Commons Sitting of 28 March 1889

QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. MACLUREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it was a fact
  1002
  that the Board are requiring every railway company who deposit proposals for a revised classification of traffic and revised schedule of maximum rates, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," to pay a fixed sum of £50 irrespective of the importance of its undertaking and its financial position; under what authority and by whom the fee of £50, irrespective of the ability of the company to pay it, has been fixed, and what sum has been received by the Board of Trade, and for what purpose the money is required, and whether any scheme has been devised as to its expenditure; and whether he would consider the propriety and justice of exempting those railway companies which are earning nothing for their shareholders, and charging the expenses upon those which are remunerative undertakings in some general proportion to their magnitude and earnings?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Trade have fixed £50 as the fee to be paid by every railway company depositing a revised classification of merchandize and schedule of maximum rates. The fee is fixed by rules made by the Board of Trade under the provisions of Section 35 of the Railway and Canal Act, 1888, and the money will be applied as an appropriation in aid of the expenses arising upon the settlement of the classifications and schedules. I have already dispensed with part of the fee in certain cases, and I will carefully consider any application coming from a company who are bonâ fide unable to pay without detriment to their creditors. But it must be remembered that the labour and expense of settling a schedule does not vary with the size of the company, and that £50 is not an unreasonable sum to ask from any solvent company for the work performed.

  IRELAND—LORD MASSEREENE'S ESTATE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state how many evictions took place on Lord Massereene's property in county Louth under the Plan of Campaign; in how many holdings where evictions did not place was the interest of the tenant determined by the service of

  1003
  notices under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887; in how many of such cases had the tenant redeemed under the provisions of the Land Acts; in how many of such cases the period for redemption had not expired; and, how many of the vacant farms had been let to new tenants, and how many vacant farms were now to let on the estate?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed that on Lord Massereene's property in the county Louth, on which the Plan of Campaign has been adopted, 29 tenants and three sub-tenants were dispossessed from their holdings. In 32 holdings, where eviction did not take place, the interest of the tenant was determined by the service of a notice under Section 7. In two of these cases the tenant has redeemed, and in 16 of them the period for redemption has not yet expired; 14 of the vacant farms have been let to new tenants. There are now 10 vacant farms to let on the estate.
  MR. SEXTONasked how many of the new lettings were nominal lettings to emergency men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe they are all substantial tenants.

  FENIT PIER.
  MR. MAHONYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is a fact that the Board of Works sent a certificate, dated 19th June, 1885, to the Secretary of the County Kerry Grand Jury, claiming a sum of £3,192 11s. 4d. as due to them for money advanced for the construction of a pier at Fenit; whether at that time no portion of the amount claimed was due, having been previously discharged by the Tralee and Fenit Harbour Commissioners; whether a case was reserved by Chief Baron Palles at the Summer Assizes, 1885, for the consideration of the Judges; whether the Judges subsequently decided that the cesspayers were not liable for the amount; and whether, notwithstanding that decision, the said sum of £3,192 11s. 4d. has been paid by the Harbour Commissioners out of the capital advanced, and is regularly charged in each half-yearly certificate sent by the Board of Works when demanding payment?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The sum
  1004
  of £3,192 11s. 4d. was paid to the Board of Works prior to June, 1885, by the Harbour Commissioners under the provisions of the mortgage deed in respect of five half-yearly instalments, with the intention, as was afterwards stated to the Board, of claiming the amount by one presentment from the guaranteeing Baronies. The Board of Works did send, at the request of the Harbour Commissioners, a certificate, dated the 19th June, 1885, for that sum, for the purpose of recouping the Harbour Commissioners. The amounts certified for were payable, as far as the Board then believed, by the Baronies under the guarantee. A case was reserved by Chief Baron Palles, and the Judges subsequently decided that, inasmuch as the claims had not been made half-year by half-year, as required by the Act, the Baronies were not liable. The certificate which the Board sends each half-year is in respect of the full advances made from time to time, which now amount to £95,000, being the full amount of the loan.
  MR. MAHONYfurther asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been called to the proceedings before the last Kerry Grand Jury, when an application made by the cesspayers of the barony of Irraghticonnor, to have the necessary steps taken to investigate the expenditure of £95,000 obtained for the purpose of erecting a pier at Fenit, was refused by a majority of 10 to 8; whether, by the direction of the previous Grand Jury, the opinion of eminent counsel had been obtained in the matter; whether that opinion stated that several thousand pounds had been misapplied by the Harbour Board; whether that opinion was laid before the present Grand Jury before they came to their decision; whether some of the members of the Grand Jury who voted against the proposed investigation were also members of the Harbour Board; and, if so, how many; whether, under the circumstances, he will direct the Board of Works, from whom the loan was obtained, to hold a public inquiry into the manner in which the £95,000 has been expended, and to ascertain whether the pier has been completed according to the original contract and specification; whether sheds and cranes as provided fur by the specification have been erected: and, whether the condi-
  1005
  tion laid down by instructions from the Lord Lieutenant at the time when the ratepayers were asked to sanction the loan—namely, that no portion of the loan should be allocated to the canal or any other purpose than the erection of the pier, has been strictly adhered to?
  *MR. JACKSON: My attention has not been called to this subject, otherwise than by the hon. Member's question, and I learn that the Commissioners of Public Works have no information on the subject beyond what is open to the general public.

  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Wexford Grand Jury had awarded £500 compensation to Head Constable O'Brien, of Taghmon, for injuries done to his eyes at eviction work; whether it was true that the injuries in question were of so slight a character, that after 10 days' treatment in hospital Constable O'Brien was reported fit for duty, and whether he was now performing his usual work; whether he was aware that the local doctor in Taghmon considered O'Brien's injuries so slight that he did not advise any hospital or special treatment for two months after the injuries were received; whether it was true, as stated by the counsel for O'Brien, that the compensation of £500 was not so much for O'Brien's injuries as to "deter cases of this description;" whether representations had reached him that under all the circumstances the granting by the Grand Jury of such a large sum of money for so slight an injury has caused very widespread indignation in Wexford County; whether it was a fact that at the eviction where Head Constable O'Brien was injured, Mr. Considine, the resident magistrate in charge of the police, declared that the people who were about to be evicted had offered "fair terms" to the landlord; whether he was aware that the people of the district had resolved not to pay the £500 to O'Brien, as a protest against the employment of armed police in evicting people who, according to Mr. Considine, R.M., had offered "fair terms;" whether there was any medical evidence that the policeman in question has been permanently injured; and,
  1006
  whether the Government would take steps to prevent such cases of large compensation for slight injuries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Grand Jury have granted compensation to the Head Constable for the injury to his eyes. I am informed that the local doctor did not at first consider the case serious; but it was afterwards found necessary to send the Head Constable to the Ophthalmic Hospital in Dublin, where he was detained for 10 or 12 days, and it was some weeks later before he could resume his full duty. I understand that, in the opinion of the local doctor, the Head Constable's sight will never be as strong as it was before the injury. The Government have no power to interfere in the manner suggested. With regard to the observation of Mr. Considine it is to be borne in mind that it referred only to the offer made on behalf of the tenants when the sheriff and evicting party were actually on the ground.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Would not these injuries have been avoided if O'Brien had followed the advice of his superior officer, Mr. Considine, R.M.?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not in a position to say. Mr. Considine was not in charge of the police.
  MR. W. REDMOND: On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman say that Mr. Considine was not in charge of the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may be wrong, but I presume that he was not, because it is not the usual practice.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the exorbitant nature of this compensation which has been awarded for injuries, which would not have been sustained if the advice of the Resident Magistrate had been taken.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  COLONEL WARINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he had any information with respect to the case of a bullock suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, reported to have been exported from the county Tyrone to Cumberland; whether, if the report was true, he would have strict inquiry made as to whence the disease, which has been so long extinct in Ulster, has been imported;

  1007
  and whether pleuro-pneumonia now exists in county Tyrone, or in any other Northern county?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Reports have been received of an outbreak on the 26th of February of pleuro-pneumonia in Cumberland, and among cattle alleged to have been purchased at markets in the counties of Tyrone and Londonderry about a month previously. An inspector of the Irish Veterinary Department is at present engaged in making careful inquiry as to the origin of the outbreak. Pleuro-pneumonia does not, so far as the Veterinary Department is aware, exist in the county Tyrone, or any other northern county; and, according to the official Returns, the whole of the Province of Ulster has been entirely free from the disease since 1885.

  LABOUR IN THE DOCKYARDS.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would consider the case of the Works' Department in the Dockyards, in order to assimilate their hours to those of the Dockyard men, or give them more pay for the additional time they work?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The point referred to in the question was carefully considered by the Admiralty last year, and it was decided to be inexpedient that the hours of work of men employed under the Works' Department, and those engaged in dockyard work should necessarily be the same. This decision was arrived at after a full consideration of the case in all its bearings. A large proportion of these men are employed at places other than dockyards, and it is necessary, if a permanent staff for public works is to be maintained, that the men on it should be much on the same footing as contractors' men doing the same work.

  THE RANGER'S LODGE, GREENWICH PARK.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Commissioner of Works whether there had, during the past twelve months, been any, and what, change of the tenancy of the Ranger's Lodge, Greenwich Park; who was now the tenant, and what were the terms of the tenancy: whether the question of throwing open to the public the fifteen
  1008
  acres, or thereabouts, hitherto annexed to the Lodge, had been considered, as promised last Session; and, what decision had been arrived at?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): In last autumn General Lord Wolseley became tenant of the Ranger's Lodge, Greenwich Park, which had before been in the occupation of Lady Mayo. Lord Wolseley holds by the pleasure of Her Majesty. When I came to inquire into the matter, raised last year by the question of the hon. Member, I found that the fifteen acres referred to had always been attached to the Ranger's Lodge; that it had never formed a part of the Park open to the public; and that nothing is paid by the public for the maintenance of any portion of these grounds. Under these circumstances no change has been made.

  THE ENFIELD ELECTION.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, at the last election at Enfield, the workmen employed at the Small Arms Factory had a half-holiday for the purpose of voting; whether they were compensated for the loss of time; and, if so, by whom were they paid, and from what fund?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The last Parliamentary Election took place on a Tuesday, and the workmen at the Small Arms Factory had a half-holiday, for which no stoppage of wages took place. At the election of the County Council special facilities were afforded to the workmen for recording their votes. They had leave, with pay, for two hours.

  POST OFFICE CLERKS.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Postmaster General whether it was the case that the duties and responsibilities of assistant superintendents of the second class in London, and those of the officers in the superintending class known as "clerks" in Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool, are identical, whereas the officers in London are paid at the rate of £300 per annum, and the salary of the officers in the three provincial offices named is only £190 per annum; whether

  1009
  these provincial officers are remunerated on the same scale (£140 to £190) as the telegraphists at the London end of a wire; whether telegraphists at Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool, who perform exactly the same duties as their London brethren, are paid at the maximum of 50s. a week, a difference of £60 a year; and, whether these differences of pay having now been brought under his notice, he is prepared to take steps to remove them?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that the duties and responsibilities of the class designated "Clerks" in the post offices of Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool are not identical with those of the class designated as "Assistant Superintendents of the Second Class" in London. The remuneration of the different classes referred to by the hon. Member is correctly stated in his question. The organization of the service, including the pay in London and in the Provinces, was thoroughly examined and settled in 1881, the papers being then laid before Parliament; and there do not appear to be any sufficient grounds for disturbing that arrangement.

  THE GLOUCESTER TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General if it was true that when a probationer lineman of the Engineer's Department, Post Office Telegraphs, at Gloucester, recently reported his Inspector for uttering forged wage-receipts, the inquiry was held by a friend of the accused, and resulted only in his transfer to Haverfordwest, while the complainant was punished by the loss of his annual increment and severely cautioned; and whether he would explain the circumstances of the case to the House?
  *MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; it is not true. The inspector in question, who had been guilty of irregularities in his accounts, but not, so far as appeared, with a view to his own profit, was not only transferred to Haverfordwest—he was also reduced to a lower position with lower pay. Neither was the complainant punished by the loss of his increment, for he had none to lose; and I have been unable to ascertain that he received any caution. Whether the officer who investigated the case was a friend of
  1010
  the accused or not I do not know, but it is the fact that he was his superior officer, and as such the proper person to make the investigation, and I have no reason to suppose that it was not conducted with ability and impartiality.

  THE METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD—DR. P. H. M'KELLAR.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a retiring allowance of £1,000 has been granted by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to Dr. P. H. M'Kellar, Medical Superintendent of the South Western Hospital, and, if so, under what authority; and whether he has made, or will make, a representation to the Board on the subject?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): An application has been made to the Local Government Board by the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the sense referred to in the question; and prior to the notice of the hon. Member appearing on the paper, I had given directions that the managers should be informed that the Local Government Board were unable to assent to the proposed payment, and the managers have been informed accordingly.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS BY THE EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention had been directed to the circumstances attending the evictions carried out on the Tounaculty estate of the Education Commissioners near the Town of Donegal, on Thursday and Friday last, when the rent due amounted in all to about £80, to be collected from 17 or 18 tenants, scattered over about a thousand acres of poor land; whether to collect this sum a force of some 200 men has been employed, armed with ladders, ropes, grappling irons, shields, poles, and hooks, and a battering ram, all specially procured, for the purpose of effecting these evictions; is it a fact that a cordon of police and military was drawn round each house, within, which neither the representatives of the Press, nor the Very Reverend Hugh M'Fadden, P.P., nor his curate, the Reverend Edward

  1011
  Cassidy, were admitted; was any resistance offered to the Sheriff at any of the houses so visited; and what will be the cost to the county of this expedition and its appliances?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the facts are substantially as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question, except that the force was present not to collect rent, but to maintain the law by protecting those who were bound to enforce it. No resistance was offered, and no cost to the county will be incurred. The arrangements of the authorities appear to have been excellent. Of the 17 tenants 13 avoided eviction at the last moment by paying all that was demanded, which they were well able to do, and one of the tenants who allowed himself to be evicted for a debt of £9 had £50 worth of stock on the premises. The Plan of Campaign was in force, but has now been broken down, and, so far as I am acquainted with the facts, no sympathy whatever need be felt for the tenants.
  MR. MACNEILL: Through a misprint the question uses the word "county" instead of country. I want to know what the cost is to the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question.

  IRELAND-PROSECUTION OF CONSTABLE M'ANEANY.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention had been directed to the circumstances attending the trial of Constable M'Aneany, who was indicted at the Derry Assizes for presenting a revolver at one Patrick O'Donnell at Ardmore, in the County of Donegal; did the Special Jury, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, which acquitted the prisoner, consist entirely of Protestants; why was a constable for an offence alleged to be committed in Donegal tried in Derry, while peasants for offences committed in the same county were tried in Fermanagh; did the same counsel prosecute in the County of Fermanagh peasants for resisting evictions, and in Derry a policeman for an alleged assault arising out of these evictions; were the juries which tried the peasants in Fermanagh composed exclusively of Protestants; and, can he state why the Crown exercised the right of challenge in Fermanagh and not in Derry?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): My attention has been called to this matter by the question of the hon. Gentleman. I have no means of: ascertaining the religion of the jurors who tried any of the cases referred to, and can give no information as to the grounds on which the right of challenge was exercised by those who appeared on behalf of the Crown. As regards the change of venue in one case to Fermanagh and in another to Derry, I am informed that Derry was selected, not only because it was a suitable venue, but because when the order changing the venue was obtained, there would not have been sufficient time to have the case tried at Enniskillen, where the Assizes are held for the county of Fermanagh before they are held at Londonderry, a subsequent town on the same circuit. Mr. M'Laughlin, Q.C., the leader of the circuit, prosecuted in both cases. Mr. Ross was associated with him in Fermanagh, and Mr. Richardson, Q.C., and Mr. Harte in Derry.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked if the attention of the Government had been called to the connection between this matter and the fact that, when it became known that the venue was to be changed, the Orangemen of the district called a meeting, in which some Magistrates took part, and at which they pointedly referred to these trials taking place in Fermanagh, and reminded the people in most significant terms that it was their business practically to convict the Donegal people?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I have not the slightest reason to suppose any such thing.
  MR. MAC NEILLrepeated the last sentence in his question, and asked if all these matters did not arise out of the same transaction?
  MR. MADDENsaid no doubt these transactions were connected with the same case. He had answered the last question. He could give no information as to the ground of the challenges, except that they were in accordance with the printed rule on the subject.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would make inquiries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of the question.

  THREATENING LETTERS.
  MR. LANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention had been called to the case of an emergency man, named Daniel Murphy, who was in charge of an evicted farm on the Lansdowne estate, in Kerry, and who was sentenced to two concurrent terms of six months' hard labour, on 18th March, at Kenmare, for writing letters to John Foley and James Shea, threatening them with "a sudden and unholy death" if they took the "boycotted farm" which he was then care-taking for Lord Lansdowne; did Sergeant Walters, who arrested him, send a message (at prisoner's request, to the Lansdowne office, to have him defended by a solicitor; was he defended by Mr. Mahony, the solicitor to the estate office; did he acknowledge to having written the second letter when convicted of the first; and, did the police authorities of the district compare the writing in these letters with other threatening letters in their possession, and are those letters included in the Return of "threatening letters" issued to Parliament?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the facts are substantially as stated in the first four paragraphs of the question. The police did not compare the letters with other threatening letters in their possession. The letters will be included in the Returns of outrages to be presented to Parliament.

  ALLEGED MALICIOUS BURNING.
  MR. LANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it was a fact that the claim of the Land Corporation for the alleged malicious Burning of a house on the Ponsonby estate was fixed at £100 by the Presentment Sessions of Midleton; could he state how many of the magistrates were local Justices; did the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, upon the same evidence, increase this award to £175 for the Land Corporation; how many members of the Grand Jury are members of the Land Corporation; did the Grand Jury award a policeman, who
  1014
  was living in the house at the time it was burned, a sum of £22 10s. without: any proof that he had lost this sum in the fire; and could he inform the House why the Grand Jury increased the award, and what proof there was that the policeman had this money in the house?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The secretary of the Grand Jury informs me that the reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but that the claim of the Land Commission was £225. Seven of the magistrates were local Justices. The Grand Jury did increase the award to £175. The secretary has no precise information as to the subject of the fourth paragraph, but so far as he is aware, there are only some two or three such members, and they did not vote on the matter. The Grand Jury did not make the award to the policeman without any proof as to his loss. They had before them his sworn testimony. The Grand Jury in fixing the award at £175 evidently considered that the circumstances justified it.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Joyce, R.M., Mr. Horne, R.M., and District Inspector Concannon were engaged in Dublin Castle during August and September last, in taking the evidence of police witnesses for the Times; whether Head Constable Hussey, of Belfast, was engaged in making a note of the evidence so taken; whether district inspectors, head constables, sergeants, and constables, were ordered by the Inspector General to report themselves at his office for the purpose of the proceedings conducted by Mr. Joyce, R.M., Mr. Home, R.M., and District Inspector Concannon; whether the Inspector General issued communications to certain officers of the Constabulary Force to order the men of the Force under their command to be on the alert, in order to get up evidence for the Times; whether Head Constables Redington, of Castleisland, and Preston, of Westport, were engaged for a long time in the counties of Clare, Roscommon, Kerry, and Limerick, in looking for witnesses and arranging evidence on behalf of the Times; whether the Inspector General came to London, and

  1015
  conferred with the managers of the Times case as to the course of evidence; and whether County Inspector Lopdell, District Inspector Concannon, and Head Constable McCoy, of Kildare, have been in London, not as witnesses, but as agents of the Times, in charge of informers and other witnesses, and for what period each of these officers was in London on this business?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The officials referred to were not employed in the manner alleged in the question. Particulars as to how they were engaged have been already supplied in reply to various questions. The Inspector General did not order any officials to report themselves at his office for the purpose suggested in the question, nor were any orders issued to certain officers by the Inspector General to order them to be on the alert to get up evidence for the Times. Head Constables Redington and Preston were not engaged in the manner suggested. The Inspector General did mot come to London, and did not confer with the managers of the Times' case as to the course of evidence. County Inspector Lopdell, District Inspector J. Concannon, and Head Constable M'Coy attended on subpoena as witnesses and not as agents of the Times.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask if there was a circular issued from Colonel Turner's office to officers of the Constabulary force in Clare giving instructions to get up evidence for the Times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I cannot believe that it was so, but I have no information upon the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will make inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the prolonged presence in London of Inspectors Lopdell and Concannon and Head Constable M'Coy, seeing that neither of those officers was examined? Has he founded the answers which he has given upon information received from the officers themselves; and will the right hon. Gentleman afford us any means of getting at the truth of the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be most happy to consider any statement the hon. Gentleman may make to me. As to the officers mentioned, I presume that they were kept in London by the Times on account of the evidence they
  1016
  were expected to give. Why they were not called I cannot say.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the visit made by Thompson to James Mullett at Millbank Prison took place in the presence of an officer of the prison; if so, did that officer prepare a record of what passed at that interview between Thompson and Mullett; and, if so, would that record be placed at the disposal of the solicitor for the defendants before the Special Commission; upon whose application was the visit granted to Thompson, and on what authority; was Thompson a solicitor; and, had James Mullett any other visitor at Mill-bank Prison than his wife and Thompson?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The visit was in sight of an officer, but not in his hearing; consequently there is no record of what transpired at the interview. The application was made by Mr. Soames, and it was granted on the authority of the Prison Commissioners. I have no knowledge of Mr. Thompson's professional calling. He is described by Mr. Soames as his representative. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand the other day that this permission was only given to solicitors. If Thompson was not a solicitor, how was it that he got leave?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at whose instigation did Sergeant Mullen, R.I.C., at Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, write to Patrick Lavan, late of Ballyhaunis, now living at Washington Territory, U.S.A., expressing anxiety to do him a good turn, and stating, "I guarantee your name will never be mentioned, and I further guarantee that it will be the means of putting you on your feet. I saw the chance, and as it could be done privately, I wish to give it to you, and I trust you won't be, as of old, foolish enough not to accept it when you can do so without a third party knowing it;" was it in the interest of the Times' case, now pending before the

  1017
  Special Commission Mullen sought evidence from Lavan; if not, for what other purpose; and was that the first and last time Mullen endeavoured to tempt Patrick Lavan to become an informer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A question on the same subject has already been answered. It was not in the interest of the Times Mullen communicated with Lavan, and it is not usual to disclose the particulars connected with obtaining information from informants, as to do so would paralyze the action of the police, and frustrate the ends of justice.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman note that he has not answered my question regarding the last paragraph?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not in the interests of the public justice, as I have already stated, to answer it.

  FATHER KENNEDY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Father Kennedy, of Meelin, during his first imprisonment, applied repeatedly to the Prisons Board for permission to celebrate mass on weekdays, and was informed that the permission would not be granted except for Sundays and church holidays; whether, during his second imprisonment, Father Kennedy was allowed to celebrate mass on one day in each week in addition to Sundays and holidays; what is the rule on the subject; and, what is the present practice with regard to priests imprisoned under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board inform me that the reply to the inquiries in the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. There is no fixed rule on the subject; but the practice is for the Governor to submit each case specially as it arises to the Board, who deal with it according to the circumstances.

  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  MR. WARMINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the danger and inconvenience of the level crossing of the Great Western Railway near Mr. Ward Williams' Foundry at Abertillery, Mon-
  1018
  mouthshire, and about 100 yards southeast of the Abertillery Station of this railway; whether it is a fact that already four persons have lost their lives at such crossing; whether he is aware that at the inquest upon the body of John Thomas, one of the persons killed at such crossing, the jury called the attention of the railway company to the want of gates at this level crossing, and that the company replied that the matter should be remedied; whether it is the fact, notwithstanding the reply of the company, the danger of the said crossing still continues; whether he is also aware that the foot passengers over such level crossing amount to an average of 1,000 (of whom 300 are children) during a day of 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to compel the railway company to erect a foot and cart bridge over such level crossing, or to do such works as will reduce the danger of such crossing?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It appears that there are two level crossings near Abertillery; one is a level crossing to the south-east of the station. We have no record, nor have the company, of any person having lost his life at that crossing. A footbridge exists for passengers, and there are level crossing gates and a man in charge. Under powers recently obtained from Parliament the Company are enabled to carry both the road and footpath under the line by a subway, and the works have recently been commenced. As the crossing has been reported to be dangerous, the Board of Trade will represent to the company the expediency of finishing these works without delay. There is another level crossing, called the Penybont Crossing, half a mile to the north of the station. The only death which has occurred at this crossing, and respecting which the Board of Trade have any information, is that of John Thomas, a trespasser, who was killed in 1876. This level crossing was handed over to the company by the Monmouthshire Company as a mere occupation level crossing, but the company have expressed their willingness to contribute to the expense of erecting a bridge. The Board of Trade have no powers of compulsion in the matter, but as this level crossing also is dangerous the Board of Trade will continue to press on

  1019
  the company the importance of the erection of a bridge independently of any contribution from the locality.

  CONVEYANCE OF LETTERS.
  MR. DAVID THOMASasked the Postmaster General if he could now state the results of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of the conveyance by railway companies of letters that have not passed through the post?
  *MR. RAIKES: The subject to which the hon. Member refers has been under the careful consideration of the Government. It is attended by legal questions which involve considerable difficulties, but I am not without hopes of arriving at a satisfactory settlement.

  CUSTOMS' OFFICERS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was proposed to confirm the experimental alterations of the hours of labour of Customs' officers on landing and shipping duty in the ports of Liverpool, Hull, and Grimsby, and to extend them to London and other ports of the Kingdom; and, if so, whether the officers receive any compensation for such an unfavourable alteration of the conditions under which they entered the Customs' Service; whether officers of Customs employed upon warehousing duty from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., in the Port of Newcastle, have recently been called upon to attend on landing duty from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. without additional remuneration, before doing their ordinary day's work; and, whether the Customs' authorities, in compelling such additional attendance, have acted in accordance with the assurance of the Government that, in any alterations which might be made to meet the requirements of trade, landing officers would not be compelled to work more than eight hours per day on the average?
  MR. JACKSON: The question of the confirmation of the extended landing and shipping hours which have been in experimental operation at the ports of Liverpool, Hull, Grimsby, and Goole for some months, and for the extension of these hours to London and other ports of the Kingdom, is now under the consideration of the Treasury. Those hours
  1020
  under the scheme proposed will not involve an addition to the average number of hours of daily attendance on the part of officers of Customs employed on landing and shipping stations, and no question of compensation arises. The new system, to which the assurance mentioned in the last paragraph of the right hon. Member's question referred, has not been introduced at Newcastle; but officers of Customs ordinarily employed on warehouse duty at that port have for many years been required, in times of pressure, occasionally to attend during the summer months on early landing duty without additional remuneration.

  LETTERS TO AUSTRALIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that letters for British sailors at Sydney and other ports on the Australian station are now forwarded by the long sea route for 1d. each letter; and whether he is aware that no notice of this has been issued to the public, though it affects a large number of poor people?
  *MR. RAIKES: The fact is as stated by the hon. Member, and I may add that, under certain regulations, not only letters for seamen in Her Majesty's Service in Australian ports are forwarded for the privileged rate of one penny, but also by any all-sea route to any British Colony or foreign country, as may be seen on reference to the "Post Office Guide." The privilege thus enjoyed by seamen in Her Majesty's Service is one of long standing, and, being generally known, there was no necessity for issuing a special Postal Notice as regards letters forwarded to Australia by the all-sea route.

  NEW LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. LYELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether anything had been done to carry out the recommendation of the Northern Lights Commission in the Report of their Engineers, Messrs. D. and T. Stevenson, in October, 1883, that 11 now lighthouses should be erected on the coasts of Orkney and Shetland?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The Engineers' Report referred to involved an expenditure of £192,000, and £6,600 for annual maintenance. The

  1021
  Northern Lights Commissioners forwarded it to the Board of Trade in 1884, with approval, but without any statutory recommendation, doubtless feeling that it was too expensive to be carried out in its entirety. But one of the most important parts of it—the establishment of a light on Malcolm's Head, Fair Island, is included In the Estimates for new work in the coming financial year.

  WEIR v. WEIR.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate whether, in the case of Weir against Weir, in the Sheriff Court of Caithness, the Sheriff Substitute decided in favour of the defender in respect of facts brought out in the portion of the written evidence in the case which is amissing; whether Sheriff Depute Thoms, when the case was before him on appeal, reversed the decision of the Sheriff Substitute, decided in favour of the pursuer, and cut out and abstracted from the process the evidence, or portion of the evidence, on which the Sheriff Substitute relied in support of his decision in the case; whether, in Scotland, the Judge of an inferior Court, in a case subject to the review of a superior Court, has any right whatever to cut out and abstract from the process, or to cancel beyond recognition, any portion of the written evidence taken in the cause by the Judge of the first instance, and upon which the decision of the Judge of the first instance rested; whether he will cause Sheriff Thoms to restore to the process the evidence, or at least an authentic copy of the evidence, cut out and abstracted by him, and which he (Sheriff Thoms) states "was not destroyed but is amissing;" and, whether he will institute an independent investigation with the view of ascertaining the true facts as to the number of pages of evidence so cut out and abstracted, as to whether the same were or were not torn up by Sheriff Thoms, and as to what he did with, or what became of, the pages of evidence so cut out and abstracted?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have communicated with the Sheriff, and am informed that the Sheriff Substitute pronounced findings which were, in part, based on the portion of the evi-
  1022
  dence now amissing, and which would have led to a remit to an accountant. The Sheriff held this evidence to be irrelevant, and, as I have already informed the hon. Gentleman, the sheet containing it was cut out—was not abstracted by the Sheriff, and has gone amissing. In these circumstances the question of law raised in the third paragraph does not arise. An appeal was taken against the Sheriff's decision to the Court of Session, but was abandoned. In that appeal complete redress could have been obtained against any error on the part of the Sheriff in the proceedings which are the subject of the question. The Court of Session, and not the Lord Advocate, is the proper authority to correct any irregularities which may have caused a grievance to those legitimately concerned. I therefore answer the last two queries in the negative.

  TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the actual charge in respect to the first-class telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office for the expiring financial year; whether the estimate was calculated to include provision from April last for 334 first-class telegraphists, and what is the difference; what was the number of the class on 31st January, how many vacancies there are, and how long they have remained open; whether he received a petition in December from the second class telegraphists for their promotion; and whether there is anything to prevent him complying with the request contained in the memorial?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the actual charge in respect of first-class telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office for the current financial year cannot yet be precisely stated, but it will be less than he estimate. It is difficult, in the form of an answer to a question, to give the hon. Member full information on all the points to which he refers. Since the Estimates of the expiring financial year were framed an addition has been made to the establishment of the Central Telegraph Office, and the authorized number of the first class at the present time is 365. In this class of 365 persons there were on the 31st of January last 53 vacancies. To 34 of these I have made promotions within the last few

  1023
  days; and this, practically, is an answer to the petition of December.

  POSTAGE TO NEW ZEALAND.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that the rate of postage for letters to New Zealand by sea, per Orient Company, is 4d. per half ounce; and also by sea, but per the New Zealand Company's steamers, is 6d. per ounce; whether it is a fact that the letters are put on board each line of steamers at the same port (Plymouth), and that the letters bearing the 4d. rate often arrive in quicker time than those letters bearing the 6d. postage rate; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of things?
  *MR. RAIKES: The fourpenny rate recently adopted for letters sent to Australia and New Zealand by the long sea route applies only to such letters as are forwarded by the steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and of the Orient Company. Without the concurrence of the New Zealand Government, Her Majesty's Government would not be in a position to extend the fourpenny rate to letters forwarded by the New Zealand Company's steamers from Plymouth, and I have been officially informed that the Colonial Government is unable to agree to the reduction of postage without the authority of the Colonial Parliament. Mails by both the Orient and New Zealand Company's steamers are embarked at Plymouth. I have no reason to believe that the fourpenny letters going viâ Adelaide often reach New Zealand before the sixpenny letters going direct, but I have no positive information on the point.

  Mr. P. J. CONLAN.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention had been called to the imprisonment of Mr. P. J. Conlan, proprietor of the Carlow Nationalist, for publishing the proceedings of an unsuppressed branch of the Irish National League; by virtue of what statute has the punishment been inflicted; and, what was the nature of the evidence against the accused?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to obtain the information, and
  1024
  must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question down for to-morrow.

  THE ZAMBESI.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was a fact that Senor Castilloes had been sent by the Portuguese Government to the Zambesi, and is charged by them to make a survey for a railway past the cataracts of the Shiré; whether the territory through which such a railway would pass was beyond the Ruo River, and is in the exclusive occupation of British settlements; whether the Ruo had been previously recognized in communications between Her Majesty's Government and Portugal as the extreme boundary of Portuguese territory in the direction of the interior; and, whether the Government would decline to recognize any claim to territorial sovereignty on the part of Portugal in the district between the Ruo and Lake Nyassa?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): We have no reason to believe that a survey is to be made for a line of railway past the Shiré Cataracts, but if this was so it would be below the confluence of the Ruo and Shiré. The confluence of these rivers was fixed as the boundary of Portuguese territory in the Agreement of 1884 between this country and Portugal; but that Agreement was not ratified, and, therefore, is not in force. Portugal has hitherto exercised no functions of sovereignty or protectorate in the region mentioned.

  ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that, notwithstanding the announcement in Regimental Orders, by authority of the Admiralty, that subalterns of the Royal Marine Artillery are eligible for appointment to the Indian Staff Corps and Army Service Corps, the Admiralty refuses to entertain any application from Marine Artillery subalterns for employment in the corps named; on what grounds are these officers debarred from the privileges expressly declared to be open to them; and will the Admiralty, if the present practice is to be adhered to,

  1025
  notify publicly, for the information of candidates and their parents and guardians, that subalterns of the Royal Marine Artillery are not allowed any opening outside the limits of their own corps?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There is a regulation which states that "a certain proportion of officers of the Royal Marines are permitted to take service in the Indian Staff Corps and in the Commissariat and Transport Staff," and this has been allowed. But it was decided "two years ago that, on account of the paucity of numbers and also of their costly education, it was desirable in the public interest that officers of the Royal Marine Artillery should be reserved for the special duties for which they had teen trained. This decision is perfectly well known by the corps, and it is not proposed to take any further steps as to its publication.

  RAILWAY MAXIMUM CHARGES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the great difficulty Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and other public bodies, have in ascertaining the statutory maximum charges of railway companies under a variety of Acts obtained over a long series of years, he can either cause a table of such charges to be prepared, or prevail upon the railway companies to issue one, in a form facilitating comparison by those interested with the proposed maximum rates under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The companies have transmitted statements made out in a tabular form as far as possible, showing the existing statutory maximum rates. These statements were not in the first instance supplied to the public, but I caused representations to be made to the companies, and they have undertaken to supply them.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in filling the vacancy in the Presidency of Queen's College, Belfast, he will have regard to the scholastic and literary attainments of the candidates rather than to their religious or theological opinions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt the Lord Lieutenant will, in making the submission of a name, give due weight to all the circumstances of the case.
  DR. TANNER: I trust that the Lord Lieutenant will take into consideration the claims of distinguished men who have been educated in the University.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.

  HORSE ARTILLERY.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of his statement on the reduction of the Horse Artillery in 1887, that no batteries of the Second Army Corps would be drawn upon for the First Army Corps, whether the attenuated service batteries of Horse Artillery at Home, including the First Army Corps batteries, had lately been called upon to furnish men for the Indian Horse Artillery drafts despatched in February; if so, in what numbers; and, if so, in what manner and from what source the vacancies thus caused in the First Army Corps batteries had been filled up?
  *MR. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir. It has been found necessary to draw upon the service batteries of Horse Artillery at home to furnish drafts for India in consequence of abnormal demands for men to complete batteries in India. By an unfortunate coincidence of time we are losing at once men engaged for periods of eight and of seven years. The vacancies thus caused are in course of being filled up by recruits, by gunners from the Garrison Artillery depots, and by drivers from the Field Artillery depots. The batteries will be completed very shortly.

  LOANS TO CROFTERS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate whether he was aware that several crofters in Caithness applied for loans to the Fishery Board, and received in reply a letter, stating "that certain difficulties have arisen in connection with granting of a number of loans applied for which require great consideration on the part of the Board, but as soon as their decision has been given it will be communicated to you in due course." Could he state what was the

  1027
  difficulty which prevents the loans being granted; and, whether that difficulty would be removed in time to get boats before the fishing season begins?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The difficulty in the way of the Fishery Board proceeding to dispose of the applications was the question about the proportion of value to be advanced on certain boats, and that question has now been disposed of as explained on Monday the 18th in my answer to the question of the hon. Members for Ross and Sutherland.
  DR. CLARK: Only last year the Treasury agreed, and the hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury stated that the Government wore going to advance the money, and I want to know why a delay has arisen.
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The maximum terms agreed upon by the Secretary for Scotland were nine-tenths, but certain modifications of the rules were suggested by the Fishery Board and the Secretary of State is going to modify them.
  DR. CLARK: When the Fishery Vote comes on, I will move the reduction of the salary of the Chairman of the Fishery Board.

  IRELAND—REGISTRATION OF TITLES BILL.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he proposes to introduce his Bill for the Registration of Titles in Ireland before the Easter Recess?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; but I should be glad to confer with the hon. Gentleman if he has any suggestion to make.

  MARLBOROUGH HOUSE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the First Commissioner of Works, what was the actual date of the alleged agreement between the Treasury and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales with reference to the maintenance and repair of Marlborough House; was the agreement in writing; had it ever been submitted to the House of Commons; and, if so, on what occasion; and, would he lay upon the Table a copy of the agreement?
  *MR. PLUNKET: There was no "agreement" between the Treasury and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as to the maintenance and repairs of Marlborough House, nor has any one, so far as I know, alleged the existence of any such agreement. I stated the other night that in 1878 Her Majesty's Government decided that in consideration of the large expenditure already incurred by His Royal Highness in improving the house, it should thenceforward be placed on the same footing as Clarence House, and that accordingly the cost of ordinary maintenance and repairs, external and internal, should be annually provided in the Estimates, the cost of fittings and furniture being borne by His Royal Highness. That decision of the Treasury was embodied in a Minute dated the 30th August, 1878, and if the hon. Member likes to move for it, there will be no objection to lay it on the Table. The result of that Minute was submitted to Parliament in the form of a Vote in the Estimates of the year 1879–80, and attention having been called to the item, it appeared to receive the unanimous approval of the Committee of Supply. The question was again raised in 1884, and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), having given exactly the same explanation of all the circumstances as I gave the other night, the Vote was agreed to and has ever since been annually voted.

  THE "FROG'S MARCH."
  MR. PICKERSGILL, who had a question on the paper in reference to the death of Samuel Mahoney, who is alleged to have died while being subjected to the "frog's march," said, he had to thank the Home Secretary for having ordered a further medical examination. He also wished to know what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take in reference to the personal testimony of the hon. Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly)?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid that the occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is wholly exceptional. I stated to the House briefly yesterday the extraordinary violence which had been displayed by this unfortunate man, and I do not know that there are any ordinary rules which would meet such a case.

  THE CARMARTHENSHIRE POLICE.
  MR. RANDELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. W. Picton Phillips, Superintendent of Police in Carmarthenshire, prior to his appointment to that office, was in receipt of salary as clerk to his father, the Chief Constable of Carmarthenshire; and, if so, what was his age when he first received it; and whether another son of the Chief Constable of Carmarthenshire, who has not yet attained his majority, was in receipt of pay of a first-class constable; and, if so, whether he had been duly sworn in, and discharged the full and ordinary duties of such constable; and, if not, why not?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Constable that Mr. Superintendent Phillips was sworn in, and appointed to the rank of Inspector, rendered vacant by the death of his clerk in April, 1883, his age being then a little over 17 years, and he received pay as such until his promotion to Superintendent. On the 26th March last the Chief Constable appointed another of his sons as clerk in his office, and allowed him the pay of a first-class constable. He was not sworn in, and discharges the duty of clerk only. I have written to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions and invited his attention to the questions that have been addressed to me with regard to these appointments.

  PURCHASE OF LAND, IRELAND.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would consent to the Motion for a Return relating to purchase of land in Ireland, which stands on the Paper for to-day?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: There was a Return presented on the 19th of March which gives all the particulars up to the end of December, 1888. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press for the Return on the paper.

  FISHERY RIGHTS IN ALASKA.
  Sir GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government had any information as to the sale at Port
  1030
  Townshend of the three sealing schooners Grace, Dolphin, and Annie Beck, arrested in 1887 in Behring's Sea, and condemned in the Alaskan Courts for violation of the alleged fishery rights of the territory of Alaska; and, if these sales had taken place, whether any appeal was still possible to the Supreme Court of the United States?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are informed that the sale of the three schooners referred to was ordered in the interest of all concerned and with the concurrence of the owners. Her Majesty's Government have not received any information as to whether the sale has actually taken place. The owners have taken no steps for exercising the right of appeal, and have allowed the period limited by law for that purpose to elapse; but the question of international right involved in the seizure of the schooners remains for discussion through the diplomatic channel.

  SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any final determination had been come to, and under what circumstances the visitors of the Science and Art Museum in Ireland were to be permitted or called upon to fulfil their functions; and, whether any steps had been or were being taken to obviate and annul the recent misunderstanding?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE, COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The visitors of the Science and Art Museum in Dublin are, and always have been, permitted, and called upon, and given every facility to perform all the functions imposed upon them by the Science and Art Museum Act of 1877, and the agreement of 1881, made in accordance therewith. The Lord President will, I may add, endeavour to recognize the position of the visitors to the fullest extent compatible with the limits I have mentioned.

  COURTS MARTIAL IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War if it was a fact that, on the occasion of the recent Court martial, held in Cork, on soldiers of the 4th

  1031
  Hussars and Welsh Regiments, the Press were refused admission to the Court; and, whether, under similar circumstances, it had been the rule to exclude the Press?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The General Officer commanding states, in a telegram, that the Press was not refused.
  DR. TANNER: Does that reply include the Cork Daily Herald and the Cork Examiner, or only the Conservative newspapers?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I imagine that the Cork Herald is a newspaper, and therefore represents the Press.
  MR. W. REDMOND: As there is a direct contradiction, will the right hon. Gentleman cause further inquiry to be made?
  MR. SEXTON: What is the rule as to the admission or exclusion of the Press?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I believe there is no general rule. The Press are usually admitted.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the officer in command determine the matter?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I imagine that the Court Martial itself would settle the matter; but I should like to have notice of the question.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—CHIEF JUSTICE ONSLOW.
  MR. LANEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements had been made for filling Chief Justice Onslow's position during his absence from the Colony of Western Australia; had the Secretary of State for the Colonies considered several declarations as to the dissatisfaction felt in the Colony at the manner in which Mr. Leake acted upon former occasions; and had he taken any steps to prevent any appointment being made which would give occasion for similar dissatisfaction?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Nothing definite is known at the Colonial Office as to Chief Justice Onslow coming away from Western Australia. The declarations referred to by the hon. Member are, I presume, the ex parte statements sent by him to the Secretary of State, who read them and referred them to the Governor for his consideration. The responsibility of selecting
  1032
  the person in all respects best qualified to act as a Judge of the Supreme Court in the temporary absence of one of the Judges must rest with the Governor; and the Secretary of State cannot undertake to decide what arrangement may at the time best conduce to the proper and efficient administration of justice.

  EMIGRATION TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
  MR. LANEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would try and get some guarantee from the representative of the Argentine Republic in London that proper measures will be taken to provide for the reception of the large number of Irish emigrants who are about to sail for Buenos Ayres nest week?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Argentine Minister in this country can give no special guarantee of the nature indicated. The Argentine Government have published regulations which, if fulfilled, appear to furnish satisfactory safeguards. As I stated on Tuesday, the discomfort of the immigrants on a recent occasion was owing to unforeseen circumstances, and was only temporary. Her Majesty's Government are providing for the observation of British immigrants by a special office under Her Majesty's Minister.
  MR. LANE: Emigrants have been induced to leave Ireland by representatives of the Argentine Republic in Ireland, and I would ask, therefore, whether the Republic is not responsible for due provision being made for them on their arrival?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No doubt that would be so, but the Government have no reason to believe that the expectations that have been held out have not been fulfilled. A number of emigrants disembarked when the barracks were already full, and temporary accommodation was provided for them. News have been received by the Minister of the Argentine Republic that all these persons were in a few days forwarded to their destination. Full Reports have been received from our Chargés d'Affaires, and I shall be happy to show them to the hon. Member.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Have not complaints been received from emigrants who went from England in July stating that they have been grossly deceived,

  1033
  that they have been paid with paper money, that they have suffered from extreme want, and have been unable to get away from the port?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No Reports to that effect have been received from our Minister, but a returned emigrant has called at the Foreign Office and stated that he had been unable to get employment in his particular trade, which was that of a manufacturer of coloured glass; but he called in consequence of the published complaints to state that nothing could exceed the kindness with which he was treated by the authorities and by British residents.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: How is it, if there is nothing to be complained of, that the French Government have interfered to prevent French emigrants going to the Republic?
  MR BRADLAUGH: Is it not the fact that some months ago Belgian emigrants to the Republic were warned by an official notice in Brussels of the evils that are now complained of?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am aware that a notice was issued by the Belgian Government that they had appointed agents in Belgium to give information to intending emigrants to the Argentine Republic. I will make inquiry in regard to the other matters which have been mentioned.

  THE NAVAL PROGRAMME.
  Sir E. J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the items of expenditure referred to in the side-heading No. 4, pages 4 and 5, of the Parliamentary Return, "Naval Expenditure," No. 444, 1888, viz., "Armaments, including fittings," differ in any respects from the items of expenditure referred to in the new Naval Programme, under the designation "Armaments," the aggregate cost of which for the ships of the Programme is to be £5,350,000; and, if so, what items were excluded in one case and included in the other?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In reply to the hon. Member's question, Return No. 444 gave, as is stated in the note, only the expenditure on ships which was provided out of Naval Votes. The armaments were provided for in the Army Estimates up to last year. Under the heading "Armaments" in the
  1034
  new Naval Programme, all the Ordnance stores are now included, as they are provided for under Vote 9, Navy Estimates.
  Sir E. J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the battle ships of the first class proposed under the New Programme were, in so far as their thick side-armour was concerned, to be protected to the height of the upper deck in wake of the engines and boilers, like the Nile and Trafalgar, and other ships of the Dreadnought type, or whether their thick armour at that part was to be limited to a water line belt, rising no higher than the main deck, as was the case in the vessels of the Admiral type; and, if so, what were the respective heights above water to which the thick armour would be carried in the Nile and Trafalgar, and in the proposed ships?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The facts as to the disposition of the armour in the new designs for first-class battle ships have been given in Parliamentary Paper C. 5,648, pages 4 and 5, also in Parliamentary Paper C. 5,635, paragraphs 8–11, page 5, and in clause 3, page 10. By these Papers it will be seen that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the second part that the height of the thick-belt armour is to be 3ft. above water, with an additional height of 5-inch armour, making a total of 9½ft. above water. The answer to the third part of the question is: for the Nile and the Trafalgar about 10ft. as completed, for the new ships about 3ft.

  THE CARDIFF SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been called to a notice issued by the official liquidator of the Cardiff Savings Bank, requiring the irregular depositors "to come in and prove the debt claimed, by filing an affidavit," and to attend by solicitor at the High Court of Justice in London on 10th April; whether he was aware that the deposit books, which were in themselves bonâ fide evidence of the claims of depositors, were in the hands of the official liquidator, or of the representatives of the bank; and whether, having regard to the fact that these depositors were poor persons, some other mode of proof of claim could be arranged,

  1035
  so that these poor people should not be deprived of their lawful dues?
  MR. DAVID THOMASasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the expense and trouble the depositors in the late Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank were being put to in order to prove their claims; and whether the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were taking any steps to carry out the recommendation of Mr. Lyulph Stanley, the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank, as given on page 63 of his Report; whether he could state the amount by which, according to the Commissioner, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
  "have been defrauded by the trustees, both by the loss of forfeitures resulting from the omission to enforce signed declarations, and by the large sums invested and drawing interest in excess of the sums the trustees were entitled to invest, and to whom yearly false statements have been returned by the trustees and managers;"
  and whether, seeing that these yearly false statements were returned through carelessness, and placing too much confidence in their actuary, and not wilfully, he was prepared to advise the National Debt Commissioners to forego their claim, provided that the trustees and managers pay all claims of depositors in full?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My attention has been called to the notice in question, but I must once more remind the hon. Member that I have no right and no power to interfere with the course of the liquidation or the mode of proof which the Court considers necessary. The procedure laid down by the Act must be followed, and the directions of the Court in carrying out that Act must be obeyed. The liquidator has addressed a letter to the irregular depositors pointing out the method by which their claim might be presented to the Court at small cost to each individual. The liquidator is ready to give any information in his power to the depositors, and it would be more advantageous to the depositors and their friends to apply for information to him than to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fact that some of the deposit books (there are others which cannot be traced) are in the liquidator's hands will not invalidate the evi-
  1036
  dence which those books afford of the amount of the deposits. The recommendation of Mr. Lyulph Stanley was that a Petition should be presented to the National Debt Commissioners for the winding-up of the Bank under the Companies Act. This has long since been done. I cannot state the exact amount of the claims of the National Debt Commissioners against the Bank, but I am inclined to think that if the trustees and managers were now, without further delay, to make good to all the depositors the unpaid balance of their deposits, these claims might reasonably be waived.
  MR. HOWELL: I have no complaint to make of the Treasury as to the way in which they have taken up the case on behalf of the poor depositors; but as the depositors' books are in the hands of the accountant, I think that fact ought to be regarded as bonâ fide evidence of their claims.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Neither the hon. Member nor myself, I am afraid, has sufficient knowledge of the law to enable us to say whether that is so or not. I am informed it is necessary that further proof should be given, but it is for the Court to decide. If we can exert any influence to promote the interests of the bonâ fide depositors we shall be glad to do so.

  IRELAND—TREATMENT OF FEMALE PRISONERS.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state why the two untried female prisoners from Gweedore—Margaret Cull and Annie Doherty—who were on Friday week—notwithstanding the remonstrance of the Rev. J. Doherty, the Prison Chaplain—deprived by the Governor of Derry Gaol of warm clothing provided for them for the journey between Derry and Letterkenny, were again deprived last Saturday of dresses and hats provided for them by friends; whether, in spite of the promise of the Solicitor General, the Governor, while allowing them shawls, refused to permit them to wear the hats and warm dresses so provided for them; and whether they were obliged to go from Derry to Letterkenny bareheaded and badly clothed in inclement weather, though sufficient clothing was sent into the prison for their use?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the two prisoners mentioned were, on the occasion in question, amply provided with warm clothing and warm shawls over their heads—the usual head dress of the peasant women in Gweedore. The Governor withheld the clothing referred to, as, while not required for warmth, it was, in his opinion, calculated to interfere with the prisoners' identification. As I have already explained, the prisoners travelled neither bare-headed nor badly clothed, and it appears they were conveyed in a covered vehicle to the railway station at Derry, and then by train to Letter-kenny, returning in the same way. It is possible that the Governor may have made an error of judgment, but it is perfectly clear that every consideration of humanity was attended to, and ample provision was made for the comfort of the prisoners.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is it the fact that the Governor did refuse to allow these poor women to wear the warm clothing with which their friends supplied them with? I should also like to know under what circumstances the Governor has power to interfere with untried prisoners in any way whatever?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already answered the first part of the question. As to the legal part of the question, I cannot answer it without notice.
  MR. O'HANLON: It is not the fact that the wearing of shawls over their heads is the usual head-dress of the peasant women of Gweedore.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the noble Lord the Vice Chamberlain whether 140 sheep infected with foot-and-mouth disease have been landed at West Hartlepool from Germany; whether sheep or cattle infected with this disease have been landed at any other ports of the United Kingdom; what precautions towards preventing the spread of this disease in the United Kingdom have been taken; and whether the ships which conveyed these diseased animals have been thoroughly disinfected?
  *THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,): It is true that 147 sheep were landed at the Foreign Animals Wharf at Hartlepool
  1038
  on the 21st inst., from Hamburg, among which the Inspector of the Privy Council at that port detected 20 cases of foot-and-mouth disease. The same disease has been discovered among sheep from Germany landed at the foreign animals wharves in Grimsby, Hull, and London. As soon as the disease was detected the whole of the cargoes were ordered to be slaughtered forthwith, and the rules set forth in the sixth schedule to the Animals Order of 1886, which apply when foot-and-mouth disease is detected among animals in a foreign animals wharf, have been strictly enforced. The vessels which brought these diseased sheep to Hartlepool and Grimsby have been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected under the supervision of Inspectors of the Privy Council. It is not known to what extent the vessels which brought the diseased sheep to London have been cleansed and disinfected, but it may be observed that Germany having been added to the list of prohibited countries by the Order of Council passed on the 23rd inst., vessels which have been engaged in carrying animals from that country cannot be again used for carrying animals from any country to Great Britain for a period of 28 days.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask another question which arises out of the one just put to the noble Lord. I will ask him under what circumstances four cargoes of sheep suffering from foot-and-mouth disease have been allowed to land at Hartlepool, Hull, Grimsby, and Deptford, from Germany; and whether, having regard to the fact that the disease must be prevalent in Germany, and the risk of its extending to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Government will consider the propriety of cancelling the Order of March 1st, 1889?
  *VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The cargoes of sheep referred to were landed at the foreign animals wharves in the ports mentioned under the conditions set forth in the Animals Order of 1886. Until these animals arrived the Privy Council was not aware that foot-and-mouth disease prevailed in Germany, and the Netherlands Government have satisfied the Privy Council that their country is free from disease, and that every reasonable precaution has been taken to prevent the introduction of disease into their country by the absolute prohibi-

  1039
  tion of the importation into or transit through the Netherlands of all animals from every country on the Continent of Europe. Under these circumstances the Privy Council, after full consideration, came to the conclusion that they had no option, under the terms of the fourth part of the fifth schedule to the Act of 1878, but to admit the claim of the Netherlands Government to have their animals exempted from slaughter at the point of landing.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Can the noble Lord give the House any guarantee that the information of the Government in regard to the condition of affairs in the Netherlands in that matter is likely to be more accurate than their information in regard to Germany?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the noble Lord say what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to assure themselves that the disease does not prevail in the Netherlands?
  *VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: We have the fullest information from the Netherlands, and we are assured that they have eliminated the disease at a considerable cost, and there is little doubt that this has been the case for a long time.
  MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask on what information the Government have based their action?
  *VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: Since 1877 German sheep have been admitted for slaughter, but the right hon. Gentleman had better give notice of any further question he wishes to put. The Privy Council have no desire whatever to conceal anything.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will put a further question on the subject on Monday to the noble Lord.
  Sir W. BARTTELOT: May I ask the noble Lord whether he knows that the Government of the Netherlands have prevented German cattle from going into the Netherlands?
  *VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: Yes; I thought I had already answered that point.

  CONTINENTAL TELEGRAPH CABLES
  Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can now inform the House what are the terms on which the telegraph cables to the Continent are taken
  1040
  over; and whether the valuation is based on the actual present value of the plant?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am desired by the Postmaster General to say that the actual price to be paid for submarine telegraph cables is still under discussion, and, consequently, I am not able to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Baronet.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. CAINE: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended under the Rail-way and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, that all or any existing maximum railway mileage rates, which have been authorized by Parliament, may be abrogated, and higher rates substituted for them; and whether special terminal charges may be-created in cases where no such charges have been definitely authorized by Parliament nor have been levied as terminals by railway companies?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The rates and charges settled under Section 24 of the Act of last year will, when confirmed by Parliament, be the rates and charges which the railway company in each case will be entitled to make. The section provides that the schedules to be submitted shall state the nature and amounts of all terminal charges proposed to be authorized. It is clearly the intention that terminal charges shall be authorized, but what these are to be, and what the maximum rates are to be, is a matter for discussion and for the decision of Parliament.

  WEST AFRICA-OPOBO AND AGENNI CREEK.
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the report is well founded that trade has been stopped at the port of Opobo in West Africa, the country blockaded and fined 300 puncheons of oil and £1,000, together with canoes and guns; and whether the Agenni Creek has been shut against the natives for three months, and British intercourse with them prevented; if so, whether these proceedings have been carried out with the sanction and approval of Her Majesty's Government?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Owing to the representations of Her Majesty's Consul that impediments to navigation had been

  1041
  placed in the river leading to Opobo, which it was impossible to get removed by peaceful means, and that certain chiefs were interfering with the freedom of trade, instructions were sent to Her Majesty's Commissioner to the West Coast of Africa and the Admiral Commanding in Chief to inquire into the state of affairs. They reported in favour of forcing the chief? of Opobo to remove the obstruction, to pay penalties, hand over their war canoes, and security for good behaviour to the amount of £1,000, to be enforced by blockade if necessary. The suggestion was approved, and the result of the blockade has been so far successful that the Consul telegraphed on the 21st inst. that there were hopes of raising it on the 23rd inst. We are waiting further details. We have not heard specially of the closing of Agenni (or Ogoni) Creek.

  THE ARREST OF FATHER FARRELLY.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenamt of Ireland if it is true that the Constabulary broke into the house of the Rev. Father Farrelly at Arklow, early on the morning of the 26th instant, to effect his arrest; whether it is the fact that the reverend gentleman has been performing his duties openly day by day since the warrant was issued several weeks ago; and, what was the object in postponing the execution of the warrant for such a length of time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received some information on the subject, but not enough to enable me to answer the whole of this question. I should be glad, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would postpone it till to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received information with reference to the question that was asked on this subject yesterday, when the Solicitor General for Ireland promised to inquire as to whether the reverend gentleman wrote to the County Inspector to inform him that he was ready to be arrested, and, if so, how it happened that the warrant remained unexecuted for five weeks?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will put his question on the paper, it will be answered along with the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wicklow.

  THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department are about to issue new instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the new Code; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House with the least possible delay?
  Sir W. HART DYKE: My hon. Friend will see that, as two months have been accorded for the consideration of the Code, and as its principles and details will have to be discussed and decided upon by Parliament, it would be premature to frame instructions to inspectors at this date.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: May I ask whether it is suggested that the House should discuss the Code without having in its hands the instructions by which it is to be carried out?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Is it not the fact that, when former Codes were discussed, the instructions to the inspectors were laid on the Table?
  Sir W. HART DYKE: I am informed that in no case have the instructions been laid on the Table till subsequently to the passing of the Code. If a question is put at a later stage as to any particular point in the Code I will give an answer.

  INDIA—THE CANTONMENT ACT.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, whether the new Cantonment Act has become law in India; and, if so, |whether regulations have yet been drawn up under Clause 29 of that Act, or, if not, what are the regulations, if any, at present in force in cantonments with respect to prostitution?
  *SIR J. GORST: The Bill has not yet passed into law, and no regulations are at present in force.

  ARMY CONTRACTS.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware, as stated in the Star of the 26th instant, that the firm of Alexander Ross and Co., of Grange Mills, Bermondsey, who

  1043
  were struck off the list of contractors in March, 1888, have been supplying and manufacturing Government orders for Colonel Wallace, of 139 and 140, Great Dover Road, S.E.; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made at once into such an irregularity?
  MR. STANHOPE: I have given the strictest order that the firm of Messrs. Boss is not to be employed by Colonel Wallace or any other Government contractor. As Colonel Wallace is not a leather manufacturer, he has to buy his leather from the trade. But some time ago, finding that he was purchasing buff leather cut out by Messrs. Ross, I made it a sine quâ non that all the work connected with the order—including cutting out—must be executed in Colonel Wallace's factory, although this has involved some increase of cost on the contract.

  THE SUGAR BOUNTY CONVENTION.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the great and important trade interests involved, he can state when the Bill relating to the Sugar Bounty Convention will be introduced?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it will be in my power to introduce a Bill before Easter.

  FOREIGN DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now lay upon the Table the information in possession of the Government in reference to the nature and cost of the work done by the Departments of Agriculture in other countries, in accordance with his promise of 16th November last?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The latest information in the possession of the Government in regard to foreign Agricultural Departments is dated 1884, and has already been laid before the House; but steps have been taken to collect further information, which I hope to be able to lay on the Table by Whitsuntide.

  MONOPOLIES.
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that, if the Rules of the House permit, I will call attention
  1044
  to this very important subject on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  NAVAL VOLUNTEERS.
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask whether, in view of the declaration of the representative of the Board of Admiralty, that no share of the duties connected with the local defence of our coasts, either by batteries or submarine mines, could be allocated to the Naval Volunteers, because these defences are under the War Department, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether some arrangement can be made for placing all the forces intended for local coast defence under one authority, so that they may work together for the protection of the country?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If the hon. Member will refer to the statement I made on the introduction of the Navy Expenses Bill, I think he will find the answer to the question.

  THE NAVAL PROGRAMME.
  Sir J. PEASE: Will the noble Lord state when he proposes to go forward with the Bill on the Naval Resolution?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Monday.

  FLOGGING IN PORTLAND PRISON.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the case that in Portland Prison flogging is sometimes carried on in a room where none are allowed to enter except the prisoner and the whipper; and whether it is the case that prisoners sometimes receive more than the number of lashes that have been awarded to them?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to both paragraphs is in the negative. Corporal punishment at Portland Prison is carried out in a corridor away from the cells, and in the presence of the governor, medical officer, and six discipline officers, besides the two officers who inflict the punishment. The number of lashes or strokes ordered has, I am informed by the Director of Convict Prisons, never been exceeded.

  SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Do the Government expect to take the Scotch Universities Bill before Easter?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is possible we may be able to take the Second Reading before Easter.

  THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in reply to an application made to the Local Government Board by the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, that the education given in their schools about to be established under the Poor Law should be placed under the Education Department, the Local Government Board informed the Guardians, on 11th July, 1887, that the question whether the assimilation of the Local Government Board's system and the Education Department system would he desirable would probably be considered by the Royal Commission on Education then sitting; and whether, seeing that the Report of the Royal Commission (Final Report, part iv., chapter 4, page 162) is favourable to the inspection of workhouse schools being transferred to the Education Department, Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any steps towards carrying out this transference?
  MR. C. T. RITCHIE: The scheme of the Shoreditch Guardians was understood by the Local Government Board to be that the Guardians should provide a school which might be regarded as a Public Elementary School, and be subject to all the conditions prescribed by the Code of the Education Department, and that a grant should be made in respect of the school in like manner as in the case of Voluntary Schools and schools provided by School Boards. The Royal Commission on the Education Acts have not made any such recommendation. It is true that the case of workhouse children was, as the Commissioners state incidentally, brought under their attention, and that their Report is favourable to the inspection of workhouse schools by Inspectors of the Education Department instead of Inspectors specially appointed for the purpose by the Local Government Board. I may, however, observe that no witness was called before the Commission to state the views of the Local Government Board on this question, and they do not appear to have had brought before them the
  1046
  fact that the arrangement which they suggest had been previously tried, and that it was discontinued in consequence of difficulties which arose in connection with it, and, further, that a Committee of this House had inquired in 1884 into the subject, and reported that they saw no reason for altering the present responsibility for workhouse schools. I cannot promise that steps will be taken for the transfer of inspection of these schools as suggested.
  MR. STUART: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of Returns of the Names, Objects or Business, Places where Business is or was conducted, date of Registration, number of Persons who signed the Memorandum of Association, total number of Shares taken up by such Subscribers, nominal Capital, number of Shares into which it is divided, number of Shares taken up, amount of Calls made on each Share, and the total amount of Calls received, of all Joint Stock Companies formed since the 1st day of January 1888 to the 31st day of December 1888, inclusive, distinguishing whether the Companies are Limited or Unlimited, and also the number of Shareholders in each of the said Companies at the date of the last Return, and whether still in operation or being wound up; of the total number having their registered offices in the City of London, or within five miles of the General Post Office;" and, of the total number and the paid up Capital of all registered Companies which are believed to be carrying on business at the present time."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 93.]

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  William Mather, esquire, for South East Lancashire (Gorton Division).
MOTION.

  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Brodrick, Bill to exclude unauthorised persons from certain lands to be used for the purposes of the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey, in the parish of Waltham Holy Cross, in the county of Essex; to regulate the use of a certain footpath thereon; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Secretary Stanhope.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 175.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION (FOREIGNERS.)
  Ordered, That the Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners) do consist of Nineteen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Cremer, Baron de Rothschild, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Dr. Fox, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Samuel Hoare, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Long, Mr. William Lowther, Sir William Marriott, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. John Talbot, and Dr. Tanner.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  On the Motion that this Bill be read a third time,
  Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do not profess to interpret the Rule with regard to the Third Reading of this Bill, and I will defer, Sir, to your judgment on the matter, but I wish to call attention to the subject of trade trusts and syndicates, and, whether the Rules of the House permit me to bring forward this question or not, there is a popular belief that on any measure which is practically an Appropriation Bill hon. Members have a right to bring forward popular grievances.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to be obliged to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is not in order in calling attention to this subject on the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY—REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,785,516, Post Office Telegraphs.
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: I hope the Postmaster General will be able to give the Committee some explanation with regard to the expense that will be incurred in taking over the Submarine Electric Telegraph Company's system. The charge of £60,000
  1048
  to be made for taking over this system seems to me to be very large, and I understand that between £30,000 and £40,000 is to be paid in salaries. I have no objection to the taking over of this system; on the contrary, I think it should be taken over by the Government, but at the same time I trust there will be a considerable saving through the proposed amalgamation, and that we are not taking over with the liability to pensioning them, the old and middle-aged servants of the company. There is a large addition to the salary of the office of General Secretary under the Postmaster General. Will he tell us whether the whole establishment of the Telegraph Company has been taken over; and whether it will be subject to future reductions?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I am rather surprised that the Vote should be allowed to pass with so little discussion, for, although this is called a revenue-earning Department, it is a complete misnomer. It may not, perhaps, be known to every Member of this Committee that the Telegraph Service is carried on at an annual loss of at least £350,000. Now that loss is, no doubt, very largely due to the improvident arrangement which was originally made between the State and the Company. The Post Office has acquired a great reputation for business capacity—a reputation which I think, upon the whole, it thoroughly deserves. But it is all the more important on that account that I should call attention to one or two exceptional cases. Now, I want to invite the attention of the Postmaster General to one particular part of the bargain by which we undertake to convey, free of charge, all service messages over the lines which we originally took over. It appears that since these lines were taken over the first complete year was 1871. The number of messages since then has increased to ten times what it was. And, if hon. Members refer to the Report of the Revenue Estimates Committee last year, they will find that the Post Office officials complain very seriously that the railway companies are making an unfair use of this statutory right—that, in fact, they are using the telegraph for purposes in which communication by writing should be the only medium. The annual loss upon this part of the

  1049
  bargain is about £50,000. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take very serious steps to come to some arrangement with the railway companies by which this privilege may be commuted for a lump sum, or by an annual payment if it is preferred. Then, Sir, I notice another remarkable statement to which I venture to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that there is an annual loss of £200,000 on the conveyance of Press messages. Sir, I am anxious that this subject should be discussed. I do not pretend to say whether this annual loss is justifiable or not, but I certainly think that the principle ought to be raised, and ought to receive some consideration and some discussion in this House. Are we justified in putting upon the public annually a burden of £200,000 for the conveyance of Press messages? No doubt the dissemination—
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I rise, Sir, to a point of order. I wish to ask if this arises upon the Vote now under discussion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the remarks of the hon. Member are in order.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I was raising the point, when I was interrupted, as to whether we were justified in laying this burden of £200,000 on the people? No doubt it is extremely desirable that Press messages should be disseminated throughout the country; but I think, if this Committee were to refuse to grant the money necessary to defray the loss which is now incurred, it would give an opportunity of raising a discussion on the principle. The question is whether we are not now putting this £200,000 into the pockets of the newspaper proprietors of the country. Now, no doubt, newspaper proprietors are a very deserving portion of the community; they discharge an important function in this country; but, after all, they are only one class of capitalists, and it is a question well worthy consideration whether we are justified in carrying on a service at a public loss for the benefit of one class of capitalists, when you are not willing to do the same for every other class. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that the rates for Press messages are fixed by Act of Parliament. But an Act of Parliament is not irrevocable, and should this House
  1050
  consider the present arrangement to be inequitable, it is open to the Postmaster General to introduce a Bill to revise these rates. Now, Sir, there is one other point which I should like to mention. I have here a Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General—
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I must again rise to order, Sir. Last year, your predecessor ruled that the hon. Member for Derby was out of order in raising a similar discussion. We are now asked to vote the salaries, wages, and allowances for the Post Office. That is a separate item from the Telegraphs, and I am anxious, before the Telegraphs are reached, to discuss another point which I think much more important.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I cannot rule that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green is out of Order.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The point I wish to refer to is, that in the periodical stock-taking nothing is done to verify the stores. We know that in connection with the Naval Service very serious loss was sustained owing to the regulations in this connection not having been observed, and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see that the regulations regarding it in his Department are enforced.
  MR. COOHRANE-BAILLIE: I heartily concur in the remarks of the hon. Member with regard to the loss of £200,000 a-year on Press messages. I think the contract can be broken by the Postmaster General, because the Statute provides that it shall be lawful for the Postmaster General to make contracts from time to time with newspaper publishers and proprietors; and, therefore, it is perfectly in the province of the Postmaster General to issue afresh scale of charges. I believe newspaper proprietors, who enjoy large incomes from their papers, are able to pay a far larger sum than they now do for telegraphing.
  *ME. JOHN E. ELLIS: I think the Committee is much indebted to the two Metropolitan Members who have initiated the discussion. Among the very great variety of subjects which come before the House, I am not sure whether the extreme importance of this particular question has not escaped attention. As is stated in the Report of the Select Committee

  1051
  on Revenue Estimates which sat last year up to the 31st March, 1887, the loss of interest at 3 per cent on the capital account on the purchase of the Telegraphs amounted to £3,024,889, and the deficiency had latterly been increasing year by year, the Return for the year 1887–8 being £471,889. I venture to say that that is a state of things which demands the serious attention of the Committee. I am aware that the last Return received shows that there was considerable improvement for the year ending March, 1888; but I observe that in the Estimates now laid before us there are two very serious increases. How does this deficiency, which amounted to £471,000 for the financial year 1887, arise? Three or four causes have been pointed out—the enormous capital account is responsible for £300,000 annually, Press messages are responsible for a large amount, and railway messages and unprofitable extensions cause the rest. I am not sure that the country would suffer much loss if a large number of these Press messages were not sent at all, especially the London correspondence of certain provincial journals, containing personal gossip and tittle-tattle respecting Members of this House. The Telegraph Department have, under the terms of the Telegraph Act, to transmit railway companies' messages free of cost in return for the use of the lines for their telegraphs; but whereas in the first year the number of such messages transmitted was 97,000, it had last year grown to 960,000. It was given in evidence that whilst there is, on the one hand, a possibility of indefinite increase, on the other there is nothing more contributed for it to the State by the railways. I venture to say that that is a most serious matter, and one which demands a remedy at the hands of the House. The unprofitable character of the Department's work is also partially due to public pressure to improve the service even at a loss, but the Select Committee which considered the subject gave expression to the opinion that the reasons which existed against treating the Post Office as a commercial business were not applicable in the same degree to the Telegraph Department, and I hope the Committee will endorse that policy and consider the Telegraph Department as a
  1052
  commercial concern, since if we are to allow those responsible for it to go on increasing its work un productively hither and thither meeting, every local demand, we shall soon land ourselves in a Serbonian bog of difficulty. I hope that the Postmaster General will find himself in a position to inform the Committee that the Government will adopt the policy set forth in the Report I have quoted.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (): I rather hoped that the Postmaster General would have commenced this discussion by making a financial statement with regard to the Telegraph Service, and that he would have explained some of the points which have been alluded to. I believe that the Postmaster General has been in the habit of making such statements, seeing that there are very important financial questions involved. Now the last Return which has been presented to the House with regard to the Revenue Account of the Telegraph Service shows an improvement as compared with the previous Return. In the year ending March, 1887, the deficiency was£145,000; in the year ending March, 1888, it was only £6,800. This is a very great improvement, and I should like to know from the Postmaster General whether it is likely to continue, and whether for the year ending in this month it will show a corresponding improvement as compared with last year? One can hardly expect such a marked improvement as that of last year, because that was due to exceptional causes, but I venture to hope that the revenue of the Telegraph Service will go on improving, for we must now be rapidly approaching the point when, at all events, there will be no deficiency on the Revenue Account. Whether, however, we shall come to a time when there will be a sufficient surplus to pay the full interest on the money invested in the Telegraphs I venture to doubt. I think we may, indeed, confidently expect that such a day is very far distant. Hon. Members should remember that the sixpenny telegrams were forced on the Post Office and on the Government by the House of Commons. I ventured at the time I prepared the scheme and laid it before the Government, and explained it to the House, to inform them that it was highly probable there would never be, in the future,

  1053
  sufficient profits to pay interest on the capital account, and if there should be any surplus it will be much better than I expected. My strong impression was at the time that the scheme which was then adopted was the most moderate from a financial point of view, and it was the most beneficial in the public interest, but I always held that the results were not likely to be such as to give a surplus to represent the interest on capital. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green raised two important points; one with regard to railway messages, and the other as to Press messages. Now, in regard to the former, I cannot but think that there has been a great abuse. It appears that these railway messages have increased ten-fold since 1871, and I cannot for a moment doubt that a large proportion of these messages are not really essential for the railway service, but that the wires are used for other matters. I think the wisest course would be to buy up this interest of the railway companies, and in future charge them for all the work performed; and if the matter could be referred to arbitration, then it would be for the arbitrator to look into the messages and see whether they come within the purview of the Act of Parliament, and whether it was originally intended that such messages should be sent free of charge. I believe it would be found that the messages now sent involve a vast amount of work which was never intended to be provided for. No doubt it would involve an immediate outlay to buy up the interests of the companies, but I think it would be the cheaper in the long run. And now as to the Press messages. I know I have been in considerable doubt as to whether the conclusions of the Committee on that point are right, and as to whether it is a fact that these messages cost the country £200,000 a year. I know it has been stated to be so more than once; but I recollect that when I was at the Post Office I looked carefully into the matter, and I came to the opinion that it was very doubtful whether this could be proved. It is quite true that if the Press messages were sent at the ordinary rate for day messages, a large additional revenue would accrue to the Post Office; but these messages are, for the most part,
  1054
  sent at night, when the wires are not occupied, and I think it is hardly fair to compare the receipts from them with the charges which would be made had they been sent at the ordinary rate for day messages. I am not sure that it would be wise on the part of the Postmaster General to attempt to alter the present arrangement. Undoubtedly, he would meet with very serious opposition from the Press generally. In conclusion, I can only say I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some financial explanation of the present position of the Telegraph Service, and what are the immediate prospects of the receipts exceeding the expenditure.
  BARON ROTHSCHILD (Bucks,): There is one small point to which I wish to invite the attention of the Postmaster General. Two months ago I questioned him in regard to it, and I pointed out to him that the public were very much in doubt as to whether telegrams, which were sent to places in the country so distant from post offices that mileage had to be paid, should have the mileage paid upon them by the senders, or by the receivers. The Postmaster General, on that occasion, said that the matter had been settled; but I venture to tell him that at this moment telegrams are often sent on which this mileage is often paid, not only by the senders in London, but by the recipients in the country. Personally, I think the better arrangement would be to charge the senders with the mileage, as we, know perfectly useless telegrams are sometimes sent promiscuously into the country for the mere object of getting them opened, and they entail unnecessary and unpleasant expense on the receiver, I should like it to be understood in the future that the mileage in these cases is not to be twice paid, but that it must be paid by the sender, and not at the place of destination.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I only intend to occupy the attention of the Committee for a few minutes in regard to the complaints raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, and I propose especially to deal with the Press messages. When a Select Committee sat on this subject I examined Mr. Patey as to the grounds on which he based his calculation that the Press message cost

  1055
  he country £200,000 annually. He told me it was based on the number of words sent, and it was further explained that though a very large number of the messages were duplicated, yet on the calculation each newspaper was charged as if it were an original message sent to that paper alone. Again, it should be remembered that most of these Press messages are sent at night, and I will venture to assert that £50,000 a year would amply cover any loss arising from Press messages. As to the Telegraph Department generally, I have great satisfaction in saying that it is a model department, and the few reforms needed are being gradually introduced. But I cannot say the same of the Post Office. I believe that if the accounts of the Telegraph Department were drawn out on a commercial basis it would surprise the Committee to learn that the Post Office every year shows a profit. For instance, in the year 1883–84 the profit was 2·97 per cent. Last year it was £500. My object in calling attention to this matter is to show that the Department is being conducted on commercial principles. In the Telegraph Department we have no account of the money expended on buildings, and one of the great stumbling blocks in the way of preparing a business-like statement is that a large debt was incurred in the purchase of the telegraphs. In my opinion it would be wise to follow the example set with regard to the Crimean War Fund, and wipe it off altogether.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the position of the great railway companies in regard to the Telegraph Service. I maintain that every railway station ought to be a telegraph office. In Northumberland such offices have been established on one of the lines, with great advantage to the public. There appears to me to be no reason why every railway station should not be a receiving-office, even if it could not deliver messages. It would be an enormous advantage to the local police if they could send a telegram from any railway station at any time during the night by paying an extra charge. I would suggest to the Government that when the great railway companies come here with their annual Bills clauses should be inserted making pro-
  1056
  vision in the direction I have indicated.
  *MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General whether he has considered the question of night or half- rate messages? The system is commonly in vogue in America, and the proceeds derived from it form a very valuable adjunct to the amount received by the telegraph companies. Of course such a system is not so necessary in a small country like the United Kingdom as it is in the United States; but there are many parts of the kingdom where it would be of great advantage. Take, for instance, the two important towns of Belfast and Liver pool. The mail closes in Belfast at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and any letter posted later than that is not de livered in Liverpool until after 4 o'clock on the following evening. If half-rate messages were allowed between the two towns, I am sure that the telegraphic business between would be greatly in creased, and a large revenue would be derived from it. The necessity for the same convenience is, I believe, felt else where. A very large revenue would thus, I believe, be gained by the Post Office if messages were allowed to be sent during the night at half rates. Another matter which has frequently been put before the Postmaster General is that of lowering the rate for messages after a message has reached a certain length. For instance, the charge for transmitting every word over 48 might be reduced to a farthing. In that case I believe a large number of long messages would be sent that are not sent now, and in that way the Post Office would derive an additional revenue.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. It may be desirable to have night messages, but I do not know why half rates should be charged for them, inasmuch as somebody would have to remain in each office during the night, and an additional charge would thus be imposed upon the Post Office. Nor do I understand why there should be a reduction in the rates upon long messages. I regard it as one of the advantages of the present system that it induces us to cultivate

  1057
  brevity, and no doubt the brevity of the speeches delivered in this House is much increased by the habit when drawing up telegrams of trying to save as many halfpence as possible. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General will tell us something about the exact position of the Post Office with regard to telephones. In my opinion it is desirable that the telephone business should be acquired as soon as possible by the Government, and that it should be constituted a branch of the telegraphic service. Owing to the present high charges, very few persons put themselves in general telephonic communication. I should like to see at every telegraph office a telephone, which could be used by any person for one, two, or three minutes at a very small charge. I believe some of the telephonic patents will soon lapse, and I hope that the Post Office will, without recognizing vested interests, acquire the telephonic service for the use of the public.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I wish to say a word in support of what has been urged by my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) in regard to the development of the telephone system. Anyone who has seen the working of that system in America must be aware of how backward we are in this country in regard to it. It would be a most useful thing to have telephonic communication between the various post-offices.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I will endeavour as far as I can to answer the various questions which have been put to me, but I would first thank those who have taken part in the discussion for the disposition they have shown not to criticize the Post Office, but rather to show their appreciation of what the Post Office has endeavoured to do to add to the convenience of the public. With regard to the Submarine Telegraph Company, I can assure the Committee that we have not fallen into the mistake made on a previous occasion with regard to the recognition of vested rights which are not compatible with the plainest and most obvious principles of justice. We are not taking over the whole staff, but are making certain exceptions. It has not yet been quite possible to ascertain the amount of the cost to be imposed
  1058
  on the State by the addition of the work of the Submarine Company. We are taking over many of the servants of the Company, and they are to receive the same salaries as they now obtain. As opportunity arises, they will be drafted into different classes of the Postal Service, and will be invited to accept positions in those classes at the recognized rates now paid to the servants of the Crown in those classes. They will then have the prospect of annual increment and pension, but the appointments will be dependent solely upon their capacity to perform the duties attaching to them. In the event of any of them declining to avail themselves of these advantages they will be entitled to remain individually at the service of the Post Office, but at the salaries they now receive, and they will lose the prospect of any increment or pension. I think the Committee will agree that, in taking this course, while we have treated these gentlemen fairly and justly, we have not acted any more liberally than we were bound to do in taking over a service of this importance. I am not in a position to make a statement to the Committee in regard to the precise sum to be paid for the plant and goodwill of the Submarine Telegraph Company. Though we are on the eve of arriving at a settlement, there is yet one nation at all events which desires further information before the ratifications of the Convention are exchanged. I believe the Committee and the country at large will be very well satisfied when they come to know the terms on which we propose to acquire the cable, but that will form the subject of further discussion in this House when the additional Estimates are laid on the Table. Attention has been called to the painful subject of the constantly increasing annual loss on the capital sum laid out in the purchase of the telegraphs. The deficit in 1887 amounted to nearly half a million sterling, but in 1888 it shrunk to £6,000. I am happy to say that a very great improvement is still perceptible, and I am rather more sanguine than is my right hon. Friend and predecessor (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the income of the service will eventually clear off the debt. I do not say that the loss of former years is likely to be replaced, but I do say that last year a respectable profit was earned,

  1059
  and I trust that now that the Submarine Telegraph Company is being taken over, the profits will be largely increased. I will give the Committee the figures of the last ten years. In the first five of these a very considerable profit was earned by the Postal Telegraph Service, though it never amounted to such a sum as would quite wipe off the amount put down for interest. In 1879 the profits on working amounted to £280,000; in 1880 they amounted to £296,000; in 1881 to £325,000, (so that the service was then within £1,000 of clearing the interest on the debt); in 1882 to £213,000; and in 1883 to £184,000. In 1884 there was a deficiency of £19,000; in 1885a deficiency of £32,000; in 1886, a deficit of £45,000; in 1887, a deficit of £145,000; and last year, 1888, a deficit of £6,000, which is the smallest deficit since we have got on the wrong side of the account. I venture to believe that next year will see a substantial sum on the other side of the account. The deficit, which began in 1884, is coincident with the extension of the telegraph service and the increase of telegraph salaries. Although the six penny telegrams have been a very great obstacle for some time, I trust that obstacle is now surmounted, and that we are now on our way to earning a profit The deficit of £145,000 in 1887, although due in some degree to the sixpenny telegrams is in a large degree due to extraordinary expenditure in that year, which will not occur in following years. With regard to the loss on railway messages, I agree that there has been a great departure from what must have been the original intention of Parliament. I do not think that Parliament could have contemplated that within 20 years the number of those messages would be multiplied tenfold. I should always be glad to exact a quid pro quo from the railway companies by enforcing upon them the necessity of giving greater facilities to the public, and I am quite aware that the private Bills coming before Parliament always afford an opportunity of raising a question of that kind. As to how far the railway companies ought to be made to pay for the facilities given to them by Parliament, I would not like to say. With regard to Press messages, they are very well worthy of the consideration of the Department and of the public. I must
  1060
  demur to the exact phrase of "loss of £200,000 on Press messages." I think that is not the most correct way of referring to that part of the question. There is no doubt that if Press messages were sent at the ordinary rates charged to the public the Department would receive £200,000 a year more; but if the same rates were charged to the Press as to the public many of those messages might never be sent at all, and the Department might not receive anything like £200,000 more than at present. That, no doubt, operated largely on the mind of Parliament and of the Ministers who were responsible for that part of the matter as well as the question of the public convenience and benefit, quite apart from the personal profits of owners of newspapers which might result from cheap telegraphic rates to newspapers. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis) made reference to both those questions, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for calling attention to the recommendation of the Committee that there should be a more strict adherence to commercial principles. I should be extremely obliged to hon. Members if they will assist me in carrying out that recommendation and aid me in resisting applications from those Members who apply for every form of uncommercial arrangement for the benefit of the particular localities they represent. I think it may be sometimes desirable, not so much in the interests of particular localities as in the interests of the general public, to carry out telegraphic works in connection with very distant parts of the Kingdom which are not strictly remunerative. For instance, in some places in the Highlands of Scotland telegrams are very few, and the offices not likely to be self-supporting, but it is absolutely essential to the living of the people that they should have ready means of telegraphing for salt to salt their fish, upon which the existence of some of the natives may be said to depend. I think there are a few cases also where the same thing has been done in the North and West of Ireland. I am quite sure the Committee will not object to such expenditure, which is the exception from what I think is an excellent general rule. There was a point taken by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Baron

  1061
  F. de Rothschild) with regard to porterage. Undoubtedly the rule is that the sender is responsible for those charges. If the sender is not aware of the exact porterage to be paid, and the office is not aware of it either, it is the duty of the latter to require a deposit, and that rule ought to be strictly enforced. It is quite possible that a sufficient deposit may not have been obtained, and in that case application may be made to the receiver; but I think the whole expense ought to be upon the sender; and if the hon. Member is aware of any cases of hardship and will submit them to me I will consider them. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Lichfield Division (Sir J. Swinburne) has urged the increase of the number of telegraph offices at railway stations. I find that there is some friction on the part of the railway companies, and that they object to their servants acting as servants of the Post Office. It is not desirable to force upon them duties which would interfere with their first duty. It would not, therefore, be easy to increase the number of telegraph stations in this direction. I am at the same time quite willing to consider any case for the establishment of a telegraph office at a railway station where public convenience would be served, and I should be glad to consent to any such proposal where it could be done without unnecessarily infringing on the revenue. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Sinclair) has brought forward the question of half-rates for night messages. I only wish that I could meet his views. At present a good deal of additional attendance is involved, and the rate at which messages are transmitted is barely remunerative. It is therefore more than doubtful whether the revenue would stand the strain of sending messages at night at half-rates, and I cannot hold out any expectation that such a scheme will be adopted. There exists, however, a plan in London by which telegrams may be sent at night after the offices are closed. If an hon. Member goes from this House at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning and wishes to send a telegram he can do so by putting the message on a post card in the pillar box. It will then be delivered by 9 o'clock in the morning. Probably that will meet my hon. Friend's objection. I would remind my hon. Friend when he speaks of the cheap
  1062
  telegrams in America that the American initial rates are very much higher than ours. Where the rate is 2d. or 2½d. a word it is possible to send at half-rate, but I cannot hold out any hope that such a suggestion would be accepted in this country, where the charge is only a halfpenny a word. As it is we barely pay our way. The tendency of messages is to get shorter and not longer. The average amount per message is now distinctly below 8d. It is 7·9; and as the tendency is in that direction it is likely to be still further developed as time goes on. Before the 6d. telegrams were introduced the average was 1s. 1d. per message. I do not think that the state of the revenue of the Department would justify me in holding out any hope with regard to a cheaper rate of telegraphic transmission. As to the telephonic system, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the Courts have declared it to be a part of the Government monopoly in telegraphs, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office is keeping a watchful eye over the telephones, more with a view to the improvement of the system than with any intention of acquiring them. My predecessor, Mr. Fawcett, unfortunately stated in public that steps would not be taken by the Government to enforce the rights which the Judgment gave them; and a state of things has thereby been created which requires very careful handling, so far as the department is concerned. The patents, however, are likely to lapse very soon, and when they have run out that will be the time to make arrangements, which, I trust, will differ in almost every respect from existing arrangements. With regard to telephones being put into post-offices, that is subsidiary to the larger question. In some parts of England the telephonic system is under the control of the Government absolutely, and there it is, of course, comparatively easy to make arrangements such as have been indicated. So long as the telephone companies continue to ply their trade, it is not desirable, I think, that the Government should commit itself to arrangements Which might seem in any way to recognize or establish a vested intereset, which I, for one cannot admit to exist. The grievance

  1063
  of the public in this matter ought, no doubt, to be removed as soon as possible, and it should be done upon terms satisfactory to all parties. I congratulate the Committee upon having taken a step which has been looked forward to for many years by all who have been anxious to extend our telegraphic system—the step of sanctioning the acquisition of the system of the Submarine Telegraph Company, from which I anticipate the most beneficial results alike for the public and for the Department.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When will the acquisition take place?
  MR. RAIKES: I think I had better not enter into particulars at present.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: There is one matter which the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked. I refer to the paragraph in the Report of the Controller and Auditor General in which he says that no attempt has been made at any detailed stocktaking for many years, and that the regulations laid down for the purpose have not been observed. I hope that matter will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. RAIKES: When an opportunity is afforded to us for stocktaking, I hope to be able to effect a thorough overhauling of every department.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the average number of words in a telegraphic message are eight, does that include the addresses? If I recollect rightly, the addresses used to average 12 words; the average number of words in a message was about 25.
  MR. RAIKES: I ought to have said that the average charge for each message was 8d., and not that each message averaged eight words.
  *SIR J. PEASE: I may remind my right hon. Friend, who seemed somewhat to complain of the use the railway companies made of the wires, that if his business has increased, that of the railway companies has increased also as regards the forwarding of goods by methods which differ from those formerly adopted, and that in this respect the requirements of the traders are much greater than formerly. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey that there is any friction between his department and the rail-
  1064
  way companies of the Kingdom. It has been my duty to sit on a Railway Committee which has to deal with the Post Office, and I may say that in order to meet the convenience of the public and the Post Office, many trains are now run at earlier hours than they would otherwise be run, and that the profit of the railway companies is made subservient to the interests of the public as far as the Post Office is concerned. As a matter of fact, I do not recollect, in a long series of years, any dispute with the Post Office as to what should be paid for these earlier trains, or at what hours they should be run. The railway companies feel that it is a public services which they are bound to perform in connection with the monopoly they enjoy, and there is very little or no friction whatever in carrying out the wishes of the Post Office.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIE: There is one small point which I desire to mention. A messenger who delivers a telegram should be authorized to wait for five or ten minutes in order to see if there is a return message. This would be an indulgence to persons living in the rural districts who at present find the tariff for porterage almost a prohibitory tariff. At present whether the messenger waits for a reply message depends upon his amiability, which in its turn depends upon a pecuniary douceur.
  *SIR J. PULESTON: I must congratulate my right hon. Friend on the satisfactory results which have attended the establishment of sixpenny telegrams, and which are due largely to the efficient administration of the department over which he presides. When the question of sixpenny telegrams was before the House a great point in the discussion was then propriety of allowing free addresses. The right hon. Gentleman who was then Postmaster General and others did not see their way at that time to give free addresses, but there was a kind of understanding that that would follow when the cost and the expenditure were something like equal.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.
  *SIR J. PULESTON: That was certainly the general understanding. Every Member of the House recognized the importance of free addresses, and it was understood that they would be given when the cost and the expense

  1065
  reached an equilibrium. I am delighted to find that we have now reached a point when the profits, notwithstanding the additional outlay, are appreciable, and I hope the Postmaster General will be able to give some encouraging assurance that we shall now get free addresses. It is an important point and the only objection that was urged when the matter was discussed before was the financial one.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am afraid that the coping stone the hon. Member would like to see placed over the telegraphic system is the privilege of sending messages gratis. The address is an integral part of the message, and I think I may say that it formed no part of the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that there should be free addresses, nor of those who supported my right hon. Friend in his movement for sixpenny telegrams. The objection to free addresses was that unnecessary words were consumed in the addresses. My right hon. Friend told us that upon one occasion he received a telegram in which the address numbered 17 words. One great improvement derived from the introduction of the present system is in the reduction of the number of words in the addresses, and I think it would be a highly retrogressive step to revert to the old system. Any reduction that is made ought to be made in the cost of the whole message and not in any particular part of it. The figures which the Postmaster General has laid before us this evening are, I think, highly satisfactory, and show that the Post Office is conducted on sound commercial principles, while at the same time a due regard is paid to the public interests. The figures, however, are not those which are ordinarily presented in any other commercial undertaking. There is no capital account. The entire capital expenditure is charged against the expenditure of the year, and therefore when you say that you have a balance against the telegraph income you are debiting that income with a large capital outlay for the purpose of developing the business. The capital outlay upon the Post Office and Telegraphs is defrayed out of the income of the year. It is not fair therefore to say that it is
  1066
  only producing so much in the year because it is really producing the entire capital expenditure of the year, and in addition a small sum beyond with every prospect of its being hereafter increased.
  MR. S. BUXTON: I wish to put a question in reference to the submarine telegraph. Do I understand that by voting an additional sum now we are committing ourselves to any particular scheme, or that we are actually committed to the purchase? Having regard to the disastrous bargains which we have hitherto made, I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing the matter before we are committed to the purchase. The right hon. Gentleman says that the matter is still under negotiation, and that he is unable to give us the actual figures. What I wish to know is whether before we are committed to a large expenditure we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter?
  MR. RAIKES: A separate Estimate will be presented to the House, and the House will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I believe that only £41,000 is paid by the Submarine Companies for the use of special wires, and I think that it might be readily increased to £100,000. The Eastern Telegraph Company only pays £6,000, whereas, I think, it could well afford to pay £20,000. Some very important evidence was given by Mr. Patey in regard to these special wires. He was asked if he had any idea of the amount of business done between England and the rest of the world by the Cable Companies, and he answered in the negative. Nor was there any power, he said, to ascertain the business done by these companies. In view of the fact that the Cable Companies pay much larger dividends than the Telegraph Companies, I think that some steps ought to be taken to ascertain what business they do with the view of increasing the sum now paid by them for special wires.
  *MR. HALLEY STEWART: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is incorrect to speak o a "loss of £200,000 on Press messages.' I gather from his statement that this sum is an unmade profit, which is quite

  1067
  a different thing to a loss. We should like to learn from the Postmaster General what is the actual cost of the messages and the income—to know whether there is a profit or loss?
  *MR. BARCLAY: With regard to the Post Office Department acquiring the telephones, I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman will oppose any application which may be made by the Telephone Company for extension of their patent?
  *MR. DE LISLE: I think there is great force in the remarks which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cochrane-Baillie). We are supposed, now, to be in the enjoyment of sixpenny telegrams. As far as the towns are concerned, that is really so, but in the rural districts the sixpenny telegram does not exist. You cannot get a telegram for less than a shilling if you live a mile away from the office, and anything over two miles cost 1s. 6d. Now, our letters are conveyed all over the country, whether 100 yards from the post office or 10 miles, at the same charge of a penny. I am quite aware that the Department cannot be called upon to deliver telegrams at the public expense at a cheaper rate than now, but I would suggest that something might be done for the rural districts by a re-arrangement of terms. For instance, where 6d. is charged for porterage, the messenger should be required to wait for at least a quarter of an hour to enable the receiver of the telegram to write a reply. By far the greater number of town telegrams relate to gambling or speculating in some form or another, while those to and from rural districts relate chiefly to agriculture, which at the present moment is a much-suffering industry. Manufacturers can send back their replies without having to employ porters, and it is to be hoped that the Post Office will soon be able to devise a scheme by which town and country may be placed more on an equality with regard to telegraphic facilities. The telegraphs are now much used by the farmers, and the complaint is that more attention is paid to the horse racing and gambling interest than to those of agriculture. The men on the Stock Exchange get their telegrams for sixpence, while the farmers have to pay double. I trust that my right hon. Friend may be
  1068
  able to give the Committee an assurance that this matter will receive due consideration.
  MR. MOLLOY: I rise for the purpose of supporting the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston). The hon. Member has said that when the subject of the sixpenny telegrams was before the House a demand was made for the inclusion of the addresses. That demand was not conceded, but it was understood that as soon as it was shown that sixpenny telegrams were a financial success the inclusion of addresses should be considered. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton says there was no such understanding.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: Not on the part of the late Government.
  MR. MOLLOY: It was distinctly understood that as soon as the sixpenny telegrams proved a financial success, as they have now proved to be, the addresses should be sent free. I recollect that both the hon. Member for Devonport and myself spoke upon the subject, and the statement of the then Postmaster General was that it would be better to see what the result of sixpenny telegrams would be financially before we went further. We had a long fight about these sixpenny telegrams, and the prophecy then made has now been fulfilled. Therefore I think the time has now arrived when the inclusion of free addresses should at any rate be considered. The fact that the right hon. Member for Bradford once received a telegram in which the address comprised 17 words is of no importance at all; it is very improbable that a person sending a message to the Postmaster General would say "The Right Hon. John Joseph Jones, Her Majesty's Postmaster General," and so on. The cheaper telegrams are made, the more will the telegraphs be used, and the better it will be for the commercial prosperity of the country. I believe that, on the average, five words cover addresses; and therefore, notwithstanding the opposition of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, I trust that the Government will concede the boon now asked for.
  *SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has

  1069
  taken exception to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport on the ground that free addresses would encourage an unnecessary and extravagant diffuseness of language; but surely any concession in this direction would naturally take the form of allowing a certain number of words—say four or five—to pass free, provided these words formed the address. I can conceive no reasonable objection to such a concession, and it really amounts, in one point of view, to a reduction in the general price of telegrams. It is not a very large concession for the Post Office to make, and would not entail a heavy charge upon the revenue of the Department. It would simply increase the number of words sent for 6d. from 12 to 16 or 17, because, as a rule, four or five words of each telegram consists of addresses. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if not mow, will at some early period see his way to make this concession.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: While we have no right to expect that the Department should be carried on at a loss, I think we might well insist that as soon as sixpenny messages realize a profit free addresses should be wholly or partially included. I believe that that was the understanding when the system of sixpenny telegrams was established.
  *MR. CAUSTON: Before the telegraphs passed into the hands of the Government longer messages than at present could be sent for sixpence within the Metropolis. When the Government took over the telegraphs the rate was at once doubled. I hope that at no distant time the experiment will be tried of including addresses in the charge. We were told, when sixpenny telegrams were first proposed, that the system would involve a terrible loss to the Revenue, and the right hon. Gentleman, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said it was impossible to carry it out with success. They have now been in operation for some years, and the experiment has proved to be successful, and I think the time has now arrived when it would be wise on the part of the Government to concede free addresses. It would not entail any considerable additional cost upon the Post Office, and would, undoubtedly, be of great advantage to the public generally.
  *SIR J. PULESTON: I should be willing to acquiesce in the restriction to five words for the address, if we can induce the right hon. Gentleman to accept that as an instalment, and I believe there was an understanding, though not, perhaps, a bargain, with the right hon. Member for Bradford, that the inclusion of addresses should be considered as soon as a financial equilibrium was established. I do not think we should regard the Post Office revenue as a source of profit only, where the general interests of the country are concerned.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I feel bound to confirm the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that, at the time sixpenny telegrams were adopted, there was no understanding whatever come to at the time that there was to be a return to free addresses; and the difficulty chiefly put forward was not the financial one, but it was the large number of words used unnecessarily in addresses when addresses were free. It was found that the average number of words for the names and addresses of sender and sendee was 13.
  *SIR J. PULESTON: I think the average number was nine.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No; 13, and the surplusage involved a large loss in transmission, which was saved by abolishing free addresses. I believe that now the average number of words required for names and addresses has been reduced to something like four. This shows a saving, both to the public and to the Department, in the cost of transmitting four words, as against 13. I believe the Postmaster General would do a very unwise thing if he were to revert to the old system of free addresses. It cannot be done without greatly increasing the cost, and if any additional advantage is to be given to the public, it should be given in another direction.
  Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think the country is to be congratulated on having acquired the Channel cables, and on making the service a public one for the country, instead of being in the hands of a company. I hope there will be an early reduction in the rates now charged for telegrams by the monopolist companies. Although I believe that the Postmaster General is inclined to do his best for the

  1071
  public, we all know that enormous pressure has been put upon him by quasi vested interests. I trust that the adjustment and absorption of the submarine cable will lead to a considerable reduction of expenditure as well as an improved service. So far as the newspaper telegrams are concerned, for my part, I am very willing that the country should submit to a very cheap rate in that respect; but I think that some supervision should be exercised over the telegrams themselves, in order to see that the news is really of interest to the public, or that the money is not expended on messages about pugilism, royalties, and subjects of that kind. As to telephones, there is a very convenient service in Switzerland, and I do not see why we should not possess similar advantages. With regard to the House itself, it is most inconvenient to have to go beyond the Outer Lobby in order to despatch a telegram. The journey is not only long, but also dangerous, because hon. Members are liable to fall into the hands of strangers. I trust that something will be done for the convenience of the House in this respect.
  MR. RAIKES: I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of adopting free addresses. The estimated cost of reverting to free addresses is not less than £400,000 a-year, and he would be a bold Minister indeed who would hold out a prospect of incurring such a loss in restoring the old system. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury wishes us to institute a roving Commission to ascertain how the Transatlantic and other submarine cable companies transact their business. I do not see how such an inquiry could be prosecuted, as we have no right to overhaul the books of those companies or to go to Foreign Powers in order to ascertain what their arrangements are with these companies. Therefore, I can hold out no hope of such an inquiry being instituted. The hon. Member for Forfar-shire (Mr. Barclay) has made a suggestion which I will mention in order to correct a mistake into which some hon. Members have fallen. There is no intention on the part of the Government to acquire the telephones by purchase. I may, in conclusion, take this opportunity of referring to the grievous loss the Telegraph Department has just sustained in the death of Mr. Patey,
  1072
  who was a most competent public servant. His loss is deeply felt, and his memory is endeared to all who had the advantage of serving under him.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: If all of the small railway stations were made telegraph offices, I think that would do away with the difficulty in regard to porterage in the rural districts.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I desire to know whether the Postmaster General is satisfied with the amount which the cable companies pay to the Government for the use of the wires? That amount is, I maintain, very much less than it ought to be.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to recall the attention of the Postmaster General to a matter I referred to at the end of last Session—namely, the case of a postmaster in a country town who has been elected Mayor of that town. I should like to know how this public functionary can fulfil his duties to the municipality—attending meetings of the Town Council, meetings of Committees, and so on—and at the same time discharge his duty as postmaster? I also understand that this person is agent for the Sun Insurance Company, and I wish to know whether it is permissible, under the Post Office Regulations, for a postmaster to occupy, with matters of this kind, the time he should be devoting to the service of the Post Office?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The subject the hon. Member is raising is not relevant to this Vote.
  *MR. HENNIKER HEATON: If I do not receive a reply on the subject of the charges to the cable companies, I shall feel obliged to move a reduction of the Vote. These Companies are paying £41,000 a-year to the Government for the use of their wires, which I submit is not nearly enough. One of the companies is only paying £6,000, whereas it should be paying £20,000. No steps, I believe, are being taken to ascertain the amount of business that the companies do, which, I think, is a great mistake.
  MR. RAIKES: If the hon. Member wishes the Government to make an inquiry into the matter in order to ascertain the amount of profit earned by the Cable Company, I must repeat what I have already stated—namely, that the subject is not a proper one for

  1073
  Government investigation. When we put up a wire for a company we make a charge sufficient to yield a fair profit and cover the cost of repairs, and that is all the answer which I can give the hon. Member. As to the amount of money which the people who use the wires make under the arrangement, that is a matter which lies wholly outside the consideration of the Government.
  Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS I.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £78,395, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000 in respect of the expenditure on Richmond Park. In round numbers the amount expended on this park is, I think, £4,600 per annum. Well, looking at the cost of police and the probable cost of mending the roads—which cannot be very much, considering the small amount of traffic—there must be something like £3,000 spent on the trees and grass in the park. We on this side of the House, as a rule, are not able to have great parks of our own; but I appeal to the landed interest on the other side. I ask whether, if an hon. Member had a park of 2,000 or 3,000 acres, the roads being maintained, he would think of expending £3,000 a year on it? Yet that is what is done in the case of Richmond Park. How the money is spent or squandered I have no clear idea. There are some calves in the park—some with horns and some without—and we are told that they cost a great deal of money, but I doubt whether, in private deer parks, owners dream of spending as much as £3,000 a year because of these animals. I think that this Vote is excessive, and that in moving this reduction I am altogether within the mark. I am certain that Richmond Park could be well maintained for £2,000 a year.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £77,395, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. S. BUXTON: I should like to ask to ask why it is that we have the charge for park-keepers and gatekeepers lumped together, instead of being given separately, in the Estimates, and also I should like to ask for an explanation of the increase under this head?
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): It would not be reasonable for me to go through all the items of expenditure in connection with the maintenance of this park; but I can assure the hon. Member for Northampton that the Government have been doing what they can, especially in recent years, to reduce the expenditure for Richmond Park, as well as for the other parks. It is, however, impossible that we can have such a handsome park as that at Richmond maintained as cheaply as an ordinary private park. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Poplar, I may explain that the increased expense this year for park-keepers and gatekeepers is due to the fact that we have had to make some provision for the superannuation of constables who, under the new arrangement as to St. James's and the Green Parks, will no longer be in our service. There will, however, be an ultimate saving of expense when the arrangement is completed, and police duty will be performed by the keepers in conjunction with their ordinary work.
    MR. S. BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I desire to know why this item for keepers is put down in a lump sum?
    *MR. PLUNKET: I am afraid I can give no further explanation.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given a reasonable answer to my criticism. The right hon. Gentleman says we cannot expect to keep up a public park as cheaply as a private park. I do not ask him to keep up Richmond Park as cheaply, but what I say is that the owner of a private park would make some profit out of his property by grazing, and, granting that we do not attempt to make a profit in that way, surely £2,000 is enough to be out of pocket. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give me some explanation of the matter, for the public outside take

    1075
    a strong view of these matters, and may suspect that the part of this money goes into the pocket of somebody or other. I see we have a bailiff of the Royal Parks who has to look after all the Royal Parks for £700 a-year; we have a Banger, a Superintendent at a salary of £346, and an Assistant Superintendent at £150 per annum. There is, besides this, a large sum paid to gamekeepers—though I do not find them in the Estimates. I protested against the payment for gamekeepers over and over again, and at last the item disappeared, but the individuals did not—they remained. They do very much the same thing, but they are not called "gamekeepers." This shows how necessary it is to look into these matters. I should like to ask how many persons "make a good thing" out of Richmond Park? There are a considerable number of houses there granted by Her Majesty, and there are gardens round those houses. I should like to know if the gardeners who attend to these gardens are paid out of this Vote?
    *MR. PLUNKETwas understood to deny the justice of the personal imputations suggested in the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton, and to say that it would take two or three days to give the hon. Member the information he asked for.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I must take exception to the air of innocence assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. He says it would take three days to give the hon. Member for Northampton the information he asks for. Well, I contend that, even if it took three weeks to give it, the right hon. Gentleman's duty is to offer that information. I desire to know—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can find time to answer this—who are the Rangers and Deputy Rangers we see put down in this Vote? Is the Ranger a Royal personage—is he a pluralist—and what work does he do for his pay? I am told that the Ranger of Green Park is a Royal personage, but I have never seen him looking after the gatekeepers and turncocks there. If I do not get any information on this point I shall move to report Progress.
    *MR. PLUNKET: The Ranger—as the hon. Member himself must know—is His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I did not know anything of the sort.
    *MR. PLUNKET: The Ranger has a considerable authority over the parks, and I have often derived advantage from his advice and co-operation.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the useful piece of information he has given. I may remark that I am not in the habit of putting questions to waste the time of the Committee—I put questions to elicit information, as I have a right to do. How on earth am I to know the various offices of these Royal Dukes and hangers-on? With regard to the Ranger of these parks, I must say it seems to me that the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces ought to have enough to do in connection with his military duties without having to occupy his time with these pettifogging duties in connection with the parks.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 144.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I wish to call attention to the question of Constitution Hill—a subject which was discussed the other day in connection with another matter. I take this the earliest opportunity of again raising the subject. I observe that a number of Members base their opposition to Constitution Hill being closed except to privileged persons on the ground that they are not included in the list, but I am disposed to think that if the Members of this House were admitted to the privilege, the chances of the public claim to use the road being fairly considered would be in no degree augmented. I think this drive should be open on the ground of public convenience. Constitution Hill forms a direct line between important districts of the Metropolis—for example, from this House to Hyde Park Corner. In the same way as the drive across the Horse Guards Parade, now opened to the public, is a great public convenience, so would the benefit of opening Constitution Hill be felt. Now we have to take a detour by St. James's and Piccadilly, or go round by that huge enclosure, Buckingham Palace Gardens. One point raised in this discussion is the privacy of Buckingham Palace Gardens. I do not know that

    1077
    there is anyone in Buckingham Palace for whom privacy is required. Of course, any time Her Majesty is at the Palace it would be perfectly simple to have the road closed. But even now the whole front of the Palace is used for vehicular traffic, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that the privacy of the Palace is already secured as far as it may be by the enclosure of Buckingham Palace Gardens. I think another reason for supporting the opening of the Hill is that the list is an absurd relic of privilege which ought to be abolished. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That £78,295, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
    *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I rise with the utmost pleasure to support the proposition of my hon. Friend. It seems to me so reasonable and moderate that it ought to command the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket). But if for some official reason the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give it his independent consideration, I think it might well claim the support of Members opposite. Members of Parliament had formerly the exclusive privilege of driving in cabs to the House of Commons through Storey's Gate. That privilege is now taken away from them, and shared by the general public. And in regard to Richmond Park, it was stated in a previous debate that formerly the Ranger would only allow carriages to pass round the Park. No one on this side holds, and I do not believe hon. Members opposite would hold, that only carriages should be permitted in these places. But on Constitution Hill not only are carriages the only vehicles allowed, but absolutely not everybody's carriage—only the carriages of a small minority of ladies and gentlemen who have that especial privilege, which is called the entrée. What we ask Her Majesty's Government to do is to open the roadway, and to relieve the congested districts on either side of the Park. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it has often been suggested that a road should be made from the North of London down to the Thames in order to relieve the
    1078
    crowded traffic of Bond Street and St. James's Street. All who live in that part of London know how inconvenient it is at times. All we ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to open a roadway which is paid for and maintained by the taxpayer, and not reserve it to the use of a small minority of ladies and gentlemen who, I believe, pay their taxes, although I am not certain whether they do so in all cases. I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this subject on the grounds that the roadway is maintained by the taxpayer, that to open it would be to relieve a congested district, and that it would abolish an absurd system of privilege which is now completely out of date.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: This subject has already been discussed once this Session, and I think there will be no desire to discuss it at any length. I will make a suggestion which might remedy the inconvenience complained of. It would be, no doubt, an enormous convenience to the public to have a short cut from Hyde Park Corner to Buckingham Gate. It would be a great relief to the traffic. But I have always felt in regard to Constitution Hill that it is a narrow roadway with trees on either side. If the road were opened to the public, it would be necessary to cut down the trees on one side, and for my part I would have very great hesitation in doing that. It is one of the most beautiful walks in London, and it would be a very serious detriment to the Park if we were to cut down the trees. I have often thought that a new road might be made from the bottom of Hamilton Place to Buckingham Gate. There is already a broad walk there which lies for the first half of the distance in a kind of dell, and is well adapted for abroad road. If that were done, it would avoid the necessity of cutting down the trees on Constitution Hill. The difficulty would be solved, and a new road would be opened for traffic, while Constitution Hill could be reserved solely to the use of Her Majesty, and the existing privilege extended to a certain number of people would thus be abolished. I throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It is one which has often occurred to me, and one which, had I been longer in the

    1079
    position which he now occupies, I had thought of submitting to the House. At any rate, I think it is a better mode of dealing with the case than that of cutting down the trees on Constitution Hill.
    *MR. PLUNKET: Any suggestion coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who has previously filled the office I now have the honour to hold, will, of course, be received by me with the greatest possible consideration; but, as this suggestion comes now before me for the first time, I cannot at present express any opinion upon it. Constitution Hill has always been regarded as Her Majesty's private drive in connection with Buckingham Palace. I admit that there is a certain amount of inconvenience in this arrangement to a certain portion of the people; but Constitution Hill is open for all the purposes of foot passengers, and it is only those who drive in carriages or cabs who will be favoured if the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were adopted. The suggestion, however, is one that does not affect the public generally; and it is not probable that those from whom it really emanates would be glad to see omnibuses admitted as well as cabs.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!
    *MR. PLUNKET: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to see tramcars there?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!
    *MR. PLUNKET: Well, I confess that I am unable to take that view. The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote spoke of our closing Constitution Hill.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I think I used the words "partial closing."
    *MR. PLUNKET: The word I objected to was "closing." Instead of closing or partially closing the Royal Parks, we have done all we can to render them more accessible to the public; and I will only now repeat that I will consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman says I am in favour of omnibuses and cabs going up Constitution Hill, and so I am, while, personally, I should not have the slightest objection to tram-cars. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that omnibuses and cabs are not excluded from the Green Park and the Mall, while they are only excluded from a
    1080
    portion of Hyde Park on the ground that so many private carriages go there to make a sort of spectacular show for we poor foot-passengers who go to look at them. I cannot see why the cab which starts from Marlborough House and goes along the Mall, and might go through Buckingham Gate, passing right under the windows of the Palace, should not be allowed to turn up Constitution Hill. The right hon. Gentleman says Constitution Hill ought not to be opened because it has never been closed.
    *MR. PLUNKET: No.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, that is how it appeared to me; and I say there is no reason why it should not be opened, and I have never, although I have often heard the matter discussed in this House, heard a single good reason urged against that proposal. Here, in the centre of London, is a large space, having on one side a park and on the other a large garden, between which runs a road which is precisely the road required for the use of the public. I am convinced that if hon. Gentlemen vote for this proposal in sufficient numbers, Her Majesty will most readily grant the boon to Her subjects. I do not think, however, that Her Majesty's Ministers have been quite candid on the subject; on the contrary, I think they have misstated the strong feeling which exists on the part of the people upon the subject; and I think we ought to convey that feeling in the vote we are about to give on this question. I may say that I think the counter-proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) is a most astounding one. He says, "Let us leave this road sacred to Royalty, and have a new one." This road is maintained at the public cost, and he wishes it to be left only for the use of Members on the Royal Family. But there are the Privy Councillors also, and are they to excluded? And what about those Elysian Fields that are now considered sacred to nursemaids and children? Why should the road be kept for the exclusive use of the Queen? I am sure Her Majesty is not in the least anxious to have a road sacred to her. The reason why the public are not permitted to drive along Constitution Hill is not on account of any objection on the part of Her Majesty, but because a few persons like the swagger of being able to drive

    1081
    along it while the public are obliged to walk. That is the reason why Constitution Hill is to be kept shut from general vehicular traffic. You, Mr. Courtney, will remember very well what happened in the Reign of George III. You will remember that an Irish gentleman asked Mr. Pitt for the privilege of driving along Constitution Hill, but Mr. Pitt said—"I cannot give you that; but as you have been a faithful servant of the public and voted for everything I wanted, I will make you an Irish Peer." That is the sort of privilege this exclusiveness has been considered. The road is not to be kept open for the benefit of the public, but in favour of a few privileged Brahmins who want to drive along it, to the exclusion of everybody else. I do hope we shall, by the vote that will be given on this question, show that there are a considerable number of Members of this House who think it can do no harm to allow the public the use of a road which is maintained at considerable public expense.
    MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Although I do not remember the time of George III., I do remember the discussion about throwing open the road between Marlborough House and Storey's Gate, and that I took some part in bringing about the result. That proposal was grounded upon the fact that it could not interfere with the privileges of the Royal Family. In the same way I do not see that the user of Constitution Hill would by any means interfere with the privileges of the Royal Family; and therefore, as I understand the reduction of the Vote is moved in order to obtain the sense of the Committee on that proposal, I shall think it my duty to follow the hon. Member into the Lobby. Well, Sir, I also at that time proposed that a roadway should be made across St. James's Park Ornamental Water. The proposal did not find favour at the time either with the authorities or with the House of Commons. But I rise to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the user to a moderate extent of Constitution Hill can by no means interfere with the enjoyment of it by Royalty; and therefore I shall feel it my duty to follow the hon. Member into the Lobby. With regard to the suggestion to open a road from Hamilton
    1082
    Place across the Green Park, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has already made such a wilderness of that part of London, and his attempts to make Hyde Park Corner an ornamental part of the Metropolis are such a conspicuous failure, not only by the removal of the Arch, sinking it down into a place where it was never intended to stand, but turning it sideways to the main road, where it is an object of ridicule, and also by placing in the open space an absurd statue, that I look with great suspicion on any proposal coming from the same quarter.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Shall I be in order in drawing attention on this Vote to inclosures in Greenwich Park?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Not until the Question before the Committee is disposed of.
    *MR. DE LISLE: I shall support this Motion, not only for reasons more or less the same as those of my right hon. Friend, but also because I have a further and ulterior object in view—namely, the opening up of the Mall to Trafalgar Square and so relieving the present congestion of traffic from the West by Piccadilly. There is really no difficulty in opening Constitution Hill. The road is a good width already, and if the footpath on the left side going downwards from the Archway were thrown into the road, it would be about as wide as the Strand is in some places. This would entail the loss of not more than 4 or 5 trees. The further end of the Mall is now of no use to anybody, but if cut through Spring Gardens into Trafalgar Square, the great open Boulevard connecting Kensington and Knightsbridge with the Strand and the Embankment would be one of the finest in Europe, not to speak of the relief to traffic in Piccadilly and the convenience of Members of Parliament living in Kensington and Knightsbridge.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My alternative proposal was made under the idea that if Constitution Hill were opened up, it would be necessary to widen it, and in order to do so a number of trees would have to be cut down, which would be a great misfortune. It was only in that view that I made the suggestion, and if it should turn out that I am mistaken, I will gladly advocate the opening o Constitution Hill.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 80.—(Div. List, No. 49).
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. PHILIPPS: It seems to me to be unfair to the country constituencies that they should be called upon to pay a large sum for the Parks and Pleasure Grounds of London. Here, in this Estimate, is a sum of £2,305 for Richmond Park, of £2,232 for Greenwich Park, of £10,060 for Regent's Park, of £33,828 for St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks, £2,883 for Bushey Park, and £937 for Hampton Court Park. I especially omit all mention of Kew Gardens, because from that place other parts of the country may be supposed to derive some benefit, seeing that Kew is an experimental station. But with regard to the other parks, it must be remembered that London is the richest place in the world, and I maintain that Londoners ought to pay for their own parks, because, although they are called Royal parks, they are really nothing else than pleasure grounds for the benefit of the people of London, and; therefore, they should be maintained solely by Londoners. London can well afford to do that; if it wants money it is only needful to put a tax on ground landlords, and you will get plenty. The Vote altogether is £90,000, and I protest that this is a great deal too large a sum for people in distant parts of the country to be called upon to pay for the benefit of rich Londoners. I therefore move the reduction of the Vote by £52,244.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That £26,155 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Philipps.)
    *MR. HOWELL: I cannot support the Amendment, If Londoners are to have those parks under their own control, no doubt they will be well satisfied to pay for them. But the people of London have scarcely what can be called even a part proprietary right in them; they have only the right to walk in them, just as people coming to London from other parts of the country have. Those parks are, to all intents and purposes, national parks, and not London parks. They are merely London parks because they happen to be situated in the Metropolis.
    DR. CLARK: I am astonished at my hon. Friend talking of these as national parks. On his principle every park in every large city in the three kingdoms is a national park in the same sense. I think the time has come when the expense of maintaining the parks ought to be borne by the people of London, which, through its County Council, has control of its own affairs. You must remember that when any unfortunate provincial comes to London he leaves a great deal with the lodging-house keepers, and thus enables them to pay their rates. The people in the country ought not to be called upon to maintain parks for the benefit of the wealthy people of London. It is all very well to say that the Government make a grant towards the maintenance of the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. But, after all, it is only a miserable Vote, and you are doing your best to take it away from us.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 100.—(Div. List, No. 50.)
    *Mr. CREMER: I am sorry to intervene at this stage of the proceedings, and I only do so because I feel it incumbent upon me to move the reduction of the Vote by £500. I make this Motion as a protest against the conduct of the Government in depriving the people of London of the right of meeting in St. James's Park. The people of London are compelled, in common with the rest of their countrymen, to maintain the Park. The Government have absolutely prohibited the people from meeting in Trafalgar Square, and six or eight months ago I pointed out to the First Commissioner of Works and the Home Secretary that there was a capital alternative site, that site being the Horse Guards' Parade. The Home Secretary promised to take the question into his consideration, and after four months' deliberation he announced to the House that the Government had come to the conclusion that the people ought not to be permitted to meet at that place. I think it is one of the very best sites in London for meeting purposes. It is exceedingly quiet, the spot belongs to the people, there are no privileged classes so far as I am aware who have any more right to it than we have, and yet we are shut out from it. Even the

    1085
    Home Secretary admits that the people ought to have some place of meeting. It is impossible for us to raise £100, £150, or £200 with which to pay for halls in which to meet and express our differences with various Governments, or to ventilate our grievances, real or imaginary, and no matter what Government is in office the people will always have something to say in regard to the doings of the Government. It will be exceedingly dangerous, and, I believe, the Home Secretary practically admitted this view of the matter, to attempt to prevent the people from meeting to ventilate their grievances The Horse Guards Parade is a centre place upon which the people from the east, west, north, and south could converge; a gathering of people there would not interfere with the comfort or convenience of any inhabitants, neither will the traffic of the Metropolis be interfered with. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That '£77,895' be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    Attention called to the number of Members present. Committee counted, and 40 Members found in their places.
    MR. CONYBEARE: It is a very important subject the hon. Member for Haggerston has raised, and I hope he will take the sense of the Committee on his Motion for the purpose of placing before the citizens of London the necessity of making use of this open space, the Horse Guards Parade, now that the Government have driven us from our accustomed place of meeting. What single substantial objection is there against this use of the Parade? For the greater part of everyday the space is unoccupied. There are military meetings there sometimes, and I have myself taken part in meetings of Volunteers on the Parade. Why draw a distinction and refuse to allow citizens in their everyday dress to meet and discuss public questions, where you allow these same citizens to meet in uniform, and go through a number of military evolutions? I heartily support the proposal, though I do not for a moment waive our claim to meet in Trafalgar Square. There are many places where we are entitled to meet, but I do not wish to go into the
    1086
    general question. There can be no quibbling objection to this Parade as a place of meeting; it is admirably situated from its position, and for the greater part of the day it is deserted. I really do not understand what objection there can be, unless the Government mean to wage war against the right of free public meeting everywhere.
    *SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: As a Metropolitan Member I am not disposed to complain of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division for interposing in the discussion of a question that is really of Metropolitan interest, because I am one of those who consider that Metropolitan interests should be regarded as of Imperial interest, and that because they are Metropolitan, and I think Imperial taxation should bear a fair charge for the cost of such interests. But I do venture to protest, as a Metropolitan Member, and as representing a large, quiet, and orderly portion of the citizens of London, against the hon. Member coming down to the House and endeavouring to open a scene for riot and disorder in the midst of the Metropolis. I am one of the last who would wish, in any way, to curtail any of the facilities that exist for the largest public meetings. I have myself used those facilities largely in the past, and I hope frequently to use them in the future; but I do say that the broad expanse of Hyde Park lends itself admirably to every possible legitimate occasion for public meeting. ["No!"] An hon. Member denies that; but I say it is impossible to conceive of any public meeting so large, or any number of meetings so extensive, that Hyde Park would not offer sufficient space. As to convenience of situation, why, there is but the difference of five minutes' walk between Hyde Park and the Horse Guards Parade; and it is idle to pretend that in point of position one is more convenient than the other. The hon. Member for Haggerston told us that the spot belongs to the people, and therefore he claims it for the use of the people, and that they have the right to meet there. Yes, Sir, it belongs to the people, and for that reason I claim it should be retained for the use of the people and not handed over to a noisy band of agitators. I would deny these the right to come into such places,

    1087
    and still more would I deny the right of those criminal classes who do—it must be admitted very commonly—follow in the wake of such demonstrations.
    An hon. MEMBER: And of Lord Mayors' Shows.
    *SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Yes, but there is no proposition to open the Horse Guards' Parade to the Civic Procession. The hon. Member for Haggerston told us it was a quiet spot, and so it is, and so it should be, for not only is it situated in close proximity to the Royal Palaces and close to Government offices, it is very near where the Imperial Parliament holds its Sittings; and, therefore, I think there is every reason to retain it in its quietude and not run the risk of disorder and disturbance so near the House.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I did not quite understand whether you put the reduction generally on the Vote. Am I at liberty to raise the question of enclosures in the parks?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member is premature.
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think it will be felt, especially after the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet and of the hon. Member for North Kensington, that a reply from the Chief Commissioner of Works would tend to shorten discussion. It struck me the hon. Member moved the Amendment in a clear and temperate manner, and unless it can be shown that his proposition is unreasonable I shall support him.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I quite understood the hon. Member to say it was his intention to take a Division as marking his protest. He admitted, I think, that this matter was fully debated when the whole subject of open air public meetings in the Metropolis was thoroughly discussed earlier in the Session.
    *MR. CREMER: The right hon. Gentleman is under some slight misapprehension. I did not say the question I had raised was fairly discussed when the Speech from the Throne was before the House. I said that the question of Royal Parks had been fairly discussed this evening. I may be permitted to say, in reply to the hon. Member for North Kensington, that if he
    1088
    had to tramp from Limehouse to Hyde Park, as many people have in order to take part in popular demonstrations, he would appreciate the distance of the Parade from Hyde Park. The two places are 20 minutes walk apart, and the walk there and back, 40 minutes, make a sensible difference to a man who has walked from the far East of London. I think we ought to have the support of those who boast themselves Constitutionalists, if they are anxious to maintain the right of free speech in open spaces. Surely it is better to allow the people to come together, to blow off superfluous steam, and ventilate their grievances, than to sit on the safety valve until an explosion takes place.
    DR. CLARK: We have heard no reason why meetings should not take place on the Parade. One advantage would be, there is no damage to be done. All demonstrations in Hyde Park are, to a certain extent, harmful to the Park. The grass is trampled down and in danger of being destroyed—an open space without turf is drier and not open to the same objection. This place is the more necessary for public meetings, seeing that you have taken away the right the people enjoyed for 40 years to meet in Trafalgar Square. The remarks of the hon. Member for North Kensington would apply equally to meetings in Hyde Park, or anywhere else. But poor people cannot afford to organize a big meeting in a public hall—50 guineas for a night in St. James's Hall is something considerable to them. Indeed, in the Metropolis it is very difficult to get a hall for a popular meeting. Exeter Hall is taken away for other purposes; in fact, we are boycotted all round. It is very difficult to get a large hall for a popular Radical meeting. Proprietors are usually Conservative, and do not like their premises used by people who may raise inconvenient questions that might lose a Member—such as the hon. Member for Kensington, for instance—his seat at the next election. We require public meetings to discuss public matters, no matter whether the Government is Liberal or Conservative; indeed, I think I have assisted in the organization of more demonstrations against Liberal Governments than Conservative Governments. We require

    1089
    sometimes to keep a Liberal Government straight, and we have to protest sometimes against some Conservative Jingo policy against the national interest. But if you are going to deny us the use of all open grounds, where would you have us hold our meetings? We do not wish to have disorder; we wish to have matters settled quietly. Let the County Council, or some other authority, exercise control over the terms and conditions under which meetings shall be held. Your present policy of objection and doing nothing causes deep irritation.
    MR. FIRTH: The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works makes no reply; let me put the question to him in a direct form. On what ground do the Government claim the right, or assert the wisdom, of excluding the people of London from the Horse Guards Parade? The observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite, my former opponent (Sir R. Lethbridge) about riot and agitators and the criminal classes are in the usual line, and will not, I think, be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman asks by what authority Her Majesty's Government prevent Her Majesty's subjects from holding meeting on the Horse Guards Parade—
    MR. FIRTH: No; the right hon. Gentleman mistakes me entirely. I did not say by what authority. I know they have authority. I ask, why? What is the reason for the exclusion?
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: At any rate, I may say, having taken part years ago in passing the Parks Regulation Act through the House, that there was a very strong feeling in the House of Commons at that time that the assemblage of a large number of people in the public parks, and especially near the Houses of Parliament, was much to be deprecated. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that there is an old Act on the Statute Book which prevents the assembling of any meeting within a certain limit of where Parliament is holding its sitting.
    An hon. MEMBER: That is not on the Statute Book.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: If the hon. Member will refer to the Statutes at Large he will find that he has no
    1090
    warrant for his interruption. Whether | it is orderly or not, I leave the Committee to decide.
    MR. FIRTH: I made no interruption.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I referred to the hon. Member for Camborne.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I did not say there was no such Statute in existence.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: It shows the inconvenience of the interpolation of remarks while another Member is addressing the Committee. As a matter of fact the Parks Regulation Act was specially framed with a view to allowing the Government of the day, by the issuing of a Proclamation or the affixing of notices, to prevent a meeting in the Royal Parks. The passage through the streets of a large number of people having in view the object of attending a meeting is, I venture to say, a cause of great public inconvenience. For my part, I regret that Hyde Park should have been set apart for such purposes. St. James's Park has never been so used, and the Green Park has always been kept free from such proceedings. I hope the Government will not, under any conditions, think of inflicting such a nuisance as this upon the Metropolis. The hon. Member for Haggerston asks why those who come from the East End of London should be called upon to trudge a long distance past the Mall and Trafalgar Square to go to Hyde Park. Well, I say, as I said 20 years ago, it would be much better for the people of that district to hold their meetings at the East End; or, as was pointed out at the time I refer to, that Primrose Hill is a much more convenient site for such meetings, and more accessible from the residences of the majority of persons who attend them. But I think it is extremely wrong to induce those who live in the East End to proceed through crowded thoroughfares to hold a meeting in the West End which had much setter be held in their immediate neighbourhood.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I may venture to challenge the law of the right hon. Gentleman. I presume it is material to the discussion before the Committee, or you, Sir, would not have allowed it. I think he is mistaken as to the Statute,

    1091
    which does not forbid any meeting but only meetings for certain purposes.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the hon. Member allow me to say I am perfectly well aware of the terms of the Statute? The Statute forbids the holding of any meeting for the purpose of addressing any petition, notice, or remonstrance to Parliament within the City and Liberties of Westminster while Parliament is sitting, but it does not preclude a meeting being held under the very nose of Parliament for the purpose of passing a resolution.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say any meeting whatever, and I have many reasons for knowing that is incorrect.
    MR. DILLWYN: The objection urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite would apply to Hyde Park as well as anywhere else. Where, I would ask, are the poor people to go? Primrose Hill is suggested, but I remember one occasion when people were told Trafalgar Square was the place instead of Hyde Park. Surely the Horse Guards Parade is a most convenient place for meetings. The people of London are being driven from pillar to post in search of a place in which to hold meetings without danger of interruption.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I did not intend to vote on this question, but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) it seems to me the duty of every Liberal to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will deny the people of London the right to meet in any part of the Metropolis save Primrose Hill or the East End. I should have thought that the Horse Guards Parade was a very good place to meet in.
    MR. PHILIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman opposite evidently has no knowledge of London outside Club land. He does not know how far Primrose Hill is from the East End of London—probably he thinks they are in the same neighbourhood. Why, Primrose Hill is half way to Hampstead, and it is nothing short of an insult to the people of London to ask them to go there to hold their open air meetings.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite does
    1092
    him credit as a legislator and an ex-Minister. I understood him to quote from the Parks Regulation Act.
    *MR. J. LOWTHER: Oh, no.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman said the Government had the right to issue a Proclamation forbidding meetings in the Parks under the Parks Regulation Act of 1872.
    *MR. J. LOWTHER: No; to pass rules.
    MR. CONYBEARE: That is a very different thing. Passing rules is not issuing a proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman has represented the Act in an utterly erroneous light. He has represented that meetings are forbidden in the Green Park and St. James's Park, whilst they are allowed in Hyde Park; but that is not the fact. The Act does not contain any provisions prohibiting public meetings any more than it contains provisions authorizing them. The three Parks mentioned are on entirely the same footing, authority being given to lay down rules, which you can see posted up in the Parks.
    *MR. CREMER: On behalf of my Friends sitting round me, I wish to say that whilst we are not disappointed at the attitude the Government have taken up, we are grieved that we have been treated with such scant courtesy. I stated when I moved the reduction of the Vote that I had no wish to obstruct the proceedings, my wish being to obtain from the Government a statement of their reason for refusing to the people the right of meeting on the Horse Guards' Parade. We have asked one Member of the Government after another for a reason, but none has been given.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I would venture to point out that it will be utterly impossible to get through the Estimates if so much time is spent on these small Votes. I understood the hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote as a protest against the public being prevented from holding meetings on the Horse Guards' Parade, and not with the view of calling upon me to give any further account of the action of the Government in the matter. In the course of the debate upon the Address, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained why it would be inconvenient, in the public interest, that large public meetings should be

    1093
    held on the Horse Guards' Parade or in St. James's Park, in the immediate neighbourhood of the public offices and the Houses of Parliament.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 107.—(Div. List, No. 51.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: Last year on the Vote for Richmond Park and Greenwich Park I drew attention to the large amount of space from the enjoyment of which the public are excluded. In Greenwich Park the public are excluded from the 15 acres which surround the Ranger's Lodge, occupied by Lord Wolseley. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works says that this land costs the public nothing, but I maintain that even if the poor of London lose nothing but the enjoyment of it, that is too much, and ought not to be permitted.
    *MR. PLUNKET: The 15 or 16 acres of Greenwich Park that have been added to the grounds of the Ranger's Lodge have never been open to the public. Inillustration of my anxiety to secure to the public the enjoyment of the Parks, I may mention that, in the case of Regent's Park, the expiring lease of the Toxophilite Society will not be renewed. I think the hon. Member will do me the justice to admit that since I have had the honour of holding my present office I have done all I could to make the Royal Parks more available to the public and to increase their value to the people.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Has this inclosure in Greenwich Park been recently added to the Ranger's Lodge? I think we have a right to know that.
    *MR. PLUNKET: It was added in 1815.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the trees in Kensington Gardens, near the Round Pond. Many trees have been cut down during recent years, and the condition under which others grow has been altered by levelling. Many of them now grow in a bed that is not natural to them, their roots being too thickly covered with soil. The health and even the lives of many of the trees—particularly the elms—have been imperilled in this way. Has the right hon. Gentleman any report as to the operations which have been carried
    1094
    out, and does he intend to replace the trees that have had to be removed?
    *MR. PLUNKET: I have consulted the best authorities on the subject, and have had numerous reports sent to me from time to time. For one reason or another I believe it is impossible to save the old trees; but I have very good reports of the young trees, which are being planted on a better system; and the Committee may rest assured that I shall not fail to take any steps likely to prevent the gardens being denuded of trees where it is desirable to have them.
    Sir G. CAMPBELL: For years I have been hammering away at this matter, and have never been able to get any satisfaction. I do not believe it is old age that is killing the trees. Old trees, middle-aged trees, and young trees are all dying in certain parts of the Park, showing that there must be something wrong with the soil.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT REDEMPTION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday 1st April.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES.
  Resolutions [26th March] reported.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS I.
    (1.) "That a sum, not exceeding £29,238, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    (2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £1,340, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Maintenance and Repair of Marlborough House."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not propose to renew at this stage the opposition that was offered in Committee to this Vote, but I do wish to call attention to the remarkable observation offered by the First Commissioner,

    1095
    and to the still more remarkable explanation offered by him this evening. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say in the first instance that the expenditure on Marlborough House was in consequence of an agreement entered into in 1878 between the Treasury and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. When I put a question to him he answered that there had been no such agreement, and that he never said there had been such an agreement. Now, Sir, in vindication of the position which I and others have taken up, I wish to say that in referring to the ordinary reports of the proceedings of this House I find that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is thus reported in the Times newspaper—
    "Mr. Plunket explained that the charges now asked to be provided for were undertaken by the nation on agreement entered into in 1878 in consideration of His Royal Highness spending a large sum on Marlborough House."
    I myself in the course of the debate repeatedly referred to the understanding, or whatever it is, as an agreement without any objection being taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) went a good deal further than I did, because he said it was a corrupt and profligate agreement. I do not mention this by way of insisting on the accuracy of the epithets he applied to it, but rather to show that he understood the First Commissioner to defend the Vote as the result of an agreement between the Treasury and the Prince of Wales. I do think that in justice to the House it is necessary to call attention to defences of this kind which are perpetually being set up in Committee of Supply, and I do think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have to defend Votes in this Committee owe it to themselves and to us to be extremely careful and precise and accurate in the statements they make in this Committee, especially on subjects of this nature.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I spoke the other evening I intended to use the very words I used in my reply to his question, and I believe I did, because I read out my statement from a note which I had before me—namely, that it was a direction given by the Treasury under certain circumstances
    1096
    which I explained. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have misunderstood me.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Do I understand that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales does not spend anything on the repair of Marlborough House? Is the nation under the obligation of maintaining this fabric both externally and internally? I believe on a former occasion some statement was made that the Marlborough House property was not on the same footing as the other Royal Palaces, but belonged to the nation, and was occupied by His Royal Highness on some sort of lease, I should like to know whether that is so?
    *MR. PLUNKET: Marlborough House was in former times a Royal Palace, and it has also been used as an office; but at the time the Prince of Wales was coming of age an Act of Parliament was passed to enable Her Majesty to vest Marlborough House in His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales during his life. In 1878 His Royal Highness had spent a large sum out of his private resources on the maintenance of Marlborough House, and the Treasury then decided that, having regard to this expenditure, it would be fair that the external and internal repairs of the house should be made in the same way as in the case of certain other Royal Palaces.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the following clause to add to Section 3 of the Army Act, 1881:—
  "Provided also that no officer or other person in command of men of Her Majesty's Forces, in a church or other place of worship of any religious communion, shall be entitled to give any order or to do any act in contravention of the civil law against causing disturbances in a place of worship."
  The object of this proposal is to render the military rule and usage conformable to the civil and ordinary law in respect of a congregation conducting their religious services without disturbance. Under an Act of the 23rd and 24th of the Queen, violence or riotous behaviour

  1097
  in a church or disturbance of the duly appointed ministers in religious worship is constituted an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment; but although a military officer would be subject to the law, yet if the military officer, by giving an order to his troops to withdraw from church, thereby caused a disturbance during service, he would not subject himself to any punishment at the hands of the civil authorities. I submit that officers should not be tempted, by the immunity afforded to them by the military regulations, to place themselves in conflict with the civil authorities. The necessity for the Amendment is proved by what occurred in the Catholic church at Clonmel on Sunday the 3rd of March.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I rise to order. The particular case to which the hon. Member alludes is sub judice, and I ask whether it is in order that any reference should be made to it?
  MR. SEXTON: On the point of order, I may say I am only arguing in favour of making the military rule conformable to the ordinary law.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is extremely inconvenient, and the inconvenience may become of a most serious character, to discuss questions that are sub judice, but I know of no Rule of the House that prevents the hon. Member discussing this matter.
  MR. SEXTON: I can assure you, Sir, that, so far from touching, I shall not even approach the question that is sub judice—I shall merely relate the circumstances as recorded by the Press without any attempt to prejudice the question. The Catholic soldiers were in church in charge of a young gentleman named Geoghegan, a lieutenant. The officiating clergyman was reading a Pastoral Letter from the Bishop of the Diocese, and suddenly lieutenant Geoghegan, who was seated in the organ gallery, rose and shouted to his men who were in the body of the church, "Troops outside." The Lieutenant immediately tramped out of church, followed by two sergeants; the rest of the soldiers remained until the end of the service. The incident led to a breach of the peace outside the church after the service, and I think we may very well congratulate ourselves that, instead of one breach of the peace, there was not a
  1098
  riot. Proceedings were taken against the lieutenant, who was sentenced by the magistrates to a fine, or a month's imprisonment, but the case is still sub judice. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was questioned on the subject in this House; and if he had then conveyed any censure, or expressed in the mildest manner any disapproval of the conduct of the lieutenant, I should not have pressed the subject on the attention of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman, referring to some dictum laid down by one of his predecessors in 1881, argued that some discretion must be allowed to officers in command of troops in places of religious worship in reference to the language used there. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not condemn this exercise of discretion by Lieutenant Geoghegan. It seems that something was said in the Pastoral Letter that did not meet the approval of the lieutenant. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the letter.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I have read the letter now.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, then, have any objection to quote the passages which, in his opinion, justified the lieutenant in ordering his soldiers to withdraw from the church?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that is relevant to the proposed clause. It is not a question of whether what was said justified a breach of a particular order.
  MR. SEXTON: My argument is that if Lieutenant Geoghegan had discretion, the discretion was wrongly exercised. May I not submit, Sir, that the exercise of his discretion was such that it ought to have subjected him to the censure of the right hon. Gentleman?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not at all relevant to the clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move.
  MR. SEXTON: Well, Sir, I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do in similar eases in future? I can assure him that the opinion entertained by the Bishop of Clonmel is the opinion entertained by every other prelate in Ireland, as well as by nearly all the clergy, and, I ask, is he going to submit the 40,000 Catholic soldiers in the British Army to the alternative of disregarding the orders of their military

  1099
  superiors, or being disrespectful to the officers of their Church? Either the Government can provide religious services for the soldiers in the barracks, where they can conduct them at their own discretion, or else, if they send the soldiers to the churches provided by the people themselves, they must submit to the ordinary regulations. Is it to be said that any stripling, like Lieutenant Geoghegan, 20 years of age, is to be allowed to sit in judgment upon Bishop, whose Pastoral he hears, and to act in accordance with the decision he comes to? The discretion allowed to officers in matters of this kind is offensive to public feeling, and is unwise and futile; because I submit that the soldiers gave to the Pastoral a closer and more sympathetic attention than what they might otherwise have given to it if this incident had not occurred. It is impossible to attempt to insulate the minds of your soldiers. You can prevent them from hearing Pastorals, but you cannot prevent them from reading the newspapers; and you will, in any newspaper, in any day, find much severer comment on the action of the Government than is to be found in the Pastoral Letter. In the present state of Ireland occurrences of this kind are particularly dangerous. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that such Pastorals are likely to be read and heard in churches in Ireland for some time to come; and I warn him that grave difficulties will be caused unless he takes care that such an incident shall not occur again.
  (Amendment of Section 3 of Army Act, 1881.)
  At the end of Section 3 of "The Army Act, 1881," the following proviso shall he added: Provided also, "That no officer or other person in command of men of Her Majesty's Forces in a church or other place of worship of any religious communion shall be entitled to give any order or to do any act in contravention of the civil law against causing disturbance in a place of worship."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Sir W. MARRIOTT: The right hon. Gentleman who proposes this Amendment says he does not wish to discuss a question that is sub judice; but the whole of this question is sub judice at the present moment.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The declaration
  1100
  of the Secretary for War makes it clear that, whatever is the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the right hon. Gentleman will still refuse to censure the lieutenant.
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: The case is sub judice at this moment, and the mouth of the Secretary of State is therefore closed; and with all due deference to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) I really do not think the Clause has any meaning whatever. I do not know what distinction the hon. Gentleman draws between civil law and military; they are all laws of this House, and no officer can commit any offence against a law of this House without being brought before a civil tribunal. The Clause is, therefore, in my opinion, absolutely useless. It will not add one tittle to the responsibility of any officer in the duty he has to perform, either in church or out of church. I hope, therefore, the House will not agree to the proposal.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has been severe upon me in a very polite manner. He is usually keen in his arguments, but I must say that his bluntness on this occasion is conspicuous by its absence. He misapprehends entirely the position of the Secretary of State for War; the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope) has opened his mouth already, and opened it 80-widely that he has actually anticipated the decision of the Civil Courts, because he declared at the Table of this House that he could not, and would not, condemn the action of the Lieutenant. Now, I say, that according to that declaration, no matter what may be the decision of the Civil Court, the right hon. Gentleman is bound not to condemn the action of the Lieutenant. If my Amendment be accepted, and a man were condemned by the Civil Courts, I suppose the Secretary of State would be bound to take notice of his conduct, which, in itself, would be a very useful reform.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Some short time ago I answered a question with regard to the conduct of this officer, and since I gave that answer, much to my surprise, civil proceedings have been taken. I had at that time no knowledge that civil proceedings were about to be taken, and I must say that I was very much surprised that they were taken. That

  1101
  being so, until the result of those proceedings is known, my mouth must remain closed, although the hon. Gentleman opposite has tried to prejudge the case.
  MR. MOLLOY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir W. Marriott) does not seem to know that there is any difference between the conduct of an officer and that of a private person, but there is a considerable difference. An officer's action under the circumstances stated involves what is done by the troops under his command. Are we to allow an officer, acting upon the prejudice of the moment, he being, perhaps, a strong Liberal, or probably a strong Conservative, or a man holding eccentric views—a young man of only nineteen, and without sufficient experience, to exercise such a power as was exorcised on the occasion in question? I do not think such a power ought to be allowed. There is a difference between the cases of troops going to a public Church and those who go to garrison service. It is in the power of the Commander of a station to prevent the troops going to a Church where he thinks they may hear what they ought not to hear, and send them elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War shakes his head, and no doubt he is right to this extent, that the Commandant cannot send Protestants to a Catholic Church nor Catholics to a Protestant one; but he can refuse to let them go to a particular Church and arrange for them to have a service of their own. I have had some experience in military matters, and think it difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the discretion of officers, but at the same time you may be involved in another difficulty if you give unlimited power to an officer who, under circumstances of excitement, political or otherwise, may give orders that will occasion much offence and inconvenience. I should have been glad had the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion as to the policy of this Amendment. I do not say it is in the exact form in which it might be finally accepted; but, at any rate, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to announce some policy in regard to this question. As he has not done so, I shall certainly support my hon. Friend's proposal.
  *MR. F. MACLEAN: This Amendment appears to me to be
  1102
  based upon an entire misapprehension. It assumes that, as the law stands at present, an officer is entitled so to act as to create a disturbance in a place of worship. But is he so entitled? I have heard no argument from the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin to suggest that he is. In point of law he is not; and if he be not, if it be the law that an officer cannot so act, what reason is there for laying down in an Act of Parliament that which is now the law? It is quite clear that such is now the law, for in the very case cited by the right hon. Gentleman, the case which has given rise to this debate, the officer in question has been fined by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. That case is now sub judice, on appeal, so I will say no more about it. Under these circumstances I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The answer to this question is embodied in the Act of Parliament which prevents any officer or anyone else from brawling in church. Even if the civil law did not prevent this it is the duty of the Government to see that no officer shall perpetrate the indeceny of brawling in church. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War ought to give an assurance that he will not allow the bad example in this case to be followed by other officers, and that he will take official notice of any such misconduct. The right hon. Gentleman has said he was surprised at the civil action taken against the officer. Why is he surprised? Because the Government think that everybody except the military and police ought to submit to any sort of treatment on the part of their agents in Ireland, and that it is not for any ordinary citizen to take action against the merest stripling in the Army, because he holds a commission and chooses to disgrace it by misconduct. I do not suppose the magistrates would have fined him were it not so. Public opinion will not be found to be with the Government in this matter, and I am glad the Lord Mayor of Dublin has brought it forward, and hope he will press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I think the House will feel that it was a very improper thing for any priest or clergyman to indulge in tirades against the law, and I hope that some consideration will be shown to the young

  1103
  officer, and that all the sympathy of those who want to see justice done will not be given to the priest.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite understand a technical difficulty in inserting this Amendment. But the Amendment raises the general question whether a subaltern is to be the final Court of Appeal as to the doctrines, propriety, and good taste of a sermon. Soldiers, like other men, have their own political and religious opinions; but it ought to be our object to keep military questions distinct from political or religious matters. Practically it comes to this: You cannot exclude soldiers from a knowledge of what is going on in the world—you cannot interfere with their political sympathies. Your object should be not to provoke the soldiers into political action. If there be a flagrant case—I do not say that such a case may not arise—in which so-called religious teaching is clearly inconsistent with the discipline of the Army, well, then, I think the commanding officer of the district, not a subaltern sitting in the church, would be justified in giving directions that the soldiers were not again to be taken to that place of worship. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor that he would do wisely to postpone any further discussion of this question until the legal question has been decided. We shall have an opportunity of discussing on the Army Estimates—and I think that would be the proper time—the question of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War, and whether it has been exercised properly. I think this clause would be inappropriate. It is a contradiction in itself, so to speak, because it is quite clear that nothing can be done which the Civil Law disallows. But that is not the reason of my right hon. Friend. He wants to challenge—and I join him in it—the discretion of the military authorities in what I think was a lamentable interference with the worship of the soldiers.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to point out to the Committee that the Irish Constabulary attend church and hear every sermon or pastoral that is delivered. The Royal Irish Constabulary are very closely concerned in public matters, yet I never heard of any officer withdrawing them from any church.
  1104
  That exhibits in a moment, and in a clear light, the folly of the order given by this young lieutenant. But I hope to make the matter clear to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The Secretary for War declared from the Table that this young officer had acted rightly; and at the very time the Court of First Instance condemned this young officer, the right hon. Gentleman gets up at that Table and expresses surprise that these proceedings should have been taken. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that? He gets up at the Table and uses a phrase which, if language has any meaning at all, implies that the proceedings ought not to have been taken, and perhaps might be reversed on appeal. Does not the House perceive that there is a clear discordance between the practice of the civil and military authorities, because the Court holds one view and the War Office another. We have no assurance whatever, if the Court of First Instance is confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, that the right hon. Gentleman will take any action. Look at the position of the Secretary for War: he upholds the order given by the officer, and which has been declared by the Court to be illegal. Then, when we come to look at the matter from the point of view of discipline, we find an order given, and disobeyed by the soldiers. You have been dragged into a dilemma by your absurd regulation. If you punish the soldiers you insult the Church, because you punish them for not having left the building. If you uphold the order, then you must punish the soldiers for disobedience. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will punish the soldiers? And if he does not punish the soldiers how does he maintain the order? Under the Government there are 40,000 Roman Catholic soldiers, who have a right to be protected against the possible repetition of an order which may be condemned by a Court of Law, and which, at the same time, may be condemned by the War Secretary, and the question of punishment for disobedience apparently remains in suspense. Is that a reasonable or sensible condition of military discipline? Let the soldiers know what orders to obey and what not to obey, and let the officers know what orders to give and what not to give.

  1105
  I always listen to any suggestion which falls from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and I am not disposed to trouble the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War will say anything reasonable, if he will say that he will consider the order, or will cause a communication to be addressed to Lieutenant Geoghegan, or a general communication to the officers limiting their discretion in such a matter, with a view to preventing a repetition of these scenes. I am sure that such an order defeats its own purpose. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is ready to consider the subject, and, if he is ready to give fair and reasonable consideration to it, I am not disposed to give the House any further trouble.
  SIR. W. T. MARRIOTT: This is not a question concerning the order or the law as it at present stands, and if these words of the hon. Gentleman are added it would be rather trying to deal with the subject by a side-wind. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for War will have the sympathy of Members on both sides of the House in refraining from expressing an opinion on a case which is sub judice. If this young man has broken the law he will be punished, but we cannot make an ex post facto law. It is our wish that the soldiers should have perfect freedom to attend church or chapel as they choose; and I know from my own personal experience that they have in the Army every liberty of conscience, for it is our desire that they should have that freedom. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton sees the objection to this Amendment. It is absolutely useless. If this young man has broken the law he will be punished, but we cannot make an ex post facto law.
  MR. SEXTON: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that his usually subtle and judicial intellect has failed him on this occasion. By the 23 and 24 Vic, to create a disturbance in any place of worship is an offence. But the Secretary for War says that when an officer creates a disturbance by ordering the troops to withdraw it is not an offence.
  *MR. STANHOPE: I have not said so.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentle- 1106
  man said the officer was justified in exercising his discretion.
  *MR. STANHOPE: The question at issue now before the Courts is whether the lieutenant was guilty of the offence of disorderly conduct, and upon that I expressed no opinion. Whether he has committed an offence against the Civil Law, the Civil Court must decide.
  MR. SEXTON: I want on this subject to make the military the civil point of view. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, should the Court of First Instance be confirmed, by punishing or reprimanding the lieutenant? That is a plain question for him to answer.
  *MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think it would be an inconvenient course to press this Amendment to a division, still I think the Secretary for War has entirely himself to blame, for it is, in itself, a pre judgment of the case to express surprise that the proceedings should have been taken. But in doing that he only followed the precedent set by his Colleagues in these Irish affairs—namely, that of throwing contempt upon the constituted tribunals of the country whenever they are likely to go against the Administration. While I am ready to vote with the right hon. Gentleman, I think, speaking as a lawyer, that the Amendment is inconvenient, and that it would be wiser not to press it.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Secretary of State for War has said that he will reserve his judgment upon this case until he has heard the decision of the Court of Appeal.
  *MR. STANHOPE: I said I objected to express an opinion on the proceedings in the Civil Court.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: Assume it is decided that the lieutenant acted illegally, I defy the Secretary for War or any military authority to set aside that decision; but, if it is decided that he acted legally, then it becomes a question of military discretion, and this is neither the time nor the occasion to raise that question of military discretion. That is a subject which we could discuss on the Secretary for War's salary or on any other item of the Army Estimates. Whatever decision you take upon this Amendment now, to my mind, it would mislead and have no pronounced

  1107
  effect. While I sympathize with the Lord Mayor of Dublin, yet this Amendment does not advance the case one step. I therefore think it will be better for the right hon. Gentleman to await the decision of the Civil Court, and not to press the matter to a Division.
  MR. SEXTON: If the Amendment is carried, the effect of it will be that the Secretary of State will be obliged to take notice of the decision of the Civil Court. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman will suspend his judgment until the Civil Court has decided.
  *MR. STANHOPE: No.
  MR. SEXTON: Then what does the right hon. Gentleman intend? Will he, or will he, not await the judgment of the Civil Court?
  *MR. STANHOPE: I have already said that on non-military points I shall await the judgment of the Civil Court.
  MR. SEXTON: And if the judgment of the Civil Court be adverse to Lieut. Geogehan, will the right hon. Gentleman reprimand that officer?
  *MR. STANHOPE: That is a question I entirely decline to answer.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I shall divide the Committee.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 159.—(Div. List, No. 59.)
  Bill reported, with Amendment; to be read a third time To-morrow.

JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 166.]

  SECOND READING.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  DR. CLARK: I desire to enter my protest against this method of introducing new legislation for Scotland. I think it looks like an insult to Scotch Members to ask them at 12 o'clock at night to pass measures changing old Scotch law. I think the Lord Advocate should give us some reasons for bringing in this Bill.
  *MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think the observations just made by my hon. Friend show that there is an unfortunate tendency on the part of the Front Benches to introduce Bills of an important character without giving the House the advantage of any explanation of their
  1108
  provisions. Now, the truth is that this is a good and excellent Bill. It refers to a subject of which I know something, and I think the objects of the Bill are most proper. But this constitutes no reason why the Government should not take the trouble to explain to the lay Members of this House what its provisions are. I shall, indeed, leave it to the Lord Advocate to explain the provisions of the Bill. I only desire to ask one question with regard to the fourth Clause, which provides compensation for a certain officer, on the ground that his office is abolished. Now, Sir, I think the Lord Advocate, as much as any man in this House, will agree with me most cordially that the proper way is to call things by their right names. This officer may be entitled to some reward, or to some pension for services, but he is not entitled to compensation on the ground of abolition of office. But, Sir, his office is not to be abolished; its duties are to be extended and largely increased, and therefore I do not think it is right to say that the office is abolished by the Bill, and that the present owner should have special compensation.
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If I abstained from speaking on the introduction of this debate, that course has been amply justified by the excellent speech of my hon. Friend opposite, who has pronounced the Bill to be a good one. The objects of the Bill are twofold. In the first place, it is proposed to combine the two offices of Accountant in Bankruptcy and what is called Accountant of Court in Scotland, in order to bring together the supervision of all estates in the hands of the Court, which had hitherto been separated, and for which separation there is no valid reason. At the present time, estates in the hands of the Court stand in this position. Some are subject to supervision by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, and some are subject to no supervision at all, although both classes of estates stand in the same category, as being estates for which the Court is responsible. It is desirable to bring together, under the supervision of an accountant, all estates, and therefore the two offices are to be merged, giving a general supervision of all estates in the hands of the Court. These are the main objects of the Bill; there are some minor provisions, into

  1109
  which I need not enter, because they are of a technical description, but I should like to inform the House that while the Bill purports to extend, and does extend, the supervision of the Court over estates, yet there is a reduction of expenditure on the offices in question. The hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire has referred to the fourth section. I need hardly say that this is merely one of the arrangements, settled under the very vigilant supervision of the Treasury, for the introduction of a new system, by permitting the retirement of a gentleman who has hitherto conducted one branch of the work, and who is not prepared to undertake additional duties. I do not think that any further guarantee is required for the efficacy of the provision, than the fact that it has been assented to by the Treasury. In the words of my hon. Friend opposite, I can only repeat that this is an excellent Bill, which is directed to secure increased efficiency and increased economy, and the combination of these two objects surely cannot be unpopular among hon. Members. I therefore hope they will accord the Bill a Second Reading, and devote their attention to securing in Committee any alterations which may be necessary.
  *MR. HALDANE: It is a matter for congratulation that we have at last got to the consideration of a Scotch Bill before 12 o'clock at night. I think that we shall all agree that this is a useful Bill, seeing that it will provide for supervising the administration of estates in Scotland by judicial factors. I do not know whether the public are aware how costly the administration of these estates is. The most important provision in the Bill is, I think, contained in Clause 12, which provides, in effect, that English estates are to be handed over to judicial factors, who, I understand, give security, but not always to the satisfaction of the English Judges. I think a great deal may be said in criticism of this clause, but, on the other side, I think it will simplify matters a great deal, and put an end to much litigation. Notwithstanding this Clause, I think the Bill is a most useful one, and I think it ought to be read a second time.
  Question, "That this Bill be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 4th April.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.— [BILL 97.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir E. WEBSTER,): Sir, I wish to say just a word or two with regard to this Bill. It has been prepared under the direction of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order to punish the offence of obtaining information, and communicating it, against the interests of the State. The Bill is an exceedingly simple one, and I beg to move its Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir E. E. Webster.)
  DR. TANNER: I really think we require some further explanation than the miserable one afforded to this House by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I really think he is trifling with this House in introducing a measure of this importance with such brief explanation. I earnestly protest against the method and manner in which measures of this sort are brought in at this hour of the night. It is not so very late, and there is ample time and opportunity for explaining the meaning of it. We want to know what there is behind the Bill. I do not say that we look upon this measure with suspicion, but I think we may reasonably ask for the reasons for its introduction; and I, therefore, trust that this House will understand me when I make this protest from below the Gangway, and I hope hon. Members opposite will join with me in insisting on obtaining further explanations before the Bill is allowed to pass.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 1st April.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. [BILL 136.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH): I introduced this Bill last summer. I have received very many communications with

  1111
  regard to the measure, and I have taken advantage of them and made such amendments in the Bill as appeared necessary. I think that in its present shape the Bill will be a very useful amendment of the law relating to weights and measures, without being open to any of the objections raised last year. Objection was taken last year by the baking trade throughout the country to the provisions relating to the sale of bread, and after full consideration I have thought it better to omit the provisions on that subject, and to leave the law as regards the sale of bread in its present state until the time comes for complete amendment. The Bill is now divided into two parts. The first part contains minor amendments of the law in the direction of giving greater power to the local authorities to secure regular and systematic inspection and to prevent fraud in the use of weights and measures. The first 15 Clauses relate to points of detail of the kind which I think will be better explained in Committee than at the present stage. The second part of the Bill relates to very important matter, and proposes to introduce generally throughout the country the same restrictions as to the sale of coal by weight as now prevail in the Metropolis. I need not dwell on the very great frauds that can be committed, and frequently are now committed, in the sale of coal, often upon the poorest of the people, under the lax state of the law which at present prevails. I shall be glad to receive any communications with regard to the Bill, and to consider them. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  *MR. CREMER: I do not propose to delay the progress of this measure, which I regard as an exceedingly useful one. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the practice which obtains in London in regard to the sale of coal. I believe he wishes to make an earnest effort to prevent the barefaced and shameful frauds which are perpetrated upon the poor by the so called coal dealers of London; and all I desire from him is an assurance that he will seriously consider
  1112
  any Amendments made in Committee in that direction.
  MR. FIRTH: I hope this Bill may be read a second time, but I am sorry it does not go much further than it does in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer). One of the advantages of the Bill undoubtedly is that it causes Inspectors of Weights and Measures in future to obtain certificates of qualification, but the particular point I wish to express regret about is, that the Bill may have the effect of perpetuating still longer the extremely anomalous state of things in the country with regard to Weights and Measures, which is different from that which exists in any other country in Europe.
  *MR. TOMLINSON: This Bill may be considered to be what is ordinarily known as a Departmental Bill, and it is quite possible that the officers of the Department who frame them may be deficient in familiarity with the practical working of systems with which they interfere. I do not propose to do anything in the way of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, but I desire to ask that when we come to the Committee stage, it may be considered how far Part II. of the Bill is applicable to the case of large dealings in coal. Small consumers may require to be protected by stringent regulations. I do not deny that, as to the retail trade, it may be desirable that coal should be sold by weight; but I cannot think it is necessary that people who deal in large quantities of coal should be bound by such a rule. In many cases it would be extremely inconvenient to require sale by weight, as, for instance, where it is sold by the boatload, and it is a comparatively easy matter to arrive at the weight by means of the displacement. Why should an arrangement of this kind, which is approved by both buyer and seller, be rendered illegal? I hope that in Committee my right hon. Friend will consent to allow of the continuance of systems other than that of weighing, when they are sufficiently accurate for the purpose of the trade.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What has been said in the course of this discussion makes me entertain the view, which I was disposed to before, that it would be very much better that this Bill should be considered by a Standing Committee rather than by a Committee of the whole House. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade," put, and agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 58.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is intended to remedy what has been generally recognized by agriculturists as a weak point in the Act of 1883. The system of valuation has led to very considerable expense, owing to its being necessary for every party to select a valuator. Under the proposals of this Bill, the Sheriff, failing agreement, will have the right to appoint a valuator, who will then be judicial referee. In this way simplicity of proceeding will be effected, as well as economy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the Bill ought to be read a second time. The proposal, I believe, will conduce, in the main, to efficiency and economy, and it may possibly deprive arbitrations of one of the characteristics which, I am afraid, often belong to them of two of the functionaries being more or less of a partizan character. There are some provisions in the Bill which are susceptible of amendment, and I fancy the hon. Member will not resent the proposal of some changes which will better har-
  1114
  monize his proposals with the state of the law.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 1st April.

DISPENSARY HOUSES (IRELAND) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 120.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the measure is a very small one; it is merely to remedy a defect of a technical nature in the Act now in operation in Ireland. There is very great difficulty in obtaining suitable sites for dispensaries, and the Bill is to give greater facilities in that direction.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
  DR. TANNER: I really think that we should have had some opportunity of considering this Bill before the Second Reading was proposed. At any rate, courtesy might have prompted the promoters of the Bill to have put it before the members of the medical profession. Personally, I have not heard one word in favour of the Bill from any of my professional colleagues in Ireland; and if the measure is intended to benefit the sick poor, who are better able to offer an opinion upon it than the man who has to look after the poor? I certainly take issue with the hon. Member when he says that the Bill is to afford greater Facilities for the provision of dispensary louses in Ireland. Such places can be provided without any Bill of this kind. I should like to know from one or other of its promoters whether the operation of the Bill is to be limited entirely to Belfast and to the North of Ireland? At any rate, in order to give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of explaining the matter properly, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the

  1115
  Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to second the Amendment, and also to protest against the manner in which the Bill has been introduced. There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said. It may very truly be said that the Bill has been sprung on the House. We have had no proper explanation of the provisions of the Bill. We on this side of the House are quite prepared to support any measure that has for its object the acquiring of land for the purpose of carrying out with greater facility the object of the Dispensary Law, but the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney), in moving the Second Reading, said the Bill was for the purpose of rectifying a technical error in the law as it already stands. Did he point it out? How do we know that such a technical error exists? It is preposterous to expect that Irish Members will support a measure introduced in such a manner.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I did not wish to take up the time of the House when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, but I admit the objections hon. Members opposite have taken call for some reply from rue. The Bill was not brought in in the interest of any part of Ireland particularly, but the circumstances which have led me to introduce the Bill have occurred in that part of the country with which I am more familiarly acquainted than, perhaps, hon. Members opposite. The Dispensary Board of my Union have been unable to acquire land for the purpose of a dispensary because there is no land available, and I have introduced this Bill for the purpose of enabling the Dispensary Boards not only in the North of Ireland but in all parts of Ireland, to acquire land exceeding 60 years' tenure. No political or sectarian considerations are involved, and therefore I hope hon. Members will not hesitate to agree to the Second Reading.
  MR. BIGGAR: There is one great reason why I am disposed to look upon questions affecting the administration of the Medical Charities Act in Ire-
  1116
  land with suspicion, and it is that the ratepayers are always involved in extravagant expenditure. I know a case in which, while the amount spent on the support of paupers was £500 in the year, the payments made under the Medical Charities Act exceeded £500. I do not see any justification for laying out public money on buildings under the Medical Charities Act if—
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. BIGGAR: In many parts of Ireland there is now an agitation to consolidate Poor Law unions. If such consolidation takes place, surely the old Poor Law buildings could be easily utilized for any purposes connected with the Medical Charities Act.
  MR. MACARTNEYrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  And, it being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER rose to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon Mr. MACARTNEY rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st April.

  TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 65.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday, 1st April.
  HORSEFLESH (SALE FOR FOOD) BILL. [Bill 149.]
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 4th April.
  MOTION.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Seale-Hayne, Bill for the purpose of amending the Law in regard to the appointment, qualification, and removal of Justices of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Bernard Coleridge, Mr. Howell, Mr. Stuart Rendel, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, and Mr. Arthur Williams.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 176.]
    House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.