Commons Sitting of 30 April 1891

QUESTIONS.

  THE INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is the case that it has been decided to alter the mode of appointment of Officers to the Indian Staff Corps; and, if so, what is to be the new system; (2) whether such Officers are to be taken from the British Army or appointed direct; and (3) whether they are to be educated at any Military College?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,):The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is, Yes; in accordance with the Army Order of the 9th of March, 1891. The answer to the second question is, that they will be appointed direct from Sandhurst to the unattached list of the British Army. The answer to the third question is, Yes.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean by " unattached" that they will not be attached to any regiment?
  SIR J. GORST:I am not a military man, but I believe that that is so.

  THE INDIAN FACTORY ACT.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will now produce the further Correspondence regarding the new Indian Factory Act?
  SIR J. GORST:The Papers will be presented if the hon. Member will move for them.

  CONSTRUCTION OF INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Secretary of State has lately entertained, or is now entertaining, any projects for construction of Railways by Companies with a Government guarantee?
  SIR J. GORST:Yes, Sir.

  THE WELSH CENSUS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that immediately before the Census was taken at Machynlleth, in the County of Montgomery, a proclamation was made by the town crier urging the inhabitants to declare themselves Welshmen, that is to say, to return themselves as understanding the Celtic language only; whether he can inform the House who were the parties responsible for this proclamation; and if he can state in how many schedules, including how many individuals, the enumerators were obliged to correct the Census papers, on account of persons having, through ignorance or design, wrongly described themselves as monoglot Celts?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Ritchie,:I learn from the Registrar General that the Superintendent Registrar of Machynlleth reports that immediately before the Census day the town crier at Machynlleth made a proclamation in Welsh, of which the following is a translation of the material part:—
  "Take notice.—The Census. Inasmuch as the Government permits all persons to have the schedules in Welsh, and there being a special opportunity in connection with the matter on the present occasion for every Welshman and every Welshwoman through the town, who can fill up the paper in Welsh to do so. Another similar opportunity will
  1744
  not he offered for ten years. Remember our country, our language, our nation."
  I have no information as to the person responsible for the notice. The Registrar General has had the number of schedules counted which the enumerators in the township found it necessary, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Census Act, and in accordance with the Regulations to alter, at the time of collection, on account of persons having described themselves as monoglot Celts, whereas it was within the knowledge of the enumerators that they could speak both Welsh and English. The Registrar General finds that the number of schedules altered by substituting the word " both " for " Welsh " was 57, including 284 persons.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that only 200 Welsh schedules were supplied for distribution in the parishes of Barry, Cadoxton, Merthyr, Dovan, Sully, St. Andrew, Wenvoe, St. Nicholas, Porthkerry, Llancarfan, Peterstone super Ely, Penmark, Bonvilstone, St. Lythans, and other adjoining parishes in the County of Glamorgan, though the population of these parishes is at least 50,000, of which fully 20 per cent. are monoglot Welsh people; whether he is aware that not a single Welsh schedule was given to several enumerators for distribution, and that, when Welsh schedules were asked for by heads of families, the reply which the enumerators in many cases were instructed to give was that the entries could be given in Welsh in the English Census Paper; and whether he can take any steps to remedy the omissions complained of?
  MR. RITCHIE:I have communicated with the Registrar General, and he states as follows:—The parishes mentioned in the question appear to be within the district of Cardiff, which is sub-divided into three sub-districts. Each of the three Registrars was called upon to estimate how many schedules printed in the Welsh language he would require for the use of householders, and to each Registrar was sent some 25 per cent. more than the number asked for. For the whole district some 500 schedules in the Welsh language were sent, and the Registrars assure me that the supply

  1745
  was more than ample to meet the legitimate requirements of those who could only fill up the schedules in Welsh, for whom alone it must be borne in mind the Welsh schedules were printed. A very much larger number of Welsh schedules were issued in 1891 than in 1881. But it having been recommended by certain societies, by ministers and others, that all Welshmen and Welshwomen should demand Welsh schedules, the supply naturally fell short, and schedules in English had to be issued, as they had always been used in previous Censuses. But no omissions were made on that account—the people in the places referred to were closely enumerated, and no action is necessary. Of this, I have satisfied myself by careful inquiry; and wherever in Wales any omission has been proved I have insisted on a re-enumeration. The books and papers are now sent in, and I cannot institute further inquiry. I may mention that the extraordinary desire this time amongst the Welsh people to fill up their schedules in Welsh has given an enormous amount of trouble to this Department, as every schedule filled up in Welsh has to be translated into English. And the filling up the schedule in Welsh has really no bearing on the great question of the number of Welsh-speaking people, as that can be as easily ascertained by a schedule in English with a language column.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that the Registrar General considered it of no importance that Welsh schedules should be delivered, and that those who claimed to be monoglot Welsh people should not have been afforded the opportunity of filling up a Welsh schedule?
  MR. RITCHIE:There can be no doubt of the fact that an enormous number of the schedules issued were filled up in Welsh by people who speak and know both languages. In many instances the Welsh schedule was demanded by persons who understood both languages. For the purposes of the Census, the great object was to give to each person a schedule in which he or she was able to fill up the questions; and the way in which the schedules have been filled up shows that no injustice has been done.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Welsh people who can colloquially make themselves understood in English are utterly unable to read it, and are only so imperfectly acquainted with that language when written or printed that they have been greatly embarrassed by the English Census paper?
  MR. RITCHIE:I am not able to answer that question; but the information I have received does not bear out the suggestion conveyed by the hon. Member. All the householders filled up their schedules, and stated whether they speak one language or two. It is, therefore, quite immaterial whether they filled up a Welsh or an English schedule.

  CHARGE AGAINST A POLICE CONSTABLE.
  MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he is aware that a coachman named Alexander Nicholl applied to Mr. Partridge, on the 7th of March last, for a summons against police constable No. 5495 for an assault, alleged to have been committed on him without justification or excuse, on the evening of 5th March; whether Mr. Partridge is correctly reported to have declined to grant the summons unless the applicant obtained the consent of the Inspector of Police; whether the rights of individuals in obtaining summonses are different in the case of private persons and of police constables; and whether it is legal for Magistrates to make the consent of a superior police officer a condition precedent to the grant of a summons against a subordinate constable; if so, whether he will consider the matter with a view to an alteration of the law, so as to do away with such a condition, and to make the rights of parties applying for summonses against constables identical with those applying for summonses against private persons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,):I am informed by the learned Magistrate that it is not the fact that he refused to grant a summons in this case, unless the applicant obtained the consent of the Inspector of Police. The statement

  1747
  of the applicant failed to satisfy the Magistrate that there had been any-assault; nevertheless, in order that all the facts might be more clearly laid before him, the Magistrate suggested that the applicant should lay his case before the Inspector of the district, and then renew his application for a summons, if he desired to do so. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. The consent of the Inspector was not made a condition precedent to the granting of a summons.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reference to the expenditure, in the {year 1889, of £51,175 in raising Her Majesty's Ship Sultan, and of £11,496 in fitting her for the voyage home, set forth on p. 148 of the Navy Appropriation Account, whether any steps have been taken, since the ship reached this country, to prepare her for use as an effective man-of-war; why no provision has been made in this year's Estimates for that purpose; and whether any expenditure is contemplated; and, if not, what are the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to this ship?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,:No steps have been taken to prepare the Sultan for use as an effective man-of-war beyond a careful examination of her condition and a rough estimate of the cost' of refitting the ship. This work will not be undertaken until the vessels now under re-construction and re-fit are more advanced or completed.

  FOREIGN LOTTERIES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the circulation of foreign lottery and gambling advertisements in this country through the post; whether such a circulation is lawful or unlawful, and, in particular, whether the advertisement of the " New Great Money Lottery, guaranteed by the Government of the State of Hamburg (Germany)," is lawful and is permitted; and whether the advertisement in English newspapers of gambling transactions, such as the "odds" on horse races, is lawful and permitted?
  MR. MATTHEWS:I am advised that the printing or publishing in this country of advertisements of foreign lotteries is illegal, but not the transmission of these lottery papers through the Post Office, and legislation would be necessary to enable the authorities of the Post Office to detain such papers. For the law with regard to sporting advertisements I must refer the hon. Member to the case of " Cox v. Andrews," which was decided in the Queen's Bench Division on December 12, 1883.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. FELLOWES:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a farmer, having paid Income Tax under Schedule B, should also be called upon to pay a tax under Schedule D on the profits arising from horses bred on and sold off the farm?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,):The answer to this question is, No. For Income Tax purposes it is immaterial whether a farmer breeds horses, cattle, or sheep, provided the land will carry the stock placed upon it. If the occupation of land is made subsidiary to the business of dealing in live stock, the assessment under Schedule B will not exhaust the occupier's liability to Income Tax. What the further liability may be is a question of fact to be determined by the District Commissioners.

  EXPERIMENTS UPON ANIMALS.
  MR. S. SMITH:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the experiments with phthisical sputum reported by Mr. Watson Cheyne in the British Medical Journal of the 11th of April, involving the boring of holes into the knee joints of living rabbits; and whether the Home Office produces a Report of such experiments; if so, does this Report show whether Mr. Watson Cheyne held a certificate dispensing him from the use of anæsthetics in the performance of such experiments; whether the holes were bored into the legs of the animals while they were sensitive to pain; and how long their joints were allowed to inflame and swell through the action of the

  1749
  diseased material stated to have been injected?
  MR. MATTHEWS:Yes, Sir; I have seen the report of these experiments in the journal referred to. They were made in the years 1887 and 1888, and a summary of them appears in the Annual Report of the Inspector presented to Parliament for those years under Table 3. Prom that Table it appears that they were under Certificate A, which authorises experiments without anæsthetics, and which was granted on the supposition that the experiments were simple inoculations. I am informed by the Inspector that the great majority of these experiments were simple inoculations; but that in the cases where the inoculation was performed on bone, as detailed in the journal quoted, the animal was fully under the influence of chloroform. With regard to subsequent pain, the licence always carries a condition that; if severe pain had been induced in an animal after the experiment, and if the main result of the experiment has been attained, the animal shall be immediately killed under anæsthetics.

  COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN RAILWAY GUARDS AND PASSENGERS.
  MR. WEBB:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the passengers in a railway train on the Great Western Railway, on 7th April, for upwards of 15 minutes in vain endeavoured to communicate with the guard to stop the train whilst a mother and her child were being assaulted by a drunken sailor with an open knife; and whether the Board of Trade will take any steps to enforce the communication between passengers and the guard being kept in a proper state of efficiency?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,):Yes, Sir; I have been in communication with the Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's question. The company state that the passenger tried to reach the cord on the near side of the train, whereas the cord was on the off side of the train; that the cord was in good working order, and that the failure to make the communication was because of the passenger going in the first instance to the wrong
  1750
  side of the train. The Act of 1868 imposes the duty on every Railway Company of providing and maintaining in every train carrying passengers, and travelling over 20 miles without stopping, efficient means of communication between the passengers and the guard. The Act leaves it open to any person aggrieved to prosecute, and does not devolve that duty upon the Board of Trade.
  MR. ESSLEMONT:Is it not possible for a passenger to know on which side the communication is?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH:He has only got to look.

  ASSAULT BY A SEAMAN OF H.M.S. VOLAGE.
  MR. WEBB:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the conviction at Abingdon, on Saturday 25th April, of Robert Dooley, a seaman of H.M.S. Volage, for threatening in a railway carriage to cut the throat of a mother if she would not give him her child; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain this seaman in Her Majesty's Service?
  LORD G. HAMILTON:The offence was dealt with by civil power. The man was sentenced to pay a fine of £5, or to go to prison for a month. The charge was one of ordinary assault only. During his term of service the man's character had been always good. His further retention in the Service is under consideration.

  TREATIES OF COMMERCE AND THE COLONIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the resolution unanimously adopted by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on 28th April, 1890, to the effect that no Treaties of Commerce should in future be renewed or entered into which preclude preferential arrangements between the United Kingdom and British Colonies with regard to their respective products; and if this view will be borne in mind in any negotiations for the renewal of expiring Treaties?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,:Her Majesty's Government are aware of the resolution referred to, as well as of similar expressions of opinion. These will certainly be kept in view in the renewal of expiring Conventions.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  CAPTAIN PRICE:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is true, as reported in the Times, that the French authorities of St. Pierre are encouraging, by bounties and otherwise, the breaking of the Newfoundland laws with respect to the selling of bait; and whether their doing so amounts to a breach of the Agreement of 1783, with respect to the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, as set forth in the Counter Declaration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,:Her Majesty's Government have not been informed that the French authorities have offered any bounty on bait, or have in any other way induced Newfoundland fishermen to break the regulations on the subject. By those regulations the Newfoundland Government at present prohibits the sale of bait to French and Canadian fishermen, while permitting it to be sold to United States fishermen, and it is reported that in defiance of this regulation Newfoundland fishermen have sold bait to the French. Whether the purchase in St. Pierre and Miquelon of bait illegally brought thither by Newfoundland fishermen would constitute a breach of the Declarations of 1783 is a matter of opinion.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Newfoundland Delegates have now undertaken to introduce into the Newfoundland Legislature the Bill necessary to provide for the duo execution of our Treaty obligations on the French shore; and whether agreement has been come to as to the details to be submitted to arbitration?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:Her Majesty's Government have not yet received from the Newfoundland Delegates any proposals on this subject beyond the statement made in their Address to the
  1752
  House of Lords. If the second part of my hon. Friend's question refers to the arbitration respecting the lobster fisheries, the answer to it is to be found in Article 1 of the Agreement with France. No agreement has yet been come to with regard to any subsidiary questions, which, as will be seen in the Agreement, are not to be discussed until after the arbitration on the lobster fishery has been concluded.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  CAPTAIN PRICE:I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the provision, by which 50 sons of naval officers have been maintained on the foundation of Christ's Hospital from the year 1798 to the present time, has been omitted from the new scheme; what is the reason for the omission; and what steps will he take to rectify it?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER:The admission of 50 sons of naval officers to Christ's Hospital rested not upon any specific trust on their behalf, but upon a resolution of the Governors in the exercise of their discretion. The new scheme does not create a trust in favour of sons of naval officers, nor was it ever suggested to the Commissioners during the progress of the case that it should do so. It will still be open to Governors having presentations or nominations for competition to favour sons of naval officers, and it may be presumed that the Council of Almoners in the exercise of their rights of nomination will not be unmindful of the resolution of 1798.

  PUBLIC LOTTERIES IN SCOTLAND.
  DR. CAMERON:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been sailed to a correspondence between the Secretary of the " Anti-Gambling League (Scotland) " and the Crown Office on the subject of public lotteries for church and other purposes; whether it is true, as therein stated, that four cases had been reported by the Police Authorities and Procurators Fiscal without any proceedings being instituted; whether it is the fact, as stated in the Crown Agent's letter of the 14th instant, that, in the case of the Falkirk Parish Church Bazaar—

  1753
  "The subscription sale complained of had not been authorised by the Bazaar Committee, and was stopped as soon as it came to their knowledge,"
  or that, as stated in the British Weekly of 26th March,
  "the subscription sale and raffle complained of actually took place at the bazaar;"
  whether the Act Geo. IV., c. 60, cited by the Society, renders such lotteries illegal in Scotland; and whether the "warning " referred to in the Crown Agent's letter of 14th March as having been given in a Glasgow case, and as " having had the desired effect of closing the shop," was given with the sanction of the Crown Officials and based on the assumption that lotteries are illegal; and, if so, why the Crown Authorities decline to enforce the law in the other cases reported by the Anti-Gambling Society?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,):I have been acquainted with this correspondence throughout its course. In answer to Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the question, four cases of shops in Glasgow used for " Enterprise Sales " were reported to the Crown Office. It is not the case that the Crown Authorities have declined to enforce the law in these instances. The occupiers were informed that their business was illegal under the Statute, and were warned to desist. One of them thereupon closed his premises. The others, having declined to do so, the papers have been sent to the Procurator Fiscal of the Justice of Peace Court. That officer is not under the control of my Department, and it will be for him to make arrangements for the costs of the prosecution. The only alternative under the Statute is the somewhat costly one of raising an action in the Supreme Court. As to Paragraphs 3 and 4, the Act of 4 Geo. IV. renders renders certain lotteries illegal; but the Public Prosecutor has always exercised a discretion as to the classes of lotteries which are fit subjects for prosecution, and I do not intend to depart from this practice. In the case of the Falkirk Church Bazaar, the complaint made was understood to refer to the exposure of . an article for subscription sale in a shop window in Glasgow, in connection with that bazaar; and I am assured that it was stopped as soon as it came to the knowledge of the Committee.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  DR. CAMERON:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a lecture delivered before the Royal Dublin Society, on the 15th instant, by Mr. John R. Wigham, on the subject of lighthouse illumination, in which he exhibits a new lighthouse burner which he had invented, alleged to have twice the power of the most powerful lighthouse burner tested by the Trinity House at the South Foreland, and also described a new lenticular apparatus alleged to have three times the power of the hyperradiant lens tested at the South Foreland, and to give, when used with the new burner, six times the light of the most powerful existing lighthouse light; and whether he will direct that this new light be tested against the most powerful form of electric light with its most recent improvements with the view of ascertaining their relative efficiency in fog?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH:My attention has not been called to Mr. Wigham's recent lecture respecting his inventions. The hon. Member is aware that it is not the province of the Board of Trade to take the initiative in these matters, and I have had no application for a renewal of experiments from any of the General Lighthouse Authorities who would appear satisfied with the able and exhaustive Report which a Committee of the Royal Society recently made on the subject of lighthouse illuminants, and which has been presented to Parliament.
  MR. SEXTON:I assume that no final action will be taken in a matter of this importance until the House has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH:No action is required.

  COUNTY COUNCILS AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate in view of the fact that County Councils have no power to make bye-laws, as Road Authorities, requiring conveyances to exhibit lights during dark while driving, whether he will, on behalf of the Government, take steps to confer the necessary powers where, in the opinion

  1755
  of Local Authorities, such regulations are required for public safety?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:County Councils have the same powers to make bye-laws for the purposes set forth in Section 104 of the Roads Act of 1878 as County Road Trustees had before the passing of the Local Government Act. Until I saw the question of the hon. Member I was not aware of any desire that these powers should be in any way extended; but if representations in this direction are made, they will receive consideration.
  DR. CAMERON:The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware that this is not the only case which has arisen.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:Each case will be considered on its merits, but I may add that the Secretary of an Association does not occupy any privileged position in bringing a case forward.

  PRICE'S CHARITY.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the case of Price's Charity, value £60 a year, now devoted to the elementary education of the poor in the Parish of Cwm-dawddwr, in the County of Radnor, the Charity Commissioners, after the publication of the names of four Trustees proposed to be added to the Governing Body, without any public notice and without any opportunity being given to the inhabitants and the general public to express their opinions, added three more names to the list at the nomination of the Joint Education Committee of the County Council, making nine Trustees in all for the administration of £60 a year; and whether the 32 & 33 Vic, c. 110, s. 6, which gives the Charity Commissioners power to dispense with public notices in case of "modifying a proposed order" authorises them to entirely re-construct the Governing Body of a Charity by adding one-third to the number of Trustees, without complying with the provisions securing notice to the public?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT of THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,):My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith will answer this question.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER:Full publicity was given to the names of the three gentlemen referred to in the question at a meeting held on March 11 1890, of inhabitants of parishes interested in the Charity—now applied as stated, but a grammar school by repute —and was subsequently evidenced by a memorial and a counter-memorial, each signed by about 200 names, presented to the Commissioners on July 7 and August 16 of that year respectively. In these circumstances the Commissioners, when deciding in October last to include these names in the draft order, mainly on the ground that the Parish of Rhayader was entitled to a share of representation, did not consider it to be necessary to publish1 names already so well-known and so much canvassed in the locality. the nominees of the existing Trustees having been retained in the order, the Commissioners consider their own action to have been supplemental rather than re-constructive; and this appears to them to bring the case within the discretion, as to publication, allowed by Section 7 (not 6) of the Act 32 & 33 Vic, c. 110.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON:I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter and move a Resolution.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. RANKIN:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on' Education whether the Government have had under their consideration the question of the superannuation of teachers in public elementary schools; and, if so, whether they intend to introduce any legislation on the subject this Session?
  SIR W. HART DYKE:The subject to which my hon. Friend refers is now being dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and, pending the issue of their deliberations and Report, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to approach its consideration.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how soon a Provisional Order will be issued for carrying out the compulsory provisions under the Allotments

  1757
  Act, with the view to the acquisition of land at St. Faith's, Norfolk?
  MR. RITCHIE:A Provisional Order has been made by the County Council of Norfolk in the case referred to; and a Bill for the confirmation of the Order will be introduced without delay.

  ELECTION OF GUARDIANS AT CLAPTON, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to circumstances connected with the election of Guardians for the Parish of Clapton, Gloucestershire; whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Stephens, the successful candidate, received the support of 16 voters, and by the plural vote defeated Mr. N. Jenkins, who received the support of 18 voters; and that Mr. Thomas Stephens signed as witness the voting papers, of two of his supporters who were only able to make a mark; and whether such voting papers were legal, and ought to have been counted; if so, whether a procedure so open to abuse can be altered?
  MR. RITCHIE:I have asked the Returning Officer for information as to the election referred to. Mr. Stephens, the successful candidate, received 23 votes, and Mr. Jenkins 19. It is the case that Mr. Stephens signed as a witness the voting papers of two of his supporters who were only able to make a mark; but independently of these votes, Mr. Stephens had a majority of the votes given. I think that it is inexpedient that a candidate should witness the voting papers of persons who are unable to write. At the same time, I may observe that there is no suggestion that the votes in the voting papers as marked were not given for the candidates for whom the voters desired to vote, and the fact that the voting papers were so witnessed does not, in my opinion, render the votes invalid. No facts have come within my knowledge which appear to render it necessary that the law should be altered in this respect, but the point shall be considered when an opportunity offers

  NAVAL DEFENCE ACT.
  SIR U.KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Trea-
  1758
  sury when the first Account under the Naval Defence Act will be rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor General, in accordance with the 5th section of the Act?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,):The Account to which the right hon. Baronet refers is the first of the series, and will largely influence the form of subsequent Accounts. It has, therefore, been the subject of much consideration between the Admiralty and the Treasury, but I believe it has to-day been sent forward by the Treasury.

  MAIL SERVICE TO THE HEBRIDES.
  COLONEL MALCOLM:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the districts of Ardnamurchan and Loch Suinart are included in the improved mail service to come into operation on the 1st May; and, if so, whether these places are to be served by the present Mull mail steamer, by the new service round Mull, or by the steamer to the outer Hebrides?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,):In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to state that Ardnamurchan will be in-eluded in the improved mail service, and receive a mail three times a week—twice a week by the steamer round Mull, and once by the direct Tobermory steamer. This change, while it will not affect the present frequency of the post, will admit of the delivery of the mails at Ardnamurchan at about 6 p.m., instead of at 2 p.m. the following day. With respect to Loch Suinart, I may state that the present land service to Strontian and Salen will remain undisturbed. With regard to certain places to the westward of Glenborrodale, they will receive their letters, not from Ardgour and Salen, as at present, but by the improved boat service viâ Ardnamurchan.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE ACT.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War having regard to the Report, of the Auditor General on " The Imperial Defence Act, 1888," Part II., Ports and Coaling Stations, of the date of, 3lst January, 1891 (Accounts, No. 90), which sets forth that—

  1759
  "The proposals in the Imperial Defence Act contemplated that the actual expenditure of £2,600,000 authorised for the purposes of the Act should be completed within the three years ending 31st March, 1891; "
  whether he will state how much of the said sum remained unexpended on 31st March, 1891; the reasons for the delay in completing the expenditure, which is declared in the Preamble of the Act to be for—
  "Urgent works," and for the "completion without delay of the defence of the Coaling Stations, and the speedy completion of the armaments "
  and when the expenditure account will be finally closed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:The amount remaining unexpended under Part II. of the Imperial Defence Act on March 31st last was £935,000, of which £550,000 will be spent during the present year. Unavoidable delay has been caused by the preference given to naval requirements by changes in the armament asked for by the Australian Colonies, and by difficulties in acquiring sites. But the main cause of delay is under the head of " Barracks and Coaling Stations," because the sum to be provided under the Act is to be supplemented by the sales of other property belonging to the War Department and by contributions from certain colonies. These questions lead to complicated negotiations, and the account under this head probably cannot be closed for two or three years.

  TREASURY BILLS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what was the total amount of the last issue of Treasury bills, the average rate per cent on the whole, the amount and the average rate on each class of bills allotted?
  MR. GOSCHEN:The total amount of the last issue of Treasury bills, being the bills allotted last Monday, was £1,000,000. This amount was made up as follows:—£660,000 in three months' bills at £3 5s. 7d. interest, £260,000 in six months' bills at £3 5s. 6d. interest, and £80,000 in 12 months' bills at £2.16s. 7d. interest. The average rate of interest over the whole, if reduced to three months' bills, was £3 3s. 7d.
  SIR W. HARCOURT:Why were not more of the bills allotted at the lower rate of interest?
  MR. GOSCHEN:For the simple reason that there were no further tenders at that time at the lower rate of interest; otherwise I should certainly have taken them.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY REPORT.
  SIR E. J. REED:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state when the Ordnance Survey Report will be issued?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,):The Report of the Ordnance Survey is now with the Stationery Office, and I am informed that it will be issued in the course of a few days.

  SCOTCH DEER FORESTS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, if moved for, he will grant a Return from the Government County Assessors of Scotland showing by counties the name, area, and owner of each deer forest in Scotland, and distinguishing those created since 1884?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:It is impossible, without seeing the precise form of the Return, to give a definite answer to the question of the hon. Member. I can only say that I am not aware of any reason why some such Return should not be obtained.

  LOWER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. SEAGER HUNT:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of Lower (now Second) Division clerks in the Admiralty have been promoted to the Upper Division, and what number have received staff appointments since 1876; what percentage such promotions bear to the number of Second Division clerks in the Admiralty; and whether he will make such arrangements as will permit of better effect being given in the Admiralty to the Orders in Council of the 12th of February, 1876, and 21st of March, 1890, and to Treasury Minutes of the 19th of June, 1884, and 16th of August, 1889, wherein promotion to the Higher Division and to staff appointments is one of the conditions under which Second

  1761
  Division clerks were induced to enter the Service?
  LORD G. HAMILTON:One Second Division clerk has been promoted to the Higher Division, and four have received staff appointments. The number of Second Division clerks in the Admiralty averages 200, and the percentage of such promotions would, therefore, be 2½. The Admiralty can only create staff appointments for the Second Division when the interests of the Service demand such a course; and, in face of the fact that the Admiralty is already overstocked with Higher Division clerks, who will be gradually reduced, I cannot undertake that all vacancies in that grade will be filled up.

  ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. WATT:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions have been issued prohibiting the enrolment of recruits for the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers pending disbandment; and whether, having regard to the long service of this branch of the Reserve, he can now state his reasons for the proposed step?
  LORD G. HAMILTON:The further enrolment of recruits for the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers has been stopped, pending certain proposed organic changes in their present constitution. The reasons for such a change cannot be stated within the limits of an answer to a question.

  THE CHILIAN CIVIL WAR-NAVAL ENGAGEMENTS.
  MR. GOURLEY:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any detailed information from the Commander of the British Squadron in Chilian waters relative to the encounter between the Chilian ironclad Blanco Encalada and the torpedo cruisers Almirante Lynch and the Almirante Condell; is so, will he be good enough to state what it is; and whether he has issued special instructions, requiring the British Commander to advise the Admiralty in detail of any naval engagements which have occurred, or which may occur, during the Chilian Civil War?
  LORD G. HAMILTON:The only Report as yet received from the Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific is a telegram from Valparaiso, dated April 24, as follows:—
  "Ironclad Blanco Encalada taken by surprise, and sunk with torpedoes by Almirante Lynch and Almirante Condell at Caldera yesterday morning; over 100 drowned; captain saved."
  Special instructions are not required, as the Commander-in-Chief will, as a matter of course, furnish the Admiralty with full details of any matters of interest to the Navy.

  THE NAVAL RESERVES.
  MR. GOURLEY:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of his having appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the existing condition of the Naval Reserves, he will place upon the Table of the House Copies of the Report made to the Admiralty by the predecessor of Admiral Tryon, such Report in substance to be similar to that of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh when in command of the Reserves?
  LORD G. HAMILTON:No Report such as that alluded to by the hon. Member was made by Sir George Tryon's predecessor.

  THE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
  SIR T. SUTHERLAND:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will be good enough to state how long the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the question of tuberculosis in cattle has been sitting; and whether he can form any idea of the length of time which is likely to elapse before the Commissioners will be able to make their Report?
  MR. RITCHIE:The Commission has been sitting since July last. The Commissioners are now engaged in carrying out an exhaustive series of experiments, the results of which cannot be determined for some months.

  FOREIGNERS IN ENGLAND.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if instructions can be given that the statistics obtained by the Registrar General relating to the numbers of foreigners in the East End of London, in Leeds, and Manchester, competing with

  1763
  the native population, shall be given in the Preliminary Report of the Census, instead of being delayed until the final Report is ready, having regard to the importance of the question from an industrial point of view? I also beg to put to my right hon. Friend this supplementary question on the same subject: Whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the statement in to-day's Times, that there are in the East End of London 25,000 Polish, German, and Russian Jews, who, besides holding on Sunday morning an immense market of the scrapings of the town, sell the labour of destitute arrivals at from 2s. to 3s. a week, depriving thereby other men of work, and especially English workmen?
  MR. RITCHIE:I have no knowledge of such a state of things existing in the East End of London as is described in the hon. Gentleman's question. I have had some experience of the East End of London; and if such a condition of things existed, I think I should know of it. But, further than that, the hon. Member knows a Committee which has sat to consider the subject has heard a considerable amount of evidence, and no statement so startling was made before them. I may say that in the same number of the Times it is stated that some organisation is being set up by Lord Rothschild and others with a view of relieving the congested condition of some parts of London caused by the influx of foreign Jews and other aliens who arrive in large numbers in London. I may also say that a Committee is sitting to consider a Bill with regard to public health, which will confer upon the Local Authorities of London additional powers of dealing with insanitary conditions such as those which are referred to in the hon. Member's question. In reply to the question upon the Paper, I have to say that I have communicated with the Registrar General, who informs me that it will be impossible to comply with the suggestion of my hon. Friend. The preliminary Report on the Census, which must be presented to Parliament within five months next after the Census, and which the Registrar General hopes will be presented at the end of June or in the beginning of July, is prepared from summaries made out by Local Registrars. Those summaries are now made
  1764
  out, and are being sent forward to the Census Office. The information referred to in the question could only be obtained by tabulating the birth-places in all the enumeration books, and to go through all these books for the purpose of extracting from them one particular item of information would involve great trouble and expense, and would most seriously delay the issue of the general Report.

  NEW GENERAL POST OFFICE FOR LIVERPOOL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state what decision has been come to in regard to providing a new General Post Office for Liverpool; and whether he can state which site has been selected?
  MR. GOSCHEN:I regret that I am unable to answer the question of my hon. Friend. As negotiations are in progress, it would be undesirable to do so.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt the measures recommended, after careful experiments, by the Commissioner of Paphos, for the improvement of sericulture in Cyprus; and whether, having regard to the poverty of the peasants, and to the languishing condition of that industry (which in prosperous times afforded remunerative employment for female labour throughout Cyprus), the Secretary of State will recommend that a grant be voted from the Consolidated Fund to be expended under the orders of the High Commissioner of Cyprus for the improvement of the cultivation of silk in that island?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:Her Majesty's Government are favourably disposed towards trying such experiments as the hon. Member alludes to in the first part of his question; but the correspondence on the subject is still in progress. It would be contrary to approved usage for the Secretary of State to recommend a grant from Imperial funds for an industrial experiment of the nature described in the second part of the question; but if, and when he is satisfied that a grant could be usefully expended, he will recommend the Treasury to sanc-

  1765
  tion one out of Cyprus funds. The hon. Member is, however, doubtless aware that the question involves scientific considerations as to the possibility of combating with success the diseases which affect silkworms in the older centres of silk culture.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNE:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps were taken to consult the Science and Art Department, and in particular the Professors of the Royal College of Science, before the allocation of the land at South Kensington, which has been so. strongly objected to in a Memorial to Lord Salisbury, was agreed to, and whether Her Majesty's Government will assent to the appointment of a Committee to report on the statements contained in that Memorial?
  MR. BARTLEY:Is it not the fact that the Science and Art Department strongly object to the proposed arrangement?
  MR. GOSCHEN:The responsible Ministers of the Science and Art Department were of course consulted, and after examining the scheme upon the spot, in company with the representatives of the Office of Works, assented, on condition that access should be reserved from Exhibition Road to the Southern Galleries and land adjoining them. The Lord President of the Council and I are prepared to receive a deputation from the memorialists, and all possible care will be taken to protect and promote the interests of science at South Kensington. But I must inform the hon. Member that the munificent offer of the Art Gallery to be built on the proposed site has been finally accepted by the Government, and they cannot now re-open the question.

  SEA FISHERY COMMITTEES.
  MR. ROWNTREE:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is competent for Sea Fishery Committees to defray the railway fares of fishermen representatives to and from the Committee meetings out of any funds at their disposal under the Sea Fisheries Act; and, if not, if he will consider the desirability of altering the law so
  1766
  as to admit of the payment of such expenses?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH:The Local Fisheries Committees are Committees of the County Councils, and it does not appear that the Councils have any power to pay the expenses of their members when attending meetings. The question whether such a payment should be authorised by law involves that of the payment of the expenses of all County Councillors and other members of their Committees.

  FREE EDUCATION.
  MR. CHANNING:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the number of interests to be consulted, and to the importance of giving sufficient time for the consideration of the details of the scheme for carrying out free education, he will bring in the Bill for that purpose before the Whitsuntide Recess?
  SIR W. HART DYKE:If the hon. Gentleman will use his influence with his friends below the Gangway, to assist the progress of the Irish Land Bill, I may be in a position to act upon his suggestion; but, in any case, ample time will be given for the consideration of the details of the measure to which he refers.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in the "Statement of Revenue and Expenditure," which has been laid upon the Table of the House, the proposed grant of £920,000, for free education in the present financial year, is described as one of the charges on the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. GOSCHEN:The Paper in question is simply a record of the Budget Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the assistance of the memories of hon. Members during the Budget Debates. The right hon. Gentleman has hit a blot in it. I intended the item of education to be stated as a separate item, as not yet before the Committee, and depending on the passage of a Bill, but by inadvertence placed it as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. I will substitute an amended Paper if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it worth while.

  THE EVELYN-HURLBERT CASE.
  MR.SUMMERS:I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is now in a position to state what action, if any, it is the intention of the Public Prosecutor to take with regard to the case of "Evelyn v. Hurlbert"?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,):The hon. Member must, I think, be aware that it would be both unusual and improper for me to make any statement as to the intention of the Public Prosecutor in such a matter. The evidence is now under the consideration of the Public Prosecutor, and it might be contrary to the interests of public justice were I to state by anticipation any proposed action of the Public Prosecutor. As a matter of fact, I understand that further proceedings are being taken in the civil action.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON:May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is on his initiative the Public Prosecutor has moved?
  SIR R. WEBSTER:It is not on my initiative. The only action I could take would be on representations made to me. In this case the usual course has been taken and the evidence sent to the Public Prosecutor for his consideration.
  MR. PICTON:By the Attorney General?
  SIR R. WEBSTER:Not by the Attorney General in any' sense. The matter has been frequently explained in this House. There are statutory regulations sanctioned by the previous Lord Chancellor and previous Law Officers under which the Public Prosecutor acts.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  MR. W. JAMES:I beg to ask the Attorney General, having regard to the circumstances under which the Rating of Machinery Bill was read a second time, whether he will state what course the Government intend to take with regard to the Committee on the Bill?
  SIR R. WEBSTER:Beyond what was stated by myself upon the occasion of the Second Reading of the Rating of Machinery Bill, Her Majesty's Government cannot state what course they propose to take until the discussion upon any proposed Amendments arises in Committee.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH:As the Bill is supported upon both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury give facilities for its consideration?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,):I am sorry it is not in my power to promise any facilities for the consideration of the Bill.

  THE IRISH LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. MAHONY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing what electoral divisions in the respective counties will form congested districts counties under Clause 13 of Part II. of the Purchase of Land and Congested (Ireland) Bill, as introduced, and also what electoral divisions in the respective counties will form congested districts counties if in line 2 of Clause 13, the words " poor law union " be substituted for the word " county "?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,):Investigations made since the Bill was introduced have convinced me that the proposed basis on which to determine the area of congested districts counties will have to be modified. The £1 average valuation is certainly too low. I have had a map prepared on the basis of a £1 6s. 8d. average valuation, which gives much better results; but I am inclining reluctantly to the view that in all probability it may prove necessary to leave the determination of these counties to some delimiting body. I shall be very glad to show the hon. Gentleman the map based upon a £1 6s. 8d. valuation per head of population.
  MR. KNOX:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now give the valuation of the farms in each province in Ireland which, according to his estimate, will be excluded by Clause 6, of the Land Purchase Bill as pasture held by non-resident tenants? There is a misprint in the question. It should be " as pasture, or held by nonresident tenants.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I can only answer the question as it stood originally.

  1769
  If the hon. Member will rectify the mistake and repeat the question I will answer it.

  LOANS TO IRISH OWNERS.
  MR. MAHONY:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state, as regards loans to owners of land in Ireland under a notice from the Office of Public Works, Dublin, dated 12th January, 1880, in which the annual instalments are fixed at £3 8s. 6d. per cent. for 35 years, how much of the instalment is carried annually to the Sinking Fund, and at what rate of interest the Sinking Fund is calculated?
  MR. JACKSON:I understand that the rate of interest charged is £1 percent. per annum on the amount outstanding. The balance is carried to the Sinking Fund.
  MR. MAHONY:Does the amount carried to the Sinking Fund vary each year.
  MR. JACKSON:The interest is always at the same rate. For each £100 advanced, there is an annual payment of £3 8s. 6d. for 35 years.

  INDEPENDENT ORDER OF RECHABITES.
  MR. JOHNSTON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Independent Order of Rechabites, registered as a Friendly Society, 27th March, 1854,—
  "Is an Association of abstainers, united for the mutual interest and benefit of its members in time of sickness and death, and for the promotion of the principles of abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, and thrift "
  and whether, as this Temperance and Benefit Society is spreading in Belfast and the North of Ireland, members of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be permitted to join the Order?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The Inspector General has already had before him the question as to members of the Constabulary Force being permitted to join the Order referred to. He considers, however, that the pledge to be taken is not merely one of personal abstinence from intoxicating liquors, but involves an expression of views on other matters which might interfere with an impartial discharge of duty.

  SEED POTATOES.
  MR. T. FRY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any truth in the following statement, which has been received by telegram from Achill, namely—
  "Government potatoes rotting after setting, Inspector took quantity to Dublin Castle to show Under Secretary; "
  and, if so, what course he intends to pursue in reference to such an important statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The hon. Member must be aware that the Government have not supplied any seed potatoes to this district. They are supplied by the Guardians of the Westport Union under the Seeds Act, and the failure has been produced in consequence of what is called " heating."
  MR. T. FRY:Did not Mr. Inspector Pringle make a representation as to the badness of the potatoes, independent of the heating?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Yes; I believe the Inspector made a representation to the Guardians.
  MR. T. FRY:Did he make a representation to the Government as well as-to the Guardians?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I am not aware; but he ought to have done so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:How is it that the Government potatoes are more given to heating than others?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:There are no? Government potatoes.
  MR. FLYNN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he (or the Local Government Board) has received! any communications respecting the-rumoured failure of the seed potatoes; imported and supplied through the-Skibbereen Union; and who was the-Inspector employed by the Government to examine and pass the seed supplied in that district? I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, at the last meeting of the Bandon (County Cork) Board of Guardians, several Guardians complained that the seed potatoes supplied through the medium of the Union already showed symptoms of failure; and, if so, will the Irish Government inquire into the matter without delay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have received no information beyond the newspaper extract which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. I will cause inquiries to be made.
  MR. FLYNN:May I ask what are the qualifications required of an Inspector?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of that question.

  LAND COMMISSION—DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in 70 of the cases heard before Land Courts held at Carrick and Killybegs, in Donegal, in January and February, 1890, appeals have been lodged against the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; whether he is aware that the tenants in all these cases are, with six exceptions, the recipients of public charity; and whether, having regard to the fact that these appeals are listed to be heard in the town of Donegal next June, and that the people, by reason of their extreme poverty, are unable to travel so great a distance from their homes and to support themselves while awaiting in Donegal the hearing of their cases, he will give directions for the sitting of the Appeal Court in Carrick or Killybegs, where these cases were originally heard?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The Land Commissioners Report that as soon as the arrangements are completed they will be able to say where the sittings will be held, and due regard will be had to the convenience of the persons who will have to attend them.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. M'CARTAN:I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Report by the United States' Consul Reid, of Dublin, published in the Grocer of the 11th April, in which it is stated that—
  "One of the chief pork-packing concerns in Limerick buys great quantities of American hams in the cured state, smokes them, and im-pres3ess its own brand upon them,"
  and sells them at a price a trifle below what it asks for its own goods; whether impressing an Irish brand on American
  1772
  hams is an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act; and if, in the interest of the Irish trade, he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether any such practice, as alleged, is carried on?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,):My attention has been called, by the question, to the allegations made by the Paper referred to, and I am informed that they have been flatly contradicted by the Limerick firm referred to. I am having a careful inquiry made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:AS this is a matter of great importance, and as many large merchants are interested in it, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address a communication to the American Minister, requesting to name the particular house against which the charges are made?
  MR. MADDEN:The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that such an inquiry is beyond my province. All I can say is, that as these statements have been made they will be carefully inquired into.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in a position to answer a further question?
  MR. MADDEN:On Monday.

  THE BRAGNE SCHOOL, COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the Manager and Committee of Bragne School, near Banbridge, county Down, complaining that control of the school has been removed from them without any previous notice having been given to them; whether he is aware that this Committee, which represents three Presbyterian congregations, have always been recognised as the only trustees of the property; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter with a view of having their rights over the school restored to the Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The Government have no control in regard to the management of the school mentioned. The memorial referred to was received, and duly answered to the effect that the Government were unable to interfere in the matter.

  LAND COMMISSION—CAVAN.
  MR. KNOX:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many appeals re fair rent were heard by the Land Commission recently sitting in Cavan; and in how many of such cases the rent was raised, and in how many lowered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have not yet received information that will enable me to answer the question.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION AT NEWCASTLE, COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the want of harbour accommodation at Newcastle, County Down; whether he is aware that the last Return of " Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom " shows that, in 1885, the quantity of fish conveyed inland by railway from Newcastle was 25 tons, and that every year since then the amount so conveyed has gradually increased, and amounted in 1890 to 197 tons; and whether, considering the great loss to the country, and the serious danger to the lives of the fishermen, he will make inquiry as to the desirability of providing the necessary harbour accommodation there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Representations have been received from time to time by successive Governments, asking that the harbour of Newcastle (County Down) should be repaired. The Grand Jury have declined to undertake the work, and as the Board of Works estimate that the cost would be at least £13,000, the Government would not at the present moment feel justified in asking Parliament to vote this amount, having regard to the large sums it has already recently voted for works in Ireland.

  THE PURCHASE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it true that the Government intend to accept the proposal of the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) with regard to the status of the Purchase Commissioners, or any modification thereof?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably agree
  1774
  with me that it is not desirable to state the intentions of the Government in regard to those portions of the Land Purchase Bill which have still to be brought forward.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Of course I agree with that as a general rule, but this is a matter which will seriously affect the attitude of the Irish Members. The statement has been made that the Amendment, of which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has given notice, has been put down as a kind of official Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL:As a reference has been made to me it is right I should state that I have had no conversation with the Government on the matter, either directly or indirectly.

  RELIEF WORKS.
  DR. TANNER:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what relief works are proposed to be opened in the Enniskeen district in the County of Cork; and whether any Memorial has been received from the district, pointing out the great distress there existing, and the works of a reproductive character that can with facility be carried out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:If the hon. Member refers to the Enniskeen district of the Bandon Union, I may inform him that no relief works have been opened there.

  WEST CORK POSTAL REQUIREMENTS.
  DR. TANNER:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to provide a quick mid-day mail, to meet the postal requirements of West Cork, that would secure the delivery of letters at Bantry and Skibbereen at about 3 o'clock p.m., with a delivery at 4 o'clock p.m., enabling professional men, merchants, traders, and others, to reply to communications received by the mid-day mail?
  MR. RAIKES:The subject to which the hon. Member refers is now under inquiry, and I hope in the course of a short time to foe in a position to come to a decision upon it.

  YEOMANRY VOTERS AT THE SOUTH LEICESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
  MR. DE LISLE:I wish to put a question to the Secretary for War of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is possible to arrange the training of the Leicestershire yeomanry so that all the members of the corps who desire to vote at the coming election may have an opportunity of doing so?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:It is already recognised by Statute that all reasonable opportunity shall be given to members of yeomanry corps to whatever Party they belong, to record their votes; but I will make inquiry into the matter, and see that every reasonable opportunity is secured.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Twelfth Report brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN SPIRITS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Colonisation—That they do request, that this House will be pleased to communicate to them " Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by this House during the present Session on Colonisation," together with the Minutes of Evidence, &c.
MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEEDINGS ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL).
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE:I wish to put a question to the Leader of the House, the answer to which may in a certain sense, I think, possibly tend to shorten the conversation upon the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman is about to make. First of all, is it his intention to ask for the particular preference he desires to have on behalf of the Irish Land Bill exclu-
  1776
  sively; and, secondly, is it his intention to apply the power which he seeks to obtain without making any exception in favour of any particular measure, so that it shall be perfectly equal in its application?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has put the question. The preference which we ask for has reference to the Irish Land Bill at the present time. We conceive that that Bill should be pressed forward with all reasonable speed. It has unfortunately lagged greatly in Committee during the last few days. I suppose the question of the right hon. Gentleman is directed specially to the Wednesdays. So far as other days of the week are concerned, we do not propose to make any exception whatever. The Government do not think it would be possible to make an exception in favour of one Motion or proposal without making an exception in favour of others, so far as Wednesdays are concerned. One difficulty in which we are placed is that an hon. Gentleman opposite had a Motion on the Paper for last Friday, and removed it under the impression that I had given a pledge that the 13th of May should be reserved for its consideration. I did not give that pledge. I did not give that pledge unreservedly; I merely stated that, so far as the Government were concerned, they would not propose that there should be an adjournment for Whitsuntide before that Wednesday, and if no unforeseen event occurred, they would not propose to take that day. However, it has been translated into a pledge; and, therefore, I am afraid I should not be able to take that day for Government Business. After Whitsuntide there are Bills of Private Members which would be in Progress; and under Standing Order No. 12, those Bills would be entitled to precedence before any other Orders. But it would be a strong measure on my part to deprive those Bills of the position they have obtained until absolute necessity compels me to do so. It would be held to be exercising the rights of the majority rather severely upon hon. Gentlemen who had charge of other Bills; and, therefore, it is not the intention of the Government to take the first three or four Wednesdays after Whitsuntide so far as Bills in

  1777
  Progress are concerned. Therefore, it comes to this: The proposition of the Government is that the time of the House shall be given on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, without reservation, for the Land Purchase Bill. Next Wednesday shall be given for that purpose, but the first three or four Wednesdays after Whitsuntide will not be given until fair progress has been made with the Bills which are in Committee.
  MR. J. STUART:Is it open to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the decision to take next Wednesday, when a most important Bill is down?
  MR. BRYCE:May I ask whether, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman took a night in February last, on which I had a Motion down with reference to the Access to Mountains in Scotland, he does not intend to make an exception now in favour of that Motion, which is down for May 8?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:It would, I think, be more convenient that I should enter into these questions, in regard to which I have had more notices than one, when I make the Motion for precedence. I express my regret if by any Motion of mine I have deprived the right hon. Gentleman of any opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERthen, upon formal notice from the First Lord of the Treasury, proceeded to read the Motion on the Paper, but, in response to Opposition cries of "Move,"
  MR. W. H. SMITHagain rose and moved—
  "That, whenever the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill is appointed for Tuesday or Friday, the House do meet at Three o'clock, and that the proceedings on that Bill have precedence over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion; and that the said Bill have precedence on Wednesday if it be appointed for that day."
  The right hon. Gentleman said: The House has now had 82 Sittings, and we have arrived at a period of the Session when we are justified in appealing to the House to give further assistance for the progress of Public Business. With reference to the Land Purchase Bill, the House will agree that] the case is even stronger than it would ordinarily be in the case of other Bills. On Thursday, the 9th of April, there were 16
  1778
  pages of Amendments on the Paper, but to-day, the 30th of April, owing to the industry displayed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), there are 24 pages, after we have been sitting for some weeks in Committee. That is a case in itself for asking the House for further time for the consideration of this important measure. It is a Bill which must be considered and disposed of by the House prior to the consideration of any other question, unless it be of extreme urgency. During the 82 Sittings that we have had the Government had precedence on 48 days and private Members on 34. Thirty-four days is a larger amount of time in possession of private Members than has been known during the years from 1882 to 1885. During the Session of 1882 only 21 Sittings were reserved for private Members; in 1884 only 27, and in 1884-5 only 10. I propose now to provide that private Members should have the opportunity of disposing of some of the Bills that have passed a Second Reading and now stand in Committee. We must ask the House, first of all, to dispose of the Land Purchase Bill. That measure has been accepted in principle on both sides, and I believe there is a desire that it should be passed. [Cries of " No!" from the Opposition.] I gather from the right hon. Gentleman and from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are not opposing the Bill, but only discussing it. But the discussion of the hon. Member for Northampton and his friends has successfully delayed the progress of Public Business for some time.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:Hear, hear.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:The hon. Member cheers that, and accepts the statement, and it is because of that delay that I am compelled to make the present appeal to the House. As soon as the Land Purchase Bill is disposed of, it will be our duty to introduce a measure for assisted education [Opposition cries of " Hear, hear," and "Free "], as to which, if we may fairly interpret the expression of opinions by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we ought not to find much difficulty or experience much delay in passing it. The hon. Member for Northampton says he would like to see the Bill. I am afraid from my experience of the hon. Member for Northampton that we

  1779
  could hardly produce any Bill that would satisfy his mind, and would not require discussion at his hands. When the Assisted Education Bill has been considered by the House, there are Bills now before the Standing Committee that I believe ought to pass without much delay. There is also before the House of Lords a Bill called the Clergy Discipline Bill, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) will concur in the opinion that it is a Bill that should be passed. There is one Bill for which I hope it will not be necessary to ask for any time from the House—the Bill with reference to Newfoundland before the House of Lords, which I trust may not come down to this House. I hope, and believe, that the Legislature of Newfoundland will anticipate the action of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and render it unnecessary for us to proceed with that Bill. But if it should unfortunately be necessary to proceed with that Bill it will be absolutely urgent that it should be taken, if it comes to us, about the end of May, and passed through all its stages. I only make that reservation with regard to the possibilty of this urgent and important matter. I hope that I have given sufficient grounds for the concession which I ask from the House. The right hon. Gentleman has referred in his question chiefly to Wednesdays. By the Motion I make I take practically only next Wednesday so far as May and the first part of June are concerned. If the right hon. Gentleman should be of opinion that it is undesirable that we should take next Wednesday, and if the concession of that day would remove objections on the part of the House, I am perfectly prepared to fall in with his view. There is another point to which I must refer. There is a general desire that the prorogation should take place in July. [Laughter.] Some hon. Gentlemen laugh; but I believe they would not laugh if we deliberately proposed to the House that they should continue to sit during the month of August. The arrangement I have referred to has reference to a Prorogation before the end of July. The House, I think, has fair reason to expect that that should take place. Well, Sir, in addition to the business which I have described, there is Supply, and we have
  1780
  practically—allowing three or four days' holiday at Whitsuntide—[cries of "Oh !"] —12 weeks of the Session before us. I think I have not asked the House to get through more business than can well be done in these weeks that remain; but I think, at the same time, that we ought to begin to set ourselves in order, and invite hon. Gentlemen to repress in the strongest manner the repetition of any speeches, especially when the questions raised have been already considered and practically disposed of by the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, whenever the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill is appointed for Tuesday or Friday, the House do meet at Three o'clock, and that the proceedings on that Bill have precedence over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion; and that the said Bill have precedence on Wednesday if it be appointed for that day." — (Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE:The right hon. Gentleman has opened before our anxious eyes a prospect which is rather more gloomy than cheerful. I am afraid that there are considerable difficulties which lie ahead with regard to the fulfilment of the expectations which he still entertains. At the same time, there are some of his anticipations in which I cordially share. One of the last subjects he named was a possible Bill for making certain provisions affecting the internal regulations of the Colony of Newfoundland, and I must say that I most sincerely—I would even say fervently—join in the hope which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, that it will not be found necessary to submit that Bill to the consideration of the House. With respect to the Education Bill, it is impossible—indeed, it would be out of order—to give an opinion on a measure which we have not seen. But I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he said that, as far as he could gather, there was a desire to give to that Bill every despatch that was compatible with a fair consideration of its provisions, such as they be—in fact that there will be a sincere desire to forward the measure. With respect to the Bill relating to clerical discipline, what I hope is that there may be a very strong wish on the part of those to whom the good moral conduct of the clergy is an

  1781
  object of general interest—and it ought to be an object of general interest—and an anxious desire to find the provisions of that Bill judiciously adapted to their purpose; and, if so, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman will find a general disposition in the House to promote the passage of that Bill without any considerable expenditure of time. On the subject of the Land Purchase Bill, it is certainly the case that many who are not supporters of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government desire to try certain questions upon that " Bill with regard to which they are unable, from their convictions, to allow them to pass without notice, or even without a Division; but, at the same time, to allow fair and even rapid progress with the different stages of the Bill; and I do not believe that those who object to the Bill altogether have given fair grounds for the right hon. Gentleman's presumption of a wish to delay and impede the measure. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in his remarks on that subject, I say that, from recollection of former experience. In the case of the Irish Land Bill, it is quite true that that Bill contained a greater number of clauses than the Bill now before us; but I do not think it contained a greater amount of difficult, complex, and disputable matter. The practice has grown up of late years of throwing into sub-sections a multitude of provisions which in old times would always have been the subject of separate clauses. This is the 11th day on which the Committee on the Land Purchase Bill has sat, and we are only at the third clause. But the Land Bill of 1881 occupied 50 Sittings of the House, and the Committee on that Bill occupied 32 Sittings of the House. It happened in the case of that Bill, as in the case of this Bill, that some of the first clauses were difficult, and I think it will be found, if the matter is carefully examined, that less progress was made in the case of the Land Bill in the first ten days than Her Majesty's Government have made with the Bill now before us. But whereas the Irish Land Bill was an Irish Bill exclusively, and English Members interposed very little in the Debate, this is a measure involving financial provisions concerning England and Scotland and is an English almost as much as an
  1782
  Irish Bill. I say now, as I said when the measure was first introduced, that it is necessarily one of the most complicated and difficult measures ever submitted to the House, and therefore I do not think that there is any ground for the complaint; but I believe that there is a disposition to dissuade any one who is an extreme opponent of the measure from endeavouring to make gain or advantage from it in any shape or form unnecessarily protracting its progress. There is only one other point on which I wish to say a word, and that is with regard to the reference which the right hon. Gentleman made to me in connection with next Wednesday. He said that if I expressed a certain opinion with regard to next Wednesday he would not be disposed to take it. I am disposed to speak in the opposite sense. If the right hon. gentleman thinks it necessary to interfere with the course of business in the House and with the rights of Private Members, particularly in circumstances so remarkable as these, when he has taken the night of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, in which so much interest is taken in Scotland—in my opinion, his only safety is to insist on that on which he has often insisted on previous occasions, and to be perfectly uniform in the application of his rule. I do not look to the contents of the Bills, or to anything that may be called a matter of immediate urgency which I might conceive would be a possible subject for exception, but, taking these measures as measures, they are all well entitled to discussion, and I think the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen is better entitled than any other Motion, on account of what has formerly happened. I may press on her Majesty's Government that they should not make two bites at a cherry, but should make a fair and uniform practice, and therefore avoid all occasion for giving ground for special complaint on the part of those who may be interested in any particular measure.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to take all Wednesdays after Whitsuntide?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE:I thought that we were discussing absolutely the question of all days until Whitsuntide, and then after that of the days on which

  1783
  the Land Purchase Bill may be put down.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:The right hon. Gentleman was in a somewhat prophetic mood as to what is going to take place in the present year, but I am sorry that he did not say when there was going to be a Dissolution. With regard to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that I am always expected to play lamb to the right hon. Gentleman's wolf. The right hon. Gentleman turns on me as if I were the fons et origo of all obstruction in the House. In one sense I am—in the right sense of the word obstruction. The Conservative Party and Ministers have extraordinary notions as to the duties of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has said that I delay Public Business by putting down Amendments. That is one of the valuable truisms in which the right hon. Gentleman occasionally indulges. There can be no ground for any complaint until we have, as in the Land Bill in 1881, occupied more than 32 days. In the discussion on the Land Bill in 1881 the present Chief Secretary made a vast number of speeches, and, for my own part, though I may not be able to equal the Chief Secretary in the eloquence of his speeches, I will endeavour to do so in their number. I would point out to the House that there is no deliberate intention on the part of any one on this side of the House to obstruct, for the sake of obstruction. We know that this Bill must pass. Every clause of the Bill bristles with false principles, and, therefore, I and my friends naturally seek to alter it and make the best of it. Regarding this Motion, however, upon general principles, I am entirely opposed to any invasion of the rights of Private Members, for whenever an attempt at such invasion is made it is owing to Ministers having made a muddle of their own proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is necessary to pass the Land Purchase Bill at once,' and that all other business should give way to it. Then why did he not bring in the Bill earlier than the 9th of April of the present Session? The Government spent many weeks in February and March over the Tithe Bill. Of course, it is known that they were forced to do so by certain hon. Members
  1784
  sitting behind the Treasury Bench; but surely that does not warrant the right hon. Gentleman pleading now that hon. Members have no right to discuss the Land Purchase Bill. The fact is that Ministers are behind with their business, for there is not only the Land Purchase Bill, but also the Estimates for discussion, and we are told that the Bill granting free education is to be introduced. Well, I shall be very sorry to do anything, consistently with my duty to other Bills, which will help to let Ministers escape from the pledge they have given in respect to this matter. I am one of those who want free education, and the right hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that the Radical Members are not going to play into the hands of the " cave "behind him. We are not going to play into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must have announced with grief and sorrow that he is in favour of assisted education, considering what he previously said: nor are we going to play into the hands of the Minister of Education, who in his electoral address protested against the system. We had great trouble in forcing the Government to give it, and we are going to keep the Government to their terms and to secure it. It is not improbable that the Radicals may object to much that is in the Bill, but in all probability we shall assent to its passing, and change and modify it when we have a majority. I further object to the proposal of the Government to take the time of Private Members, because it introduces a new element into the demands on the public time. By means of it Ministers are able to say in effect what Bills they approve or disapprove. They will take one Wednesday when Bills which they disapprove are to be brought on, but not the next, because then a Bill favoured by their supporters is to be brought on —a Bill about female franchise or some folly of that sort. In these matters let us at least be fair. What is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose also. Let the Government take all the Wednesdays or none.
  MR. BRYCE:I beg to move an Amendment to except Friday, the 8th of May, from the operation of the Resolution. I could have understood the action of the right hon. Gentleman

  1785
  if it had been uniform, but to select days in a particular way, and practically in favour of particular Bills, is scarcely fair to the House. I should not have moved my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman had taken all the time of Private Members, and if he had not intimated that the Government would not take Wednesday, the 13th; but, under the circumstances, I feel bound in duty to my constituents and to the people of Scotland, to take the course I do. What we want is uniformity of treatment, and, in fairness and justice, I ask that my Amendment should be accepted. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will express his " deep regret " and speak of his " sense of duty," but I would rather have an ounce of justice than a pound of his regrets.
  Amendment proposed, after the word " Friday," to insert the words " except on Friday, 8th May."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COURTNEY:The hon. Member for Aberdeen has candidly confessed that his principal motive of action in excepting Wednesday, the 13th of May, is not that he loves the Access to Mountains Bill so much as that he hates the Women's Franchise Bill.
  MR. BRYCE:I said that I desired absolute equality in the matter.
  MR. COURTNEY:The hon. Member distinctly stated that he should not have moved his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had not intimated that he would not take Wednesday, the 13th. Therefore, I have not unfairly interpreted what the hon. Member said. Now, as to the question that is to come on on the 13th of May. Last Friday week the first notice of Amendment on going into Committee of Supply stood in the name of the hon. Member for Haddington relative to the political disabilities of women. That could not have been brought on if the Bill of the 13th of May still stood on the Paper; and it was a question with those Members interested in the subject whether that Motion should be proceeded with or whether the chance of the 13th of May should be retained. A deputation went to the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain
  1786
  the intention of the Government with respect to that day, and the right hon. Gentleman has frankly repeated what he said to the deputation—that it was not intended to adjourn the House before the 13th of May, and that, in the absence of unforeseen circumstances, the Government had no intention to take that day. Well, has anything unforeseen happened?
  MR. LABOUCHERE:Yes, surely. The First Lord of the Treasury bases his claim to the days of Private Members on the fact that the unforeseen has happened—that the Land Purchase Bill is obstructed.
  MR. COURTNEY:That has not happened since the time referred to, and was not unforeseen. On all grounds it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to depart now from the engagement he has made. The engagement of the right hon. Gentleman was known to every Member of the House; it was known to the hon. Member for Northampton. And with regard to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, may I point out that even if he loses this opportunity of discussing it the Scotch Members, in consequence of the withdrawal of the Motion as to women's suffrage, had the opportunity given them the other night of debating the question of the deer forests—which is a somewhat kindred subject to that in which the hon. Gentleman is so deeply interested. Before sitting down I should like to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, was a little obscure with respect to the Wednesdays subsequent to Whitsuntide. With regard to Bills which have been considered before Whitsuntide, which have passed a Second Reading, and which are set down for progress after Whitsuntide, if the opportunity of further progress is taken away we shall put a stop to all legislation by private Members and make such legislation before Whitsuntide a farce. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of reserving those Wednesdays for such Bills. I protest against the contention of the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Aberdeen that Wednesday, the 13th, should be taken.
  MR. SPEAKER:I may remind the House that the Amendment before it is

  1787
  a limited one. It merely excepts Friday the 8th May.
  SIR H.JAMES:May I appeal to the Member for Aberdeen to withdraw his Amendment. I will then ask leave to amend the Motion so that it shall read, after the word " Bill," in the last line but one, " shall also have precedence on Wednesdays until said Bill has passed through Committee of the House.
  MR. BRYCE:On that understanding, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR H. JAMES:If there is any ambiguity in the views of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, there is no ambiguity in those of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. Whatever may be the inconvenience to Members of this House, and however desirable it may be that their time should be occupied by useful and practical legislation, yet according to the right hon. Gentleman all ought to give way to what will be after all an abstract discussion on the right of female suffrage. The effect of the Amendment which I beg leave to move is that until the Irish Land Bill has passed through Committee all the Wednesdays shall be taken up by that Bill. In that case we may hope that that Bill will be through Committee before the Whitsuntide Recess, and if it is, fewer Wednesdays will be taken by the Government after Whitsuntide. Anything which may interfere with the progress of the Land Bill through Committee will be detrimental to the public interest. What does the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees ask? He asks that the progress of the Land Bill shall be suspended, and that precedence shall be given to the Second Reading of the Bill for conferring the suffrage upon women. Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that there is any possibility of that Bill passing through the House? The House has still to deal with the Bill for Marriage of a Deceased Wife's Sister, with the Rating of Machinery Bill, with the Bill which would give a close time for hares. All those Bills, having been read a second time, have vested interests, and ought to be dealt with practically by the House. If we now say that we will not
  1788
  take away the Wednesday in question, but will give it for the pleasure of hearing the eloquence of my right hon. Friend, we must take more days after Whitsuntide, and all for an abstract proposition which we have already at different times discussed eight or ten times in this House. There is only one argument which has been used in favour of that course, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has given a pledge. But this is a question for the House itself. We have to consider how we can best do what is useful for carrying on the public business. We shall not be able to leave this House in the month of July if these days are not taken, and the Session will have to be further prolonged. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House did not anticipate, when he gave what has been called a pledge, that eleven days would have been taken up with three clauses of the Irish Land Bill, or that he would have had to listen to so many arguments from the hon. Member for Elgin. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "Wednesday," to insert the words " until it shall have passed through Committee." — (Sir Henry James.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  VISCOUNT WOLMER:As reference has been made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to inform him what was actually said by the Leader of the House on the point in question. The deputation waited on him last Monday week, and as a result, the Motion of the hon. Member for Haddington, which was on the Paper for the following Friday, was removed. The First Lord of the Treasury stated that he did not intend to move the Adjournment of the House before the 13th of May, and that he would not take that day for the Business of the Government unless some "wholly unforeseen emergency" arose. I should like to ask if any wholly unforeseen emergency has since arisen?
  SIR W. HARCOURT:I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will allow the House to express its own opinion on this subject; that he will

  1789
  listen to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, and not dictate his personal opinion. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to make a sacrifice of its time for the purpose of carrying the Irish Land Bill through Committee. With regard to the pledge which has been referred to, the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not given a pledge, although what he said has been construed into one, and it is a curious thing that a man should be bound, not by what he acknowledges to be a pledge, but by what other people understand to be a pledge. It seems to me it would be as well for the right hon. Gentleman not to bring any pressure to bear on the House, but to allow it to determine for itself whether all Wednesdays shall be taken for the Irish Land Bill. I think that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bury is one which we ought to accept, as it would enable the rest of the Session to be devoted to the Free Education Bill and Supply, and would not damnify the smaller Bills which have so far been read a second time. The Government must take the time somehow or other, and had better do so before Whitsuntide. The arrangement that all Wednesdays should be taken need hardly be broken into for the grand field day of the right hon. Member for Liskeard and the noble Lord the Member for the Petersfield Division, whom, in other circumstances, we should be even more pleased to hear on the subject of Female Suffrage than we should be to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. COURTNEY:Why?
  SIR W. HARCOURT:He is younger. I hope the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury will be accepted, as to my mind it practically meets all the necessities of the case.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I trust that the House will not consider it necessary to prolong the Debate. The question before us is a very narrow one. It is whether the understanding that has been come to with reference to May 13th shall, or shall not, be observed. For myself I feel bound not to depart from that understanding, but it is for the House to decide what course shall be taken. I fully appreciate the desire of the House to make progress with the Irish Land Bill, and under the circum-
  1790
  stances I shall leave this question of taking Wednesday, May 13th, to be decided by the majority.
  MR. KEAY, who rose amid cries of " Divide " said: I am glad hon. Gentlemen opposite are so demonstratively objecting to my speaking, because it helps me to push home the argument I was about to address to the House with regard to the attack made upon me by the First Lord of the Treasury. My reply is that if any of my speeches have been prolonged unduly, the reason is to be found in the obstruction which I have met with from the opposite side of the House. Whenever I have risen to speak to Amendments in Committee on the Land Bill I have been received with obstructive cries and howls from hon. Members, chiefly of the landlord persuasion. The attack of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord has been endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, and by the noble Lord the Member for Petersfield, and I therefore think it right to briefly designate the character of the Amendments which I have placed upon the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER:The remarks of the hon. Member are entirely out of order.
  MR. KEAY:I trust, Sir, you or the House did not think I was going to speak on the Amendments. I only ask to be allowed to point to the Paper in order to show that my Amendments were such as should be put down by anyone professing Radical principles. I do not know whether this is the proper time for me to say a word in explanation of the prominent position which, in connection with the Land Bill, I have thought it right to take up.
  MR. SPEAKER:Order, order ! The hon. Member has sufficiently made a personal defence, and he must now confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. KEAY:I was only going to reply specifically to what the First Lord had charged me with. I will not, however, press the matter further until after the Division.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR:The observation of the First Lord appeared to mo to be deficient in one or two points. He proposes to take a great deal of the time of the House for

  1791
  Government business, but the Government have not yet stated what they intend to do with the Land Department Bill or the Employers' Liability Bill.: Supply, too, has been mentioned, but nothing has been said as to the Vote on Account.
  MR. SPEAKER:Order, order ! The hon. Member's observations are not relevant to the Amendment. They would be more properly made on the Main Question.
  MR. WOODALL:I feel that it is only right to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for the loyalty with which he has adhered to the understanding with reference to May 13th. But there are now only two Wednesdays before Whitsuntide, and it is clear that the Wednesdays after will be required to enable further progress to be made with those Bills for which Private Members have been fortunate enough to obtain a Second Reading. I would suggest to the First Lord that the equity of all interests would be met, and Public Business best promoted, by his omitting the concluding passage from his Resolution, and leaving, for the present at any rate, all the Wednesdays free for the Private Members, to which they properly belong.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:In answer to a question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, I expressed willingness to forego Wednesdays altogether, but since doing so the Wednesdays have been pressed upon the Government, and those who are responsible for the conduct of Public Business can hardly refrain from accepting facilities of that kind when they are offered. The House must now decide the question.
  MR. HALDANE:I do think that if May 13th is taken by the Government it would be unfair treatment, for my Resolution on Female Suffrage did not come on last Friday simply because of the understanding that the Bill dealing with the subject would come up for discussion on Wednesday, the 13th. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman gave no pledge in terms, but he is always courteous and explicit in what he says, and he certainly conveyed to our minds a promise to leave the 13th May free for us. I hope the House
  1792
  appreciates the joining of hands by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bury and Derby and the hon. Member for Northampton in an appeal to devote more time to the discussion of the Irish Land Purchase Bill. I ask the House to pause before depriving us of the opportunity we seek of discussing the principle of Women's Suffrage.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS:No one has at present said anything about Wednesday, 6th May, on which day the First Order is the Town Holdings Bill, in which my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras is much interested. Unfortunately, he is not here now, or he would put in a claim for consideration on that ground. I think we have shown by the Divisions which have taken place on two recent Wednesdays how much interest is taken in the town lands question. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is making exceptions with regard to other Bills, but we, because we stand first with the town lands question on the 6th of May, have to lose our place. If this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Bury (Sir H. James) is not carried, we do not know that we shall have an opportunity of passing through Committee the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill, the Second Reading of which was passed by the largest majority of this Session. If there is to be no protection for the rights of Private Members, the Ballot becomes a farce, and those who are deeply interested in questions of this kind merely waste time when they ballot for a place, and take the necessary precautions to secure the attendance of their friends. We who have precedence on the 6th of May have a perfect right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to exempt that day from the operation of his proposals, and also to ask that the Bills that passed their Second Reading earlier in the Session shall be kept alive. If we do not continue to protest against this continually increasing absorption of Private Members' business, the time will come when Private Members will come down here simply to say " ditto " to what the First Lord of the Treasury says. I think we ought to protest in the strongest language possible against the conduct of the Government.
  (5.50.)The House divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 159.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
  Another Amendment made, by leaving out the words "If it be appointed for that day."—(Sir Henry James.)
  Main Question, as amended, proposed.
  DR. CLARK:I much regret that in consequence of this proposal a very important Motion affecting the North of Scotland will be prevented coming on. In the month of February my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) had a Motion exactly similar before the House. The right hon. Gentleman took his day and since then, unfortunately, there have been some lawlessness and disturbance in the North. The people who are suffering from the grievances to which the Motion relates have not been able to bring those grievances before the House. I do not think the course the right hon. Gentleman is taking will facilitate business. Instead of raising the question we are anxious to raise in a single discussion, we shall be compelled to have three discussions—one on the Supplementary Estimates, a second on the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, and a third on the Vote for the Crofters' Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman were wise he would come to terms with us and give us a couple of hours to-morrow night, in place of the three he is robbing us of.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR:I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Vote on Account, with regard to the Land Department Bill, and with regard to the Employers' Liability Bill. The question of employers' liability would have been raised on this side of the House over and over again if the present Government had not repeatedly held out to the working classes the prospect of the passing of a measure which would satisfactorily deal with the question of injury to life and limb in employment. The Government have been dallying the subject before our eyes now for three years.
  MR. KEAY:I now desire, Sir, with your permission, to conclude the few brief remarks I had commenced when the Amendment was before the House. I have already pointed to the
  1794
  character of my Amendments as proving that they were such as any honest Radical Member of this House would feel himself bound to put down. I have now to address a remark or two to the House on the methods by which those Amendments have been—
  MR. SPEAKER:Order, order ! That would be out of order.
  MR. KEAY:I am only speaking in general terms, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER:That would be quite out of order. It has no relevance whatever to the Resolution.
  MR. KEAY:I have been accused by the First Lord of the Treasury of need less repetition—
  MR. SPEAKER:Order, order ! I call on Mr. Howell.
  MR. HOWELL:I wish to protest against the taking away of any opportunity of bringing forward Private Members' business. If I can in any way squeeze in on any of the Votes a Debate on the question in which I am specially interested, I shall certainly do so.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND:I wish to add my protest to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. I have for a long time had a Notice down for the amendment of the Crofters' Act; but I have never been able to secure a place for the discussion. When I had a Motion down earlier in the Session the right hon. Gentleman appeared in his favourite character of confiscator of Private Members' time, and took it away from me. I think the right hon. Gentleman might, at least, have excepted to-morrow evening from the operation of his rule.
  MR. SEXTON:I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will be able to give us a prompt reply to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) respecting the Land Department Bill. That Bill has been in Committee for the last five months, but it has never moved on, and I think we are entitled to know what are the intentions of the Government in regard to it. Perhaps if the Government can see their way to take out of the Purchase Bill the clauses relating to the organisation of the Land Department, and deal with it in the Land Department Bill when that Bill

  1795
  comes on, the prospects of the Land Purchase Bill will be improved, and I think that measure would pass through Committee at least by Whitsuntide. I think the present Motion ought not to have been made, because the Government ought to have sufficient intelligence and businesslike capacity to arrange their business so as to suit the settled order of business in the House. I object on principle to such Motions. If it is found, as a matter of experience, that the time of the House is not properly apportioned between the Government and private Members, the question ought to be dealt with not by these random Motions, but by a deliberate amendment of the Rules of the House. When, however, I consider the question from the point of view of the existing situation, I see no objection to the Motion. I think the subject of the Land Purchase Bill is as worthy of the time of the House as any other subject which has come before it, and I wish to say that we are not only willing to allow progress with the Bill, but desirous to promote it. If any hon. Member says we have unnecessarily interfered with, or offered factious opposition to, the progress of the Bill, let me remind him that the rate of progress of the Bill has improved as its discussion has proceeded, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary cannot say that the rate? of progress has been unsatisfactory as a whole. As to what has been effected by the discussions that have taken place, I would refer the House to the three clauses already considered in Committee as they originally stood, and as they now appear, and I therefore think I am entitled to claim credit from the Government, not only that we have in no way obstructed the Bill, but that, on the contrary, we have throughout shown a sincere desire to pass a measure which, although of a very complex character, is one of vast importance to Ireland.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I desire to say that I have not attributed obstruction to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and I am sure he will find if he remembers what I have said that [no observation which has fallen from me is capable of bearing any such interpretation. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal(Mr. A.
  1796
  O'Connor), I have to say that there is no immediate necessity for a Vote on Account, and that no such Vote will be asked for before Whitsuntide. As to the Newfoundland Bill, I hope it will be unnecessary to proceed with it. In that case, after the Land Bill, we shall take the Education Bill. As to the Employers' Liability Bill, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement recently, but there is a strong objection to bring in Bills which are not likely to pass. It all rests with the House, and I can only repeat that we do not contemplate asking the House to sit beyond July. Therefore, unless there is a strong probability of our being able to pass that measure through its various stages in the earlier part of July, I do not see how it is to be dealt with this Session. I may also say that I am not at present in a position to give a reply to the question put to me with regard to the provisions relating to the organisation of the Land Department.
  MR. PICTON:When the right hon. Gentleman states that it is not proposed to ask for any Vote on Account before Whitsuntide, is that statement to be presumed to imply that a Vote on Account will be taken after Whitsuntide?
  MR. FENWICK:I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury holds out no hope of the Employers' Liability Bill being passed this Session. That statement will be received with much surprise and regret by a very large number of those who belong to the working classes of this country.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:In answer to what has just fallen from the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, I have only to say that it is entirely at the option of hon. Members opposite whether the measure he refers to shall be disposed of this Session. If there is any strong desire to facilitate that and other business there may yet be time for dealing with the measure; but up to the present time quite two-thirds of the time of the House has been occupied by the Opposition.
  MR. STOREY:Does the right hon. Gentleman remember any Parliament in which two-thirds of the

  1797
  time of the House has not been occupied by the Opposition?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I am certainly not able to remember any Session during the present Parliament in which two-thirds of the time of the House has not been occupied by the Opposition.
  MR. FENWICK:I must express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not yet seen his way to the introduction of the Employers' Liability Bill, seeing that Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention in each of the Queen's Speeches at the opening of the last two Sessions to deal with the question. It now appears that the subject will not be considered even during the present Session. Of course, it is impossible to say how the Government Bill will be received on these Benches until we have had the opportunity of seeing it in print; but, speaking for myself, and, I think I may also say, for those of my colleagues with whom I have been associated in relation to this question, if the Bill is at all a satisfactory one there will be no disposition on our part to obstruct or delay the measure in its passage through the House. I am only sorry that we have not been able to obtain from the Government an assurance affording anything like a reasonable hope that the 9 Bill will be considered this Session.
  (6.25.)The House divided:—Ayes 270; Noes 84.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
  Resolved, That, whenever the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Kill is appointed for Tuesday or Friday, the House do meet at Three o'clock, and that the proceedings on that Bill have precedence over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion: and that the said Bill have precedence on Wednesday until it shall have passed through Committee.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Sir Edward Harland be discharged from the Committee."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  DR. CAMERON:I rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion, and will briefly state the reasons which induce me to do so. This Committee consists of 20 Members, five of whom are a quorum. The Committee has only sat on three occasions, the first being the usual formal sitting for the
  1798
  election of a Chairman and the arrangement of the order of business, while on the second and last the business of the Committee has been proceeded with. During the discussions that have already taken place much progress has been made, and I venture to say that almost every point on which there has been any difference of opinion has already been discussed and settled. Indeed, I have little doubt that another sitting will conclude the deliberations of the Committee. The object of having a small quorum is to allow those Members who for any reason are unable to attend to absent themselves without at the same time interfering with the progress of the business. This Committee was appointed on the 9th inst., and on the 16th two of its Members were discharged before business had been commenced. There was good reason for the discharge of those hon. Members, one of whom had been appointed on a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, which required his attendance; while the other hon. Member was not in this country. On the 21st inst. we had another change in the composition of the Committee; the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had been taken ill, and was unable to attend, and another hon. Member was substituted, namely, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff). This proceeding was justifiable, because it was desirable that there should be a representative of the ex-Cabinet on the Committee; but on the 27th inst. we had another and a wholesale change in the constitution of the Committee, four of its then Members being discharged and four others substituted. It would seem, however, that this was not enough, and we are now asked to make a further alteration in the constitution of the Committee, by discharging two more of its Members and putting two fresh ones in their places. If this proposal is adopted we shall be placed in this position: that at the very last stage of the business of the Committee we shall have had changes in the composition of that body to the extent of nine Members. This can hardly be regarded as a proper system of working Select Committees. On the contrary, it appears to me to be a system which, if generally adopted, would be subversive of the confidence usually felt by this

  1799
  House in the proceedings of its Committees. One of the advantages of a Select Committee is that its Members are usually more amenable to argument than is the case in the House itself. They listen more attentively to what is said on both sides, and their decisions generally receive the assent of the House. I must protest against the further innovation in the composition of the Committee which is now proposed, as being, at any rate in my experience, altogether unprecedented. If the hon. Members it is proposed to discharge from this Committee cannot attend there is no reason why they should do so. But as it is, these two gentlemen are two of the most valuable Members of the Committee, namely, the Member for North Belfast (Sir E. Harland), and the Member for one of the Divisions of Leeds (Mr. Gerald Balfour). The hon. Member for Leeds has taken a most active and intelligent interest in the business before the Committee, and the same remark applies to the hon. Member for North Belfast. I am sorry they should think themselves unable to attend tomorrow's sitting, which I suppose will finish the whole business, and I hope the Government will postpone their proposal. I do not think there is any necessity or excuse for a proposal which, in my opinion, tends to subvert the system on which Select Committees are based, and to weaken the confidence which this House has hitherto reposed in their decisions.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,):In answer to the hon. Member for the College Division, I would point out that the two hon. Members whom it is proposed to discharge from the Private Bill Procedure Committee have been appointed by Her Majesty as Members of the Labour Commission, which is to meet for the first time to-morrow at the same hour as the Scotch Procedure Bill Committee. So far, the changes made in the constitution of the Committee have been made on the footing of friendly arrangements between both sides. With regard to the two gentlemen it is proposed to discharge, great importance is attached to the proceedings of the Labour Commission, and to the services of those hon. Members upon that Commission. I may point out with regard to the changes
  1800
  already made that the illness of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs necessitated one change, but he has fortunately since recovered his health, and on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury he has been replaced on the Committee. The other changes have also been justified by the circumstances of each case; it has been felt on both sides of the House that the Committee should be a large one— larger than it was when first constituted. It was originally considered that 15 Members would suffice, but, in deference to opinions expressed. on the other side of the House, the number was enlarged to 20. As to the progress made by the Committee, about 20 clauses of the Bill still remain to be disposed of, so that there is still a good deal of detail to be gone into. I trust, therefore, the House will agree to this Motion, and thus retain the Committee at its desired numerical strength.
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN:There can be no doubt that the changes made in the constitution of the Committee have been somewhat exceptional both in their number and nature. Some of them have undoubtedly been necessary changes. In my own case the course taken was somewhat unusual, because having been discharged in consequence of the state of my health I was shortly afterwards put on again. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members should be astonished at the numerous changes made in the composition of a Committee which, after all, has only sat 2½ days. With regard to the sitting of the Labour Commission tomorrow, I would say that the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, who is also a member of the Commission, spoke to me on the subject, and I said to him, not from any special knowledge, but as the result of former experience, that in all probability the business at the first meeting of the Labour Commission would be purely formal, and that therefore his attendance would not be absolutely necessary.
  DR. CLARK:I only wish to remind the House that the Government placed three Irish Members on this Committee as representing three divisions of Parties, and that two of those Irish Members having been already taken away, they now propose to remove the last in order

  1801
  to replace him by a Scotchman. I am glad the Government are at last showing some inclination to give way to Scotch feeling by the course they are adopting.
  MR. SPEAKER:I must point out to the House that this discussion is not in order, and that I ought now to put the Question to the House.
  (6.55.)The House divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 106.—(Div. List, No. 164.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Gerald Balfour be discharged from the Committee."
  DR. CAMERON:I shall not oppose this further discharge from the Committee, but I feel that it is necessary to make a protest against the addition of fresh names to the Committee and the nomination of Members who know nothing of the foregoing proceedings.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, "That Mr. Gerald Balfour be discharged from the Committee."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Mr. Anstruther be added to the Committee."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  DR. CAMERON:My reason for objecting to the addition of fresh Members at this stage is that we have now in Committee almost reached the conclusion of our deliberations. It is quite true that there are a good number of clauses, but the contentious matter has been got rid of, the appointment of the Commission under the Bill has been decided, and what remains is matter of detail, upon which we are fairly agreed. There arises no difference upon Party lines, and the introduction of new Members is to be deprecated at this stage. It is simply an addition to make up the Party majority of two Members who know nothing of what has been done up to the present.
  (7.8.)The House divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 96.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Curzon be added to the Committee."
  DR. CAMERON:In making my protest against these changes I did so as a matter of principle, and upon no ground of personal objection to the hon. Members nominated by the Government.
  1802
  They no doubt will make excellent members of the Committee, if new Members under the circumstances can be of any service on the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, "That Mr. Curzon be added to the Committee."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 111.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 3.
    Question again proposed " That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. STOREY:There is no disposition in this or any other quarter of the House to discuss at length a clause which has already been subjected to very substantial criticism; but we desire to make our formal protest against the clause in the only Parliamentary way at our disposal. This is the clause which creates the Guarantee Fund springing from local Irish Funds as a sort of buffer between the operation of the Bill and the liability of the British taxpayer. Now, this guarantee is either real or unreal. If it be unreal, if it is not to be drawn upon, but is simply inserted as a sort of sop to the British public against the wishes of the Irish Members, then it is neither fair or statesmanlike to insert such a clause in the Bill. If, on the other hand, the Government mean this to be a real and substantial guarantee, then we Englishmen protest—and in our protest we shall be joined by many Irish Members— against the Government impounding these local grants made for a specific purpose to the Irish Local Authorities, who have a right to deal with them. Whichever way we look at it, we feel that the clause is one we cannot assent to, and therefore we propose to take a Division against it.
    MR. KEAY:I do not intend to interpose for any long time between the Committee and a Division; but I desire to call attention to the extraordinary character of the speech

    1803
    of the Chief Secretary two days ago in replying to myself. I had been pressing him to do his duty—to lead, to guide the Committee in regard to essential provisions in the Bill, and what did the right hon. Gentleman say? " The hon. Member will be more useful to the Committee "—this was the right hon. Gentleman's ex câthedra dictum—" if he avoids going back so much on past questions and past replies received." I should correct that by saying " replies not received." However, in such replies as they were, the right hon. Gentleman admitted in the plainest manner his great annoyance at my reference to his past speeches. Still, so long as I have the honour of a seat in this House I intend to follow a legitimate Parliamentary practice, and bring forward in Debate whatever inconsistencies, misapprehensions and contradictions I can cull from previous speeches and replies of the right hon. Gentleman. If he wants to stop this he must contrive to destroy all last year's volumes of Hansard, and if it were possible for him to do that, no doubt he would make things more pleasant for himself. I warn him that when we reach the 6th clause to which period he has relegated many important points of controversy, I shall have need to make further references to his speeches of last year. There is only one other point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech of the other day to which I desire to call attention now, and that is the extraordinary statement which he made with regard to his joy and delight that the amount of money under this Bill is not fixed at £30,000,000 sterling. Now I prize this statement, for I am convinced that whatever he may think, the country does not share this joy and delight. I wondered when I heard his statement whether he believed that the country was with him in this pleasure which he expressed that the amount in the Bill was purposely left elastic and unknown, so that nobody could say to what extent of capital these loans may be made. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to take the opinion of the country upon this point? I hear that the representation of my constituency is to be contested. Let him send a candidate to fight out the General Election on this ticket, and let that candidate express to the electors that he
    1804
    shares the gratification of the Chief Secretary that £30,000,000 do not represent the limit to which this Bill goes, and if that candidate wins the election in my constituency he will be the most remarkable man who ever went there.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour,):I do not rise to reply to the hon. Gentleman who, as usual, has not been able to restrain himself from references to speeches delivered some days ago, but to reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland who has said this guarantee is genuine or not genuine, and that if it is not genuine we are deceiving the British taxpayer, while if it is genuine then we are going to draw upon funds which ought not to be used without the consent of the locality. Now, has the hon. Gentleman never in his experience heard of a guarantee for a loan which it is never anticipated will be used? A more familiar incident in commercial life does not exist. The guarantee may be perfectly genuine, it may be necessary before the lender will make the advance, and yet it can be stated, so far as there is any certainty in human affairs, that the position of the borrower is such that the guarantee will never be drawn upon. That is the case in the majority of mortgages, and as it is in mortgage debts so will it be with these land purchase advances. I do not accept the dilemma the hon. Gentleman offers, not admitting the unfairness of the guarantee or that it is unnecessary.
    MR. CONYBEARE:On that point I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He is convinced of the genuine character of the guarantee, but has he estimated the extent to which it may be possible to draw upon these resources? I take leave to observe that assuming the possibility of having to draw upon this fund you never could collect the money, you could never impound these resources without bringing the whole machinery of your Local Government to an abrupt termination. The value of the guarantee is not to be measured by pounds, shillings, and pence, but by the possibility of realising that guarantee. Is it possible that any sane and constitutional Government could venture to impound these sums of local money intended

    1805
    for local matters, the maintenance of lunatics, the salaries of school teachers, and medical officers and others, and the supply of medicines and surgical appliances to the poor? How are you to carry on Local Government with such an appropriation of local resources? Are you going to open the doors and let your pauper lunatics stream forth all over the land? Can it be supposed that any' civilised Government will impound these moneys, and is it not therefore ridiculous to insist that this is a genuine guarantee? No; this is a sham, a bogus, humbugging guarantee, of a Tory character, in fact. It has been proved to demonstration that there may be a deficit to meet at any time. In the ordinary course of things you may have to face a decline in land value, and a bad season may bring a tenant to the ground, and especially is this likely to be the case after those unfortunate people have been coerced into purchasing their holdings at prices far above their fair value. A tenant will be coerced into paying 25 years' purchase for land only worth 10 years' purchase; but, notwithstanding misfortunes that may fall upon agriculture, he will still be expected to keep up punctually the instalments to be paid to the State landlord. It is not only possible, it is probable, that you will have this position, and I maintain it is puerile to consider that this is, under such circumstances, a genuine guarantee. This clause, during the numerous discussions we have had upon it, has been considerably amended, and we ought to know before we part with the clause what the effect of these Amendments really is. We ought to have in full perspective view the operation of the clause; but how can any conscientious politician pass judgment upon it unless he has the amended clause before him? I shall certainly vote against the clause being passed, on that ground.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:I have certainly heard in commercial matters of persons giving a guarantee without being called on to pay it, or without in the least anticipating that they would ever be called on to pay it; but the analogy is not complete in this case. In the present instance the Government are forcing a guarantee on the Irish people without their consent,
    1806
    and it is for that reason that I consider it a sham guarantee. It is a guarantee which can never be enforced because the persons you hold responsible are not to be called upon to give their consent to the transaction. And not only that but only nine Irish Members voted in favour of the guarantee, while three times that number of Irish Members voted against it. This shows that the Irish people will not accept the guarantee. The Government will never be able to put the guarantee in force, and consequently it is not a real guarantee. If it were a real one I should be inclined to support it in view of the principle that has already been adopted by us.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the majority of the Irish Members against this clause. Well, I admit that the majority of the Irish Members are against this clause, but I think they would accept it rather than not have the Bill, therefore I repudiate the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman as to the action taken by the hon. Members from Ireland. Nor can I accept the species of public morality which he thinks ought to animate the public bodies in Ireland. He says they will not be able to increase the guarantee because the localities have not been consulted. Suppose the localities had been consulted there would probably always have been a minority, possibly a large one, against the grants being used. Would they be bound by the opinion of the minority or would they not? I apprehend they would not, and that they would only be bound by the opinion of the majority. If they would be bound by the opinion of the majority then I apprehend, as the majority of the House assents to this clause the localities will be bound by it.
    MR. SEXTON:The majority of the Irish Members do not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No, the majority of the House has accepted the guarantees, and the whole theory of Representative Government is that the minority shall be bound by the majority.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:I would point out that if this were a question affecting the whole Empire the majority of the whole House would bind the minority. But this is a question purely affecting Ireland, and I contend

    1807
    that in such a case the opinion of the majority of the Representatives of that country ought to prevail. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he can produce a case in the whole of our legislation in which a measure of this kind, imposing a guarantee on either Ireland or. Scotland, has been carried against the wish of the majority of the Representatives? If he can produce such a case I withdraw my argument. I do not think it possible, however, as I have myself gone carefully through the legislation for England, Ireland, and Scotland.
    MR, SEXTON:I think it right to acknowledge that the Amendments made in this clause are neither few nor unimportant, but the fact that we have not these Amendments in print is no reason for fighting against the clause. As to the Amendments which have been made in the clause, I would point out to the hon. Member for Camborne that they cover the order in which the various portions of the Guarantee Fund will be called on to meet default in the payment of annuities. The funds connected with education, lunatics, and medical services will he called on last, so far as one portion of the guarantee is concerned; and as to the Exchequer contribution of £40,000, it will be devoted to the construction of labourers' cottages, and will not be called on for guarantee purposes until after the Probate Duty grant has been exhausted. I am sensible of the importance of these Amendments, and if we were dealing with any part of the Bill except that relating to the local guarantee, I should be disposed to vote in favour of the clause. But we hold that the State, which has created the agrarian system in Ireland and has put the landlords there, should accept the responsibility of taking them away again. If these guarantees are ever resorted to a gross injustice will be done to the people of Ireland. We are now on the question of the local guarantee, and as this clause embodies the principle of local guarantee, I am bound to say that, whilst I recognise the importance of the changes that have been made, I shall be bound to vote against it.
    MR. ELYNN:I object altogether to the principle of these
    1808
    guarantees, and I agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast, when he says that it is the duty of the State at the present time, having brought about the system of landlordism in Ireland, and having given it the complexion and colour it has borne for generations, to meet every possible default. I oppose the principle of guarantee as it stands in the Bill, because it is tyranny. It is a despotism under the form of Constitutional Law, because the Government propose to hypothecate local rates without consulting Local Authorities. Anything more corresponding to the nature of tyranny, it is impossible for a Constitutionalist to imagine. As to the guarantees never being required, I say this Bill offers every scope to the landlords to get an unjustly high price for their land, and if these transactions go on in Ireland, and if there are many of them —as I hold there will be—the guarantees will be called for. In moving the rejection of this clause we are entitled to the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) because, speaking on this subject in April of last year he said—
    "Why should not the consent of the Local Authorities be asked? There is no Local Authority that you could put in the Bill, but the Government have promised to bring in a Local Government Bill, and there is no reason why that should not be brought in this year and passed; and when the County Councils are-established it will be right to give them a voice in the transactions that would take place in Ireland as to the transfer of land."
    The right hon. Gentleman, however, has given us no assistance in this matter. The Chief Secretary is—or so his friends say—a bold man, and he assumes that if the guarantees are called for the Local Authorities will tamely present any amount of money the Lord Lieutenant calls on them to present. But there are precedents in Ireland from which the right hon. Gentleman can easily see that the localities, when they make up their minds that an impost is unjust, refuse to present, and the money cannot be obtained. There is, for instance, the case of the Constable Leahy, who was awarded £1,000 for injuries received by the Grand Jury. There was the greatest difficulty experienced in collecting the money. Then, in the case of the City of Limerick.—
    THE CHAIRMAN:These matters are not relevant to the clause under discussion.
    MR. FLYNN:I would simply call attention to the fact that the Local Authorities not being consulted, it is most unjust to call for these guarantees; and 1 warn the Government that if these transactions are unduly advantageous to the landlords, there will be great difficulty in getting the local guarantees to be of any avail.
    (7.51.)The Committee divided:— Ayes 115; Noes 54.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
    Clause 4.
    MR. SEXTON:Looking at the number and variety of the Amendments to this clause, I think it would save time if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would make a statement as to the modifications, if any, he proposes to adopt. I move to omit the first subsection, which contains provision for the charge on the Guarantee Fund and the consequent levy on the county, and I make the Motion in order to interrogate the right hon. Gentleman as to the vital points of the scheme of the levy. The right hon. Gentleman proposes, in case he has to resort to the Contingent Fund, to make good the amount by a levy on the county through the agency of the Grand Jury. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who must be well aware that the Grand Jury, as a Fiscal Body, is moribund, and that its control over local finance will speedily come to an end —whether he will be willing to insert a provision to the effect that the levy by the Grand Jury is only to take place pending the introduction of County Councils. The pledge of the Tory Party to give Local Government to Ireland is ripe, by this time, for fulfilment, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will hardly think it unreasonable in me to ask for the insertion of a provision of this kind in the Bill. We know that the Committee on a previous occasion rejected the principle of local control, but never had an opportunity of giving a decision on my Amendment, which proposed that Boards of Guardians first, and afterwards County Councils, should have a voice in the application of the Act. That question will come up again on Report, and I shall certainly claim a
    1810
    decision on it. Though the question of local control may be out of our purview at present, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether on this clause he has considered further the question of local option—that is to say, the right of any county to determine whether or not effect shall be given to this Bill. We had a plébiscite suggested, but I venture to say that the plébiscite proposed would be worse than useless. It would not be applied until the first part of the guarantee was exhausted, when, of course, a great many purchases would have taken place—perhaps a twentieth part of the whole—and it would be too much to expect 19 farmers out of 20, who have been left out in the cold, to deprive themselves of the opportunity of purchasing. They would naturally think that, although the previous purchasers had made default they themselves would be able to make better terms with the landlords. And after the plébiscite was taken you would tell the farmers that they had accepted the Act, and that they had no right to grumble at anything that might follow as a consequence. What I would suggest would be that there should not be a plébiscite as of course; but that if the elected Members of any Board of Guardians by a petition to the Sheriff demanded a plébiscite, it should be in the power of the Sheriff to have one made, not only as to whether the Act should be discontinued, but whether it should be discontinued or suspended for a year. This would afford something like a real check on the continuity of the operations under the Act. Then I would ask the Chief Secretary why it is proposed to charge the possible burden arising out of default on the county cess? The poor rate has a good deal more to do with the local grants, involving the contingent guarantee, than has the county cess. The county cess is paid by the occupiers; and does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that this scheme is put forward in the interest of any one class in Ireland? Is this legislation not put forward rather more in the interest of the landlords than the tenants? And if the Bill is needed in the interests of the two great classes of landlords and tenants, why should the burden be thrown on a rate which is paid by one class only? To so allocate it would cause public opinion to go against the Act, and would impede

    1811
    transactions under it. If you consent either to throw the burden on the poor rate borne by all classes, or if you throw it on the county cess and make it divisible between the landlord and tenant—and there are thousands of precedents for such a course in Irish legislation—then I think it would be to the interest of all classes, and would remove what otherwise would be an impediment to the success of the scheme. Then I would remark that there is nothing to prevent the Treasury from taking the money out of the Contingent Fund before the Lord Lieutenant has time to make the levy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to insert in the clause a provision that it shall not be open to the Treasury to lay hold of the Contingent Fund for the purpose of default until the County Treasurer has had time to obey the requisition of the Lord Lieutenant to levy the money, and to lodge it in the Local Taxation Account. I notice that the procedure with regard to the levy is of the most cast-iron kind, and that no discretion is left to anyone or opportunity given for consideration and representation, the word " shall " appearing in every instance in the clause. I respectfully urge that these matters might fairly be allowed to go before the Presentment Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Treasury have no right to come upon the county until the Land Commission have exhausted their legal power. That leaves over the general question of the Land Commission. They might proceed by civil action against the tenant, or they might say it was no use proceeding by civil action. Now there comes in a matter of opinion. Suppose the Land Commission said they would neither purchase the holding or take civil action, nevertheless they could come upon the county for one-half the default. Would it not be fair to urge that before the Presentment Sessions. Under Clause 6, where there is exceptional distress, the county reserve may be applied. Would it not be more proper that the Grand Jury should have an opportunity of saying that in their judgment there is such exceptional distress as to render it advisable that they should meet these annuities, and default should be met otherwise than by coming on the county already suffering from the burden of an
    1812
    excessive rate? I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to afford some relaxation of this point. One other point. The Lord Lieutenant will fix the share of the county in the Guarantee Fund, and that will unalterably govern the amount of Stock issued for the purchase of holdings in the county. The Lord Lieutenant fixes the amount of the burden in case of default, and the amount to be refunded. We know that he is the mere figure-head in matters of administration, and that this work will fall to some official at Dublin Castle, and I submit that the action of the Lord Lieutenant in such important matters should he subject to review. I have made these suggestions in no factious spirit, and, if adopted, I think the progress of the measure would be greatly facilitated.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out Sub-section (1.)—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Sir, the hon. Gentleman has raised a great many questions of very great importance as far as the clause is concerned, and as far as the whole Bill is concerned. It is true that any scheme of County Councils would disestablish for very large and important purposes connected with finance the Grand Jury. But if compulsory levies are to be made at all, it should not be by Elective Bodies. I cannot hold out any hopes that for the Grand Jury will be substituted any body such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is true that, being unable to accept the suggestions of the hon. Member's colleagues and of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham as to local control, I did say that if I were driven to some form of local control, one of the least injurious would be a plébiscite. The hon. Gentleman told the Committee that a plébiscite would not exercise the power given by Parliament in the direction of stopping the further action of the measure. But the hon. Gentleman's speech on this point does not seem to be quite consistent with itself, for he suggested an Amendment of the plan under which a plebiscite should be called upon to say, not whether the Act should be adopted, but, in the first place, whether its operation should be suspended for a

    1813
    year, and at the end of that time whether it should be postponed for another year, and so on from year to year. I do not see in that case that the Act must come into operation at all. However, we ought not to spend much time in discussing a plan which I am not disposed to accept at any stage of the Bill. I never thought it an improvement to the Bill, and in these circumstances I announced to the Committee at an early period that they would hear no more of it from me. With regard to the third point, which deals with the incidence of the rate to be called upon in aid of the Guarantee Fund, the Bill provides that the rate in aid shall be the county cess. The hon. Gentleman preferred that it should be the poor rate. The incidence of the county cess is on the occupier, whether owner or not, while the poor rate is equally divided between the owner and the occupier, except in the case of occupiers below £4, who pay no poor rate; but the incidence of the county cess is really the fairer of the two. There might be some species of combination of which the landlords would not be the authors, and it would be very unfair entirely to relieve occupiers under £4 of any share of responsibility thrown upon them by the Bill. There are large counties in Ireland where the great mass of the occupiers are under £4, and under the hon. Gentleman's proposal this vast body will be wholly relieved of any responsibility consequent on the refusal to pay the annuities, and consequently the opportunity will be lost of putting them on the side of financial honesty. The hon. Gentleman urged that the provisions respecting the county cess would create a species of soreness, and make the occupiers opposed to the whole measure; that it would, in fact, arouse public opinion against it, and make occupiers disinclined to become the owners of their holdings. But I hope and believe that the desire to purchase will be so strong that under no circumstances will an end be put to the operation of the Act. The fourth point raised by the hon. Gentleman had to do with the rigid and automatic character of the provision with regard to the levy of the special rate. I admit the system is rigid, but that is a necessary and essential part of the scheme. If we are not to have these
    1814
    securities called upon by a process inexorable and automatic, the security for the Treasury will be seriously diminished. There is no Presentment Sessions existing which would not find some ground for thinking that there is distress of a sufficiently grave character to warrant them in making use of the reserve fund rather than levy a special rate. Amendments of that kind would seriously impair the character of the securities which the Treasury has at its back, and would have the effect of preventing it from advancing the loan altogether. Therefore, in the interest of the borrower, stringency is an advantage, not a disadvantage. I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the Government will be able in any material degree to meet his wishes on this point. Another point which has been raised deals with the proposal that some Court shall be instituted to determine questions connected with the allocation of the Guarantee Fund. I admit that the Lord Lieutenant may possibly come sometimes to a decision under a mistaken view of the facts, and that the result may be that a county will have allocated to it more than its fair share of the total Guarantee Fund. Therefore, whilst not attaching great importance to the point myself, I shall be glad to take into consideration any practical proposals on the subject, and I hope to be able to come to an agreement with the hon. Member. (8.38.)
    (9.8.)Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MAHONY:The Chief Secretary has objected to substituting the Poor Law for the county cess as the means of levy. The objection so far as it concerns the method of levy is unimportant, but as regards the incidence of taxation the Amendment is very important. County cess, in the vast majority of cases in Ireland, falls solely upon the occupier. This House has already acknowledged the injustice of that by making it law that in all let-tings since 1870, the county cess shall be equally divided between occupier and owner except there be some special contract or agreement, and beyond that, I think, in every instance in which this

    1815
    House has imposed any special levy through the county cess, or certainly in the majority of instances, it has specially directed a division between occupier and owner notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. That is to say, this House has taken care that when it has made a distinct addition to county cess the House has shown on all occasions that the spirit of the arrangement enacted in 1870 shall be adhered to. The great objection the right hon. Gentleman raised to the poor rate was that in the case of holdings under £4,the poor rate—
    THE CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member for West Belfast moved to omit the 1st sub-section in order to enter upon a conversation of a practical character in reference to the clause. In so doing he anticipated by reference certain amendments to the clause, but his observations were of a general character, and such as might facilitate the proceedings in Committee, and were therefore permitted; but if these observations are to be carried into a discussion of a particular Amendment, that must be deferred until the Amendment is reached.
    MR. STOREY:I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    THE CHAIRMAN:I have so recently satisfied myself that there are 40 Members in attendance that it is unnecessary for me now to count again.
    MR. STOREY:I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that only two Members are on the Treasury Benches opposite. What is the use of pursuing the Debate under such circumstances?
    THE CHAIRMAN:Order, order!
    MR. MAHONY:I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I may observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did enter minutely into the particular point I was referring to. There were other references the right hon. Gentleman made upon which I defer remark to a later stage.
    MR. SEXTON:As you have observed, Sir, I moved the omission of the sub-section to secure at once an explanation that might expedite the consideration of useful Amendments, and I now ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KNOX:On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Kenny), I beg to move the Amendment of which he has given notice, the omission of the words "at any time" from the first line of the clause, and its object will be understood by taking this in connection with the subsequent Amendment to line 3. As the liability upon the landlord's guarantee deposit ceases at the end of 18 years, when the fifth of the total sum outstanding has been repaid, so it is proposed by the Amendment that the same Rule shall be applied to the cash and contingent guarantee under the Act. The object of the Amendment might, I think, be stated in the words, so far as I remember them, used by the Chief Secretary when he stated in answer to another argument of my hon. Friend, that in his opinion there was no chance of any default after 18 years. I do not want to enter into the question whether or not the Chief Secretary is justified in forming that opinion, but there is no doubt he formed it deliberately. As he said, after 18 years there is no chance of default, therefore after that time there need be no liability upon the landlord's deposit. Then, for the same reason we contend, taking the premisses of the right hon. Gentleman, there should be no longer any liability upon the county guarantee. I need not enter widely upon the question, the point is plain and simple, and I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it with reference to another Amendment of mine to the end of the clause. Without entering into the substance of that Amendment I may say the object is to prevent in some degree what we consider a most disastrous effect likely to arise from this local guarantee. We do not any more than hon. Members opposite expect any large amount of default under the Act, but we do think that if this guarantee is to remain for the whole period of 49 years during which any part of the advances is outstanding, there will be serious risk that the borrowing powers of the Local Authorities will be seriously damaged. These borrowing powers, of course, are measured by the amount of security offered to the lender, and the amount of security will be decreased by the fact that almost all the available sources of Revenue are pledged to a very large

    1817
    extent, under this Act. I press, therefore, upon the Government that this local guarantee should not be continued for a longer period than is absolutely necessary to prevent loss. If it is the opinion of the Government that after 18 years the apprehension of loss ceases, then I say this liability should not remain in name even upon the Local Authority, diminishing thereby the borrowing powers of all the Local Bodies in Ireland.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, to leave out the words " at any time."— (Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,):The hon. Member has stated very concisely the object of the Amendment, and I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman in his forecast, for I believe, and I may say it is the opinion of the Government, that the repayment of an amount representing one-fifth of the advances will be ample security for the State; but, at the same time, the hon. Member must see that his Amendment is at right angles with the principle of the Bill, which differs from the Ashbourne Act in this particular, that it provides not only what we believe to be sufficient security, but an absolute certainty that there shall not in any event be loss to the State. This character of the Bill the Amendment of the hon. Member would remove. I fully believe that we are justified by experience in the opinion that the repayment of the fifth will be sufficient guarantee; but the hon. Member will remember that the object of the Bill is not to leave this as a matter of opinion or speculation, but to make it a mathematical certainty. Therefore, though I do not differ from the hon. Member in his anticipation, it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, which would entirely alter the character of the Bill, which is intended to afford absolute security to the taxpayers of the country.
    MR. SEXTON:I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not see his way to accept this and the Consequential Amendment. I think it is a very great pity that in the case of
    1818
    this guarantee, which is offensive to Irish public feeling and repugnant to the Irish Representatives, the Government should persist in retaining it in existence after a time when they confess it will not be needed. The Attorney General lays stress upon the mathematical certainty of the guarantee; hut I think the British taxpayer will be satisfied if the security is absolute, as undoubtedly it will be when the landlord has received his final fifth, which the tenant has provided. There will be then an absolute security in human nature itself, for the tenant having paid so much will not wantonly incur the possibility of the loss of his holding if it can possibly be avoided. If there be default you have the fact that a fifth of the money is paid, you have the Insurance Fund, and you will be enabled to sell the farm without loss. There will be ample security for what is owing to the State. We have put our argument, and we can do no more than protest against the fatuity with which the Government persist in their intention to keep this offensive guarantee in existence.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. KNOX:I now move my Amendment to line 2, the insertion after " payments " of the words " and the county percentage." I hope there will be no objection to this. If I am to understand that the Government do object, then I must submit the matter for serious consideration whether this county percentage is to be of any real use in the interest of the labourers. As the Bill was originally drawn it would not be a matter of great importance; but as the Attorney General is aware, owing to the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for "West Belfast, the order of payments out of the various parts of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund has been changed, and this Amendment becomes of real importance. So far as I can understand the scheme of Clause 2, it is this. The sums paid by the tenants year by year will be applied first to the payment of dividends and Sinking Fund; and, secondly, to the county percentage—that is to say, for every £A owing by the tenant £3 15s. will be applicable to dividend and Sinking Fund payments, and 5s. will be payable to the county.

    1819
    If a default on the part of the tenant should arise, if he pays less than the £4, the liability will fall, as I conceive, on the Guarantee Fund. When any considerable number of tenants fail to pay the whole of what is annually due from them, what will be the effect if these words I propose are not inserted? Let us suppose that in any county the tenants pay sufficient for the payment in the year of what is due to dividend and Sinking Fund accounts, but nothing more as the clause is now drawn, in that event there would be no call on the Guarantee Fund, there would simply be no county percentage, and the labourers would get nothing from the Amendment to Clause 2, which has been accepted by the Government. Now, if this Amendment of mine is accepted the effect will be that in the event I have contemplated of a sufficient amount not being paid by the tenants to make up the £4 for dividend, Sinking Fund and county percentage, then the balance would be taken from the Guarantee Fund—the balance will therefore come out of the Irish share of the Probate Duty grant and the Irish share of the Probate Duty grant will be taken before there, is any loss to the county percentage, before there is any diminution of the amount of the money we desire should go to the benefit of the labourers of Ireland. If this Amendment is not accepted, the effect will be, that the first charge will be made upon the county percentage, although the Government have in terms accepted the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, that the last charge shall be upon the county percentage, I venture to say, that if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the point, that really it is a mere farce to enact in Clause 3, that the deficiency is to fall, first upon the Probate Duty grant; secondly, on the Exchequer contribution; and thirdly, on the county percentage, if you so frame Clause 4, that in spite of these provisions you first impose the whole of the failure to pay, upon the county percentage. I must, therefore, press this Amendment as necessary to carry out the intention of the Government expressed in the earlier clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, after the word " payments," to
    1820
    insert the words " and the county percentage."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MADDEN:I think the illustration which the hon. Gentleman has given will show the Committee that his Amendment is inapplicable. He supposes that the payments from the purchase annuities are sufficient to meet the dividends and Sinking Fund; but not sufficient to produce the county percentage. Very well, if that be so no demand should be made upon the Guarantee Fund. There will be a loss to the county percentage, no doubt, but this county percentage is not to be drawn from the Guarantee Fund, because it was not for the purpose of providing labourers' cottages that the fund was instituted. I fail to see that the hon. Member has made out his case. Assuming his state of facts that the purchase annuities are sufficient to meet the demands for dividends and Sinking Fund, I fail to see there is a case made out for resorting to the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund.
    MR. SEXTON:But look at the position. Take the case of £100 advance for purchase. If a man cannot pay the £4 due upon that, the Land Commissioners will not accept part payment, and for default they come upon the Guarantee Fund to make up the requisite £4. That I take to be the enactment arrived at in the earlier clause. The clause provides that the payments are to meet dividends, Sinking Fund, and county percentage, the latter not divisible from the other two. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope by inadvertence, in his observations, implied that if dividends and Sinking Fund are made right, it does not matter about the county percentage.
    MR. MADDEN:What I said was that if the dividends and Sinking Fund were deficient, they must be met out of the Guarantee Fund, but that the hon. Member (Mr. Knox) had not made out a case for resorting to the Guarantee Fund in the event he contemplated, to make good the Land Purchase Account so far as the county percentage is concerned.
    MR. SEXTON:I claim that the objects of Clause 2 must be considered inseparable, and that there is no distinctive treatment of the county per-

    1821
    centage. The clause provides that the Commission shall establish a Land Purchase Account, and apply to this all moneys received on account of any purchase annuity for the discharge of an advance. Let me again take the case of an advance of £100 for which the tenant pays £4. You are bound to apply this £2 15s. to the dividends payable on the stock £1 to the Sinking Fund and 5s. for the county percentage. The whole of the clause is of equal validity, and you cannot separate the one purpose from the other? But under this clause as it stands you may apply the annuity so far as it is paid not to the three objects but to two, and I say that would be a violation of the provision in Clause 2 that the county percentage should not " go by the board." We must press this Amendment, which is consequential upon the adoption of Clause 2 as amended.
    MR. KNOX:Let me again explain that as the Bill was originally drawn it did not matter, because the full liability in case of default fell upon the percentage, but in this respect a change has been made in deference to the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast. The Government have assented to the change by which the first liability is to fall upon the Irish Probate Duty grant, and only after the whole of that grant has been absorbed is anything to be taken from the Exchequer contribution and the county percentage, which are to be devoted to labourers' dwellings in Ireland. The object of this change obviously was that the labourers might be as sure of getting the 5s. for their dwellings as the Government of getting payment for interest and Sinking Fund. To advert again to the £4 illustration, as soon as the Land Purchase Account is insolvent and cannot meet the payment of £4, then you have at once to go to the Guarantee Fund, that is to say to the Irish Probate Duty grant. Now, if this Amendment is not accepted the effect will be to reduce Clause 3 to a nullity, and the Irish labourer instead of losing his money only in the second resort, will lose it on the first resort in case of default. I venture to suggest that the Amendment is necessary to carry out the intention of the Government as expressed in Clause 3 of this Bill.
    MR. STOREY:This seems reasonable, and I am amazed that the Government do not accept the Amendment, for it is entirely in their own favour. I put it to right hon. Gentlemen that for their own sake they should agree to this. Suppose a man has got £100 advance and has to pay £4. If he pays this you apply it in the proportion of £3 15s. to Dividends and Sinking Fund and 5s. to the county contribution. But suppose he pays £3 10s. only, you have a deficiency to provide for, for which the Bill makes no provision so far as the county percentage is concerned. I know it is no use pressing arithmetical arguments upon empty benches, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the Amendment is really in the interest of his own Bill, and I am sure any man with experience of bookkeeping in relation to these monetary transactions will appreciate the difficulties that must arise without such an Amendment as this.
    MR. SEXTON:The view taken in the operation of this clause is, that when payments are made for dividends and Sinking Fund the Land Purchase Account is solvent, though the county percentage is left out altogether. But I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look back at Clause 2, and he will find that the language of that clause deals with individual advances. The clause says that the Land Commission shall establish a Land Purchase Account, carry thereto and apply all moneys received on account of any purchase annuity for the discharge of an advance. The clause refers to an individual advance, and goes on to declare that payments shall be made for three specific objects, for dividends on the Stock, for the Sinking Fund, and for the county percentage. Is it not clear that you are as much obliged to fill up the county percentage as to provide the dividends and Sinking Fund? Now, imagine a county in which 21 men have advances, and each owes £i. Twenty of these men pay their instalments, and from these you provide £75 for the dividends and Sinking Fund, and £5 should properly go to the county percentage. But the 21st man fails to pay, and thereupon you appropriate £3 15s. of the instalments that go to make up the £5, to provide for the default of the man who has not paid. What I contend you ought to do

    1823
    is to declare a default of £4 in the Land Purchase Account, and take that from the Guarantee Fund. It is as broad as it is long; having agreed that the Probate Duty grant is the first guarantee, you should provide from that for the Land Purchase Account. If you do not do that you invert the order and place the first charge upon the county percentage instead of on the Probate Duty grant. We really must insist upon the Amendment. We had the greatest trouble in securing this county percentage for the labourers, and if we let this clause pass in this slipshod or malicious form.—I will not say which—the result of our efforts which we thought we had secured by the earlier clause will be destroyed.
    MR. PARNELL:I do not think the hon. Member for Belfast is quite justified in using the expression malicious—perhaps he used it by inad-vertance—because this clause was drafted before the county percentage provision was included in the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON:No; there was a provision in the Bill originally for the labourers, though not such a good one as at present. The clause would be equally injurious to the Bill as originally drawn.
    MR. PARNELL:This clause stood before the Amendment for labourers' cottages was drafted into the Bill. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, master as he is of many points of detail and complexity in this Bill, the Attorney General has not quite grasped the meaning of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan, or the arguments with which it has been supported. Certainly it would be lamentable if we should pass any error in draftsmanship by which the benefit intended for the labourers in Ireland would be lost. What I would suggest would be that the Amendment should be agreed to on the present occasion, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should examine the question between now and the Report, with a view of seeing whether it would be necessary to modify it. We ought especially, I think, to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman now to agree to the insertion of the Amendment, against which he has advanced no case. It seems to me that a great deal of light has been given to us by the two hon. Members; but that no light what-
    1824
    ever has been afforded against the Amendment by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I should think that under these circumstances, the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment on the present occasion, reserving to themselves the right on Report to modify or reject it, if they show cause for such modification or rejection, which they certainly have not done during this discussion.
    MR. A.J. BALFOUR:I think I can show cause to the Committee for not accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan. The real substantial question we have to discuss is the order in which the county percentage should be come upon, and undoubtedly, both the hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Belfast and the hon. and learned Member for Cavan, are correct in stating that as the Bill is drawn the persons who will first suffer from any default on the part of the tenants are those who pay the county cess. Let us consider whether that is wrong. The county percentage, recollect, is a tax or tribnte paid by the farmers who buy their land at the rate of 4 per cent. The State could lend to them at the rate of £3 15s. per cent. including the Sinking Fund. As a matter of fact, it insists on their paying not £3 15s., but £i per Cent., and the difference between the two we have decided, so far, to give to a class only remotely and indirectly connected with the scheme of land purchase. If you decide—and the hon. Member for Cavan would like to decide— that this 5s. should not be taken first to meet default, but that some other fund should be taken, what fund will it be? If it is the Probate Duty grant it practically means that the whole community is to be fined for the default. Really it seems to me more equitable that those who benefit under the Bill, which confers upon them a free gift, ought to be the first to suffer from the default of their co-beneficiaries, and that therefore it is only right that the loss, if any, should be made good out of the county percentage. I hope I have put the case quite clearly to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Members for West Belfast and Cavan that the people who will first lose the money will be the recipients of the 5s., but I would point out that these people are not

    1825
    deprived of a sum which they at present enjoy, or to which they have the slightest title or claim in equity. They are merely deprived of a bonus or charitable donation which they would never have without this Bill, and I, therefore, think that they, rather than the general community—who, as we have been shown over and over again, are being made liable without their own consent to mortgage their own funds—should be held liable to meet the default of the tenants. For these reasons I venture to think—whatever view hon. Members may take as to the necessity of again raising this discussion on Report—the Committee should not accept the present Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON:What the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in showing us in his observations is that hon. Members have been kept in the dark as to the intentions of the Government upon this point, as it has been universally understood that the Government intend to throw the loss upon the Probate Duty in the first instance. What we understood when Clause 3 was under discussion was that the sum we had secured for the benefit of the labourers would not be touched until the Probate Duty had been exhausted. It would now appear that we have been in the wrong, though not a syllable has been said until now to make that evident. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the invitation I gave him to give us an interpretation of Clause 3. That clause is an effective part of the enactment of Clause 4, which says plainly what you are to do and must do with any money you receive from the purchasers. The 5s. being paid into the County Percentage Fund we have a right to expect that it will remain there and not sink into the sand. On what principle will you say to the men who pay it, " We have not done what Section 2 directs, and paid the money into the County Percentage Fund, but have used the payments of solvent men to defray the default of solvent men, and instead of forming the County Percentage with it we have used it to pay dividends and Sinking Fund." What can you use the money for if you do not use it for the. County Percentage?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:On this point I am disposed to agree with the
    1826
    Chief Secretary. I think the Bill is properly drawn on this point, but, after all, it is not one of extreme importance.
    MR. KNOX:When I prepared the Amendment I relied on the drafting of the Bill and the Amendment the Government had already accepted. I was justified, I maintain, in concluding that the order of liability would be the order in which these various funds are mentioned in Clause 3. If this Amendment is not adopted the words the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert will be simply farcical, as he proposes to enact at the end of one of the sub-sections that the first charge shall fall on the Irish Probate Duty grant.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL:I do not want to intervene more than I can help in the discussion of these Irish funds, but I do want again to take exception to the assumption that it is safe to lend the money at 3¾ per cent. The quarter per cent is simply a small insurance to meet the failures which may occur in repayment. It seems to me that this margin is no more than any prudent lender would require when he lends large sums to a large number of small borrowers.
    MR. FLYNN:The question is, is this 5s. an integral portion of the purchase annuity, or is it not, and is Clause 2 to work in the manner in which it stands in the Bill or not? Nothing can be more clear than the understanding which was arrived at upon Clause 3, but now we find that the Government intend to swindle the labourers, so to speak, out of the 5s. of the purchase annuity. I do hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Clause 2 has been alluded to, and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that there is some inconsistency between that clause as amended, and Clause 4 as it appears in the Bill. Surely they are wrong. Hon. Members opposite would make a tenant pay for the default of a brother tenant, but would leave untouched by that default the labourer who is made the recipient of a charitable donation by the Exchequer. Those who pay their instalments honestly will be indignant if they are to be the first persons come upon in case somebody else does not pay. The tenants would
    think

    1827
    that those who were in receipt of eleemosynary donations ought to be the first to suffer. I quite admit that the Amendment I put down to carry out the agreement come to on Tuesday will require some verbal Amendment, but not any Amendment to alter the intention with which it has been put down.
    MR. SEXTON:When the 5s. has been paid into the Land Purchase Account there is no right to use it for any other purpose. Any default ought to be first met out of the Probate Duty, and the County Percentage Fund ought not to be touched until after the Probate Duty fails to meet the default. The Government are breaking faith and are denying to Members the substance of the concession it is believed they made.
    MR. KNOX:Section 2, Subsection 2, contemplates that under certain circumstances a part of the county percentage shall be paid to the Guarantee Fund. Under Section 4, Sub-section 1, as now drawn, no part of the county percentage will ever get into the Guarantee Fund. We do not now want to enter into the question whether it would be better that the Probate Duty Account or the other account should first pay the deficiency. That is a question which was discussed and decided by the Committee. We do not want to go back to ground which has already been covered, although the right hon. Gentleman by his argument invites us to do so. We see no reason why the Committee should have changed its mind, or the right hon. Gentleman should have changed his since the discussion on the 3rd clause. If the labourers of Ireland are to get anything considerable under this Bill this Amendment must be passed, and I still venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will insert these words. They are necessary, in our judgment, to carry out the intention of the clauses of the Bill, and if it be found on Report that we are wrong, we will not then put any difficulty in the way of a change.
    MR. J. MORLEY:Surely my hon. Friend is reversing the ordinary process. If in the interval between now and Report my hon. Friend is able to convince himself that he is right, he can move the Amendment on the Report.
    MR. KNOX:My right hon. Friend misunderstands me. We are absolutely and certainly convinced that this Amendment is a proper one, and that it is absolutely essential. Therefore I must very regretfully say that we must press it to a Division.
    MR. J. MORLEY:I assumed that there was some doubt about the matter in my hon. Friend's mind.
    MR. MAHONY:It was in order to ease the doubt existing in the mind of the Chief Secretary that we pointed out that there would be an opportunity for alteration at a later period. I think there is an irresistible case for pressing the Amendment now. As the clause is drawn, it seems to me that the county percentage may never get into the Guarantee Fund. You propose to take a guarantee consisting of the whole local taxation of Ireland, and to do so without the consent of the Irish people. We believe that by so doing you are going to inflict an injury on the taxpayers of Ireland, because you are going to deprive Local Bodies of their credit in the future. The classes in Ireland may be roughly divided into landlords and tenants and the working classes. Both the landlords and the tenants will get a direct benefit under this Bill. You have inserted this provision in order that the labourers may also get a direct benefit under it. Why should the labourers be the first to be deprived of their direct benefit? I have heard the Chief Secretary, I think, argue in this House that one of the advantages of his guarantees would be that if there was repudiation in a district the whole of the district would suffer, and the tenant farmers, the class from which the repudiators come, would suffer. Now you propose to do away with that provision because you say the first people that are to suffer are the labourers. If there is any repudiation let the tenant-farmers be the first to feel it, and do not throw the first injury on the unfortunate labourers, who can have no possible power either to promote repudiation or prevent it. I want to ask the Chief Secretary a question on another point. In case the tenant pays only £3 15s. instead of £4 in any one year, will it be a case of default, and will his interest have to be put up and sold? I would

    1829
    also ask whether this fund will be called upon before the landlord's guarantee deposit or simultaneously with it.
    MR. SEXTON:I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think we are pressing him unduly. I must ask him for a reply to my argument about Section 2. Did not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first charge for default was to be made upon the Probate Duty? I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to defer to the unanimous opinion of the Irish Members with regard to this Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Any default by the tenant will have to be met in part by a grant from the landlord's Guarantee Fund. It will be quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
    (10.24.)The Committee divided:— Ayes 64; Noes 161.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
    MR. SEXTON:I regret, Sir, to be under the necessity of moving that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I am obliged to traverse the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there has not been a breach of faith. I say that Clause 3, as it stands on the official record, is conclusive evidence in support of the case I laid before the House. I was under the disadvantage of arguing from a copy of the Bill in which that clause stood as it was originally drawn, and I had, consequently, to depend upon my memory. But on referring just now to the official record I found that the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund was made up of three parts, which stood in the following order: first, the Irish Probate Duty; second, Exchequer contributions; and third, the county percentage. Later on, after we had considered the contingent part of the fund, the Government accepted an Amendment which stated, with regard to both the cash and the contingent portions, that the several parts should be applicable to the Guarantee Fund in the order specified. Not only are the Government not entitled to retire from that arrangement, I say it is incapable of being altered. I appeal to the Committee as strenuously as I can to stand by that agreement, my view of of which is confirmed by the official records.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I understand the hon. Member to allege a breach of faith on the part of the Government. I confess that the speech the hon. Gentleman has just made induces me to regret that, with a view of meeting the wishes of Gentlemen opposite, I accepted certain Amendments in Clause 3 for the purpose of facilitating business and making the Bill as far as possible in accordance with the views of all Parties. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has had to refer to the records to see whether any such engagement as he alleges was entered into is conclusive proof that no such engagement was ever made, and that there has been no breach of faith. The order in which payment was to be made was never once in question throughout the Debate. The point (as far as my memory serves me) raised by the hon. Member was whether the Exchequer contribution or the Irish Probate Duty should be first taken, and he urged reasons which induced him to think it desirable to place the Exchequer contribution second instead of first. I did not think it much mattered, so I agreed to the re-arrangement, because the hon. Gentleman wished it. But that the Irish tenant-farmers should be mulct of the grant which this House has given them in order to provide an eleemosynary subscription for the purpose of raising labourers' cottages is a monstrous proposition which I never thought of accepting, and which I never even knew the hon. Gentleman desired me to accept. I repudiate the idea of ever having contemplated so violent or unjustifiable a change in the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON:Does the right hon. Gentleman forget his own Amendment " in every financial year, shall be paid in addition to the county percentage." He gave way on our representations, and put the county percentage third.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:It was purely a matter of drafting.
    MR. KNOX:There is a conflict of recollection between us and the Chief Secretary. My recollection is that when the Chief Secretary changed the order in which these payments were mentioned

    1831
    in Clause 3, the change was not a mere matter of drafting, but a matter of substance. If the Chief Secretary did not intend to make any substantial change why did he put down an Amendment in Clause 4 inserting the words "in the order hereinbefore mentioned." Hon. Members may sit in the smoking room while these matters are being discussed and simply come into the House to vote. Indeed, we whose duty it is to be present during the Debate have a painful sense of the way in which the united and unanimous views of the Irish Representatives are thus voted down. Either the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment that the money should be taken "in the order hereinbefore mentioned " was put down by inadvertence or it was put down to carry out a distinct agreement which it is now proposed to break.
    MR. MADDEN:I desire to remind the Committee of what happened in connection with Clause 3. As the clause originally stood, the two funds mentioned were the Exchequer contribution and the Irish Probate Duty grant. Under Clause 2 as it originally stood, the county percentage was to be distributed as a part of the Probate Duty grant, which formed part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund. But Clause 2 was remodelled owing to suggestions of hon. Members opposite, and the county percentage was carried in the first instance to the aid of labourers' cottages, and only secondarily to the Probate Duty grant, and it therefore becomes necessary the county percentage should be referred to, in some way, in Clause 3, as forming part in any event of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund. In the Debate on Clause 3 the whole discussion was as between the Exchequer contribution and the Probate Duty grant, and the county percentage was not mentioned. Then the hon. Member for West Belfast suggested that instead of the words " in addition to the county percentage "— the language of the Chief Secretary's Amendment—the section should run " (3) the county percentage."
    MR. SEXTON:The right hon. Gentleman must have realised that when I moved that Amendment I had it in my mind that the items should be liable in that order.
    MR. MADDEN:No doubt the hon. Member had it in his mind if he says so, but why did he not state the effect he thus contemplated to the Committee? If he had done so, the Chief Secretary would at once have objected.
    MR. SEXTON:Why did the right hon. Gentleman accept my Amendment, stating that the several sums of the cash portion should be liable in the order stated?
    MR. MADDEN:It may have been very stupid, but it will be a warning to the Government not in the future to accept Amendments which are not fully explained. Fortunately there is a stage in every Bill at which errors of this sort which creep in can be corrected.
    MR. MAHONY:There seems to be a good deal of difference of recollection in this matter. But there is no getting out of one fact in regard to the order in which the three funds should stand. The Chief Secretary wanted to place the county percentage first, but at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast he placed it last. After that he agreed to a definite Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend — an Amendment as to which there could be no mistake— which stated distinctly that the funds should be drawn on in the order in which they stood. Surely it-is superfluous to ask hon. Members, most of whom were not present at the time the agreement was come to, to carry back their memories. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would come out of the matter much better if he made a concession on this point.
    MR. J. MORLEY:I think that the tone in which the Chief Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast was scarcely justified. It is quite true the hon. Member was not sure of the exact change made till he had consulted the Clerk at the Table; but that consultation only confirmed the impression on his mind which he had stated to the Committee. The order of the items was undoubtedly changed, the county percentage being placed last, after the Exchequer contribution and the Probate Duty grant. After that change was made the hon. Member for West Belfast moved as an Amendment—

    1833
    "And the several sums constituting the cash portion and the contingent portion respectively of the Guarantee Fund shall be applicable for the purposes of that fund in the order specified in this section."
    That Amendment was assented to, and is, in fact, now incorporated in the clause. I maintain that the hon. Member for West Belfast is perfectly justified in the account which he has given of the transaction.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I do not think that the hon. Member for West Belfast is at all justified in his attitude. By this Amendment the county percentage will be placed, not first, but third. Now Clause 3, as amended yesterday, will carry out that proposal. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite realised that when they moved the Amendment to the clause. I was not aware of it myself; I take blame to myself for it. Bat in my anxiety—my weak anxiety— to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite, I did not realise that Clause 3, as amended, would have carried out this very proposal. If hon. Members realised it they would not have proposed this Amendment. The Government do not agree with the view taken of the Debates last night, of the propriety of the Amendment we have just debated, or of the propriety of Clause 3, as amended, and on the Report stage I shall move words to restore its original object.
    MR. SEXTON:Clause 3, as it stands, carries out our object. Under it this county percentage is going into the Guarantee Fund, and this Amendment is to secure that it shall do so. Unless the Amendment is carried it may not be paid into the Sinking Fund at all. Of course, if we understand that the reading of the clause is that this county percentage shall be taken out of the Land Purchase Fund immediately, then that to a great extent will get rid of the difficulty, for then Section 3 will remain as it now stands.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No.
    MR. SEXTON:Well, then, what is the position? The right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment after full consideration. I distinctly remember that in Debate it: was clearly stated that the Probate Duty grant should be the first guarantee, and it was upon this understanding that my Amendment, which had been several days on the
    1834
    Paper, was accepted. I moved it deliberately and with due notice, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us now that he did not know how to regard it then, and that he accepted it not knowing its full scope.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:And I did not.
    MR. SEXTON:My Amendment was perfectly plain, and I think a more curious episode never happened in Parliamentary proceedings, that, after an engagement has been solemnly arrived at and ratified, the right hon. Gentleman should express his intention of reversing it at the next stage of the Bill. I think we have shown that we are perfectly consistent in moving this Amendment; and, indeed, it is necessary to bring the county percentage within the scope of Clause 3.
    THE CHAIRMAN:I do not know that this discussion is relevant to any point before the Committee. Clause 3 is passed and is unalterable. May I suggest to the Committee that it would be well to proceed with the further discussion of the Bill after the Motion has been withdrawn?
    SIR G. CAMPBELL:I only hope that a lesson will be learnt from this discussion. I confess, for my own part, to feeling a sort of malicious satisfaction at the position in which the Government find themselves. I was not in the House when Clause 3 was actually passed, but I do know that on the last occasion it was before us there were very few Members of the Committee who really understood the clause. I tried to understand it myself, and I was unsuccessful; and I do not think I need be ashamed of that now that I find the right hon. Gentleman himself has fallen into an error in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman tried to conciliate Members in the hope of getting the clause passed the other night. He accepted a vast number of Amendments. He turned the clause upside down, and all that is intelligible to me is that £500,000 additional money was to be thrown in as a kind of sop, and we, who are the guardians of the British Treasury, were pat wholly out of the running and unable to understand the clause. The clause was not passed on Tuesday, and it appears to have been shoved through this evening

    1835
    under the circumstances in which it was then left, that no Member in the House understood it. I hope the Government will take a lesson from this experience, and not be so anxious to push through clauses in a hurry.
    MR. KNOX:The Chief Secretary says that neither my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast nor myself, in supporting the Amendment, referred to the agreement which was made in reference to Clause 3; but I wish distinctly to remind the Committee that when introducing my Amendment, and during the subsequent discussion, I distinctly based my proposal solely and entirely on what had gone before Clause 3. I described it as a consequential drafting Amendment, and until I heard the latter speech of the Chief Secretary it never entered my mind that the right hon. Gentleman could have any idea of going back upon the solemn agreement arrived at.
    DR. TANNER:I hope that hon. Members will understand that this Motion to report Progress was made and this discussion has arisen solely out of regard for the interests of the unfortunate Irish labourers, which interests are threatened in the clause.
    MR. MAHONY:I do not wish to discuss the unalterable nature of Clause 3, but I think I may remind the Chief Secretary that we on this side are anxious to pass the Bill just as he is, although we approach it from different and perhaps opposite points of view. I quite acknowledge that on the whole he has met us with a certain amount of concession, and I think he will be wise not to go back upon the concessions he has made. I trust he will be content to let Clause 3 remain as it now stands.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I cannot agree to sacrifice the rights of the tenants of Ireland to the interests of the Irish labourers.
    THE CHAIRMAN:Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?
    MR. SEXTON:No, Sir. I propose to take a Division.
    (11.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 92; Noes 164.—(Div. List., No. 168.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg, Sir, to move that you do now leave the Chair;
    1836
    and I make the Motion on this ground. We have now reached what I conceive to be a most critical point in the fortunes of this Bill, and the Government cannot expect at this hour of the night, and after the events which have occurred, to make much more progress. It is not, therefore, unnatural or unreasonable that we should request them now to take the time between this and to-morrow morning to consider the very important events of to-night, which have changed the temper of this Committee. I think it will not be denied that we on this side received in a conciliatory spirit and certainly with great satisfaction the important concession made to Irish labourers by the Government; and the result of that concession has been shown in the spirit in which the Debate has been conducted on this side of the House since. Now, there has arisen to-night a considerable amount of warmth and friction; and it appears to have arisen through the right hon. Gentleman not having taken into his purview the whole of the provisions arising upon this and the preceding clause. I confess I am surprised at the attitude he has taken, and the more so when I look to the Amendment which stands in his name at the foot of the page; and if anything could convey to my mind that he wished to seal the contract and agreement entered, it is to be found in this deliberate notice he has put upon the Paper. For myself, I am anxious to see the Bill pass in a workable shape; and we cannot consent to see the provision in respect to Irish labourers passed in a form which must reduce it to a dead letter; and the only advantage that will come out of this Bill will be to one agricultural tenant in every four throughout Ireland. I do not address myself to the argument that the Chief Secretary did not fully understand the force of the Amendment he accepted the other night. I cannot understand that he—one of the astutest men in the House—could have fallen into error in this particular. However, I think that the Government would do well, seeing that we are within half an hour of midnight, and there being other business on the Paper to proceed with, to accept, not this Motion I know, but the alternative Motion, to report Progress and afford us a little time for con-

    1837
    sideration before resuming our discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN:The point which has occupied the attention of the Committee for some time does not arise again upon the Amendment standing next. A discussion upon that Amendment may possibly occupy half an hour and may restore the Committee to a businesslike condition. I consider that the Motion the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to move will be an abuse of the Forms of the House, and therefore I refrain from putting it.
    MR. KNOX:The Amendment which we have considered and voted upon, or voted upon without consideration, was one that in ordinary honesty should have been accepted simply as a drafting and consequential Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN:I beg the hon. Member to resume a businesslike temper and address himself to the Amendment of which he has given notice.
    MR. KNOX:If words have escaped me which I ought not to have used I withdraw them, but I confess it is somewhat difficult for me to resume a business-like temper when we find ourselves dealt with in such an unbusiness-like manner this evening by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The Amendment which I have now to propose is one which, if it had not been for the recent experience, I should say the Government would certainly accept. As the Bill stands there may at least be considerable doubt whether the land lord's guarantee deposit is to be the first thing taken, or whether the charge is to fall upon the Guarantee Fund before anything is taken out of the guarantee deposit. Is it the intention that the landlord is to bear his equal share of the losses that may accrue? If that is the intention, then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment I now move.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, after the word " deficiency," to insert the words " so far as it is not payable out of the guarantee deposits."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The hon. Member seems to think that there
    1838
    is some doubt as to the order in which the guarantee shall be taken, but in the opinion of the Government there is no doubt at all as to what the order is. The guarantee deposit will be taken pari passu with the Guarantee Fund. There is no doubt at all about this, and I do not think the Amendment makes the clause one bit clearer.
    MR. KNOX:The Chief Secretary lays down a temporary and a permanent order. I do not find in the Bill anything that provides that the guarantee deposit shall be paid into the Guarantee Fund. It appears to me that there is no provision of the kind for the repayment of the Guarantee Fund.
    MR. SEXTON:My hon. Friend said nothing about the order of the calls. All that he aims at is to secure that the whole amount of the default shall not come out of the Guarantee Fund. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to our proposition that security shall be given for only one half of the Guarantee Fund?
    MR. MADDEN:Yes, I have. I conceive that the Bill is right as it stands. If these words were introduced the Consolidated Fund would never be recouped from the Guarantee Fund until the process of realising the guarantee deposit had been gone through.
    (11.35.) The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 162—(Div. List, No. 169.)
    THE CHAIRMAN:The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) is inconsistent with Clause 3 as settled.
    MR. SEXTON:"Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary prefer to leave out the words—
    "And such charge shall be paid first out of the cash portion of the fund and out of the Exchequer contribution? "
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR:As I propose to alter Clause 3 on Report, I propose to move the omission of the words.
    MR. SEXTON:I would move to leave out all the words after the word " and in line 8.
    Amendment proposed in page 4, line 8, to leave out all the words after the word "and"—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,"— put, and negatived.
    MR. KNOX:I beg to move to add after the word " fund" the words—
    "Such charge shall be payable out of the various portions of the cash and contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund in the order hereinbefore mentioned."
    THE CHAIRMAN:I must point out to the hon. Member that in Clause 3 it is provided that both the cash portion and the contingent portion shall be applicable in the order there mentioned.
    MR. KNOX:Might I ask whether the Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary was unnecessary, considering what had been done in Clause 3?
    THE CHAIRMAN:Yes. Does the hon. Member propose to press his Amendment?
    MR. SEXTON:I think that is rather a question for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He said he preferred to leave out the words. As, however, another hon. Member has made use of the words of the right hon. Gentleman it will be interesting to know how he will deal with them.
    THE CHAIRMAN:I would ask the hon. Member what he proposes to do with his Amendment.
    MR. KNOX:I want to follow the order in Clause 3. That is the object of the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN:If the hon. Member will do that it will be in order.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 7, after the word " Fund," to insert the words "and such charge shall be payable out of the cash and contingent portions of the Guarantee Fund in the order hereinbefore mentioned."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALY:I think we are entitled to some explanation from the Chief Secretary about his own words. I have heard of a minister eating his words, but never of one refusing to eat them. These being the words of the right hon. Gentleman, I invite him to partake of them.
    MR. STOREY:This seems to me an absolute comedy of errors. If the right hon. Gentleman will take time to con-
    1840
    sider this matter to-morrow I think he will find that the Members behind me have been fighting all night for that which is more to the advantage of the Government than to their own advantage. I think the clause as it stands is really ridiculous. I would suggest to him that when once he introduces a reference to the county contributions into Clause 3 he will find it absolutely necessary, in order to make the Bill symmetrical, to introduce the same thing into Clause 4. I am sure, if he will take the hint and consider this, he will do wisely.
    MR. JOICEY:I have listened to the Debate that has been going on for some time, and I must say that, with regard to these various Amendments, the Committee seems rather in a muddle. I think it desirable that some more time should be taken to consider the effect of the Amendment, and I, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Joicey.)
    MR. CONYBEARE:I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the muddle we have all got into [Laughter.] Well, I have taken no part in this discussion, but I can see that the Committee has got into a muddle. I pointed out, at an earlier period, the injustice of not having the amended form of Clause 3 before us, and I venture again to say that if we had had it before us we should have been spared all this comedy of errors. I would ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will undertake that we shall have the printed copy of the amended form of Clause 3 before the Committee to-morrow.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.—(No. 150.)
    Considered in Committee, and Reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.