Commons Sitting of 27 January 1891

QUESTIONS.

  PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain specific charges of grave character have been recently reported to the Superintendent Engineer of the Portsmouth Dockyard; whether any and what inquiry has been made, and by whom, into such complaints; whether any and what evidence was taken, and with what result; and whether any further action will be taken in the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The charges referred to appear to be those which have been made periodically since 1884, with regard to irregularities alleged to have taken place as far back as 1883 in connection with the dredging contract at Portsmouth. They have been brought forward on each occasion by bargemen who had been discharged by the contractor. When first made they were investigated by the Admiral Superintendent and the Superintending Engineer of the Dockyard, and they have subsequently been reported upon by successive Superintending Engineers, and it has always been decided that they were groundless.

THE SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, inasmuch as certain concessions led Her Majesty's Government to assent to a Charter being granted to the South Africa Company, he has been made aware that these concessions do not belong to that Company, but to another Company which has a capital of £4,000,000, representing one-half of the value of these concessions, and that the Chartered Company is merely a lessee of the aforesaid Company, receiving one-half of the net income derived from the concessions in consideration of bearing all the expenses involved in the obligations
1142
that the Chartered Company has undertaken in consideration of obtaining the Charter, and whether Her Majesty's Government was aware that this arrangement was to be made when the Charter was granted; whether he will take steps to see that no undue influence is exercised by the Company on Lobengula to induce him to cede land to the Company in addition to the mining rights hitherto granted; whether his attention has been called to the seizure on the part of the Company of Manica, which is claimed by Portugal, and to the imprisonment and deportation of Portuguese residing in Manica by the Company; whether there is any limit laid down in regard to the area over which the Chartered Company has acquired rights in consequence of its Charter; and, if not, whether such limit will at once be laid down; whether his attention has been called to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Charter granted to the Company, by which it is prohibited from exercising any act of sovereignty or powers of government in relation to any treaty or concession, until a copy of such concession, grant, or treaty, with maps and particulars, have been submitted to the Secretary of State, and he has signified his approval thereof either absolutely or subject to any conditions or reservations; and whether the so-called Treaty with Mutassa in respect to the concessions granted to the company by that chief in respect to Manica has been submitted to the Secretary of State, and he has signified his approval of it; and, if not, what action it is contemplated to take against the Company for infringing its Charter, by exercising acts of sovereignty and powers of government in Manica under a so-called concession from Mutassa?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): In answer to the first question put by the hon. Member, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government was not, when the Charter was granted, and is not, aware that the facts are as stated, and is not responsible for the details of the relations between the British South Africa Company and any other Company or person holding concessions within the field of its operations. As regards the second question, Her Majesty's Government does not believe

1143
that any improper influence has been brought to bear upon Lobengula by the British South Africa Company. The answer to the third question is: Yes. In reply to the fourth question, the field of operations of the British South Africa Company has not been further defined since the Charter was issued, and no further steps in that direction will be taken while the negotiations with Portugal are pending. As regards the last two questions, Her Majesty's Government are familiar with the clauses referred to; and they are not yet in a position to consider whether, and to what extent, the Treaty with Mutassa should receive approval.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Has the Treaty with Mutasa been submitted, as stipulated by the clauses, to Her Majesty's Government?
BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay it on the Table of the House?
BARON H. DE WORMS: That will be considered.
MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask whether the Government have received information that the Charter alleged to have been granted by Portugal to the Zambesi Company contain provisions hostile to British interests; and whether, having regard to the fact that the British South Africa Company have secured a concession in the Manica Company and the neighbouring territory for a modus vivendi, the Government will recognise such concession as the basis of further negotiation?
MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Member had better, give notice of that question.
MR. CONYBEARE: I will put it tomorrow.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that the Government exercise no control over the concessions and Sub-leases granted by the Chartered Company?
BARON H. DE WORMS: No; the hon. Gentleman is not to understand that.

THE CLEANERS OF THE, HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works
1144
whether arrangements have been made by which the cleaners of the two Houses of Parliament will be placed directly under the Office of Works, will receive their pay without any deduction to a middle man, and will have a half-holiday on Saturdays and the usual annual holiday that is granted to other working men employed in the two Houses of Parliament?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: It is not intended to increase the-number of workmen employed about the Houses of Parliament, and employed directly under the Office of Works; but the cleaners will, under the new form of contract, which comes into force in April next, receive their pay without deduction to a middleman, and will not be-required to work on Saturday afternoons except under very special circumstances, in which cases they would receive extra pay. The men regularly employed about the Houses on special duty, for instance, in the ventilating department, are paid by the week, and may often have to work for long hours without extra pay. They, therefore, get an annual holiday, which is not given to contractors' men, who are paid by the hour.
MR. LABOUCHERE: And the annual holiday?
MR. PLUNKET: Men employed by the Office of Works are paid by the week, and sometimes do extra work without receiving extra pay, and consequently an annual holiday is given to them.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Public Trustee Bill, which has twice passed the Upper House, will be reintroduced; and if the Select Committee promised on the subject will be appointed in sufficient time to enable it to report sufficiently early for legislation on the subject to be effected in the course of the present Session?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I trust that it will be reintroduced in the course of a very few days, and I think that the best course will be to refer it to the Standing Committee on Law.

ALIEN ACT.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to state the results of the enforcement of the Alien Act upon certain routes of immigration into this country frequented by pauper foreigners?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir; the statistics with regard to this matter will be found in the Annual Report on Emigration, which will shortly be presented to Parliament.

ALLOTMENTS BILL.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is correctly stated, in a number of Warwickshire papers, that the Government contemplate bringing in another Allotments Bill, giving power to Local Authorities to take land compulsorily upon lease for providing allotments; and whether the Government have changed their views, and are prepared to adopt the principle of compulsory leasing?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE: No, Sir.

THE EDUCATION GRANT.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Return will be published showing the expenditure from the Education Grant in the year 1890, the number of elementary schools, and the accommodation and number of scholars on the 31st August, 1890, and the results of inspection and examination during the year ending 31st August, 1890, together with a summary of statistics for the same year, in continuation of a similar Return published last year?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,:The preparation of the Return is being completed in the ordinary course, and it will be laid before Parliament at the usual time shortly after Easter.

CARRIAGE OF LIVE CATTLE FROM AMERICA.
MR. CHARLES WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board
1146
of Trade whether the Government is-intending to make any and what regulations or restrictions as to the carriage of live cattle across the Atlantic?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the question. The hon, Member is probably aware that a Joint Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Trade is at this moment examining into the question of the transit of cattle across the Atlantic, and I think it would be desirable to wait for the Report of that Committee before deciding what alterations, if any, may be necessary in the regulations existing at present.

GWYLWYN SETT QUARRY, CARNARVON.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and, if any, hat, progress has been made with the negotiations for the lease of the Gwylwyn Sett Quarry, Pistyll, Carnarvonshire; and if a lease has been granted, what provision (if any) has been made to ensure the continuous working of that quarry?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: There has been some delay, and I am sorry to say the negotiations are not yet concluded, but the Welsh Granite Company have been requested to return the draft lease for engrossment by the 31st inst.; so I hope by the fend of the month that we shall have an answer accepting or declining.

TRADE AND TREATIES COMMITTEE.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Trade and Treaties Committee have yet sent in any Reports to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, when will such Reports be circulated?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The first Report of the Committee has just been received by Her Majesty's Government, and will be carefully considered. Of course, it must be a matter for future decision whether, and when, it should be published.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has come to a decision upon the means of prosecuting at the public expense offenders against "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," and if fresh legislation will be necessary?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There has been some delay in this matter, as it has required very careful consideration from a legal point of view; but I am advised that legislation will not be required to enable the Report of the Committee on this point to be carried into effect. I am in communication with the Attorney General as to the manner in which this should be done, and I propose, of course, to address a communication to the Treasury on the subject.

EVICTION OF MINERS.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the threatened eviction of several hundred miners, with their families, from their houses at Selksworth Colliery, near Sunderland; and whether, in view of the distress and danger to health likely to ensue from evictions at this season of the year, he will communicate with the Local Authorities for the district, with the object of securing proper temporary accommodation for the evicted families?
MR. RITCHIE: I have no information except that derived from the newspapers. I earnestly hope the contingency referred to by the hon. Gentleman may not arise. The duty of the Guardians is restricted to the relief of destitution.

MAIL SERVICE TO STORNOWAY.
MR. RAYMOND HEATH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the inefficiency of the mail service between Stornoway and the mainland; whether he is aware that owing to her faulty construction, deficiency in steam power, and insufficient size, the steamer Lochiel is quite unsuited to carry the mails, as she cannot keep up to time in any but the, finest weather; whether he is prepared .to put the contract for carrying the
1148
mails between Stornoway and the mainland up to open competition on the first opportunity; and when will the present contract terminate?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: I am aware that complaints have been made relative to the mail packet service to which the hon. Member refers; but the contractor does his best with the means at his disposal, and is not prepared to employ a larger and more powerful steamer without additional subsidy. The existing contract cannot be terminated before the 31st December next, and meanwhile I have the intention of offering the service to open competition.

BATTERY AND EARTHWORKS NEAR SUNDERLAND.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that he is negotiating for the purchase of a large quantity of land north of Roker-on-Sea (near Sunderland), for the purpose of constructing a battery and earthworks; and, if so, will he issue instructions for the speedy removal of the obsolete gun battery stituated near Roker Park, and which, when used, is a nuisance and source of danger to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, as well as to the large inshore traffic of fishing and pleasure boats?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: No, Sir; no such negotiations have taken place.

SAVINGS BANK CLERKS.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his Order compelling the clerks employed in the Savings Bank Department to work for two hours beyond the usual time each day, except on Saturdays, applies to the whole of the staff; and whether the payment for this compulsory overtime is in each case at a rate not less than that received for work done during official hours?
MR. RAIKES: The Order referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question applies to the whole of the male staff, with the exception of such superintending officers as are not required. The payment for extra duty is rateable on the salaries up to a maximum of Is. 6d. an hour.

THE WRITERS IN THE STATISTICAL ABSTRACTING DEPARTMENT.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have been informed of the decision of the Treasury respecting the future status and rates of pay of the writers in the Statistical Abstracting Department; and, if so, what is the cause of delay in the issue of the new scheme?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; the Board of Customs were informed of the Treasury decision on the 19th ult., and are occupied in settling the details of the scheme, which contains arrangements affecting other divisions of the Statistical Office besides the writers. I have asked the Commissioners to proceed, if possible, at once with the portion affecting the writers.

THE SINKING FUND.
MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where, as under the Land Purchase Bill, a Government Stock is created, the yearly interest and sinking fund of which are provided by Terminable Annuities, whether there are any precedents for lending the capital value of the Sinking Fund on real estate for fixed periods, extending beyond the date of the termination of the Annuities; and, if there are such precedents, will he state them to the House?
MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know whether there are any such precedents; but what the hon. Member suggests really would not happen, because it is not the object of the Bill to employ the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund will be employed only in the ordinary way that Sinking Funds are employed.
MR. KEAY: The phrase used in the question is "the capital value of the Sinking Fund," not the Sinking Fund itself.
MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member will wait for a Return which is being prepared it will clear up this matter altogether.

THE MALAY PENINSULA.
MR. DE LISLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any
1150
foundation for the report, published in the Globe of 26th January, that Germany is endeavouring to obtain from the King of Siam the cession of a port and some territory in the Malay Peninsula, North of Penang, and South of British Burma: and whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to whether such cession would be in accordance with the wishes of the Siamese Dependency of Kedah, formerly under British protection?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: Sir, we have reason to believe that there is no foundation for that report.

MESSRS. BRASS.
MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the contract with Messrs. Brass for the supply of workmen to Government Offices expires; and whether on its termination the Government will dispense with the services of middlemen, by engaging and placing under the control of the Government Clerks of Works all workmen employed at the Houses of Parliament, the British Museum, and other Government Offices?
MR. PLUNKET: The contract with Messrs. Brass expires on the 31st of March next. The system of this and similar contracts entered into by the Office of Works has been carefully inquired into in the course of the past year by a Departmental Committee, which has advised that the practice of working through contractors should be continued, but under new regulations in regard to the payment of wages. I do not admit that under the existing contract middlemen are employed in the sense which seems to be suggested by the question of the hon. Member; but, under the new system, the sums paid by the Government for wages will not be subject to any discount or to any other deduction by the contractor. An invitation to tender for the new contract will in a few days be issued, and that will fully set out the conditions to which I have referred.
MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the terms of any contract proposed to be entered into?
MR. PLUNKET: I have already stated that the invitation to tender will convey all the information asked for, and I hope it will be satisfactory. If afterwards the hon. Member wishes to see the form of contract I should be glad to show them to him; or, if it be necessary, there will be no objection to publish them.
MR. CREMER: I do not gather whether there will be any deduction made by the contractor from the wages of the workmen as voted by the House.
MR. PLUNKET: There will be no sort of discount or deduction whatever.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is there any objection to lay on the Table n statement of the terms before they are adopted?
MR. PLUNKET: It will be seen as soon as the invitation is issued what the terms of the contract are, and I hope hon. Members will then be satisfied.

MAGAZINE RIFLE.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the drawings and specifications of the changes made in the Magazine Rifle in the new issue Mark II.?
MR. E. STANHOPE: The changes which are contemplated were indicated in general terms in answer to a previous question; but I am quite willing to lay on the Table a more detailed and specific list of the suggested improvements.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: How are we to discuss the details of this weapon unless we know what changes have been adopted?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I have no desire to keep back any information; but, to speak frankly, I do not think the House is competent to settle the details of a question like this.

RAWNSLEY BOARD SCHOOL.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the closing of the Infant Department of the Board School, Rawnsley, Staffordshire; whether he is aware that there was sufficient accommodation for infants at the Rawnsley School, and that such closing was resolved on against the express
1152
wish and despite the protest of the parents of the children attending the school; whether, prior to closing such infant school, the Cannock School Board satisfied the Education Department that the infant school was unnecessary, or whether the school has been closed without the sanction of the Education Department; whether he is aware that the nearest school is Hazel Slade Church School, 1,726 yards distant from the Rawnsley School, and more than a mile and a half distant from the homes of some of the infant children, who have, in consequence, to walk from four to six miles, twice going and returning each day; whether parents of infants residing in Rawnsley have been prosecuted for not sending their children to Hazel Slade Church School; whether bye-laws of the Cannock School Board have been, recently altered so as to deprive the parents of excuse if residing more than one mile from the school; and whether the Department will cause inquiry to be made in the matter?
SIR W. HART DYKE: A small infants' class, which was attached to the Board School at Rawnsley for some years, has been discontinued, but I am not aware on what grounds. No complaint has been made as to the inadequacy or inconvenience of the present accommodation for infants; but in view of the circumstances described by the hon. Member, the Department will make further inquiries. The alteration of the byelaws has only reduced the limit which constitutes a reasonable excuse, from two and a half miles, to two miles.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is true, as stated in the public Press, that a competition is to be held for plans to complete the South Kensington Museum; and, if so, whether he will publish the conditions of the competition; and whether plans and models have already been prepared and paid for by the public, to complete the buildings in harmony with the large portion already erected; and whether these plans have been approved of by the Museum authorities?
DR. TANNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to know whether the competition is to

1153
be confined to the architects already selected, or will be open, as was the case of the Law Courts, to other plans sent in too late for the competition?
MR. PLUNKET: It is true that a limited competition has been invited for plans to complete the South Kensington Museum. Eight gentlemen have been so invited, four of them named by the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and four by the Office of Works. It is also true that plans were prepared by the late General Scott and paid for as part of General Scott's official duties when he was Director of the Works at South Kensington. I believe that, so far as they went, they were approved of by the Science and Art Department; but these plans were never put forward in a completed state, nor were they ever approved of by the Office of Works. In answer to the hon. Member for Mid Cork, I am glad to say that one of the gentlemen named by me is a very distinguished Irish architect.
MR. BARTLEY: Have the Museum Authorities been consulted in drawing up the conditions of the competition?
MR. PLUNKET: I do not know whether they have been formally consulted; but I am quite sure the conditions will meet with their entire approval.

CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS.
MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in accordance with the Treasury Minutes of 10th August, 1889, and 4th February, 1890, and of the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, relating to the clerks of the Second Division of the Civil Service, any recommendations have been received from the Heads of Departments for the promotion of meritorious clerks of that Division; how long any such recommendations have been before the Treasury; and what action has been taken with regard to them?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: Some promotions of Second Division clerks have been made, upon the recommendation of Heads of Departments, to vacancies in the First Division and to certain staff places. Other recommendations affecting clerks of the Second Division have been received as
1154
part of change of organisation arising out of the Order in Council of March 21, 1890. In certain cases no decision has been arrived at on these recommendations, because the changes of organisation are still under consideration.

THE PROBATE AND DIVORCE COURT.
MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to make any alteration with reference to the very extensive patronage now vested in the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division before any successor to Sir James Hannen is appointed; and whether, if such alteration should be made, it would have the effect of securing a fair prospect of promotion to the highest offices to those who may have filled efficiently the higher and subordinate offices?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The right of appointment to offices in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division is vested by Act of Parliament in the President for the time being; and Her Majesty having been pleased to approve of Mr. Jeune as the new Judge, Mr. Justice Butt has already, as senior Judge of the Division, by virtue of the Judicature Acts become President. No alteration, as far I know, is likely to be proposed in the prospects of the clerks of the Probate Registry, where the opportunities of rising appear to be better than in any other department of the Supreme Court.

TOWN HOLDINGS.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Town Holdings Committee will be re-appointed, with the addition of the Scotch Members to the Committee, to consider the Scotch branch of the subject, as promised by the Government on 19th May, 1890?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Town Holdings Committee will be re-appointed as soon as possible, and the promise of the Government as to the addition of the Scotch Members will not be overlooked.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in nominating

1155
the Committee on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, he will take care that English and Irish Members are fairly represented, as the principles adopted with regard to Scotland will guide future legislation with regard to England and Ireland?
MR. W. H. SMITH: In nominating the Committee on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill care will be taken that English and Irish Members are fairly represented.
MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the hon. Baronet speaks "with authority when he says that "the principles adopted with regard to Scotland would guide future legislation with regard to England and Ireland?"
MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Baronet speaks on his own responsibility.

IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if a Memorial has been received from the Guardians of the Bandon Union, County Cork, urging the construction of a light railway between Crookstown and Enniskeane, and if this Memorial has been considered; and with what result?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: No Memorial of the nature mentioned by the hon. Member has been received by Her Majesty's Government.
In reply to a further question by Dr. TANNER,
MR. MADDENsaid: Any suggestion made by the Guardians will receive careful consideration.

HAULBOWLINE DOCKS.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Haul-bowline Docks in Cork Harbour will be completed; whether any practical advance has been made to provide these docks with the necessary fitting shops; whether any employment for labour will be afforded to local workmen; and what has been the cost up to the present time in the construction of the docks?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The dock and basins at Haulbowline are complete. Existing buildings and machinery are
1156
being adapted or provided for fitters' workshops, and will shortly be completed Work connected with repairs and maintenance will be done by local labour, and, in the case of new works done by contract, suitable local firms would be invited to tender as well as other firms. The works in connection with the extension of the yard and other accessory works and buildings have cost approximately £600,000.
DR. TANNER: How soon will it be possible to accommodate ships of the size which now frequent Cork Harbour?
LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not sure that that can be done all at once; but I think it will be possible in the course of a few months.

H.M.S. SHANNON.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that H.M.S. Shannon, which has been employed as a guardship in Bantry Bay, was recently sent to Plymouth for repairs to its deck; whether such repairs could have been efficiently, and with less cost, carried out at Passage West in Cork Harbour; and whether, in view of the great distress prevailing at Passage, any necessary repairs of ships of the Royal Navy stationed on the South Coast of Ireland, which could be effected satisfactorily and with economy, might be done in the Passage docks?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The Shannon has gone to Devonport for her annual refit, repairs, and stores, and the class of work required could not have been done by any private dockyard.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMES ACT.
MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the First Lord of the Treasury that on the first day of the Session he was good enough to promise me a day for raising a discussion on certain matters connected with the administration of the law in Ireland, and may I ask him whether it would be convenient for him to name a day on Thursday?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope I may be in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer on Thursday.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Accounts ordered—
"Relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1891."—(Sir Michael hicks Beach.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]

"R. V. CURRAN AND OTHERS."
Address for—
"Revised Report from the Western Morning News of the 10th day of January, 1891, of the Judgment delivered on the 9th day of January, 1891, by H. M. Bompas, Esquire, Q.C., Recorder of Plymouth, upon an Appeal against the Conviction of Curran, Matthews, and Shepheard under Section seven of 'The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.'"—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)

LICENSED PREMISES (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered—
"Of Particulars, with Abstract added, relating to Premises Licensed for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in the Burghs (Glasgow excepted) and Counties of Scotland, in the following form:

Number of Licences.

Address of Premises, Street, and Number.

Name and Address of Owner of Premises.

Name of Holder of Licence.

Annual Rental of Premises.

Estimated Population of each Ward in Towns and of each County.

Number of Licences per 1,000 of Population.

Grocer

Public House.

Hotel.

—(Mr. Provand.)

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Christopher Furness, esquire, for the Borough of The Hartlepools.
MOTIONS.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH.)
  MR. HUNTERin rising to move—
  "That the Resolution of this House of the 22nd day of June, 1880—'That, having regard to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees appointed by this House, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the oath or make the affirmation mentioned in the Statute 29 Vic., c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic., c. 72,'— be expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of Electors of this Kingdom"
  said: I am sure that in every part of the House there will be one feeling of regret and of sympathy with respect to the unfortunate illness of the hon. junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), which disables him from moving the Resolution which stands in his name. In compliance with what I believe to be the wishes of the hon. Member on a subject that naturally lies near to his heart, I have taken upon myself to move that Resolution. In the few words which I propose to address to the House in explanation of the Motion, I trust that I may avoid a single word that would stir up bitter memories of past controversies, and I shall confine myself to stating briefly the facts on which the Motion is based. It will be in the recollection of those hon. Members who had seats in the House; between the years 1880 and 1885 that a long series of painful controversies took place in regard to the position of the hon. Member for Northampton, and that on June 22, 1880, a Resolution was arrived at by the House declaring that the hon. Member should not be permitted to take the oath or make the affirmation required by statute. There were two views presented to the House at that time of the rights and duty of the House of Commons with respect to Members taking the oath or making the affirmation. On one side it was contended that the rights and duty of the House were of a purely ministerial character; that its sole duty was to see that the forms prescribed by

  1159
  law were duly observed; that if any controversy were raised as to the legal effect of what was done in any particular case, that should properly be determined in the Courts of Law, where a legal remedy is provided if the oath is improperly taken; and that a long course of experience has shown that this House has seldom been happy when it has trespassed beyond the strict sphere of its legal duty. On the other hand, it was contended that the House had a right to interfere between a Member and his taking his seat. Whatever views may be entertained on that question, the fact remains that in 1886 and 1887, when the hon. Member for Northampton took the oath at the Table, the House abandoned the position it had formerly taken up and did not interfere with his taking the oath. And again, in 1888, mainly by the exertions of the hon. Member for Northampton himself, an Act was passed which for ever puts an end to the cause of the controversy which then existed. In these controversies there was not only a political, but a personal element. I remember the hon. Member for Northampton himself when he spoke at the Bar of the House referring to the language which had been showered upon him, and expressing himself thus:—"How unworthy I am that this controversy should have to be decided in my person." At that time the name of the hon. Member for Northampton was darkened by a great cloud of misconception. I believe it will be universally admitted that of those who from personal motives and considerations at that time were opposed to his admission to the House— sincerely and conscientiously opposed to it—there are now very few who by this time have not entirely changed their opinion. I think all will be agreed that the hon. Member for Northampton has displayed a most devoted attention to his public duties, unwearied industry, conscientiousness, and great ability, and I think I shall have the assent of Members in all parts of the House when I say that there is no Member who exhibits greater courtesy and fairness to his opponents than the hon. Member for Northampton. With regard to the form of the Motion, it has been framed upon the precedent in Wilkes's case. In that case the Motion that was
  1160
  adopted on May 3, 1782, was that a certain Resolution should be expunged from the Journals "as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom," so that the present Motion is framed strictly on precedent; but I believe I am expressing the views of the hon. Member for Northampton in saying that if there is any difficulty about accepting those words the hon. Member would be satisfied with a Motion rescinding the Resolution of 1880. I believe that I shall best consult the wishes of the House by now leaving in its hands the Motion which I beg to move.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: seconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Resolution of this House of the 22nd day of June 1880, 'That having regard to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees appointed by this House, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath or make the Affirmation mentioned in the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72,' be expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the rights of the body of Electors of this Kingdom."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,: The hon. Member has moved the Resolution which he has proposed to the House with much moderation, recognising that it is a serious thing which he wishes the House to do—namely, to erase as far as may be from its records an incident which is undoubtedly of a very remarkable and very important character. The hon. Member has not gone into that discussion of precedents which took place when this matter was last debated in this House, in the earlier part of 1889. He may be sure that there is no one in this House who does not feel sympathy and regret as to the causes which prevent Mr. Bradlaugh himself from being in the House to argue his own case. But the suggestion which the hon. Member has made to the House, and which was made about two years ago and was then rejected, is a Resolution of a serious character, and should be justified—if it is justified at all—by reference to some considerations of public expediency or to some precedents in our Parliamentary history. In the Debate which took place two years ago several precedents were stated to

  1161
  have occurred for the erasure of a Resolution of this kind, but to-night the hon. Member has mentioned only the case of John Wilkes, who in 1769 was declared by a Resolution of this House incapable of sitting in Parliament, but who afterwards sat in Parliament from 1774 to 1782, and who then, after a series of almost annual Motions, succeeded in obtaining the consent of the House to the erasure of that Resolution. That certainly was an interesting and notable incident, but the House must remember what the circumstances were under which the Resolution of rescision was passed; that it had been moved year after year from 1774 to 1782, and in 1782 it was carried in the House of Commons in a very small House, in spite of the protest of Mr. Fox. It was carried by a House so small in its numbers as to make the question of the rescision of that Resolution one of very little importance indeed—[Opposition cries of"Oh!] —of very little importance indeed, because it had only been rescinded by the House when it was weary of the importunity of successive years, and in a House very much smaller than that in which the Resolution was originally carried. I am sure it will be conceded that the authority of a decision of the House of Commons depends very much upon the number of Members present in the House at the time when the decision is taken. If there had been a distinct controversy raised, and a Resolution passed in a large House with many Members in attendance, and it was afterwards rescinded in a very much smaller House than that in which it was passed and without so distinct a challenge having been raised, its rescision would be, I venture to say, of comparatively small importance. We are now asked, in a small House, to deal with a Resolution which, on the 22nd of June, 1880, was passed after a long and important discussion by a House consisting of over 500 Members. Supposing that the Resolution was not such as the House would now accept, is it according to the traditions of the House, and useful, that that Resolution should be expunged from the proceedings of the House? I venture to say that it is not. I venture to say that there is no precedent for it of any
  1162
  value at all, except the case of Wilkes, and in that case not only was the Motion passed under the circumstances to which I have referred, but the Resolution which it was sought to rescind declared that Wilkes was incapable of sitting in Parliament. But at the time when the Resolution was moved Wilkes was sitting in Parliament, and had been doing so for some years. Therefore it may have appeared to Members that an anomaly existed which they ought to correct, and that they should not leave on the records of the House a Resolution excluding a Member who in fact had been sitting in the House for many years. But these things being remembered in the case of Wilkes, I would ask the House what useful purpose would be gained by the excising of the Resolution passed in 1880? Nothing can do away with the fact that in 1880, after serious challenge and a substantial Debate, the House of Commons came to the Resolution now complained of. No number of Resolutions passed by this House now or hereafter can remove that fact from the Parliamentary history of the country. Whether it was right or wrong, it was a resolution taken and an act done by the House, and I confess that it seems to me childish to strike out from the records of the House an incident which must remain celebrated in the history of this House. But, secondly, supposing that it is desired to contradict the assertions of the Resolution, a more direct way would have been to submit to the House a Resolution raising the real question which was raised in 1880. If that were raised, I should be very glad indeed to meet such a Resolution, and to maintain that the original Resolution was right, and that the act of the House of Commons was not only within its legal and moral competency, but an act which the House was bound, in protection of its own dignity, to do. I would ask the House to note what the Resolution is that was passed in June, 1880, and which it is now sought in some way or another to get rid of. It says that Mr. Bradlaugh should neither be permitted to affirm nor to take oath, and the ground upon which it was arrived at is this:—A Committee of this House reported that Mr. Bradlaugh was not a person, who, as the law then stood, could be allowed to affirm. That was the

  1163
  first proposition, and that proposition was correct in point of law, and was afterwards upheld by the Court of Appeal of this country, which decided that Mr. Bradlaugh was not at the time of the passing of that Resolution a person who in law was entitled to affirm. The other portion of the Resolution forbade him to take the oath, and it was contended that the House of Commons knew, from Mr. Bradlaugh's own statement, that he was a person who in law was disqualified from taking the oath. On that contention the House acted, and on that contention it passed the Resolution That contention was correct, because Mr. Bradlaugh came to the Table of the House and went through a form of taking the oath, and its validity was examined before a Court of law, and it was decided then that the House of Commons was right in its judgment of the 22nd of June, 1880, that Mr. Bradlaugh was not a person who could take the oath. Therefore both the propositions contained in the Resolution of the 22nd of June, 1880, were carefully examined and deliberately affirmed by the best judicial authority of the country. In these circumstances, what is the proposition that is now laid down? It must be admitted that at the time when the Resolution was passed, Mr. Bradlaugh could not take the oath according to law, and could not affirm according to law. What the House of Commons did on the 22nd of June, 1880, was to protect its own dignity and the regularity of its proceedings, by forbidding the performance before it of a ceremony which in law would neither be the valid taking of the oath nor the valid taking of an affirmation. Although it was contended at the time that he was entitled to take one of the two courses, that contention is no longer possible in the face of the decision given by the Courts of Law. In these circumstances, why is the House asked to rescind this Resolution? Is it because the Resolution is not in its substance and its foundation true? That cannot be, because its truth has been established in the Courts of Law. It must be on the ground that although circumstances then known to the House satisfied its judgment—and satisfied its judgment correctly—that neither process would be lawful, that though the House was right, it has
  1164
  no title to enforce the law in its own protection, even when fairly and rightly informed both of the law and the facts. I venture to say that that is not a proposition which can be substantially maintained before this House. I may remind the House that it was not upon extraneous information, upon rumour from outside, or upon evidence which the House was not entitled to regard, that it took this step in 1880. It was in a Debate started by the hon. Member for Northampton on behalf of his colleague, when he moved that Mr. Bradlaugh be allowed to make an affirmation. The only possible ground on which the hon. Member could claim to do so was that an oath was not binding on his conscience, and that very claim gave notice to the House that the hon. Member was not a person who could properly be allowed to go through the mere empty form and ceremony of taking the oath at the Table. The House of Commons had already been advised by its Committee that the hon. Member could not legally affirm, and how can it be suggested that the House of Commons was not entitled to protect its own proceedings? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian proposes to support the Motion in Debate. If he does, I will remind him now of words used by him in Debate in 1880 in regard to the proposed erasure from the Journals of the House of the Resolution of 1769. The right hon. Member said—
  "Mr. Wilkes renewed his Motion from year to year for seven more years, and at last in 1782 he carried it. Not only that, but as a mark of ignominy he induced the House of Commons to expunge the proceedings taken against him from the Journals of the House. He then strengthened and deepened that mark of ignominy by appending to the Motion that the proceedings of the House were subversive of the rights of the body of electors in this country."
  If the right hon. Gentleman is going to support this Resolution in Debate, he will be asking the House of Commons to adopt a Resolution which will not only reverse the decision of 1880, but, as a mark of ignominy, he will be inducing the House of Commons to expunge these proceedings from the Journals of the House. Why is this ignominy to be brought on the Parliament of 1880? The Resolution complained of was not a

  1165
  sudden expression of the partisan feeling of a Party majority of the House. The right hon. Gentleman at that time was Prime Minister and Leader of the House. He had with him a very large majority in the House, and was at the head of one of the strongest Ministries of modern times, and yet, with all the influence that could be brought to bear upon his followers, and with the inspiration of one of the most remarkable speeches the right hon. Gentleman ever delivered in this House, he was defeated by a majority of 275 to 230, this being not at all an expression of Party antagonism, but the expression of a very much stronger and deeper feeling even in parts of the House where the right hon. Gentleman's authority and influence were well recognised—a feeling which induced the majority to refuse to allow proceedings to take place at the Table which they believed would be simply a mockery of legal forms. On that ground I submit to the House that there is no reason for passing the Resolution put forward. There is no doubt a difference of opinion on the point, but I believe absolutely and clearly that the House was within its rights in the proceedings it took; and although by the Act of 1888 the House has removed the difficulty and rendered intelligible the position of Members who desire to come to the House without feeling able to go through the form of taking the oath, yet I trust that if any similar circumstances should happen in the House, the House will have courage and resolution enough to protect itself by passing a similar Resolution. Since 1880 there has no doubt arisen a feeling of sympathy for the hon. Member for Northampton, and the hon. Member has more than once pleaded in the House as if this were a personal matter to him. That no doubt to some extent has moved and swayed the judgment of some hon. Members, but surely that is not a practical way of looking at the matter. The question whether or not this Resolution shall stand does not in the least concern the status in the House of the hon. Member. The Resolution was carried in 1880, but he has been sitting among us since 1885, and if he should come to take his seat in another Parliament the Act of 1888 has removed every difficulty from his way. There
  1166
  can be, then, no personal object in the matter, no such reason as was shown in the Wilkes case. Thus the erasure of the Resolution will answer no purpose, and while I contend that that Resolution was rightly come to, was justified by the facts and by the opinion of the House of Commons at that time, and was distinctly and unequivocally endorsed and upheld by the Courts of Law, I contend that it having been come to by the House of Commons, and also entered upon the Journals of the House, as a record of an interesting and important incident in Parliamentary history, it will answer no useful purpose, nor will it be in furtherance of any principle, or in relief of any individual from disqualification now, to remove it from the Journals of the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am happy to think that in this Debate the speeches have been brief and the tone temperate. I shall endeavour to follow the example which has been so well set by my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and make no long demand upon the time of the House. In point of fact, I think that while length of speaking may sometimes be warrantable in the view of zealous advocates, for the purpose of covering a case which is felt to be weak, we who support the Motion of my hon. Friend have such confidence in the strength and in the simplicity of our case that it would be quite unwarrantable if we were to lead the House into lengthened disquisition. I cannot help saying, after having heard the speech of the Solicitor General—of whose acuteness we are all perfectly well aware—I cannot help intimating a suspicion that the Solicitor General himself has spoken with a feeling of some discomfort, mistrust, and misgiving, as to the nature of the arguments he was using, which I admit he may have been so far justified in using, that there were no better ones that could have been brought forward. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must not suppose that this is a gratuitous flourish or endeavour to inflict pain or slight or disparagement upon anyone by passing a Motion which he began by saying was totally unnecessary. I will endeavour to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the reasons. The proceedings of this House, speaking generally, are

  1167
  precedents for the future conduct of the House. Whatever proceeding stands uncorrected is a precedent pro tanto, and is presumptively entitled to some degree of weight and authority, or at any rate we are entitled to suppose, if it remains, and remains unattacked, that it does not contain within it the elements of a vicious principle. We believe that the proceeding in question is one that cannot be defended, and that it was fraught with one of the most mischievous and dangerous of all principles—namely, excess of jurisdiction. We believe that that constitutes the strongest reason for removing it. I say, Sir, that excess of jurisdiction is a matter which is usually subject to appeal. Even if it is not subject to appeal, it is limited to a particular case. It is sure to be noted, and it is most unlikely to recur. But in an assembly possessed of the almost immeasurable powers that belong to this House, and in an assembly with regard to which appeal against its proceedings is a thing totally unknown—for no power on earth can interfere with them so far as regards its control over its own Members—excess of jurisdiction is the greatest fault the House can possibly commit, however honest or conscientious it may be; and to leave on our records, with a presumptive authority, a case of manifest excess of jurisdiction is to leave upon our records the seeds of future mischief to be appealed to and turned to evil account in evil times. I think that is a pretty strong reason for our proceeding in this case. The hon. and learned Gentleman relies a good deal upon the Judgments of the Courts of Law. Sir, the Judgments of the Courts of Law do not touch the point. They do not notice the excess of jurisdiction on the part of the House. If the question had been raised before the Courts of Law whether the House had acted within its right, and the Courts of Law had then affirmed that the House had acted within its right, then I could understand the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But no such question could be raised before the Courts of Law. I might be considered guilty of a criminal offence—it is unlikely, but I can conceive of such a case—I or any Member of this House might be considered guilty of some criminal offence, and that criminal
  1168
  offence might be practically within the knowledge of those who hear me. That would not justify the House in passing; judgment and condemnation upon me. It is one of the highest duties of this. House to limit its own functions and jurisdiction, and I cannot therefore agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in considering this Motion as being without any substantial meaning and purpose, for the object which I have endeavoured imperfectly to describe is one of high and serious order. The hon. and learned Gentleman says this is only a small House, and that only a few Members are present compared with the numbers who passed these Resolutions. But is that a just criterion? This House may now be smaller than it otherwise would be, on account of the reluctance of some hon. Members to take that part in this discussion which their Party allegiance might seem to entail on them in regard to the Motion of my hon. Friend. That may account for the partial reduction in the attendance this evening, and for the comparative smallness of the number of Members present; but the true answer is that the smallness of the House is not the test. I remember a good case in point. For three months, in 1851 we were engaged in a desperate battle over the Ecclesiastical Tithes Bill and it was discussed in large Houses of 300, 400, and 500 Members. I should like to know how many Members were in the House when that measure was repealed. It was not a case so grave as this, for it was a matter of policy, while this is a case of jurisdiction. But it was a case in which everyone felt that a great and grievous error had been made, yet I should not be surprised to find that the Act was repealed in a House of less-than 100 Members. The hon. and learned Member says that the rescinding of the Resolution in the case of Wilkes was not entitled to much authority, because it was carried in a small House. I presume there was a small House, because there was a general concurrence in what was being done. If it was a small House owing to surprise that would be a different matter; but there could be no surprise in the case, for, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, the Motion had been made year by year and Session after Session, and its Sessional revival was a notice to all

  1169
  who cared to be present at the discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to admit, however, that in the case of Wilkes there was some reason for a proceeding of that kind, because it was felt to be a Parliamentary anomaly that there should be sitting in the House of Commons in his corporeal form a gentleman with regard to whom there was, on the Journals of the House, a. Resolution declaring him incapable of so sitting. But does not the hon. and learned Gentleman see that that exactly applies to the present case? Yes, precisely. If that was a matter of consideration in the case of Wilkes it must also be so in the present case. I will only mention another point in regard to which I feel the House will do well to correct the error into which it fell on a former occasion. I myself was one of the minority, but I was a Member of the House, and am concerned in the honour of that past House and of every House in which I have had the privilege of having sat, and I am therefore anxious that we should clear ourselves as well as the rest of the House from the discredit of an act which involved serious error. What I feel—what is felt on this side of the House, and what I think must on reflection be felt on the other side of the House also—is this: The strength of the case against Mr. Bradlaugh depended upon the words drawn by us from his own mouth. We sent him before a Committee. Before that Committee Mr. Bradlaugh, with an ingenuousness which does him honour, but with a simplicity which a practised man of the world would have qualified on such an occasion, made statements which caused us to become seised of the state of his mind in regard to questions of religious belief, and it was by our own act and by the pressure put by us on him that we drew from him statements on which our subsequent proceedings were based. I do not think that was a generous proceeding. However viewed then, viewed calmly now in the light of the golden distance, we must feel that that was a proceeding open to correction. Now, with regard to the form of this Motion, the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from a speech of mine in reference to the similar Motion in Wilkes's case. I pointed out that Mr. Wilkes's Motion not only relieved him from all difficulty and
  1170
  cleared up finally and completely the case in which he was concerned, but it carried a sting in it and recorded a distinct reproach against the House of Commons by describing the proceedings which it was supposed to rescind, "as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom." Those words are repeated in the Resolution of my hon. Friend now before the House. I confess I should be glad if we could arrive at some pacific solution of this question, and I venture to suggest we should do no harm by consenting to the omission of these words. Our object is to remove these records from the Journals of the House, which, so long as they remain there, give them some kind of title of authority as precedents. Our object is a wholly practical one. I think if we attain this object the hon. Member for Northampton may feel we do him no injustice in consenting to abandon the attempt to place on the Journals of the House words which convey a reproach on a former House which is totally unnecessary. If we are able to dispense with the closing words of my hon. Friend's Resolution, which I understand he is willing to do, I would commend this Motion to the House as one that is called for by the circumstances of the case, and one which may save its successors from the danger of committing the most dangerous error— the error, namely, of exceeding the limits of its own jurisdiction.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: As the House is aware, I may claim some hereditary interest in this matter, and I should like therefore to say one or two words, such as I believe Lord Iddesleigh would have used had he been with us. As a private Conservative Member I should like to remark that all who heard the speaker, the introducer of the Motion, must be prepared to acknowledge the admirable tone and temper with which the question has been brought forward. All on this side of the House will be perfectly prepared also to recognise fully the good service which the junior Member for Northampton has rendered in the House, and to unite in expressing deep regret at his serious illness. Having said this I may venture to suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that the compromise which the right hon. Gentleman

  1171
  the Member for Mid Lothian has recommended be accepted at once and with unanimity. By the adoption of this course the wish of the hon. Member for Northampton, which has been referred to, to the effect that no pain might be given to Members on this side of the House; will be gratified. As the Motion stands at present it would be impossible for us on this side of the House to accept it, for we cannot admit that the action of the former Parliament was illegal. But as the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has expressed his opinion that the insertion of the words to which exception is taken is not obligatory, so far as I am concerned, I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House can see his way to adopt the amended Resolution.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not wish to prolong the Debate. I think for many reasons it would be undesirable to do so. Speaking in a sense as the personal representative of Mr. Bradlaugh, I may say that he will consent willingly to these words being withdrawn. If the Resolution be passed without them, my hon. Friend will regard the matter as entirely settled; and when my hon. Friend returns amongst us, as we all hope he will soon, he will in no sort of way raise the question again.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I feel that after the admirable appeal of my hon. Friend from behind me, and after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, it is only right that I should intervene now and state the course which the Government propose to take. I must express for myself, and, I am sure, for all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, the great regret we feel at the illness of the hon. Member for Northampton. As the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen has remarked, the Member for Northampton is undoubtedly a warm partisan. He takes a strong view on all points on which he thinks it right to give expression to his views in this House; but he has been undoubtedly a valuable addition to this House, not only from the freedom and independence with which he has expressed his views, but from the manner in which he has
  1172
  conducted himself in this House. We lave now to consider his Motion in his absence. He would, no doubt, have preferred to make a statement in the House on the subject himself, ably and temperately as it has been done by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen. There are a few observations which I wish to make. While acknowledging the moderate tone and temperate spirit which have characterised the debate on this question, I wish to take exception, so far as the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian is concerned, to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in which he urged us to expunge the Resolution of 1880 from the Journals of the House, on the ground that all the proceedings of the House are precedents, and are binding on the House in future. Undoubtedly the proceedings of the House are valuable precedents for the guidance of the House in its business. They are precedents, and; ought to be precedents, unless the law is altered in respect to that which was entered on the Journals. The law has been altered in the case of the oath. It was altered by the Act of 1888, and the proceedings of the House in 1880 can therefore form no precedent whatever. Therefore I should contend—and I hope I am not introducing contentious matter into this Debate—that the House in 1880 did not exceed its jurisdiction. It has been shown distinctly, and conclusively, that the House acted according to the best interpretation that it had of the law of the land, and of Parliament at that time. The evidence on which that action was grounded was the statement of the Member for Northampton himself, as to his own views made before the Committee. The House acted upon that information, which shows conclusively that in so acting it was not acting without knowledge, and it so acted to give effect to what was the law of the land at the time. If the hon. Member had refused to answer the questions put to him, he would no doubt have been within his right in doing so, but in giving his answers he acted in a consistent, straightforward and manly manner. I am quite sure the hon. Member for Northampton would be the last person in the world to complain of the consequences of his own acts, or that, his words formed the ground upon which action was based. I have considered

  1173
  very carefully the suggestion which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, and supported by my hon. Friend behind (Sir S. North-cote).We remain of the opinion expressed in the Resolution of 1880. We believe that the House at that time did its duty—the majority of the House, which consisted not only of Conservatives, but a large contingent of Liberals. But, Sir, the circumstances are entirely changed. There is no longer any necessity for maintaining on the Journals of the House this Resolution, and in all the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh has been a useful Member of this House during the last six or seven years, I, for one, shall not resist the Motion,' which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, upon the understanding that the last words impugning the authority and control of the House are struck out. I could not under any circumstances, consent to say that the House in 1880 exceeded its duty—that it did anything contrary to the law of Parliament, or anything in derogation of the rights and privileges of the people. But if it is merely the desire that the Resolution of 1880 should be erased from the records, I shall offer no opposition.
  MR. HUNTER: I believe I shall be acting in accordance with the wish of the hon. Member for Northampton, and as he would act if he were here, in accepting the suggestion which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has made, but I think it right to point out to the House that these concluding words were inserted in the Resolution, I imagine, rather from a strict fidelity to the precedent my hon. Friend (Mr. Brad-laugh) was copying, than with the intention of making any suggestion derogatory to the House. Therefore I will move the Resolution, omitting the words "as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom."
  MR. NORRIS: In the painful circumstances, I am most unwilling to prolong the Debate; but I think that no conclusive argument or justification has been brought forward for expunging the Resolution from the Journals of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian stated more
  1174
  than once that he thought the House in 1880 committed an excess of its jurisdiction, but I may remind hon. Members that at that period the right hon. Gentleman was himself responsible for the proceedings in this House; he was then omnipotent, with a large majority at his back. I can only endorse the words of the Solicitor General, and it has been plainly proved that no useful purpose can be served by removing the Resolution from the Records. I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division; but I wish, on the part of myself and many Friends around me, to point out to our Front Bench that we are not entirely unanimous, and to make a personal protest.
  MR. DE LISLE: I beg, consistently with the action I have taken on former occasions, to enter my personal protest against the course which has been adopted in making the compromise. It may be a matter of small consequence whether the Resolution is expunged or not from some points of view, but I think that if such a step is taken it will tend to lower the status and dignity of the House of Commons. I have expressed the opinion before, that a national assembly which legalises atheism and whitewashes treason cannot long withstand the waves of anarchy which threaten to overwhelm all civilised countries. I may be wrong in my view, but I avail myself of my privilege and make my protest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian may now contend that the Government recognise the force of his arguments, and that is a position which he is clearly entitled to take up. The Government have consented to expunge this Motion from the Journals of the House. I foresee the day, not long hence, when an effort will be made, and successfully made, to expunge the Report of the Parnell Commission as being an excess of jurisdiction. The Leader of the House at that time will say to the mover of the Resolution, "I deny your arguments, but you shall have your way." If we cast our eyes back to the History of the English Parliament, I, as a royalist, maintain that this House was guilty of exceeding its jurisdiction when it condemned King Charles I., but I hare

  1175
  never heard that at the Restoration it was proposed to expunge the record of that event. I can only express my deep regret at the illness of Mr. Bradlaugh. I never opposed his action from any personal or private motives. It always appeared to me to be simply a matter of principle, and if, on former occasions, I opposed the abolition of the oath, I did so in the belief that the abolition of the oath entailed the abolition of the decalogue. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I maintain in strict logic if the decalogue has no higher sanction than the dictum of Moses, then it has no binding force upon us, but recent events prove to us that the decalogue is as sacred to those who sit opposite as it is to those who sit around me. I can only express my deep regret that Her Majesty's Government have retired from the position which I thought they would always maintain when I first sought the honour of representing a constituency of my native county as a Member of the Tory Party.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I regret extremely that we are not unanimous on this question. I had hoped that we should not have a dissentient voice from the offer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which has been accepted by the leader of the House. The Tory Party feel that they were right in the course they took in 1880; but things have altered since then. The Act of 1888 has made a great difference. The conduct and the character of Mr. Bradlaugh since he has been in the House have been such that, whatever our political opinions may be, we cannot help admiring the straightforwardness of that hon. Member in the discharge of his duties as a Member. A generous feeling has prevailed towards Mr. Bradlaugh, and I hope it will continue to prevail when the House learns the circumstances in which that hon. Member is now placed. God grant that the junior Member for Northampton may recover; but whatever happens, hon. Members will feel that, by accepting this Motion, they have done a generous act to a man who has endeavoured to do his duty.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion must be withdrawn so as to be brought up in an amended form.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the Resolution of this House of the 22nd day of June, 1880—'That, having regard for the Reports and proceedings of two Select Committees, appointed by this House, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath or make the Affirmation mentioned in the statute 29 Vic., c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic., c. 72,'—be expunged from the Journals of this House,
  —put, and agreed to.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS.
  MR. LENG: Rose to move a Resolution standing in his name on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposes
  "To call attention to the Return presented to both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of section 4 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889; and to move for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the hours of labour of Railway Servants, and to confer certain powers on the Board of Trade."
  I am afraid that in the face of the decision of the House on Friday, it will be impossible for him to make that Motion. Further steps would first have to be taken to rescind the Resolution of Friday, which affirm that no Bill ought to be brought in giving powers to the Board of Trade. The hon. Member's Resolution would, therefore, be out of Order.

  SECRETARY FOR MINES.
  MR. W. P. MORGAN: I rise to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable to create a Department to have the control and supervision of the mining industries of the country, to be controlled by a Minister of the Crown, such Minister to be called the Secretary for Mines."
  It is the first time that a Motion of this character has been brought before the House, but we have a precedent for the creation of new Ministers in the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. We have also the example set us by all our Colonies, who have Ministers of Mines to whom appeal can be made in matters affecting the mining industry. It should be borne in mind that the total output of the mineral wealth of the Australian Colonies is £26,000,000, while the average of the United Kingdom varies from £75,000,000 to £80,000,000 per annum. I submit that this fact shows the necessity for the

  1177
  creation of a new office, which, can easily be controlled by a Minister like the present Minister of Agriculture. For such an important industry as that of mining it is essential, to my mind, that there should be some Minister in the House to whom appeals can be made with reference to it. We know that when questions arise in this House affecting the industry of mining, the Home Secretary has to reply in his place. We know that the mining industry is suffering, particularly in Wales, because there are an insufficient number of inspectors of collieries, and we know well that whenever a catastrophe happens, then, and then only, are these matters taken notice of. The mine proprietors are quite able to take care of themselves, but it is the bounden duty of the State to see that life and limb are properly protected in the carrying on this great and important industry. I will not detain the House at any length on this matter, but I must say it does seem to those who are connected with the industry to be an extraordinary thing that in this House there is the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking after the interests of the Mining Department in one respect, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary looking after it in another respect. If any one refers to either of these Ministers he is usually sent first from one to the other, and finally to some Department where very little is known of the subject which is being administered. I am anxious, on the other hand, to concentrate all the business connected with the mining industry under one head, so that hon. Members may have some one to whom they can appeal, not only with respect to the condition of the industry itself, but as to the risk to life and limb which those engaged in it are continually incurring. We know that when an; accident occurs at a colliery an inquiry is held. As the matter stands at present responsibility cannot rest upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary; but if there were a Minister of Mines in the House, we should be able to appeal to him, and he would be responsible not only to this House but to the country. The Home Secretary has other onerous and important duties to perform, irrespective of taking charge of the mining
  1178
  industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also has important duties to perform, and cannot devote his time to the matter. I bring forward this Motion in the hope that the Government will favourably consider it. It is no party question, but one which may have an important bearing upon the development of the mineral wealth of the country. If we had some one to whom we could appeal when we got into disputes, it would be greatly to the interest of the industry. We have a Commission now sitting to inquire into the question of mining royalties, which Commission is doing important work. Shortly it will present its report, but there will be no one on the Ministerial Bench in a position to speak for the Government on the question of mining royalties generally. I have no desire to thresh out the question now, but, having had this opportunity of dealing with it for a few moments, I trust the House will receive the Motion in the spirit in which I tender it—with a desire to do all that can be done to develop the mineral resources of the country.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to second the Motion. It is well known that the Home Office is overburdened with work, such as that which is connected with a magistracy and other matters, and the consequence has been that it has not been able to pay that amount of attention to the interests of the great mining industry which that industry deserves and ought to receive. I do not intend to say anything against the manner in which the Home Secretary has discharged his functions in regard to the mining interests, because, as I have already said, I believe the Home Secretary has quite sufficient to do in regard to the other matters I have mentioned. We know from long experience that when accidents do occur in connection with mines, it takes the Home Office a long time to analyse the facts. The Home Secretary has to receive information from the various persons engaged in investigating the circumstances, including the Coroner, and the Inspectors of Mines, and this information he must necessarily have sufficient time to consider in order that he may be in a position to determine what course he ought to pursue. We

  1179
  also know that it often happens that in cases where prosecutions may hare been expected there are no prosecutions at all. When we remember that there are now between 3,000 and 4,000 large mines in the country, with all the ramifications which make them so different from what mines were some years ago, it is only reasonable to suppose that it has become necessary that some one person shall be responsible and be at the head of some department which shall have these matters under its particular supervision, and have the means of understanding exactly the real position of affairs. When we remember that the Home Secretary has not only to receive all the Reports sent to him of Coroner's inquests, together with the results of investigations made by the Inspectors of Mines, but is also called upon to answer whatever questions may be put to him from time to time in this House, it must be clear to those who consider the subject that the person who has to deal with all these important matters should occupy some position in connection with the Government, which should be not only that of a Secretary of State, but should also be accompanied by a seat in the Cabinet. Considering this matter as I have done from time to time, I have come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary, as far as he is personally concerned, would be thankful to be relieved from that portion of his duties which relate to mines. I have no doubt that were he now in his place the Home Secretary would tell us that he would like to be relieved from this portion of the work he has to do, and that he would be glad if he could see his way to the adoption of a Resolution like this, which, if carried, I have no doubt will be productive of a great deal of good not only in relation to the saving of life, but also in regard to the development of the great mining industry. I have no desire further to protract this Debate, and, therefore, will at once conclude by seconding this Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to create a Department to have the control and supervision of the Mining Industries of the Country, to be controlled by a Minister of the Crown, such Minister to be called the Secretary for Mines."—(Mr. Pritchard Morgan.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. C. STUART WORTLEY,: There are here two principal questions to which I think the House ought to pay attention. The first is whether the mining industry is in such a position of pre-eminence and superior magnitude in comparison with all others that it is desirable it should have special administrative treatment; and the second is whether, assuming that it occupies such a pre-eminent position, it is desirable that the State should undertake the functions foreshadowed in the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. I should be the last to dispute the great importance of the mining industry, both with regard to the magnitude of the wealth which it adds to our national resources and the greatness of the risks to the property invested in it, and, what is of even more importance, the risk to the lives of those who are engaged in its prosecution. These are matters which must in any case occupy a very large place in the view of Parliament. But when the hon. Member goes further and proposes that the mining industry should be treated exceptionally in comparison with other industries and should have a particular Minister to itself, he is making a proposal which proceeds on a fallacious view of the right functions of the Government in this country. It is quite true that there is already a very important connection between Parliament and the mining industry. The mining industry is one of the regulated industries of the country—regulated by minute rules laid down in Statutes to which Parliament has given much labour and attention, and by those regulations and restrictions important additions have been made, not only to the Criminal Law, but also to that part of the law which, though properly described as not criminal, yet involves penalties for its infraction. Now the enforcement of this law is a very important function, because it is one which concerns the safety of the lives of large numbers of miners no less than with the question of property. For the discharge of the functions connected with these matters there is already a Department fully equal to the task imposed upon it. But that is not all. The State is not merely

  1181
  charged with the duty of laying down regulations in the interests of the miners with regard to life, but in another capacity it may be the owner of the soil under which the mine was driven, or, in virtue of its sovereignty, may be entitled to a reversionary right in regard to royalties and other dues. The uniting in one Minister of the functions arising from those different relations would be neither logical nor necessarily advantageous. But it is not alone in the case of mines in which various interests have to be dealt with that State regulation is required. Factories are, perhaps, even more minutely regulated than mines, but I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would say on that account that a special Minister should have charge of factories. To justify a Motion of this kind there must be reason for complaint with regard to such action as the State has undertaken. I will say, in the absence of the Home Secretary, that my right hon. Friend has been careful, both with respect to the enforcement of the existing law and to its improvement; and not merely has he shown great interest and acuteness in devising improvements in the law, but it may be contended with justice that he is in advance of public opinion, and of the opinion of those who are specially skilled in this matter, and in support of that contention I may appeal to the fact that my right hon. Friend has announced his intention to institute a new inquiry as to the special properties of accumulations of coal dust in mines, with a view to diminishing the number of explosions. The hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the Motion may think that certain delays have interfered with the enforcement of the law. The expiry of the three months limit for prosecutions has possibly caused defeats of justice. But that has been because the pendency of an inquest has rendered inevitable a delay in deciding. When inquests have to be resorted to, an elaborate review of the facts is necessary, and until that inquiry is concluded no Department could say that we are in a position to judge whether a prosecution is likely to succeed in the particular case. In a former Debate on the subject of the inspection of mines, my right hon. Friend admitted that the period of three months, which has to elapse before he is in a position to decide
  1182
  whether to prosecute, is too short. I venture to submit that the case of the hon. Member who says the Home Office Department which has charge of mining affairs is overworked, and is therefore incapable of properly dealing with these matters, has not been substantiated. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion complained that where accidents take place in mines there is no Minister who is responsible. I would ask the hon. Member does he seriously mean that any Minister should be put in a position involving administrative responsibility for the occurrence of all accidents in mines?
  MR. PICKARD: I said there should be some one responsible for legislative action in this House, not administrative action.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: So there is. We have at present a Minister who is responsible for most of the legislation introduced into this House, but it is clear that nobody but the House itself can be responsible for the legislation it sanctions. I submit that the speeches which have been delivered interpreting the Motion show that the duty which it is sought to impose upon the State is far in excess of the duties which the State should undertake.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Sir, I should like to say a few words before the subject is allowed to drop. The hon. Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, seemed to suggest that my hon. Friends were going beyond precedent in asking for the appointment of a Minister of Mines, and that there was no other industry in this country which claimed or received such special attention. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are simply following the precedent formed by the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. If the industry of agriculture is deserving of such special recognition, the mining industry is entitled to even more recognition by reason of its importance to every other industry in the country. Hardly any industry, no matter what its character, can proceed without there has first been recourse to the bowels of the earth for various minerals, notably coal to generate motive power. I do not think it needs a single additional word to establish the mining industry. Then comes the question, does it need the control and support of a Minister of Mines. The

  1183
  hon. Gentleman who has replied for the Government has taken an exceedingly narrow point of view. He seems to be unable to carry his view further than the question of the regulation of mines for the prevention of accident. But collieries do not solely constitute the mining industry of this country. I am connected with tin mining in Cornwall; and while we are dependent on coal for the prosecution of tin mining, the latter industry is none the less one of great importance. In other districts of the country, various other minerals are extensively mined. While I recognise the first importance of protecting women and children from excessive hours and excessive labour, and the men from the dangers of their calling, still what we want to see besides is a development of our mines. We want a special Department of the Government for the purpose of looking after the mining industry, which has been, I will not say throttled, but hampered, through the control exercised by private individuals. In other countries there are mining Departments, and mining Ministers, and those countries are immensely benefited. We believe that a similar institution in this country would be attended with great and beneficial results to the mining industry. It would bring about a further development of mining enterprise, while at the same time providing for careful attention to the safety of those employed. We ask for the creation of a Government Department which will control the hampering influences of landlords, who are the absolute monopolists of our soil and all our mineral wealth, and for the purpose of giving our mines such fair play as will tend to the enormous development of our mineral interests. In Cornwall mine after mine, which when in full operation employed 10,000 men, has been closed, until there are now only two at work. That condition of things is owing to the harsh and restrictive conditions imposed by the ground landlords, which make it impossible for outside capitalists to bring in their capital and develop the mining industry. There is any amount of mineral wealth in that part of the country undeveloped, and only awaiting proper appliances and inducements. The immunity from control enjoyed by the landlords, especially in regard to royalties, and the many restrictions which they can impose, have
  1184
  led to the deterioration of our mining industry, and we think that a Minister of Mines would be useful in checking these adverse influences and in relieving the mining industry from those harassing conditions which at present do anything but induce capital to come to its assisttance. I think the idea of a Minister of Mines is a step in the right direction, but I should look upon it only as one step. I also attach importance to the suggestion of having Mining Courts, and I am hopeful that we shall see them some day, whether in conjunction with a Minister of Mines or not. It seems to me that the precedent of a Minister of Agriculture forms a strong argument in favour of the Government introducing a Bill for the appointment of a Minister of Mines. In our Colonies such a system exists, and it is attended with beneficial results. In all the great mining countries of the world, Mexico, South Africa, South America, and on the Continent, you will find that Government control is exercised for the purpose of giving fair play and free scope to mining enterprise. I should like to call attention to a passage in the Report of Dr. E. Foster, who succeeded Mr. Harrington Smyth at the School of Science. In his Report, published in the year 1887, on the mining industries of our Colonies, on page 23, he says:—
  "It is not generally known in England that the Government of Victoria, like that of some of the sister Colonies, spends several thousand pounds every year in prospecting with diamond drills, and in subsidising Companies or individuals using them. Cores from 1 inch to 3¼ inches in diameter were shown by the Mines Department. They had been drawn up when prospecting for quartz reefs, for deep all vial 'leads' hidden under basaltic lava flows, or for coal seams in the mesozoio strata. Some of these boreholes have been the means of discovering gold. The Report of the Secretary for Mines on 'Diamond Drills in Victoria,' describes the work done up to the end of 1884, and explains many useful improvements upon the original drills imported from the United States."
  I have here a communication from Dr. Foster, giving me details—with which I will not trouble the House—regarding experiments which have taken place during the last year or two. Now, if we had a mining bureau we could follow the example thus set by our Colonies, and stimulate to an enormous extent the development of our mining industry. It is well known that there are enormous districts in this country in which some

  1185
  mining operations have been carried out, but which contain latent resources only awaiting enterprise for development, and which should be fostered here, as they have been in our Colonies. Let me refer to the action which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Pritchard Morgan) with great public spirit has taken up in the interest of the mining industry, and those who have spent their capital in developing the gold-mining industry of Wales, an action in which he unfortunately has not met with great success in the Law Courts. Questions affecting Crown rights are involved in this litigation. I am not going to question the legal decisions, all I will say is it is very hard that a private individual who has done his best to develope this gold mining industry should be mulcted in an enormous sum for the purpose of deciding these questions. The hon. Member for Merthyr made no personal allusions, but we who stand outside may point out that this offers a strong argument why we should have a Minister of Mines, for with such a Minister and his Department, great questions of public rights such as these would be taken up and settled in a scientific manner without discouraging persons who do their best to develop the resources of the country, putting them to enormous expense and anxiety in fighting these questions in the Law Courts. It should also be mentioned that the geological survey of the country is by no means in the condition it ought to be, and if we had such a Minister, a great stimulus would be given to that branch of science, to the improvement of the trade and industry of the country. In previous Sessions I have drawn attention to the magnificent series of geological maps provided by the Government of the United States of their territory, far superior to anything I have discovered in any museum or library in this country. We want these things attended to, as at present they are not. At the present time the Department of the Home Office is crowded with an enormous amount of detail with which the Home Secretary and his subordinates have to deal. I am not for a moment complaining of the Home Secretary or his Department. I can only say that it appears to me altogether impossible, that any single human being can properly look after all the interests which are heaped upon the Home Secretary, and I
  1186
  think I may say that almost every other kind of business the Home Department has to do has priority of urgency of attention before the mining, industry of the country, I mean in the particular direction I am alluding to. I am not referring to the mere questions of the administration of Acts passed at different times for the protection of life in coal and other mines. I think it must be admitted we have made out a good case for the assistance we conceive might advantageously be extended to this important industry, and we have indicated instructive precedents. We have raised a question that must be solved one of these days, and if we do not get what we want from the present Government, then we shall from their successors.
  MR. RANDELL: I simply wish to express my approval of the Motion for the creation of a separate Department of State and a Minister in touch with the important mining interests in the country. It is a justifiable step, and I might even say an imperative necessity. It would soon be justified by the great increase and rapid development of the mining industry throughout the country. The Motion should command the support of both Parties in the House. The Home Secretary has deservedly won the regard of the mining interest and those who represent it in this House; but however desirous he may be to promote mining questions, it is impossible for him to do so with much advantage so long as he has so many subjects demanding his attention.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Inasmuch as I represent a constituency composed almost entirely of miners, it is right I should say a word in support of the Motion. The mineral wealth of this country is such that it should have a separate Department to look after this interest. An objection was raised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government that this would increase the cost of administration, but the wealth and importance of the industry is such that it might well bear the expenditure required for a Department to look after its interests. The mineral wealth of this country amounts to about £80,000,000 a year. The Home Secretary has multifarious duties to perform, and though I am bound to say there is considerable satisfaction with the readiness

  1187
  with which, the Home Secretary listens to our complaints or demands, yet there is some dissatisfaction on account of the delay in the attention given to mining matters at the Home Office. There is a subject I brought before the House on another occasion, but which is germane to the question now before us. If we had a Minister of Mines we should not have more delay in the appointment of sub-inspectors of mines, a delay which is fraught with danger to the lives of miners. I think there was a promise last Session that the Home Secretary would look into the matter, but we can quite believe that, occupied as the right hon. Gentleman is with many affairs, he has not been able to give the necessary attention to, and bring his mind to a conclusion on the matter. But I do not think that if we had a Minister of Mines there would be any more delay. It is an imperative necessity, and must take place before long, and for this reason, among many others, I support the Motion.
  MR. WARMINGTON: The recent appointment of a Minister of Agriculture strengthens, I think, our claim for the appointment of a Minister of Mining. The conditions of mining are much more hazardous than the conditions of agriculture, and the reasons are much more urgent for supervision and control. There is a general feeling among those engaged in the mining industry that the Home Secretary is too far removed from them and their interests, and all his information filters through inspectors. I do not say that this is justifiable, but I know I speak the view of miners that the Secretary for the Home Department is not sufficiently near them and sufficiently interested in their pursuits that they have confidence that their interests are properly safeguarded. Equally I think I speak the view of miners when I say that their wants and interests have never been more regarded by any Home Secretary than by the right hon. Gentleman who now fills that office. He has shown an amount of sympathy and intimacy with the wants and work of miners I very gladly recognise. Yet it must be admitted that the duties of the Home Secretary are too much dispersed over many interests to hope that the mining industry can receive that attention which is required.
  MR. BURT: I can testify to the fact that there is a very strong feeling among miners in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Mines. Again and again that feeling has found expression in Resolutions passed at conferences and in deputations to successive Home Secretaries. The belief which I think rests on a solid foundation is that the Home Secretary is so over-burdened with work that it is impossible for him to give the time necessary to many important matters connected with the mining industry. In saying this I find no fault with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary has discharged those duties in connection with mining which are entrusted to him under various Acts. I must express my dissent from one remark that fell from my hon. Friend who introduced this Motion, that it would be an advantage to transfer the control of mines to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think that would be any improvement, but quite the reverse. As regards the number of men employed, the risks attending the prosecution of the industry, the amount of capital invested, the influence upon other trades, the industry is of such transcendant importance that there ought to be a Minister to devote his time and attention almost exclusively to this one thing.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I am opposed to the multiplying of Ministers, but it would perhaps be convenient that the Permanent Under Secretary at the Home Office should be understood to be the official at the Home Office at the head of all matters affecting mining interests. But the Government would do well to wait for the Report of the now sitting Commission before making any change in present arrangements. It may be found desirable to establish Mining Courts to decide certain points, but a decision now would, I think, be premature. It would be well to wait until the Report of the Commission is in our hands.
  MR. ABRAHAM: I am very glad to hear a, Gentleman from the front bench admitting the importance of the coal industry, though he did not allow that pre-eminence we claim for it. It is, perhaps, natural that practical colliers

  1189
  should think there is no industry in the country more important than coal mining. No other industry can claim to be so essential to the success of all other undertakings. At all events, we, more than other persons, feel the necessity of having in the House a Minister to whom we can appeal for immediate assistance in all matters affecting safety to life and limb in the working of mines. We know the importance to miners of having an authority of this kind. I gladly recognise the spirit in which our claims have at various times been met on either side of the House, for this is no Party question; it is a question vital to life and limb. The exhaustion of physical power and nervous energy is such a danger in mines that there ought to be certain limits laid down beyond which miners should not be permitted to go to the danger of the lives of themselves and of their fellow-workmen. There is danger in a man working an unlimited number of hours. If we had a Minister to whom we could directly apply, before whom we could bring evidence, to whom we could make representations, I say, with all respect to the gentlemen now in the Home Department, we feel that the wants and wishes of our many thousand workmen underground would receive the required attention, and the danger to life and limb would be minimised. The mining industry will owe a debt of gratitude to any Government which brings this result about.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I can testify to the good results which have attended the appointment of such a Minister in our Colonies. In the Australian Colonies there are Ministers of Mines, and there is every reason to believe that, if there were a corresponding Minister in this country, the existence of a separate department would have a beneficial influence on the development of mining industries. I therefore support the Motion of the hon. Member.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I wish to assure hon. Members opposite who are identified with mining industries that Her Majesty's Government will leave nothing undone that could in any way minimise danger to life and limb in the working of mines. We are fully alive to our responsibility in this respect, and if we
  1190
  hesitate to accept a Resolution in favour of the creation of a Minister of Mines, it is simply because we do not believe that at the present moment a case has been made out for the creation of a new Department to be represented by a responsible Minister. Much more evidence will have to be adduced to justify an addition being made to the large number of officials representing the Government in this and the other House of Parliament; and it is not absolutely certain that the addition of another Minister would secure all the advantages that hon. Members desire to obtain. Hon. Members will admit that there must be circumstances that weigh with the Government which cannot so well be appreciated by non-official Members. I say at once that if the creation of such a Minister would be the means of preventing a recurrence of mining accidents that shock the country, then by all means let such a Minister be appointed. But hon. Gentlemen know better than I do, that accidents occur from circumstances no precautions can control, from causes apparently beyond the control of man, and in fact unknown to those who suffer from them. My hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) has stated that the Secretary of State is already taking steps with the view of securing a further examination of the causes of accidents in coal mines. The right hon. Gentleman has consulted me on the question, and I have assured the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will give him the fullest assistance in the investigation he has directed. If he is right in the course he has taken, and his assumption of the causes of some of the accidents we deplore, in the result he will confer a greater benefit on the country than any of the Home Secretaries of the past. He is engaged now in these investigations. It is a question whether a special Minister could do more than is being done at present for mines and miners; and if their special claim is conceded, it may be that other industries will then put in a similar claim. We have other regulated industries, including cotton factories, railways, and shipping; indeed, all factories are inspected; and the Acts affecting these interests are carried out under the superintendence of the Home Office or the Board of Trade, and recently a Minister of Agriculture has been created.

  1191
  I by no means assert that our existing system is the best that could be devised; I should be the last to suggest that no improvement can be made in our administrative arrangements; but I deprecate the acceptance of an abstract Resolution upon the assumption that, as soon as a new Minister and Department is created at large expense, and a Department formed, there will necessarily result a great improvement in the conditions and circumstances of those engaged in the industry concerned. We shall give the most careful consideration to what has been urged in support of the Motion; but we cannot be expected to assent to a Resolution which would have the effect of transferring from the Home Office a large portion of its present work. We shall do our best to investigate and correct every deficiency which may be shown to exist in the present system, and to provide a full and complete responsibility in every Department of the Public Service; but we cannot admit that a case has been made out for an addition to the official element in Parliament.
  MR. FENWICK: There are strong grounds of justification for the Motion, and every argument used in support of the creation of a Minister of Agriculture applies with even greater force to the appointment of a Mining Department. We do not expect that the advantage to the mining industry would be at once apparent; but we do consider that with the appointment of a Minister charged with a direct and special responsibility there would be less delay in the prosecution of matters connected with the mining interest. I, like my colleagues who have spoken tonight, am not disposed to reproach the officials in the Home Department, because I believe they have given every evidence of a sincere desire to do all that it is possible for men to do to minimise the serious character of the fatalities that occur during mining operations. But I think it is possible for the Government, by appointing a Minister for Mines, to give more general satisfaction, and to secure even better results than they have already secured. The appointment of a Minister for Mines in other countries has given general satisfaction, and I think it would give equal satisfaction here. In point of importance it is difficult
  1192
  to find another industry to compare with the mining industry. There are between 3,000;and 4,000 coal and ironstone mines in the country, turning out 180,000,000 tons per annum. Between 600,000 and 700,000 persons are employed above and below ground. In these circumstances, it is, in my judgment, desirable we should have some person whose attention will be devoted exclusively to the appeals that are made, and must necessarily come before him, arising out of such an industry. The First Lord of the Treasury promises to give serious consideration to the subject. I hope the time is not far distant when we may have the pleasure of hearing him declare that the Government have come to the conclusion to meet our wishes in this matter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: My hon. Friend is somewhat ingenuous if he is satisfied with the promise that Ministers will take this matter into consideration. When Ministers say that, they mean that they intend to do absolutely nothing, and I think my hon. Friend will find that will be the course pursued by Her Majesty's present Ministry. I was anxious to know how the First Lord of the Treasury would defend the appointment of a Minister for Agriculture and refuse to appoint a Minister for Mines. If the right hon. Gentleman had said there were already sufficient Ministers, and that every industry in the country might claim to have a separate Department, the contention would be a good one. But the Government have already appointed a Minister for Agriculture. Why? Because they are supported by gentlemen who say they represent the landed interest, and they could not refuse the request of their friends. But when gentlemen from Wales and other mining districts ask that a Minister for Mines should be appointed, they say, "We will seriously consider it." I am the last person in the world to urge increased expenditure. I think that we could do without many of our Ministers, and that in the open market we could get men for considerably less than we pay Ministers. But considering the importance of the coal industry, I think it is desirable we should have a Minister for Mines, and it seems to me we might appoint one and not incur any extra expense. We might do away with one or two of the

  1193
  wasteful sinecures that exist now, and devote a salary—a small but fitting salary—to a Minister for Mines. I am afraid, however, that will not be done. When a Minister for Agriculture was appointed, we were promised that that Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be one and the same. But the Chancellor of the Duchy still enjoys his salary, and an absolutely new salary has been created for the Minister for Agriculture. I suggest that right hon. Gentlemen opposite should subscribe something from their own salaries, or should arrange matters in some way by which this useful reform may be effected without costing the country a farthing.
  MR. D. THOMAS: The First Lord of the Treasury has stated his belief that most of the accidents in mines are beyond human control. Probably they are; but it is, nevertheless, the fact that the number of fatal accidents diminish in proportion as mines are better managed. I went into the matter very closely some time ago, and I was enabled, by the kindness of colliery managers, to get Returns from about a dozen of what I regard as the best managed collieries in South Wales. On an average, each of these collieries employed between 700 and 800 men, and the number of fatal accidents in these mines, during a period of ten years, was proportionately somewhere about one-third of the number over the remainder of the coal-fields. It seems, therefore, that a very great deal of good can be effected by good management, and that points to the necessity for the appointment of a Minister for Mines. We have been reminded of the large number of persons employed in mines, and of the magnitude of the output. The coal industry is a great industry, great not only because it gives employment to 600,000 or 700,000 people, but because also it is the motive power of all other industries. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the cotton industry, and of the railway and shipping industries; but where would these industries be if it were not for the coal industry? We not only supply ourselves, but to a great extent we supply the world with coal. An hon. Member opposite has said that although he agrees with the Motion he considers it premature; premature because a Royal
  1194
  Commission on Mining Royalties is sitting it the present time. What bearing a Royal Commission on Mining Royalties has on the appointment of a Minister for Mines I cannot conceive.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: It is now four years since the Royal Commission on Mining, of which I had the honour to be Secretary, after having sat for nearly eight years, reported to Her Majesty. Though it was not within the scope of the Commissioners' duty to suggest a separate Mines Department, it was obvious that the Commission was impressed by the fact that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had the control and regulation of mines in his hands. I do not wish to reflect in the slightest degree upon the Home Department; but I think it proper to say that the Commission felt that the Department was not fit to cope with the enormous coal industry, and with the various accidents that constantly arise in connection with mining operations. I cannot help thinking that if we cannot have a separate Minister for Mines the time has come when we might fairly ask the Government to separate the mining business from the ordinary business of the Home Office. The Commission of which I have spoken reported—
  "The result of our laborious investigations has impressed upon us the need for the official establishment of some permanent arrangement by which the continuous pursuit of this important class of work would be secured, and by which also the merits of suggestions and inventions should be investigated promptly and thoroughly and authoritatively."
  Whilst we are waiting for the appointment of a Minister for Mines, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that what was suggested four years ago by a very important Commission should be adopted by the Government. Let me give an illustration of the absolute inadequacy of the present state of things. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the final Report of the Royal Commission on Mining will learn that coal dust has a great effect in producing explosions in mines. To my great surprise I find that during the last three or four weeks the Secretary of State has issued a Circular directing the attention of all those engaged in mining operations to the very important bearing coal dust has upon accidents. I trust that the Government will seriously consider whether they cannot, at all events as an

  1195
  instalment, detach the work relating to mining from the ordinary administration of the Home Office, and make it a separate branch of work altogether.
  (6.47.) The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 18.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 66.)

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th December] "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: This Bill was moved last Session, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said he had no objection to the Second Reading. I do not oppose it on the present occasion, but I hope the Committee stage will not be taken for some time, in order that the Government may consider whether any, and if so, what, Amendments are necessary.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to meet the wishes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and will put the Bill down for a day that will suit everybody.
    MR. SEXTON: I suggest it should be put down for Monday, and then the most convenient day fixed for the Committee stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION AND ORGANISATION BILL.—(No. 156.)

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th January], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: In moving that this Bill be read a second time, I would explain that there is another Bill for a similar purpose, for an almost identical purpose,
    1196
    introduced by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland), and it is our joint desire, if the House gives this Bill a Second Reading, that the two Bills should be referred to one Select Committee.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I am glad to find that the Government support the Second Reading of the Bill with the intention of associating it with another Bill in reference to a Select Committee. I have before me a copy of a Bill which was read a second time in 1869, part of which became law under the name of the Endowed Schools Act, but the second part of which, dealing with the organisation of school teachers was withdrawn, not because the late Mr. Forster had any doubt as to the policy, but from mere lack of time and the difficulty of carrying a complicated measure through Parliament. When I compare the Bill of 1869 with this Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, I cannot but observe the present Bill contains many deficiencies. In the first place, the Bill of my hon. Friend appears to go much further than did Mr. Forster's proposal. Mr. Forster confined his registration to teachers of endowed schools; but, as I understand my hon. Friend's proposal, he extends his registration and the compulsory part of his Bill to schools which are not included in the category of endowed schools. I regret this extension, and think it is unfair to teachers in private schools. When the Bill is examined in Committee, I feel confident that this defect will be recognised. I fear also that sufficient provision is not made for the working of the scheme. The only financial arrangements are that certain fees are to be paid; but under the Bill of Mr. Forster, while there was the same arrangement in regard to fees, there were also fees levied in endowed schools which were not free, but where they were not free a grant was provided from the Consolidated Fund. I am afraid that it will be found this Bill contains but a mere sketch outline of finance, and that unless this is materially strengthened the machinery will not work for lack of that most essential motive power— funds.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPER ANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 49).

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th January], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: It is the intention that this Bill also should be referred to a Select Committee if the House shall be pleased to read it a second time. According to the intention of the promoters, the Bill is so framed that by deductions from the salaries of teachers a fund shall be cheated which will insure the rates being free from any possibility of burden. That is a point as to which doubts have been raised in some quarters, but those doubts can best be disposed of by a Select Committee. I hope my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. F. S. Powell) will for the moment waive his objection and allow the Second Reading to be taken in order that a Select Committee may investigate the particular point he objects to. The sincere desire of the promoters is to ensure the rates against any real liability and any possibility of appreciable burden hereafter.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I have opposed the Bill through two Sessions, because I fear it will do great injustice to voluntary school teachers. The voluntary schools have a severe burden to bear, and are engaged in sharp competition, and any proceeding of the Legislature which enables School Board teachers to form within themselves a powerful body with a superannuation fund will almost inevitably be prejudicial to the interests of teachers in voluntary schools. My experience of pension schemes, too, warns me of their dangers. I have known cases where the finance of such schemes has proved unsound, and resort has had to be made to the rates in support of the weakness of the original scheme. I am afraid the same thing may occur now, and I am glad to know that the attention of the Select Committee will be directed to this point. Let me draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the last clause in the Bill, which does not seem consistent
    1198
    with what he said just now. This clause provides that the expenses of administration are to be paid out of the School Fund. Now the School Fund comes from the rates; therefore, notwithstanding the honest desire of my hon. Friend to keep the rates clear from any burden arising out of this Bill, there is this clause directly imposing a charge on the rates. However, I will not carry my objections to the length of obstruction, and shall not oppose the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  RAILWAYS COMPANIES RETURN TICKETS BILL.—(No. 81.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CLARK: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, let me explain that its object is to give power to the Board of Trade to control unreasonable conditions made by Railway Companies in respect of the issue of passenger tickets, more particularly the condition by which the return halves of tickets are declared not available unless used within a certain limited time. As there seems to be a feeling in favour of Select Committees, I may say that if the Bill is read a second time I have no objection to it being referred to such a Committee. Really, I think we need to do something to cure the evils that arise from a railway monopoly, where there is not the freedom and cheapness that competition brings, by giving more power to the Board of Trade. It is, for instance, a constant experience that we take a return railway ticket, and from accident, from missing a connecting train, or change in our plans, we are unable to make use of the return half of our ticket under the conditions laid down by the company. But seeing that we have paid for the double journey it would be only fair that a passenger should use the return half upon payment of the difference between the return ticket fare and the two single journey fares. In this way Railway Companies would not so often obtain payment for work they do not carry out, while the passenger would lose the advantage of the reduced rate when not

    1199
    fulfilling the conditions on which it was charged. Where there is competition between Railway Companies or between railways and steamboats, there is not much difficulty in the terms the Railway Companies offer. Thus, between Glasgow and Edinburgh, a distance of about 50 miles, the third-class fare is 2s. 6d., or 4s. return, owing to the competition between the Caledonian and the North British Companies. But where there is no such competition then a company may exact all kinds of onerous conditions as to breaking journeys and time of return.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Clark.)
    DR. TANNER: The more we examine the Bill the more we are convinced of the benefit it will be to the middle classes and those whose occupations require much travelling. I appeal to any hon. Member, has he not again and again, through mischance, found himself unable to use a ticket because he has been unable to use it within a certain time. I hope this Bill will receive the same consideration as has already been extended to several Bills, and may be submitted to the investigation of a Select Committee.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: This, no doubt, is a Bill which will appeal to the feelings of all hon. Members. There is probably not a Member in the House who has not at some time or other lost the benefit of the return half of his ticket. However that may be, and whatever may be the possibilities, and I think they are considerable, of a wise and useful extension of the return ticket system by the Railway Companies, I do not think the House ought to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill. It is based on this remarkable proposition: that whereas Railway Companies are not bound to issue return tickets at all, all return tickets issued in future shall be available as long as passengers choose. The companies have the obvious remedy in their own hands by refusing to issue return tickets. Let me point out that the effect of the Bill would probably be to interfere with that which is a very considerable advantage to no small portion of the inhabitants
    1200
    of the Metropolis—the cheap Saturday to Monday return tickets. These are issued at much lower rates than the companies' ordinarily charge, in order to encourage this particular traffic. I cannot accept the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
    (7.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 106.—(Div. List, No. 19.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 102.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. G. HOWELL: I ask permission of the House to make an explanation with regard to this Bill. Mr. Plimsoll is in Canada making inquiries on the subject with which it deals, and the Government are also making inquiry. I shall give some notice when I wish really to take the Second Reading, and I shall not do so without the consent of the President of the Board of Trade.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I quite appreciate the action of the hon. Member, and think he is quite right in the course he is following. I think it is only fair that we should not proceed further with this Bill until we hear the views of the Dominion Government.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  MOTION.

    POLICE (METROPOLIS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. James Rowlands, Bill for placing the Police of the Metropolis under the control of the Ratepayers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Beaufoy, Mr. Howell, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Causton, and Mr. Lawson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 173.]

    "R. V. CURRAN AND OTHERS."
    Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 27th January; Mr. Stuart Wortley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]
    House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.