Commons Sitting of 19 July 1889

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (PROVISIONAL ORDERS.) BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: While I have no doubt that the Corporation of Birmingham are well able to take care of themselves, and have probably given some sort of consent to the Provisional Order which affects them, I want to know whether the Board of Trade have obtained from them a direct consent in express and recorded form? I admit entertaining a very considerable suspicion that the Board of Trade are going far too fast in the direction of letting loose similar companies all over the country, and I am disposed to think that they do not sufficiently comply with
    836
    the spirit of the enactment of last year as to the obtaining of the consent of Local Authorities. I remember the great fiasco which took place with regard to hundreds of Provisional Orders granted under the last Electric Lighting Act. Almost every one of those Orders was thrown back in the face of the Board of Trade, and practically nothing was done with respect to any of them. It is specially necessary that care should be taken as to what is being done in consequence of the financial aspect of the case. It does not seem to me that in this instance, at least, sufficient precautions have been taken. What are the provisions of the Birmingham Order? In the first place, the concession is not granted to a company possessed of capital and ready at once to carry out the work—it is granted to certain concessionaires, who, I do not doubt, are very respectable concessionaires. Moreover, they are given a year during which they are required to do nothing whatever, nor deposit one farthing. Then they are asked to deposit £2,000, which seems to me a quite inadequate sum for such a city as Birmingham. As I have said, the concessionaires are, no doubt, respectable concessionaires; but the fact remains that they are free to hawk the scheme about, to make a profit of it if they can, and to throw it up if they cannot. That, I repeat, is a matter for the Corporation of Birmingham to decide upon, and, no doubt, they have done so; but I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Corporation have directly given their consent to the Order?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I must entirely repudiate the intention which the hon. Member attributes to the Board of Trade of disregarding the wishes of Local Authorities in such matters as that before the House. On the contrary, I think the greatest importance ought to be attached, in the granting of Electric Lighting Provisional Orders, to the wishes of Local Bodies. It is obvious, indeed, that that should be so, and it is a proper and right policy to pursue. Turning to the particular case before the Committee, I may point out that the town of Birmingham is represented by seven hon. Members in this House, and the Bill has passed through all its stages without any word

    837
    of opposition from any of those hon. Gentlemen. More than that, communications have passed with the Corporation with respect to the Bill, and these communications show that the Corporation are assenting to it. They have not in so many words recorded their formal assent, but they have intimated their willingness to do so, and I have no doubt that the assent will be received by the Board of Trade by to-morrow morning's post. Therefore I hope the hon. Gentleman will not oppose the progress of the Bill, which not only the Corporation of Birmingham, but the Members for the borough approve.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL LOANS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Local Government Board sanctioned loans for sewerage and water supply at Otford and Dunton Green, in the Sevenoaks Union, in spite of the protests of nearly the whole of the inhabitants, and in face of the fact that these places were supplied with water admittedly not impure, and with earth closets which are recognized by the Public Health Act as efficient means of excrement disposal; and, whether, in such cases, the Board is accustomed to disregard the wishes of a whole parish without inquiring into the motives that prompt a Rural Sanitary Authority to promote expensive sewerage schemes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Local Government Board have sanctioned loans for works of water supply and sewerage for the parish of Otford, which includes the villages of Otford and Dunton Green. Before sanction was given a public inquiry was held in the locality by one of the Board's Inspectors at which a large number of ratepayers attended. The objections raised at the inquiry by certain of the ratepayers to the scheme of the Rural Sanitary Authority were reported to the Board by the Inspector, and duly considered by them. Communications on the subject were also
  838
  received from ratepayers after the inquiry was held, and these were also carefully considered. Evidence was given at the inquiry by the Medical Officer of Health that the existing water supply at Dunton Green was bad, and it further appeared that some, at least, of the houses at Otford were badly supplied. There was also evidence that sewerage was needed, and it was pointed out that if a system of earth closets were adopted the slop water would still have to be dealt with. I have no information to show that earth closets have been generally provided in the places in question.

  CIVIL ENGINEERS IN UPPER BURMA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, although the Secretary of State in October last ordered that all civil engineers serving in Upper Burma should receive an addition of Rs. 100 per mensem to their present pay while so serving, when the bills were sent in by the officers in question containing this addition, the accountants refused to sanction such payments, stating that they had received no orders on the subject; and whether the Secretary of State can state why the said payments were not made as ordered; and if he is unaware, whether he will cause inquiries to be made?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): I cannot admit that the Secretary of State gave any such order in October last as is stated in the question, but he was informed by the Government of India in March last that these allowances would be made. The Government of India have not reported any difficulty as to the payment of these officers.

  FAMINE IN ANGOOL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that, on the 15th June, a telegram was sent to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal by certain residents in Angool, to the following effect:—
  "The famine in Angool has assumed a horrible aspect. Numerous deaths from starvation are daily reported. The famished die wherever they fall from starvation, and cholera mortality is from 50 to 60 daily. Skeletons move in

  839
  thousands. The lower and middle classes are in great distress. Sufferers are about 70,000 to 100,000. If you doubt, special inquiry is solicited. Government help is urgently required. Whole estates are full of remission of revenue, relief works, gratuitous relief kitchens, distribution of seeds. Tuccavi on favourable terms is earnestly prayed for."
  and, whether he can inform the House as to the steps taken by the Lieutenant Governor on receipt of this telegram, and also state the present condition of the people of Angool?
  SIR J. GORST: No Sir; no official information has been received by the Secretary of State in reference to the telegram mentioned in the question. The Secretary of State has learned, apparently from the same source from which the hon. Member appears to have derived his information, that orders have already been given for the distribution of relief by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal.

  DISTRESS IN THE 24 PEGUNNAHS, BENGAL—STATEMENT BY MR. C. W. BOLTON.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether the Secretary of State is aware that Mr. C. W. Bolton, collector of the 24 Pegunnahs, Bengal, in reference to the distress now existing in the district, has stated that "the proper policy" to adopt in times of scarcity is to refuse aid, "in any shape," but that of relief works, except in case of actual famine; (2) whether Mr. Bolton, in his Report circulated by the Government of Bengal, stated—
  "I have, myself, no doubt that a few of the cultivators have great difficulty at present in obtaining a fair supply of food. There are doubtless a few cases, in some villages, in which that difficulty exists, but the men can easily obtain work; and, if really pressed, will no doubt seek it. For the labourers, also, there is and has been no want of work, as will be explained further on. The infirm who subsist on the charity of relatives, or neighbours, are certainly the class which is suffering most at present."
  (3) whether the daily wage paid on a relief work is only enough to support the labourer to whom it is paid; and, therefore, does not leave anything to be sent by him to the infirm or weakly members of a family who may be entirely dependent upon the head of the family; (4) whether the policy, which the
  840
  Governor of Madras has carried out in Ganjam, has received the sanction of the Secretary of State, and whether that policy has made provision for the relief of the very classes whom Mr. Bolton has declared to be beyond the need of State assistance, until deaths from starvation have occurred; and (5) whether the Secretary of State will direct the attention of the Government of India to the need for impressing upon subordinate Governments the desirability of uniformity in methods and extent of relief after the manner adopted by the Government of Madras, at an even earlier period of the distress, i.e., before any appreciable number of the people become "emaciated," than was the case in Ganjam?
  SIR J. GORST: No Report from Mr. Bolton has been received, and the Secretary of State cannot, therefore, express any opinion upon the first two paragraphs of the question. The third paragraph may be answered generally in the affirmative, though it should be added that members of a family unable to work receive relief. The policy of the Madras Government at Ganjam has received the approbation of the Secretary of State. In respect to the last paragraph, the Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to give instructions to the Authorities in India other than those contained in the Famine Codes. These have been drawn up with great care as prescribing the best mode of alleviating distress, and interference with their procedure would be likely to increase the calamity of famine and cause greater loss of life.

  FLOODS IN THE LEA VALLEY.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to certain floods which have occurred recently in the Lea Valley District, in which the Government Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey is situate, resulting in great injury to the property of the neighbouring farmers; whether he is aware that those floods are alleged to have been caused through neglect in opening certain weirs, so as to allow the water to flow freely, or in clearing out the channel of the River Lea where it passes through the Powder Factory, so as to provide a channel for overflow water from the Lea navigation

  841
  in times of flood; whether he has received communications on behalf of the farmers in question, suggesting that the Government officers are really responsible for the neglect of the weirkeepers, and proposing that inquiries should be instituted by independent engineers, to be appointed with the approval of the sufferers by these floods; and whether such inquiries have been made, and with what result?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I cannot add much to the reply made yesterday to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Epping. Floods do occur from time to time in the low-lying districts around Waltham Abbey, and in May certain lands were flooded owing to a greater quantity of water coming through the Conservancy gates at King's Weir than could escape by the channel of the old River Lea. There does not appear to have been delay on the part of the weir keepers in opening the gates at the War Department mill. As mentioned yesterday, the Conservators appear to have insufficient powers to bring about a combination of the riparian owners with a view to taking steps to prevent flooding.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Has not the War Office disputed for years the right of the Lea Conservators to interfere with any of this water?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. SPENCER BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the evidence laid before the Royal Commissioners on Civil Establishments, to which the Commissioners refer in their third Report, will be published; and whether further changes in the Inland Revenue Department will be postponed until such evidence has been submitted to Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I understand that the evidence in question will be laid upon the Table in a day or two. The only alterations that I am aware of as now in progress at Somerset House are those referred to in the question of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark to which my right hon.
  842
  Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, is about to reply.

  USE OF ROBURITE IN COAL MINES.
  MR. SPENCER BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the growing use in Lancashire coal mines of the explosive called "roburite"; if he is aware that the Miners' National Conference, held in Manchester on the 4th July, 1889, condemned the use of roburite as injurious to the health of the miners; and whether, if any doubt exists on this point, he will direct an inquiry into the matter, and will give the men an opportunity of producing scientific and other evidence in support of their view?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Inspector that there is a growing use of roburite in the Lancashire collieries. It is a useful explosive and practically safe for use in fiery mines. I gather from newspaper reports that its use has been condemned by miners as injurious to health. An inquiry was recently held into this matter by a committee of experts on which the Miners' Federation was represented, and their conclusion was that, if proper care is exercised by managers, shot-firers, and colliers, the use of roburite will not add to the harmful conditions under which the miner works. The Inspector informs me that means are now being devised for removing the fumes by ventilation before persons re-enter, and for keeping persons out of the return air, and under these circumstances he does not consider any further inquiry, at any rate at present, desirable.

  INDIA—CORRUPT MAGISTRATES AND THEIR APPOINTMENTS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can yet inform the House if it is true, as stated in the Calcutta correspondence of the Times, of the 24th ultimo, and repeated in the Calcutta telegram in the Times of the 1st instant, that the High Court of Bombay has pronounced a judgment affirming that the corrupt mamlutdars and magistrates are by the operation of 49 Geo. 3, c. 126, "disabled persons in

  843
  law to all intents and purposes to have or enjoy the offices or any part of them," for which they swore that they paid bribes; and whether it is true, as stated in the Calcutta correspondence of the Times of the 15th instant, that Mr. Justice Jardine "has officially reported to the Chief Justice the illegal re-appointment, as mamlutdars, of seven men, guilty, on their own confession, of bribery and corruption."
  SIR J. GORST: The judgment referred to has now arrived in this country; and I am bound to say, from a perusal of it, that I cannot think the discription given of it by the Times' Correspondent is accurate. No judgment is pronounced to the effect mentioned in the question; but there is an expression of opinion on the part of Mr. Justice Jardine that the statute mentioned does apply to such officers as those referred to. With reference to the second inquiry, the report of Mr. Justice Jardine has not been received in this country, and the Secretary of State cannot express an opinion until he has seen it.
  DR. CAMERON: As this matter has really become a public scandal and disgrace in India, I beg to give notice that at the end of the questions I will move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the subject.

  COLONEL SLADE'S EQUIPMENT.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state the date at which Major Mayne's valise equipment was submitted to the Equipment Committee, and the date at which Colonel Slade, who has since patented a similar equipment, ceased to be a member of the Committee appointed to decide judicially upon such inventions; whether he can now confirm his statement that
  "Colonel Slade ceased to be a member of the Equipment Committee long before the valises in question were submitted to it;"
  whether it is usual to allow members of such Committees to themselves patent inventions similar to those which they have had special opportunities of examining as members of such Committees; whether it is usual to give contracts under such circumstances to members of such Committees on their retirement, and while they are still actually members of other influential
  844
  War Office Committees, the War Office regulations forbidding officials even to become shareholders in contracting firms; whether it is usual to give contracts to Colonels who have no factories and, as the Director of Contracts states was the case in this instance, without even being prepared to furnish "the particulars usually given to the trade in the shape of patterns and specifications;" whether, on its being discovered, after the first set of the equipment had been delivered, that it bore the name of Ross as maker, Colonel Slade gave the War Office a promise that no more should be made by that firm; whether Messrs. Ross have admitted in evidence that, in spite of this promise, the whole of the remaining 999 sets, and the valises besides, were made by them for Colonel Slade; what names were on these articles so manufactured; what notice was taken of this conduct of Colonel Slade, or whether he is still a member of an important War Office Committee and these goods have been accepted by the War Office; whether two large additional contracts have since been given to his admitted partner in this patent, Colonel Wallace, and at a price -considerably higher, by about 25 per cent, than that given on this first and smaller order, 25s. 6d. as against 20s. 8½d., the price being, as the Director of Contracts has stated in evidence, "more than I have ever paid for any set of equipment;" would he state what was his authority for saying that Colonels Slade and Wallace were "not in partnership;" and whether the pouches of this equipment with which the British Army is now about to be supplied will be unfit for the new and much smaller cartridge of the new magazine rifle.
  MR. BRODRICK: At least half of the long series of questions put by my hon. Friend contain debateable matter, and without intending any discourtesy to him, I must reserve my answer until that debate arises. As regards the questions of facts, Major Mayne's valise equipment came before the Equipment Committee in May, 1883, and Colonel Slade ceased to be a Member of the Committee in November, 1886, having been appointed to it in November, 1884. Colonel Slade did promise that Messrs. Ross should not be employed, but nevertheless it was found that that firm

  845
  had made the remainder of the thousand sets, though the name on the articles was that of "Slade" only. The goods were accepted as they were immediately required. Colonel Slade is still a Member of the Small Arms Committee, and the circumstances above-mentioned do not preclude the Secretary of State from availing himself of his experience in that capacity. The question of subsequent contracts for the Slade equipment has been fully discussed, and I have nothing to add to what has already been said. When the ammunition issued to the Army is changed the pouches will be changed also. In the meantime the troops must be kept provided with pouches for the existing ammunition.
  MR. HANBURY: Am I to understand that Colonel Slade did send in certain sets which were made by Messrs. Ross, although a faithful promise had been given that no more should be sent in?
  MR. BRODRICK: The equipments were required, and they were sent in with the name of Colonel Slade only upon them. They were found by the Inspector to be fully up to the stipulations of the contract, and they were required for the use of the troops at once. Every care is taken that Messrs. Ross shall not be further employed.
  MR. HANBURY: I am not talking of Messrs. Ross, but of a gross breach of faith by a War Office official.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. HANBURY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that a promise faithfully given to the War Office was deliberately broken.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is making an assumption in putting a question which he has no right to make.
  MR. HANBURY: The fact of the promise is stated in a memorandum issued by the Director of Contracts which I am ready to read, if necessary. There can be no doubt about the facts, which are admitted.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  TEARING DOWN PLACARDS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, within the past few days,
  846
  at Caher, in the County of Tipperary, Constables Hollingsworth and Holohan, of the Irish Constabulary, tore down placards announcing a collection for a testimonial to the Member for the Division, the first-named constable tearing down the placards first posted, including one posted on a private house with permission of the owner, and the last-named constable tearing down the placards posted up by the committee after those first posted had been destroyed by Constable Hollingsworth; why these constables tore the placards down; and under what legal power, and on what instruction they so acted.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The placards referred to were not torn down from any private house unless a gateway commonly used for posting notices of every sort can be so described. The constables acted by direction of the sergeant. They tore the placards down because in the sergeant's opinion the placards contained objectionable matter. The objectionable matter appears to have consisted partly in some uncomplimentary references to myself, and as these, so far as I can see, can do no harm to anyone, they do not, in my judgment, supply a sufficient justification for the action of the police. But there were also words tending to bring the law into contempt, and these the police very properly thought rendered the placard illegal.
  MR. SEXTON: Were not the objectionable words those which expressed the hope that persons of Nationalist sympathies, who concurred in the action of the Committee, would honour and esteem the Chief Secretary's "criminals?"
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; and my impression is that doing honour to criminals is bringing the law into contempt.
  MR. SEXTON: Are the police in this district authorized to tear down placards in which Irish feelings of regard and esteem for Mr. J. O'Connor, Member of Parliament for that division, who has been convicted under the Coercion Act, are expressed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; they may express as much esteem for any gentleman as they like, but that does not cover the words in the placard.

  NUISANCE AT HOLYWOOD.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether repeated representations by the Holy wood Town Commissioners to the Belfast Board of Guardians and the Irish Local Government Board, as to an intolerable nuisance on the Holywood foreshore, have, up to the present, proved ineffectual; and what will be done to abate the nuisance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Representations of the nature mentioned have been made in regard to the existence of a nuisance arising from decaying sea weed. The Belfast Guardians at their meeting on the 16th instant directed their solicitor to proceed against the owner of the foreshore for the purpose of having the nuisance abated.

  THE CASE OF JAMES COYLE.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of James Coyle, convicted at the London Sessions on 4th June of robbery at the Victoria Station, against whom a previous conviction and sentence in 1879 of seven years' penal servitude and seven years' police supervision was then proved to the satisfaction of a jury by the evidence of a warder from Millbank, who had examined him with the official description for the marks and scars the person so convicted bore; whether it was subsequently proved, by police evidence, that Coyle was convicted for a minor offence in 1882, and consequently could not be the person identified by the warder as having been convicted in 1879; and, whether he has come to any decision as to giving the French system, under which mistakes are practically impossible, a trial in this country?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated. I have received a Report from the Prison Commissioners, who inform me that if Coyle had been compared carefully with the marks and description of Hart, whom he was alleged to be, and particularly if Coyle had denied that he was Hart when at the Police Court, the mistake would never have occurred. In this case it was not the system that was at fault, but the inaccuracy of the warder who
  848
  compared Coyle with the description of Hart. The descriptions in this case show that two only of the marks agree, while six differed. The question of giving the French system a trial in this country has been under the consideration of the Police and Prison Authorities. There are many difficulties in the way of adopting it in this country, and it is doubtful whether equally good results are not obtained under our present system. It is also a question whether legislation would not be required to carry it out effectually. The matter, however, is not being lost sight of.

  THE POSTMASTERSHIP OF KNOCKANEY.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he could explain why Mr. John Guerin has been deprived of the position of Postmaster of Knockaney (Limerick County), which he has filled for six years?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the Hon. Member, I have to state that Mr. John Guerin has been deprived of his position of Postmaster for taking a prominent part in political matters in spite not only of a general prohibition on the subject but of a special caution, which I caused to be given him less than 18 months ago.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Guerin has been a member of the National League since its conception in 1882, and that the notice sent to him reads as follows:—
  "The Postmaster General having been made aware of your connection with the National League, you are hereby required to say why you should not be deprived of your position as Postmaster"?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware at what time Mr. Guerin became a member of the National League; but, so far as the letter is concerned, it simply stated a fact.

  TREATMENT OF ABORIGINALS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement made by Mr. Samuel Macleod, a member of a party of Victorian

  849
  miners, who recently travelled to the newly-discovered Egena goldfield, in the north of Western Australia:—
  "On arriving at Roeburn, we saw gangs of unfortunate aboriginals chained to wheelbarrows with bullock chains, making roads; others had the chains rolled round their neck and naked bodies. The effect of the chains can be imagined in a climate where the stones get so hot that they cannot be handled";
  and whether such treatment of the aboriginals occurs with the knowledge and sanction of the Governor of the Colony?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): I have no information as to the truth of the statement quoted by the hon. Member. Under the Local Act of 1887, any prisoner (not only aboriginals) may be worked on the roads beyond the precincts of his prison, and, in order to prevent escape, may be kept at such work in chains or otherwise secured as may be deemed expedient. The Governor has shown zeal in checking abuses against the aborigines, and describes his policy towards them as "one of vigilant protection of the aboriginal race against all oppression and wrong-doing."

  THE SIXPENNY STAMP DUTY.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended, by Clause 15 of the Revenue Bill, to abolish the Sixpenny Stamp Duty, now payable on a contract for the purchase of land, and to substitute for such stamp an ad valorem duty upon such contracts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): There is no intention of imposing any additional burden.

  BALLOON AND PARACHUTE EXHIBITIONS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a man named Lennox was killed in a ballon ascent connected with a parachute exhibition; whether there will be any inquiry other than a coroner's inquest; and, if he adheres to his determination to take no action in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen in the Press an account of a balloon acci-
  850
  dent, which appears to have had no connection with the parachute exhibition which accompanied it. I cannot say whether there will be any further inquiry until I learn the result of the coroner's inquest. I have no power to prohibit adult persons from risking their lives in dangerous adventures, such as ballooning or steeplechasing, and cannot therefore take any effectual action in the matter. If the public ceased to encourage such shows, by their presence or their money, that would be the most effectual way of stopping them.

  THE ENGLISH AND ITALIAN NAVIES.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the statement of the Opinione, which is regarded in Italy as a semi-official journal, that, although no actual treaty has been concluded, a definite understanding has been come to between this country and Italy, that the English and Italian Navies shall act together in the event of war; and that, a year ago, when a French attack on Spezzia was feared, the British Mediterranean Squadron was held in readiness to assist Italy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The action of Her Majesty's Government, in the improbable event of war breaking out between the two Powers named by the hon. Gentleman, will doubtless be decided, like all other questions of policy, by the circumstances of that particular time and the interests of this country. Her Majesty's Government are under no engagements or understandings fettering their liberty in that respect. Her Majesty's Government have never heard of any grounds for imputing to the French Government such a piratical design as that mentioned in the question.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I to understand that there is no truth in the statement of the Opinione?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have not seen this article in the Opinione, though I asked for it to-day on seeing the question of the hon. Member; therefore I am unable to state whether there is any truth in it or not; but I have distinctly answered the question put down upon the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether, assuming this is a fair statement of what appears in the Opinione, there is any truth in it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot answer that.

  THE THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL COMPANY.
  MR. HOLLOWAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a proposed sale by auction at Stroud, on the 26th instant, by the nominees of the Great Western Railway Company, of valuable properties of the Thames and Severn Canal Company; and, if it is the intention of the Board to take action with a view to the sale being prevented?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the subject by a letter from the Committee of Management of the Stroud Water Navigation Company. I have no power to prevent the sale; but the Stroud Water Navigation Company states that a few years ago the Great Western Railway Company obtained an injunction against the then mortgagee which prevented this property being sold. It is for the Stroud Water Navigation Company to consider therefore whether the law might not be set in motion to prevent the sale at the present time.

  USIBEBU.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies by what law or statute the Governor of Natal is empowered to refer the case of Usibebu, which had been dismissed by the Resident Magistrate after an investigation extending over several weeks, to the Resident Commissioner for further consideration, and in the meantime to detain an acquitted man in captivity?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State is not aware that Usibebu has been acquitted, or even tried, although he has learnt informally that the Resident Magistrate, before whom preliminary proceedings took place on a charge of being accessory to murder, dismissed that particular charge. It will be for the Zululand Government to consider whether any further proceedings should be taken, and the Secretary of State is
  852
  not aware of any special law applicable to the matter, other than the "Laws and Regulations for the Government of Zululand," published in C. 5331. It is understood that Usibebu remains at Eshowe, and it would be contrary to native law for him to return to his location without permission from the Resident Commissioner, but the Secretary of State is not aware that he is detained in custody.

  TIBET AND CHINA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can state what is the present position of the negotiations with the Governments of Tibet and of China regarding Sikkim, and what prospect there is of a settlement of the questions that have arisen and a restoration of peaceful relations with Tibet?
  SIR J. GORST: My noble Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to say that no statement on this matter can at present be made without detriment to the Public Service.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any Parliamentary Papers on this subject can be laid before Parliament within a reasonable time in the course of the next few months?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think that it will be possible to present Papers on the subject during the present Session.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true, as currently reported, that only 30 commissions in the Army are to be offered for competition to Militia Lieutenants in September; and, if so, why the number has been reduced at a time when the number of competitors is unusually large?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; it is not true. The usual number of Line commissions—namely, 75, will be offered to Militia candidates in September.

  THE HYDERABAD DECCAN COMPANY.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the announcement that the Government of His

  853
  Highness the Nizam has obtained from Abdul Huk the value of a large number of shares in the Hyderabad Deccan Company; whether this arrangement is any part of the arrangement suggested or sanctioned by the Government of India as a settlement of the affairs of that Company; and, whether any Papers on the subject will be laid upon the Table before the Debate on the Indian Budget?
  SIR J. GORST: My noble Friend the Secretary of State knows nothing about the matter except what appears in the newspapers. With regard to Papers, the settlement with the Company is still under consideration.

  NEWGATE GAOL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has conveyed, or is about to convey, the property in Newgate Gaol to the Court of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, upon condition that they shall erect on a portion of the site a new Criminal Court; if so, whether he has had before him independent estimates, first, of the value of the building site to be handed over; and, secondly, of the probable cost of erecting the new Court; and, what was the number of prisoners for whom accommodation was provided in Newgate Gaol at the time of the passing of the Prisons Act, 1877?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The City Authorities have asked for the Newgate Prison site for the erection of a new Criminal Court, and their proposal is now under consideration, but no final agreement has been arrived at. Before deciding the question, I shall certainly take into consideration the value of the site and the cost of the new Court, so far as they affect the interests of the Government. The cell accommodation at Newgate before the Prisons Act was 204. If the prison were discontinued, the City would be entitled to a re-conveyance of it under the terms of Section 33 of the Prisons Act, 1877.

  HYDROPHOBIA.
  MR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mary Bamber, who died at Adlington, near Chorley, on Wednesday last, from
  854
  hydrophobia caused by the bite of a cat and, whether, with a view to stamping out hydrophobia, he will take steps to enforce the muzzling of cats as well as dogs?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I have no information as to this case. As to the general question, I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to a similar question put by my hon. Friend, yesterday.

  THE BANN DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to an unanimous resolution of the Antrim Grand Jury, protesting against the obvious-injustice of imposing taxation for the Bann Drainage scheme on lands other than the flooded lands to be benefited, and to a memorial in opposition to the Bill adopted at the annual meeting of the Poor Law Guardians and Town Commissioners at Banbridge; and, whether, in face of local and Parliamentary opposition, it is his intention to proceed, further with the measure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand, that some such resolution has been passed. I cannot admit the alleged injustice. The localities will have the opportunity of rejecting the Bill if they dislike it, and I hope Parliament will not refuse them the opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject.
  MR. STOREY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to his statement that there is no injustice, having regard to the fact that the Conservancy Board is so constituted that the persons whose lands will be immediately benefited by this scheme, and who will contribute about one-eighth of the cost, will possess three-fourths of the voting power?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I adhere to what I have said.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGES.
  MR. GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will grant a Committee to inquire into tithe rent-charges, with the object of ascertaining what legislation would be an equitable settlement of the question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I must refer the hon. Member

  855
  to the answer I gave on the 18th ult. to a similar question put to me by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. J. More). In that answer I stated that, without giving a definite pledge so far in advance, I thought the Government would be willing to favourably consider the appointment next Session of a Committee of both Houses to take evidence as to the best method of dealing with the tithe rent-charge question.

  LOANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will consider the recommendations of the Report of the Local Government and Taxation Committee of the London County Council, that the burdens of all future loans for improvements should fall on owners of property as well as occupiers, with a view to carrying them into effect by legislation?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no knowledge of the recommendations referred to; but if the London County Council should see fit to introduce a Measure dealing with the question of loans for improvements, such Bill would be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government.

  THE TOWN HOLDINGS COMMITTEE.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Times of Saturday contained two columns of the Report of the Town Holdings Committee; and, whether he is in a position to state when Copies of the Report will be issued to Members?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The facts stated by the hon. Member are correct, and I am informed that the Report will be issued to Members on Monday next.

  THE INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is a fact that additional allowances have been made to certain officials of the Upper Division of the Inland Revenue within the last fortnight, and whether the Treasury have refused to entertain proposals made as to certain Lower Division Clerks in the same Department, on the ground that a Minute is about to be issued dealing with all clerks of the said Lower Division; and, whether in
  856
  view of the fact that the delay in issuing the said Minute is 'operating unfavourably to the interests of these and other clerks of the Lower Division throughout the Civil Service, he will undertake to lay the Minute upon the Table of the House at a (definitely) early date?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It has been found necessary to make immediate provision for the extra work thrown upon the Legacy Duty Office by the new Estate Duty imposed by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of this Session. Temporary allowances have been given in some cases. In other cases certain officers have been transferred to the Legacy Duty Office, and the Treasury is satisfying itself whether it would be practicable to carry these transfers further. Until that point is settled the question of promoting the Lower Division clerks cannot be considered. In answer to the more general question, as to delay in the production of the Treasury Minute, I can only refer the hon. Member and my two hon. Friends behind me to the very full reply which I gave on Friday last.

  THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether during the forthcoming Autumnal Manœuvres any organised system of responsibility has been arrived at between the Admiralty and the War Office as to which branch of the Service is to be held responsible for the defence of the coasts, channels, and harbours of the United Kingdom during the continuance of the Naval Game of War; and, if so, will he be good enough to state the nature of the arrangements; and, whether the system of organization and responsibility is to be similar to that now in vogue for the defence of the North Sea and Baltic Coast of the German Empire?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The responsibility of the Admiralty and War Office respectively for the defence of the country is clear and distinct. It is the duty of the Admiralty to protect the shores and commerce of the United Kingdom, and to use the naval forces at their disposal in the way best calculated in their opinion to effect this object. The War Office

  857
  are responsible for land defences and their adjuncts. The conditions of war in the case of this country and that of a Continental Power are so different that no parallel can be drawn between the systems adopted for their relative defence.
  MR. GOURLEY: May I ask what arrangements are being made for the coaling of the squadrons during the Autumn Manœuvres; whether experiments are to be made in coaling a portion of the fleet at sea, such as would appertain if engaged in hostilities; and, whether he is aware that last Autumn the Benbow was detained 48 hours coaling in a protected harbour, and that she broke several of her torpedo booms whilst receiving her coal, besides damaging the steam collier?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The arrangements for coaling the squadron during the manœuvres are the same as last year—that is, by means of steam colliers which have been engaged for the purpose. The Admirals in command of the squadrons have entire control of their own coaling arrangements, and will coal at sea or in harbour as circumstances require. It is not the case that the Benbow was detained for 48 hours coaling in a protected harbour. Whilst getting in her coal at Milford Haven she broke two of her torpedo booms, and the fide of the coal vessel was damaged. This is now guarded against by the supply of larger fenders than formerly,

  IRELAND—LONDONDERRY PRISON.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that the cells of Derry Prison are nine feet by six feet, and that the windows are carefully glazed with opaque glass, so as to exclude the prospect, and are so constructed that they cannot be opened more than three or four inches at the top; whether the walls of these cells being whitewashed, prisoners are forced during the whole period of their incarceration to be exposed to an injurious glare; and, does he propose to take any, and, if so, what, steps to secure the eyesight of the prisoners which is thus endangered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the dimen-
  858
  sions of the cells in Londonderry Prison are as stated in the question, also that the windows are of opaque glass; but that it is not the case that they cannot be opened more than three or four inches. They open inwards from the top nine inches. The cells are whitened, but the Board are not aware of any prisoner being thereby exposed to any injurious glare. The Board see no necessity for altering the existing arrangement. Did any such necessity arise the surgeon of the prison concerned would, in the ordinary discharge of his duty, have called attention to the matter.

  PRISON TREATMENT—WHITEWASHING CELLS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, during the progress of a trial in Dublin, in which he was plaintiff, Mr. Wilfred Blunt swore that his sight had been injured by the glare of the whitewashed walls of his cell, when in prison under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether he is aware that the eyesight of Mr. Cox, M.P., has been seriously and permanently impaired by his frequent imprisonments, and that this injury is directly attributed to the same causes of which Mr. Wilfred Blunt complained; and, what steps, if any, does he propose to take to secure that in future the eyesight of political and other prisoners should not be injured by imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that there is no medical evidence that Mr. Blunt's sight was injured either in Galway or Kilmainham Prisons. They are not aware whether he swore at the trial mentioned that his eyesight had been injured by the glare of the whitewashed walls of his cell; but as a matter of fact, so far as Galway Prison was concerned, all the cells during Mr. Blunt's confinement there and for long before had been coloured yellow. Mr. Cox, M.P., has been suffering from ophthalmia, in consequence of which he was removed to the prison hospital; but this does not appear to have been produced by any glare of the cell walls, nor, so far as the Board are aware, has his sight bean seriously and permanently impaired.

  FIXED RENT.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. William Gregg, of Clowney, on the estate of Mr. John C. Jones, County Cavan, which is under the management of a Mr. Stokes, as receiver under the Land Judges, has been served with a writ for all rent due up to may 1889, and has been compelled to pay, with costs, without any reduction, although the Land Judges allowed Mr. Gregg 20 per cent abatement on the rent falling due May 1887, and the same percentage was allowed by the Judges at prior gale days; is he aware that Mr. Gregg offered his rent to the receiver prior to the writ being served, asking reduction of 20 per cent, and served a notice to have a fair rent fixed; and, will he state whether the rent so fixed will commence to run from the 1st day of November, 1887?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Judges Registrar reports that it is not the case that Mr. Gregg offered his rent to the receiver prior to the writ being served asking a reduction of 20 per cent. The amount of rent due was£159 17s. 6d., in respect of which Mr. Gregg offered £40 only on account. This offer was refused, and after due notice a writ issued, whereupon the full amount claimed was at once paid.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other evening that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed during this Session with any seriously contested measure not yet before the House, it is intended to proceed with the Western Australian Constitution Bill, which is seriously contested, and will meet with very strong opposition probably from Members on both sides of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should like to have the opportunity of answering that question on Monday, if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat it then.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Do the Government intend to go forward with the Tithes Bill, or will they be content with the discussion which took place last night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the discussion last night was such as fully to justify us in asking the House to proceed with the Bill.
  MR. J. C. BOLTON: Will the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be taken on Monday? Important Amendments have been proposed by the Lord Advocate.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it will be for the general convenience of the House that the Bill should be proceeded with on Monday. The Amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are chiefly of a drafting character, in pursuance of engagements entered into when the Bill was in Committee.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Has any arrangement been made in regard to the Revenue Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be taken on Monday, I hope.

MOTION.
  CORRUPT MAGISTRATES IN INDIA.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    DR. CAMERON,Member for the College Division of Glasgow, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the retention by the Government of Bombay in Judicial and Administrative Offices of Magistrates and Officials who have sworn that they corruptly purchased their positions by means of bribes, and whom Judges of the High Court of Judicature of the Presidency have pronounced to be-legally disqualified by their corruption from retaining office; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
    Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members, who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places,
    DR. CAMERON: During the 15 or 16 years I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have never moved the adjournment. I make it now because the matter appears to me to be pressing and momentous, and because I think that the facts of the case amount to a grave scandal. Having failed by repeated questions to get any satisfactory

    861
    assurance from the Government, no other course is open to me than to move the adjournment of the House unless the matter is to be allowed to stand over for another six months. About a year ago charges were made by the Indian Government against Mr. Arthur Crawford, who occupied a high position in the Indian Civil Service, of having received bribes and borrowed money from officials. The charges were brought before a Commission appointed by the Government of Bombay; and that Commission consisted of three gentlemen of high position—the Hon. Arthur Wilson, Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta; Mr. J. W. Quinton a member of the Board of Revenue; and Mr. E. J. Crosthwaithe, Commissioner of the Central Provinces. These Commissioners went very fully into the charges in an inquiry which lasted between 60 and 70 days. In addition to this investigation charges arising out of the same matter were tried by another Court against Hanmantrao, who acted as a sort of financial agent for Mr. Crawford, and who was alleged to have received bribes on his behalf for preferments and for exercising his influence with Mr. Crawford. In the course of the investigation some 32 officials, most of them mamlutdars, or Magistrates, were examined. The witnesses who paid the bribes gave the same evidence before the two tribunals, and one believed they spoke the truth, while the other thought that in some cases they did not. In order to obtain evidence, the Government gave some promise of indemnity to native officials who gave evidence, but the exact terms of the promise have not been published. It appears from the Blue Book that there was a promise to retain officials in office; but, if so, in many cases that promise has been violated; and the Government have gone on no definite principle, sometimes suspending and sometimes changing officials. I trust that the Under Secretary, for India, when he rises to reply, will confine himself as much as possible to English, because I confess that I do not understand Hindustani, and I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy or the hon. Member opposite (Sir E. Lethbridge) will be able to understand the Hindustani of the hon. Gentleman. A mamlutdar, according to the Commissioners
    862
    who sat upon the Crawford case, is the chief officer entrusted with the local administration of the revenue. He exercises magisterial powers and certain other judicial functions under the Local Government. I will confine myself to the case of two Judges who, before the Crawford Commission, acknowledged that they obtained office corruptly, and I will confine myself to those because the Commission put the cases into a nut-shell. One of these men was named Sindekar, concerning whom the Crawford Commission report that he was on his own showing no victim of extortion, but a willing party to a corrupt bargain. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India says that Sindekar was retained in office by the Government of Bombay, because, taking all the facts into consideration, he ought not to be called corrupt, but a victim to corruption and extortion. That statement is exactly the reverse of what is to be found in the Report of the Commission. What were the functions exercised by Sindekar? Those functions are explained expressly in regard to this individual case in a Minute drawn up by one of the Judges of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, and sent in to the Governor of the Council of the Presidency, with a protest against the retention of this corrupt mamlutdar in office. Speaking of Sindekar, Mr. Justice Jardine says his evidence shows that in the interval between the confession and the trial the witness actually exercised judicial functions, civil and criminal, and that those functions involved the right of initiating prosecution of subjects of the Queen on mere suspicion, and the right of inflicting whipping and imprisonment. The second case is that of Paranjape, whose name is shown in the Bombay Quarterly Civil List as that of a Magistrate of the second class; and he had power to pass sentences of imprisonment not exceeding sixmonths, and to inflict fines not exceeding 200 rupees, and inflict the punishment of whipping. This man, the Under Secretary tells us, retains office, but has no jurisdiction in civil suits; but in the Minute of the Judges it is stated that he exercises the ordinary functions of a mamlutdar. The Crawford Commission in their Report say they do not believe the man Sindekar, so far as his evidence relating to the case of

    863
    Mr. Crawford was concerned. They say that "a certain part of his story—that which relates to the alleged visit to Mr. Crawford—must, we think, certainly be rejected," and they say if the history of Sindekar is studied by the light of consistency it must be very difficult to believe him. The evidence he gave, to the effect that he purchased his office by corruption, was believed by the Judges—so far as he said he went deliberately to Hanmantrao, Mr. Crawford's agent, and purchased his office and his freedom from another less desirable district. In the case of Paranjape the Judges are equally explicit as to his not being a man deserving of sympathy. They say with regard to him—
    "According to his own showing he was not in any sense the victim of extortion, hut a willing party to a corrupt bargain, and we can accept no statement of his without substantial corroboration. He is a witness in whom we have no credence."
    Now, I have dealt with these cases as they form instances of men who have confessed to bribery but are yet continued in their Offices.
    Motion made, and Question proposed' "That this House do now adjourn."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST,): In the case of Paranjape, he has been deprived of all magisterial powers and of the Civil Court juridiction.
    DR. CAMERON: Why did not the hon. Gentleman tell me so when I asked a question only the other day on the subject? His answer was—"Paranjape retains his office, but has no jurisdiction in civil suits."
    SIR J. GORST: That is what I say. Paranjape appears at the present moment to be retained as an Executive officer—as a Revenue officer—but he is deprived of all his magisterial functions, and forbidden to exercise them.
    DR. CAMERON: This comes of the extremely diplomatic nature of the answers which have been given on the sublet. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine) asked a question as to whether these corrupt mamlutdars had been deprived of their magisterial functions, and the reply was that they had not been so deprived, but that they retained all their civil jurisdiction. When you see all these neat refinements, and
    864
    are told that a mamlutdar retains his office without being told that a part of his functions have been taken from him, if you make a mistake the fault does not lie with you, but with the reticence of the Under Secretary and the diplomatic character of his answers. I hold in my hand a statement, published in the Bombay Gazette, on 17th June last, and written by a gentleman who supports the Government and their retention of these mamlutdars-in office, and he complains of the way the mamlutdars have been treated by the Government—of the total absence-of principle which has been characteristic of their treatment, and the impossibility of knowing where things are to end. This writer points out how, at one time, the Government withdrew magisterial functions from these mamlutdars, and, at another time, changed their minds and in some cases restored those functions, and how, when this restoration was made, other mamlutdars were deprived of their powers; and how, later on, other deprivations and other restorations were brought about. He points out that the Government have issued an Order in seven or 10 Courts or more to the effect that the mamlutdars should not exercise their functions, but that those functions should be exercised by inferior officers. Yet the mamlutdars, I take it, continue to draw their full pay, and to retain their office. The gravamen of my charge is, that it has been laid down by the Judges of the High Court of Judicature in Bombay—by Mr. Justice Jardine, acting as the representative of the High Court—in the trial of this particular case that a certain Act of Parliament applies to India, and that that Act not only forbids a man purchasing his office by bribery, but prevents him from retaining any judicial office so acquired. What Mr. Justice Jardine has laid down is, that the Act of Parliament, the 49th of George IV., chapter 126, is applicable to India. That Act says that any person who buys his office by bribery shall be disabled in law, to all intents and purposes, to have or enjoy the office or offices, or any part of them, for which he has paid any sum of money, fee, or reward. That is the Act of Parliament which Mr. Justice Jardine, acting as the representative of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, according to the

    865
    answer given to my question this afternoon, laid down as the law of India on this subject. This cannot come as a matter of surprise to the Government of India or to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. Repeated questions have been asked in this House on the subject. At the end of February, and, again, in the beginning of March, I myself asked questions with regard to it. In November last, Mr. Justice Jardine, as representing the High Court of Judicature of Bombay—the Court entrusted with the duty of superintending the administration of justice in the inferior Courts—being the Vacation Judge, had brought under his notice the case of the mamlutdars and officials who had given evidence to the effect that they had purchased their offices corruptly, and he considered it to be his duty to communicate with the Governor in Council. Before doing so, he thought it proper to lay the whole matter before the Judges of the High Court of Judicature of the Presidency. They could not agree as a body that it was their duty to make a remonstrance to the Governor in Council; but they considered the matter so doubtful that they authorized any member of their body who should think fit to send in a memorandum in his own name with an explanation of the circumstances to the Governor in Council; and two Judges of the High Court, conceiving it to be their duty to do so, wrote to remonstrate to the Governor in Council, sending in Minutes on the subject. The third Judge, who did not think the right of remonstrance undoubted, still entirely agreed on the question of policy, and a Minute from him was also submitted to the Governor in Council. On these Minutes, Mr. Justice Jardine laid down this—that the Act I have cited does apply to India, that the Judges who had been confessedly corrupt and who must, according to the circumstances, be either perjurers or corrupt—or, as one might infer from the conflicting view which the different Courts took of their evidence, both corrupt and perjured—should not be retained in their office. Mr. Justice Jardine and the other Judge laid it down that for these mamlutdars to be retained in their offices was in violation of Magna Charta, and contrary to the Coronation Oath; that the Royal prerogative itself could not in
    866
    this country retain these men in office; and that the attempt of the Governor in Council, under the pretence of exercising an Order in Council, to keep the mamlutdars in office was illegal and unconstitutional. The third Judge—Mr. Justice Scott, I think—though, as I have said, he did not consider that the right to remonstrate with the Governor in Council was sufficiently clear to justify him in signing the remonstrance, yet concurred in the entire impolicy of keeping such men on the Bench. He said he agreed with Mr. Justice Jardine that judicial officers who had confessed to having purchased their office were unfit to perform judicial functions, and ought to be removed. And I do not think there is a man in this House who would stand up and state the contrary. Well, though the pronouncements of these three Judges were as strong as they could be they were regarded as expressions of individual opinion which the Judges had no right to make, and were dismissed by the Governor in Council with the remark that these criticisms were very inconvenient—which I have no doubt they were—and that as the case was before them in their judicial capacity it would have been better if they had withheld their expressions of opinion until it had been disposed of. The case has now come before the Court, and the judgment has been that these men are disqualified from retaining their offices or any portion of their functions, and that they should, consequently, be dismissed. I do not ask the House to accept anything I may say on the subject, because criticisms may occur to persons here which are not justified, but I take the facts from the Judicial Minutes regarding retention in office of these men—and I must complain that in laying the case before Parliament the Government have omitted from the Blue Books any reference to the Judicial Minutes, and have made the Report as one-sided as possible. They give the Report of the Crawford Commission, and the reply of the Government, and the speech of the Attorney General against Mr. Crawford, and the Report of the Chief of Police against Mr. Crawford, and actually the confession of the man Hanmantrao, and yet they omit to give the most important Minutes sent in by these Judges of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay.

    867
    That, on the evidence before us, is to be greatly deplored. What do the Judges describe as the sort of bribery that was carried on? Take one case, that of a man who, according to an answer given the other day, has been degraded. According to Mr. Justice Jardine, in 1886 this man was made a clerk at 40 rupees a month. In June, 1887, he wished to get himself made a mamlutdar, and at once set to work to obtain the office by bribery. He borrowed 3,000 rupees without giving security from a money-lender, and by means of this became a Magistrate and mamlutdar. His pay had only been 40 rupees a month, but after he became a mamlutdar he drew 112 rupees a month, and had contrived to repay 1,000 rupees of the money he had borrowed. He paid 3,000 rupees for his office, and it is no wonder, when the Judges declare that it is the easiest thing in the world for a man to borrow, without security, money to be used in purchasing some administrative office; and it is clear that no one would bribe to obtain an office, and no money-lender would make unsecured advances, if it were not for the well-understood condition that once he got into power the office-holder would be able to recoup himself easily by the bribes of suitors. Mr. Justice Jardine says there is abundant evidence of the exaction of bribes from suitors on the part of the mamlutdars in India. He says, further, that allegations of the kind were made in the Crawford inquiry. In the defence of the Government it had been said that Mr. Crawford's corruption extended over a wide area, and that extortion was practised upon these officials who were not to be stigmatized as corrupt in the discharge of their judicial functions; but we hear numerous instances of the bribery of the mamlutdars. Here is an instance. It is to be found on page 221 of the Report, and relates to a certain mamlutdar named Chaubal. He had to judge in a dispute between two widows as to a right of succession. He was got at by a gentleman with an unpronounceable name on behalf of one of the parties, but afterwards some friend of the other side went to Hanmantrao and bought a judgment from him, it being supposed that, with his influence with Mr. Crawford, Hanmantrao would be able to obtain a
    868
    decision for the friend of the man who paid him the money. The Judge, Chaubal, however, refused to accept Hanmantrao's advice as to how he should deliver judgment, and delivered it for the other side; whereupon, according to the statement of Hanmantrao—who appears to have been a thorough rascal—as some anonymous letters had been written by Chaubal hinting that the other side were giving bribes, he had the man appointed mamlutdar to another district and superseded him. More bribery followed, after which an apology was made to the mamlutdar and the judgment came all right. Now, I have specified two particular cases. The allegation of the Indian Government, as I have suggested, is that these men were in many of the cases only the victims of extortion, and that they were sent to unhealthy districts with the view of money being extorted from them. I am not in a position to form a judgment as to this; but when the Government are informed by a Commission of their own choosing that the men were not the victims of extortion, but were, many of them, parties to a corrupt bargain, which they went into with their eyes open, seeing a way of obtaining promotion which, they were not entitled to, and paid money for that promotion, I think it is degrading on the part of the Government to maintain these men in positions where they have to administer justice. I think it is doubly detrimental to the respect of Her Majesty's subjects for law as administered in the Courts of the Empire that they should know that although these men have been stigmatized in the strongest terms by Judges of the High Court, and that it has been laid down that their retention in office is illegal, they are still in the service of the State. I think the Under Secretary has adopted a very proper view in regard to the payment of compensation. But if the Indian Bench is to be preserved in purity, it will not do to send back as County Court Judges a number of men who have been branded as criminals, and who have not only purchased their offices by corruption, but recouped themselves by taking bribes. As long as you keep these men the Government of India casts a slur on the whole judicial body. The Courts will not be considered as Courts of Justice,

    869
    but as places where judgment can be bought from Judges who have themselves paid money to secure their offices by means of the highest bribes.
    Sib J. GORST: I cannot help thinking that if the hon. Member desired to bring forward this question as one of urgent public importance, he at least might have given the representative of the India Office in this House half an hour's preliminary notice. It makes it more difficult on the spur of the moment to give an adequate answer to the hon. Member, because I have been engaged during the whole day in a Committee upstairs, and have not been able to pay a visit personally to the India Department. I have been compelled to send over hastily to the department to get a few documents in order to enable me to meet the hon. Member's Motion. If the House should consider my answer not so complete as it ought to be, hon. Members must attribute it, not to a deficiency on the part of the Government case, but simply because an opportunity has not been given to enable me to arrange and produce the documents. I would remind the House, in the first place, that it has no jurisdiction over the Government of Bombay, but only over the Secretary of State and his conduct in this matter. The question raised by the hon. Member is not yet concluded; it is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State; indeed, further action may, and probably will, be taken with respect to it. And I think it would be more conducive to the interests of the Indian Empire if the hon. Member and the House were to wait until the action of the Secretary of State is complete, and then express their judgment upon it. The position from the first has been one of extreme difficulty. In order to lay evidence before the Commission which inquired into the charges brought against Mr. Crawford, the Government of Bombay thought it right to give to all the officers who might be able to give evidence an indemnity on condition that they spoke the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. My own opinion is strongly opposed to such a practice except in extreme cases of necessity, but it is the practice, in India, as in this country, to offer indemnities in order to procure evidence. The indemnity given by the Government of
    870
    Bombay will be found on page 252 of the Blue Book containing the correspondence relating to the case of Mr. Crawford, and presented at the beginning of the Session. It was to this effect:—
    "Mr. Ommaney is empowered to promise immunity from prosecution to any person giving evidence, and in cases of payments for promotion, or to obtain or avoid transfers, may guarantee immunity from official or departmental punishment or loss, subject to the stipulation that the evidence given is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
    Now, I can understand the hon. Gentleman saying that this indemnity went too far with respect to the cases of offices purchased by corruption. I agree that the indemnity provided on this point went too far; but the House must recollect that it was given to the officers of the Bombay Government by their official superiors, whose credit and position it is essential to the Government of India to keep up; and the Secretary of State cannot without throwing the whole Government of Bombay into confusion, repudiate an engagement of this kind. What has been the action of the Secretary of State? It was stated at the beginning of the Session that it was impossible that men who had admitted themselves to be guilty of corruption should be allowed any longer to exercise any judicial office. On February 6th this year a telegram was sent out to the Bombay Government. It said:—
    "Please telegraph early information about alleged retention of office by Bombay native magistrates who have confessed corruption before the Crawford Commission."
    The answer received was:—
    "The Report of the Commission just received and under consideration. In dealing therewith the incidental question of magistrates' retention or removal will be duly considered."
    The Secretary of State promptly replied:—
    "I await full information as to the facts before expressing any opinion myself; but I presume the incriminated magistrates are suspended from exercising judicial functions pending consideration of the case."
    This was before the House of Commons met, and before any pressure had been put on the Secretary of State. On February 8, this answer was received:—
    "Magistrates who have acknowledged having purchased their offices suspended from

    871
    exercising judicial functions during consideration of Report."
    Now I appeal to the House in these circumstances to say whether it was possible for the Secretary of State to have acted more justly, more energetically, and with more propriety than he has done in this matter. It is impossible for the Secretary of State to try in Downing Street the case of every individual mamlutdar. His duty is to lay down the principles on which the Government of Bombay is to act, and I venture to say that neither the Secretary of State nor the House is competent to enter into the details of the question and discriminate between one mamlutdar and another, or to declare how far the general principles laid down by Her Majesty's Government in this country are to be applied to any individual case. After a case has been decided, then it is possible to inquire into it and award either blame or praise to the Government of Bombay; but the House cannot ask the Secretary of State to pronounce at present a positive opinion on any individual mamlutdar. The hon. Member spoke as if these mamlutdars are still exercising judicial functions; but the information which the hon. Member has received is precisely contrary to that which has been received by the Government. What are these men? A mamlutdar is not a County Court Judge; he is not essentially a judicial officer. But he is a revenue officer with something like 13 or 14 clerks under him. These men are the best educated natives in their district; and they have generally been required to qualify themselves for the exercise of magisterial functions. They perform the functions of a Magistrate not as their principal duty but as an important auxiliary to their other duties.
    MR. BAUMANN: Have they been discharged from their revenue functions?
    SIR J. GORST: I will come to that point later on; These men were suspended, so far as their judicial functions were concerned, by the Secretary of State the moment he became cognizant of the facts of the case; and in a great number of cases the suspension was made absolute, and they were deprived of their functions. I am not prepared to discuss the case of Sindekar, who was
    872
    restored. Sindekar's name was mentioned in the Report of the Crawford Commission, and in the Report of Mr. Justice Jardine; but his case has been considered by the Bombay Government, who have come to the conclusion that, taking all the facts into consideration, Sindekar ought not to be called corrupt, but that he was the victim of oppression and extortion; and that he was as fit for the exercise of the powers intrusted to him as he was before the money was extorted from him. I do not know whether, after further investigation, that judgment of the Bombay Government will prove to be right or wrong; but surely the House will not proceed to adjudicate upon the matter without having the materials upon which to arrive at a conclusion. Those materials, I repeat, are not at present in this country. With regard to Paranjape, he has been deprived of all Magisterial powers and of the Civil Court jurisdiction. The hon. Member for the College Division has made himself extremely merry because I have stated that the jurisdiction was now being exercised by kárkuns, and the hon. Member asked me to speak English. Now, the word kAárkun is as intelligible a word to an Englishman as mamlutdar is. It is difficult to find an English word to express the meaning. The hon. Member has tried to translate kárkun by calling the official a head clerk. The office of clerk is sometimes an office of great dignity, as it is in this House; but the hon. Member spoke of it as if the Government had conferred judicial functions upon a very inferior class. These officials are fully qualified to exercise judicial functions, and often, in the regular course of the administration, are called on to exercise them. Then the question has been put—ought these mamlutdars to be retained in office at all? That is a matter which is receiving the anxious consideration of the Secretary of State. It has been only recently that the point as to whether, under the Statute of George III., these officers are incapable of holding their office if they have been guilty of corruption has been pressed on the attention of the Secretary of State. The' question as to whether the statute applied to these offices in India is engaging the most serious attention of the Secretary of State; and

    873
    I hope the House will not intervene before my noble Friend has at least had time to receive information from India and to fully consider it. I do not know that the hon. Member for the College Division can expect to gain anything by his Motion except to call the attention of the Secretary of State to a case which has engaged his most anxious and most careful attention during the last 12 months. I do not know that there has ever been a question which has caused more trouble and anxiety to my noble Friend than this, and I think the House would do well to leave the matter in his hands. But what is the matter of urgent public importance on which the hon. Member has moved the adjournment?
    DR. CAMERON: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the word "sworn" is used.
    SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member speaks of
    "The retention by the Government of Bombay in judicial and adminiatrative offices of magistrates and officials, who have sworn that they corruptly purchased their positions by means of bribes…"
    I do not admit that the Government of Bombay have retained in any office any functionaries who have proved any such offences against themselves, and should it be proved that they are so retained for the moment, it is because the Secretary of State has not had the matter brought before him with that fulness which would enable him to give the consideration necessary in determining so important a matter. The hon. Member next speaks of these officers as persons whom
    "The Judges of the High Court of Jurisdicture of the Presidency have pronounced to be legally disqualified by their corruption from retaining office."
    That is not a correct statement. The statement has been made by one Judge only, Mr. Justice Jardine. It was not a judgment; it was what the lawyers call an obiter dictum given by him, and no doubt—as any opinion coming from him—of great value. The question of where the statute does refer to the dominion officers is a matter which requires a good deal of consideration perhaps more than the hon. Member for Glasgow proposes to give to it; and even if that statute does refer to the officers of India it has again
    874
    to be proved that these officers are disqualified from holding office. I am extremely sorry that this matter has been brought forward without notice. If I had received even half an hour's notice, I would have looked up some documents bearing on this question; and no doubt I would have been able to give the House a fuller and clearer account, and would have been able, instead of speaking from my own recollection, to have verified my statements by exact references to the Papers. I can assure the House that if this matter is left in the hands of the Secretary of State he will take very good care that full justice is done.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India is justified in complaining of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House coming upon him without notice, because, from the number of questions put to him on the subject, he must have anticipated some such course, unless he gave to the House the information which he has not given. If the whole of the documents are not in the possession of the Government—and they ought to be—some one has seriously neglected his duty towards the Secretary of State for India. I cannot wonder at my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) believing that these facts were accessible to the Secretary of State, because the judges in India have taken express pains to communicate them, not only to the Government of India, but to the world, so that there should be no possibility of doubt about the matter. I trust that the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Cameron) will be content with the discussion raised; but I think the House is indebted to him for having raised the question. I want, however, to point to one or two strange deficiencies in the reply of the hon. Gentleman. It was urged by the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Cameron) that the conduct of the Government has been a varying conduct—that they have suspended and partly suspended officials. The hon. Gentleman well knows that the letter in the Bombay Gazette was written by a native Judge holding a high position in the Bombay Presidency; I believe it is a fairly open secret in official circles. It is true that the Head of the Police was authorized to offer an indemnity; but I was astounded to hear the Under Secretary for India say that

    875
    similar indemnities were often given in this country.
    SIR J. GORST: I never said similar. I said it was not uncommon in this country to offer indemnities.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: An indemnity of what character? An indemnity against the penal consequences which will follow the indictment for the offence?
    SIR J. GORST: That is exactly what I said; and as to the particular indemnity given by the Governor of Bombay, I expressed strong disapprobation of it.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: But the hon. Gentleman did not go on to say that the indemnity given was entirely different from any indemnity ever known to be given in any court of this country. There is no comparison at all between the two kinds of indemnity. No doubt the hon. Gentlemen always uses able and careful language, but language which does not always convey the facts, and his able and careful language did not convey to my uneducated mind that there is any comparison between the indemnity given in India and the indemnity which is given here. It is perfectly true that the Blue Book states that had indemnities not been given no word of direct evidence would have been elicited. But why? The Blue Book shows that the corruption is sufficiently known to make it desirable that it should be ventilated in this House whenever possible. The very strong statement has been made that corruption extends over a wide area of the Central and Southern Divisions, and that more than two-thirds of the different officers and Magistrates were affected by it. "We have Sir Raymond West's own Minute upon it:—
    "Such open secrets' are known to hare existed in India before, and sometimes with calamitous consequences. On the present occasion a dumb hopelessness seems to hare pervaded the official class."
    Only a few days ago I put a question to the Under Secretary for India with reference to a remission of sentence approved by the Secretary of State for India of an officer who had been publicly censured by the Government of India in an official dispatch. Can you wonder that it is exceedingly difficult to deal with these unfortunate natives, when they find that English officers who are powerful are
    876
    protected, and in a little time are promoted again? It would be unbecoming in me to cast the slightest doubt on the knowledge of the Under Secretary and Secretary of State for India, but I will read to the House a Minute which must have been kept back from the India Office by the Government of India indirect wrong to the Secretary of State, who ought to have been informed. I will read the quotation given by Mr. Justice Jardine as a material portion of the evidence relating to Sindekar. The Sin-dekar is asked—
    "Since the Hanmantrao Inquiry have you returned to your duty? I did so before the case was disposed of.—You are still Mamlutdar of Chanedore, and receive your pay as such? Yes.—Since you have admitted that you had a bribe for getting your transfer cancelled yon still continued in the Government service f Yes."
    The very Magisterial duties which it was suggested had not been carried, out by others, the Sindekar, I presume, having since been restored. But what is the very next paragraph—
    "Another witness of higher position"—higher even than the Sindekar—"deposed on 29th October that other magistrates in similar predicament, who have either made public confession of corruption, or are charged with corrupt crimes by the Government in the proceeding against Mr. Crawford, have resumed their judicial functions."
    Have those words any meaning? Were these things, which were sworn, reported by the judges to the Government of India? Have these facts been withheld from the Secretary of State, or what does it mean? At any rate, the discussion does good, as showing that we have no means of challenging the Secretary of State for India, and that the only Parliamentary means we had on the Budget Statement we have been deprived of. I quite accept the plea of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India that the Government were in utter ignorance of the sworn depositions; but that being so, it would appear that they are governing India in ignorance. We are told that we ought not to rely on newspaper reports or telegrams in the Times. I do not blame the Government for depreciating the value of the telegrams in the Times, because I can understand that there are many reasons for that depreciation; but we are not relying on those tele-

    877
    grams; we are relying on the Judgments and Minutes of the High Court of India, to which some attention ought to be paid. If the Statute has any meaning at all—and there is no one who has a greater aptitude for interpreting this Statute than the Under Secretary for India—it re-enacts in express terms the Statute of Edward IV., which declares that any person who shall have paid any fee, or any sum of money, or any reward, is to be adjudged a person disabled in law from holding any appointment. There is the Statute, and we have also the evidence. We are not influenced by the telegrams in the Times, but by evidence formally minuted by one of the Judges of the High Court, with the approval of his colleagues in many material respects, and in regard to which I do not think the Under Secretary has been quite fair in the statement he has made to the House. I quite agree that there is something to be said on his behalf on the ground that in regard to money matters he and the Secretary for India were kept ill-informed by the Governors of the different Presidencies of India. We have seen that answers given to questions put at one time have been corrected at another, and that often the one statement was the very opposite of the other; but here we have a case in which we have sworn testimony, the evidence being uncontradicted and undisputed, and if it be said that this is not material, then I say we want a new dictionary to tell us what is the meaning of the word "material." Some of the men who have been compelled to lend money to the officials, and to give evidence of that by the inducements held out by the Chief of Police, have been dismissed, and some have been degraded and placed in inferior positions; but it is the poorest who have suffered, while the richest have escaped. I thank the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow for having brought this matter forward, although I trust he will not divide the House upon it, as that would involve our voting in the exact terms of the Motion. Nevertheless, these scandals require ventilation; and when they are ventilated, I hope the Secretary of State will not again say that he is ignorant of Minutes which have been published in all parts of the world, but which have been kept from him by those
    878
    whose duty it was to have informed him of the facts.
    MR. BAUMANN: As I have had upon the Paper a Motion censuring the conduct of Lord Reay's Government in this matter, I desire now to say a few words on the subject. It has been asked what has the hon. Member for Glasgow gained by bringing on the question now? The answer is that he has gained this—he has ventilated one of the grossest scandals that have occurred in the administration of India in modern times. There are two-branches of this subject. There is the-conduct of the mamlutdars, which I understand is not before the House, and with regard to which we have not the-proper materials for information, as the Minutes of Evidence are not published; and the other part of the subject has relation to the conduct of the Government of Bombay in regard to the prosecution of Mr. Arthur Crawford, as to which we have ample materials for judgment in the Report of the Commission which has been laid on the Table. A severer and a more pronounced condemnation of an Indian Government——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member, as it seems to me, is travelling beyond the subject upon which the Motion for Adjournment has been moved.
    MR. BAUMANN: I think the Report in the Blue Book refers to the mamlutdars having been suspended; but if I am not in order in referring to that matter, I will not touch upon it further. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has stated that the promise of indemnity having been given by the Bombay Government, the Secretary of State could not repudiate that engagement; but I fail to see why the-Secretary of State should not have overridden the decision of the Bombay-Government in the matter. It is the business of the Secretary of State to override the decisions of any of the Indian Governments when he believes them to be improper. I submit that the telegrams which came from India regarding the suspension of the mamlutdars in regard to the exercise of their judicial functions were of a most misleading character, because the majority of hon. Members of this House are not aware that the chief duties of those officials are not judicial, but duties

    879
    connected with the Revenue, duties which, as the Under Secretary has stated, form the major part of their functions. We consequently have before us the fact that Magistrates who have confessed corrupt action are allowed to remain in the discharge of the most important part of their duties—namely, those connected with the Revenue, while they are suspended from the minor and less important of their functions—namely, their judicial functions. If they are corrupt—and they have confessed that they are—they are absolutely incompetent and unfit for the discharge of their duties as taxing officers. We are told that the matter is receiving the anxious consideration of the Secretary of State, but that, the India Office has not come to a decision on the matter because of facts which have only recently been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. Why, Sir, this matter was brought under the notice of the India Office as long ago as last February or March; and if the India Office cannot make up its mind in four or five months, this seems to me a most remarkable confession. But the Bombay Government did a great deal worse than promise immunity to corrupt Magistrates; they employed the instruments of corruption to get up evidence against Mr. Crawford, and punished by suspension the mamlutdars who refused to give evidence against that individual. As you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that that part of the case is not before the House and that it would be out of order to go into it, I can only say that I regret very much the way in which this branch of a very important matter has to be dealt with, and I beg to state that I shall take any opportunity which the forms of the House will permit on the Indian Budget or any other occasion of calling further attention to the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I can well understand the natural desire of hon. Gentlemen who are interested in a question of so much magnitude, which has been before the public for so long a period, to have it discussed in this House; but I cannot help feeling that the matter ought not to have been brought forward on such inadequate notice, which does not allow Members who feel great interest in the subject to refresh their memories as they would otherwise have done. There is only
    880
    one London newspaper which has a permanent correspondent in India, and he his continually sending telegrams which reflect on the conduct of the Bombay Government; and although the statements he makes often admit of explanation, the explanations do not find their way into the Press of England, so that hon. Members who are guided by these telegrams should suspend their judgment. I sympathize very much with what has been said by the hon. Member for Northampton as to the difficulty of bringing forward Indian subjects in this House. It is difficult with the limited information in the possession of Members to either approve or disapprove the action of the Indian Government; indeed the House should be very slow to take any such action. One material fact has scarcely yet been adverted to—namely, that it was absolutely necessary to give some indemnity. If an indemnity had not been given, it would have been impossible to elicit the facts of the case; and in the view of the Bombay Government it was of the very highest importance to discover whether it was true that a widespread system of corruption really existed in the southern part of the Presidency; and nothing but the offer of a liberal indemnity would in their view have been sufficient to secure the requisite evidence. I need hardly say that if the indemnity was given it was absolutely necessary that it should be adhered to. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last asked why should not the Secretary of State override the indemnity; but if that were done what hope could the Government have in any future case of obtaining evidence? Moreover, such a course would be a very bad example of the honour and faith of the Government, especially as it would be a case of breaking an indemnity given not to a European, but to a native. Another material fact is that the practice of purchasing offices is proved to have been all but universal; and the evidence showed that these particular mamlutdars were in no respect worse than others, and that the practice has prevailed widely in certain parts of the Presidency. It is important, therefore, not to deal with exceptional harshness with those who have been found out to a great extent through their own can dour. I do not in any way palliate their offence; but it should be remembered in fairness

    881
    that the corruption which has been proved against them was not that of selling justice and giving a decision in consideration of a bribe, but it was that inferior and not so black a kind of corruption which consists of obtaining an office by giving a consideration for it. There have been countries in which this practice has largely prevailed, and it certainly is looked upon as not so black an offence as selling justice. It is most unfortunate that the gift of office in India should be influenced by a pecuniary consideration; but that is a smaller offence in the eyes of the people of India, and also in our eyes, than the sale of justice for a pecuniary consideration. The hon. Member for Glasgow said that the natives could not regard the Courts of those mamlutdars as Courts of Justice at all; but that is not the way in which they look at the matter. If certain mamlutdars are known to have obtained their offices through the influence of other natives, or to have given some consideration for them, the people of India do not think any the worse of those particular Magistrates than they do of others. I have mentioned these matters in order to show the difficulties of the position in which the Bombay Government were placed. The hon. Member for Glasgow has dwelt strongly on Mr. Justice Jardine's opinion; but the obiter dicta of one Judge are not to be treated as if they were equivalent to the solemn determination of a full Court in a great case argued before them. I was myself in Bombay at the time when the matter was freely canvassed in conversation, and many members of the legal profession thought that Mr. Justice Jardine was wrong. Without at all disparaging that Judge, it is fair to say that what fell from him was not of the absolutely conclusive weight which the hon. Member for Glasgow seems to suppose. Indeed, I am not sure that there were not as many who held that the Judge was wrong as there were who thought he was right. I am precluded by your ruling, Sir, from referring to Mr. Crawford's case; but had it been in order I should have been prepared to defend the conduct of Lord Reay, who, I think, is entitled for his action to the thanks of this House and of the Government of India. The conduct of the Government of Bombay in regard to these mamlutdars has been the con-
    882
    duct of men who, above all things, are anxious to arrive at the truth. The ventilation of the matter is due to the conduct of the Government of Bombay, who in the interests of purity of administration in India determined to go to the bottom of the whole affair and to elicit the fullest revelation of the state of facts. In that respect I believe they have done well; and whether or not the House, when it is more fully informed of all the facts, will approve of all the administrative action which the Government of Bombay and the Secretary of State have taken, I think that most of us who know Lord Reay, the Governor of Bombay, and his upright character, will feel that that noble Lord's uprightness and courage could not have been shown in a clearer light or in a way that was more entitled to our confidence and respect 4 than they had been in that matter.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: There is no doubt that this is a very painful, delicate, and difficult matter. But when hon. Members show such a state of extreme holy horror at the purchase of offices in India, they seem altogether to forget that within historical times such things have occurred even in this country; and that even to this day if not political, at any rate ecclesiastical offices are bought and sold. I do not think this House is a very competent tribunal for dealing with this matter, more especially when, as in the present instance, we are called upon suddenly to deal with it without sufficient materials. I regret that a comparatively small matter has been allowed to overshadow the great question of the conduct of a high administrative officer in Bombay, which conduct at least made possible the corruption the House is discussing. It does seem extraordinary we should hear so much about the minor part of the case and so little about the major part. I am sorry that the Under Secretary of State for India has thrown over Lord Reay and the Government of Bombay. Whether that Government have made mistakes or not, they deserve the greatest credit for attacking an enormous evil which was rampant in the country; and it required very great courage to tackle the man who was accused of the conduct which gave rise to the whole scandal, and who was very

    883
    popular in the European community of Bombay; and allusion has already been made to the telegrams appearing in a notorious journal of this country, which described him as without fault or reproach. Lord Reay and his Government have faced the Times' telegrams and very great abuse with great courage in dealing with the scandal which this official created. I am not prepared to go into details, because I do not think the House would understand them; but I may confirm the statement of the Under Secretary of State for India, that a mamlutdar is primarily a revenue officer and not a judicial officer. In conclusion, I may say I do not think that the Government of Bombay are open to the excessive blame cast upon them, nor are they open to the reproach of keeping corrupt Judges in office.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I wish to express entire dissent from the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for Aberdeen. If there is one thing which points to the supremacy and better direction of judicial affairs in British hands it is purity of administration. When cases have been found of men concerned in the administration of justice admitting that they have purchased their offices, it is to be deplored that on any side of the House there should exist a tendency to screen such men.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member will, perhaps, allow me to explain that I expressly stated that I not only did not wish to screen the men, but considered their conduct very culpable. I merely pointed to the distinction which every Indian draws between the degrees of corruption involved in giving corrupt decisions for bribes and in purchasing judicial offices.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I am not prepared now to enter into any such distinctions. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to see the men who have: purchased their offices removed.
    MR. BRYCE: I have expressed no opinion on the matter.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: That is the view of the Under Secretary at any rate, who has declared that the immunity granted by the Bombay Government must be maintained. But why not go further, and while leaving the protec-
    884
    tion of the immunity, remove the offenders from the possibility of further mischief. Their salaries might be continued though they are removed from office. As revenue officers, these men have to exercise important judicial functions; and I hope that the Debate-will have the effect of impressing on the-Bombay Government and the Secretary of State for India the necessity of removing the men from their appointments.
    DR. CAMERON: My object has merely been to call attention to the matter, which I quite admit would be better discussed after notice. I beg now to ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to, Herring Fishery (Scotland) Bill, with an Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to exempt certain letters of hypothecation from the operation of 'The Bills of Sale Act, 1882.'" [Bills of Sale Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act for the appointment of a Public Trustee." [Public Trustee Bill [Lords.]
    And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to enable Incorporated Companies to act as Executors, Administrators, and Trustees, and in other fiduciary capacities." [Trust Companies Bill Lords.]

    REVENUE [ALLOWANCE AND STAMP DUTY.]
    Resolution reported;
    "That it is expedient to impose, by way of composition, a Stamp Duty, at the rate of Five Pounds per centum, upon the premiums on policies of insurance against accident under the provisions of the said Act."
    Resolution agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FACTORS BILL [LORDS] (No. 310.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BIGGAR: I think that this is a Bill of sufficient importance to

    885
    make it incumbent on the Government to give the House some explanation of its provisions. I believe it proposes to make an important change in the law. I believe the object of the Bill is to make it possible for a commission agent to pawn or raise advances on property which he has in charge for the purposes of sale, and I believe that the change in the law will inflict a greater amount of injury than the existing law, and on a class less able to defend themselves. I agree that as the law now stands a commission agent may go to his bankers, and holding himself out as the proprietor of certain property borrow money on the security of it, although he may not have the authority of his employer to pledge it, and in case of failure to repay the advance the banker is the loser; but this Bill will enable the agent without authority to go to a banker or moneylender and raise money. This will work great injustice in two ways. Of course, I do not wish to suggest that the great majority of commission agents in this country are not perfectly honest and trustworthy; but we know that a certain small proportion of these agents and share brokers do from time to time—sometimes from misfortune and sometimes from misconduct—become untrustworthy, and this law will enable the bankers to bring more pressure to bear upon these men to hand over securities which do not properly belong to them. I therefore think the Government should give us some substantial reasons for this very material change in the law. The unfortunate people who send their shares or stocks to a share broker run the risk of having their property mortgaged to some minor or to some third party. The Government would do well to give some reasons in favour of the Bill. If they do not give such reasons the House ought to pause before assenting to the Second Reading.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The point to which the hon. Member for Cavan has referred is undoubtedly one of very considerable importance; but the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that this Bill has been most carefully prepared under the eye of Lord Herschell. Having looked through the Bill, I must say that, although certain expressions may be open to criticism, it only reproduces existing statutes. The particular point
    886
    to which the hon. Member has called attention has been a debateable point for a long time, but it is one which really cannot be well discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is for that reason we propose to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade, where there will be Members well acquainted with business transactions, and well able to deal with the point. Some objection has been taken to the words "acting in the customary course of his business," in line 5, but it has been taken in favour of interests rather antagonistic of those the hon. Member represents—namely,in favour of bankers and others. It is felt that the Bill rather narrows than widens their powers. The hon. Member will therefore see that the point has not escaped attention. If the view taken by some hon. Members who have communicated with me is right, so far from the words increasing the liability to fraud and misconduct, they will make it more difficult. With regard to the other clauses of the Bill, the House will remember I stated on a previous occasion that this is a Bill which, as far as I know, only reproduces existing Statutes in every case except one or two. I believe the Bill will be a great improvement, and put on a few sheets of paper provisions which are now found scattered up and down different Statutes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 261.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR W. LAWSON: The House will see that on the Notice Paper there is a notice of Amendment standing in the name of an hon. Member who is not here. The notice stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), and is as folio vs:—
  "On Second Reading of Light Railways (Ireland) Bill, to move that this House, having regard to the principle of action laid down by the present Government as the basis of its Irish policy, namely, that Ireland and Great

  887
  Britain should be treated on equal terms, declines to advance, for the construction of public works in Ireland, free grants of public moneys, which are refused, except in the case of amply secured loans, for Similar purposes in Great Britain."
  That appears to me to he a very sound statement of what our Irish policy ought to be, and I should have been glad if the hon. Member had been here to move the Amendment; but, unfortunately, he is not here, in consequence of the policy of the Government in shutting up their political opponents in prison, a policy worthy of the worst period of our history. As a protest against that policy, and against the way in which one of my fellow Members has been treated, I move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I will not put that Motion.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Am I not——
  MR. SPEAKER: I consider it to be an abuse of the Rules of the House.
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I ask a question? Am I not entitled to move the Adjournment?
  MR. SPEAKER: No, I think not. Under the circumstances, I consider it to be an abuse of the Rules of the House. Under the Standing Order I have two courses open to me. One is to put the Motion immediately, and the other to refuse to put it. I refuse to put it.
  MR. H. COSSHAM: I rise to move the rejection of the Bill. I have noticed that where railways are really needed private enterprise is always found to undertake them, and I have noticed that railways are most successful when they are thus promoted lather than initiated by the Government. It is most unwise of us to allow the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who is a Political Agent, and who owes his appointment to political motives, to be the initiator of a great extension of the railway system. I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope the House will reject it on account of the fact that private enterprise would supply what this Bill proposes to do through the Lord Lieutenant. The Bill also deals with the parts of Ireland where railways do not exist, and where it is proposed the Board of Works shall carry out the works. I have been long enough in the House to know that of all the bodies in Ireland that do not meet with the
  888
  approval of the Irish people the Board of Works stands at the head. Therefore, to grant to the Board of Works the power to control the levying out of considerable sums of money belonging to the taxpayers of this country is in the highest sense unwise. Nearly all the loans made, and nearly all the money given to Ireland under the control of the Board of Works has been spent in a way that has not produced good to Ireland or benefit to England. I find, on looking back, that the only schemes for Ireland's improvement which have worked out well are the drainage schemes under the Act 1863, with which the Board of Works had nothing to do. Another part of the Bill refers to the various loans or advances made by this country in the past in connection with improvement works. I am sorry to say their name is legion, and that for the greater part they have been misapplied. In the last 40 years this country has expended £35,000,000 in various works in Ireland, and will the House believe me when I say that £8,000,000 of that has had to be written off. Is it possible to give the House a better proof of the utter absurdity of prosecuting a policy such as that embodied in this Bill? I am here to protest in the name of the taxpayers of this country against such a policy. My constituents believe that this money will be utterly thrown away, and so do I. I find that on the Shannon Drainage-alone, on which we are to be asked to spend more money, we have spent £860,000 already, of which £573,000 has been written off. The experience of the past does not justify the Government in the proposal they now make. But my objection to this scheme lies mainly in this, that it is part of the policy of bribery and brute force of which this Government is the acknowledged head; it is the policy of carrying a stick in one hand and a money bag in the other. I have not seen that policy answer in the government of nations. The only policy in which I believe is that of doing justice to the people; this mixture of brute force and fraud is the worst kind of government we can have. The object of the Government is to bribe Ireland from the love of self-government. Now, I believe the love of self-government is not only a just, but a most

  889
  healthy feeling to encourage in any part of the United Kingdom. The Government may throw as many money bags into Ireland as they like, but they will not destroy the desire of the Irish for self-government. My next objection to the Bill is that it is introduced in the interest of a small class—namely, the landowners. The landowners of Ireland have cost this country very dear. Nearly all the legislation of the last 50 or 60 years has been conceived in the interest of the landowners, and they have shown their gratitude by creating more difficulty in Ireland than any other class. I am not disposed to make further concessions in the interest of that class. It is to increase the value of land that the Drainage Bills have been brought in, and as we are led to believe the Government intend to purchase the land, it is manifest we should be purchasing our own money over again. I am also against the Bill because it is opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That Commission reported that the initiation of all future measures of improvement in Ireland should be vested in the people themselves. This Bill is a direct violation of that principle. My objection to these schemes would not be so great if we had in Ireland a local government who would be responsible for the expenditure of the money. When we have Local Government in Ireland, I shall be the first to grant any money this country thinks fit to grant for the improvement of the country. I admit we owe to Ireland a deep debt. We have wronged her in the past to such an extent that I should be willing to strain a point to improve the condition of the country. But I want when any expenditure is made that it should be made under the control and responsibility of a body selected by the people themselves. I am sure I need not say to my Irish Friends I move the rejection of this Bill in no spirit hostile to their interests. I hope my past conduct justifies me in saying I am not an enemy of any improvement of Ireland. I want to see Ireland improved in every way, but improved under the control of a body responsible to this House and the country for the proper expenditure of the money advanced.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman move his Resolution?
  MR. H. COSSHAM: I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  "This House declines to give or advance money for the construction of Railways in Ireland, except under the direction and responsibility of popularly elected bodies."—(Mr. Handel Cossham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. S. BUXTON: To a large extent I sympathise with the speech to which we have just listened. I think that all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House will be glad when we have some local authority in Ireland other than those at present existing, but I cannot admit that the speech of the hon. Gentleman is one that is properly applicable to the proposals of the Government now under consideration. I think my hon. Friend totally misunderstands the scope and object of the Bill. There is no proposal in the principal part of the Bill to advance money except in the sense that a guarantee will be given by the Government for these light railways, but the guarantee falls through if the railway does not succeed. It is not in the same sense as in the case of the Drainage Bills that the Government are advancing money. My hon. Friend also misunderstands the position of the Board of Works in the matter. The Board of Works has practically no power in connection with the carrying out of the works. All they have to do is to authorise the construction of one of these light railways where they think it is advisable to do so; they will have nothing to do with the actual construction or carrying out of the works; that will be in the hands of the public bodies and public contractors. The position of the Board of Works in regard to these railways is, therefore, totally different to what it is in regard to the drainage schemes. From personal knowledge of some of the districts in which it is intended these light railways should be constructed, I say that if this Bill is passed it will prove of immense advantage not only to the districts themselves but to Ireland generally, and to this country.

  891
  I do not believe that the money, if properly expended—and I believe that, under this Bill it will be properly expended—will be thrown away. Many places in the West of Ireland are as much as 30, 40, or even 50 miles away from the nearest means of communication. In many of these cases there are fishing and other industries which might be easily developed if there were means of transport, and their development would put the people in a totally different position to that which unfortunately they now occupy. My hon. Friend must not suppose that the Bill creates a precedent. We have passed several Irish Tramways Acts, some of which have worked comparatively well, and this is an endeavour to complete former Acts with reference to Irish Tramways, and to place them on a more satisfactory footing. Under old Tramways Acts complications have arisen as to the barony guarantee and the State guarantee, and that has done much to prevent Companies being formed to create and work tramways. Under this Bill there is a simple Government guarantee of 3 per cent on the capital raised if the line is passed and completed, while the loss—if there is a loss—on the working will be borne, not by the Treasury, but by the locality itself. The hon. Member said that the Bill was introduced in the interests of the owners and not of the occupiers. But it will really be much more in the interests of the occupier; and unless the majority of the occupiers in any particular district give their assent to the line proposed, the line will not be constructed. It is not likely that the occupiers will give their assent unless they believe the line will be of advantage to them. In principle, the Bill is a very good one indeed, and I hope to see it passed. I believe it will be of great advantage to the poorer districts, and I do not think it can result in loss to the Treasury. There are one or two questions I desire to put, though I shall put them in no hostile spirit. I do not quite understand the part of the Bill referring to the position of existing railways. Are they to be allowed to choose profitable lines and to put aside other lines, or will the Executive insist that in any scheme proposed the companies shall make unprofitable lines if they exist, as well as profitable lines?
  892
  Then I think the mode of election might be made simpler; and in reference to the guarantee, I understand it is not to exceed in the first instance 6d. in the £1, but if the railway in any part of the year does not pay its working expenses the promoters may ask the barony for a further guarantee. I believe that portion of the Bill will certainly not work. I do not think that the barony, having once given a guarantee, will be prepared to give a larger one. Again, who will be the authority to decide between two rival lines? I have in my mind two lines, both 40 or 50 miles long, one running through an almost barren country, and the other through a district in which there are many fishing villages. Who will be the authority to decide between these rival lines? Again, will these light railways include all the many different systems, some of which are used abroad, and some of which are now used in England, which do not always go by the name of light railways, but which are very inexpensive. I trust the Government will not confine their Bill too exclusively to so-called light railways, but will include some of the other light systems. In conclusion, I desire to say I regard this Bill as the best Bill the Government opposite have brought in, though that is not saying much. I hope they mean to pass it. I am sure it will not be accepted in Ireland as a bribe; indeed, I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. H. Cossham) that the Government may offer as many bribes as they like to Ireland, it will make no difference at the election. I believe the Bill will be accepted as a measure to carry on that which already exists to a large extent, and that it will result in good to a large number of impoverished people.
  MR. RATHBONE: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham) in condemnation of a policy for Ireland made up of alternations of coercion and bribery. Such a policy is as useless as it is immoral. I quite agree also that the best results of any measures for developing the natural resources of Ireland can only be attained by entrusting those measures to local administration. But I do not admit that we are bound to wait for the time when that Local Government is established before we make amends for

  893
  our selfish and narrow policy of former days. I look at the proposal before us from a practical point of view, and I find that this promotion of light railways is supported and urged by everybody who has taken practical interest in the question of developing Irish resources. I do not see how we can ever do anything for the congested districts until we provide facilities for sending to those districts what is required, and taking from them what they produce. About the other Bill brought forward for the relief of Ireland I feel considerable doubt, but upon this Bill I have no hesitation. I think this construction of light railways is a matter of vital importance for Ireland, and for the West of Ireland especially, and I think the House would incur great responsibility if it declined to carry out the proposal without delay. At the same time I am bound to admit that there are complicated details in connection with the proposal, difficult to deal with in Committee of the whole House, and in view of this I venture to suggest to the Government that it might be well to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade, adding to the Committee those Irish Members and others who have shown a practical interest in the subject. I believe then all the details of the measure would be satisfactorily adjusted. As the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows, the Trade Committee is a very practical body, and I do not think it would be many days before the Bill would be sent back again to the House with remedies found for all those dangers my hon. Friend (Mr. Cossham) has suggested.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I cannot help expressing my great regret that the Government have not given us more detailed information as to what this Bill means. The First Lord of the Treasury said the other day, in a light and airy way, that all parties were agreed upon it. Well, that does not seem quite to be the case, and there is one party with a considerable interest in the matter who has not expressed any satisfaction, and that is the British taxpayer. Seeing that they are called upon to sink several hundred thousands in the undertaking, I think the British I taxpayers ought to be consulted. I am bound to confess that as the Irish people have not, as we have, the means by Local
  894
  Government of dealing with the matter themselves, we are called upon to do what is necessary in regard to the congested districts, and so far I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Carnarvon. My views are expressed in the Motion I have put on the Paper, although I gave way to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. Pending the establishment of Local Government in Ireland, I am willing to vote the sums required for the impoverished and congested districts, but I decline to do so without a definition of the areas within which the money is to be expended, and an indication of the railways contemplated. My view is that the theory of the Bill is right, but I want to know if the practice is right, and if we really are going to relieve the congested districts of Ireland. I want to be quite sure that we are not merely giving the Government a cheque for £600,000 that they may scatter the money about here and there, bribing Irish opinion under the semblance of assistance given to the development of local industry and resources. I listened carefully to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary when he introduced these Bills, but as regards the Light Railways Bill, that statement was most vague. He told us the general principle upon which the Government proposed to proceed, but he gave us no indication whatever of the particular railways, and the particular parts of Ireland, he intended should be served. While we are still a united kingdom we are bound to render assistance to any specially distressed district in the kingdom. Now, if the Secretary for Scotland were to come forward with a proposal to give assistance to Scotland under such such circumstances, I can quite conceive that the House would not be content with a demand for so many hundred thousand pounds, and the Government would produce a plan of their intentions and would put before us a map showing how half Scotland is not served by railways at all. The large fishing industry of the west coast is only touched by one monopolising railway company, and the fishermen are obliged to send away their fish by a route which makes a long detour, by an insufficient service of trains, and at high rates. The Minister in charge would show, without lending

  895
  himself to a particular line of railway, what his general object was. This is what I want the Government to do now, when asking us to hand them £600,000 for them to dispose of. I want them in general terms to indicate their project. I have not heard what it is. I have visited Ireland, and I know that there are parts of Donegal remote from railway communication, but I do not know that there are any industries there that a railway would serve to develop. I do not know that there are any great fishing interests there on that Atlantic beaten coast, as there are on the West Coast of Scotland. I may be told that such a railway is not a new project, and I am quite aware that there have been these railway projects before. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is an authority on the subject, and he told us the other day of a railway that only carried three tons of goods during the year, and this another hon. Member says is the only one that pays its expenses. Well, with such experience before us, I think we may well ask before we present the Government with £600,000 for distribution what their plan is. I do not expect them to be bound down to the narrow limits of one particular line, but they can surely give us some general idea. They must have roughly figured out some project to arrive at this sum of £600,000 upon which they Lave fixed instead of a round half million. Somehow or other they arrived at this sum, and I hope before this Debate closes they will give us the information which I think in the interest of the British taxpayer we are bound to ask for. The Government must have some project, for I understand these railways are to be constructed to serve industries that do more or less exist, and that can be improved by this means of communication. I do not believe in railways as a means of creating an industry, and I doubt very much if there is any great quantity of fish to be caught off the Atlantic coast. Then as regards the details we have in the Bill, I must say I do not very much like them in many respects. My hon. Friend below me seems to think that the baronies are going to guarantee three per cent, but as I understand it, they are not going to guarantee interest on the capital, the only guarantee is against loss on working expenses, a
  896
  very different thing. Working expenses may be reduced to a minimum. I daresay the three tons of goods carried in the year paid the working expenses if the three tons were carried by one train. That, I say, is a totally inadequate guarantee, and does not give any assurance that the people of the locality have belief in the work they guarantee. It is really no guarantee at all. I have had some experience of guaranteed Indian railways, but there the guarantee was always a guarantee for a certain interest on the money, whereas here the guarantee is to be absorbed in working expenses. Neither do I like the vague terms in which the Bill provides for the subsidising of railway companies for extensions and the promoters of new lines. We have no indication of where the lines are to be promoted, we are only told that light railways are to be provided in the interest of Irish industries, but for all else we are totally without light and leading. Of one thing we may be certain, that Ireland is pre-eminently the land of jobbery, and if there is a country where a job in matters of this kind can be perpetrated it is in Ireland. The hon. Member for Cavan has given us illustrations of what has been done in this way in the past, and looking to what we may anticipate in the future, I again say we ought to have more details in our possession before we pass the Second Heading of this Bill.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I was glad to hear the speeches of the hon. Members for Poplar and for Carnarvon. They are such as I should have expected from hon. Gentlemen who have, for a long time, in the House of Commons, taken an interest in industrial questions relating to Ireland. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy sets up a claim for support for the fishing industry of the West of Scotland, and all I can say is that if a Bill were brought in for the West of Scotland, and could be supported on equally good grounds to this I would support it. The hon. Gentleman suspects that in Ireland such a Bill means jobbery, and he is sceptical about the existence of fish in the Atlantic, but I can tell him that all along the west coast there are plenty of fish to be caught and would be caught if only the people had the means of sending their catches to market. Fishing is carried on now in Galway Bay, because we have a rail-

  897
  Way at hand, but when the railway communication is 30 or 40 miles away of course it is no use catching fish other than -will stand the long carriage. Lobsters are caught to a considerable extent, and curing fish is carried on to some extent, but salting is a troublesome process, and it is not all kinds of fish that are suitable, and the fish do not realise half what they do when fresh. Railway communication is the remedy. I must say this is far and away the best Bill for Ireland that has been introduced for many years, and I sincerely hope that opposition from this side will not prevent it passing. We have heard much about the British taxpayer, and I am quite aware that in this instance he is to supply the bulk of the money, but while we pay £8,200,000 annually into the Exchequer, are we to get nothing in return but police and coercion? Hon. Members have spoken of the money being wasted—and money no doubt will be wasted if a proper check is not kept upon expenditure. But I will undertake to say that every year there is an amount of money jobbed away in the administration of Ireland to twenty times the amount that is likely, with the most lax administration to arise under this Bill. Why attempt to check the development of whatever industrial resources we have in Ireland? The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will not allow we have fish in the Atlantic.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I did not say the Atlantic is without fish. I doubted their being caught.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I thought the hon. Gentleman hazarded a doubt as to the existence of fish there, but I will give him the full benefit of the correction. There is no doubt that this part of the Atlantic is swarming with fish, and I hope when we have this railway the fact will be demonstrated beyond doubt. There have been several propositions in reference to this Bill; one is to refer it to some Committee or other, and another is to add a schedule of lines. Now, these are both favourite methods of killing a Bill. You often hear Members who are disposed to reject a Bill say, "We are not satisfied with dealing with it in the ordinary way, send it to a Committee;" or else they say, "It is necessary for clearness there should be a schedule inserted." Of course to propose either such course on the 18th
  898
  July, when everyone is desirous of an early close of the Session, is an effectual way of killing the Bill for this year. The Bill is susceptible of improvement, I know; but it is not such a complicated piece of work to deal with. We are accustomed to its machinery under the Tramways Act, machinery of which I do not approve very much; but, eliminating much of that machinery, we could make the Bill simpler in its working, with little to object to in that respect. I would have as much control as possible left to the Lord Lieutenant, because he acts by the advice of those who are responsible to the House of Commons; but over the Privy Council popular Representatives in this House have no control. But this is a question for Committee, and does not affect the Second Reading. Suppose the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had his way, and a schedule was drawn up, any Irish Member would naturally think his own district was most important, and would expect to find it in the schedule; and, not finding it there, would endeavour to get it added. We should all do that, and from our own point of view would be justified; but to stop the Second Beading until we all agreed on this point would be foolish indeed. There are many points in the Bill to be settled, but not before the Second Beading. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are in many ways excellent friends of Ireland. If they really think it will be a benefit for Ireland to develope her resources by means of money drawn from her own taxation, can they think it is necessary to wait for that benefit until Home Rule is established? We may have to wait for eight or ten years—there is a possibility of that, though I hope we may arrive at it before. But we do not know what may happen; there is much to be done; we may have to abolish the House of Lords to do it. But do you want this benefit for Ireland to be put off for an indefinite period while the great struggle of Parties is going on? I beg and entreat hon. Members not to insist on our continuing the contribution of £8,200,000 a year meanwhile with no return. Give us at least the odd £200,000, to be devoted to a useful purpose.
  MR. BIGGAR: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has rather "let the cat out of the bag." He has

  899
  told us that a very large proportion of the Irish Members have a disposition towards jobbery——
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I never in my life connected the word jobbery with an Irishman.
  MR. BIGGAR: I will not say my hon. and gallant Friend used the word "jobbery" in this direct connection; but I understood him to say that a very considerable number of Irish Members of Parliament were disposed to make efforts to get a part of this plunder for their particular constituencies. Well, I suppose that is very near to jobbery, if it is not quite so. I am opposed to this Bill, for, as I understand it, it proposes to take £60,000 a year permanently from the British taxpayer. Now that, I think, is an unreasonable proposition. I may be mistaken in the exact sum, but I think it is about that amount, and capitalized it really means something like two millions sterling, rather a heavy attack to make on the British taxpayer at once, and for an object acknowledged by the Bill to be of a very problematical character, for in addition to the advance, there is to be a guarantee that the railways shall pay their working expenses. Now, after a confession of that sort at the outset, it seems to me there is an acknowledgment that the thing is not feasible. The general principle I always apply to the outlay of money, public or private, is, is it going to be reproductive? The Government say, practically, this is not going to be reproductive; that these railways, if constructed, will not pay their working expenses; and I think the Government ought to be ashamed to make this proposal to the British public. It has been said these railways are necessary for the congested districts; but I ask, what are the congested districts to send any produce—what produce will the rail-ways carry? You do not wan t to construct a railway to carry the people away. The fact of the matter is, it does not make men richer to have a railway passing before their doors. What is the use of the railway to a district if there is no produce to send by it? As to the fishing industry, we know that Galway Bay is remarkably well situated, with a railway running round it, the Midland Railway to Dublin; but the Galway fishermen are in the same
  900
  state of poverty with which they have been familiar for generations. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy spoke of three tons of goods carried by a line in a year, and what he was referring to, probably, was the line in County Clare, from Miltown Malbay to Ennis, over which, in a year, three tons of fish were carried. Are you going to make railways to develope the fishing industry to this extent? Surely all this about the fishing industry is an absurdity, and not worth consideration. A very objectionable feature in the Bill is that promoters of new lines are to be subsidised. Now if there is any one class of the community more open to suspicion in connection with these undertakings than another it is the promoters; a more unscrupulous lot of people I do not know, and the promoters of Irish light railways are about the worst of the class. There is only one part of the Bill for which any justification could be advanced, the first part. By this I understand it is proposed that existing Railway Companies shall be assisted to make extensions to their lines. But I do not acknowledge that even this part of the Bill is entitled to the support of the House, because if these extensions which are contemplated were really feasible and likely to pay anything over their working expenses, the Directors of the existing companies would be almost certain to make the extensions. I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that any extension could be made in any part of Ireland that would pay expenses. This first part of the Bill is the most innocent part by a very long way, and in the next part it is proposed that promoters shall have the opportunity of making a line on their own responsibility, and the county through which the line passes shall provide the working expenses, for the Government does not undertake to pay 3 per cent unless the line is worked. The limit is in one part of the Bill to 6d. in the £1, but then it goes on to say that if this is not enough the guarantee may be extended to an unlimited extent, and there is no limit to the taxation that may be laid on the unfortunate taxpayers to enable the promoters to get their 3 per cent from the Government. Suppose the people of the district come to the conclusion that undoubtedly

  901
  the line cannot pay, still the promoters will have the whip hand of them, and may force the ratepayers to pay a continual charge towards the working expenses of the line. In the proposed representation in this happy family of the promoters, the Government, and the ratepayers, the promoters will have voting control, and will have full control over funds and management. The worst evils of the Light Eailway Bill of 1883 are continued, and the ratepayers are to be plundered to a greater extent than ever. The Bill is open to so many objections, that even if it passes the Second Reading I do not see how it can become law this Session. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) found fault with the Privy Council. Now, the great objection to the Privy Council in Ireland is that it is a judicial body, consisting of a great many honorary members and a certain number of Judges, who sit and hear evidence. Now, I am not one of those who are disposed to praise Judges in a general way; but, at the same time, I think this Privy Council, in regard to these tramway schemes, did a good deal of good. They, having heard evidence, threw out the whole of the Bills. Chief Justice Morris is rather entitled to the gratitude of the Irish people for saving them from being robbed under some of the schemes promoted by the friends of my hon. and gallant Friend. There is another part of the Bill I think particularly unreasonable. I am not in the habit of referring to the Grand Jury in terms of affection; but at the same time, I do not see why all power of criticism in reference to these works should be with drawn from that body. These railways are to be of the ordinary gauge, or the three-feet gauge; but I should like to know how can these new railways be expected to carry traffic with any success or profit except in connection with the existing railway system? How can they carry on the traffic economically unless they can join other lines without unloading goods, and how can they meet all emergencies unless they can borrow rolling stock when necessary? I think I never read a Bill more carelessly drawn, more open to criticism in every part. I think the Government would do well, even if they succeed in passing the Second Reading to-night, to hang up the Bill for another
  902
  Session to give time for more mature consideration.
  Mr. PINKERTON: We have oftened listened to my hon. Friend on this subject, but I cannot say I feel any sympathy with the views he expresses, or in his solicitude for the British taxpayer, and I hope the House will not be influenced by them, for, in truth, my hon. Friend has a craze against all railway extension. Why, if it were possible to construct a railway from earth to heaven, my hon. Friend would oppose it, and give as his reason, forsooth, that the passenger traffic would not pay. I confess that having the interests of my constituents at heart, I am strongly in favour of this Light Railway Bill. If we are to wait for all reforms in Ireland until our friends and enemies are agreed upon remedial measures, then a long farewell to all improvements. It is impossible to bring forward any measure of reform that will not run counter to some person's peculiar notions. My Radical Friends are so very upright in their notions as to these reforms that they remind one of Mark Twain's good little boy whose honesty was so extreme as to be simply ridiculous. A railway will not be forced upon a district against the interest of the population. I will not say that in all cases the railways will be a financial success, but something must be done to help the congested districts. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has strangled the Drainage Bills; but I hope he and his Friends will restrain their ardour and allow this trifling remedial measure to pass unchallenged.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think that the British taxpayer stands in need of the championship of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham), or that he is likely to have a large following on this occasion. I hope, too, that hon. Members will not take the advice of the hon. Member for Cavan, because, to say that no railway is to be sanctioned but one that is likely to be a financial success, is tantamount to saying that we should do nothing in this direction for the relief of the congested districts of Ireland. If we are to do nothing for the congested districts, what are we to do for Ireland? Are we to allow the present evils to go on year after

  903
  year—a disgrace to this rich country—and offer no assistance? The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy wants to know where the congested districts are; he wants a map prepared, to be hung up, I suppose, on the Speaker's Chair, so that the districts proposed to be served may be explained. But surely there is no difficulty in finding out where the congested and impoverished districts are? The hon. Member talked about fish and Irish fishing, and the hon. Member for Cavan also talks of this industry with contempt; but I think I have heard of Bills being introduced by Members of the Party to which the hon. Member for Cavan belongs, dealing with Irish fisheries, and which were not dealt within that contemptuous way in which the hon. Member has spoken of Irish fisheries to-night. I put it to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, What is the use of the Irish fishermen catching fish if the fish are simply used as manure, because, in the absence of railway communication, they cannot reach a market? That is a sufficient reason for not catching fish. The fish are there, and the fish will be caught if the means of transport are provided. The only difficulty about the Bill is that we are now reading it a second time on the 19th July. I think I may take it for granted we shall not have an Autumn Session. Now, the difficulty we have is this—when we look at the working of the Tramways Act of 1883 which was passed at the tail end of the Session——
  An hon. Member: In two hours.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Not in a satisfactory way, I must admit, and it has not accomplished all that we desired or expected. Now, in view of this fact I think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone) is worthy of consideration. The Bill is undoubtedly one of detail, and if it were referred to the Committee on Trade, adding to that Committee a certain number of Irish Members interested in the question, there would be a better chance of those details being thoroughly threshed out than at this time of the Session in Committee of the Whole House. I am sensible of the danger to which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has referred; I know that referring a Bill to a Committee has sometimes been found a convenient
  904
  method of shelving it, and, therefore, I do not press this unduly; but it is a question to consider whether the balance of advantage would not be with the reference of the Bill to a Committee rather than by undertaking it in Committee of the Whole House. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has talked about the question of gauge, but that certainly is not a question for decision upon the Second Beading. The Government have deliberately refused to settle the question of gauge in their Bill. There are advocates of both gauges in Ireland, and the Government are content to leave it to local decision. I may remind the hon. Member for Cavan of the fact that the longest and most successful of these light railways is constructed on the three-feet gauge, and the cost of transfer of cargo to the ordinary gauge line is only about 4d. per ton. But as I say, this is not a question for Second Beading. The Government have not chosen to decide between the gauges, and we may now leave that question alone. I believe it is absolutely necessary, if we are to do anything for the congested districts, that these light railways should be made, and with considerable confidence I appeal to the House, believing that we cannot do better than pass this Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope that the House is now in a condition to come to a determination upon this stage of the Bill, and as I am anxious to avoid being the cause of unnecessary delay, I now interpose to make such observations as occur to me in reference to the Debate. Perhaps the House will allow me to deal lightly with some of the remarks made—I will not say upon the Bill—but upon topics which some hon. Gentlemen have suggested as relevant to the Bill. I should myself have been very much surprised, I might almost say disappointed, if we had not had our old friends "bribery and coercion" trotted out, the whip in one hand, the reward in the other, and all that sort of thing. I do not know why I should bore the House and bore myself by repeating what I have said on former occasions in reference to arguments of this kind, and I turn to criticisms more directly relevant to the discussion. The hon. Member

  905
  for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has told us that these railways are not wanted in congested districts because he says there will be nothing for the railways to carry, that the people are so poor that they have nothing to send or receive by railway and that they cannot afford to travel by the railway themselves. Well, I hope the hon. Member for Cavan will recognize hereafter that it will not be open to him to say, at all events, that these people are not eminently deserving of any assistance the community can safely or usefully provide. If they are really sunk so low in the depths of poverty as the hon. Member describes, if they are really so incapable of supporting themselves as he says, I hope that when he and his friends refuse to give facilities for emigration, for making railways or for building piers, he will suggest some other means by which material assistance may be given to these unhappy people. For our part, we admit with the hon. Member that the amount of commerce is not great; we admit that these railways are not likely to pay on any large scale; but what we do believe is this—that any germs of industry—fishing or agriculture—will be fostered by these railways, We believe that the means of communication between these congested districts and the outer world will conduce to their civilization and prosperity, and it is on these considerations, and not because we anticipate any large commercial return, or in some cases any commercial return at all, that we have adopted this Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham) repeated the old familiar argument that the Bill is introduced by the Government simply to improve the condition of the landlords at the taxpayers' expense. Well, the most ardent advocates of the Bill are persons not commonly supposed to be favourable to the interests of landlords. If the hon. Member goes to the West of Ireland and to the districts where, as I hope, these railways will be constructed, he will find every class of the community—priests and politicians alike, and every person who is, or fancies he is, qualified to represent the people—is ardently in favour of these railways; and the very people who conceive it to be their duty to attack the landlords are most in favour of our
  906
  proposal. I do not know that I need discuss the prospect the hon. Gentleman held out of waiting until Home Rule is established in Ireland. I understand perfectly well the arguments, such as they are, in favour of Home Rule being i granted; but is there a man in the House who really believes that the proper system of administering Imperial assistance on a large scale is to do this through a local body in no sense responsible to the taxpayer or to those in this House who vote the taxes? The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham) attacks the Board of Works. The Board of Works are accustomed to attack, and I do not say the Board of Works has never made mistakes; but, at all events, the Board of Works is responsible to this House, and it carries out its functions under the eyes of this House, and a Minister responsible for the action of the Board of Works is in this House; but if we were to carry out the scheme recommended by the hon. Gentleman, by which the money provided by Parliament should be administered by the localities alone, I conceive that the most ardent Irishman will admit that the last guarantee for economical administration would finally disappear. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has asked where the congested districts are—but I see he has gone away, and so I may neglect his argument. I will only say upon this and another point raised by another hon. Member that we scarcely think it is necessary to specify the congested districts to be dealt with, but anybody who has read the Report of the Royal Commission, or who is familiar with the condition of Ireland, will be perfectly well aware that the difficulty will not be to find congested districts, not to find areas through which a railway might be usefully constructed, but to get rid of claims that will be pressed upon us, in order that we may use to the best advantage the limited funds given by Parliament. The Royal Commission recommended certain lines, but the Government do not commit themselves to these lines. We offer no final verdict as to which are the railways that should, in the first instance, be constructed—we shall take the recommendations of the Royal Commission as a basis, to be modified if necessary as

  907
  further reflection may suggest. The hon. Member for Poplar has asked me who is the authority to decide through which district a line should go, and if, in the competition of two R0ailway Companies, the line would go through the richest or the poorest district. It will not rest with the Railway Companies to determine the question; the control will be with the Executive Government, and they will base their decision not on what will be profitable to the railway company, but on their estimate of what is useful to the country at large. I am asked also whether a more simple plan could be proposed for taking the votes by which a district may express approbation or disapprobation of a railway scheme. We shall be quite ready in Committee to consider any other plan that may be suggested, but ours, I think, is a very simple one, and it has, as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) says, the advantage of being familiar to the Local Authorities in Ireland. I do not think that any difficulty is likely to arise in the working of the plan we propose; but if any hon. Member can offer us a better one, we shall offer no obstinate resistance to the suggestion. Hon. Members opposite have advised the reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade, and I do not know that much is to be said in opposition to such a proposal, except that it might cause a delay that might possibly be fatal to the Bill for this Session. I learn that the Committee on Trade have several Bills before them, and that they will not meet until Thursday. Under these circumstances, I think we should be risking more than we are likely to gain by taking the course of referring the Bill to the Trade Committee. I need only say, in conclusion, that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham) and his friends take a singular view of their duty when they acknowledge that they owe this measure as a debt to Ireland, but yet would defer the payment of this debt indefinitely until they can pay another debt they conceive they owe to Ireland. I would say to the hon. Member, let him be honest while he can. The other debt I understand to be Home Rule. Well, the payment of that debt, as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway has said, must be in the dim and distant
  908
  future. [Cries of "No, no," and "Next Election!"] I am only quoting the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I used no such poetical language as the "dim and distant future."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I will put it in more qualified terms, the hon. Gentleman anticipated that it might be eight or nine years. But I would seriously advise hon. Gentlemen in. public as well as in private affairs to pay their debts while they can, and when they can, and not to refuse to pay an instalment because they have to postpone for an unknown period the clearing off the whole. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who are fond of casting in our teeth that we do not sufficiently consider Irish opinion. Well, on this question of light railways Irish opinion is more unanimous than I have ever known Irish opinion on any other question. Every Irish Member on this side is in favour of the Government Bill and every Irish Member on the other side, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Cavan. ["No."] At any rate, the hon. Member for Cavan is the only Irish Member who has spoken against it, and those who agree with him are in a very small minority. The hon. Member for Bristol has now an opportunity of showing his practical belief in two fundamental articles of his creed in regard to Ireland. The first article is that we should pay our debts towards Ireland (and here is a debt we all acknowledge); the second article of his creed is that we should act in Ireland as Irishmen desire, and here is a chance of carrying out this article of his creed also. But I am afraid that brought to this practical test the airy theories of the hon. Gentleman dissolve into nothingness, and make manifest to the world their inherent emptiness and vanity. I hope the House will now be content to go to a Division, if Division there is to be.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to admit that he does not expect that the public money expended under this Bill will bring any commercial return whatever. I think that such an opinion as that, coming from a Minister of the Crown, is not very encouraging to those who are asked to

  909
  squander public money. The way in which the proposal has been treated by hon. Members from Ireland shows that they are going to get the money very cheaply, and that they are indifferent as to whether there is any return for it. I want to know where these railways are to be made, and where is the traffic that is to keep them going? We hear something about the fisheries, and I have no doubt that good will be done on some of the coasts if these light railways are made. But if you are going to treat Ireland to light railways in one district you must do it in others also, and if you are going to do that, the sum proposed under this Bill will be totally inadequate. I think the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was not far from wrong in saying that when these projects are carried into law jobbery is inevitable. We have had some illustrations lately of the impartiality of the Government in dealing with these questions. Can anyone doubt that these railways will be made in the North of Ireland, inasmuch as the Government have to determine the localities? The West of Ireland, where the greatest distress prevails, will be neglected. We have had illustrations within the last 12 months of how public money is used when it is under the control of Government. The course that has been followed with regard to the Irish Drainage Bills is an illustration of the one-sidedness of the Government. Four Bills were brought in, and the one that was put forward was the Bann Drainage Bill, the Bann being in the loyal part of the North of Ireland. That Bill having been secured, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has shown marvellous philosophy in abandoning the others. I have no faith whatever in a project of this kind, organized in this way, and carried out by the machinery proposed. One of two things must happen; either the generosity of the House of Commons will be exhausted in one or two projects, or Parliament will be applied to over and over again to grant money to some favoured district in Ireland, other districts being left disregarded. The avenues there are for jobbery under this Bill leave us very little hope that this is a means whereby Ireland can be solidly and permanently benefited. I deny that we are really going to benefit Ireland, and to meet the obligations we
  910
  owe to her, by squandering public money in this matter. The first thing is to get Irish self-government. All these exotic means of stimulating Irish enterprise can only have one miserable ending. Ireland is strewn with experiments of the kind in which enormous sums of money have been wasted. Public money expended in this way is never worth more than 10s. in the £1, because it is impossible for the Government to superintend the expenditure properly and economically. It has hitherto been the function of Parliament to scrutinize with the greatest vigilance schemes originating outside this House, but this scheme is of the most hasty and vague character, and nothing has been put before Parliament to pledge the Government as to what they are to do, and how they are to do it. Under such circumstances you are suspending the duties of the House of Commons, and I do not hesitate to say that even if I had some belief that good would come out of this and kindred measures I should say—"Let more time be given for the consideration of the question, and let the scheme be more definitely put before us."
  MR. BLANE: This Bill will not meet with much opposition from me, although I have not much regret for the British taxpayer. If he is good enough to expend this money, I hold no brief from him, and I am content that he should do as he likes. On the face of it this Bill looks very fair, but I know something about the working of elections and so forth in Ireland, and I know that this Bill is confined to what are known as the immediate lessors. The schemes must no doubt come before the grand juries, but in certain districts grand jurors would scarcely get two nominations for any Parliamentary or municipal appointment. And it is to these men and to the Secretary to the Grand Jury and the County Surveyor, the payment of whose salaries are in the hands of the grand juries, that the decision as to the making of these railways will be entrusted. In every case in which you confide in the grand jury you have jobbery of the worst description. The Chief Secretary will probably make a railway in Donegal. Well, so would I. But whom will that railway benefit? It will benefit certain land-

  911
  lords. I have driven for miles through Donegal without making any progress [Laughter.] I have driven miles through Donegal and have made very little progress, for the reason that it was a circular road which led me to within about half a mile of where I started. It apparently is a laughing matter for the Government that the land-grabbers would have these circular roads. I can refer the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to maps in this House to show that such roads exist between Dunfanaghy and Letterkenny. They are made to go along the margin of the property of landlords so that the latter can get the benefit of the purchase. The County Surveyor is not a free agent in the matter. The people who are rated under £4 5s. a year will have no voice in the decisions respecting these schemes, though anyone who has travelled through Donegal knows that there are people there rated as low as £2 a year. You give these people a right to elect a Member of Parliament, but you will give them no voice in the making of a rail way. There is no tribunal to which they will be able to apply to prevent jobbery. It is to the interest of the grand jurors to have jobbery, and so they cannot apply to them. Under this Bill the landlords will be made judges in their own cause, and they will execute their own judgments. I think the Bill should be amended so that every householder entitled to vote for a Member of Parliament should have some voice as to whether a railway should be made or not. The Board of Works, which is to execute these schemes, is a notoriously expensive body. There are piers built by it on the Donegal coast well within a line of reefs so that no ship can get near them; and yet it is into the hands of these men that you are going to give the making of the line.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not intend to vote in favour of the Bill, because I should be sorry to be responsible either for some of the principles which the Bill contains, or for any of the as yet unauthorised schemes which may be brought forward; but, regarding the question from the point of view of an Irish Member, I do not feel justified in voting against the Bill, because it proposes to devote Imperial funds to projects
  912
  ostensibly of public utility in Ireland. Some hon. Members regard the Bill as a bribe. The only way of testing the efficacy of a bribe is to give it. For my part I do not think the Bill will operate successfully as a bribe, but I shall be glad to let the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) carry his folly out. The right hon. Gentleman evidently believes that by subventions like this he can favourably affect public opinion in Ireland with regard to his policy, and I think, Sir, there will be a certain political usefulness, and even a certain moral utility, in allowing him to offer his policy or his bribes to the Irish people. I shall be pleased to see the Bill passed into law, because I believe that its working will destroy the last pretence that any policy of Imperial subvention can divert the Irish people from the path of moral rectitude or political justice.
  MR. CRILLY: I am going to vote in favour of the Bill, and I prefer not to give a silent vote. I want to repudiate once for all the idea that because I am going to support the Bill I am going to accept it as a bribe. It shows a very poor confidence in the patriotism and the strength of the Nationalist sentiment of our people for anyone to say the National cause will be weakened in Ireland for a moment by allowing the Government to spend this money in the development of the fishing and other industries of Ireland. Perhaps I would pursue the same course as some of my Colleagues if I did not represent one of the congested districts of Ireland. This may be a bribe, Sir, but I know what poverty and wretchedness exist in the district of North Mayo I represent—a district stretching from Ballina to Belmullet, a distance of 40 miles—and I am perfectly confident that if by some means you can open up that large tract of country you will contribute very largely to the happiness and comfort of those unfortunate people. I am willing to confess that there is very much indeed in the criticism that has been passed upon the Bill. I am aware that the two bodies that will be entrusted with power under it are bodies in which we have no confidence at all. I would, however, point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), in opposing the Bill, said he had every

  913
  confidence in the Privy Council, because when the Privy Council was applying the Tramways Act they threw out a number of worthless schemes. I have no doubt that if worthless schemes under this Bill come before the Privy Council and Chief Justice Morris they will reject them also. I found my justification for supporting the Bill partly on the statement of my hon. Friend and Colleague, but, as far as I can judge, the opposition offered to the measure by some of my hon. Friends and Colleagues around me relates more to matters of detail than to the main principle. I repudiate the idea that this can bribe the Irish people, because I have more confidence in the strength of the patriotism of my countrymen than to think that they would be turned aside from the pursuit of self-government by a consideration of so trivial a character, and I would hesitate, knowing the poverty and wretchedness of these districts, before I rejected such a measure as this. For my own part, I do not particularly care for the British taxpayer. England has taken a large amount of money out of Ireland, and I think we are justified in getting some of it back when we have the opportunity. You have made the poverty and wretchedness of Ireland by your misgovernment, and it is therefore your duty to make us some sort of compensation. I am aware that if we had self-government—if the principles advocated by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) were applied to Ireland—it would undoubtedly be better to receive that money from an Irish Parliament, and have it applied by Irish Local Authorities, created and nurtured by an Irish representative body. But at present there are people in the West of Ireland who are undergoing daily and hourly suffering, and anything that will help to develop the fishing industry of that part of Ireland we ought to welcome, and certainly ought not to oppose. If some sort of communication were opened up with the part of Ireland which I represent, you would find the same sort of testimony from Mayo and Galway as I have here in the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has asked where are the fish to be caught, if these railways are made? Now, in this
  914
  Report of Sir Francis Brady, which extends over 120 pages, it is shown that the fishing industry of Ireland, if properly looked after, would bring enormous capital to Ireland, and great comfort to countless people. I see from page 11 of the Report that last year we had a large demand for salted mackerel for America, as many as 4,000,000 of mackerel being caught, or over 53,000 barrels, a quantity representing 1,500 tons, or a money value of over £17,000 to the fishermen and curers. If this result can be produced in regard to one item of export to one country in the world, what might not be expected if you developed the fisheries sufficiently to enable fish to be supplied in the same way to the London and other markets? Some of those around me seem to sneer at what I am stating. My hon. Friend the Member for West Meath does not seem to agree with me, and I hope he will rise in his place and give the reasons for the faith that is in him. At all events, I, for one, am not content on this occasion to give a silent vote. I intend to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I propose to go a step further than my right hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton.) I do not wish to thwart the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his act of folly—if it be an act of folly. If it is found to be an act of folly the consequences will fall on his head; if it is not an act of folly, but one the benefit of which will fall on the Irish people, then let them have the advantage of the boon. If it be read a second time, the measure can either be referred to a Select Committee or be considered in Committee of the whole House. But it strikes me that you are proposing to put the application of the Bill into the hands of the wrong people. The Grand Jurors of Ireland are bodies in whom the people have no confidence. We believe that the money will, to a large extent, be wasted—that it will be, perhaps, misused to some extent; but, nevertheless, if you desire that the British taxpayer should pay us £600,000 we are willing to take it, in the expectation that it will do some good to our unfortunate people whom you have robbed and oppressed and degraded down to the present time.
  The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 31.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. PHILIPPS: I am sorry the Government are not going to send this Bill to a Select Committee; if they did I think they would find that in many parts of Ireland the Bill was not regarded with favour. The Chief Secretary has told us we ought not to wait for the passing of this Bill until the Local Government Bill for Ireland has been passed. I do not think it would be such a terrible time to wait, for was not the Government programme an English Local Government Bill for last Session, a Scotch Local Government Bill for this Session, and an Irish Local Government Bill for next Session? We should therefore only have to wait eight or nine months, and surely it would be better for the Irish County Councils to deal with this matter than to attempt to force the Bill through this House at the tail end of a Session. Now we are asked to add to our National Debt, in order to make a present to Ireland. For my part I am rather sorry to have to vote against making railways anywhere. I am inclined to hold that the railways should be in the hands of the State, but that is not the nature of the Government proposal; under this Bill the Government is to spend public money in making the railways, and the promoters will reap the benefit. I notice that the second clause of the Bill begins very curiously. It says the Bill shall not extend to England or Scotland. Why not? There are many places in Scotland where light railways might be constructed at the public expense with considerable advantage to the people of those districts; there are, for instance, one or two villages in my own Division, which have no railway communication, but which would be greatly benefited by having it. I object to the Bill being framed in this way; if its provisions are good for Ireland, they must be equally good for England and Scotland; if it is a bad Bill, then it ought to be thrown out altogether. The Irish Members themselves are divided in opinion about it; the hon. Member for Galway is strongly
  916
  in favour of it, while the hon. Member for Cavan and other Irish Members are equally strong against it. I admit that it is a difficult thing for an Irish Member or any other Member to vote against a Bill which, whatever it may do for the public generally, must, for a time at least, be a benefit to his own district, because it is a benefit to any place to have money spent on it, English or Scotch Members would be put in a difficult position if the Government proposed to make say an unremunerative railway or canal in their districts. Their constituents would say that the spending of money among them was beneficial, and they would not understand the action of their Member, if on public grounds he voted against the scheme. I am glad to know that some Irish Members are opposing this Bill, despite the fact that it will temporarily benefit their districts. I have been sorry to hear one or two of them say they do not care a penny for the interests of the British taxpayer, for I do think that utterances like that lose the Irish cause some support. The hon. Member for Galway asks us not to check Irish development, or to delay it some eight or ten years until the Home Rule Bill is passed. I do not think so long will elapse before the grant of Home Rule to Ireland, and I do not hold that the English taxpayer ought to be called upon to give money as proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member for Galway has worked it out in his own mind that Ireland pays £8,200,000 to England and gets no benefit for it; and he argues that every penny raised in Ireland should be spent in that country—not necessarily in remunerative works. But is that principle one capable of general adaptation either to Great Britain or Ireland? Is it possible for money raised in a given district to be spent solely in that district? How, under such circumstances, could the Government of the country be carried on? I hold that money ought not to be given as a free gift, except in times of famine and distress, and that it should only be advanced when there is a fair chance of its being repaid. I regret there is no single Member on the front Opposition Bench present to give us his views on this Bill. We, below the gangway, suffer much from the tu quoques hurled at us in these matters. We are told

  917
  that our own leaders when in office agreed to spend money in this way. We do not care if they did. We should oppose such a proposal if submitted by a Liberal Government just as fiercely as we are now opposing this Bill. It has been said outside that the Radicals below the Gangway are something like the tail wagging the dog. I believe we are getting to wag it harder every day, and the sooner the Front Bench recognise that fact, the better it will be for the Liberal Party as a whole. [Cheers.] I do not think the Conservatives need cheer that statement as they are doing, for the harder the tail wags the dog the worse it will be for them. I beg to move that the Bill be read again this day three months.
  MR. SPEAKER: That Motion may not be made. The House has ordered that "The words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BIGGAR: I do not want to speak at any length on this stage of the Bill. At the same time, I wish to make some remarks upon the former discussions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has appealed to me to propound a scheme for the relief of the congested districts of Ireland. There is not the slightest doubt that in some parts of Ireland the bulk of the people live on small holdings of very indifferent land. In very many cases there is adjoining these holdings comparatively good land owned by the same landlord. It does not require a very great sketch of ingenuity to point out a very convenient way of remedying the present state of things. The great complaint in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland was that the crofters were kept to small pieces of land, while the grazing land was taken from them for deer forests and sporting lands. I am disposed to suggest the inversion of that principle in the case of Ireland. I suggest that in the congested districts of Ireland the land adjoining the present holdings, and from which in all probability tenants have been evicted, should be taken by compulsion and cut up into small farms and added to the holdings of the people. That would afford the people a larger extent of land on which to employ their labour, and as a rule it would be better land than that they now hold. This talk about congested
  918
  districts is all moonshine and claptrap. There is plenty of land ready for cultivation in the immediate neighbourhood of every one of the so-called congested districts, and which could be let to the people at reasonable rent if the landlords were so disposed. The letting of this laud would at once do away with the cry of congestion. To talk of improving the condition of these people by making railways amongst them is the merest nonsense in the world. Hon. Members say it will give some employment to the people while the lines are being made. Of course it will, but after all that benefit will only be temporary. The difficulty will recur as soon as the money is spent. If you will give increased holdings, which you are able to do, the benefit will be permanent. There is no occasion for the people of Ireland to emigrate. There is not too large a population now. The population has been cut down from eight to five millions, and the advocates, of emigration would bring it down to three millions. They would emigrate the stout and young, and leave the old behind, and of course poverty would continue.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I desire to say a word or two in explanation of the fact that, though I am one of the Members representing a county supposed to be specially interested in the passing of this Bill, I do not find myself able to support the Bill. If we had an Irish Parliament and the Bill were introduced, then I should not be able to support it. The fact of its being introduced here makes no difference in my judgment. The fact that the money is drawn from what is called the British Exchequer makes no difference in point of principle. I must admit I am rather sick of hearing about the British taxpayer and the British Exchequer. The money in question is not British money; it is Irish money, and if you doubled or quadrupled or multiplied by ten the sum you propose to advance or give under this Bill, the sum would not touch the fringe of the debt you owe to Ireland. When sums of money are to be voted as under this Bill for purposes in this country, we do not hear much of the interests of the Irish taxpayer. When you raised eleven millions sterling for fortifications abroad and spent it along your own coasts, you had

  919
  very little regard for the taxpayers of Ireland, and therefore the interests of the British taxpayer, which are not at all touched in the matter, influence me very little. But as I said, if this were an Irish Parliament I should not be disposed to support the Bill. In the first place, I doubt altogether the policy which is embodied in the Bill. I doubt very much whether it is really for the good of the community that the Executive Government should undertake, in whole or in part, works of this description. If these works are likely to be reasonably remunerative there is plenty of capital even in impoverished Ireland to meet the case. When a thing likely to pay is in the market in Ireland plenty of money is forthcoming. Guinness's Brewery and the Freeman's Journal show that. It is perfectly plain from the mere fact that you cannot get private capital to venture itself in this business that there is no reasonable prospect of the undertakings suggested being remunerative. If they are not remunerative who is to bear the burden? Not those who decide upon the lines, but the unfortunate occupiers—in my county, at least, very poor people—and the people who will have to bear the burden if the undertakings are not remunerative, are not the people who are allowed to have a voice in the management. The men who are to determine whether the undertakings are to be adopted and pushed on are men who in many cases have no interest in the country whatsoever. The Grand Jury of Donegal, which is to be the deciding authority in Donegal, is composed chiefly of men who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the county, who have no property there, who very seldom, if ever, are seen within the county, and some of whom have no property at all in Ireland. How they have got on the Grand Jury is a mystery, but there they are and have been for years. And these are the men who have to decide whether the whole barony are to be taxed for an undertaking which, under the most satisfactory and the most hopeful circumstances, could scarcely be expected to pay its way, and which are to be taken in hand by a body as unsatisfactory as the Grand Jury itself—namely, the Board of Works. As already remarked this evening, the coasts of Donegal are at this moment studded
  920
  with monuments to the folly and incompetency of the Board of Works, and you are going to give the Board of Works power to spend more money—tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands—on works which you have no reasonable ground for supposing ever can pay their working expenses. Under these circumstances, I certainly could not find it in my power to support such a Bill, even if brought forward by an Irish Administration. Certainly I cannot support it now; but, at the same time, because I believe that some good may be done to some poor people if the lines, however botched, however badly managed, are undertaken and carried out at the expense of the Treasury to which they have contributed according to their means, I do not find myself in a position to oppose the Bill. I regret the reckless, bad, and shameful maladministration which has marked this kind of work in Ireland before. I see nothing in the present proposal to lead me to hope that the present instance will be an improvement on what has gone before, and therefore I decline to have a hand in passing the Bill, or to assume any responsibility in connection with it. But, in the interest of the poor people who may be benefited by the expenditure of the money, which might otherwise be spent on fortifications in this country, I shall certainly not oppose the measure.
  The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 28.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to give notice that on Monday I propose to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL (No. 292.)
  Order for the consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.
  New Clause—(Application of Act to foreign ships,)—(Mr. Gainsford Bruce,)—brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH): I have had a good deal of correspondence

  921
  on the subject of this clause. I accept it in principle, but, if I had seen my hon. and learned Friend five minutes sooner, I would have suggested its adoption in another form, namely——
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then I ask my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his clause, and I will move an amendment in another place.
  MR. GAINSFORD BRUCE: I am quite willing to adopt that course. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to accept the principle of the clause, I have moved, and I can see that any matter affecting the relations of the Government to foreign ships must be left in the hands of the Government, and that it would be unwise in any private member to force a particular form of words upon the Government in so delicate a matter.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, and I think I shall easily show that the insertion of this clause is necessary in order to secure what I take to be the main purpose of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade will agree with me when I say that this Bill arose out of the representations made to him by the Harbour and Dock Authorities of the country that in consequence of flaws in the Acts of 1854 and 1867, a certain class' of steamship owners—a small clans' I am happy to say—have so contrived to alter their ships so as to evade various harbour customs of the country and defeat the true intentions of the law. I move that—
  "Under the 23rd Section (b) of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the deduction shall not exceed 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of any ship."
  The section quoted in my Amendment is that which provides for the deduction of gross tonnage by measurement, and the provision is—
  "Whenever such measurement is so required the deduction shall consist of the tonnage of the space actually occupied by or required to be enclosed for the proper working of the boilers and machinery, with the addition in the case of ships propelled by paddle wheels of one-half, and in the case of ships propelled by
  922
  screws of three-fourths of the tonnage of such space."
  That clause of the Merchant Shipping Act has been so worked that many steamships sailing under the British flag, instead of paying on two-thirds or one-half, or even one-third of their gross tonnage to the Local Dues, pay only upon a minute fraction. The President of the Board of Trade is well aware of the case of the Anglesea, a passenger-carrying boat, trading between Holyhead and Dublin, a ship which has a gross tonnage of 877, and yet only pays dues on 45 tons, about one-twentieth of her gross tonnage. The Royal Commission of 1881 reported—
  "The existing allowances (for propelling power space) are neither equal in their operation, nor based on any sound principle … under the present condition of steam navigation."
  That is the first authority which I cite in favour of my Amendment. My Amendment would be reasonable and just, even if the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman remained as originally introduced, because if it cannot be denied that the deduction proposed is a fair one, I conceive the right hon. Gentleman must admit that it is desirable that there should be security for the establishment of what I may call general equity between shipowners on the one hand and the Harbour and Dock Authorities on the other. The Bill, as introduced, provides that in the measurement of a ship for the purpose of ascertaining the registered tonnage no deduction should be allowed in respect of any space which has not been first included in the measurement of her tonnage, and this carries out what the right bon. Gentleman in his memorandum declares to be the main object of his Bill. So that if the Bill had remained as it originally stood, and as we were led to believe the right hon. Baronet would persevere with it, there would have been no complaint to make. The operation of the law with respect to propelling power space was this. The over-deck light and air space could not be used for cargo, stores, passengers or crew, and could not have been included in the gross tonnage, and, therefore, could not have been excluded from the nett tonnage with 75 per cent added. The first clause would have prevented those invasions of the

  923
  law which became possible under the Isabella decision, and shipowners would have had no inducement to build or alter their ships so as to bring them in the same category as the Isabella. But the right hoc. Baronet in the Grand Committee allowed himself to be coerced by a group of shipowners into inserting the second clause in the Bill. I should have argued against that clause and have taken a Division against it, only as the right hon. Baronet knows, at the moment of the introduction of that clause the Grand Committee was so constituted that it would have been hopeless to oppose him. The second clause enacts that in the case of any ship measured after the passing of the Act the owners of that ship may deduct the light and air space over-deck from the gross tonnage, and take advantage of that deduction to deduct it from the nett tonnage, provided that the arrangement has the approval of a Board of Trade Surveyor as reasonable in extent. Well, the House does not know what the Surveyor of the Board of Trade may consider to be reasonable in extent. It is by means of her peculiar construction of over-deck spaces that the Anglesea has been able to plunder the Harbour Authorities of Dublin, and unless the Bill is amended so as to prevent this it will be worthless in regard to every ship built after the passing of the Act, because shipowners will take care to provide themselves with such lighting and air structures over-deck, that the question so far as future ships are concerned will remain where it stood after the Isabella decision, and before the introduction of the Bill. I regard such a thing with apprehension, because the Dublin Harbour Authorities have been plundered of £11,000 a year by means of the peculiar construction of the Anglesea, and they have, in consequence, been compelled to suspend important works, and to dismiss a number of officials. My Amendment, which would have been just even if the second clause had not been introduced, with that clause in the Bill is rendered absolutely necessary, because ft is obvious that we shall have no security but the opinion of a Surveyor of the Board of Trade against the multiplication of Isabellas and Angleseas. There is nothing novel in the Amendment; its
  924
  principle is already in the Bill. I have not heard anyone say that 50 per cent; is an unfair limitation of deduction for propelling power, and light and airspace. I do not remember that in the Committee anyone had the courage to say anything of the kind. I would submit to the shipowners that it is to their interest to favour the Amendment, because there are at the present moment 9,000 steamers sailing under the flag of the British Mercantile Marine, the greater number of which pay not on half their gross tonnage, which would be the maximum they would pay on under my Amendment, but on two-thirds. I am assured on the best authority that if the Amendment were carried it would apply to only 350 steamers out of the 9,000. I see opposite an hon. Member who spoke in the Grand Committee, and who is certainly the ablest representative of the shipowning interest in the House, and I put it to him whether it is not discreditable for a large body owning as I say 9,000 vessels, to resist an Amendment of this kind, to shelter the owners of 350 ships who have taken advantage of the law, and have either built or altered their ships so as to enable them within the influence of the-decision in the Isabella case to evade the payment of just tonnage dues. I would point out that the proposal on this subject of the Royal Commission, which sat eight years ago (paragraph 43) (g) was accompanied by the following proviso:—
  "Provided always that the deduction for propelling space shall not exceed 33 per cent of the gross tonnage of screw and 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of paddle steamers."
  I do not propose to deal with screw steamers differently than with paddle steamers. This recommendation was signed by several hon. Members opposite and others, including Mr. Norwood, Sir John Stokes, Sir Edward Reed, Sir J. P. Corry (Member for Mid Armagh), and the late Sir William Pearce. They signed this proviso; and now when I propose to give the shipowners an allowance, not of 33 per cent for propelling spate, but of 50 per cent, I trust they will see the equity not only of abstaining from opposing the Amendment, but of supporting it. Then, as to the practice of foreign countries, the almost universal practice is to allow 50 per cent

  925
  for light and air space. In France it is 40 per cent. The United States is the only maritime country where there is no deduction on account of propelling apace, but that is due to the fact that the system of deduction from the gross tonnage has not yet been introduced in that country. If my Amendment is adopted, it will be an indication to shipowners that they must not begin to built or alter ships in the style of the Isabella or the Anglesea. Unless the right hon. Baronet assents to the introduction of the Amendment, I shall be obliged to divide the House against Clause 2, which practically means the repeal of Clause 1. I will only further say that the Bill does not carry out the pledge which the right hon. Baronet gave to the Harbour and Dock Authorities; that it will not remove the grievance; and that the question of this unredressed grievance, which will be all the more galling as an opportunity for redress has arrived and has not been availed of, will continue to press itself embarrassingly and continually on the time of this House. I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.
  New Clause (Maximum deduction for gross tonnage,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The grievance which the Harbour and Dock Authorities brought under my notice now some months ago, and which I endeavoured to remedy by the introduction of this Bill, is that in calculating the nett tonnage of a ship for dock or light dues, deductions are allowed for crew and light and air spaces which have not been previously reckoned in calculating the gross tonnage of the ship. That grievance, I venture to say is effectually removed by the provisions of the Bill. The first clause provides that in the measurement of a ship for the purpose of ascertaining her registered tonnage no deduction shall be allowed in respect to any space that has not been first included in the measure-
  926
  ment of her gross tonnage. The Bill originally consisted exclusively of the first clause, and in that shape it was referred to the Standing Committee, the great question at issue then being whether that clause should be retrospective or not. After very careful, painstaking, and patient discussion of the point at issue, the Standing Committee agreed, by a large majority, to limit the retrospective effect of the clause in the manner now provided by the Bill—namely, that the section shall not apply until after the expiration of five years from the date of the passing of the Act to existing ships. I should have been very well content if the Bill passed by the Standing Committee had contained nothing more than that first clause; but the Standing Committee thought fit to insert the remaining clauses now included in the measure, those clauses being placed on the Paper by hon. Gentlemen possessing a great knowledge of this subject. They were framed on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and contain propositions to the fairness of which I could take no exception. I doubted the wisdom of adding to the Bill, but the Committee overruled my objection and inserted these fresh clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast will admit, I think, that what I have stated is correct, but he complains that the second clause which was inserted in the Bill on the Motion of the hon. Member for Armagh will in future give to ships built or measured after the passing of this Act such allowances as will reduce their net tonnage almost as low as it has been possible to reduce it hitherto, owing to what is known as the Isabella decision. But let me point out that there is nothing unfair in the clause itself. The light and air spaces to which it refers under the law as it at present stands have been allowed, I think, very unfortunately, to be deducted in calculating the net tonnage of a ship, but not to be first included in calculating its gross tonnage.
  MR. SEXTON: With a premium added.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes. Now, the clause provides that, if the owner of a ship so requires, those light and air spaces may be included in calculating the net tonnage, provided that they

  927
  Lave been first included in the measurement of the gross tonnage. That is obviously fair.
  MR. SEXTON: No; because 75 per cent is added.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is the law. But what are these light and air spaces? I venture to say they are of the greatest importance to the safety of the ship and the health of the crew; and it certainly should be the desire of Parliament, as everyone practically acquainted with the subject will admit, to encourage in every fair way the proper provision of light and air spaces as proposed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that shipbuilders in future will make these spaces so large that they will obtain deductions for propelling power sufficient to render the tonnage liable to dues almost nil, as has been the case with a certain class of ships under the Isabella decision. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I stated before the Committee as to this clause, and the Amendment that was inserted in it at my instance—that
  "Such spaces cannot be so included in the measurement of a ship, or deducted unless the Surveyor appointed by the Board of Trade certifies that the portion so framed in is reasonable in extent."
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman, if it is any consolation to him, or to those on whose behalf he is speaking, that I will take care to provide that such rules shall be framed by the Board of Trade for the guidance of its surveyors as will effectually prohibit any such evasion of the clause as the right hon. Gentleman fears is likely to occur. I think that is all I have to say with reference to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think his Amendment would be fair to a certain class of steam ships looking at the large amount of light and air space that is necessary for the working of their machinery. It would result in a large increase not only in dues charged to such ships as come under the Isabella decision, but in dues charged to such ships as were measured
  928
  under the law as it stood before the Isabella decision. I do not think it is an alteration that Parliament ought to make, and I resisted it when the right hon. Gentleman proposed it in the standing Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: I never proposed it.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Well, when a proposal was made by another hon. Member, and a suggestion was offered for the limitation of that proposal by the right hon. Gentleman. This Bill, which relates to a very technical and difficult subject, has been a matter of most careful consideration by the Standing Committee, and I hope that the House will adhere to the decision at which the Standing Committee, by a large majority, arrived, and will pass the Bill in its main provisions as it stands.
  MR. NORRIS: I rise to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Belfast, though in so doing I am sorry to place myself in conflict with some of my warmest Friends on this side of the House. In this matter I represent the whole of the Docks on the north side of the Thames; therefore, the House will admit that I have a right to speak on this occasion. I represent some £20,000,000 whose shareholders are languishing for want of dividends, whilst my hon. Friends, the shipowners around me, represent capital that has been returning handsome dividends for some time. I am not hostile to the shipping interest, but I think this Bill does not provide for a safe, fair, and proper equilibrium between the interests-of dock companies and those of the shipowners. This subject is somewhat complicated and technical, as the clause in the original Act dealing with tonnage measurement amply testifies. I have only found myself, after days and weeks of careful study, able to master the technicalities of the present Bill, and one hon. Member, a large shipowner, has informed me that he took four and a half hours to read the Bill, and in the end was completely mystified. Still, we must look at the merits of the question. It is owing to the extremely bad drafting of existing Acts on that subject that the present difficulty in connection with this matter has arisen.

  929
  What we now require is a clear and consistent measure. So far as I understand it, the Bill does not interfere with the great shipping interests of the country. It will not interfere with hon. Members of this House, but only with those people who are endeavouring to take advantage of a clause in an Act of Parliament to evade payment of dues which it was never intended that they should evade. The second clause, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast has pointed out, is opposed to the first, as it will enable the Board of Trade surveyor to vary that provision. It will be seen, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) has stated, that this will affect but a small and almost infinitesimal part of the great shipping interest, only some 350 ships out of 9,000 registered in the United Kingdom. The Anglesea, with 877 tons gross measurement, was registered at only 160 tons; the Duchess of Sutherland, 446 tons, was actually registered at 101. Therefore advantage is taken somehow of Dock Companies, Harbour and Pier Trusts. It is monstrous that ships carrying cargoes of 500 or 600 tons should pay only on 45 or 50 tons. With regard to the suggestion that the Bill as first drawn was retrospective, I venture to say that, in the first instance, it was only a prospective Bill. I venture to think that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer became aware of a man returning his income at £3,000, and that his income was actually £5,000, he would not consider it a retrospective policy if he were required to pay on the higher amount at once. Take another illustration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, with some ground of fairness, that the domestic department of a house should be exempt from Property Tax, I do not think that he would admit that a man paying Property Tax should deduct from the value of that Property Tax, not having first added that proportion. But shipowners would deduct from the tonnage of their ships what, in the first instance, they did not add. I. was surprised, I must say, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham should have suggested in Committee that they should have five years of
  930
  grace before coming under the provisions of the Bill; and, for my own part, if it had not been proposed by so high an authority, I should have put an Amendment on the Paper that three years would be a sufficient allowance to make to shipowners. I think, on any ground, there is just cause for moving the Amendment. I believe myself that if the House looks at it in a common-sense way, hon. Members will agree that 50 per cent for propelling power is amply sufficient allowance. All other countries allow a deduction of only 50 per cent, and in France only 40 per cent is allowed. It will not affect the great ship-owning firms of the country; it will not affect those which are reasonable and fair; it will only affect those who wish to evade the law; and I would therefore appeal to all hon. Gentlemen who represent the outports of the Kingdom, and those who represent constituencies like those in the East End of London, interested in docks and shipping industries, to support the Amendment, for it is certainly only just towards dock property, and I think the House will feel it meets the justice of the case.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I approach this subject with a great deal of diffidence, because of the extremely technical character of the subject. The hon. Member who has just spoken has demonstrated in a highly picturesque manner the extreme difficulty any man who is not a Senior Wrangler must experience in understanding how the measurement of the tonnage of a ship is arrived at. But there are certain things that even ant inexperienced person like myself can understand. I must say, the way in which this Bill came out of the Standing Committee was disappointing to many of those at whose instance the Bill was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Experienced persons say that the second clause, framed as it is at the present time, will not have the effect of preventing evasions of the law in such cases as that known as the Anglesea case, though, to a certain extent, it will prevent cases like the Isabella case, which was a question of crew space. It will, to a certain extent, prevent a recurrence of cases like that of the

  931
  Isabella, so far as that related to crew I space; but it will not prevent any future case like the Isabella as regards light and air, so experienced persons tell me. It seems to me that the Amendment the Lord Mayor of Dublin has proposed is one consistent with the provisions of the Bill as it has come out of the Standing Committee, and at the same time it is consistent with the practice of other countries. In a country like this surely it is of great importance that the law in relation to the measurement of the tonnage of vessels for the purpose of dock and harbour dues should be brought into harmony with that of other maritime countries. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) does not propose a proviso to the second clause. He proposes a subsequent and general clause. His proposal is, in substance, that in no case shall a greater reduction be allowed for propelling power than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage—though I may not be absolutely correct, that is the general effect. We find when the exceptions were introduced in the first clause in the Standing Committee that it is provided that these exemptions shall not extend to any ship in cases where the propelling power space exceeds 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the ship. So that, by their amendment of the first clause, the Standing Committee recognized and gave effect to the principle that the propelling power space should not exceed 50 per cent of the gross tonage.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, that is not quite so. The effect of the Amendment is this—it leaves to ships which would have more than 60 per cent, allowance for propelling power that allowance for propelling power, under the law as it stood before the Isabella case, so long as they choose to claim it, but it forbids them the advantage of five years' exemption from the first part of the first clause. That is the meaning of the Amendment.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation; it is a matter not easy to understand; but I am not sure that I differ at all from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when I say that in the first clause this general principle is laid down—
  932
  that in the measurement of a ship for the purpose of ascertaining her tonnage nothing is to be deducted from the gross tonnage that has not, in the first instance, been included. But then follow certain exemptions, among others that vessels which have been measured under the Isabella decision are to retain the advantage they obtained by that measurement for five years, but then there come words providing that this exemption—that is, the Isabella exemption, to put it shortly—shall not extend to any ship in a case in which the allowance for propelling power space exceeds 50 per cent, of the gross tonnage of the vessel. I may be wrong; I dare say I am; but if I am, I am quite willing to be corrected. But I take it the meaning is that in the Isabella case the period of five years' exemption if the propelling space exceeds 50 per cent, of the gross tonnage attaches. That is how I understand it. Well, I say that in the first clause as it stands in the Bill the principle that the propelling power space should not exceed a certain per centage, in this case 50 per cent, of the gross tonnage, has been admitted, and now I understand the object of the Amendment of the Lord Mayor of Dublin is to make this principle, admitted into the first clause, so far as the exemptions are concerned, applicable to the whole of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has good authority for that. He has quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission the plain words used by Members of that Commission who are still Members of this House, and whose support, therefore, he ought to have, recommending that the reduction for propelling space should not exceed 33 per cent, in the case of screw steamers, and 50 per cent, in the case of paddle steamers. There is authority, too, in the practice followed by other countries. In every other country in the world except the United States, whose system of measurement is based upon a different principle to that adopted in this country—I believe every Continental maritime country fixes the maximum of propelling space which shall be deducted from the gross tonnage to ascertain the registered tonnage. The Amendment before us follows that principle. It proposes to place—I do know whether the right

  933
  hon. Gentleman would be attached to 50 per cent—but, at any rate, he proposes to adopt the principle of limiting the maximum deduction to be made from the gross tonnage in respect to propelling power space which has been adopted in foreign countries. I will not go into further details. It is a curious arithmetical problem to arrive at the registered tonnage of a ship. It is a complicated proceeding; but I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) is well justified in bringing this Amendment to the attention of the House, because it only carries into effect the recommendation of the Royal Commission.; it is in accordance with the practice of other maritime countries, with the exception of the United States; and it is in harmony with, and in furtherance of, the remedy of the grievances which were the main cause of the Board of Trade bringing this measure before the House.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would act wisely to accept the Amendment. Shipowners generally would not be affected by it, so I may speak with impartiality—only some 320 steamers out of 9,000 would be affected. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) has in mind, I think, principally the passenger steamers running between this country and Ireland, and these do not concern the general shipping interest, they principally belong to the Railway Companies. It is a question for our Irish friends to consider how far the proposal may affect the rate of carriage for goods and passenger traffic across the Channel; but shipowners generally have no objection to it. I know that now, under the peculiar system of the Board of Trade, there are small steamers that almost arrive at a point where they would pay no dues at all. Indeed, I know myself a case of a steamer bought for towing purposes that under the Board of Trade rules would work at a measurement of half-a-ton less than nothing. This shows the utter absurdity of the system. If the Amendment were accepted it would, so far as I am able to judge, make the task of surveying more simple and effective, avoiding all complications. The only point I would raise is that there ought
  934
  to be an exemption of steamers used solely for towing or river purposes. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept that addition to his Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: Yes.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I really do not see why the Amendment should not be accepted; and, as a shipowner, I would advise the Government not to divide against it.
  MR. CRAIG: I beg to be allowed to make the following addition to the Amendment:—
  "Unless such ship be used exclusively either for towing purposes or as a river steamer."
  MR. SPEAKER: That should come after the clause has been read a second time.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, for the sake of clearness, that I shall be prepared to accept such an Amendment.
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 104.—(Div. List, No. 232.)
  MR. C. H. WILSON: The Amendment I have to move deals with the question of those ships measured under the Isabella decision, and retaining their advantage for five years. When I raised the question in Committee there was a certain amount of confusion at the moment, and I do not think hon. Members quite understood the point, and the Chairman ruled that the point where it would come was passed. I therefore venture to repeat the Amendment now, which is to make the exemptions under the Isabella rule applicable to ships that are re-measured before the passing of this Act. If we read a little further we find that ships building come under the exemption, or if re-measured before March 10, 1889; and I propose to leave out this reference to that date, and make the exemptions applicable to ships building and to be registered before December 10.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words "tenth day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine," in order to insert the words "passing of this Act."—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: This question has been carefully considered, and it was felt by the Standing Committee that the exemptions ought not to be wider than would be covered by a fair notice of the proposal. This Bill was introduced on the 10th of March, 1889, and the introduction of the Bill was considered as a fair notice to all shipowners that it was proposed to alter the law, and therefore the Committee held by a very large majority that the latest date for the exemption of ships already built or measured ought to be the 10th March, 1889.
  SIR D. CURRIE: I shall support this Amendment, as it seems only fair that shipbuilders who have commenced building before the passing of the Act should have the benefit of the exemption.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment, and it seems to me that all retrospective legislation is objectionable, and it would not be equitable under the circumstances to add any further term of disqualification to the five years, as the Bill does. The President of the Board of Trade said that the introduction of the Bill was a sufficient notice; but it was not to be assumed that the Bill would pass.
  The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 55.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
  SIR M. H. BEACH*SIR M. H. BEACH moved: Clause 1, page 1, line 27, after "eighty-nine," insert—
  "Unless in either case the ship is, before the expiration of the said five years, measured or re-measured in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and any such ship may be measured or re-measured at the request of the owner."
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTON: This is intended to be a very simple remedy of one or two obvious defects of the law; but the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is one which will increase certain difficulties which I have observed in the Bill already. The Bill will make the law more complicated, very little less unjust, and a good deal more un-
  936
  certain than it was before. That is a curious effect of a Bill professing to reform. Observe the working of this clause, provided the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman be added. In the first place the principle is laid down with regard to ships measured by the 10th March that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any space not first included in the measurement of the tonnage. The third paragraph of the same clause says that the same class of ships measured by the 10th March shall be exempted from the operation of the Act in five years. It is very hard to discover why. Then a further provision is that the exemption just decided shall not be applied to any ship where the allowance exceeds the gross tonnage of the ship. The principle is practically defeated by the exemption, then the exemption is overridden by the proviso; and, now, the right hon. Gentleman wishes further to complicate the clause by providing that the exemption for five years shall not apply in the case where the shipowner wishes his ship to be measured.
  SIR M. H. BEACH: The object of the Amendment is to prevent owners from obtaining re-measurement under the advantageous provisions of the Bill, and at the same time retaining the exemption from the first clause. It would certainly be unfair to allow that, in the interests of the very parties for whom the right hon. Gentleman has addressed the House. This Amendment is really in their interests, and I can assure him that if it is not passed it will seriously injure the Harbour Authority.
  MR. SEXTON: I can only say that may be so, but it only proves my argument that the complication is such that the Bill is unintelligible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR M. H. BEACH*SIR M. H. BEACH moved: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, after "made," add—
  "And the particulars relating to the ship's tonnage in the register book, and in her certificate of registry, shall be corrected accordingly."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  SIR M. H. BEACH*SIR M. H. BEACH moved: Clause 2, page 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out from "and" to "hereof," both inclusive.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this Amendment?
  SIR M. H. BEACH: It is consequential to the Amendment the House has already agreed to in the first clause.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and rejected.
  MR. SEXTON: I have already said the second clause of this Bill repeats the first. It is the most peculiar Bill that ever came under my observation. I will explain how the second clause repeats the first. If such a ship as the Isabella by reason of deduction from propelling space and overhead light and air space has an allowance of 50½ or a fraction above 50 per cent, that ship is shut out from exemption. It would not be possible for the owner of that ship under the first clause to make any deduction from the gross tonnage in respect of overdeck light and air space, for the simple reason that the first paragraph of the clause prevents him from including that overhead light and air space in the gross tonnage, and, therefore, he can make no deduction in respect of it. What is the position of the owner of the ship? Under the second clause—there is not a shred of consistency in principle—he goes to the Board of Trade, and, upon petitioning, he can deduct first the over, deck light and air space from the groe8 tonnage, and then he can deduct 75 per cent from the nett. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that by manipulation of the over-deck light and air space such ships as the Anglesea will be able to cheat the harbour authorities. I should have thought that the owners of existing ships would not have claimed to have separate treatment. One will not be allowed to make any deduction of light and airspace, whilst the other class of ships will be able to make a considerable gain by the operation of this clause. I cannot discern the shadow of a season why the two clauses should be
  938
  differently treated. There is no defence for such a proposal as this. I ask that the second clause shall not apply, when the deduction for propelling power space would exceed 50 per cent of the gross tonnage.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the words
  "And shall not be included in any case in which, by reason of its being included, the deduction for propelling power space would exceed 60 per cent. of the gross tonnage of the ship, or in which the propelling power space below the crown of the engine room would, without such addition, qualify for a deduction of 60 per cent. of the gross tonnage.—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that he exaggerates the possible effect of this clause for two reasons. In the first place, the light and air space before it is deducted, must be added to the gross tonnage; and in the second place, the light and air space must be reasonable in extent, and by the rule of the Board of Trade it will be rendered impossible that these exaggerated deductions can be obtained as they have been obtained. I think that the right hon. Gentleman if he adheres to his view should object to the clause as a whole.
  MR. SEXTON: So I shall.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It would be useless to oppose the clause, and then to prevent its application by such an Amendment as that which he has moved.
  The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 142.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
  Further Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 3, line 21, after "measuring" insert "or be measuring."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: On this clause I have an Amendment to propose. I desire to have the words "partial or entire" inserted. I think it is a question in the minds of Surveyors of the

  939
  Board of Trade as to how far they can go in taking the measurement of ships which have an entire level bottom or a partial level bottom. I think the words I suggest will clearly define their duties in this respect, and I therefore hope that the President of the Board of Trade will accept them.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 18, after the words "with a" to insert the words "partial or entire."—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can assure the hon. Member we have no doubt as to the proper interpretation of this clause, and that it covers cases such as those to which I understand he has referred. The Board of Trade surveyors will be instructed accordingly, and I am advised not to allow the insertion of these words for technical reasons. I therefore hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I fear I must press the Amendment. It is purely a mechanical question, and there ought to be no doubt as to the intention of the clause in this matter.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR: I took considerable interest in this matter before the Standing Committee, and the clause was introduced into the Bill very much on my suggestion. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to accept these words. They can do no harm, and they will certainly not add to the complexity of the measure.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am advised not to insert these words, and I can only act on that advice.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: May I point out to the hon. Member that the words of Clause 3 probably secure the end he has in view.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL. (No. 244.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I propose to make a brief statement, as much misapprehension exists as to the intentions of the Government in introducing the measure. I may remind the House that the site of Coldbath Fields Prison, which is the subject of the Bill, came under the operation of the Prisons Act of 1877, which vested all the sites of prisons and the buildings on them in the Home Secretary, subject to a certain right of redemption by the Prison Authorities. In 1885 Lord Cross, who was then Home Secretary, made an order to close the Coldbath Fields Prison from the 31st of October, 1885, and notified the Prison Authorities, the Justices of Middlesex, accordingly. Lord Cross also gave them notice that it was competent for them to repurchase the site, but that the cost would be £120 per cell, representing a gross sum of £186,960. At the same time, the Home Office had the ground valued by a competent valuer. The valuation of the prison and of a small section outside the prison walls, including houses of which the leases would fall in in 1894, was £96,417. This was rather less than half the amount which the Middlesex Magistrates would by Act of Parliament be required to pay for the land and houses if they wished to redeem it. Of course the Justices of Middlesex did not see their way to give £186,000 for the property, and they declined the offer of the Home Office. The negotiations between the Home Office and the Post Office began in March, 1888. A letter was received by the Post Office from the Home Office stating that the Prison Commissioners would be prepared to hand over on the 16th of that month that part of the site which was at that time proposed to be appropriated by the Post Office. Another communication was subsequently received from

  941
  the Home Office conveying the whole site with the exception of a small portion, which the Bill provides is to be sold to the County Council, with the view of making a viaduct over Farringdon Street, but that portion was only valued at £1,700. Possession was taken of the site by the Office of Works in the month of March, 1888. Since that time about £14,000 has been expended under Votes of the House upon buildings—part of the buildings which it was proposed to erect. After this had been done there appeared to be some doubt as to the legal title of the Prison Commissioners to convey the site to the Post Office without a sale; and therefore the Government was advised to bring in a Bill to obtain the sanction of Parliament to a transaction which had already taken place under the authority of the Government. That was the origin of this Bill, which is intended practically to confirm, the title of the Post Office to the property which was acquired by conveyance without a sale. I may point out if the Post Office had gone through the form of a sale it would have been something in the nature of a sham. It is thought that, in the circumstances, the course that has been adopted is the simpler and the more dignified. The property has been valued at £96,000, or say roundly £100,000. The acquisition of it puts the Post Office in a position to dispose of premises in Moorgate Street, in Gloucester Road, and at London Bridge, which up to the present have been used either as parcels depots or as post office stores. The values of these properties are respectively £50,000, £9,000, and £28,000, making a total of £87,000, which it is proposed to realize for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country. But that is only part of the economy which has been effected. The acquisition of this property has also rendered it possible to abstain from making large additions to the new buildings at the General Post Office which otherwise would have been necessary for the Public Service: it will also be possible to dispense with new buildings in the East Central District; and in this way it is estimated by competent authorities that there will be a saving of not less than £226,000. Therefore by the acquisition of this site the country is a gainer of upwards of £300,000. It will also be possible to
  942
  give up premises at great railway stations rented at £3,000 a year, representing in capital say £100,000. Considerable saving will in addition be effected by transferring the factory business to Coldbath Fields from Gloucester Road; but as I am not quite satisfied with the precise figures given me on this point, I do not include them in my calculation. On the whole, the acquisition of the site represents a saving to the country of something like £400,000. For the first time we shall have a central sorting office for dealing with the Parcel Post work, and anybody at all familiar with the conduct of a public office, and with the trade of a carrier, will realize the immense public convenience of getting together the whole of the work. The three places at which the work is now carried on are rented at a very considerable sum, and are rapidly becoming inadequate for the work we have to do. It would, no doubt, have been necessary in the course of a very short time very largely to extend these offices, and to rent fresh premises at a very considerable increased expense. I may point out that the number of parcels dealt with weekly previous to the acquisition of that site was 139,000. In the one year and a half which has since elapsed they have increased to 215,000, or 56 per cent. It has been found possible to dispense with that enlargement of the General Post Office to which I have referred. In addition to other Departments, it has provided accommodation for the concentration of the Store Department, and it has also enabled us to obtain a sufficient site for a new factory for telegraphic purposes, the old one in Gloucester Road being greatly cramped. The staff of the Money Order Office, at present in course of demolition, will also be accommodated. All these purposes put together make it necessary for the Department to retain the whole of the site. Besides the ordinary work there come times of enormous pressure. For instance, in Christmas week, an addition of 700,000 parcels are dealt with, or about four times the number in any other week in the year. In view of the growth of the last year and a half, it would be idle to suppose the Parcel Post business has yet reached the highest point. In all probability the work will

  943
  go on increasing by leaps and bounds, and before 20 years have passed even more extended accommodation may be required. The School Board for London were offered one acre of the site.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Can you say what price was to be charged for that acre?
  MR. RAIKES: I believe that was to be settled by arbitration, and that no price was named. Now, Sir, I believe I have made out a good case, both on the grounds of economy and efficiency, for the acquisition of this site. Of course, I know there are objections on the part of some Metropolitan Members and others. I do not know whether any hon. Member thinks it should have been handed over to the London County Council without any payment whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have drawn that cheer, because otherwise the House might not have thought it credible that there was such an opinion. I would point out that this site is the property, not of the London ratepayers but of the taxpayers of the kingdom, and a more flagrant act of robbery and spoliation could not be committed against the taxpayers than to hand it over to the London ratepayers. The then Prison Authority declined to purchase the property.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: They did not decline to purchase it as an open space.
  MR. RAIKES: As far as the best information I can collect goes, they certainly declined to purchase the property at all. The only price at which the Government could possibly have parted with it to them would have been actually double or more than double, the amount which would have been offered. At the time the site was offered for sale the London County Council was not in existence, and if they had been, being men of business, they would no doubt have declined to purchase it at the price asked. The Government are trustees of the taxpayers' property, and it is the duty of
  944
  the Government to see that the taxpayer is not fleeced or robbed or deprived of his rights. This principle has been so much recognised by the House of Commons in this very Parliament—that certain charges, which in former times were defrayed by the taxpayers at large in connection with the London Parks, have been transferred to, and accepted by the ratepayers of the Metropolis. In fact, if we were to hand over to the ratepayers the property of the taxpayers, we should be directly undoing the policy which Parliament has directly adopted in the treatment of this question. But I find that the ratepayers of the district most concerned are among the strongest supporters of this Bill. I hold in my hand a statement on the part of the Clerkenwell United Ratepayers' Protection Society to the effect that their society, as reflecting the opinions of the majority of the ratepayers of the parish, are strongly in favour of this land being utilized for the establishment of a postal department, in view of the great impetus that will thereby be given to business in the locality. They also state that the population of Clerkenwell is steadily decreasing, that the trade of watch-making is declining, and that it is becoming more difficult each year for the parish to support its poor. They further say that Clerkenwell at present has open spaces amply sufficient for its requirements, and actually larger in extent than those in Belgravia, and they add that the vestry on the 4th of this month expressed views in accordance with those held by the Society, and decided to memorialize the Government in favour thereof, and they most earnestly entreat for the benefit of the ratepayers, that the scheme will be carried through to completion. I think that where this is the opinion of the ratepayers, it would indeed be Quixotic on the part of the London Council to say that in the interests of the ratepayers in distant parts of London, they would add to the burdens and diminish the resources of the striving population of poor Clerkenwell. I am certain that if the matter were properly explained to the working classes they would sympathize with the reasonable demand of the ratepayers of Clerkenwell, a demand which is endorsed by no less than 26 to 1 upon the

  945
  Vestry. I do not think that in the history of the Post Office or of the Government a more advantageous arrangement than this has ever had been made for the Public Service, and I think it would be difficult for any philanthropist, however amiable, or for any gentleman who has run away with an exaggerated idea of the functions of that interesting new body, the London County Council, to persuade the House to set aside an arrangement which is so much for the benefit of the Public Service and so greatly to the advantage of the locality where it is proposed to erect the new building.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: In rising to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day three months, I shall try to traverse the statement of the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall not accuse him either in speech or action of being a philanthropist on this subject of the prison site in Clerkenwell. I think we have just been listening to one of the coolest statements ever put forward by a Minister of the Crown. It almost resembles the statement of a gentleman who has appropriated someone else's property and who wishes to show what great advantages have accrued to him from having got that which he never purchased. It would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman when he grew so eloquent about the interests of the taxpayers had told the House what the taxpayers ever paid for this prison site. Allow me to tell hon. Members that the taxpayers paid nothing. By the Act of 1877, passed when Lord Cross was Home Secretary, and which was one of the most confiscatory Acts ever passed, the whole of the prisons were taken over bodily for purposes of administration. The whole case of the Government is that either through negligence or wilfully, they commenced operations on the site of Coldbath Fields Prison in contravention of the Act of 1877. I say that under that Act the "surplus if any"
  946
  alluded to in one of the clauses is to go not to the taxpayers of the country but to the ratepayers of the county. If that be so, it must at once be admitted that if the prisons are disused, the ratepayers have some claim to them. The Government think it a very good thing to annex this site for a very wealthy department, and thus to allow the people of London to provide them with a site. No doubt it would be an advantage to have the several departments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman concentrated in one place, but as they already have valuable property in the City and elsewhere, which it is proposed to give up, they could afford out of the proceeds of the property to purchase a new site where they require it. The Ratepayers' Association of Clerkenwell, whose memorial the right hon. Gentleman referred to, say that the population of Clerkenwell is decreasing. During the last few years, however, a number of huge blocks of model dwellings have been erected in the neighbourhood of the prison. Clerkenwell is, as a matter of fact, one of the most densely populated parts of London. It contains 340 acres, and its inhabitants number no less than 70,000. As to the open spaces, there are two small squares, comprising about 2 acres in all, on the estate of the Marquess of Northampton. There are other squares in Clerkenwell, but not one of them is at the disposal of the general population. The Vestry, in their Circular, speak of the New River Head as an open space—a reservoir surrounded by a high wall about 15 or 20 feet high! That is the sort of argument that has been pit into the hands of hon. Members. I am not ashamed to be called a philanthropist by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that it is a term of opprobium, but if so, I am quite willing to bear it. I feel that the work I am carrying out is that of which no one need be ashamed. There is a history connected with these prison sites. In 1883, when the "Bitter Cry of Outcast London" startled the humanity of London, a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the question of the housing of the working classes. That Commission sat for somewhere about three years. It was decidedly a strong Commission. It contained some of the

  947
  most representative men of both political Parties, as well as gentlemen who are known to be conversant with the question outside both Houses. Among others on the Commission was H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. Well, the Commission reported that it would be well in their opinion that Mill-bank, Coldbath Fields, and Pentonville Prisons should be conveyed to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that in fixing the price due regard should be had to the purposes for which they were required. It may be said that the purpose was the erection of artizans' dwellings, but allow me to point out that the word used was "purposes," and it was distinctly suggested in the Report that those purposes should be either the erection of artizans' dwellings or, failing that, the creation of open spaces for the dense populations existing in the neighbourhood of the prisons. One of our charges is that virtually nothing has been done to carry out the Report of the Commission. The suggestion of the Report was embodied almost in its entirety in the Act of Parliament passed three months after the presentation of the Report in the summer of 1885. The first persons to whom the site was offered were, in accordance with the Act of 1877, the Justices of the Peace. They were offered it, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has told us, at a price that was ridiculous; that is to say, on the basis of £120 per cell.
  It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  STEAM TRAWLING (IRELAND) BILL (No. 335).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. SEXTON: This Bill was only read a second time last night, and we have not had time to consider the clauses.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I was not aware there was any objection to the Bill; if hon. Members wish for further time, I have no desire to press it to-night.
  MR. SEXTON: We wish to read the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PARTNERSHIP (RE-COMMITTED) BILL (No. 336.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) [GRANT, &c.].
  Committee to consider of making a free grant or annual payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in aid of any undertaking under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the construction of Light Railways in Ireland; of authorizing the Treasury to give a guarantee on the capital of such undertakings and to make an immediate payment of any guarantee for which they would be subsequently liable; and of authorizing the payment of the expenses of working any line so far as they are not paid out of the receipts (Queen's Recommendation signified), pon Monday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.