were agreed to, had his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) any reason to believe that a debate on Thursday would be more effective than if it were taken then? Personally, he saw no
    36
    reason for entertaining that belief. The Bill had been before the House for several years, and had been defeated by the application of the blocking Rule. It was now brought forward as a private Bill, and as there was no opposition to it in the ordinary way, it would have gone before the Committee as an unopposed Bill; but on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) it was referred to a Select Committee, and under the impartial presidency of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), it was fairly and carefully considered, together with various Amendments which were proposed to be made to it. The absence of any hon. Member from the House could not be regarded as a fair reason for postponing the Bill. Serious damage had been caused by the delay which had occurred in passing the Bill, and in the name of his constituents and the town of Belfast, he protested against any further unnecessary delay in the matter. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) carried his Motion to a Division, he should be obliged to vote against him.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, there was an almost universal opinion in the North of Ireland in favour of the Bill being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. He, therefore, hoped hon. Members would not assent to the Motion which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar).
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving a Resolution.
    MR. SPEAKER: The first question is the Motion "That the Bill be now considered."
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Motion he proposed to make was—
    "That, inasmuch as this Bill has been fully considered by a Select Committee, this House declines to entertain Amendments which ought to have been brought before the Committee, and that the Bill be ordered to be read a third time."
    With the leave of the House he would state why he considered it his duty to deal with these Amendments in so de-

    37
    cisive a manner. In the first place, he wished the House to understand the subject matter of the Bill. The Bill was for the purpose of enabling a Canal Company to come to terms with the Board of Works in Ireland, with the sanction of the Treasury, in regard to the taking over of the Ulster and Tyrone Navigation.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to submit, in regard to the Motion the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make, whether it was competent for any Member of that House to make a Motion in order to prevent other Members from moving Amendments in a Bill? He would ask whether there was any precedent for such a Motion, either on the Report or Committee stage of the Bill, which would have the effect of shutting out other Members who had a desire to move Amendments on either of those stages?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman, in proposing this Motion, has taken an unusual course, and the circumstances in which the House finds itself are also most unusual. I consider that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I can gather its purport, would be for the purpose of relieving the House from a state of things which would be intolerable. This Bill, as I understand it, having been before the House for many years as a Public Bill, and this year as a Private Bill, was, at the request of an hon. and learned Member of this House, referred to a Committee of a very special kind, and that Committee has reported. Besides, the Motion on the Paper is, that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. That would be an improper Motion, in my view, to make. The Bill could not possibly be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, as such a Committee is not a proper judicial tribunal to consider questions of this nature. The Select Committee has made a very full Report, and if the House is to be called upon to go into a vast series of Amendments after the whole subject has been considered by a special Committee, then I consider that encouragement would be given to the introduction of an abuse of a very grave kind. In those circumstances, I have permitted the right hon. Gentleman to make the Motion.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask if there is any precedent for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have given a very full answer to the hon. Gentleman. The course proposed to be taken by the hon. Gentleman, and some other hon. Gentlemen who appear to be acting with him, is irregular; and, as the only way of getting the House out of the difficulty, I take upon myself the responsibility of allowing the Motion to be made.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is it competent for any hon. Member to move on the Report stage of a Private or Public Bill, a Resolution of which no Notice has been given, and which does not appear on the Paper?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have given my full answer. Under the circumstances, I consider the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman to be permissible. With regard to the hon. Member's inquiry, it is my duty to deal with questions of Order as they arise.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In the event of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman being carried, will it be competent for any hon. Member to point out or to move the correction of obvious verbal mistakes in the Bill as it stands?
    MR. SPEAKER: Verbal corrections can always be made on the third reading stage. The Question is now, that the Bill be ordered to be read the third time, and when that Motion—i.e., for the third reading—comes on, the verbal Amendments referred to can be made, and also objection taken to the third reading.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am sorry to trouble you again, Sir; but I wish to ask a further question upon this important matter—namely, whether you would rule the Motion the right hon. Gentleman is now making to be a pro-per Motion to make in reference to a Public Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is quite sufficient to me to answer questions as they arise.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, there was every reason why they should now proceed to the third reading of this Bill, and any verbal inaccuracies which appeared in it could be set aside. He had already stated what the proposal was. It was a proposal in regard to a Canal, portions of which were not at present navigable, and the object was to make

    39
    them navigable in future, so as to have complete canal communication from Belfast Lough to Lough Earn. The Board of Works proposed to hand this power to the Lagan Canal Company. He might say that the Board of Works had no other offer than that of this trading Company. There was no competition whatever. The Bill empowered the Board of Works to enter into an agreement or contract with the Lagan Company to take over the Ulster and Tyrone Canal upon certain terms, and it limited and restricted both the Government and the Lagan Company equally as to what those terms were to be. The Bill had no other object and no other bearing. The works were specified which the Lagan Company were to undertake in consideration of having this undertaking transferred to them, and the works were to be completed in three years. By the Bill as amended in Committee the agreement was to include a condition of giving a uniform depth of five feet to the Ulster Canal, and in the case of any default, the Canal must be handed over to the Commissioners of Works and the provisions of the Bill would come to an end. There were also provisions contained in the Bill for the collection of tolls to be approved by the Board of Works and other provisions for the management of the Canal. He, therefore, submitted that in regard to that undertaking they had provided sufficient safeguards for the public interest, and that if the transfer of this Canal to a competent commercial body of proved ability was to be held good in itself, those safeguards should be held sufficient if the Bill passed into law. So far as the multitudinous Amendments which had been placed on the Paper were concerned, they were directed, in his opinion, not to the Amendment, but to the destruction of the Bill. That was certainly the conviction of all persons who were acquainted with the subject, and who approved of the measure. He might point to one Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), who proposed that after the Lagan Company shall have taken over this Canal and raised money by loan and expended it on works, that—
    "In case any grand juries, poor law guardians, or other local representative bodies hereafter to be created should obtain or have the right to acquire the said canals, the commis
    40
    sioners shall have power to vest the said canals in such body or bodies, on payment by them to the company, of such sum only as the company shall have actually expended in putting the said canals into repair or in improving same."
    That completely showed that the object of certain hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway was to defeat a project of which he knew they did not approve. He, therefore, thought that their Motion should be made on the third reading and not discussed under the form of multitudinous Amendments, which, if discussed, would occupy a considerable portion of the time of the House. He, therefore, begged to move the Motion he had read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, inasmuch as this Bill has been fully considered by a Select Committee, this House declines to entertain Amendments which ought to have been brought before the Committee, and that the Bill be ordered to be read a third time."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped that the observations which had been made by the right hon. Member did not refer to him. He had placed certain Amendments on the Paper, and he begged to disclaim altogether any idea or attempt to defeat or injure the Bill. He rejoiced, as much as any other hon. Member could rejoice, at the prospect of a water way being made across the Northern Province of Ulster. The Amendments he had put on the Paper were of a restrictive character; but they had all been put down in perfectly good faith, with a desire to protect the public interest as against private encouragement, and they were not at all calculated to impede the traffic of the Canal or injure any legitimate interest. The facts of the case were these: The Canal had already cost the public enormous sums of money, several hundreds of thousands of pounds, and it was proposed to hand the Canal over to a Company holding another navigation. He had no objection to make to that; but the terms on which the transfer was to be made were very extraordinary. The Company was not only to take over the Canal, but was also to be paid for doing so. It was to receive £3,500 in hard cash from the Government for its kindness in accepting this very handsome property. Moreover, powers were given in the Bill to enable the Company

    41
    to obtain public money to the extent of another £20,000 by loan. He had no objection to the Company having money on loan; but what he wanted to provide for was that no more public money should be sunk or wasted upon this Canal. Therefore, one Amendment he had placed upon the Paper was intended to secure that any money authorized to be borrowed should be obtained from private persons or Companies. If that was a bonâ fide understanding the Company ought to be able to obtain any money they required from private persons, instead of going to the Government for it. He next proposed that when the Company should have raised money by loan, the security should be not merely the Ulster Canal, but the Company's entire undertaking, in which case, if the public money were advanced, there would be something like a security, instead of what they would probably have if the Bill were passed in its present stage—namely, a worthless security thrown on their hands. Another Amendment he desired to propose was not intended to injure the Company, but to protect a number of small leaseholders along the 44 miles stretch of the Ulster Canal, who, if the Lagan Company came into possession, might be summarily dispossessed and seriously injured. The Committee to whom the Bill was referred, refused to insert a clause which would have protected those small leaseholders; but he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper. Finally, the last Amendment was to substitute the word "holdings" for "interest," so as to secure that the holdings should be protected, although the tenants might be under the necessity of paying something in order to render them the absolute owners of their holdings. This exhausted the whole of his Amendments, and he had not placed them on the Paper with a view of defeating the Bill, but with a bonâ fide desire to serve the public interest.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, the question before the House was not the merits of the Amendments, but whether the House should have a fair opportunity of discussing the Bill, or whether an absolutely unprecedented course should be taken in order to save a few hours of the time of the House. He appealed confidently to Members of the
    42
    House whether they were in favour of the Bill or opposed to it, or whether they thought the Amendments proper or not, not to support a Motion of this kind. As far as the history of Private Bill legislation went, the House had always permitted Amendments to be moved upon this stage of a Bill. They were now asked, for the first time, to abrogate that rule, not with a view of saving the Bill, which was in no danger, nor to secure the passing of a Bill which was certain to pass, but to save time. He submitted that that was an unreason-able proposal, and that if it were acceded to, the House would be establishing a dangerous principle. Last year there was a prolonged discussion on a Private Bill, and the Rules of the House were positively strained by the moving of Amendments; but the Government did not dare to take the course now proposed to be taken in regard to this Bill. For the purpose of saving a few hours of its time, the House was asked to give its sanction to a dangerous innovation upon the practices of the House. What was the effect of the Resolution? It would not merely shut out Amendments which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, might properly have gone before the Committee; but it would strike out good Amendments and bad Amendments alike. He admitted that Amendments were very numerous, but the right hon. Gentleman had only pointed to one, and that was an Amendment which struck more at the principle of the Bill than its details. Was it a fair supposition that because an Amendment of that character had been placed on the Paper, all other Amendments that were perfectly good and arguable were to be put aside? He would not detain the House by going through the Amendments seriatim, but anyone who took the trouble to read them would see that they were drawn with some knowledge of the subject, and with due consideration for the facts. They were most proper Amendments to be inserted in a Bill. This Bill had for several years been introduced as a Public instead of a Private Bill. His view and that of some of his hon. Friends was, that the subject matter of the Bill was a public matter; that it was not a question merely affecting the rights of individuals, but of the whole community. It was a question in which the Irish Go-

    43
    vernment proposed to hand over to a private Company a property which had cost the State nearly £200,000. The Bill had been introduced as a Private Bill, and the public interests were, therefore, unrepresented, and now hon. Members who were prepared to submit proper and reasonable Amendments were sought to be deprived of the opportunity of doing so by the sweeping and revolutionary proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had some respect for the Rules of Procedure in that House—Rules which had existed so long and worked so well—not to get rid of the forms of the House for the simple service of saving time. At the very outside, if they refused to discuss the Amendments they would only save a couple of hours. He submitted that it was most dangerous for a small consideration of that kind that they should abolish their Rules of Procedure in regard to a Report stage of a Private Bill.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the Bill was one of the very few occasions he remembered on which in Ireland they had arrived at almost practical unanimity. At the present moment the whole of the House of Lords and the House of Commons practically, with the exception of the hon. Member for West Cavan, were in favour of the Bill. The question had been before the House for a considerable number of years. It had already been fully discussed, and the House had consented to refer it to a Committee in order to satisfy the hon. Member for West Cavan and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. In the Committee it had been discussed with great care under the presidency of the right hon. Member for Halifax. Nearly everyone of the Amendments now proposed had been amply discussed, and he, therefore, claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, inasmuch as this Bill has been fully considered by a Select Committee, this House declines to entertain Amendments, which ought to have been brought before the Committee, and that the Bill be ordered to be read a third time.
    Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— THE GOVERNMENT TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the total cost for each of the five years ending 1887 of the Government Training College in Ireland, male and female department; what number of teachers, male and female, completed their training in the college in each of these years; whether the whole cost of their training was defrayed from public funds; whether any provision was made to secure their continuance after training in the service of the State as National school teachers; and, how many of the number, male and female, returned as trained in each of these years, are still in the employment of the National Board as teachers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the total cost during each of the past five financial years was as follows:—For males, year ending March 31, 1884, £3,829; 1885, £3,773; 1886, £3,957; 1887, £3,964; 1888, £3,776; and for females in the same years, £3,971, £3,919, £3,922, £3,856, and £3,699 respectively. The number of teachers who completed their training was in the year of training course ended July, 1883—males, 78; 1884, 87; 1885, 52; 1886, 42; 1887, 57; females, 89, 90, 43, 64, and 43 respectively. The whole cost was defrayed from public funds. A declaration must be signed by each Queen's Scholar before admission to training that he or she intends to follow the profession of teacher, and undertakes to adopt and follow such profession at termination of the training course. Of the number returned as trained in each of the five years ended July, 1887, the following are still in the employment of the National Board as teachers:—Course ending July, 1883, males, 61; 1884, 64; 1885, 42; 1886, 35; 1887, 33; and females, 60, 55, 32, 40, and 24 respectively. The last-mentioned numbers do not take into account teachers who, having become employed as teachers subsequent to the completion of their

  45
  training, are now out of employment; or those who are employed as substitute teachers in National schools; or who have gone to Army schools, Colleges, &c., or to other educational pursuits. Information is not available in several oases as to destination.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—INJURY CAUSED BY STRIKES—ESTABLISHMENT OF A COURT OF ARBITRATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, having regard to the loss caused to British industry in the occurrence of strikes, and the consequent inability to undertake or carry out contracts, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of submitting to Parliament the creation of a mobile Court of Trade Arbitration commanding the confidence of employers and employed and maintained by fees, to which could be referred for friendly adjustment, as far as possible, all disagreements as to wages and other matters, without the necessity of locking out on the one hand or striking on the other?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that he did not think it would be possible to submit to Parliament any proposals for the creation of such a Court as his hon. Friend suggested. He was not aware that either employers or employes desired to substitute such a Court for the present system of voluntary arbitration.

  PRISON LABOUR—MAT MAKING—MAKING UP MATERIALS FOR MANUFACTURERS.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that the Government are in the habit of receiving at Her Majesty's Prisons from mat manufacturers materials for making mats and matting; and, if so, what is the payment made by these manufacturers for prison labour in comparison with what they would have to pay in the open market?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Commissioners of Prisons that the practice is to invite open competition among dealers in mats, who
  46
  supply the materials, and those who will pay highest for the articles made up from their own materials are accepted as contractors. I have no means of making the comparison spoken of in the last paragraph with any accuracy; but I am informed that the price paid by the contractors may be said to be generally the same as that paid in the open market.
  MR. CAUSTONgave Notice to ask for precise information as to the price paid for prison labour.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—HUTS FOR EVICTED TENANTS AT COOL GREANY—DECISION OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has considered the decision of the Master of the Rolls on June 13, restraining Dora Kavanagh from continuing to build huts for the shelter of evicted tenants at Coolgreany, and ordering the demolition of the existing huts; whether he is aware that a previous attempt was made by the agent, Captain Hamilton, to get rid of these huts last December, on the plea that they were unhealty and unfit for habitation, and that the Sanitary Inspector reported them to be comfortable and well ventilated; that The Dublin Express of June 14 stated that, now that this injunction had been obtained, similar action would be taken by other landlords to eject evicted tenants from similar huts in other parts of Ireland; whether he is aware that about 53 evicted persons are now living in the Coolgreany huts; and, whether, before permitting the officers of the Crown to aid in the demolition of the huts, he will make personal inquiry into the whole of the circumstances, and make any representation to the owner of the estate on the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had seen the decision of the Master of the Rolls referred to. No Report appeared to have been sent from Captain Hamilton to the Board of Guardians at any time relating to the huts in question. The sub-sanitary officer informed him that one of the huts was improperly ventilated, but the occupier had promised to rectify it.

  47
  The statement as to the decision in question which was referred to did appear in the newspaper named. The inmates of the huts numbered 57. The Executive Government were bound to afford protection when the processes of a Court of Law were being executed.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— MR. HERBERT, OF MUCKROSS—FAIR RENTS—CASE OF—WHARTON.
  MR. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a land case decided by Judge Curran at Killarney on June 16, in which, in the case of a tenant named Wharton, on the property of Mr. Herbert, of Muckross, he expressed his opinion that the rent was too high, and ought to be reduced from £68 to £55, but refused to grant the reduction unless the tenant consented to borrow a sum of £200, in order to erect a new dwelling house; and, whether, if this a correct report of Judge Curran's decision, he will state under what Act he has power to impose such terms on a tenant seeking to have a fair rent fixed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that he had no power to call upon a Judge to answer Questions with regard to his decisions in Court. He understood, however, that the alleged facts reported in the Question were inaccurate or misleading.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: In what respect?
  [No reply.]

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— CAPTAIN MAGILL—EVICTION OF PHILIP CURRANE.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the property of Captain Magill, formerly a valuer to the Irish Land Commission, and now manager of a Landlord Association in Ireland, known as the Land Corporation Company, a tenant, named Philip Currane, the rent of whose farm was £27 10 s., and the valuation only £11, was evicted on Thursday, June 14, and thus deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1887,
  48
  which he, as a leaseholder, had expressed his intention of availing himself of; whether he was evicted for nonpayment of two years' rent; whether it is a fact that the parish priest, Father Murphy, offered to pay £20 down, and the balance at the rate of the yearly rent to be fixed by the Land Commission; and, whether the Government intend to take any steps to enable persons so situated to avail themselves of the benefits of the Act of 1887?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the facts stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question appeared to be accurate. It was not true that Father Murphy made the offer stated in the third paragraph. He offered to pay £20 down, and £10 after an interval. The landlord's representative required £36 5s. 10 d. The total debt to the landlord for which this sum was to be taken in settlement would apparently be £55. The case of this man did not appear to differ from that of any other leaseholder evicted before the Act of 1887, excepting that his time for redemption had not expired; and the Government did not propose to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. FLYNNasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the Resolutions passed by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland that day, dealing with the important question of evictions and the debarring of tenants from the benefits of the Land Act of 1887?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PERSONS IMPRISONED UNDER THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION CLAUSES.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House how many persons were imprisoned merely on suspicion, and how many were condemned without trial by jury, under the Summary Jurisdiction Clauses of the Crimes Act, 1882, during Earl Spencer's administration of the Office of Lord Lieutenant?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring only to imprisonment on suspicion under the Crimes Act of 1882, or

  49
  whether he wishes to include also the Protection of Person and Property Act of 1881. The total number of persons arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act was 955. Earl Spencer came into Office on May 6, 1882; and subsequent to that date 52 persons were imprisoned on suspicion under that Act. Under the Coercion Act, which came into force on July 13, 1882—[Ironical cheers from the Irish Members]—it was not my Coercion Act—1,003 persons were proceeded against under the Suspected Persons Clauses of that Act; 187 were convicted. The Earl of Carnarvon took Office on June 13, 1885; but very few, if any, of the prosecutions mentioned were subsequent to that date.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, had not many of the persons proceeded against been merely bound to the peace?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not answer that without Notice.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MISCONDUCT OF A BAILIFF AT CAHIRCIVEEN, COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged misconduct of a Sheriff's bailiff, named William B. Golden, at the eviction of Philip Currane, on the property of Captain Magill, near Cahirciveen, County Kerry; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, his attention had not been called to any misconduct on the part of the bailiff named. As a matter of fact, bailiffs were not under the control of the Executive Government.
  THE LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the bailiff had not, in the presence of clergymen and a number of women, been guilty of grossly illegal and indecent conduct; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had no control whatever over bailiffs.
  MR. SEXTONasked the right hon. Gentleman, would he instruct the police to inquire if the crime had been committed?
  [No answer.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, could not the right hon. Gentleman inform the Sheriff that when the bailiff misconducted himself he would not afford him police protection?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that was a wholly alien Question.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—REPORT OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY FOR 1887.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Report of the Directors of the National Gallery for last year has not been printed; whether it has been presented; and, if so, when; and, whether it is not usual to lay it upon the Table at a much earlier period of the Session?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, the Report had been sent to the printer in anticipation of the Order of the House, for which he had now formally moved. He hoped the Report would be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a few days, although its presentation had been unavoidably delayed.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTION OF MR. STEPHEN MURPHY, AT MULLINROE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on Tuesday the 26th instant, Mr. Stephen Murphy was evicted from his farm at Mullinroe; whether the evicted tenant, on being served with a process of ejectment by Mr. John Hamilton Bryan, J.P., had served a cross-notice to have a fair rent fixed under the Land Act of 1887; whether a fair rent was fixed in September last at Quarter Sessions in Macroom; whether the landlord appealed; and, if so, whether the appeal has been heard; whether Murphy offered to pay the rent as fixed by Court at Quarter Sessions; was there any resistance or disturbance at the eviction; and, how many policemen were employed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was informed that Mary Murphy and her son Stephen, on being served with an ejectment process by the agent, served a notice under the 6th section of the Land Act of 1887 to have a fair rent fixed. The County Court

  51
  Judge fixed the judicial rent by order dated October 17, 1887, and the landlord lodged an appeal, which had not yet been heard. Murphy's offer was to pay half-a-year's rent at the judicial rate, in lieu of one and a-half year's rent at the old rate to September, 1887. The agent offered to accept one-half the rent due and half costs. The eviction was carried out on June 26; the tenant, however, being re-admitted as caretaker. There was not any resistance or disturbance. Seventy-one policemen were employed.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT IRELAND)— EJECTMENTS FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT—MR. WISEMAN, OF CARRIGAYULLA.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that ejectments for non-payment of rent have been served by Mr. James Wiseman upon all the tenants in the whole townland of Carrigayulla; whether, if proceeded with, they will make over 200 persons homeless; whether the district in which the evictions are threatened is a poor but peaceable locality; and, whether the Government can see their way to take any steps to prevent these evictions taking place?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that Mr. Wiseman has instituted proceedings in ejectment against two leaseholders in respect of arrears of head rent, and that necessarily ejectment notices have been served on the tenants of these leaseholders, who are about 200 in number. From the Report before me, it would appear that the landlord intended to secure to the sub-tenants their interest in their holdings in the event of his being obliged to evict the interest of the two leaseholders in question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE CORONER'S COURT—PAYMENT OF FEES TO MEDICAL MEN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that a medical man, if called upon to give evidence in a Coroner's Court, is paid a fee of £1 1s.; but if called upon by the Police Authorities to give evidence in a Police Court there in no fund out of which he can be re-
  52
  compensed for giving professional evidence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; a medical man is paid £1 1s. for attending to give evidence in a Coronor's Court. The allowance to medical witnesses for attending as witnesses in a London Police Court varies from 10 s. 6d. to 21 s., according to the distance travelled. It is certified by the magistrate and paid by the Receiver of Police.

  INLAND REVENUE—EXPERIMENTS WITH TEA.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the experiments for the denaturing of tea have been satisfactorily solved by the Customs Laboratory Officers; and, if so, when the necessary Regulations, authorizing the removal of tea in bond for the purposes of the manufacture of caffeine from such denatured tea, will be issued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; the results of the experiments which have been carried out in the Customs Laboratory have been satisfactory; and the Regulations authorizing the removal of denatured tea from bond for the manufacture of caffeine will be issued in a few days. Anyone wishing to remove tea in the interval will be offered every facility by the Board of Customs.

  INLAND REVENUE—EXPENSE OF THE RE-ORGANIZATION SCHEME.
  MR. JENNINGSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that, in pursuance of recent re-organization schemes in the Inland Revenue Department, pensions varying from £200 to X600 a-year, amounting in the aggregate to £12,692 a-year, were granted between December 1, 1886, and November 30, 1887, to 33 persons, several of whom were under the age of 50, and all under 60; whether it is also the case that compensation allowances, amounting annually to £47,767, and superannuation allowances to £177,836, are being paid in connection with the same Department; and,

  53
  whether any further re-organization in this branch of the Public Service is now under consideration?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): A full and complete statement is given on pages 53, 54, and 55 of the Estimates for Revenue Departments of the compensation allowances granted to officers of the Inland Revenue between December 1, 1886, and November 30, 1887, showing the name, office, age, and service of each officer so retired. Eighty-two such allowances were awarded in that period, amounting to £12,697. Only one of the pensions amounted to £600; the rest ranged from £1 5s. per annum upwards, 47 being compensations, generally of small amounts, to distributors of stamps who held office under an arrangement which is now being given up wherever the distributors can be bought out with economy. Excluding the distributors of stamps, the particulars of age are three over 60, 22 between 50 and 60, and 10 under 50, of whom seven were over 47. The other compensations were granted to officers whom it had become unnecessary to retain, owing to the reduction of staff rendered possible by the introduction of the seven hours' system. It is cheaper to pay them the pensions than to retain them on salary when their services were not required. The statements in paragraph 2 are substantially correct; it should, however, be remembered that the whole of the £177,836 has been earned by length of service, and a large part of the £47,767. I am not aware of any further Inland Revenue re-organization in contemplation. I may add that the numbers of the staff have been reduced by 195, and the effective charge by £16,407.

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—LEGISLATION ON THE COPYRIGHT BILL—INTRODUCTION OF AMEND MENTS.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the case that words have been introduced into the Copyright Bill now before Congress at Washington under which the privilege of copyright, in the case of a British author, would only be granted if the work were printed in the United States; and whether he has any information to give to the House on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Such words have been introduced into the Bill, which, as so amended, has passed the Senate. It is now under the consideration of the House of Representatives. I am sorry to say that I am unable to give the House any further information.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE PEOPLE'S COLLEGE BOARD SCHOOL—INTERNAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether 209, and not 63, of the scholars at present in the People's College Board Schools are juniors; whether, out of 800 scholars on the books, only 77 have come from other Board Schools; whether he is aware that at the All Saints' Church of England School in Nottingham, a higher fee and higher grade school, there are at the same time large junior and infants departments provided; and whether the advantages of an arrangement sanctioned in the case of a denominational school will continue to be denied to a school under the School Board of the town of Nottingham?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): At the date of the latest Returns in the possession of the Department there were 63 scholars under nine years old in the People's College, and out of 745 names on the books 175 had passed Standard V. in other schools. All Saints' Church of England School is not a higher grade school, but a school of the ordinary type, though in the boys' department some instruction of a more advanced character is given, and the fees generally, which vary very much, are higher than usual, to suit the class of parents whose children attend it; but this is an arrangement over which the Department have no control, and have neither sanctioned nor been asked to sanction. I may add that the latest proposals of the Board are still under consideration.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED—THE DERRY PRESENTMENTS—PROTECTION FOR THE CESSPAYER.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY(for Mr. O'DOHERTY)

  55
  (Donegal, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps the Government propose to take in consequence of the decision of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved in the matter of the Derry Presentments, with a view to protect the cesspayers against further illegal exactions in respect of remuneration to Clerks of the Peace; and with a view to restitution to the Local Authorities by Clerks of the Peace and by the Treasury of moneys presented illegally for the last 10 years?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is no ground for believing that, after the judgment of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, any further presentments will be made by the Grand Jury of the kind objected to. The Government have no power to make the Treasury return any moneys which have been illegally presented.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCESSIONS IN DERRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (Londonderry City) (for Mr.O'DOHERTY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the cases tried in the Crimes Court in Derry on Monday and Tuesday last, from which it appears that the police on that occasion justified a charge of horse police and of constables with batons upon an admittedly peaceful and orderly procession of the Foresters of Dundalk, on the ground that a band began to play, and that a Proclamation of the Mayor and City Justices had been issued against band-playing; that the conduct of the processionists was peaceable and orderly all day; and that the attack took place as they were entering the train on their return home; if he will state what Statutory or Common Law authority Justices have to prohibit, in an orderly and peaceable procession or meeting, the playing of bands; whether, before an actual disturbance of the peace, the police in Ireland are justified in using force; whether the interference of the police was followed by a disturbance of the peace; and, if it is true, as reported, that the Court sent to long terms of imprisonment certain persons who resisted such force?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that, informations having been sworn before the Mayor of Derry and Captain Gage, R.M., that if band-playing were permitted in the streets of Derry on Sunday, the 10th of June, disturbance would ensue, a Proclamation was issued by these Justices for-bidding band-playing in the city on that day. In contravention of this Proclamation the Dundalk Foresters band (which had arrived in Derry in the morning, and had been joined by a large crowd, including many of the roughs of the city), began to play in the public street outside the railway station. Mr. Beresford, R.M., and the police at once interfered (without using unnecessary violence) to stop the band-playing, when the crowd commenced a most deliberate assault on the police with stones, seriously injuring some of them. The Riot Act was then read, and the police charged the mob. Several arrests were made. Justices have full authority under the terms of their Commissions to take such steps as they may deem necessary to prevent an anticipated disturbance of the peace. Under some circumstances the police are justified in dispersing a peaceable crowd. The violation of the Proclamation was followed by the interference of the police. Eight of the rioters were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the right hon. Gentleman, if any breach of the peace had occurred in consequence of the band playing till the police provoked it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdesired the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—REVISION COURTS—NON-SUPPLY OF FORMS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a very considerable number of occupiers in the neighbourhood of Ramelton, in the Unions of Letterkenny and Milford, in County Donegal, have not been duly served with requisitions in the form prescribed

  57
  by Statute, though the period for the filling up and returning such forms has already expired; and, whether he will cause steps to be taken to secure that the electors concerned shall be placed upon the list of voters without the loss of time and money involved in attendance at the Revision Court?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J, BALFOUR): The Clerk of Milford Union reports that in the East Donegal Division polling district of Ramelton the requisition forms were served on tenants to return names of inhabitant occupiers, and on landlords to return names of labourers, &c. He also states that those persons in the rate book rated at and over £4 who had paid their rates early in May were not served, as their names were duly recorded on the list of voters in preparation for the current year. The Clerk further reports that when the list is fully made out and returned to the Clerk of the Peace for revision it will be found to contain all the names of persons resident in the east polling district of Rameltown, also such as have not paid their rates will be given, with the marginal objections before such names, giving them an opportunity of appearing and sustaining their claims by proving payment of rates, or otherwise. The Clerk of Letterkenny Union states that he is informed by the poor rate collectors that all rated occupiers in the Union were duly served, within the statutable period, with requisition forms, as required by Section 9, Sub-section 3, of the Representation of the People Act, 1884.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTONasked, if the Clerk of the Union had taken care to see that subtenants of ratepayers were placed on the list?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrequired Notice of the Question.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, if the rate collector exercised his own discretion as to whom he should or should not serve?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was afraid he could not answer that Question.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—AFFAIRS OF ZULULAND.
  DR. CLARKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, How many months Zibepu has been in Eastern Zululand; whether, since he
  58
  has been placed there, he has incurred the disapprobation or censure of the Governor for taking property belonging to the Usutu or King's Party; whether the civil war that occurred when Cetewayo was restored also occurred from Zibepu appropriating property belonging to the Usutu or National Party; whether Colonel Staff has, as reported in The Times, 200 mounted Basutos and 1,500 Native levies under his command in Zululand; whether there is any truth in the statement of the correspondent of The Daily Chronicle that—
  "Owing to the arrest of several Chiefs, and the widespread burning of kraals, and the terrorising by the Native and Basuto levies in the quiet districts of Zululand, a general insurrection is almost inevitable. Native levies are being hastily sent forward, and the result must inevitably be massacre and bloodshed,"
  whether, instead of sending an Expedition into Zululand, he will send an independent Commission to report as to the cause of the trouble; whether there is any basis for the statement of the correspondent of The Daily Chronicle that—
  "The Governor now finds, though unfortunately too late, that he has been jockeyed into military action by prejudiced officials when the matter was barely one requiring the intervention of the police;"
  and, whether it is the intention of the Government to still maintain Zibepu in Eastern Zululand after the results that occurred in 1884 and the spring of the present year?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that arising out of the Question, he desired to know whether the hon. Gentleman could state the names of the troops and the number ordered to Zululand?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: (1) Usibepu (Zibepu) has been in his old location (in what was formerly called Eastern Zululand, but is now part of Zululand) since the beginning of December, 1887. (2) The Governor cannot be said to have expressed disapprobation of his conduct, or rather of that of his people, in taking property belonging to the Usutus. Complaints of such taking have been made by the Usutus, and the Governor ordered them to be investigated, in the meantime expressing regret at hearing the complaints, ascribing the alleged acts of the Usibepu tribe to hunger, and

  59
  laying it down that compensation, as far as possible in kind, must be made for any grain or other property taken as alleged. (3) The causes of the war which broke out after the restoration of Cetewayo have formed the subject of a long controversy. The opinion of Sir Henry Bulwer, then Governor of Natal, and Special Commissioner for Zulu affairs, was that the war was due to an unjustifiable attack by Undabuko (Dinizulu's uncle) on Usibepu. (4) Her Majesty's Government have no complete details of the British forces now in Zululand; but the General commanding in South Africa is on the spot, and has called for reinforcements from the Cape portion of his command. (5) The statements quoted from The Daily Chronicle evidently contain the views and inferences of the correspondent on the situation; and the information received by Her Majesty's Government does not lead them to consider those statements accurate. (6) Her Majesty's Government do not think that the present would be an appropriate moment for sending a Commission of Inquiry to Zululand, as their information is that Dinizulu and Undabuko have committed wanton acts of robbery and violence, for which there can be no justification, in British territory, and which must be put down in any view of the case. (7) As far as Her Majesty's Government know, there is no basis for that statement. (8) No decision can be arrived at for the present as to the future place of residence of Usibepu, who is at present at Unkonjeni, in Zululand.
  DR. CLARKgave Notice that on the Report stage of Supply he should move the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State on account of his action with regard to this matter.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: It is very clear from what the hon. Gentleman has stated that important events are in progress in South Africa. May I ask whether we may expect very soon to have further Papers laid on the Table of the House.
  SIR, JOHN GORST: I am afraid I must ask for Notice of that Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)-ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH AT LETTERKENNY SESSION.
  MR. M'CARTANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whe-
  60
  ther his attention has been called to a report in The Derry Standard of the 27th instant, where it appears that County Court Judge Webb directed the Court Crier at Letterkenny Quarter Sessions, on Tuesday last, "not to ask the question of Presbyterian witnesses in future" with regard to the binding force of the form of oath taken with uplifted hand; and, whether, considering that there is no legal obligation on the part of magistrates to require a Presbyterian witness to declare in Court that this form of oath is binding on his conscience, he will cause instructions to be sent to the Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland to advise the magistrates that no such duty is imposed upon them?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I have not seen a report of the case referred to; but I have no doubt that it is correctly stated in the Question. I should be glad that the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member could be taken; but I am aware that there have been conflicting decisions on the point, and in that state of facts the interpretation and application of the existing Statute must be left to the Court in each individual case, in the absence of a judicial authority binding on all. But, as I have already given the House to understand in replying to the Question of another hon. Member, the Government would be extremely glad to see the matter settled in the direction which the hon. and learned Member desires.

  FINANCE—COMMISSION FOR DISCOUNTING NAVY BILLS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as the Admiralty refuse to pay any commission to banks on discounting Navy bills, which are payable at three days' sight, there would be any objection to placing these bills on the same footing as Army bills, which are payable on demand?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)(who replied) said: The Admiralty only refuses to pay commission for discounting Navy bills in places where the money can be obtained without payment of any such commission. The question of placing Navy bills on

  61
  the same footing as Army bills is already under consideration.

  POST OFFICE—LEAVE IN THE RECEIVER AND ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether the period of leave authorised by the Treasury for clerks in the Receiver and Accountant General's Department of the Post Office is defined by a certain number of working days; and, if so, how many?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAISES), in reply, said, the period of annual leave in the case of clerks in the Office referred to is one calender month, and is not defined by a certain number of working days.

  TRADE UNIONS (IRELAND)—PRESENCE OF A GOVERNMENT NOTE-TAKER AT A TRADE DEMONSTRATION IN CORK.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork) (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that at a trades demonstration held in Cork on June 24, in reference to a purely trades dispute, the police insisted on having a Government note-taker present, and for that purpose forced their way with mounted and ordinary police through a perfectly peaceable and orderly meeting, disregarding the protests of the Mayor of the City; what reason there was to suppose that the peace would be broken, or a breach of the law committed, at the meeting in question; and, whether there is any precedent for the sending of a Government reporter to a meeting in reference to a trade dispute?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that it is the case a Constabulary shorthand-writer was present at the trade demonstration held in Cork, as it was generally expected that very violent speeches would be made in favour of Boycotting; but that it is not true that the police, for the purpose of insisting on his presence, forced their way through the meeting, nor, as a matter of fact, did they force their way through the
  62
  meeting at all. A large crowd had been brought together, and it was considered necessary by those responsible for the preservation of the peace to have the police present. The reply to the concluding paragraph is in the affirmative.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the case is?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it was a meeting at Belleek on April 17.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there was any precedent for having Government reporters or the police at trade meetings in reference to trade disputes held in England or Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHRWS)asked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. FLYNNasked, what reason the Local Court had for believing that violent speeches would be made at that meeting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they had grounds which satisfied them that such was the case; and he might remind the House that in Ireland it unfortunately happened that criminal speeches were sometimes made at trade meetings, while in England that never was the case.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the majority of the parties concerned in that trade dispute were Protestants and Conservatives?
  [No reply.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—"BLUNT v. BYRNE "—JUDGMENT OF THE LORD CHIEF BARON.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whom the Report of the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron of Ireland, in the case of "Blunt v. Byrne," which has been revised by the Lord Chief Baron, and published as a Parliamentary Paper, was made; whether an official reporter took a note of the Judgment of the Irish Court of Exchequer in the Killeagh conspiracy case; who made the note of that Judgment which was quoted by Ministers in this House in debate on the 25th and 26th ultimo;

  63
  whether that note was revised by the Judges of the Court before it was used in the debate; and, whether a note has been taken for the Government of the proceedings in the Irish Court of Exchequer, on the 27th ultimo, upon the motion for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of Cronin and others?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Report in the case of "Blunt v. Byrne" was made by a gentleman named Johnston, a professional reporter. No official reporter took any note of the Judgment in the Killeagh conspiracy case. The Judgment was taken by a gentleman named Holt; but not on behalf of the Government. One of the junior counsel for the Crown, appearing in the case, afterwards applied to Mr. Holt for a copy of his note, and got it. That was the Report quoted in this House. It never was revised by the Chief Baron, nor, of course, by any of his colleagues. No note has been taken for the Government in the case of "Cronin and others."
  MR. SEXTON: Is not Mr. Holt a barrister and the official reporter of the Court of Probate? Did he take notes by direction of the Lord Chief Baron? When notes of a judicial decision are taken by an official person who is paid by a Vote of this House, do the Government say they are justified in quoting from those notes, and then refusing to lay them upon the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, be understood that Mr. Holt was a barrister; but he did not act officially in the case in question.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Who paid him for his notes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The person who employed him—not the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: I must press this matter a little further. In view of the fact of Mr. Holt being the official reporter of the Court of Probate, and in view of the act that the Chief Baron directed him to take these notes, can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Chief Baron has any fund, apart from the fund voted by this House, from which to pay for these notes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied in the negative, and was understood to say that the Chief Baron paid for the notes out of his private purse.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTONasked, was he to understand that Mr. Holt was asked by the junior counsel for the Crown to supply a copy of his notes; and, whether the junior counsel for the Crown had paid him for them, or intended to pay him for them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND (SCOTLAND)—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, If he can inform the House when the Report of the Royal Commission as to the Education of the Blind in Scotland (interim or otherwise) is likely to be put upon the Table of the House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Commissioners hope to close the evidence during the present month. No interim Report will be issued. A draft Report, dealing with the deaf and dumb and the blind branches of the subject, has been already prepared, and will be circulated among the Commissioners as soon as printed. The recess will be occupied in visiting some Institutions which the Commissioners have promised to see, and in the reduction of the statistical and other information collected. After the recess the Commissioners will proceed to consider their Report, and there will be no avoidable delay in laying it before Her Majesty.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE COUNTY COURT AT NEWPORT, MONMOUTHSHIRE— PLACE OF SITTING.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has yet been able to make arrangements with the Local Authorities of Newport (Monmouthshire) for the use of the muicipal buildings for the sittings of the County Court in that town?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNXET): I have not yet succeeded in making arrangements which would altogether meet the convenience both of the County Court Judge and of the Municipal Council of Newport, Monmouthshire; but I have

  65
  some reason to hope that by mutual accommodation a satisfactory solution of these difficulties may soon be found. It is, at all events, out of the question to ask Parliament to vote money for the purpose of erecting a separate County Court in Newport, when it is clear that ample provision can be made in the existing municipal buildings of the town for the wants of all parties entitled to use them.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—APPOINTMENT OF MR. STEWART AS A SENIOR SCHOOL INSPECTOR.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the recent appointment of Mr. Stewart to the office of one of the Senior School Inspectors in Scotland is the first departure in Scotland, in such appointments, from the principle of promotion by strict seniority of service?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): As I have previously stated, the principle of promotion by seniority is not now, and has never been, admitted by their Lordships. In the small number of appointments to Chief Inspectorships previously made, seniority did not, in their Lordships' opinion, coincide with the highest merit; but they decline to establish a precedent by such cases, as to do so would be detrimental to the Public Service.

  EGYPT—COST OF THE BRITISH OCCUPATION.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of the Government has been called to the following in several of the London papers:—
  "The question of the English occupation of Egypt is again before the Porte. Mukhtar Pasha has reported that as the country is entirely at peace, with the exception of a few revolted tribes in Upper Egypt, there is no longer any necessity for the English to remain. His emissaries have informed him that the Chiefs of the revolted tribes declare their readiness to submit if the English quit the country;"
  whether it is the intention of the Government to withdraw the British troops from Egypt at an early date; and, what
  66
  has the occupation of Egypt cost this country since it commenced?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have seen in the newspapers the statement quoted; no official information has reached Her Majesty's Government as to the supposed Reports from Mukhtar Pasha. The policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the occupation of Egypt has frequently been stated. There is no change in their intentions. It is impossible to state what the occupation of Egypt has cost this country since it commenced, as distinct from the various events connected with it. There is now no extra charge to British revenues on account of the troops stationed in Egypt.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—IMPRISONMENT AND TREATMENT OF MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many Members of Parliament are now in prison; for what offences they have committed; and, whether they are treated as ordinary criminals, or as first-class misdemeanants?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There are three Members of Parliament now in prison—one convicted of taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and of inciting other persons to take part in a criminal conspiracy; another convicted of unlawfully taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and of inciting certain persons unlawfully to take part in a criminal conspiracy; and a third convicted of unlawfully inciting certain persons to take part in a criminal conspiracy, to compel and induce certain other persons not to fulfil their legal obligations. Of these, two are treated as ordinary criminals; the other as a first-class misdemeanant.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDinquired why a difference was made in their treatment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because they received different sentences.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked, Whether the sentence compelling Members of that House to wear prison dress and take exercise with ordinary criminals

  67
  depended entirely upon the caprice of a County Court Judge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that it depended upon the nature of the offence, and nothing else.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL—THE VAN AND WHEEL TAX.
  MR. CAUSTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the great loss occasioned by the disturbance of trade interests, he will either fix an early date for the second reading of the Bill relating to a tax upon vans and wheels, or definitely announce the abandonment of the proposal?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): No, Sir; neither one nor the other.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCESSIONS IN DERRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in connection with the recent prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act at Derry, his attention has been called to an article in The Derry Journal, of June 27, which states that in July, 1886, a serious riot took place in Derry in consequence of a so-called "Loyalist" procession persisting band playing in defiance of the magistrates' Proclamation, and that, although many persons were injured, the same Police Inspector, who last week prosecuted some 16 Nationalists, did not prosecute any one; and, whether, if this be true, he will endeavour to obtain for this House some explanation of the different course pursued in these two cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that at the occurrences of two years ago, referred to in the Question, there was no riot, nor was there any procession. A band came on the street from a private yard. The police drove them back to the yard. A few stones were thrown; but none of the stone-throwers could be identified. None of the police were injured, and only one civilian received a blow. The concluding portion of the
  68
  Question was answered in the reply he had the honour to give to the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty.)
  In reply to the LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN (Mr. Sexton) (Belfast, W.),
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, as far as he understood the Report, the band were driven back into the yard. The stone-throwers were not summoned because they were not identified.

  WAR OFFICE—ISSUE OF THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE— THE RUBINI CARTRIDGES.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the issue of the new magazine rifle, promised by him on May 7, was stopped; whether the War Office has received any information as to the failure of the Rubini cartridge in Switzerland, in consequence of the loose brass rings in which the bullet is seated blowing forward; whether the Swiss Military Authorities have determined to abandon the Rubini cartridge; and, whether the manufacture of such cartridge is now being proceeded with at Woolwich; and, if so, why?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The issue of some of the new magazine rifles for final trial is now proceeding. I have no knowledge as to the failure of the Rubini cartridge in Switzerland. Cartridges are not yet being made at Woolwich for the magazine rifle for supply purposes; but several kinds, including the Rubini, have been made for experiment, and of these the best possible for the arm will be selected before entering on its regular manufacture.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.— WITHDRAWAL OF LEGISLATION.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the statement contained in The Birmingham Daily Post of June 29, to the effect that the Government has determined to withdraw the Technical Instruction Bill, is correct?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): No, Sir; the statement in question is entirely without foundation.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—THE PAYMENT IN AID OF IN-DOOR PAUPERS IN URBAN DISTRICTS.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If in his proposal to allow 2d. per day to indoor paupers in Scotland, he has taken into consideration the fact that very few indoor paupers from parishes enter the poorhouses in rural Scotland, and that, consequently, these parishes will receive very little Government aid from the proposed arrangement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am perfectly aware that there are very few indoor paupers in rural parishes in Scotland, and that, consequently, the allowance of 2d. per day per head of indoor paupers will benefit principally the urban districts. But the proposal of the Government also provides that the balance of £64,000, after the payment of 2d. per head per day for each indoor pauper, should be divided according to the amount of accommodation provided in each poorhouse. In this way every parish which has contributed to the erection of a poorhouse will benefit, although it may have no indoor paupers. But the hon. Member must also recollect that if the rural parishes are at a disadvantage in one respect this disadvantage has been compensated in another direction. The proposal contemplates a contribution of £70,000 to main roads, as against £35,000 which used to be paid, and the great bulk of this sum will go in the relief of rural ratepayers, and this sum of £70,000 will be increased to £105,000, if the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Act is applied to Scotland.

  PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will shortly introduce his promised Bill to amend the Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Act?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, he intended to introduce the Bill this week or early next week.

  H.R.H. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF— MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What are the various sums of money received by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge from public sources; and, what are the services for which they are respectively given?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)(who replied) said: The military pay and allowances of the Duke of Cambridge are stated on page 87 of the Army Estimates. His Royal Highness receives besides an allowance as Ranger of Richmond Park, which amounts to £109. There is also an annuity which he receives as a Prince of the Blood.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Are there any other allowances that he receives in connection with the Rangership?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not aware of any but that in the Estimate, which is £109.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the Ranger takes any benefit from the letting of any of the lands under his control?
  MR. SUMMERS: Will he state the amount of the respective sums in the Army Estimates?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member can do the addition himself, if he looks at the Estimates.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—PAY FOR INJURIES RECEIVED WHILE ON DUTY—CASE OF CONSTABLE 136 H.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that on the afternoon of the 22nd ultimo Constable 136 H, in endeavouring to take a man to the police station on a charge of having, in the earlier part of the day, sold a quantity of lead supposed to be stolen, was set upon in Ben Jonson Road, Stepney, by a gang of roughs, knocked down, kicked in the head, rendered unconscious, and the man rescued; whether the constable, who was on duty in plain clothes by order of his Inspector, had 1s. per day deducted from his pay whilst sick, suffer-

  71
  ing from the injuries received on the occasion in question; and, whether he will order the constable to be reimbursed the loss thus sustained?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The rule is that police are to receive full Day during their illness on account of injuries received in the execution of their duty, unless there is some reason to the contrary. In this case the constable made the arrest in error, and the assault from which he suffered was due to his own indiscretion. It did not, therefore, seem to the authorities to be a case in which the constable should be allowed the advantage of the general rule. I must decline to interfere with the discretion of the Police Authorities in such a matter.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS AT MANORHAMILTON—"MAGUIRE v. WYNNE."
  MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, when at the late sitting of the Sub-Commissioners, Mr. E. O. M'Devitt in the chair, at Manorhamilton, County Leitrim, the case of "Sarah Maguire v. Owen Wynne" came on for hearing, the Chairman, without any inspection of the holding, or inquiry into the question of the tenant's improvements on the evidence of the landlord's valuation, fixed the judicial rent on the basis of the old rent; and, if so, whether the Government will afford facilities to Sarah Maguire for a rehearing of her case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that the rent in the case mentioned was fixed without an inspection of the holding, but that this course is quite consistent with their rule on the subject, which merely directs a visit in person to the holding in any case in which the Sub-Commissioners deem that such visit may conduce to a just decision. It is, however, not the case that there was no inquiry into the tenant's improvements. They were inquired into by the Court at the hearing. Two sons of the tenant were also examined on her behalf. The old rent was 33 per cent below Griffith's
  72
  valuation. The landlord claimed to have it increased. The Sub-Commissioners were satisfied that the old rent was a fair rent, and so pronounced it. It was open to the tenant to appeal, as of right, within one month from the date of the order, and to obtain a re-hearing. It is still open to her to apply to the Court for liberty to serve notice, notwithstanding the time has elapsed; and the Court will make such order as may appear just.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman to say what was the reason why the Commissioners departed from the universal practice to visit the holding before fixing the rent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it did not appear to be a universal practice.
  MR. CONWAYgave Notice that he would bring the Question up on the Vote for the Land Commission.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—OPENING OF PRIVATE LETTERS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Postmaster General, If it is now, or has ever been, the custom in any part of Ireland for the Post Office officials to open letters; and, if so, whether these letters were opened by the direction of the Government, or upon the individual responsibility of Post Office officials; and, whether the law permits the opening of letters; and, if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Baronet can scarcely be unaware that it is, and always has been, the practice, not in Ireland alone, but in England and Scotland, for a Department of the Post Office, known as the Returned or Dead Letter Office, to open letters directed to persons who are not to be found as addressed. This is done under the law, in order that letters which cannot be delivered may be returned to the writers. But except in such cases, or except under an express warrant from the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant, the law does not permit the opening of a letter; and any Post Office official committing such an offence is guilty of misdeameanour, and punishable accordingly. I think I have a right to call upon the hon. Baronet to substantiate by evidence the insinuation conveyed by his Question.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I shall be very pleased to do so.
  DR. TANNER: So shall I.
  MR. FLYNN: And I.

  REVISION COURTS (IRELAND)—THE ELECTORS AT BLACKROCK, &c., SOUTH COUNTY DUBLIN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the voters of Blackrock, Cabintely, Dalkey, and Little Bray, in South County Dublin, have to go long distances at great loss and inconvenience to attend the Revision Courts as at present arranged; if he is aware that there is a strong feeling in favour of having Revision Courts held in each of the places above-named; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Irish Government will take steps to establish those Revision Courts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I find the lists of voters for the Blackrock and Dalkey polling districts are at present revised at Kingstown, which can be reached by rail from either of these places in about 10 minutes; and that the Cabintely lists are revised at Dundrum, which can be reached by rail from Carrickmines (one mile distant from Cabintely) in about 15 minutes. Little Bray is not a polling place, and does not require a separate Revision Court. It is a suburb of Bray, and is reached from Dundrum (where the lists are now revised) in about 25 minutes. If dissatisfaction exists with the present arrangements, the proper course is for any of the ratepayers concerned to submit a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, who will give the matter his careful consideration.

  IRELAND—THE NATIONAL LIBRARY, KILDARE STREET, DUBLIN—NON-RETURN OF BOOKS SENT TO H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE, LONDON, TO BE BOUND.
  MR. CAREWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether volumes which were sent in January last by the authorities of the National Library, Kildare Street, Dublin, to the Stationery Office, London, for the purpose of being
  74
  bound, have not yet been returned; whether frequent complaints have been made of the delay in binding volumes; and, whether they could not be bound more expeditiously in Dublin than in London?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)(who replied) said: No complaints as to delay in binding volumes have been received at South Kensington for some years; but the authorities at Kildare Street, Dublin communicate directly with the Stationery Office, and therefore complaints may have been made without the Science and Art Department being aware of it. This shall he inquired into; but it is the Treasury, in concert with the Stationery Office, that decides all such matters.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—RE-OPENING OF THE SUBWAY FROM PALACE YARD TO THE EMBANKMENT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can say when the decision he recently announced as to the re-opening of the subway from Palace Yard to the Embankment will be carried into effect?
  THE SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Steps are now being taken to carry tins decision into effect. Some small repairs are necessary, which may make a short delay unavoidable.

  ARMY (EQUIPMENTS)—SOURCE OF SUPPLY OF WATER BOTTLES FOR THE INFANTRY.
  MR. BROOKFIELDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the wooden water-bottles at present issued to the Infantry are manufactured in Turin; and, if so, whether he will consider the expediency of causing this article of equipment to be constructed at home?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): These wooden water-bottles were procured from Italy because they could not be produced at anything like the same price in this country. I am told that they are made of wood grown in Italy, which is not to be found in any sufficient quantity in this country.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked, whether it would not be

  75
  possible to import the raw material rather than the water-bottles in a manufactured state?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I will undertake, before any new contract is made, that the whole subject shall be inquired into.

  LAW OF SLANDER—AMENDMENT CARRIED INTO EFFECT BY THE PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a recent Act of the Parliament of Victoria, which provides—
  "Words spoken and published of any woman imputing to her a want of chastity shall be, and shall be deemed to be, slander, and an action shall be sustainable for such words in the same manner, and to the same extent, as for words charging an indictable offence;"
  and, whether he is prepared to take steps to amend the Law of England in a similar sense?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): My attention has not been called to the Act in question. It is a matter for consideration whether it is desirable to amend the Law of England in a similar sense; but I am not prepared at present to introduce a Bill with that object.

  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION—REMOVAL FROM WIMBLEDON—NEW SITES.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have any intention of inquiring into the suitability of those sites in South-East Essex, or elsewhere, which have been suggested as substitutes for Wimbledon?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is not the duty of the Government to make the inquiries suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend; and the selection of a site is one which rests with the National Rifle Association to initiate.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—PETITIONS—LITHOGRAPHED OR PRINTED PRAYERS.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience that is caused to Members and Petitioners by the Rule that the prayer to every Petition must
  76
  be written, and not printed or lithographed; and, whether there is any reason for retaining the Rule in question; and, if not, whether he will take into consideration the advisability of proposing to rescind it?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Questions similar to that of the hon. Member have been raised during past years, and on each occasion it was decided that lithographed or printed Petitions to this House should not be admitted. If the Rule was relaxed the number of Petitions would be largely increased, and petitioning would probably fall into the hands of organized bodies, to the detriment of the spontaneous exercise of the free general right of petitioning. I have reason to believe that the subject has recently been under the consideration of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall is Chairman; and it would probably be for the advantage of the House if he would state the conclusion at which his Committee have arrived.
  SIR CHARLES FOSTERsaid, the Committee of which he was Chairman had considered this question. They were quite sensible of the inconvenience to Members and Petitioners of the present Rule; but they feared that any relaxation of it would tend to lower the value of the right of petitioning, and to prevent it from being any longer regarded as the expression of free opinion.

  INDIA-STATISTICS OF THE IRRAWADDY FLOTILLA.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he had received any answer to the telegram which he had despatched to India with reference to the Irrawaddy Flotilla?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST), in reply, said, he had received the following telegram from the Viceroy, which he would read:—
  "Irrawaddy Flotilla Company. Full Report will be sent as soon as possible. It has been ascertained that the charges against ' military' are as follows:—'Freight on stores, 1885–6, Rs.27,000; 1886–7, Rs.2,03,000; 1887–8, Rs.1,95,000; total Rs.4,25,000. Passages—1885–6, Rs.61,000; 1886–7, Rs.14,02,000; 1887–8, Rs.13,03,000; total, Rs.27,66,000.

  77
  Grand total for three years, Rs. 31,91,000. Payments for Civil services will follow. Despatch follows.'"

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE METRO-POLIS—TRAFALGAR SQUARE—THE JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE WILLS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he had seen a report of the Judgment pronounced on Friday last by Mr. Justice Wills, in which that learned Judge stated that upon the materials brought before the Court there was no statutory right of meeting in Trafalgar Square; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a Bill giving to the Commissioner of Works powers over Trafalgar Square similar to those they exercised over Hyde Park and other public Parks in the matter of public meetings.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have seen only a newspaper report of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Wills. The Government have had no opportunity of considering the question raised by the hon. Member by the light of this Judgment; and I am not in a position to give him a pledge of any legislation on the subject.
  MR. JAMES STUARTgave Notice that he would repeat the Question on a future occasion.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to complaints lodged against the police on Saturday last, with regard to their violent conduct in Trafalgar Square, and as to what action he proposed to adopt in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have made such inquiry as was possible from the police respecting the complaint of the hon. Member. Their account differs materially from the suggestion contained in his Question; and I trust that the persons on whose behalf he speaks will bring the matter before a magistrate, where evidence can be given upon oath, and the police can be either punished, if they have done wrong, or publicly exonerated from blame.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—APPEAL OF MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to
  78
  ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact, in reference to the case stated to the Court of Exchequer on the subject of Mr. O'Brien's conviction, that the Court has, in the Judgment delivered to-day, sent the case back to the magistrates?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no information on the point.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND), 1885.
  MR. LEAasked, Whether the Government intended to bring in a Bill to authorize another advance of £5,000,000 for the purpose of Lord Ashbourne's Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman any answer at present. It is a very important Question; and it is undesirable that I should commit the Government rashly to any undertaking in the matter.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—RETURN OF CONVICTIONS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Returns of convictions under the Crimes Act—further copies of which had been promised—would be available for private Members?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was having the Return prepared, so far as he could, in a way to meet the wishes of the House and the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

  BELFAST GOVERNMENT BILL—LEGISLATION.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What has become of the Government Bill for the Better Securing of Order in Belfast? That Bill was framed on the Report of the Royal Commission, which sent in its recommendation a year and a half ago. The Bill was looked into and reported upon by a Select Committee of the House. Will the Bill be re-introduced this year; and, if not, how long will society in Belfast be allowed to subsist

  79
  with a condition of things which was described by the Royal Commission as a standing menace to the public peace?
  [No reply.]
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I should like to press for an answer to the Question of my hon. Friend. This is a question of very great importance. When the Motion was before the House for the appointment of the Commission in Belfast, it was regarded by this House as a question of pressing importance; and it is not because we have tranquility now in Belfast that the matter should be allowed to drop. I think it is due to my hon. Friend who put the Question, that the Government should state what has become of this Bill. I am sure that if an effort is made to push forward the Bill, we, on our part, will try to facilitate its becoming law; and I am sure the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who pose as such strong supporters of law and order, can, if they assist the Government in this matter, help easily to pass the Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is not the intention of the Government to reintroduce this Bill this Session. The condition of Belfast is a matter of distinct importance; but there is not, I believe any ground for special anxiety at the present time. It has, I think, been found that the application of the Crimes Prevention Act and the new police arrangements have been perfectly adequate to meet any contingency of the kind referred to that might arise.

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—RESOLUTION.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name—namely,
  "That whenever the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill is appointed for a Tuesday it shall have priority over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and that so much of the Order for Morning Sittings of the 7th of June as relates to Tuesday be rescinded."
  I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill I have referred to is one of great intricacy and detail, and that, although we have been en-
  80
  gaged upon it in Committee for 10 days, we have only made progress with it to the extent of 10 or 11 clauses. There are 125 clauses in the Bill, and I am sorry to say that there are 480 Amendments of which Notice has been given that remain to be disposed of, altogether irrespective of a number of new clauses that cover several pages of the Order Book. Under these circumstances, I trust that the House will not think that I am making an unreasonable demand in asking for further facilities for proceeding with that measure. I trust that hon. Members who are affected by this proposal will see the necessity for the request I am making, and as I believe it is the desire of hon. Members on both sides that this Bill should be passed this Session, I trust that the proposal I am making will receive the cordial assistance of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That whenever the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill is appointed for a Tuesday it shall have priority over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and that so much of the Order for Morning Sittings of the 7th of June as relates to Tuesday be rescinded."
  —(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The House must naturally feel that the right hon. Gentleman is most reluctant to demand any further interference with the rights of private Members. Undoubtedly the case is a very remarkable one, arising out of the nature of the subject, and I think that the demand of the right hon. Gentleman is, under the circumstances, quite fair, and I hope that the House will freely accede to it. I wish, however, to take this opportunity of saying that there are two subjects upon which it might be for the convenience of the House that we should receive information either to-day or on some day not very far distant. The first point is, that the House will be glad to know whether we can now understand that, with a view of winding up the Session at some time or another, we have before us all the Bills of importance which it is the intention of the Government to present during this Session. I do not say all the Bills, because I am well aware that departmental necessities frequently require the presentation of a number of Bills of minor importance towards the close of the Session. If more Bills of

  81
  importance are to be introduced before the close of the Session, I think that the time has now come for introducing them or for making known their name and character. I further wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will, as soon as he is able, give any light as to the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bills they have already introduced. I think that we have reached a period of the Session when information of the kind is generally asked for. I do not, however, press for any conclusive statement from the right hon. Gentleman on these matters to-day.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In a few days I hope to be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman upon the points which he has raised. There is one Bill which I hope to be able to introduce, and which I do not think will become the subject of any great amount of discussion. It is a Bill to create a Minister of Agriculture. It will be small in the point of volume, and I trust that it will not excite opposition even from the most economical Members of the House. With regard to the other measures to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, I will consult with my Colleagues and will give the information, as to the intentions of the Government, at the earliest possible date.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he had a Motion on Evening Continuation Schools on the Paper for Tuesday. He, however, would not oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, but hoped that facilities might be given at a later date for the discussion of the subject of evening continuation schools, in which a great interest was taken by the working classes.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought that the Government were making this demand for further restrictions upon the rights of private Members at too early a period of the Session. Private Members always got the worst of it when the two Front Benches united to press on Public Business. The Government had had this year additional powers, which they had freely used, and extra facilities ought not so early to be asked for. He had special claims with respect to his Motion. He hoped the Government would consider the reasonableness of his request, and give an opportunity to
  82
  favourably discuss the question of the Welsh Church in the course of the present Session.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he wished to ask when the Bill relating to the Minister of Agriculture would be introduced? The Bill had been often promised. The right hon. Gentleman had given the same answer with reference to its introduction on five different occasions during the Session. The Representatives of agricultural constituencies wished to know whether the Bill was to be introduced in that House or in the House of Lords, and when? Even if the Bill did not pass this Session, the agricultural interest wished to see it, and its provisions could be discussed with advantage during the recess.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he wished to ask what the intentions of the Government were with respect to Scottish Business? He would remind the Government that last year it was not until August they brought forward their legislative programme for Scotland. He had not the least desire that the Government should undertake legislation for Scotland, but if the Government were going to bring forward legislation they ought to introduce it in a reasonable time, when there was a prospect of discussing it fairly. Unless the Government gave the House some assurances of that kind, particularly in view of the Scottish Universities Bill, introduced in "another place," he should be prepared to oppose the Motion.
  MR. LEAsaid, he desired to ask what the Government intended to do as to the renewal of Lord Ashbourne's Act? There was a strong feeling in the North of Ireland that another £5,000,000 would be voted by Parliament for the renewal of that Act; and he should be glad to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to it.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he wished to be informed whether the right hon. Gentleman would fulfil the obligation he had entered into and give a day for the discussion of the subject of colonization? The First Lord of the Treasury was under an obligation to everyone interested in the subject of State colonization. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) had withdrawn his Motion previously on the assurance of the right

  83
  hon. Gentleman that he would have a better opportunity. He desired to be informed what that better opportunity would be? He was quite aware that the exigencies of Public Business overrode the claims of Private Members' Resolutions, but in this case the right hon. Gentleman had given a distinct pledge that an opportunity would be afforded for a debate on colonisation. He might be told that this opportunity would occur on the Vote for £10,000 for crofter colonisation. But as he understood the rules of the House, it would only be possible to move to reduce this Vote. Now he did not want to reduce the Vote. He wanted to increase it. He doubted if it was possible to discuss the whole principle of colonisation on this Vote. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would afford an early opportunity of discussing what many hon. Members conceived to be a very important question.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if he might give a little advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would be never to trust to any Ministerial assurances as to time. Ministers were always very ready to give general, vague promises which they seldom kept. The hon. Gentleman should show a little independence. If he and his hon. Friends on the Opposition side could get, say, 100 hon. Members on the other side of the House to vote with them, Ministers would be placed in a different position with regard to those demands than they were at present. There was no one in the House more anxious than he was to promote the progress of Public Business. At the same time, he thought that the House ought to remember, in view of those perpetual demands which were being made on the time of private Members, that they were due, not to obstruction on his side of the House, but to mismanagement by the Treasury Bench. What occurred at the beginning of the Session? The right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Treasury asked for every day in order to pass certain Procedure Resolutions. What was the plea on which the Resolutions were asked for and the promise given if they were carried? That the days of private Members should not afterwards be taken. But ever since that time there had been persistent raids on the part of the Treasury Bench on the time of private
  84
  Members. They had given the Government a great deal of rope during the Session; and he was only sorry to say that they had not put it to a use which he would not specify. The Government had so twisted and knotted this rope that they now came and asked for more time in order to unravel it. Where were the Estimates at this moment? They had never before been put off to such a late date as this Session. The Business of the country had been carried on by Vote on Account, and the result was that the consideration of the Estimates was thrown back to the latter end of the Session, when it would be impossible to discuss them. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had wasted night after night by insisting on the discussion of a Bill which had now disappeared from the Paper. But now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in another Bill in order to find a paid Office for some friend of his own, which he and his hon. Friends should very possibly oppose in the interest of economy, if not in the interest of the country, unless it was understood that the salary to be given to the Minister for Agriculture was to be taken from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. At the present time they were engaged in considering the magnum opus of the Government. Did any hon. Member pretend that there had been obstruction of that Bill? Not at all; every one believed that the discussion had been fair and legitimate. As to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Swansea Town (Mr. Dillwyn), he pointed out that it was a remarkable coincidence that last week Her Majesty's Government were nearly defeated on a Resolution affecting Wales, and now, with a Motion for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church looming in the distance, the Government took Tuesdays for their own Business. There were certain Resolutions brought forward by private Members which were very distasteful to certain hon. Members on his own side of the House. It seemed to him that the whole of this Session had been made up of one long series of manœuvres to evade a vote on those discussions. Last week the right hon. Gentleman agreed to give facilities for the consideration of the Sunday Closing Bill to certain intemperate temperance Unionists, certain Sabbath-breaking Sabbatarians,

  85
  who wanted an excuse in order to be able to vote with the Government on the 9th clause of the Local Government Bill against their own assurances, convictions, and promises.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in saying that certain Members of that House were prepared to vote against their assurances, convictions, and promises?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could explain. He did not say how those hon. Members were prepared; he said they had to choose between their convictions and pledges to the Government. The point was this, that while the Government took the days of private Members for the Local Government Bill they yet gave a day for the discussion of Sunday closing. Against that proposal he protested. The House ought to have an understanding that the hon. Member for Swansea would have an opportunity of submitting his Resolution to the House, and that no facilities should be given in consequence of the present vote to Liberal Unionists. If the right hon. Gentleman did not give a satisfactory answer, he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House, and that the vote would be taken as if given on the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was not prepared to form one of the 100 Members alluded to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), but he wished to join in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck). Many hon. Members heard, with considerable satisfaction, the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, but that satisfaction was qualified by the recollection that they had had during the Session some half-a-dozen similar announcements which came to nothing. The matter was one which excited considerable interest in the agricultural portion of the community, and he hoped that in a few days his right hon. Friend would be able to say when they should see the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could say when the Government
  86
  intended to introduce a Bill, which had been virtually promised, to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Sea Fisheries in England?
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he desired to urge upon the Government to promise to grant a day or half a day for the discussion of the question of the unemployed. If not attended to, he feared that as soon as the cold weather set in, the trouble would be as keen as before, and some popular tumult would probably force the subject upon the attention of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITHin reply, said, he was aware he could speak again only with the indulgence of the House, but he hoped it would be accorded him. He had great sympathy with the hon. Member opposite in his desire to keep up and continue the education begun in the elementary schools. The Royal Commission had only just reported, and he believed the Report was not yet in the hands of the Queen. When they had time to consider the Report there was every reason to hope that, from the information furnished by the Royal Commission, they would be enabled to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the subject. He trusted he had satisfied the hon. Member that there was no desire on the part of the Government to impede the consideration of the question, which was of great importance, and in which they felt a great interest. With respect to the Bill for the creation of a Minister of Agriculture, the Government were of opinion that it was not desirable to introduce it when they could not make progress with it. They had had on hand for the last three months a very weighty measure, and it would have been impossible to suspend the progress of the Local Government Bill in order to introduce a Bill for the creation of a Minister of Agriculture. But he hoped such a Bill would be brought in either in that House or in "another place" within a very short period. With regard to Scotch Business, it was the desire of the Government to give ample time for its consideration. The Scotch University Bill ought to be passed after having received full consideration at the hands of Scotch Members and of the House. His hon. Friend had referred to the question of colonization. He was still of opinion

  87
  that his hon. Friend had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing his Motion. It was unfortunate that he had been deprived of his opportunity last week, but that was not the fault of Her Majesty's Government in the true sense of the term. His hon. Friend would, however, have a fitting opportunity of stating his views on the discussion of the Vote for the colonization of the Scotch crofters. The hon. Member for Northampton was exceedingly anxious that the Government should refuse a day to the hon. Member for Shields for the consideration of the Sunday Closing Bill. To rally the Government for wishing to give facilities in the event of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson) failing to get an opportunity for the discussion of his Bill on the day for which it stood (Wednesday, July 11) was most extraordinary on the part of one who was supposed to be an advocate for Sunday closing, though not a Sabbatarian. The hon. Member had spoken of the use of the rope. The Government, however, might possibly disappoint him on that score; they were not bound to follow the hon. Member's suggestions on all points. He was sorry it was not in his power to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Swansea. At no period within the last 10 years had a Tuesday in the last week of July been at the disposal of a private Member. Necessity compelled the Government anxious to bring to a conclusion the Business of the Session to ask the House for Tuesdays long before the last week in July, and he was asking the House to make no new departure when he urged them to push forward a measure which all Parties desired to see passed. A Bill with reference to sea fisheries, to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, would be introduced on Thursday or Friday.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) whether he proposed to take up the question of land purchase in Ireland, the amount placed at the disposal of the Government under Lord Ashbourne's Act being nearly run out? He would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to do something with regard to the poor of London, and other large towns. As regarded the Sunday Closing Bill, would
  88
  the right hon. Gentleman pledge himself that that measure should go beyond the second reading? [Mr. W. H. SMITH shook his head.] The right hon. Gentleman intimated that he would not, so that there would be a day thrown away.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he hoped that the Government would give the House three clear days' Notice of when the Indian Budget would be brought on.
  THE LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland what had become of the Bill for better securing order in Belfast?
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSsaid, he felt bound to express his great regret that the Government had not responded to the appeal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) in regard to the question of the Church in Wales. They had acted in much the same way last year; and he warned the Government not to attempt to ignore the just demands of Wales, as had been done in the past.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would promise that three days' Notice would be given of the Indian Budget. As to the question put by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) the Government would be very glad if an opportunity could be found for a discussion on that subject, and he hoped that the hon. Members would use their influence to prevent the raising of any unnecessary alarm.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had rested his support of the Motion now made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury on the ground that the time of the House was to be obtained for for-warding the Local Government Bill, and it was for that reason that he himself personally would vote for that Motion. He could not think that there was any justice in charging those who would vote for that Motion at that period of the Session with a desire to quash the question of the Church in Wales, although he certainly quite sympathized with the feeling of hon. Members below the Gangway at the manner in which the claims of Wales had been treated.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTONsaid, he must press for an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that it was not the intention of the Government to re-introduce this Session the Bill relating to the town of Belfast. The condition of Belfast had distinctly improved, and there was, he believed, no ground for special anxiety at the present time. The clauses of the Crimes Act, together with the new police arrangements of that town, would, he thought, be found adequate to meet any circumstances that were likely to arise.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 131: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 183.)

BANN, BARROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in rising to move for leave to introduce three Bills for the drain-age of land within the catchment areas of the rivers Bann, Barrow, and Shannon, said,—It will be in the recollection of the House that the Government in the year 1886, shortly after they came into Office, announced their intention of introducing measures for promoting the material well-being of Ireland—[Laughter]—and in order to carry out that object, not, I think, a ludicrous object in spite of the laughter I heard, they appointed a Commission, who have made two elaborate Reports. These Reports have been laid on the Table of the House, and it is my business on the present occasion to introduce to the House the first steps in that general policy which was announced to the House by my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) on the occasion to which I have referred. I can well imagine that there are Gentlemen in this House who are of opinion that it is not the function of a Govern-
  90
  ment to expend public money in the direct promotion of the material well-being of any special part of the Kingdom. The policy of undertaking great public works is wholly alien to the general spirit of our legislation. It is universal, I believe, on the Continent, and it has been practised to a great extent by Great Britain in her dealings with India; but it has never been the practice of the English Government to spend very large sums of money within these Islands—at all events, in the promotion of public works, though of great public utility. I may be asked, therefore, why we propose to depart from that general practice in dealing with Ireland. I think, Sir, there are many reasons. In the first place, I am bound to say I think that we owe something in the nature of an historic debt to Ireland. I think that of all the transactions of which Englishmen and Scotchmen—I do not know that I ought to say Scotchmen, because some of those transactions took place before the Union—have to be ashamed of in their dealings with Ireland, the transactions by which the English Parliament made use of its superiority over Ireland to destroy her budding industries was the most shameful. Bad as the Penal Laws were, they were the offspring of bigotry and political terror, and the motives that prompted them are elevating as compared with the mean and sordid action of the English Parliament in crushing the Irish industries. I do not think there is much object in dwelling on this historic question. In addition to that I would point out that during the present century it has been the practice of the English Government at intervals to spend, with more or less success, considerable sums out of the Exchequer on Irish objects; and, therefore, I may also refer to the action taken by the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland during the years of the present century. But if we are to accept the general policy I have indicated, which was specially brought forward by my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, in what direction ought our energies to be concentrated? Now we are dealing, as everybody knows, with a country which, comparatively with this country, has not shown much industrial enterprize. I, of course, exclude the Province of Ulster. It has

  91
  been a subject of regret to everybody interested in the welfare of Ireland that the whole of Irish energy is displayed in the single operation of agriculture, and, as far as I know, that is deplored by all. In order that hon. Gentlemen may see the full extent of the difference between England on the one hand and Ireland on the other in this particular respect, I would call their attention to some figures I have abstracted from the Income Tax Returns, which are full of a rather melancholy significance. I find that if you take Schedule D, which deals with the profits of trades as distinct from the landlords' interest under Schedule A and the farmers' interest under Schedule B, the two countries compare in the following manner—there is a profit return of £9 per head of population in England, whereas in Ireland the corresponding proportion is £2 per head, so that Ireland is more than four times as poor as England in the matter of profit returns other than those derived from agriculture. But the question is, is it possible or desirable for the State to attempt to foster great industrial enterprizes directly in Ireland? I believe it is not possible. I do not believe that in these days we can carry out what has been carried out in different ages and countries—namely, the creation of a vast industry by means of Government subventions. After all, what you want for carrying out a great industrial enterprize is not merely an abundance of skilled labour, for that exists in Ireland, nor is it merely capital—for I do not believe that capital is insufficient in Ireland if profitable undertakings could be found in which to employ it. Indeed, I am told that the deposits in the Irish Banks stand at £30,000,000. What is really wanted is that organizing capacity of capitalists which is found so abundantly in England and America, but in so small a degree in Ireland. I do not know whether it is due to any peculiarity of the Irish race. That possibly, though greatly endowed as they are in other respects, it may be that they are lacking in this particular. It is certainly a remarkable fact that while every Irishman in Ireland rushes to agriculture or one of the professions, Irishmen abroad always avoid all resort to agriculture, and turn their attention to the great industries of England and America. If, however, we cannot do much in the way
  92
  of promoting great industries, can we do anything in another direction which finds great favour with certain persons—I mean in promoting cottage industries. I do not myself think that we ought to place too much reliance on the extension of Irish industry in that direction. It is to be noticed that at the present time cottage industries produce the luxuries of the rich and not the necessaries of the poor. In times past the clothes of the people were produced by cottage industries, but that is not the case now. The Irish peasant finds it much cheaper to buy Scotch cloth and Northampton boots than to rely on any local industries. Machinery has dealt a death blow to such cottage industries. These no doubt still produce stuffs that the English sportsman may buy and lace that may take the fancy of the English lady; but they no longer produce articles fit for the consumption of the masses, and I point this out for this reason. Articles of the kind I have mentioned are at the mercy of the caprices of fashion. Large orders may be given one year, and the next, owing to a change of fashion, no orders whatever may be forthcoming. The success of such industries is, therefore, very unstable and uncertain. Even the great manufacturers of Leeds and of the Yorkshire towns require all their power of organization, all their skill and experience, to enable them to foresee and follow the rapid changes of fashion. You cannot expect that organization and experience from those who carry on Irish cottage industries; and, therefore, I am distinctly of opinion that however much may be done by cottage industries—and I think much may be done—it is not in that direction that we can look for a great alteration in the material prosperity of the Irish people. There is another subject which has to be considered in this relation, and that is technical education. I know that I am speaking before many hon. Gentlemen who are much better authorities than I can profess to be on this subject, and I therefore express my views upon the matter with much humility. But I am certainly of opinion that technical education will not create an industry. You cannot, by merely teaching a certain number of people how to manage their tools or how to design, build up a great manufacturing industry. Technical in-

  93
  struction is absolutely invaluable when an industry already in existence is being hard pressed by foreign competition. But, if you have not your industry already established, I do not believe that you will effect much by any system of technical education. On that point, however, I would remind the House of a fact with which I venture to think very few hon. Members are acquainted. Ireland is, in this matter, far ahead of England. There has been spent on industrial schools in Ireland two-and-a-half times as much as in England, having regard to the population. In the 10 years 1877 to 1887 the expenditure out of Imperial sources for industrial schools in Ireland was no less than £800,000. There is besides a system of agricultural education which is far in advance of anything of the kind in England. Since 1837 £400,000 have been spent in teaching agriculture, and the annual grant from Imperial sources is for Ireland about £14,000. Having regard to these facts, I am of opinion that technical instruction, valuable as it is, is not the means by which we may look principally for promoting the material prosperity of the Irish people. There remain substantially three great subjects on which the Commission have inquired and reported—namely, fisheries, railways, and arterial drainage. To many persons the fisheries are by far the most attractive. There is something very tempting in the proposal that the population in the congested districts should turn their attention from the barren soil and endeavour to reap out of the boundless harvest of the sea. But closer inspection will show that, valuable as the fishery industry is, it is not an easy matter to create a great fishing industry in Ireland. The whole history of that industry militates against any such idea. Fish are abundantly caught off the Irish coasts, but it is not principally by Irish fishermen. French, Manx, English, and Scotch fishermen bring their boats and catch the fish off the South Western Coast of Ireland. In 1846 there were nearly 20,000 boats employed by Irish fishermen; now there are only 5,600. In 1846 there were 113,000 persons employed in the industry; now there are only 21,000. Thus there has been a startling diminution in the industry since 1846, and this, notwithstanding that there has during the same period been a large expendi-
  94
  ture of public money in completing harbours, and in other ways promoting that industry. I admit that much of this money has not been very fortunately expended; but there has been a large amount well expended, and yet accompanied by a reduction in the industry. It must not for a moment be thought that I am not most anxious to promote the Irish fishing industry. I hope to be able next year to introduce measures which may have that object in view; but, at the same time, the House ought to have all the facts before it, and ought not to be too sanguine in jumping at the conclusion that because there is a poor population on the coast and an unlimited supply of fish in the sea, all that is necessary is to give the Irish people good harbours, boats, and fishing nets in order to raise them from pauperism to comfort. It is perfectly true that in one place a population of over 3,000 souls, who might at one time have been described as being chronic mendicants, are now substantially happy and prosperous; but this change has been accomplished not merely by the liberality of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, but also by the active supervision of Father Davis, and such an example shows that it is not merely Government aid that is required, but also the supervision of an able person on the spot. For these reasons I do not think we should be acting wisely if we started any great fishery scheme. There remain, then, railways and arterial drainage. In my opinion the railway question is by far the most important in Ireland. It is my belief that by increasing the means of communication, and by improving the communication that already exists, we may do most to promote the prosperity of the population. [An hon. MEMBER:—Tramways.] I do not require to be reminded that a great deal of money has been expended in recent years upon tramways, and I do not put forward the Skibbereen tramway as a model; but the hon. Member will not deny that if you could improve the relations which exist between many Companies, if you could do something to equalize and lower freights and to promote intercommunication between different parts of the country, poor as it may be and small as the actual profit on the traffic might be, yet we should confer incalculable benefits upon the population. The hon. Member for Cavan,

  95
  whose prejudice against railways is almost morbid, would, I think, admit that if the plan I have sketched were carried out it would result in great benefit to the country. I believe that in the promotion of railway communication we should find the solution of many difficulties, and that it would probably be the most effective method of meeting the greatest of all Irish difficulties—that of the congested districts. I frankly acknowledge that difficulties are inherent in a question so great, and I have had so little time since the Commission reported to form a mature opinion as to the best way in which the problem is to be attacked, that I should never have thought of laying a scheme upon the Table, and if I had, there would not be the slightest chance of getting the assent of the House to it this Session. The questions, therefore, of railways and harbours are inevitably postponed; but I trust the plan will not be postponed beyond next Session, and that next Session I may be able to lay before the House plans dealing with the question. We must also recollect that the Commission distinctly puts drainage first, and I think the Government is well advised to deal with the three great river basins which most require drainage. I may remind the House that in doing so we are only carrying out a policy already begun. It will, perhaps, be a surprise to many to learn that the Exchequer has already freely given very nearly £2,000,000 in aid of arterial drainage and navigation in combination in Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Did you not put up the Income Tax for them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not making out a debtor and creditor account between the Exchequer and Ireland. I do not approach the question in that spirit; I only remind the House that the British Exchequer has already given nearly £2,000,000, and by loan nearly another £1,000,000, for the combination of drainage and navigation, and, in spite of that, the Lower Bann and the Shannon are quite incomplete and unsatisfactory, while the Barrow is practically untouched at all. The Barrow remains the chief example of the evils incident to the want of arterial drainage in Ireland. These Bills are by no means the Arterial Drainage Bills that have been laid before the House,
  96
  and they differ from their predecessors in several important particulars. In the past a great deal of money has been wasted in attempting to combine navigation with drainage. It is possible to combine the two objects, but it cannot be done effectually without great expense. For the purposes of navigation it is necessary to have weirs across a river, so as to keep up the water at a certain level, but you cannot deal with floods unless you have very large and costly sluices, and the absence of sluices results in damage from floods. Then, when you are dealing with the rocky part of a river, if you want to get rid of flood water, you turn the rocky part into a rapid, but you cannot do that if you are to keep up the navigation. You cannot have the rapid current required to carry off flood water in a navigable channel. Therefore, the cheapest method of dealing with a rocky part is absolutely to keep the flood from it, if you insist upon using it for navigation. While, therefore, navigation renders a system of arterial drainage costly, its utility varies from day to day. I do not enter upon the competition between railways and canals, but I merely point to the traffic receipts upon the systems of navigation with which we have to deal upon the Lower Bann and the Shannon. Practically, the system of navigation upon the Lower Bann is absolutely worthless; it brings in nothing at all, and we have obtained the assent of the Grand Jury to abandoning it, which we propose to do. With regard to the Shannon, the navigation above the Shannon is practically used by one individual only. The tolls amount to no more than £30 a-year, and it will be admitted that it would be gross folly to continue it. We therefore bring in Arterial Drainage Bills, and not Navigation Bills. The next great difference between these and former Bills is that we do not propose to deal in any way with landowners. Hitherto, naturally and properly enough, landowners were the persons with whom the Government dealt directly; they were the persons responsible for the loans made by the Government in accordance with their wishes. We feel that the Act of 1881 has altered all that entirely, and we propose to deal with the occupiers of the land, to give the whole benefit of our scheme to the occupiers, and to throw

  97
  the whole charge upon the occupiers, so that landowners will be excluded from the operation of the Bill. The Bill involved loans to localities, and their repayment involved local taxation. We do not propose to compel any of the three localities to take advantage of the gift we offer. We intend that they shall judge what the burden and the benefit will be, and if they choose to reject the scheme there is nothing more to be said.
  MR. MOLLOY: Is the Bill permissive?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill is permissive in this sense—it is open to the localities to accept or reject the scheme. There is a distinction to be drawn between two of the rivers and the third, and it depends partly upon historical and partly upon geographical considerations. The Shannon has always been entirely in the hands of the Government. The Board of Works have constructed all the existing drainage works for it, and, I believe, have constructed them effectively. It is to the Board of Works that everything has been entrusted, and we do not propose to alter that in the case of the Shannon. We therefore propose that the Board of Works shall construct the works and be responsible for them. It must also be recollected that the charge will extend to the whole basin and catchment area of the river. The river basin of the Shannon is very large, extending to 13 or 14 counties, and it is impossible to have an effective representative Board dealing with it. The Commission strongly advised that there should not be a representative Board, and the Government, after giving the matter their best consideration, entirely concur with the views of the Commission. [Ironical cheers.] If hon. Gentlemen will kindly explain to me the object and significance of that cheer later on I shall be glad. I confess I do not quite understand it. As I have said, we propose that the locality shall be consulted before it becomes responsible for any expenditure. It is proposed to take what is in effect a plébiscite of the ratepayers in the catchment area, and they will have an opportunity of objecting to and preventing the work being carried out. With regard to the Barrow and the Bann the cases are different. It is possible that a representative Board may here, with advantage, carry on such works as may
  98
  be suggested and be entrusted with the power of approving or refusing to sanction such works. I have told the House that the whole catchment area must in our opinion be involved in any of these schemes. In that we are not merely following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but also the precedents set us by the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission and the Bills which have passed through this House and the other House dealing with England. The Duke of Richmond's Commission reported that not only what they called the benefited area should be taxed for carrying out drainage works, but that the whole river basin should be charged to a certain extent. They drew a wide distinction between the amount of charge levied upon the benefited area and the amount levied upon what I may roughly call the non-benefited area, though that is not an accurate description. The Report of the Commission brought out the fact that considerable benefit more or less direct would be obtained by the whole river basin by the removal of these chronic floods. They will be benefited climatically, and they will also receive the further benefit which they must derive from the increased general prosperity of the district. The non-benefited area is not only rightly involved in the system of taxation by the fact that it does obtain these indirect advantages from the drainage, but justly and properly involved in it by the fact that it is the drainage of the uplands that causes the floods of the lowlands. It is largely the system of field drainage in the uplands which causes the sudden rush of water down to the bed of the river, which, as it at present exists, is unable to carry off the water sufficiently quickly to prevent floods. The Duke of Richmond's Commission recommended that the whole catchment area of the river should be taxed; but the Commission also recommended that the uplands should never be taxed to a greater extent, I think it is, than one-tenth of the taxes of the benefited area. I am inclined to think that even that is too much, and I am disposed to differ from the Royal Commission appointed by my my right hon. Friend upon the amount of charge which, at all events in the Barrow case, they have thrown upon the uplands. My recollection is that, if the scheme of the

  99
  Royal Commission were carried out, taking in charge for construction and maintenance, there would be an increase of the county cess in the uplands of something like 4d. in the pound. But that is too much, and I trust that in no case will the charge exceed 1d. in the pound on the county cess. Then with regard to the charges on the benefited area, we propose that that should be estimated upon the same principle which has always been followed in these Bills—namely, that the amount shall be estimated according to the benefit which the locality receives. If, therefore, we say that the benefited area is not to be charged in excess of the benefit it receives, and that the other part should not be charged more than 1d. in the pound, we have data upon which to estimate the total free contribution of the Government. In this matter I have taken maintenance into account, but the Commissioners have omitted it from their calculation. The House will not be surprised to learn, therefore, that the figures which I have to suggest as giving the amount of the free grant of the Government differ from the figures given by the Royal Commission. I will, before I come to that point, deal with the method in which the representation is to be arranged in the case of the Barrow and the Bann. There are obvious difficulties connected with this system of representation. How are you to apportion it as between the different areas concerned in the taxation? You have the uplands, which are partly taxed for the benefits they derive, and which are also partly taxed for the injuries they inflict; and you have, on the other hand, the benefited areas below, which are simply and solely taxed for the benefits they receive, and not in any way for the injuries they inflict. After consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the great bulk and weight of representation on the Conservancy Board should be given to the benefited area. I propose that that area should have three-fourths of the representation, and that, in addition, every town within the catchment area which has Town Commissions should send a representative to the Board. I further propose that the County Authority, which at present is the Grand Jury, should send representatives of the uplands. I am perfectly aware, of course, that the Grand Jury, in many respects, is not a per-
  100
  fectly satisfactory body, but the balance of convenience is very decidedly in their favour in this matter. There can be no question here affecting landlord and tenant, because their interests are precisely identical. The difficulty of mapping out new catchment areas is so great that I am disposed to think the House will be content with the proposal we have made with regard to the Town Commissions and the Grand Jury. The next point is the authority under which the works are to be constructed. I am dealing, of course, with the Barrow and the Bann. The Treasury, it will be observed, are to supply, either by way of loan or gift, the whole of the money with which the works are to be carried out. Not a single 6d. is to be raised in the locality itself. Under these circumstances I could not refuse the claim which the Treasury naturally put forward, that the works shall be executed more or less under their supervision. It will rest, therefore, absolutely with the locality to decide whether the works shall be carried out, and it will rest with the locality to maintain the works if completed; but I have requested, on behalf of the Government, the Commission to report on these works, and the very able engineer who drew up the plans of the works to superintend their construction, and I am glad to say that they have been good enough to consent to do so.
  MR. ARTHUR CONNOR: What distinction is drawn between the main artery and the tributaries of the Shannon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No distinction. It now only remains for me to state the financial proposals by which these schemes are to be carried out. The proposals of the Commission in the case of the Shannon were that the loans charged to the improved area should be £70,000; that the loan charged to the catchment area should be £50,000; that the loans secured on the property now belonging to the Board of Works should be £60,000; and that the Government should give a free grant of £100,000. That plan I have modified. In the first place, I think the catchment area might fairly be charged 1d. in the pound, including interest, which would very slightly increase the charge upon the area; and in the second place, by abandoning the navigation above Athlone great economy

  101
  would be effected in the Estimates. I hope I have put the figures clearly before the House. The Commission proposed that £70,000 should be charged on the improved area by way of loan, but they omitted in their calculations the cost of maintenance, and, in my opinion, the charge of £70,000 plus the cost of maintenance would far more than swallow up the total benefit to be derived by the improved area from the arterial drainage works, and therefore I have diminished the capital charge for the improved area from £70,000 to £35,000; I have increased the loan to the catchment area from £50,000 to £65,000; I have raised the loan on property belonging to the Board of Works from £60,000 to £65,000, and therefore the charge to the Government for the Shannon will be £65,000, instead of £100,000. Now, it would appear at first sight as if the Government proposals were less liberal than those of the Commission; but if regard be had to the fact that the Commission omitted any mention of maintenance, it will be seen that the contrary is the case. I now come to the Bann. The proposal of the Commission was that £11,000 should be charged on the improved area of the Bann; that £22,000 should be charged on the catchment area; and £20,000 on the area now taxed for navigation purposes. We propose that the improved area should not be charged £11,000, but £8,000; that is to say, for the same reason as I have already given in the case of the Shannon, I have reduced the total loan by £3,000. I do not see any reason why the land now taxed for navigation should be charged for the drainage works at all, and I propose therefore to alter the scheme in that regard. I propose to charge the catchment area of the Bann, as in the case of the Shannon, with an amount which, with share of maintenance, will bring up the charge to about 1d. in the pound—in other words, I propose to charge them with £37,000 upon the catchment area. The scheme, as regards the Bann, will, therefore, stand in this way—£8,000 will be charged on the improved area; £37,000 for the catchment area; and £20,000 will consist of free grant. Now I come to the Barrow. The proposal of the Commission was that the improved area should pay £210,000; that the catchment area
  102
  should be charged with an amount of £75,000, and that there should be a free grant of £75,000. According to the plan I have laid before the House, the whole scheme has been radically modified; because if you include the charge for maintenance, far too much would, in our opinion, fall both on the improved area and the catchment area. Instead, therefore, of £210,000 on the improved area, I propose that such area should only be charged £125,000, and instead of £75,000 for the catchment area, I propose that it should only be charged with £20,000; and it will be observed that in accordance with the general system on which I have modified the figures of the Commission to that extent, I must very largely increase the grant from Imperial sources if the works are to be carried out. Broadly speaking, I take off nearly £100,000 of the sum proposed to be charged on the improved area; I take off £55,000 from the charge on the catchment area; and I add about £140,000 to the proposed Government free grant. I do not think it can be denied that, at all events as far as the Imperial Exchequer is concerned, the plan I have submitted is a liberal plan. It is a more liberal plan than that of the Commission, though I do not say that at all in antagonism to the report of the Commission, and I trust it will be more workable. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have at certain periods given some indications that they do not view with unmitigated favour the proposal. I hope, on consideration, they will see that their disapproval has no solid foundation. I hope they will see that the scheme embodies a serious and solid effort to carry out the policy announced in 1886. I do not give this as more than an instalment, but I maintain it is no trifling instalment. We are proceeding on broad lines, and if anybody has a right to complain of the plan we are laying before the House, it is not hon. Gentlemen who represent Ireland, but hon. Gentlemen who represent the taxpayers of England in this matter. But I am convinced that as every section of opinion in England desires honestly the welfare of Ireland, that however much we may be divided on questions of Home Rule, or the administration of this or that Act, we are, at all events, absolutely united in desiring to see a greater

  103
  measure of material prosperity benefiting our countrymen on the other side of St. George's Channel, and the English taxpayers will not grudge the cost which these Bills are likely to throw upon them. It is in that belief—and in that belief the House will judge that the Government have acted wisely in trying, not in a niggardly or ungenerous spirit, to carry out the promises they have made to the country—that I confidently recommend these Bills to the attention and favour of this House. I move for leave to bring in the Bills.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Improvement of the Drainage of Lands, and for the prevention of Inundations within the Catchment Area of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann; also for one for the River Barrow; and for one for the River Shannon; and for other purposes relating thereto.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had addressed the House that night in a somewhat unusual vein. As a general rule the right hon. Gentleman was answering Questions about Bills and the administration in Ireland on matters in which the Irish Members could not be supposed to take altogether a pleasurable interest, but that night he had given them his views on the material prospects of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not confined himself solely to the question of drainage, but had very properly touched on the whole question of the various Reports from the Royal Commission that was instituted when Parliament first met after the present Government was returned to Office. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken rather disparagingly of technical education, and he (Colonel Nolan) was bound to say that there he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. To his mind technical education would be of great advantage in Ireland—it was possible for a great deal to be done in that direction. Take the case of the fisheries, for instance. What had already been done in certain parts of Ireland to improve the technical knowledge of the fishermen showed the importance of technical education, and the possibility of largely developing the fishery industry if such education were made more general. What the men wanted
  104
  in many places was not only boats and fishing gear, but instruction as to the newest and best methods of carrying on their business. He had been surprised to learn, from the right hon. Gentleman's observations, that although three directions had been indicated by the Royal Commissioners as those in which the resources of Ireland required development—namely, railways, fishing, harbours, and drainage, a measure dealing with railways and fishing harbours was to be indefinitely put off—for some people held that a Bill was put off indefinitely when it was postponed to "next Session." The right hon. Gentleman had seemed to think that it was wise to take up one question at the time—that he should now take up drainage, and next year railways and fishing harbours. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had stated that it was to simultaneity of dealing with railroads, fisheriers, and drainage that he looked for the permanent improvement of Ireland, and he (Colonel Nolan) agreed with that, and thought it was a pity that the recommendations of the Royal Commission had not been followed. They had now a scheme of drainage before them; but supposing the country chose to reject this measure, would measures dealing with the other questions—namely, railways and fishing harbours—be afterwards further postponed? Would Ireland lose the benefit of all improvements recommended on such high authority, simply because they could not accept a proposal as to drainage, believing it to be a bad bargain from a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view? He certainly, himself, took exception to the disparaging way in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the possibilities of the fishing industry being created or revived in Ireland. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's facts were, he thought, open to very serious question. The right hon. Gentleman, for instance, had dwelt upon the alleged decrease in the number of fishermen since the time of the famine which had crushed out a large number of fishermen. But from his (Colonel Nolan's) recollection of the Reports of the Fishery Commissioners, the fact was, that the number of fishermen and the number of fishing boats in Ireland had been constantly increas-

  105
  ing of late. Though it might be true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that the people living upon the coasts of Ireland were very bad fishermen, it was nevertheless true that they were very bold, brave, and skilful boatmen. They went to sea in very bad boats, no doubt; but they were thoroughly efficient in the management of them, and he submitted that with a little technical education they might become very excellent fishermen, because it took many years to make a man a good boatman, whereas he might acquire the knowledge necessary to render him a skilful fisherman in a very few months. He thought, therefore, that it was a sine quâ non that the Irish boatmen should have instruction given to them in fishing. They wanted also markets for fish; they wanted railways established so as to tap the coasts in the proper places. He looked to a great extent for the regeneration of the coast population to the development of the railway system of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed himself in that direction, but he seemed rather inclined to allow the matter to hang over for a considerable period. The Irish Members were to rest their hopes upon what next Session would produce in this respect. To his (Colonel Nolan's) mind the railroads were by far the most important of the three projects; because although it was essential to develop the fishing industry, the railways were essential to that development, besides being calculated to benefit other industries. Now, there was one point which had been once or twice mentioned in the House upon which he should like to say a word, and as to which he had interrupted the right hon. Gentleman whilst he was making his speech—an interruption which, by the way, he should not have made had he known at the time that he was likely to follow the right hon. Gentleman. However, he had interrupted not only Members of the Government, but many hon. Members in that House when they had flung in the faces of the Irish Members, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, this matter of the £2,000,000. The fact was, that during the famine period the Government established large drainage works to give the people work and to enable them to earn money to purchase
  106
  the absolute necessaries of life. The money was advanced to the proprietors, who were to employ the people, and these proprietors, after the famine was over, said, "We ought not to be called upon to repay the whole of this money, seeing that it was really advanced as a means of saving the people from famine and not in the first place for the purpose of improving our properties. The money was handed over for the public benefit, and not to benefit us." The Government had said, "Very well; we will not be hard upon you, and if you will allow the Income Tax to be established in Ireland we will put it as a set-off against these £2,000,000." In that way this matter was finally settled. Well, an examination of the Income Tax statistics showed that Ireland had by far a poorer population than this country, and yet, nevertheless, head for head, paid almost the same amount. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman's argument as to these £2,000,000 came to nothing. With regard to the three drainage Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had brought in, he (Colonel Nolan) thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in making his speech upon the three schemes together, as they were all so involved. He (Colonel Nolan) would speak mainly with regard to two of them, for the reason that he was not acquainted with the details of the third; and he felt it to be useless in matters of that kind to occupy time by discussing that with which he was not thoroughly conversant. He had had some experience with regard to the Shannon, and was able to express an opinion upon it, and he would also venture to say something as to the proposed drainage of the Bann, though, outside the information obtained by the Royal Commission, he did not pretend to have the same practical acquaintance with the circumstances of the Bann as he had with those of the Shannon. He had been a Member of the Royal Commission, and, therefore, might be allowed to say a few words on that point. In dealing with those two schemes the right hon. Gentleman had gone very largely in one direction. He had contended that it was useless to attempt to combine navigation with drainage, saying—"You never get value for your money when you attempt to give navigation and drainage at the same time, as in this way you never secure proper

  107
  drainage." It was a tolerably simple process to make a drain, and it was a tolerably simple problem to secure a sufficient depth of water for the sailing of a boat; but it was a difficult thing to combine the two; and, so far as he (Colonel Nolan) saw, every attempt to solve that problem in Ireland had been an utter failure. It might have succeeded in some isolated instances. They saw a combination of navigation and drainage to some extent below Paddington Lock, where they had tidal water, and they saw it practised above Teddington Lock, where they had not tidal water; but the conditions were entirely different there to those prevailing along the course of the Shannon and Bann in Ireland, because on the banks of the Thames a large amount of money was spent on pleasure grounds and on traffic. In Ireland, on the other hand, there were no pleasure grounds, and there was very little traffic. There were rich meadows, however, to take care of. The right hon. Gentleman had said they could not combine navigation and drainage, and he expected his scheme to be a success where all others had been failures; but when they regarded this question as to whether value for their money would be got by the people who would be called upon to make large payments under that Bill, he thought the point was open to very considerable doubt. If he thought the majority of farmers dwelling on Lough Neagh and the District of the Lower Bann were of opinion that they would benefit, he would at once give way upon the subject so far as the Lower Bann, but that statement would not apply to the Shannon. So far as he understood the matter, the chief difficulty in regard to the navigation of the Bann was the necessity of keeping Lough Neagh at a certain level. The whole basement of Lough Neagh would be a catchment area, and if a high level were maintained, it would be bad for the drainage of the low lying lands. The high level was kept up partly for navigation purposes, although navigation had been a total failure. The interests of the farmers in the Lough Neagh district had been entirely sacrificed to the question of navigation, although, as he had said, navigation had been a failure. He submitted that any drainage which did not lower the summer level of the Lough Neagh Weir
  108
  would be money thrown away. He, therefore, considered that the sum of money that the residents of the district of the Lower Bann would be asked to pay under this scheme was unduly large, as they would not get value for their contribution, even supposing Government money was put into the work. And now he complained of the case of the Shannon, although he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that expenditure for the purpose of navigation ought to be very much curtailed. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman went far enough, and, therefore, he was of opinion that the scheme would prove a failure. That was not the first time he had made a prediction of the kind, for when the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he had brought in a Bill for the drainage of the Shannon, which was to cost £300,000, half of which was to be found by the Government, the localities having to find almost the same amount as under the present Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) told the right hon. Baronet at the time that he should lessen the number of proprietors affected from two-thirds to one-half, but this the right hon. Baronet refused to do, feeling confident that he was right in his proposal; but the result was that he did not get a single proprietor in the district to go into his scheme—none of them thought it was worth their while. The present scheme he (Colonel Nolan) thought a much better one, because it recognized that no engineering skill had been able to reconcile navigation with the drainage of large areas in Ireland. The riparian proprietors, as he had pointed out on a former occasion, had been unwilling to pay what was asked of them, and not one voted for the scheme. In the present scheme, the riparian proprietors were to pay £135,000, and the Government £65,000, which would make £200,000, and there was an odd £65,000 besides the £200,000 to be obtained by the sale of the existing works or sources of revenue for the maintenance of the proposed works, one of these sources of revenue being eel weirs. Both on the Bann and on the Shannon a considerable revenue was derived by the Government as proprietors of eel weirs. These were to be sold and applied to

  109
  drainage; but if they had no drainage, all these sources of revenue would not now be wanted, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had pointed out that by abandoning a certain amount of navigation, the expenses of maintenance would be considerably reduced. It appeared to him (Colonel Nolan) that this saving should have been applied to improving the river in a different way to that proposed, and he thought it might be made of more use to the cultivator of the land. There would still be too much navigation, and that was why he did not think that plan would be a success. Trading on the Shannon was almost abolished for Athlone, and nothing of advantage in that respect would accrue from the present proposal. There were only two or three steamers trading on that part of the river, and he only knew one manufactory kept up in that district—or which used to be kept up there—namely, a certain pottery manufactory. Steamers were still to be kept up below Athlone; but it would be a mistake to decide that the river should be kept up at its present depth. In Ireland 7 feet were required for navigation purposes, while in England and other places 4½ feet were mostly considered sufficient. It had always been held, so far as the Shannon was concerned, that vessels trading along it should have a heavy draft, the reason being that the lakes were so large and that broad vessels were necessary to traverse them. But when they had one river to serve them both for drainage and navigation it was necessary for them to consider which was the most important feature. He certainly thought that in the case of the Lower Bann the navigation was of minor importance, the drainage being of considerable importance, and he thought it a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not gone further and still more subordinated the navigation to the drainage. He did not think the scheme would work, because he did not think, from a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view, all the localities affected would be anxious to see these works established. If they spent £260,000 in improving the Shannon, he did not think they would get £100,000 value out of it. He did not think it was worth while to spend £260,000 in order to secure an advantage of £100,000; and his (Colonel Nolan's) constituents
  110
  would not be pleased if they knew that he was a party to putting a tax upon them from which they would derive no benefit. He did not think the climate would be improved by substituting one description of drainage for another, but, even if it would, climate was an Imperial question, and anything which could be done for its improvement which involved expense should not be imposed as a burden upon the local rates, but should be paid for out of the Imperial funds. So far as the Shannon was concerned, he (Colonel Nolan) strongly disapproved of a scheme which put any tax on the catchment area. The catchment area was very considerable in extent, and to tax people 30 or 40 miles away from the Shannon, whose land was 20 or 30 feet above the level of the river, would be extremely unfair, as those could derive no benefit whatever from the drainage. If it were absolutely necessary to put a charge of that kind upon the people, it should be put upon the counties. He did not wish to deprive other hon. Members of an opportunity of speaking upon these Bills. This was only the first reading, and therefore he would not oppose the measures. They might, after all, do good to Ireland, and as to that, the localities must be allowed to express an opinion through their Representatives. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman meant well; but he (Colonel Nolan) certainly did not think the scheme would answer on the Shannon or on the Lower Bann. The state of things might be different on the Barrow, because comparatively speaking large sums of money had already been spent on that river. He should have been glad to see any improvement introduced into Ireland, but so far as he knew anything about that question—and he was well acquainted with the Shannon and the Bann—he entirely disapproved of the scheme. He did not wish to speak at greater length on the subject, and had only one further remark to make. The right hon. Gentleman had said there would be a plébiscite taken. He (Colonel Nolan) understood that to mean that every cesspayer should vote in respect of the Shannon drainage. If that was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be a very popular suffrage.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had to say a few words relating to the Bann drainage. In the first place, he

  111
  had to congratulate his right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and he believed Members from Ireland would congratulate him also, on the fact that he had taken a right line for dealing with these drainage works. Neither the occupiers nor anyone else acquainted with the district had ever differed with regard to the question of the navigation of the River Bann, and he was glad to find that his right hon. Friend had made up his mind to abandon it, because it had not been productive of any good to the community. There were, however, one or two points on which he would ask for information. He wished to know how the Conservancy Board was to be elected; of what the electorate was to consist; whether it was to be nominated by the County Authority or elected by the cesspayers? He would also like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the scheme for the Bann drainage proposed to deal with every flood—even an exceptional one, such as that of 1877—or did it propose to deal only with ordinary floods, because there was a very considerable difference in the amount of money required as between the two schemes that would be necessary. The Commissioners had adopted a lower figure than that of the two highest estimates which had been brought before them, and he observed that his right hon. Friend had taken a sum less by £10,000 than the amount named by the Commissioners. He rather differed from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) with regard to the proposal to tax the whole catchment area. The hon. and gallant Gentleman imagined that it had been a solution seized upon by the Commissioners in order to get out of the difficulty of expending a large sum upon the district which would not give an adequate return; but he thought the Commissioners had taken the idea from some of the English schemes where the plan had been in operation, and as he believed, without any complaint whatever. He thought, with regard to the proposal to place a considerable portion of the cost upon the catchment area at large, that it would be a much more satisfactory plan than the proposal of the Commissioners themselves. He could never understand why the Commissioners proposed to pay any sum in particular
  112
  for navigation purposes in connection with the Bann. They appeared to think that because the trustees had not carried out their duties, it was necessary to fine the unfortunate people who had contributed to the navigation. He was glad that his right hon. Friend was determined to impose the sum devoted to the Bann drainage in a different way—that was to say, place it on the catchment area, and to free the area which had been formerly charged for navigation purposes. He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the necessary assent of the occupiers in the area was to be arrived at. Was it to be settled by a pure majority or by a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers. The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway had dealt with the question of weirs. He (Mr. Macartney) believed that local opinion would confirm what he was going to say—namely, that if they did away with Toome Weir it would utterly destroy all prospect of carrying on navigation on the Lagan Canal. He admitted that it might be more simple to do away with the navigation and turn the Lower Bann into an ordinary drain; but he doubted whether in the case of a flood like that of 1877, the Lower Bann would be able to carry away the water. On the other hand, he felt that even if it were possible to benefit the flooded land by abolishing all the weirs, including Toome Weir, it would not be desirable, in respect of the commercial interests in connection with the Lagan and Tyrone Canals, to tamper with Toome Weir in a way which would imperil the navigation. All the engineers who produced schemes before the Commissioners were confident that it was quite possible to relieve Lough Neagh and the flooded land by one or two alternative proposals. He desired to congratulate his right hon. Friend on the manner in which he had attempted to meet this complicated question of the River Bann drainage, and also to thank him on behalf of those who had suffered from the flood, as well as from the heavy expenditure which they had been called upon to meet; and because the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to introduce a Bill which he believed would give adequate relief in future, and which would throw no material burden on those whom it would benefit.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he did not rise to enter into any minute criticism of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; he thought it better that they should reserve such criticisms until the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was fully laid before the House. He wished to refer to one observation of the right hon. Gentleman, which had caused him considerable surprise—namely, that Ireland was better off with regard to technical education than England. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House in making that statement; but what was the technical education to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? The sum of £800,000 which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned as having been spent on technical education had really been expended in 10 years on industrial schools. But it was necessary, in order that the child might obtain advantage from an industrial school, that he should first have been convicted as a vagrant or a criminal, and sent by the magistrate, as such, to the industrial school. Surely it was not fair to tell the House or the English people that England had promoted technical education in Ireland to the extent of £800,000 in 10 years, or £80,000 a-year. That sum was spent not on technical education, but in teaching the criminal and vagrant classes, who, as he had said, had to be first brought before the magistrates and convicted before they could obtain the advantage of this supposed technical education. He ventured to say that if one-half of that money had been spent in connection with technical education in the national schools in Ireland, and the teaching of the children the use of tools, the right hon. Gentleman would not have been able to complain that the Irish people depended solely upon agriculture as their only resource. With respect to the railways in Ireland, he saw that the Government had abandoned the idea of dealing with them this year. As one who had been connected with trade in Ireland for many years, he could assure the House that there could be no more development of trade and manufactures in Ireland so long as the railway system existed as at present. He spoke from bitter personal experience in connection with their railway system, and he said that their trade and manufactures were
  114
  strangled by the present system of railway management. He did not know a railway in Ireland that would risk a-half per cent of its half-yearly dividend, in order to enter upon any new system that would give the manufactures of Ireland a chance of competing with their neighbours in England or Scotland; so that until they had done something with regard to the railway system, either in respect of the amalgamation or abolition of the numerous Boards under which the railways were now managed, he certainly could not hope for any development of trade or manufactures in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that no less than £2,000,000 had been spent in connection with drainage and navigation in Ireland; but he (Mr. T. A. Dickson) maintained that 75 per cent of that money had been absolutely wasted in useless navigation and drainage schemes. Let anyone go through Ireland as he had done as Royal Commissioner, and in Galway, or in the neighbourhood of the Bann, he would 'find that hundreds and thousands of pounds had been wasted in that manner. They had that afternoon seen an example of this; £300,000 had been spent in creating navigation in the North of Ireland in the most prosperous Province, as the right hon. Gentleman had described it, and the Government had given away that sum that night for nothing, and £3,500 in addition in order that the works might be taken off the hands of the country. He knew something of the district of the Lower Bann; he had lived there all his life, and was one of the Royal Commissioners, together with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan). The Commission he referred to investigated the subject for more than six months, and made certain recommendations that the navigation should be abolished. Five years had elapsed since that time, and yet the recommendations of that Royal Commission had never been acted upon or carried out. What had been the result to the people of the locality? The tenant farmers on the Lower Bann had paid for 30 years £1,200 a-year in order to maintain a navigation upon a river upon which a boat never sailed, nor upon which one ton of cargo ever passed. The traffic receipts had never reached £10 a-year from the Lower

  115
  Bann, and yet the tenant farmers had been taxed for this navigation to the extent of £1,200 a-year. In addition to that, however, the best land of these farmers had been flooded. He did not believe that in any district in Ireland outside Derry such an amount of expenditure and flooding would have been tolerated. He was sure that the weirs which existed were necessary, and he, for one, would not assist in their removal. The question was whether, in connection with the Lower Bann, the people who had paid £1,200 a-year were to be taxed for the removal of a navigation which had flooded their lands for the last 25 or 30 years. Surely, having paid for a navigation which had never been used, it would be unfair for the Government to say that the weirs and navigation works should be removed at the expense of the people. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in framing his Bill, would take into consideration the case of the farmers on the Lower Bann. Their case was a most grievous one, as had been proved by the Royal Commission, and no persons in Ireland were more entitled to relief than the farmers in Derry. With regard to the observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway on the subject of Toome Weir, he said that it was not possible to remove this, because it would be utterly destructive of the navigation on the Lagan and Tyrone Canal, which was really necessary. The Royal Commission had recommended the sluicing of Toome Weir in order that Lough Neagh might be kept at Summer level, and he hoped that this formed part of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, because otherwise there was no hope of relief for the enormous districts flooded. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the taxation for all this drainage work was to fall wholly on the occupiers, and he was afraid that if this was the case the plébiscite would fail owing to the unfairness of the proposal. He trusted that when the Bill was in print they would find that the question of taxation for draining the districts would be borne in fair and equitable proportion by both landlords and tenants; and he trusted that the Bill would be a measure which would really preserve the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. But
  116
  there were many grave defects in it, as the right hon. Gentleman himself had hinted, which he (Mr. T. A. Dickson) was afraid would render the rest of the Bill almost useless. He did not know anyone in England connected with public works that had any confidence in the Irish Board of Works. Every county in Ireland possessed monuments of the incompetence and failure of the Board of Works to deal with matters of this kind.
  MR. LEAsaid, he did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in all that he had said on this question. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was, if large sums of money were spent in India on public works, that large sums of money should not also be spent in Ireland. The occupiers in the district of the Lower Bann were, under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, to pay a large sum of money for the removal of flooding caused by previous expenditure over which they had never had control. He admitted there was an appearance of liberality in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman as far as it went; but he contended that something more was necessary to meet the grievances of which his constituents complained. Many tenant farmers in the county of Derry were now paying 10 d. or 1s. in the pound for establishing a system of navigation which had not been of the slightest use to them, which they never asked for and never wanted, and they were now going to be asked to pay another sum in taxation for the removal of the system. His hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. T. A. Dickson) said that the cost to the farmers in the district was £1,200 a-year, while the receipts were not more than £10 or £20; he believed, however, that they had amounted to £50 in the course of the year. The tenant farmers had for many years been knocking at the door of the House of Commons asking for relief from the floodings. He believed that the cost of knocking away some floodgates would not be more than a few thousand pounds, and it would have the effect of relieving the farmers who were already subject to the heavy taxation existing. He should like the reasons to be given why landowners who had borne their share of taxation should now

  117
  escape. He saw no reason why the landowners should be entirely relieved in this matter; and, moreover, he had received many letters and telegrams praying that the legislation of the House would not involve the farmers in any further taxation, but that steps might be taken to remove from them the grievances under which they suffered by the construction of a system of navigation which they never desired, and which had never been of the slightest use to them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had seldom heard from the present occupants of the Treasury Bench any scheme which appeared to him to be more satisfactory, taken as a whole, than that the outline of which they had received that night, because he thought if the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were carried out in its entirety, it would result in a very substantial benefit to Ireland at large. He did not pretend to have any particular information with regard to the Bann; but, with regard to the Shannon and the Barrow, he could say that he had traced both rivers from their source to their mouths either by walking or by boat, and he had seen them in flood from one end to the other. He had devoted many weeks to reading up the statistics furnished to the Board of Works during the present century, and he was unable to repress the great interest he felt in the question relating to these two rivers; but it appeared to him that the Government were making a mistake in the way in which they proposed to apply the money. He and his hon. Friends had had occasion to discuss this matter in view of the possibility of themselves, or some of their countrymen, having to deal with it as a public duty after the House of Commons had been relieved of the question. The right hon. Gentleman claimed generosity in connection with the figures he had placed before the House. The most generous figures he gave were with regard to the Barrow, and he was bound to say that the amount was £10,000 short of what they considered to be a reasonable contribution from the Irish Exchequer for the purpose in view. It was perfectly plain that to deal with a large river basin, with a large catchment area, was not a work for any Local Authority to deal with, however important such Local
  118
  Authority might be; no single county or even three or four counties could deal with the Shannon and the Barrow; the drainage of these rivers must necessarily be an Imperial work. Now, what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do was to treat the catchment basin as a whole, without drawing any distinction between the main artery and the tributaries. That was the respect in which the right hon. Gentleman's scheme differed from that which he had been able to draw up. He submitted to the Government that, where they had to deal with six or seven or eight different counties, it was a proper and reasonable and simple thing for the Government to concern themselves with the main artery and to leave the tributaries to be dealt with by local drainage boards. It would be found that in every one of these three river basins there were the same general features, and the same mistakes had been made. They would find that the same mischiefs existed, and that these mischiefs might be removed by a similar course of treatment. It would be found that not one of these rivers had been allowed to carry the surplus water to the sea. Lough Neagh was the natural reservoir which, if left to itself, would save a good deal of the difficulty which had been caused by artificial obstruction. The obstructions in the Shannon were so great that one of its tributaries was annually flooded for five or six miles. The navigation of the Shannon was a very limited concern. He recollected going on a barge from Athlone to Killaloe, through Lough Dearg, for the purpose of seeing what was the amount of traffic on that navigation, and in two days they met only two barges with anything in the nature of freight. The barge on which he was contained seven carboys of vitriol, and three rounds of steel wire, and some bobbin from a manufactory in Athlone; the freight did not pay the cost of going down to Limerick, in other words, of the men employed. In order to maintain the supply of water necessary for navigation, hundreds of thousands of acres were flooded, extending as far as the eye could reach from the Bridge of Athlone, and the people were driven from their homes for shelter in Athlone. Again, in the case of the Barrow, the waters overflowed, and the land was wasted year after year; and lower down, Port

  119
  arlington was so flooded that it was impossible to drain the grounds; and, although rates had been made by the Boards of Guardians and the Local Government Board, no effect had been produced; and ague and fever were epidemic in the lowlands, which could not be estimated in its consequences by money, but represented so much additional national loss. A little further down, at Monasterevan, the floods were depriving the people of their crops, which might otherwise be gathered in to the benefit of the people, to the extent of tens of thousands of pounds in a comparatively small area. All these mischiefs were caused by purely artificial means, and if the Government could remove the obstructions all the difficulties would disappear—that was to say, they should address themselves to the main artery of the river and take steps to free it, and then all objection to the drainage of the district would be removed. The Government engineers should estimate the fall of the whole catchment basin; they should estimate for the complete discharge, not only at the mouth, but at every important point above and below the tributaries. In the case of the Barrow, there would be considerable difficulty, because if they proceeded to drain the river in connection with the Portarlington drainage, such a discharge of water would be caused as would do an enormous amount of damage. He would lay it down, as a fundamental principle, that the work should begin at the mouths of the rivers and make provision for the greatest possible discharging capacity which the heaviest floods on record might show to be necessary. He believed that for the Barrow £200,000 would be ample, if the Government would confine itself to the proper duty of a Government—that was to say, that they should take in hand that portion of the drainage system which could not possibly be dealt with by any Local Authority. If the £200,000 for the Barrow were expended on the main arteries, the works being begun from the mouth and continued upward, he thought it would be only fair and reasonable, and it was what Irish Members would propose if they had the settlement of the question. They would propose that the tributaries should be dealt with by the Local Authorities immediately con-
  120
  cerned; and if the main artery was thoroughly dealt with, the several Drainage Boards would take the individual tributaries in hand, and the landowners, farmers, and occupiers might be trusted to deal with the lands remote from the river. But one condition was indispensable, and that was that the Government must abandon the idea of maintaining this unnatural and artificial navigation level. The Shannon navigation level did a great deal more harm than could be made good by any returns drawn from the trade on the river. The Barrow navigation caused an amount of flooding so great that it would pay the people of the basin of the river to pension off at full pay for the rest of their lives everybody connected with the navigation; and, with regard to the Bann, he was satisfied that if the Government would only allow the Lower Bann and Lough Neagh to do the work which nature intended it to do, and remove the weirs altogether, they would find that the amount of land reclaimed on the lower level would far more than compensate for the expenditure which might be involved.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reminded the Committee that foreign countries continually adopted legislation of this kind, and that we had done so in the case of India. But did that not strike the right hon. Gentleman as peculiar? Was it not manifest that it was because India was not a self-governing country, and because Ireland was not a self-governing country, that the same measures should be adopted for both countries? The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the great injury done to Irish trade in the last century by England; he spoke in terms very suitable of the wrong which had been done, and as if he was anxious to make reparation. He (Mr. W. A. Macdonald) believed the wrong then done was very great; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in their opinion, a greater wrong was done to Ireland when the English Government took away from Ireland that Parliament which was doing away with the bad effects which had been produced by the policy referred to, and was establishing something like prosperity and enterprise in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman

  121
  had said that it would be very difficult for the Government to legislate directly with reference to Irish trade, and that whatever assistance was given must be given indirectly. They knew that if the British Government were to propose to subsidise or otherwise directly to assist the trade of Ireland, there would be an outcry from the great centres of industry in England, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to give any direct assistance. The right hon. Gentleman also said that next Session there would be legislation on the subject of railways. He could not imagine anything more miserable than the failure of the Government in that respect; and he could explain to the right hon. Gentleman why it was so, and why it was not likely that any legislation with regard to railways would cure the evils which existed. The difficulty was not merely that there were a large number of Companies, each pursuing its own interests regardless of the interests of others; it was also that railways were wanted in certain districts where it would not pay to construct them; and he believed that there would be no success with regard to the railways until the Government became owners of the whole railway system in the country. He did not expect the British Government would acquire the railways, but he hoped they would be acquired by the Irish Government at no distant date. Now, there were other difficulties in regard to the special point of the drainage of these rivers to which he wished to draw attention. In the first place, it was proposed to put the whole taxation upon the tenant farmers. The tenant farmers—if he knew them rightly, and he thought he was beginning to understand them pretty well—were very unwilling to bear any additional taxation; they knew they were becoming poorer year by year; that they were poorer to-day than they were 10 years ago, and they saw no immediate prospect of improvement. He believed it would have to be a very good scheme indeed—a very seductive scheme—that would induce the tenant farmers voluntarily to tax themselves in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Possibly they might do so in regard to the Barrow, because, in that case, the Government proposed a very large subvention on the part of the
  122
  State—£215,000, instead of £75,000, as suggested by the commissioners. But he was sure, speaking of the whole country to be benefited by these Bills, there would be a great reluctance on the part of the tenant farmers to submit to any further taxation; and he thought that in this case, where they proposed to put the whole burden upon the occupiers, it was quite reasonable that they should be extremely jealous and fearful of incurring this new responsibility. A number of these tenant farmers had their rents fixed for 15 years. At the end of 15 years those rents might be reviewed, and they required ample security, ample assurance, in these Bills or in some other way, that when their land came to be re-valued at the end of the 15 years they would not be charged in that rent for an improvement in the condition of their land, an improvement which had been brought about by the very taxation to which they, and they only, had contributed. Then again, in regard to the catchment area, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the benefit which the whole catchment area would derive from these drainage works. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these things were more evident to him than they would be to the men who would have to put their hands in their pockets and pay for the carrying out of the schemes. The climatic advantages would seem to them extremely small, and they would naturally say—"Our lands do not need drainage, why should we pay for the benefit of our neighbours, a benefit which will not to any material extent reach us?" There were various other points with regard to these Bills on which he and his hon. Friends would require very careful information. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of other Navigation Companies; but he did not say anything about the Barrow Navigation Company, which had a Charter dated as far back as 1790. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to get rid of this Charter; did he propose to stop the navigation; did he propose to disband this Company; and, if he did not, how did he expect to keep apart the question of navigation and the question of drainage? Would not this Company do as much injury in the future by navigation as it had done in the past; and was it not a matter of importance

  123
  that they should have a clear and explicit statement with regard to the intentions of the Government in reference to it? He had said that the people who were concerned in the Barrow might possibly be induced to tax themselves on account of the very large subvention promised by the State; but he recommended the right hon. Gentleman not to be too confident in this respect. If the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded on different lines, if he had said that the taxation should be compulsory, he (Mr. W. A. Macdonald) would have trembled for the Bills, and for the Irish Members if they had in any way lent their countenance to the Bills. It was only the fact that the taxation was voluntary that made him think that, at any rate, they would not incur any odium if they voted for the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, for he was quite satisfied that if the proposals were compulsory, and if they were to say to these people—"You must contribute to these local burdens," they would raise a storm in Ireland which it would be very difficult for them to allay. The voluntary character of the Bills, and the liberal subvention in regard to the Barrow, were two points which seemed to give some hope of the passing of the Bills. In conclusion, he would only say to the right hon. Gentleman it was possible that the people of Ireland might accept these Bills, and it was possible they might work them. Of course, it was one thing to get the Bills through the House, but it was another thing to get them into practical working. It was possible the people might work the Bills, but they would not work them in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government proposed them. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government hoped that by a very large expenditure of public money upon Ireland they would lessen the demand for Irish self-government. They never made a greater mistake. The people of Ireland, because they were poor, because they needed help, might accept these free grants at the hands of the Government; they might accept the assistance which the Government offered in the way of loans, but they would remain as firmly attached as ever to the great hope that the time was not now far distant when they would be able to manage these concerns in a Parliament of their
  124
  own instead of coming to the British Parliament for aid.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that as the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) involved a grant from the Imperial Exchequer, he felt entitled as an English Representative to make a few remarks upon the Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed; and not only so, but he claimed as a friend of Ireland to be deeply interested in the schemes submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman certainly went very far afield in his prefatory remarks in regard to the question of the drainage of these great rivers. It was not easy to see the direct connection between the change of fashion in Irish friezes and the question of the drainage of these rivers. There was, no doubt, a very remote connection; but it seemed to him that it was very far fetched. The right hon. Gentleman wandered still farther from the subject when he dragged in the question of the amount of money spent on technical education in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had already shown how very remote what they understood to be technical education was from the education given in industrial schools upon which the money was spent in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman gave them to understand in his opening remarks that there were three great subjects with which he and his Colleagues intended to deal—namely, railways, fisheries, and arterial drainage; and he (Mr. Illingworth) assumed that the question of arterial drainage had been taken up first because it was most pressing, and also probably because it was less intricate and involved the least outlay of the three great projects. At the outset let him say he personally was very doubtful when proposals of this sort were submitted to Parliament. It was now 20 years since he first entered the House, but he had always observed that, when in connection with Irish affairs any Minister wished to spice his statements and to assure the House and the country of the infallibility of his proposals, he invariably began by condemning the previous projects and admitting almost their entire failure. He was rather disposed to fear it might fall to the lot of

  125
  some successor of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to pronounce such a judgment upon the proposals he had now submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman favoured the House with a great deal of detail and information in regard to these projects, but still he left a good deal unsaid. The right hon. Gentleman had given them to understand what was to be the total advantage spoken of in pounds, shillings, and pence, for which the Imperial Exchequer was called upon to pay very largely. But he thought that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was proposing such a scheme as this, might very well have informed the House bow many acres of land would be relieved by these schemes of drainage and the removal of navigation and the sluices, and thus have enabled the House to examine, understand, and calculate for itself as to whether the outlay was going to be of any advantage. Hon. Members from Ireland had very shrewdly hinted it was possible the Irish people might accept these schemes. If the people did accept them, it would be because there were large free grants given, and because, besides that, the loans were to come from the British Exchequer. The question of repayment the right hon. Gentleman dealt with in a very slight way, and left a great deal unsaid. He certainly ought to have told the House how the money was to be repaid, and what the percentage was to be. That was an important piece of information which the House ought to have from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the interest, including the sinking fund, would be 4½ per cent. and, excluding the sinking fund, 3¼ per cent.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: How many years?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Fifty years.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Fifty years at 4½ per cent. It was of the highest importance that this part of the scheme should be submitted along with the other proposals which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before the House. In connection with this matter he really thought the right hon. Gentleman had not made good his case why the landlords and the landlord interest should be excluded from any share of the burdens to be cast upon the people by this great project. Did the right
  126
  hon. Gentleman mean to say that the interest of the landlords was not in any degree benefited by the projected outlay, and that the whole debt could justly be laid upon the occupiers? It seemed to him as if the right hon. Gentleman were anticipating some revolutionary change in regard to land occupation and land ownership in Ireland, otherwise the enormous innovation he had made upon previous schemes would not have been suggested to the House. For his part, he thought it would be most unjust to cast upon the occupiers or upon the present cultivators of the soil in Ireland the whole burden of this charge. They had been reminded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County (Mr. W. A. Macdonald) that the revised rents only lasted for 15 years; at the end of that time, of course, the landlords would go to Court, and if the Land Commission was then in existence the landlords would urge that the position of the occupiers was vastly improved by the carrying out of these schemes, and that they therefore were entitled to an increase of rent. The case would be very plausibly presented in that way, and it might be forgotten that the whole cost of carrying out the schemes had been defrayed by the occupiers. If such a project were submitted to Parliament in respect to England he was quite satisfied it would be received with no favour by those representing the occupying interest in this country. But there was another point which was of very great importance in this matter. In the dilemma in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself he had proposed that with regard to the Shannon, which, as he (Mr. Illingworth) understood, was the largest of these rivers and affected the greatest number of towns, there should not be the slightest introduction of anything like popular management. As it was in the past so it was to be in the future; the whole management of this scheme, interesting to the people, as the right hon. Gentleman had told them, of 14 counties, was to remain in the hands of the Government and under the control of the Board of Works. He did not think it would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have made a more complete confession of failure in our present system of government in Ire-

  127
  land, or to have furnished a stronger argument in favour of a radical change in that direction. How was it possible with the discredit that had come over the Board of Works in Ireland as well as over all other branches of the Irish Government, that confidence could really follow this undertaking, especially in regard to the Shannon? Whether the scheme in regard to the Shannon were to be accepted or rejected was to be made the matter of a plébiscite, which was a method of foreign origin to which we were but little accustomed in this country, and, personally, he protested strongly against its introduction in any form into this country. In summing up, he was disposed to say it would be far better that this, like many other great projects absolutely necessary for the improvement of Ireland, should wait the settlement of the political question, which very soon, in his judgment, would be decided. The Irish people would not receive, they could not receive—they would not work, they could not work—projects having their origin in a British Cabinet, from which all Irish representation and Irish opinion was excluded. In his opinion, all these schemes of the future would be conspicuous failures, as had been those of the past, and for the simple and sufficient reason that there was no Irish sentiment or Irish opinion or Irish judgment—he would even go so far as to say, Irish spirit and pride in connection with them. They were alien in their origin, they would be alien in every step of their journey, and the result must be absolute failure. He supposed that this was the beginning of a very large outlay of public money, which he took to be in the form of a gross bribe to Ireland, the burden of which would largely fall on the British people, first in the shape of gifts and then in the shape of loans, and upon this beginning he looked with very great apprehension. He expected they would find some succeeding Minister coming down and announcing to Parliament that the money had been foolishly expended, and that the Irish people had not received the proposals in the spirit in which they were made; and that ultimately they would be driven to the conclusion that Irish affairs from first to last had better be submitted to the Irish people and the responsibility for those affairs cast upon them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that if the House were to be led in this matter by the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), he did not see what business the Irish Members had here at all; they had better pack up and go. He, however, proposed to consider the schemes in the interests of the people, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland sat down, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) asked himself three questions. The first was—was it expedient to undertake this work at all? No one who knew anything about the districts in question could doubt that it was expedient, and anyone with knowledge must answer that question in the affirmative. The second question was, were the proposed schemes likely to meet the case? That was a matter upon which he was not going to give any opinion before he saw the Bills. The third question was, were the proposals of the Government adequate as regarded finance? What were those proposals? He had totted up the figures, and he found that the three schemes were to cost £682,000; £347,000 of which was to be met by local taxation, and £335,000 was to be an absolutely free grant from the British Exchequer. He thought that the Irish people would think once, twice, and thrice before they refused the proposals of the Government, and he was perfectly certain that the farmers who were affected by the floods would think a very long time indeed before they rejected them. His hon. Friend (Mr. Illingworth) ridiculed the idea of a plébiscite. A plébiscite was not unknown to the British people; as a matter of fact, there could be a plébiscite taken under the Borough Funds Act, and he remembered one being taken in the town of Manchester as to whether water should be brought from a distant part or not. All the denunciation of the hon. Gentleman as to a plébiscite being unknown in this country was outside the question, and not founded upon fact.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked to be allowed to explain. He did not say a plébiscite was altogether unknown in this country, but he said it was of foreign origin. He contended that so far as it had prevailed here, it was a most unsatisfactory arrangement.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought it was an eminently satisfactory way of dealing with the subject; he could conceive no better plan than to go to the farmers and ask them if they were willing to bear their share of the burden proposed to be imposed. If they were not willing, then the responsibility would not lie with the Government, but would lie with themselves. He did not wish to enter into the matter in detail until he saw the Bills, but there were one or two points in the Chief Secretary's speech to which he would like to refer. First of all there was the exclusion of the landlords from the area of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been led to his conclusion in the matter from the consideration of the Land Act of 1881. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) could not see how the consideration of that Land Act could lead up to any such conclusion, and for this reason—that in that Act the landlord, at all events, was part owner of the land; he was a partner in the land. Why the landlord should escape a reasonable share of the taxation on the land he (Mr. T.W. Russell) could not possibly see, and he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider that part of his scheme. There was another point upon which he felt even more strongly than he did upon that he had just mentioned. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would consent to reconsider the scheme as it affected the Bann. The right hon. Gentleman had been extraordinarily liberal as to the Barrow; he did not know why, but there was no doubt the Barrow had been treated with a liberality to which the Shannon and the Bann were absolutely strangers. What were the facts? The farmers, whose lands on the bank of the Bann were flooded, were absolutely taxed for navigation works that they never wanted, never asked for, and which had never been of the slightest service or use to them. After paying, as had been said, 10 d. or 1s. in the pound for these useless works they were now to be taxed for their removal. He really thought there would be considerable opposition to that, and he hoped that, therefore, before the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to reconsider that part of his scheme affecting the Bann. The hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County (Mr.
  130
  W. A. Macdonald) spoke about the unwillingness of the farmers to stand any more taxation The hon. Member ought to have remembered that their lands which were now flooded would be more valuable if the works were successfully carried out, and that the taxation would be a small matter as compared with the increased value of the land. He (Mr. T. W. Russell), for one, most cordially and heartily welcomed the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman. They were not, he knew, heroic proposals; they were not proposals for the Disestablishment of a Church or the breaking up of an Empire; but at the same time they were perhaps a great deal more useful than either; and for his part, as an Irish Representative, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with his Bills, and that they would see them passed into law this Session.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, it was two years since he heard the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who was then Loader of the House, announce the Irish policy of the Government which had just then come into power. That policy was to be "equality," the noble Lord said, "similarity, and simultaneity," in regard to Local Government on the one hand, and efforts to develop the industrial resources of Ireland on the other. The policy of "equality, similarity, and simultaneity," had vanished into thin air, and this present proposal of the Government was the first introduction of the first instalment of the industrial development which they were promised. Although the equality and all the rest of it had given way to coercive measures, this matter was one of those which must be discussed on its merits; there was no reason why they should not accept these Bills if, on examination, they proved to be well-considered schemes, and possibly they could be worked out on their merits without any serious injury or injustice to any section of the people. He suggested, however, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that by some of the conditions he had laid down he had courted failure in the working out of the Bills. An insuperable objection to the schemes was that taxation was to fall solely on the occupiers

  131
  of the land, the owners of the land being exempt from all burden. That would be felt to be a gross injustice by the occupiers, who, he was sure, would not voluntarily tax themselves in the manner suggested. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished his Bills to work well he would remove this great blot from them. Reference had been made to the Report of the Royal Commission, and it had been very truly stated that in the first portion of their Report the Commissioners concerned themselves with the question of arterial drainage, which, if not the most pressing, was, perhaps, the most easy to be dealt with. But in their Report the Commissioners divided the question of arterial drainage into two parts: one was that part which was being dealt with now by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the drainage of the three great rivers; and the other part, upon which the Commissioners laid great stress, was the general arterial drainage of large tracts of land along the smaller rivers of the country in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not touched the latter part of the question at all, which was really the most important and most pressing portion of the question. Under the General Arterial Drainage Acts a great deal of useful work had been carried out, Drainage Boards had been established, and had arranged to tax themselves for the carrying out of useful drainage works; but the effect of the promise of the Government to introduce these measures was that, whereas a certain number of schemes were heretofore being continually pushed on under the Arterial Drainage Acts, all operations had been suspended and nothing whatever was now being done in this direction. Ho begged the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that branch of the subject, and asked him to consider whether he could not see his way to bring in some amendment of the General Arterial Drainage Acts this Session? He had only a word to say in regard to the engineering question affecting these rivers. He was not always at one with his hon. Friends around him with respect to the operations of the Board of Works. The Board of Works had, undoubtedly, made serious mistakes from time to time, but they had also done a great deal of good work. He understood, however, that instead of putting the work under the local Conservancy Boards in-
  132
  tended to be established, or under the Board of Works which was already established, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to elect a new Engineering Commission which would be independent of any existing Body in Ireland, independent of the people who formed the Conservancy Boards, who would hereafter have the maintenance of these works thrown on them, and practically responsible to no one. He would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman something more on that point. A gentleman had been engaged in Ireland for some months past in laying out these works; that gentleman might be a very eminent man, but he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that in Ireland there were a great many eminent men of first-class reputation who had devoted a great part of their lives to the study of the peculiarities of these rivers. These men had done engineering work connected with these rivers for a great many years, and he did not think it would be just to them that they should be entirely passed over. He also desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the schemes he had foreshadowed were already designed and planned; and whether the plans and sections were part of the documents accessible to Members of the House? It was not at all convenient to discuss at any great length the details of Bills upon their introduction, and he personally did not intend to take up any further time of the House. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would answer the questions he had thought it his duty to put.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not help hoping that the discussion, which had been a very useful and interesting one, might now be brought to a termination, because hon. Members would probably feel that Bills so complex as those he had introduced to-night had better be discussed on the second reading, and that they would require more discussion at that stage than it was possible to give them to-night. He now desired to answer a few points which had been raised in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Murphy) had asked him how it had come about that the Government had not introduced a general scheme of Arterial Drainage—a Bill to amend and consolidate the existing Drainage Acts?

  133
  Well, if the hon. Member would consider the matter for a moment, he would see that it was necessary for the Government to take into consideration the amount of time they could give to the general legislative proposals of the Session. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) prophesied, as it was, that it would be extremely difficult to pass the three Bills he was now introducing; and if he had attempted to bring in another, not only would it have been practically impossible to pass it, but he should have imperilled the safety of the three Bills which he now proposed that they should pass. With reference to the objections of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government wished to deal out a very different measure of justice to the Barrow to that which it dealt out to the Bann. It was true that the Barrow would get a much larger free grant than the Bann; nevertheless, the grant was ascertained and fixed by a precisely similar method in each case. He had in each case taken first 1d. in the pound on the valuation in the catchment area, which was the amount which he thought the catchment area should be asked to pay, and he had then taken the amount which the catchment area could afford to pay according to the best calculations which could be made, and he had added these sums together and subtracted them from the total cost of the proposed work, and in each case the difference he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide out of the public funds. It was true that the sum was much larger in the case of the Barrow than in that of the Bann, but that circumstance was due to the facts brought to light in the calculation to which he referred. He had been asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney), with regard to the works on the Bann, whether the proposals in the Bill contemplated dealing only with ordinary floods or with exceptional floods, such as those which occurred in 1877? He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had been informed, by those competent to give an opinion upon engineering questions of this kind, that the proposed works would adequately deal with all kinds of floods; and, if not absolutely preventing such floods as those which occurred in 1877, they would reduce them to insignificant
  134
  proportions. Then something had been said as to the Lough Neagh Weir being destroyed, and the level of the Lough being permanently lowered. The hon. Member who referred to this subject seemed to think that they would arrive at an excellent system of drainage in that way. Well, they must recollect that by destroying the weir in question they would entirely destroy the navigation; and if they did that, it would be necessary to pay compensation to the owners of that navigation, and to pay such compensation would cost more than to adopt the plan that the Government proposed, which was to put large sluices in the weir. It was proposed still to keep Lough Neagh a little above the ordinary summer level, but they also proposed that it should never be allowed to rise above that nor to fall below it; and if they could carry out that plan, as he thought they could, it would, he thought, be possible to reconcile the conflicting interests of the farmers and those interested in navigation. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) had referred in a similar strain to the project in connection with the Shannon, and he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was glad to have an opportunity of assuring the hon. and gallant Member that they proposed, at all events, to carry out part of the objects he had in view by lowering the level of Lough Derg by two feet. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, no doubt, knew enough about the Shannon to be aware that, if they did that, they would greatly benefit the land near Lough Derg, and make the lake a kind of reservoir in flood time, which would alleviate and mitigate at such periods the severity of the floods. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had gathered, from an interruption of his (Mr. A. J. Balfour's), the idea that they were going to deal on a very large scale with all the tributary streams of all the rivers they proposed to deal with; but that was not the case. The whole expenditure on the Barrow and the Shannon would be substantially devoted to the main channels. Then almost every speaker who had addressed the House from the other side had commented upon the proposal by which the Government threw the whole cost upon the occupiers. He could not help thinking that his critics in that respect had

  135
  not really surveyed the whole situation. He proposed to give the occupiers an absolute veto as to whether the scheme should be put into operation or not. He proposed to give to the occupiers not only during the currency of their present judicial leases, but for all time, every penny of the benefit which would result from the scheme. If he gave the occupier the whole benefit, surely it would be a monstrous injustice, as well as a piece of monstrous folly, to ask the landlord to bear any of the responsibility.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would explain how it was that the Grand Jury, which was now a nonrepresentative Body, was to get a quarter of the representation on the Conservancy Boards?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought ho had explained that point. He quite admitted that he should prefer that a different Body should have the election of representatives; and when he had had an opportunity—as in the case of Town Councils—he had gladly availed himself of other Bodies. They had to weigh the different alternatives open to them, and the only alternative in dealing with the catchment area was to divide the locality into elaborate electoral divisions for the purpose of elections for three years, which would be of a most costly character, and which would be absolutely useless for any other purpose—they had to choose between that elaborate and costly and rather absurd scheme and the scheme he proposed to the House; and when the House recollected that this was not a case in which there could be any controversy between the landowner and the tenant, and where there could be no divergence of opinion between the Grand Jury and the landowner he thought the alternative he proposed was absolutely the only one open to them to adopt. He did not know whether there were any other questions he had left unanswered.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly say what he proposed to do with the Barrow Navigation Company?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had altogether forgotten that point. They proposed to carry out the suggestion of the Royal Commission and take away the management of the River Barrow entirely from the Navigation Company,
  136
  subject always to this regulation—that they would still keep the river bed at its present depth of water. In no case where at present navigators had four feet of water in which to float their barges would the new Conservancy Boards be allowed to diminish that depth.
  MR. M. J. KENNYwished to know why the Government had departed from the lines they had adopted in connection with other borrowing schemes? Money for public purposes was advanced at 3⅛ per cent. but the Government itself would be able to procure money at a much lower rate of interest.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that question fair enough, and he wished his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present to answer it. He believed that money had never been lent for public works in England at a less rate than 3¼ per cent. Three and a-quarter per cent was the rate they proposed to charge in this case, and 3½ per cent would be the amount to be paid in order to provide a sinking fund, so that the total loan might be paid off in 50 years.
  An hon. MEMBERasked whether the Board of Works would have any control over these operations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the money would be lent or given by the Treasury, but it was thought, on the whole, that the gentlemen who designed the works should be intrusted with the duty of carrying them out. When they were carried out, then, in the case of the Barrow and the Bann, their maintenance would be left in the hands of the Conservancy Board. In the case of the Shannon the works would likewise be constructed by the Board of Works, and would remain in the hands of that Board to maintain.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked, how the three-fourths of the Conservancy Board which were to be representative were to be elected?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that also a very fair question. It would be the duty of the Commission to draw up a scheme of electoral districts in which the elections would take place, and those areas would be so contrived that three-fourths of the representatives would fall to the benefit of those living in the catchment area. That was a substantial part of the scheme if it was to

  137
  come to any good at all. He did not think there was anything else he need say. He thought the discussion they had had a very useful one, and he was glad to take that opportunity of expressing again, in as strong terms as he could, the thanks which he thought they owed to the Commissioners for the work they had already done in carrying out the Reports and the readiness with which they had accepted the invitation of the Government to continue their assistance in order to see the works provided for in the Bills carried into effect. He had been rather sorry to hear the Board of Works attacked that night. He agreed that there had been mistakes made where the Board had not had undivided jurisdiction; but if anyone would look at the work carried out by the Board of Works during the last 20 or 30 years they would see, he thought, that a great deal of good work of a most solid and effective kind had been done by the Board. If they had made mistakes he did not think they were more blameworthy than many other engineering bodies placed in a similar position.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he thought, after the explanation the right hon. Gentleman had given of the objects and the character of his Bill, he would save himself and Parliament a great deal of trouble by abandoning his scheme altogether. He (Mr. O'Kelly) did not think there was any likelihood of that part of the scheme relating to the Barrow ever being brought into operation. So far as the Shannon drainage district was concerned, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that district, in which £100,000 had already been expended on drainage works, would have to pay its quota towards the cost of further drainage works? With regard to handing over the Shannon district to the Board of Works, the people of that district knew very well that this Body could not be trusted with the carrying out of public works in Ireland. He was convinced that if a plébiscite were taken in the valley of the Shannon, with the knowledge that the works decided upon were to be intrusted to the Board of Works, not one man in 100 would vote in favour of works being undertaken. Under these circumstances, he was justified, he thought, in saying that the House
  138
  would be losing its time in passing these Bills, so far as that part of the scheme was concerned.
  MR. HARRISsaid, he wondered very much that the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to introduce any scheme for the drainage of the River Suck, which was the largest tributary of the Shannon; and, seeing that so much had already been done, and so much anxiety was shown to improve the drainage of the district, he thought that the Suck should not be forgotten. Over £100,000 had already been expended, but the river was in a very bad state at present. It was not quite finished, and the Act of Parliament would expire at the end of this year. If, therefore, a grant of money was not given by the Government the drainage of the river would remain in an unfinished state. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to consider these facts, and not to pass over a real, practical, and substantial work of drainage which was at present under weigh, and which, so far, had been more successful than any similar scheme of the kind that had been carried out in Ireland. Another thing in connection with the Suck drainage was that the Board interested in the matter was the only one on which occupiers had got a representation; and between the representatives of the occupiers and the riparian proprietors who were interested in the Suck the work had been carried on harmoniously. The Board had succeeded so far in carrying out its intentions as to the improvement of the river. He (Mr. Harris) had a very intimate knowledge of the Shannon, and he would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his engineers that in dealing with that river, if whatever they did should have the effect of injuring the navigation, they would be doing a very serious injury to the country. Not only as regarded navigation would great injury be done, but it must be remembered that to allow the depth of the Shannon to decrease would be to destroy the water power of the river. That would have the effect of diminishing the possibility of irrigating the meadow lands on the banks of the Shannon, which was a very important matter. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman should include in his scheme some plan to secure that the irrigation

  139
  of the land on the banks of the Shannon, especially where there were meadows, should not be interfered with. Unless some assurance of that kind were given, he feared very much that the inhabitants occupying land on the banks of the river would vote against the scheme if the right hon. Gentleman took a plébiscite. As be had mentioned the word plébiscite, he must say that he gave his entire approval to the taking of a plébiscite both on this and on every other law. There were four considerations which had to be taken into account. There was, first, the drainage, then the navigation, then the question of irrigation; and, lastly, as he had said before, the question of the water power. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had gone out without giving him an answer to the point he had raised in reference to the River Suck. The right hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to notice remarks of his (Mr. Harris's) as regarded the preservation of that part of the river he had spoken of, and yet it was a subject to which he (Mr. Harris) had given a great deal of attention.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had commenced at the wrong end of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman had said to-night, as he had done the other evening, that he had been guided in the course he had adopted by the fact that the Royal Commission had first reported on the subject of drainage. But was not every Royal Commission a creature of the Government? And would anyone believe that a Commission in a case of this kind would think of reporting on a question of drainage first if it did not know that it was the mind first to take up that question? Let them reverse the order of proceeding that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted. Suppose they took the fishery question first. Here they would have a matter to deal with where there would be no interfering with rights, and no dispute as to title. By a grant in the shape of a loan to fishermen, for the purchase of boats and nets, following the example quoted that night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, there was no doubt they would be able to develop a mine of wealth on the Irish Coast. When once the taking of fish had been dealt with,
  140
  the Government might have gone on with their development of the resources of Ireland—seeing that they believed they were secure in Office for three years and had now an opportunity of developing a well-thought-out policy. They could then establish effective railway communication for the object, amongst others, of bringing about a better distribution of fish to the inland parts of Ireland and to this country; and, having settled these two parts of the question, they would be in a position to deal with the relative claims and liabilities of the landlords and tenants, with regard to improvements to be effected by the drainage of the catchment areas. By the time that this difficult question came to be dealt with they would very probably have the land in the hands of peasant proprietors, and it would be found easy of settlement, as there would be less doubt as to who derived benefit from the improvement of the drainage. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, could not make a second reading speech in introducing his Bills; but he (Mr. Edward Harrington) thought he might have been more explicit in dealing with the question of the plébiscite. He should like to know whether men on the mountain side were to have the same voice as men who lived on the banks of the river, and whose land was therefore affected by bad drainage? The declivity of the soil was not the same all round, and those men owning farms which lay high would not derive half so much benefit from the drainage as the men holding low-lying farms near the river. Was it proposed to charge these classes equally on some hard-and-fast mechanical mileage system? Then the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he had entirely blotted out the question as between landlord and tenant on this subject by contending that wherever an improvement was effected it would be for the benefit of the tenant. Before they lost their grip of the Land Question he hoped they would make every effort to see that in future settlements of rent by Sub-Commissioners, the Sub-Commissioners should not, in taking into account £20 expended on a man's farm, say that the farm had been made £2 a-year better—and if at a subsequent period it was found that the improvements made, say under this Bill, actually came to £7, and not £2 a-year, as at

  141
  first estimated—that the landlord should not be allowed by the Commissioners the difference of £5 a-year. There was a blot in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. Why on earth should he give the Grand Jury in the uplands any voice in the nomination of representatives on the Conservancy Boards? If the landlords were not to be taxed, why on earth should Grand Juries be allowed to have representation or nomination; and who were the Grand Juries but the landlords of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had said that he would not allow the landlords to have any voice in this matter, but in the next breath he declared that he would give them the nomination of representatives of the upland districts. He (Mr. Edward Harrington) did not believe that the Government were sincere in those proposals, which they declared were for the benefit of Ireland. He could understand that from a Unionist point of view some sacrifice would be made, and some semblance of common sense would be introduced into the development of Irish industries. He could understand that fisheries would first be dealt with, and then railways, and then, when the vexed question between landlords and tenants was settled in Ireland, the question of drainage could be dealt with; but the Government did not seem to be prompted by the same motives. They were prepared to deal with the drainage of the Bann and the Shannon, and to leave the fishermen of Ireland starving—to allow Manxmen, Scotchmen, Englishmen, and even Frenchmen, to come in and take away that which by right belonged to the Irish fishermen. It seemed to him that the Government were simply paltering with this question, and would be as glad as anyone could be to see this scheme thrown out, so that they might say—"See what we are ready to do for Ireland, and yet the Irish will not allow us to benefit them." They were anxious to spread this work over three years, so that it would reach to the furthermost limit of their political existence—if it was possible for them to live so long. The Irish people had not the power to move themselves in the direction which they considered necessary for the development of their industries; and the Government might easily, in dealing with these subjects, in which there could be no dispute, have satisfied the demands
  142
  of Ireland, but they did not do so. They had not dealt first with that subject about which the least possible objection could be raised. For what earthly reason had they refrained from dealing first with the fishery question and then with the railway question?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was very sorry that he did not agree with all that had been said by several of his hon. Friends. He himself thought that the recommendation of the Royal Commission with regard to the order in which these reforms should be carried out was a proper one. It was well known that Ireland was an agricultural country, and he thought, therefore, that the class which it was their duty first to benefit was the agricultural class. It was all very well to hear about railways and fishery piers, and those sort of things; but he had his own experience to fall back upon when hon. Members raised these points. Some years ago he was in Galway, and he noticed that the place was doing extremely well in the matter of railways. There was every railway convenience required, and every harbour accommodation; and yet, so far as he could learn, the fishermen were not at all in a prosperous condition. The right hon. Gentleman had made some reference to his (Mr. Biggar's) prejudice, or supposed prejudice, against railways. Well, he was not prejudiced against railways; but he had an old-fashioned idea that any expenditure of money which was not remunerative was a waste of money. Now, the universal experience with regard to railways which had been made in recent times in Ireland was that they were extremely unproductive, and he (Mr. Biggar) should like some stronger evidence than the general statement that it was a desirable thing to have increased railway communication in order to develop the national resources. He had a great deal about the Schull and Skibbereen Railway, which, he believed, went to some fishing place, and yet he understood that since that line had been constructed no more fish had been carried along the route than had been taken by road by the carters. That was one of the most important of the recent railways constructed in Ireland, and yet he did not think there was much to say in favour of it, especially from a fisherman's point of view. He believed, in fact,

  143
  that that railway was an illustration of the mismanagement of the Irish Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary found fault with the criticism which had been levelled at that Board of Works; but hon. Members had seen a great deal of evidence which pointed to the inefficiency of the Board. Here was an instance. Not long ago they had heard a great deal from Wicklow of the Arklow Harbour. It appeared that that harbour was built upon shifting sands, and the result was that the whole affair came down in a very short time. Something had been said about shifting sands not being a very sure foundation a long time ago, and he thought hon. Members might apply that old saying to the case of the Board of Works. Then, in another instance, in building a certain pier, the contractor was allowed to use local stone and concrete along the edge of the shore, with the result that when the pier was built it was found impossible to make a road on to it. Those were illustrations of the way in which the Board of Works managed its business, and he was very much afraid that if the Board of Works was to have the carrying out of this drainage it would be an entire failure. He was not so dispassionate as some of his hon. Friends were as to the taking of all this money by the ratepayers in the neighbourhood, because there was a very great propensity on the part of some people to borrow money. They were allowed a long time to repay it, especially if there was the promise of a gift along with it. He was very much afraid that the result would be that the Irish Board of Works would mismanage the drainage of these rivers in future, as they had always mismanaged things in the past. They had seen a very curious commentary on the views of the Government. They had had to-night before them a statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he proposed to offer a substantial gift towards the draining of the Lower Bann; and they had heard on the other side, from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan), in the earlier part of the Sitting; that the same Government had proposed a Bill which would make it practically impossible to have any drainage of the Lower Bann which would be of a satis-
  144
  factory nature. In point of fact, the Government seemed to be making two propositions, one cutting the ground from under the other. There was one point in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman which was perfectly indefensible—namely, to give to the Grand Juries one-fourth of the seats on the Board. That was a most pernicious principle, and one which, if the Bills ever got into Committee, he hoped would be dropped. If the unfortunate occupiers were to be taxed, and no burden at all placed on the owners of property, the occupiers ought certainly to have the whole of the representation in their hands. After all, he was not very confident that the Bills would pass into law that Session. The introduction of the Bills, however, would afford an opportunity of discussing the subject; and, as a consequence, in some succeeding Session, some satisfactory Bills might be passed.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he was not astonished when he heard the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that night. For weeks these Motions had been on the Paper. There had been a great rumbling of the mountain, and it had at last brought forth a mouse. This was a truly Tory policy—having drained the country of people, the Government were now going to draw off the water. But he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman that he had at last made an attempt at remedial legislation. Several suggestions had been made by the Royal Commission relating to fisheries, drainage, and the piers and harbours. The right hon. Gentleman had stood up for his good old-fashioned friends, the Board of Works. Goodness knew that Ireland possessed many ancient works which redounded to the historical credit of the land; but the Board of Works were filling the place with structures which were no sooner built than they proceeded to tumble down like the right hon. Gentleman's Coercion Act. [Laughter.] Let any hon. Member who laughed accompany him (Dr. Tanner) to Ireland. He invited the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to accompany him to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not been much to Ireland, and, accordingly, he had not seen very many of the celebrated structures which had been erected by the Board of Works.

  145
  If he had, perhaps he would change his opinion of the Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman knew very little indeed of Ireland. They had never had the pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman's presence in the City of Cork. He hoped that in due time the Chief Secretary would screw up his courage to sticking point and favour Cork with a visit. Well, what was the measure the right hon. Gentleman had brought in? It was a drainage measure—merely a drainage measure. The right hon. Gentleman passed over some very important points, which were dwelt on at considerable length by the Royal Commissioners in their Report, notably the fisheries. The Chief Secretary made several statements in reference to the fisheries, which he concurred in. He said, for instance, that the increase of the fishing industry was proportionate to the increase of the fishery harbours in Ireland. It was very easy to make a statement of that sort; but it was a great mistake for a right hon. Gentleman in the responsible position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to make such a statement without also stating what the fishery structures were, and showing of what little benefit they were. Perhaps the House would let him narrate a little incident, which would show of what little use the fishery harbours of Ireland were. Last winter the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) and himself left the Island of Achill and proceeded to cross Clew Bay. They had left the right hon. Gentleman's Constabulary behind, and had held a very successful meeting at the place they came from. On reaching the shore they found there was a newly erected fishery harbour. It was half-tide, and surely a fishing smack ought to be able to get into any harbour at half-tide. He and his hon. Friend, however, waited outside for upwards of three-quarters of an hour, exposed to the westerly breeze, which blew across the broad Atlantic, and then the people told them there was no chance of landing except at high water—that, in fact, fishing smacks could only land there once or twice a-year, when there were spring tides. The harbour at this place was one of the structures the right hon. Gentleman evidently wished to uphold, when he supported his colleagues of the Board of Works in Ireland. The
  146
  right hon. Gentleman also touched lightly upon the railway question; and upon him (Dr. Tanner) remarking that the Schull and Skibbereen tramway was not a highly satisfactory undertaking, although it had been helped on by money advanced by the State—[Laughter]—the right hon. Gentleman laughed. Would the right hon. Gentleman, when he did come to the South of Ireland, undertake a journey upon the Schull and Skibbereen line? He (Dr. Tanner) knew that nothing would hurt the right hon. Gentleman more than an affront to his dignity; and he was satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman took a journey upon the Schull and Skibbereen line, and had to get out, as he probably would have to, to push, he would be convinced of the failure of the speculation. He invited the right hon. Gentleman's sincere co-operation in helping this tramway in its difficult and arduous career. Now, in regard to drainage, what did the right hon. Gentleman propose? He proposed to improve a large part of the land of Ireland by drainage, and to do it at the expense of the tenants. When the land had been improved by the tenants' labour and at the cost of the tenantry, the landlords would step in and endeavour to get an increased price for the land. That was was an iniquitous proposal; but, after all, what else could they expect? The right hon. Gentleman had to do something; but he had passed over the improvements which could be of real benefit to the country with which he was unfortunately connected by Office. There was no doubt that in due time, no matter what Government were in power, the land of Ireland would be handed over to the people at a reasonable price. But what was the Chief Secretary doing then? He was practically increasing the county cess; he was practically throwing a greater weight on the shoulders of the people who tilled the land. Looking at the matter in a common-sense light, he was of opinion that the House might deliberate conscientiously before it allowed these Bills to pass. He did not believe in the shameful policy of the past—smiting Ireland with one hand and holding out to it a sop with the other hand. That seemed to be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, for he had a Coercion Act in one hand and Drainage Bills in the

  147
  other. It was an unworthy policy. However, they could not expect anything else from the present Government. He supposed it was well for them to accept those Bills—to take them as instalments, hoping that in the course of time, when the right hon. Gentleman came to study the Irish Question more minutely, when he came to see more of the people of Ireland, he might present them with something better than this dirty little two penny-halfpenny drainage scheme. He trusted the Chief Secretary would profit by that night's debate. [Mr. A. J. BALFODR: Hear, hear!] He would! It was never too late to mend; he commended that good old adage to the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry he had detained the House so long; but he really thought that, everything considered, the Irish Members, and especially those who had noticed the failures of the Board of Works with which Ireland was bestrewed, could not let this opportunity pass without expressing their views.
  MR. CONYBEARE(who was received with ironical cheering) said, he supposed hon. Members opposite thought that because he did not happen to represent an Irish constituency he had got no interest in that matter. He assured hon. Gentlemen they were entirely mistaken. The question of the drainage schemes for Ireland affected every English Member and every English constituency; and if hon. Members did not know that, the sooner they learnt it the better. He assumed that these grand arrangements and designs and schemes of the Chief Secretary could not be carried out without the employment of English money. Personally, as the Representative of one English constituency, he objected in toto to any English money being employed for this purpose. The introduction of these Bills was only another illustration of the essential necessity there was to pass a measure of Home Rule. But it appeared to him it would be well to follow the precedent set in the case of the Belfast Main Drainage Scheme, and that was to relegate this question to local decision. In the case of the Belfast Main Drainage Scheme, the principle adopted was that new works of great magnitude, involving much expense to the people of the city, should not be undertaken until the citizens
  148
  were properly represented and able to express their opinion and to control the expenditure. In that matter, hon. Members had a right to object to being called upon to interfere in affairs which ought properly to be dealt with by an Irish Parliament. But that was not the only objection he had to raise. As he had said before, these schemes could not be carried out without the employment of English capital. He presumed it was the English Exchequer the Chief Secretary was going to dip his hand in for the purpose of carrying out the proposed works. He was aware that there might be reasons why hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House should not strenuously oppose measures of beneficial reform introduced by a paternal and despotic country; but, as English Representatives, they had a right to do what they could to oppose these schemes. This was a fresh measure for robbing the English taxpayers for the purpose of assisting the Irish landlords out of the bog in which they found themselves at the present time. If the landlords' bogs were ever flooded, it would be a good thing if they would drain them themselves, or otherwise extricate themselves from their difficulty as best they could. At any rate, English capital ought not to be employed for these purely Hibernian affairs, which ought to be settled by an Irish Parliament.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the Improvement of the Drainage of Lands, and for the prevention of Inundations within the Catchment Area of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 312.]
  Bill for the Improvement of the Drainage of Lands, and for the prevention of Inundations within the Catchment Area of the River Barrow; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 313.]
  Bill for the Improvement of the Drainage of Lands, and for the preven-

  149
  tion of Inundations within the Catchment Area of the River Shannon; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 314.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Order read, for further consideration of Postponed Resolutions [21st June].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution."
  DR. TANNERsaid, before the Report of this Resolution was taken, he would like to hear something said as to the charge which had been made in connection with the Chaplain's Department since this time last year. Last year, there was a Vote for Divine Service; but now they found that but one Vote was taken for the chaplains on the Army Establishment. That was a subject which he did not feel himself called upon to deal with. [Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.] It was more for the hon. Members opposite who cheered his remarks; it was more in their line. But let him call attention to one fact in connection with this establishment; it arose in the City of Cork. It was a point which he spoke about this time last year, and it was one on which he got no definite or satisfactory assurance from Her Majesty's Government. Now, in the City of Cork they had a very considerable number of troops. He was not going to question the policy of Her Majesty's Government which led to the troops being there; but, at any rate, there were many troops there, and those troops had to be supplied with chaplains. Many of the troops were Roman Catholics, the major part of the people who were resident in or about the barracks were Roman Catholics, and they were, he believed, entitled to the ministrations of the Catholic chaplain. What were the facts in relation to the Cork Barracks? The Protestant chaplain was provided with a residence, and he was provided with a very good salary. Now
  150
  the residence was a very important point. The unfortunate Catholic chaplain, in addition to only receiving a certain capitation allowance, had to live down in the City of Cork, and in consequence of the sum which was paid to him being so miserably inadequate he had to attend to other duties. This was a great hardship, and he thought it was always better to ventilate a grievance than to let it go on unexplained. If the Government would give the House an assurance that the matter would be dealt with, a great deal more good would be done than by letting matters remain as they were at present. Now, the Catholic chaplain had to live down in the City of Cork, and his allowance was insufficient and inadequate. He had to take on duty as a clergyman in the City of Cork, and between the two duties which were imposed upon him he found it very difficult to attend to both. The Catholic priest was connected with the parish of St. Patrick on the lower road. There was a very heavy hill to get up. [Laughter.] Yes; it was a very fine hill—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not talking in any sensible manner relatively to the subject before the House. I must warn the hon. Gentleman.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly. He was trying to draw the attention of the House to the miserable and inadequate provision made for the Roman Catholic chaplain attached to the Cork barracks. He brought the matter under the attention of the House last year by a series of questions, and the Chairman of Committees permitted him to speak upon the matter. What he wanted to insist upon was that if there was a chaplain appointed to deal with one religious section, that chaplain ought to be paid in as adequate a manner as the chaplain of another section—that the Roman Catholic chaplain should be paid just as well as the Protestant chaplain. Although a Protestant himself, he thought he was entitled to endeavour to see that justice was done to the Roman Catholic chaplain ministering at the Cork barracks. This gentleman was not properly paid; he was paid by a miserable capitation allowance. He had to ascend this hill daily in the performance of his duties, and often it cost him a considerable sum of money to get up the hill. He (Dr.

  151
  Tanner) was trying to deal with this question in as reasonable a light as he could. Everybody knew that in the South of Ireland they had a great deal of rain, and everybody knew—
  MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Gentleman to discontinue his speech.
  MR. O'HEAsaid, he knew something about what his hon. Friend had put before the House. He believed that everything his hon. Friend had said was perfectly reasonable and fair. In his opinion, it was nothing short of a downright and unmitigated scandal that a clergyman of one persuasion doing his duty in the spiritual interest of his flock should be treated in a different manner to the clergyman of another persuasion—that, in fact, fish should be made of one and flesh made of the other. That was what he believed his hon. Friend was directing his remarks to. He knew that the Roman Catholic chaplain doing duty in the Cork Barracks had a great and arduous work cast upon his shoulders. The rev. gentleman was obliged to live a considerable distance from the barracks, and he had in all weathers to climb the hill on his way to the barracks, which reminded one very much of an Alpine mountain. It might happen that he was called to the barracks in the night time, when he must either, to the possible detriment of his health, climb this extraordinary hill, or engage a car for which he would have to pay at least a half-a-crown. All this was completely lost sight of in the fixing of the remuneration of this clergyman. He (Mr. O'Hea) regretted that his hon. Friend should have in any way exceeded the limits of legitimate debate; but he ex-pressed his thanks to the hon. Gentleman for having, Protestant as he was, so generously and manfully spoken on behalf of the Roman Catholic clergyman at the Cork Barracks. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that this rev. gentleman had not been either fairly, adequately, or generously treated in the matter of remuneration.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that the mode in which the chaplains were paid was perfectly fair, and not only that, but exceptionally so with regard to Roman Catholics. The rule as to the appointment of a per-
  152
  manent chaplain of the Church of England was that he should minister to every 1,000 men; but the permanent Roman Catholic chaplain was appointed to every 600 men. This rule was carried out universally, and it was impossible to depart from it in the case of Cork, although it appeared that there the Roman Catholic chaplain had to go up a hill to reach the barracks.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat inadequate. It was very cold consolation to the chaplain properly discharging his functions to be told that he was liberally treated. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) had complained that the Church of England chaplain received £300 a-year in addition to accommodation in barracks, and that the Roman Catholic chaplain had to pay a considerable sum for car hire, and other matters to enable him to discharge his duty. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some more definite reply than the statement he had made, and not turn off the inquiry by cheap observations as to the admirable manner in which the chaplains discharged their duty.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hill at Cork was a very serious obstacle in the way of a person who had to reach the barracks more than once a day. He had himself been obliged to go up the hill, and he could assure the Committee that it was no joke to have to do so. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the chaplains were treated with equity, irrespective of their persuasions, and that the Roman Catholic chaplain was treated more generously than the Church of England chaplain. He did not know how that might be, but the Church of England chaplain got £400 a-year, and the Roman Catholic chaplain in Kilmainham Gaol received only £75. One of the great questions in connection with that particular service was whether it was good economy or judicious to continue a system of chaplains on the Establishment, or to resort to the expedient of paying officiating clergymen in cases where they were required. He thought it would be better to utilize the service of the local clergy as officiating clergymen, a system which would save a considerable expenditure in connection with pensions. The

  153
  pensions of clergymen on retirement formed a substantial item, every clergyman being, after a certain time, entitled to retire on £300 a-year. But there was a very much larger number of clergymen than was desirable on the Pension List, and, by the plan he suggested, the list might be very considerably reduced. There was a very trifling reduction in the present Vote, and the Vote showed that what the Government reduced with one hand they made up with the other. For these reasons, it was urged on the Government that they should do away with the present state of things, and fall back on the services of officiating clergymen.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)said, this matter had been inquired into. The Secretary of State had given his attention to it, and it had not been found possible to diminish the number of chaplains. The chaplain on the Establishment had the spiritual care of all the troops under his charge; but the officiating clergyman's duty was confined usually to conducting the Sunday services; an important distinction, which he believed hon. Members would perceive.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 63: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
  Consideration of Postponed Resolution further postponed till Thursday.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury to be good enough to say when he proposed to take effective Civil Service Supply? Those Votes were greatly in arrear, and a day ought to be named for proceeding with them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)admitted these Votes were very much in arrear. He had hope of proceeding with them that evening; but he had been disappointed in the amount of time occupied on the Motion for the introduction of the Irish Drainage Bills. Under any circumstances, Civil Service Supply would be taken on Monday next.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked, could not the
  154
  Government say if they would take Supply on Thursday? Surely Her Majesty's Government knew their own minds well enough to be able to say what they were going to do 48 hours in advance.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the difficulty was to know the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had given the only answer he could to the right hon. Gentleman, and that answer he must abide by.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would state definitely on the morrow. Wednesday was an inconvenient day for such announcements.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid it might facilitate progress with Supply if the right hon. Gentleman were more sparing in the application of the closure. ["Order, order!"]
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.

MOTIONS.

  CORN AVERAGES.
  Ordered, That the Committee on Corn Averages do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. John Talbot, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Gray, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Elton, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Charles Acland, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Milnes-Gaskell, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Mahony, Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Cornwallis West, and Mr. Jasper More, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

  SLANDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Milvain, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Slander of Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milvain, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Shiress Will, Mr. Addison, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Pickersgill.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 316.]

  SUNDAY CLOSING ACTS (IRELAND).
  Report with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix brought up and read;
  Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment Bill, and the Public Houses (Ireland) (Saturday Closing) Bill (consolidated into the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill) reported; Bill, as amended, to be printed [Bill 315]; re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday 11th July.
  Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 255.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.