Commons Sitting of 5 December 1890

MR. SPEAKER'S CONTINUED ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House that Mr. Speaker was again unavoidably prevented from taking the Chair of the House this day.
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  OUT-STILL LICENCES IN INDIA.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Petition of Arthur Brownlow, of Sungoo Tea Estate, Chittagong, to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, complaining of the granting of an out-still licence for a shop at Sadhanpur, which immediately adjoins his tea estate, and whereby the injury caused to him and the coolies employed by him on his two tea estates was very great, inasmuch as the liquor shop quite demoralised the coolies and servants employed, while drunkenness and absence from duty of the coolies became the order of the day,
  642
  and the Native doctor of the Sungoo Tea Estate had to be dismissed for inebriety?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: Yes; the Secretary of State understands that such a Petition has been addressed to the Government of Bengal, and is now under the consideration of that Government.

  MILITARY STORES IN INDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what, if any, steps have been taken in accordance with the undertaking of the Government of 22nd July to arrive at a settlement of the disputed and long unsettled charges for military stores; and whether he can now make any statement on the subject?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State addressed an inquiry to the War Office on the 1st November, to which no reply has yet been, received.

  FIRTH OF CLYDE.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will order a minute survey to be made of the Firth of Clyde, near the Cloch Lighthouse, in order to determine the exact position of the alleged banks, and correct the present Admiralty Charts, which show 19 fathoms where there is less than seven?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: This survey has been already made. The Admiralty Charts have been corrected, and the results communicated to the Board of Trade.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the noble Lord aware that more than one bank has been discovered? Has the survey been sufficiently made?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not aware of the banks to which the hon. Member refers. There is a bank which is supposed to have been formed by dredging. All the banks have been thoroughly surveyed.

  NAVAL LIEUTENANTS.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is true that the Admiralty propose to increase the number of Lieu-

  643
  tenants; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of giving a certain number of Lieutenant's Commissions to warrant officers who may be able to qualify for the rank?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In reply to my hon. Friend, I may remind him that it takes about 8 to 10 years to make a Lieutenant from the time he enters the Britannia to the time he passes his final qualifying examination. The want of Lieutenants now is due to short entries made during the years 1880 to 1885. Since then the entries have been increased about 40 per cent., but the Lieutenants' List will not increase for some years to come, though the Sub-Lieutenants' List will begin to swell next year. I am not prepared to promote officers to the rank of Lieutenant except for war service, or other specially meritorious service.

  KING JA JA.
  SIR W. FOSTER, for Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether King Ja Ja is still detained at St. Vincent; whether it was intimated to him in August last that he would be released from further detention as a political prisoner on his undertaking to observe certain conditions on his return to Opobo; whether the undertaking was duly signed by King Ja Ja; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will order his re-conveyance to Opobo?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: Ja Ja is still detained at St. Vincent, but as was stated in the reply of the 2nd to the hon. Member for Leicester his removal to another colony is being arranged. An assurance was taken from Ja Ja that if permitted to return to Opobo he would conduct himself peaceably. The Reports from Opobo show, however, that his immediate return is inexpedient, and must, consequently, be deferred.
  SIR W. FORSTER: Will the right hon. Baronet lay on the Table the Papers relating to the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: To the best of my belief we are not in possession of the text of these documents.
  MR. PICTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered this part of the question—whether it was intimated to Ja Ja that he would be released from further detention as a political prisoner on his undertaking to observe certain conditions on his return to Opobo? Was it so intimated to him? We have not been told that.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think it is known in this country what were the precise terms used, or that Ja Ja had any distinct promise given to him, but I have not the least doubt that he was led to expect that he would be allowed to return home. It is plain that it would be very regrettable, if after his return he should have to be again removed.
  MR. PICTON: Is the territory of Opobo part of Her Majesty's Dominion?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It forms part of Her Majesty's Protectorate, and we are responsible for the preservation of order there.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is only a question of time.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Only a question of time and of advisability.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, out of the total number 1,131 juvenile offenders under 16 years of age brought before the Police Courts of Manchester and Salford in 1889, only two-fifths, or about 450, were charged with felony, the remaining three-fifths, or about 680, having been arrested for trivial offences without criminal intent, and that the whole of the non-criminal offenders were classified among criminals at the Police Courts and associated more or less with them, including confinement in police cells, up to the time of their discharge after the payment of a fine; whether he is aware that cases have occurred when juvenile offenders of a non-criminal character have been put into prison for their inability to pay costs amounting to four or five times the sum of the fine, when the fine itself has been tendered by parents and friends who were too poor to pay the heavy costs; whether the Magistrates or Police

  645
  Authorities have discretionary power under the existing law to treat juveniles under 16 years of age, arrested for trivial offences against police regulations only punishable by fine, in such manner as shall prevent their associating with criminals at the first or at any stage of the process of punishment; and whether, if such power does not exist, he will introduce a Bill to confer power on Magistrates and Police Authorities to provide juvenile offenders of a non-criminal character with such accommodation after arrest as shall prevent their mingling with or being regarded as criminals, and also to provide special Courts to try trivial juvenile offences in order to spare children, otherwise honest, the obviously evil consequences arising out of the treatment to which they are at present subjected in Manchester and Salford and else where?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: The Secretary of State has no official statistics on the subject. But the distinction drawn between criminal offenders and non-criminal offenders has no foundation in law, and would in practice be impossible. All must be treated alike while in custody in the police cells; and all in prison must also be treated alike, provided that they have received the same sentence. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that there is any association in prisons. Each prisoner is kept separate. The Legislature, in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, First Offenders Act, and other Statutes, have provided various means by which unnecessary or unduly long imprisonment may be avoided—allowance of bail, dismissal of trivial cases, remission of costs, allowance of time for payment of fine, imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment, detention of juvenile offenders in a reformatory or industrial school. Circulars have been issued from the Home Office impressing on Magistrates the desirability of children not being imprisoned before trial, and Governors of prisons have been instructed to report to the Secretary of State every case of such imprisonment of a child under 14. The Secretary of State regrets that Magistrates do frequently impose light fines with heavy costs, as it leaves a false impression as to the administration of justice.
  646
  But in most of these cases it will be found that the fine has been so light because the costs have been so heavy, and the person convicted has not been punished more severely than he ought to have been. There are difficulties in the way of such measures as those indicated in the 4th clause of the question. The practice in Metropolitan Police Courts is to remand to the workhouse, under Section 19 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, all children under 14 where desirable, pending inquiries necessary for the decision of the case. I understand this practice to be based on the view that the power given by that section exists in all cases where a child under 14 years is brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Secretary of State hopes to introduce again a Bill authorising several alternative modes of dealing with juvenile offenders, with a view to preventing the necessity of their being sent to prison.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to the prevention of railway accidents, the Board of Trade have made, or will make, specific inquiry into systems of automatic electric signalling between trains and trains which would be an additional safeguard in cases of fog, detached cars, or mistakes of signalmen?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The subject of automatic electric signalling has frequently engaged the attention of the Board of Trade, and further inquiries are now being made. There are many difficulties to contend with, and all I can say at present is that the matter will continue to receive attention. It may be added that the Norton Fitzwarren collision would not have been prevented had the system as hitherto carried out been in force there.

  THE GWYLWYR SETT QUARRY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the negotiations for the lease of the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Pistyll, Carnarvonshire, have been completed; and, if so, whether such a lease contains a provision for ensuring that the quarry will be efficiently worked by

  647
  the lessee; and whether any explanation can be afforded why this quarry is still unworked, notwithstanding the assurance given that it was intended to commence active operations without any delay?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The lease of the quarry referred to has not yet been completed, and that is the reason why the quarry is still unworked. It is expected that the lease will shortly be completed, and it will contain clauses requiring the lessees to work it.

  SOUTH SEA ISLAND LABOURERS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Sydney Presbyterian of the 2nd of August, 1890, states that the forcible recruiting of labourers in the South Sea Islands for Queensland still continues, and that recently a French schooner recruited a woman from Malo, leaving an infant behind; whether he is aware that the Rev. J. G. Paton, missionary, has stated that last year he complained of a vessel which called at his island, Amida, and got away a young widow, leaving her two infant children behind uncared for; and that it also got away three or four young men, one of them leaving his wife behind unprovided for; whether he is aware that the Rev. P. Milne, of Nguna, complained to the authorities in Queensland of a Brisbane labour vessel, the Eliza Mary, taking away, on the 28th of September last year, from his station three lads who were his hired servants from other islands, and afterwards other lads, 10 in all; and whether, after waiting long, an official reply came to him that the Chief Secretary of the Colony has fully approved of them all being so taken away by the Eliza Mary; and whether Her Majesty's Government is now prepared to adopt energetic measures for the suppression of this Slave Trade in the South Seas?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: Through the courtesy of the hon. Member I have been supplied with a copy of the Sydney Presbyterian referred to. The first two cases mentioned have not been reported home; but it may be observed
  648
  that the first is one of a foreign vessel, and that in the second it is not clear whether anything unlawful is alleged. As to the third, it is known that the Rev. P. Milne complained to the Queensland authorities, but not what the terms of the reply were. The Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872 and 1875 make it penal to carry away a native without his consent, but in the above cases no violation of this law is alleged; and if any Queensland regulation, creating and providing penalties for other offences in connection with the labour traffic, has been infringed, such infringements must be dealt with by the Queensland Government. I may remind the hon. Member that, as I stated to him in July last, under a Queensland Act of 1885 the introduction of Polynesian labourers into the colony will cease after the end of this year.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War for what reason it has been thought desirable to introduce Mark II. of the magazine rifle; and if he could state the cost of the rifle as compared with that of the Martini-Henry at similar stages of its production?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: I explained very fully yesterday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, the reasons why Mark II. has been introduced. The cost of the Martini-Henry rifle was, of course, high at first, but in the first year in which it was extensively made it was £3 18s. 4d., which sum, as the manufacture went on, was gradually reduced to £2 2s. 10d., neither price including any charge for the special machinery required. The price of the magazine rifle for the small number at first produced was £5 5s., but the estimated cost for the current year is £4, which includes a Sinking Fund calculated to pay for the necessary alteration of machinery in six years. This price was for Mark I.; Mark II. will probably cost a trifle less, and it may be anticipated that the charge will decrease as the manufacture proceeds, as it did in the case of the Martini-Henry. In this comparison allowance ought to be made for the

  649
  facts that wages have increased and hours of labour been shortened since the Martini-Henry rifle was first turned out.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why the present slackness of work exists at Woolwich Arsenal; why men (some of whom have been employed there for years) are being dismissed; why men are "suspended" for no apparent reason, sometimes for a week at a time; if he can explain why, although £101,000 were voted this year to Woolwich Arsenal, which is a larger sum than was voted the year before, about 40 men have been discharged within the past few weeks; if sub-contracting is permitted, and, if so, on what grounds; whether Messrs. Easton and Anderson have received 30 gun-breech mechanisms from Messrs. Vickers, of Sheffield, and if these gun-breech mechanisms were given out from Woolwich to Messrs. Vickers; and, if so, will he explain why; if it would be possible to put down the system of working overtime at Woolwich Arsenal; and, if not, will he state the reason; and why is work given out from the Arsenal to Messrs. Anderson, of Leith?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There has been no general reduction in the Ordnance Factories. But I should like to say at once that, as the special work to be undertaken under the Imperial Defence Loan is now drawing to a close, and employment in the factories is coming to its normal state, there must of necessity be reductions, but they shall be made with all possible regard to the importance of doing so at a time of year when other employment can be found. There is very little overtime at the Arsenal, and that only under special circumstances. There are no sub-contracts in the Ordnance Factories. The contract made by me with Messrs. Vickers is for heavy guns. The War Office is aware that they have entrusted the breech mechanisms to Messrs. Easton and Anderson, but the matter is not one that concerns us. As to work being given out from the Arsenal to Messrs. Anderson, of Leith, my inquiries do not enable me to find out anything whatever about them.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Is it the fact that 40 men have been discharged within the last three weeks?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am unable to answer that question directly. There is a total number of 16,000 men of different classes employed; some men have been discharged, and some may have been taken on, and it is quite possible that there might have been a balance of discharges of the number stated.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the advisability of shortening the hours in order to meet the slackness of work, as this is a most inclement season at which to discharge men?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I do not think that would be possible. What the country require is that the warlike stores should be turned out by the time they are needed.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: The point is, whether the men employed by Government are to be worse treated than they would be if employed by private firms? Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to introduce some system to alter the overtime working?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am happy to say that these men are better treated than they would be by any private firm. With regard to overtime, I have already stated that it is only worked under special circumstances.

  BIRMINGHAM POST OFFICE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the fact that the plastering work of the new Birmingham Post Office has been sublet to a man of the name of Welling; whether information has been submitted to the Office of Works of the very extensive system of adulteration of the materials used that has taken place; whether the Board of Works acknowledged by letter, dated 10th September, 1890, that the statements made in regard to the adulteration were substantially correct; and whether, in spite of this condemnation, Welling has been allowed to continue to work and to commence the front block; whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Works has given orders that no plasterer was to be employed on the

  651
  job who had worked there previous to the complaint made of the adulteration of the materials; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: As the question only appeared on the Paper to-day, I have not been able to obtain the information necessary to enable me to answer it, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will repeat it on Monday.

  THE SULTAN OF VITU.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reward of 10,000 rupees has been offered by the British Naval Authorities on the East Coast of Africa for the capture of the Sultan of Vitu; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have given instructions that such offer should be withdrawn?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The reward has been offered. The Sultan has not yet been captured, nor has he surrendered to take his trial, and the offer still holds good.

  THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as reported, that the Government of the Netherlands has demanded an extension of the time given in which to sign the General Act and Declaration of the Brussels Conference; and whether Her Majesty's Government can afford the House any information as to the steps they have taken to overcome the reluctance of Holland to sign the General Act and Declaration of the Conference?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such demand has been made to our knowledge. It could only be addressed to the Conference. Steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government, in concert with other Powers, to induce Holland to sign, but it is not at present possible to indicate their nature.

  THE NEW LOAD LINE LAW.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will be good enough to state
  652
  the nature of the instructions issued to the Board of Trade Surveyors relative to the new Load Line Law; and whether he is aware that doubts exist regarding its application or otherwise to vessels already sailing and marked under Lloyd's freeboard rules?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The instructions to Surveyors include the tables of the Load Line Committee, with a Memorandum on their application and directions as to the course to be followed when owners apply for load lines to be fixed by the Board of Trade. The provisions of the law apply to all British vessels, whether previously marked by Lloyd's or not, and I have not heard of any real difficulties having arisen in the matter.

  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM— ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, considering that the public are now deprived of the use of the Great Natural History Museum, not only in the afternoons and evenings but also on foggy winter days, and that the facilities of lighting are now such that the Museum has already been temporarily lighted by electricity for Societies meeting there, he will again consider the advisability of arranging to light the Museum?
  MR. PLUNKET: The Trustees of the British Museum must determine this question in conjunction, with the Treasury. I have no authority in the matter.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will have to ask Parliament to sanction the necessary funds?
  MR. PLUNKET: That is a question for the Treasury.
  SIR G. CAMPBELLrepeated his question to the Secretary to the Treasury, but received no answer.

  THE MUZZLING ORDER.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Order for muzzling dogs will be withdrawn from the County of Middlesex?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: The question of my hon. Friend has already engaged my attention, but I have found it exceedingly difficult to relax the Order in the County of Middlesex until the same course is adopted for the whole of the Metropolitan Police District. There has been a case of rabies so lately as the month of September within that area, and I am advised that a sufficient time has not elapsed to justify me in withdrawing it at present. I cannot indicate the date of its probable withdrawal, for the reason that it must depend upon the nature of the Returns which we continue to receive; but I am glad to say that they have been exceedingly favourable of late, and I have great hopes that I may be able to relax it, so far as the Metropolis is concerned, at no distant date.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Middlesex is the only County in which the Order is in force, and that cases of rabies are found in dogs coming from over the borders and not in the county itself, and whether, therefore, this is not an injustice to the county?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, Sir; the statement of my hon. Friend is not altogether correct. The Muzzling Order prevails throughout the whole Metropolitan District at present, and in that district are included parts of several other counties, in addition to the County of Middlesex.

  SOUTH-EAST AFRICA—DISTURBANCE IN MUTACA'S COUNTRY.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to the reported collision between the police of the British Chartered South Africa Company and certain Portuguese in Mutaca's country, in South-East Africa?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A telegram has been received from the High Commissioner substantially confirming the reports which have appeared in the newspapers. Of course, there has not been time for Her Majesty's Government to consider the matter as yet.
  MR. BRYCE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a state-
  654
  ment? Will it be before the end of the present Sittings of the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will answer it to the best of my power.

  RELIEF OF LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. OLDROYD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the letter, written by Mr. Clinton E. Dawkins to Mr. A. Arnold, J.P., from the Treasury Chambers, dated 17th November, 1890, and published in the newspaper Press 30th November, 1890, and giving information as to the net financial gain to the Borough of Halifax under the new arrangement for the relief of local taxation compared with the old system, was, as stated, in fulfilment of a promise by him; and, if so, whether the Government will furnish similar information as to the effect upon the finances of six typical non-county boroughs with a high rateable value?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: Yes, Sir; I gave Mr. Arnold the information as regards Halifax, as I should have given it to any other gentleman who had asked for it. It would not be possible to furnish information in the same way for non-county boroughs. As the hon. Member will recollect, payments in their case are not made direct from the Local Taxation Account, but after the county has paid the discontinued grants and the grants for union officers the balance is applied to the reduction of the rates over the whole county area, inclusive of the non county boroughs, which participate in the balance according to their respective rateable values. But I am informed that a Return will shortly be issued by the Local Government Board showing what the balance was in each county for the year 1889–90.

  THE SHARDLOW UNION.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that some two months ago the Guardians of Shardlow Union (Derbyshire) decided to send the children who are inmates of the workhouse to the national school of the parish of Shard-low; whether the school managers, in

  655
  the first place, raised objections to receiving them, and finally charged a fee of 1s. per head, notwithstanding the fact that fees of only 2d. and 3d. per head were charged for other children not inmates of the workhouse, whose fees were paid by the Guardians; and whether he can take any steps to remedy this inequality of payment?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The facts are as stated in the hon. Member's question. It is usual in such circumstances for the managers to charge a fee considerably in excess of that paid in respect of other scholars, and so long as the average fee is not thereby raised above 9d., the Department would not be justified in objecting to the fee charged.

  POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, whether he is correctly reported as having said, in answer to a deputation, "that only three Members representing Scotland objected to the said Bill;" and, if this be the fact, whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange after Christmas to give reasonable time in order to pass the Bill, and comply with the all but unanimous wish of the Scotch Burghs, by passing a measure which they have repeatedly represented as being urgently needed and of great importance to the health of the people, and to which there is practically no opposition?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The statement quoted in the question was made, not by me, but by Members of the deputation, and I am not aware of any Report which describes it to me. I believe the objection to the Bill to be confined to a few Members; but the opposition of even a few Members, to a Bill of 571 clauses, constitutes a formidable Parliamentary difficulty in the way of its progress. I stated at the beginning of last Session that if the Scotch Members were practically unanimous in desiring that the Bill should pass through this House in the form in which it left the Select Committee of 1888, the Government would
  656
  be most willing to effectuate this desire; the offer then made was not accepted; and the deputation which I met last month was unable to say that the situation was materially altered. Under these circumstances, the Government, while adhering to previous statements regarding the Bill, do not feel justified in giving the undertaking suggested by the hon. Member, seeing that the "reasonable time" which he desires would only be obtained at the expense of other measures to which the Government are pledged, and that, at present, they have no adequate assurance that it would be effectively bestowed on the Bill in question.

  HOURS OF WORK OF LOCOMOTIVE DRIVERS.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any reply from the Railway Association to the Letter he addressed to that body, in reference to the long hours worked by locomotive drivers; and, if so, will he circulate the Correspondence to Members?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No reply has yet been received; but when it has, the Correspondence will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will it embrace the hours of all workers on the railway?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; I think not.

  THE CROFTER COMMISSION.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch Office has received any communication from the Crofter Commission as to the reason why the clauses extending holdings has been inoperative; and whether the Government intend doing anything in regard to the matter?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Secretary for Scotland received a Report from the Commissioners with reference to this subject, and it was laid on the Table of the House. No other Report has been received. No decision has been come to by the Government as to whether it is expedient to take any further steps in the matter.

  ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH, BOTOLPH LANE.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther), as a Charity Commissioner, whether the Charity Commissioners have refused to contribute to the necessary repairs of the Church of St. George, Botolph Lane, in the City of London, which was built by Sir Christopher Wren, for the reason that it is not of any special architectural interest or value; and whether the Charity Commissioners, before coming to this decision, obtained any Report upon the Church from any architectural authority; and, if so, whether they will lay the Report upon the Table, or state upon whose opinion they have acted?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The central scheme framed by the Charity Commissioners under the City of London Parochial Charities Act provides the annual sum of £41 for the maintenance and repairs of the fabric of the Church of St. George, Botolph Lane, besides an annual sum of £117 for the ordinary cleaning of the church and the maintenance of public worship. In view of the fact that the church is not of primary architectural interest, and of the general condition of the parish, and that the Commissioners are advised that a sum of £2,700 would be required for the restoration of the church, they did not feel justified in dealing with it specially under Section 14 of the Act. The Commissioners were advised by their architect, Mr. Ewan Christian, but they accept full responsibility for their action in the matter, and are therefore not prepared to lay his Report upon the Table, but if the right hon. Gentleman will call at the office of the Charity Commissioners the Report will be open to his inspection.

  LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the finding of the Coroner's Jury in the inquest upon the late Lord Cantelupe, that his life might have been saved if a rocket life line apparatus had been available at Bangor; and if it is possible for anything to be
  658
  done to provide such appliances at all coastguard stations round the coasts of the United Kingdom, or to compel vessels to carry them under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have seen a report of the finding of the jury, but the apparatus which saved the crew in this case was stationed only some three miles from Bangor, and it would not be practicable to keep an apparatus at every place on the coast where a casualty may occur. There are already about 300 rocket stations, and life lines alone are kept at many other places. Any suggestion for establishing a new station always receives consideration. On mature consideration, the rocket apparatus has been deemed unsuitable as an equipment for ships themselves.

  H.M.S. TYNE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether H.M.S. Tyne, which is to be despatched on the 9th or 10th of this month with two Batteries of Artillery, reliefs for Line battalions, and with the entire crews of two men-of-war for the China Stations (in all, over 1,200 persons), has only accommodation for half that number of persons, and, although in need of thorough repair, has only been patched up?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member's information is not quite correct. His statements are to the effect that the Tyne is to leave England on the 9th of December with 1,200 troops on board, being twice the number she can accommodate, and that she requires thorough repairs, which have been scamped. The facts are, the Tyne is not to leave England until the 31st of December; she will not have on board any troops, being on Naval Service, the entire crews taken amounting to 142 men, to which have to be added 190 supernumeraries, a total of 332, which is well within the accommodation of the vessel. The Tyne is at the present moment in the hands of the Dockyard receiving careful repairs.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that merchants in Belfast, who formerly used the mail from

  659
  London viâ Holyhead and Dublin, have of late been obliged to direct their parcels and samples to be sent by the Larne and Stranraer route in order to compete with Dublin; whether he is aware that the English mails, sent by Holyhead, even when the mail train reaches Belfast at the time appointed, arrive too late for business purposes; and whether he can say definitely about what date some arrangement will be made to give the merchants of Belfast and other important towns in Ulster the advantage of having the English mails sent by the Larne and Stranraer route?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: An application has been made to me by a Belfast firm for permission to have letters, &c., sent from London to Belfast viâ Stranraer and Larne on their being specially so addressed, but in the absence of any proper arrangement for the purpose I have not been able to accede to their request. There is some misapprehension, I think, with regard to the delivery in Belfast of the English night-mail letters. Those letters, when the mail train arrives punctually, are included in a delivery beginning at 11.20 a.m., and it can hardly be said that this is too late for business purposes. The outward mail for England is not despatched from Belfast until 3.30 p.m., so that there is a reasonable interval for reply by return of post. I am not yet able to make an announcement respecting the proposal to adopt the Stranraer and Larne route for the Belfast mails.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, during the present year, a written request for a Sunday delivery of letters from Millisle to Carrowdore was made to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, by a large and influential number of the inhabitants of the district of Carrowdore, Donaghadee; and whether, considering the general complaints made by the people as to the serious inconvenience which non-delivery of letters there on Sundays causes to the residents of the district, he will consider the advisability of instituting a Sunday delivery of these letters?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Sunday post between Millisle and Carrowdore was discontinued about three years ago
  660
  on a Memorial from the inhabitants receiving two-thirds of the correspondence, and I shall be happy to sanction its restoration upon similar conditions. But the Memorial forwarded a few months ago in favour of the restoration of the Post was found, on careful inquiry, to represent the receivers of only one-half of the correspondence, and, having regard to the regulations which govern questions of this kind, I should not at present feel warranted in acceding to the wishes of the memorialists.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the delivery of letters arriving by the Holyhead route about half-past 11 does not necessitate a return of merchants after they have left their offices in order to deal with their correspondence; whether he is aware that if the Larne route were substituted letters would arrive at 10 o'clock; and about what time does he think it likely he will be able to arrive at a conclusion as to the Stranraer and Larne route?
  MR. RAIKES: I do not know the habits of the merchants of Belfast, but in any other town letters arriving at half-past 11 would find a merchant in his office. The difference of time by the Larne route, as I am at present advised, is only about three-quarters of an hour, and, therefore, there is not a material difference in that respect. As soon as I have the data, I shall lose no time in arriving at a conclusion as to the respective merits of the two routes.

  THE BRIDPORT MAIL.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the mail due to be delivered at Bridport at 10.30 a.m. missed twice during the week ending 11th October; whether this mail has frequently missed the connection at Bristol this year; and whether he will state to the House what means he has of preventing these irregularities?
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member's statement is quite correct, and I regret the irregularity should have occurred. The remedy lies in a more punctual arrival at Bristol of the mails from the North, and I am in communication with the Railway Companies concerned, with the view of securing this result. It is

  661
  right, however, to say that delay sometimes arises from circumstances beyond their control.

  THE EMIN RELIEF EXPEDITION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he has observed that several British subjects connected with the Emin Relief Expedition have admitted that they bought slaves in Africa, and that they flogged and killed the inhabitants of uncivilised countries in that continent; and whether it is intended to render them responsible to the laws which punish British subjects committing either of these offences?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I do not know to what British subjects or to what admissions the hon. Member particularly refers, but, so far as I know, there are no persons now within British jurisdiction who have admitted the commission of any of the offences referred to in the question. I need not remind the hon. Member that if any such offences can be proved the intervention of the Government is not necessary.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether, in the case of gentlemen who are under British jurisdiction, who have admitted that they have killed or bought slaves, the hon. Gentleman will instruct the Public Prosecutor to prosecute? The hon. Gentleman says that anyone can prosecute, but what is everybody's business is nobody's business.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Any statement made on the authority of the hon. Member I shall look into carefully, and have it fully inquired into. It is impossible, without knowing the authority for the statements, that I can undertake to prosecute. Admissions are not proof, and they must be supported by proper proof before a prosecution can be undertaken.
  In answer to Mr. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM,
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid these gentlemen had no commission whatever from Her Majesty's Government.

  LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether in the event of the whole amount of money provided for loans to tenant-purchasers under the Purchase
  662
  of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill being advanced (a) immediately after the passing of the Act; (b) within five years; or (c) within 10 years after the passing of the Act; each year's recoveries being continually re-lent, as provided by Clause 6 (3), he will state, in all three cases, the total amount of the normal annuities which will be due to Government from all the tenant-purchasers on the fortieth year of the operation of the Act, and the total amount of the Guarantee Fund for that year which will exist as security for the amount thus due; and if the result be to show a deficit in the Guarantee Fund on that year, as compared with the corresponding instalment of annuities which will be due on the same occasion, will he give the aggregate of all the annual deficits which will obtain during the whole 49 years under the same conditions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: It would take some time to work out in detail the various calculations suggested in the question of the hon. Member; but as I understand that those calculations are suggested with a view of testing the financial soundness of the Government scheme, I may inform him that it is impossible that its security could be affected by any process of re-lending, for under no circumstances could the amount advanced exceed 25 years' purchase of the annual Imperial contribution, plus the actual amount of the Sinking Fund.
  MR. KEAY: As the matter is one of extreme importance, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman or the First Lord of the Treasury whether, if the Government have not been able to make a calculation, they will be good enough to examine one which I have prepared, and which is at present in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. The result of that calculation shows that there will be absolutely uncovered loans to the extent of £25,000,000 sterling.
  MR. MADDEN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman will expect me to express an opinion as to the result of a calculation which I have not seen. I can hardly set myself up as a Court of Appeal from the hon. Member upon such a question.
  MR. KEAY: It is a very important question, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that the Sinking Fund is the taxpayers' money and not a Guarantee Fund at all. May I ask him whether, if on examination he finds there is the large deficit I allege—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question the hon. Gentleman is now putting is not a legitimate one.

  MR. WALSH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Walsh, of the Cashel Sentinel, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for conspiracy at Tipperary, and arrested instantly on conviction; that several days before he had been (on appeal) sentenced to two months' imprisonment for the publication of a speech in his newspaper; but that the police held over the warrant, commanding them to arrest him on the latter charge, in order to see what would be the result of the Tipperary prosecution; under what authority was this done; do the Government still hold over the warrant; under what statute do the police exercise this suspensory power; and what officer is responsible?
  MR. MADDEN: The question of the hon. and learned Member appears to be founded on a misapprehension as to a matter of fact. He appears to assume that the warrant, after it was signed, was kept back by the authorities. This is not so. I am informed that Mr. Walsh did not appear when the appeal was called, that a certificate was given for the estreating of his recognisances, but that the warrant has not yet been signed.

  IRISH LOTTERIES.
  MR. GURDON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the number of advertisements of lotteries from Ireland, as well as abroad, which are being sent to our National schools; and whether he can prevent this practice?
  MR. RAIKES: My attention has been called to the transmission of advertisements of lotteries through the Post both from Ireland and abroad, but the Law does not, I am advised, empower me to ascertain the contents of closed packets
  664
  which may contain such advertisements. As regards notices of this description conveyed in open covers, I am considering what course of action should and can be taken.

  DEDUCTIONS FROM MEN'S EARNINGS.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had any correspondence with William Armstrong, an iron ore miner, of Moor Row, West Cumberland, complaining of the treatment he received from his employers, and the doctors who attended him after he received a serious accident in the mine; whether it is true, as stated by W. Armstrong in a letter addressed to the Home Secretary on the 21st of February, that the doctors are appointed by the mine owners, but "are paid by money deducted from the men's earnings, the workmen having neither voice nor choice in the matter;" whether he has any jurisdiction in a case of the kind; and, if so, whether he has inquired into the subject, and with what result; and if he has any objection to lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. Mr. Armstrong has already been, informed that this is not a matter in which the Secretary of State has any jurisdiction. Under these circumstances it is unnecessary to lay the Papers before Parliament.

  THE DEATH OF MRS. PEEL.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: Mr. Deputy Speaker,—Sir, I feel sure that on the present occasion, whatever differences may exist in this House, there will be no difference of opinion as to the expression of the views and feelings of the House in desiring to convey to the Speaker the expression of their real and sincere sympathy with him in the sorrow which has befallen him during the last few hours. The House has been aware that the shadow of that great sorrow has prevented the Speaker from discharging his duties in the Chair during the last 10 days. All who know the Speaker are aware that only extreme necessity would have kept him from the discharge of

  665
  those duties, and I am sure the House is unanimous in feeling that the Speaker was right in abstaining from coming into the Chair. I am sure that hon. Members would, if that were possible, individually have tendered their expression of sincere regard and sorrow that a man so loved by all his friends, and so valued in this House, should be so heavily afflicted. I know that on such an occasion as this words should be few, and that the voice of sympathy should be almost hushed. I do not wish to enlarge on the present occasion on the personal affliction that has befallen Mr. Speaker—that is a sacred matter for himself—but we can at least approach him, and say from our hearts that we are grieved, that we enter into his sorrow, and that we trust a sense of the performances of duties yet to come to the country and to this House will arouse him from the sorrow and affliction in which he is at present plunged, and that we shall be able to welcome him back to the Chair; a sad man, a man deprived of the comfort of his life, it may be, but a man ready to discharge the honourable duties which the country expects from him, and which this House thoroughly trusts him to fulfil. If I do not make any Motion it is because I thought it undesirable that we should say more than what I believe is the unanimous feeling of the House expressive of our sorrow at Mr. Speaker's deep affliction.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Mr. Deputy Speaker,—Although the right hon. Gentleman has refrained, and I am disposed to think has wisely refrained, from submitting any actual Motion to the consideration of the House, and although he has not left me in point of form any defined province or function on the score of which I may appeal to the House for its indulgence, yet I think it my duty, presuming on its kind permission, to echo the words which have been so well spoken by the right hon. Gentleman. I feel sure, and I believe the entire House feels, that we are deeply interested in all that concerns the happiness of Mr. Speaker. The House of Commons is of necessity under great and increasing debt to Mr. Speaker. At all times the duties imposed upon that great officer of State have been duties of an arduous character, but they have of late years become such as to task to a degree
  666
  altogether extraordinary most of the qualities which go to make up a powerful mind and a masculine character. I think, therefore, that we do well to discharge this growing obligation in expressing to Mr. Speaker our deep sympathy with him in his sorrow. Nor can I pass by that which the right hon. Gentleman has well said as to the value of his services. It is not for us to intrude into the sanctuary of private sorrow, nor to know what consequences may follow upon a visitation so heavy, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman has expressed the universal sense of the House when he has stated his wish and hope that we may still enjoy, and enjoy in spite of this great visitation, the valued services which Mr. Speaker performs to the public and to the House when he sits in the Chair. I, Sir, therefore, concur with the right hon. Gentleman in everything that he has said, and I believe that it will be the earnest hope of the House that while any expression of sympathy one can offer him must be well known to be a very inadequate medicine indeed for so severe a hurt, he may be favoured with every consolation that can be derived by man on these great occasions of life, whether from a human or from a higher source.

  WORKHOUSES, &c.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing, in respect of each Workhouse, Workhouse Infirmary, and Sick Asylum in England and Wales, the number of the beds in the wards for the sick; the average number of sick persons occupying those wards during the months of September, October, and November in the present year; the number of paid officers acting as nurses; and the number of such officers who, prior to their appointment by the guardians or managers, had received any training in nursing."—(Mr. Rathbone.)

MOTIONS.

  HANDLOOM WEAVING (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Saunderson, Bill for the regulation of Handloom Weaving in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Saunderson, Colonel Waring, Mr. O'Neill, and Mr. Macartney.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 153.]

  HARES AND RABBITS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Williams, Bill for amending the Law relating to the taking and killing of Hares and Rabbits, ordered to be

  667
  brought in by Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Lloyd Morgan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 154.]

  BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Wardle, Bill to amend the Law in regard to the Education of Blind and Deaf-Mute Children in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wardle, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Aird, Mr. Rathbone, and Mr. Kenrick.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 155.]

  TEACHERS' (REGISTRATION AND ORGANISATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Richard Temple, Bill for the Registration and Organisation of Teachers, ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Temple, Sir Lyon Playfair, and Viscount Lymington.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 156.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.(No. 111.)
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to rule that the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell)
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to reserve a head-rent for public purposes in all cases of purchase by State aid,"
  is not in order.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I be allowed to amend it? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. E. ROBERTSON, in rising to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, and to consider first Part II., Congested Districts, and to report the same separately to the House,"
  said: I ask the indulgence of the House while I explain the reasons which induce me to move this Instruction. The main object of this Bill is to commit the House and the country to an expenditure of £100,000,000 of public money upon a small section of Her Majesty's subjects. Notwithstanding the importance of the measure, it has by means of the closure been read a second time without a single word of debate being said upon its principle. I allude to that dramatic performance of Mr. Deputy Speaker, not
  668
  for the purpose of complaining of it, but simply to ask that in future Her Majesty's Ministers, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade, abstain from making remarks in regard to the independence of the Chairman of Committees. I am precluded on the present occasion from discussing the principle of the Bill, but I wish to point out that the measure, which is divided into two distinct parts, should be divided into two separate Bills, and that the second one, which is of minor importance and is non-controversial, should be disposed of in the first place, leaving the first measure, which is of great importance and which involves many matters of controversy, to be discussed at a future time. So much for the machinery of the Bill. In the next place, I object to the form and shape in which the mèasure has been introduced. The first part comes before us in such a questionable shape that I think we ought not to be induced to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told us that he finds it easier to pass a short Bill than a long one, and he has consequently divided the original Bill into two parts, and has greatly condensed the clauses of each, the result being that whereas Bill No. 1 only contains 19 clauses, the corresponding portion of the Bill of last Session consisted of 40 clauses. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that this was a remarkable feat in legislative condensation; but I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has only made it easier for himself by making it much more difficult for the House. The right hon. Gentleman has described the measure as one which grafts the Land Purchase Scheme on the Ashbourne Act. What he has done has merely been to put the "new wine" of his own Land Purchase Bill into the "old bottles" of the Ashbourne Act. He has brought down the dimensions of his Bill by resorting to two devices, each of which is most objectionable in its character. In the first place, he has not taken care to express the terms of his proposals with sufficient directness; he has not put his meaning into plain, straightforward English, but has relied on references to previous Acts of Parliament. In the second place, he has devolved an immense portion of what ought to be the business of this House on outside authorities, or external

  669
  officials, over whom the right hon. Gentleman may have control, but over whom we have none. The most important word in this measure is the word "prescribed," the meaning of which would seem to be that the work we ought to do is being turned over to clerks and officials. In point of fact, the main, broad result of what the Chief Secretary has done has been to make the Bill a chaos, perfectly unintelligible to the Members of this House. The measure professes to be one to provide further funds for the purchase of land in Ireland. I would respectfully invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to the point I am about to submit to the House. I have been unable to discover in the whole of Part I. any direct grant of money for Stock at all. The only operative clause I can see in Part I. is the last part of Clause 1, which says that every advance for Land Purchase under the Bill shall be made on the issue of Guaranteed Land Stock, which shall be equivalent to the amount of the advance. Consequently, what is advanced under this measure is not a grant, and, in point of fact, I find nothing in the nature of a grant in Part I. Now, Sir, I think we have a right to complain that in so important a matter as this, involving as it does not merely the £33,000,000, which is the sum named by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but in all probability £100,000,000, if not a much larger amount, we ought to have the text of the proposal placed before us in plain English, so that every Member of the House may know what is intended. I am not asserting that there may not be within the four corners of the Bill some obscure clause or provision that may not by human ingenuity be tortured or twisted into a grant of £33,000,000; but I do unhesitatingly say that, looking at the Bill as I have been enabled to understand it, I think hon. Members will fail to find anything in it in the shape of a grant beyond the £10,000,000 limit established by the Ashbourne Act. This, Sir, is the result produced by the condensing process of the right hon. Gentleman, who avowedly has resorted to that method to render his work easier than it would have been if he had stated his intentions in plain, straightforward English. I will give the House an
  670
  example of the difficulty to which I have alluded. A great deal was said last Session about the Guarantee Fund, which we were told was a most essential feature of the old Bill and one of its most valuable securities. In the old Bill the provision as to the guarantee deposit occupied two pages of print, and was composed of some nine or ten sub-sections, carefully drawn, and although elaborate and not quite easy of comprehension yet calculated to carry out the purpose intended to be served. I wonder how many hon. Members can read this new Bill and be aware what parts of it have been copied from the elaborate provisions of the old Bill, especially those introducing the most important proposals as to security. The House will probably be very much surprised to hear that the guarantee deposit provided for in the old Bill has totally disappeared from the new. There is, in point of fact, no provision in regard to guaranteed deposit unless it is contained in the clause I am about to read.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member make this relevant to the Motion he has placed on the Paper?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am contending that Part I. in its new shape is, in fact, so unintelligible that it would be more convenient to deal with Part II. first, so as to give time to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to re-cast Part I. I will, with your permission, read to the House a portion of the clause to which I have just referred. It sets forth that
  "The issue of land stock to the prescribed counties shall be equivalent to the advance and payment of the purchase money and to the retention by the Land Commission of any sum as a guarantee deposit."
  Surely this is a genuine triumph of Hibernian draughtsmanship, and I merely mention it as an example of the unsatisfactory state in which the question is left. The only other point I have to urge is this—that the Chief Secretary might be enabled under the Instruction I am moving to carry a little further the process he has begun. He has already subdivided the Bill and cast out of Part I. the provisions relating to the Land Department, and I ask him to carry the process further. The provisions relating to the Land Department are more closely connected with Part I. than Part II., which has special relation to the Con-

  671
  gested Districts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to follow out the lines he has already adopted; to leave out, for the present, the consideration of Part I., and proceed to Part II., as the more urgent portion of the measure. If he will only do this I am convinced that Part II can be got out of the way in a very few days—that, at any rate, it might be disposed of before Christmas. I for one, at any rate, should have no objection to sitting here until that is done. This part of the measure is, in my view, the uncontentious portion, and having got rid of that part we might leave the other portion which is contentious to be dealt with after the adjournment. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses, I hold that we have no other alternative than to resist to the uttermost every one of the proposals he has made in Part I., and to do our best to prevent its passage. But whether the proposals in that portion of the Bill are good or bad, I maintain that they should be put before us in straightforward ordinary English, so that every hon. Member of this House may be enabled to understand them. For the reasons I have thus given, I now beg to move the Instruction that stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, and to consider first Part II., Congested Districts, and to report the same separately to the House."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I understand, Sir, that this Debate must be of a very limited character, and in the few remarks I have to make I desire to express the astonishment with which I have heard one of the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson). The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the second part of the Bill, which deals with the congested districts, as being of a non-contentious character. I am very glad to hear him say so; but I would remind the House that last Session, when that which is the second part of this Bill was before us, it was declared by many hon. Members to be the most contentious portion of the measure. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who, by the way, is, I think, a better authority on the Irish land question than the hon. Member for
  672
  Dundee, spoke against every clause of what is the second part of this Bill, and, so far from declaring that it was non-contentious, he strongly affirmed that it bristled with contentious points from beginning to end. As far as I am concerned, I really do not know what is a non-contentious measure. I do not believe that any Bill can be drawn on this subject that would be non-contentious, and, therefore, I must decline to accept the proposition of my hon. Friend that if the Chief Secretary gives way to his proposal the second part of the Bill can be passed in this House as a practically non-contentious measure. I do not intend to dispute the urgency of this portion of the Bill. Very far from it; but I assert that the problem we have to deal with in respect of the congested districts is one of the greatest problems that can be brought before Parliament. In these districts of Ireland you have, first of all, a poor soil; then you have small holdings; next you have a crowded population; you have also a defective system for the education of the people; and you have, furthermore, a passionate clinging to those patches of bog on which the people are located. When any hon. Member tells me that an attempt to solve a great problem like this, which has baffled the statesmanship of this country for generations, and has never once been fairly or squarely approached until the present moment, is a non-contentious effort, I am glad to hear him; but I should like to hear other hon. Members confirm that statement. I hope, most earnestly, that the second part of this Bill will be passed—that the whole Bill will be passed—and I am not disputing the responsibility which rests on this House in regard to it, especially at the present moment; but I wish to point out to the House that there is a sense in which the urgency spoken of does not attach to this question of the congested districts—a sense which will be appreciated by hon. Members. Where, I ask, does the trouble in regard to the land question come from? We hear a great deal every day, and we hear it with sorrow, about evictions; we hear about the police being employed at evictions; about the connection of the Royal Irish Constabulary with this question, and we hear it very frequently; but I would point out that the

  673
  pressure does not come so much from the congested districts as from other parts of Ireland, thereby showing that although there may be urgency in the West of Ireland there is also urgency in other portions of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee seems to think that the small holdings are confined to the western districts, and an idea has got into the head of some people that the operations under the Land Purchase Acts have been mainly in favour of large occupiers. That is a total mistake. If anyone chooses to go to these estates which have been transferred from owner to occupier, and investigate the facts for himself, he will find that the majority are small occupiers and poor men, many of them as poor as those in the congested districts in the West of Ireland. There is, therefore, a necessity for dealing with these districts, and the Government have recognised it, and would be only anxious to meet it, were it not for the urgency of the other parts of Ireland. I do not think my hon. Friend, is quite accurate in stating that those who have thousands of pounds will get thousands of pounds added to what they have. [Mr. ROBERTSON: Might.] That is another thing. But I do not believe even that is possible. What of the £5,000 farmer? He has not a large farm. The £5,000 farmer is not considered a large farmer in England and Scotland. The holders of large farms are, however, a very small class in Ireland. According to the Registrar General's Returns for 1880, the number of farmers holding farms of more than 200 acres in Ireland is comparatively small. It is not the large but the small farmers, the small occupiers, who make the model proprietors. I hope the Chief Secretary will resist the proposal of my hon. Friend. If the House is going to take the conduct of the Bill out of the hands of the Government, if the House is going to cut and carve as it likes, then I do not quite understand what will be the character of a measure which will come out of such a process as that. I think the Bill has been wisely drawn, though I still think mischief may result from its having been divided into two parts. However, since the Bill has been drawn in this way, upon a well-conceived plan, I hope the Government will stick to that plan,
  674
  and that they will carry the Bill to a triumphant issue.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The hon. Member for South Tyrone has challenged Members to say whether any unreasonable opposition will be given to Her Majesty's Government. If my humble assurance is anything to him, he is extremely welcome to it, and I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, no such unreasonable opposition will be shown. On a former occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone said he was convinced that too high prices would be given, or too much would be risked over this Land Purchase Bill, and that were it left to the counties and districts to be security no purchases would take place.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I did not say that. I was speaking on the question of local control, and I said that if the County Council or Local Authority had control over the sales, they would have the power either of influencing the price given——
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member will address himself to the Instruction.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am aware that I am trespassing, but I was referring to what took place formerly in illustration of what I have now to say. The hon. Member has affirmed that localities have no faith in this Act being worked without giving a larger price for the land than would be given for it under any fair and reasonable business transaction. Although I sympathise largely with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, I can see no great purpose that can be served now by taking the control of the Bill out of the hands of the Government, and I am, therefore, unable to support, his proposition.
  MR. CHANNING: Sir, I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the second part of this Bill is free from contentious matter. I think, on the contrary, that a strong argument for the Instruction is that it will raise the most important issues relating to the settlement of the land question. I look upon that part of the Bill referring to the congested districts with a less unfriendly spirit than upon the other portions of it, to which I am absolutely opposed in every way. As to the part dealing with congested districts,

  675
  I think it must be materially amended, and the Amendments, which are to be moved from this Bill, will test the sincerity of the intentions of the Chief Secretary as they found expression in his remarkable suggestion of a plébiscite to the districts of Ireland. That is a question of the first importance, and it is one on which the decision of the House ought to be taken at the earliest possible moment. With regard to the remainder of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has, of course, control over the big battalions, and, of course, will be able to carry it though we resist to the utmost. I cordially support the Instruction of my hon. Friend.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: Sir, we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite a clear recognition of the very great urgency of the question relating to congested districts, and we have also had indication of a disposition, which we on this side of the House welcome, to deal with this question in a non-contentious spirit. I would point out that there is one conclusive argument against the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, that it is impossible. He proposes that we should consider the Congested districts scheme without having first considered Part, I. The hon. and learned Gentleman ventures criticism of Hibernian drafting. If his Anglo-Saxon drafting is ns bad as his criticism, I can only say that I prefer the worst drafting which I have seen in my native land. Has he read the Bill? If he has not, I say nothing. If he has, then has he not seen that the portions dealing with congested districts have special application to the whole land scheme, with suitable modifications. How has that fact escaped his notice? Has he not seen that one of the most important portions of the congested districts scheme has a special application to the whole land purchase scheme which is adapted with suitable modifications to the circumstances of congested districts?
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Member for Dundee, whose object is to strike out that part of the Bill which applies to non-congested districts, retaining that part of the Bill dealing with congested districts. I think it is
  676
  certainly necessary to do something for the congested districts, but for the rest of Ireland it is not necessary to do anything at all. At present the tenants are extremely well off, and in an infinitely better position than the tenants of either England or Scotland. I see no reason, therefore, why the money of the taxpayers should be lavishly given in order to make the tenants of Ireland proprietors of their holdings. To my mind the tenants are already owners for all useful purposes. They do what they like with the land, and they can improve it by exercising their own industry. It is only a question of a word. In any other country but England they would be called the owners. It seems to me that in regard to land we must always have two values, one created by the industry of man, and the other—the unearned increment—given by God. Now, occupiers have a right to all property which is the result of their own industry. But they have no right to the unearned increment, which I contend ought to be devoted to State purposes. As regards the greater part of Ireland no one wants this Bill.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of Part I. of the Bill.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I confess I thought that it was competent to me to do so, as the object of the Instruction is to secure that the House shall have an opportunity of considering Part II. of the Bill, and, having disposed of it, be at liberty if it choose to reject Part I. I do submit that Part I. is altogether unnecessary.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday, 22nd January.

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL. —(No. 53,)
  (5.5.) Bill read a second time, and committed.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  COLONEL NOLAN: This clause is the same as that contained in the Bill of 1880. Subsequently to the passing of that Bill it became necessary to apply to the Treasury for an extension to four years. I hope the Treasury will be willing to grant a similar extension now if necessary.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I think the hon. and gallant Member will find that Clause 7 adequately meets his point.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  COLONEL NOLAN: On this clause I desire to move an Amendment which will enable the Guardians to sell seed to occupying owners. I think, unless some such provision is made, the Bill will fail to benefit many people who require the advantages of it.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 2, line 37, after "land," to insert "and to occupying owner."—agreed to.
  MR. MACARTNEY: What provision is to be made by Government to control the sale of seed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend will see from Clause 11 that there are wide powers given to the Local Government Board, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, for making rules for the distribution of seed. I hope that the object aimed at will be adequately carried out.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Seeing the progress which is being made with the Bill I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I do desire to place on record my protest against seed being distributed except for cash payments.
  COLONEL NOLAN: In the case of the ordinary Unions it is perfectly understood that the seed must be paid for, and no liability will, therefore, be incurred, but in the case of the five or six very poor Unions it would, I think, be very unwise to insert such a provision. My hon. Friend may rely on it that not a single penny will be wasted by Guardians under this Bill.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Would it not be desirable to insert a new clause showing what is to be taken as primâ facie evidence of the delivery of seed? There have been many disputes raised on this point in the past, and much trouble has ensued, so that it would be as well to define the evidence in the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I think that is met by Clause 11, which gives wide powers for the framing of rules and forms of receipts, which will be primâ facie evidence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At any rate, we will confer with the hon. and gallant Member on the point before the Report stage is taken.
  Bill reported: as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [4th December] reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for certain Expenditure in connection with apprehended distress in Ireland."
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I should like to say one or two words on this question, as it is a subject to which I gave careful study a few winters ago. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman stated that he intended to be guided by experience. In one most important matter he has been so guided. The winter of 1883–4 was the time when the question of not relaxing the ordinary operation of the Poor Law was fought out, and settled. It is true that it has once been disturbed since then; but the right hon. Gentleman has reverted to the right Course, and I hope that matter is settled for ever. There is one other point upon which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be guided by experience. In the famine of 1846, which was a much more serious matter than the distress in 1880, when relief works on an enormous scale was started, it was proved that relief works and improvements ought to be strictly separated. The right hon. Gentleman has two classes of relief works, one consisting of railways,

  679
  and against these I have nothing to say. They are, in the truest sense, relief works, and as they will promote communication they are likely to prove of permanent benefit. But I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be most careful in setting on foot works which are taken in hand for the purpose of giving wages, for the experience of 1846 and of 1880 showed that such works completely demoralised the whole population of Ireland. They had to be given up, and relief in food substituted. In the present case relief works of reclamation and afforesting are to be set on foot in order to give wages. That is a most dangerous thing to do. The result of these relief works on a great scale during the great famine was described by one who had the most intimate personal experience of what occurred from first to last, and he stated that the attraction of wages from the public purse led to the abandonment of other works, and every description of industry participated in the relief; that landlords competed with each other in getting the names of their tenants on the lists, that masters dismissed their servants, and that the clergy insisted that their parishioners should be put on the works. The consequence was that the fisheries were deserted, and one could not get shoes patched or clothing mended, because the whole of the population was out on the roads. I see no reason why the same painful effects should not follow in the case of these works, although, of course, they will not be on so extensive a scale. I think the right hon. Gentleman, however, is alive to the danger; and if he looks back to the history of those days he will find that the danger is a very real one. In 1846 it was distinctly discovered that the naval and military officers and the engineers engaged in supervising the works, although strangers to the district, were able to distinguish between those people who required employment for the purposes of relief and those who might be better employed elsewhere. I hope that the relief works, which have been chosen with such care by the right hon. Gentleman, will prove of real service to the country; but I repeat that I trust he will stop them immediately it is found that they are having a demoralising tendency and substitute for them actual relief in food.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the case of 1846–47 absolutely differs from the present case, because in those years the relief works were on a gigantic scale, and those now projected are to be carried out in a very different manner. A better comparison is, I think, to be obtained in the year when the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke was Chief Secretary, and himself so well-managed some small relief works in Connemara and avoided all the difficulties against which he has warned the Chief Secretary. I have but one other observation to make. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should arrange the work so that the minimum shall be done in the sowing season. I may also suggest that in the case of small towns of 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants sanitary works should be included.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I will consider the suggestions with regard to sanitary works, but I am afraid such works are not likely to give large employment to unskilled labour in proportion to their cost. It should also be borne in mind that it is the village labourer who suffers chiefly from the famine, and it may be anticipated that the starting of these railway and other works will give a stimulus to the trade of the small towns from which the labourers in those places will benefit. With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I acknowledge that he has not only himself had experience of the industrial condition of the West, but he has an hereditary claim to speak on the subject of Irish distress, since the late Sir Charles Trevelyan took a most distinguished part in the relief of the great famine. I can assure him I am fully alive to the dangers incident to these relief works. I admit that it will be extremely difficult to carry out the works without a certain amount of collateral abuse, but I will try to reduce it as much as possible by the precautions I propose to take. The Government, who are undertaking these works, will have absolute control over them with respect to the time that they shall take and the expenditure upon them, and care will be taken that the works which are undertaken shall be of a complete kind and shall avoid the extravagance, jobbery, and inutility which have marked those in the past. One of the first principles I have

  681
  laid down to the officers in charge of the works is, that under no circumstances are the works to be allowed to interfere with any other form of industrial occupation whatever. Care will be taken to consider the point which has been raised—namely, the requirements of cultivation at the time of sowing potatoes in the spring. A certain amount of that, I believe, could be done by the men's family, but I shall take care that work shall be given at a time when it is really requisite. I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for the general approval he has given to the scheme, and also for the suggestions he has offered to me. I assure him I shall not forget their substance or their general tenour.
  DR. COMMINS: I wish to mention a work which I think could be most appropriately undertaken in pursuance of the right hon. Gentleman's relief operations. There has been for several years a great want of waterworks in the little town of Roscommon. Preparations are being made for bringing water from the Shannon, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to communicate with the authorities of Roscommon on the subject. This is a work which would give employment to people who are likely to require it, and which would probably fall in with the Chief Secretary's view with respect to relief work.
  MR. STOREY: I hope the Chief Secretary will at once accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend (Dr. Commins). The House is in a sympathetic humour; if the right hon. Gentleman asked for a million sterling I believe he would get it. If he would only give something to each Irish Member for each constituency he would strike a deadly blow at Home Rule.
  Resolution agreed to.

  THE CASE OF WALTER HARGAN.
  On the Motion for adjournment,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I think the feeling of the House is in favour of an immediate adjournment. Last night we agreed that no business except Government Business should be taken this evening. I see that my right hon. Friend (Mr.
  682
  J. Lowther) has a Motion on the Paper, but this is hardly an occasion in which to discuss a Motion of that character. I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I have the following Motion on the Paper:—
  "To call the attention of the House to the grave miscarriage of justice in the case of Walter Hargan, who is undergoing a sentence of 20 years' penal servitude for defending his own life; and to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that a free pardon be granted to Walter Hargan."
  and I must own the Motion of my right hon. Friend the leader of the House is of a most unusual and scarcely decent character. The other day a Motion was made asking private Members to give up their privileges. I was under the impression at the time that my right hon. Friend had no wish unduly to interfere with the rights of private Members, except in so far as it was necessary to do so in order to effect the object which the Government had in view—namely, the despatch of urgent business. The Resolution which stands in my name as an Amendment to the Order of Supply relates to a subject which has aroused a great deal of interest. It is now only 25 minutes to 6 o'clock, and there is ample time to discuss this matter without interfering unduly with those social functions which, no doubt, at this hour are uppermost in the minds of some hon. Members. My right hon. Friend will be committing an outrage upon the rights of the House at large if he insists upon the Motion for Adjournment, and will be showing that the only object of the Government in making their Motion the other day is to strangle the privileges of private Members. I shall certainly object to the Motion for Adjournment.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I earnestly appeal to the leader of the House to re-consider his decision as to the adjournment of the House. A great many Members take a very serious interest in the question which my right hon. Friend wishes to bring forward. He may not have another

  683
  opportunity this Session of bringing the matter forward.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I withdrew the Motion which stood in my name in order to give the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) an opportunity of introducing his, and, therefore, for what it is worth, venture to add my appeal to his. While I am on my feet, I should like to draw the attention of the leader of the House to an answer given earlier in the day by the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir J: Gorst), because unless by Monday some attention is paid to the matter, it may be my duty to raise a debate in a way which would be unpleasant to all of us.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are not at the present moment in a position to discuss the subject of my right hon. Friend's Resolution. The matter is now receiving the most serious consideration of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The House, I am sure, will feel that in these circumstances the Government cannot fitly discuss this grave subject, which concerns the administration of justice and the exercise of the prerogatives of mercy by the Crown. My right hon. Friend has assured me that he is weighing carefully all the circumstances of the case. Could it be right to debate in this House a matter which, in his quasi-judicial capacity, the Home Secretary is still considering with a full sense of his responsibility? It would certainly not be in accordance with precedent to force on a Debate before the Secretary of State, the officer responsible to the Crown, has had full opportunity of forming a definite judgment.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman has taken no notice of the other point put to him.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will undertake to communicate with my right hon. Friend on the subject.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: With the indulgence of the House, I would say that this is a subject which in no way concerns myself specially, but it is one which involves the liberty of the subject. I shall certainly not waive my present opportunity of bringing it forward unless the right hon. Gentleman assures me that when Parliament re-
  684
  assembles after Christmas I shall be placed in as good a position as I occupy now for drawing attention to the matter. If I am assured that my Motion will be given the first place on the Paper on some afternoon soon after the re-assembling of the House I shall be satisfied.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot give my right hon. Friend an assurance of that character. I can only assure him that the Secretary of State will give full consideration to all the facts of the case.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the Government give me a day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot undertake to do that. My right hon. Friend will be able himself to find a way to bring the matter forward.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I shall take the sense of the House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) has the matter entirely in his own hands. If he wants an early day for a Debate on this important subject, in which a large number of Members are undoubtedly interested, he will be able to secure the opportunity by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I can only say that if my right hon. Friend should see fit to give way to the appeal made to him by the leader of the House, I would certainly support him on a subsequent occasion in a Motion for an Adjournment of the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I to understand it would be within my power to bring the subject forward on a Motion for Adjournment as an urgent matter of definite public importance?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be for the occupant of the Chair to settle, but I think there are examples warranting the belief that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to take that course.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Under these circumstances I shall give way, but I shall raise the question on an early day after the re-assembling of Parliament.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Monday next.